[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 118 (Tuesday, September 9, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H7023-H7084]
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, 1998

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House on 
Thursday, July 31, 1997, 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. 2264.

                              {time}  1124


                     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 of the 
bill (H.R. 2264) making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, 
Health and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies, for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes, with Mr. 
Bereuter, Chairman pro tempore, in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole House rose 
on Monday, September 8, 1997, the bill was open for amendments from 
page 11, line 1, through page 25, line 8, and pending was the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. Souder].
  Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the 
requisite number of words.

[[Page H7024]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Indiana is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to explain the content and 
purpose of this amendment, which I strongly support.
  This would increase OSHA's Compliance Assistance Program by 50 
percent, $23 million over the recommended amount of $45 million. 
Compliance assistance funding has been increased, but the increase has 
been insufficient.
  The increase in funding to this vital program would be offset by 
decreases to funding for Federal enforcement funding by $21 million, 
there is already $127 million for enforcement in the bill, and 
executive direction and administration by $2 million, of which there is 
$6.5 million in the bill.
  So we would leave the bulk of the enforcement dollars there. We would 
leave the bulk of the administration dollars there, but would put the 
dollars toward what we promised to do when we got elected, and that is 
to try to work more with the businesses and the workers at the 
factories, at the small businesses and companies around this Nation, to 
avoid accidents, serious accidents in particular, rather than do the 
more harassing type of things that we have heard so many stories about 
on the floor.
  We have heard a lot from Members here about the importance of health 
and safety laws. This is not a debate about health and safety laws, 
this is a debate about how best to protect the safety and health of our 
American workers. Is it better preserved by harassing or better 
preserved by working together with the businesses?
  We try to address these concerns in this amendment through onsite 
consultation programs, by designated State agencies conducting general 
outreach activities and providing technical assistance at the request 
of the employers, training and education grants, fostering and 
promoting voluntary protection programs that give recognition and 
assistance to employers who establish occupational safety and health 
programs, and the OSHA Training Institute. This amendment would reduce 
the overhead and administrative costs. It is a clear tradeoff.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe this is wanted. We have heard from Members of 
Congress during this debate that we have a tremendous backlog. Why not? 
In some States the demand for onsite State consultations for small 
businesses is so high that a small business owner who has asked OSHA 
for help can take up to a year for a consultation visit.
  This is ridiculous. The businesses want to work to try to make their 
environment safe, but cannot find out what they need to do. We need to 
focus on prevention, rather than harassment.
  Let me give you an example that we heard in the hearing with Mr. Dear 
and talked about, the head of OSHA, in an oversight hearing.
  There was a question about roofers and whether or not in asbestos 
that if you are chewing gum while you are working on a roof, it 
increases your risk. There was a rule put in fining businesses if their 
employees were found to be chewing gum on the roof.
  I am not sure what the point of this was, whether the businesses were 
supposed to hire a gum Nazi, who goes up on the roof to try to find out 
whether somebody is chewing gum, or every 20 minutes you haul the 
people down off the roof and have a mouth inspection.
  Mr. Dear's reaction was, yes, this regulation seemed a bit petty. The 
focus should have been to have the companies tell the employees, look, 
it is true; if you chew gum, you might inhale more through your mouth 
than you should.
  The problem comes when you put somewhat nonsensical rules in that are 
impossible to enforce, businesses just give up. Instead, we have what 
seems to be harassment on chewing gum or on other things, as opposed to 
focusing on the type of tragic deaths we have heard about here on the 
floor.

                              {time}  1130

  This amendment would try to address that. We have debated last 
evening and at the end of last week taking some of the OSHA funds, 
which is an increase, and nobody proposed to eliminate OSHA, to cut 
OSHA, and nobody was trying to wipe out the health and safety efforts 
in this country.
  What we are saying is, we do not think there is any evidence, and 
nobody has disputed this, deaths have gone down whether or not Congress 
has increased OSHA, cut OSHA, or kept OSHA flat funding. The way OSHA 
currently works there has been no impact on the deaths.
  We heard, well, we are going to try to do more in compliance. But we 
wanted to move the increase over to vocational education. We were 
defeated. We wanted to move the increase over to disabled students. We 
were defeated. We heard about these great efforts to try to do 
compliance. OK, here is an amendment that says, we clearly see from the 
facts that the spending on OSHA has not had an impact on the rate of 
deaths, so let us try to reform OSHA internally.
  I believe that this amendment, like the others, is likely to get the 
support of the majority of this party. I do not know whether this 
amendment will pass, but an interesting thing is occurring. I want to 
make, again, this point. What is happening in these amendments in title 
I, and I think Members will see this in title II and I think they will 
see this in title III and in title IV, is that the majority of our 
conference is, to say the least, very uncomfortable with this bill. We 
are concerned about the specifics of this. Most of us in this party 
voted for the budget agreement.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
Souder] has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Souder was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, as we go through this process we understand 
we are going to spend more money. Now, the question is, Will it be in 
new programs or old programs, and what will the priorities be within 
this? That is what we are attempting to do here. It is not a 
filibuster, but a genuine debate about the priorities. This amendment 
moves it to compliance as opposed to enforcement.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, businessmen are a lot like politicians. There are good 
ones and there are bad ones. This amendment risks torpedoing this bill. 
Make no mistake about it, it is a killer amendment as far as this bill 
is concerned.
  Second and more importantly, it risks killing additional American 
workers, and it risks seeing more permanently disabled workers. It 
seeks to take a large amount of money from the enforcement provisions 
of OSHA, and moves it instead into the voluntary compliance programs at 
OSHA.
  As I said twice before on this floor, Sylvio Conte, who used to be 
the ranking Republican on this floor before he died, Sylvio and I were 
the two Members of this House who held up all OSHA funding until OSHA 
agreed to establish a voluntary compliance program. I am proud of that. 
I am also proud of the fact that voluntary compliance has already 
increased in budgetary terms over the past 3 years by 80 percent. But I 
would point out that that has occurred at the same time that the 
enforcement provisions, the enforcement budget for OSHA, has declined 
by $10 million. I do not think it can afford to decline by more.
  The result of this amendment will be to add literally decades to the 
time it takes for the small number of OSHA inspectors in each State to 
inspect each eligible business at least once. In Georgia it already 
takes 277 years for OSHA to reach every business and inspect it once. 
This will increase that number of years to 346.
  Do Members really believe that is responsible protection for workers? 
In Missouri it will increase the number of years it takes to reach each 
business from 339 years to 424 years. I do not think that is 
responsible. I would point out, this amendment does not even apply to 
the gentleman's home State, the gentleman who offered the amendment, 
because this amendment only cuts Federal enforcement. It has no effect 
in States that have State-run programs.
  So what it will mean is that it will cut enforcement protections in 
my

[[Page H7025]]

State by about 25 percent, it will cut enforcement inspectors by about 
that amount, it will do the same thing in the State of the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Porter] and in States like ours, but in States like 
Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, or Minnesota, it will have no effect 
whatsoever. That makes no sense. I doubt that is the gentleman's 
intent, but that is the effect of it.
  Second, I would point out, as I said earlier, there are good 
businessmen and there are bad businessmen, just as there are good 
politicians and bad politicians. The effect of this amendment is to 
spend a lot more money reviewing the practices of the good guys, and it 
gives OSHA a whole lot less capability to review the practices of the 
bad guys.
  I want to give Members just one example of why we need the twin tools 
of enforcement as well as voluntary compliance. There was a corporation 
in Maine called the DeCoster Co. DeCoster participated in a voluntary 
compliance program under OSHA which allowed them to partner with OSHA, 
rather than be subject to their traditional inspection enforcement.
  But sadly, the country found out that DeCoster was a ``bad apple,'' 
and they manipulated that program. The company transferred a single 
machine guard from machine to machine, taking pictures of each machine 
with the guard attached. It then sent those pictures to OSHA, claiming 
that the guards had been attached to all of the machines.
  The company's actions were so egregious that the company was 
ultimately hit by OSHA for enforcement, and they were hit with a $3.8 
million fine, and deservedly so.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin 
[Mr. Obey] has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Obey was allowed to proceed for 5 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, the list of violations by that company is 
stunning. They failed to properly guard machines. They failed to lock 
up dangerous equipment when not in use. They failed to provide 
respiratory protection for workers. They failed to provide protective 
clothing.
  DeCoster's workers were shipped in from south Texas and stranded in 
inhuman conditions. They were forced to live with sewers that were so 
backed up that they had to discard their used toilet paper in a trash 
can. They were given a chance by OSHA to comply voluntarily, and they 
misused and abused that chance, and that is why OSHA had to come in 
with enforcement actions.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to read just three paragraphs from a 
newspaper article entitled, ``A Shameful Legacy.'' It reads as follows:

       The transgressions for this company date back nearly a 
     decade when the Federal Government fined him in 1988 for 184 
     workplace violations, including hiring illegal aliens. Last 
     year, OSHA inspectors found immigrant workers living in 
     cockroach- and rat-infested housing and forced to work in 
     hazardous settings. The violations included having workers 
     handle chicken waste with their bare hands.
       Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich called DeCoster's 
     operation ``* * * as dangerous and oppressive as any 
     sweatshop I've ever seen.''

  Now, it just seems to me that the responsible thing for this Congress 
to do is exactly what the committee has done. We have provided an 11-
percent increase in the voluntary compliance operations at OSHA. We 
have provided roughly a 1-percent increase for the rest of OSHA 
operations, which means that in real dollar terms, the rest of those 
operations will already suffer a real dollar reduction in terms of the 
services they are able to provide.
  We have already had a 17-percent reduction in the number of 
inspections around the country under the new OSHA administration, under 
Joe Dear. This amendment is really a gutting amendment. It guts this 
bill. It guts the ability of OSHA to prevent additional fatalities by 
being able to inspect and fine where they need to.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge the House on both sides of the aisle to 
recognize the committee has produced a balanced approach to this 
problem, and I would ask the House to reflect that same balance when it 
votes on this amendment.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I think it spells 
out philosophically where we stand and where we think we should be 
going in this country in a different priority, and where the dollars 
are being spent within the setting of OSHA.
  Nobody is asking for a cut or a reduction in OSHA spending in this 
amendment, but it is a question of whether we are going to allocate our 
dollars toward enforcement, or toward helping those good guy-bad guy 
businesses that my colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin, was talking 
about, the good guy businesses, who are genuinely interested in the 
safety and well-being of their work force, helping them understand what 
they must do to reach that compliance.
  I think it is real important that we note that the current numbers of 
spending are about $45 million for helping the good guy businesses, 
helping those people that are genuinely interested in improving the 
safety of the work force, they get about $45 million of the OSHA 
dollars, where the enforcement part is about $127 million.
  This entire debate that has been going on in these amendments to this 
particular appropriation bill has been about priorities of spending. 
What we are saying here is that our priority is higher in helping those 
businesses that are genuinely interested in reaching compliance and the 
safety and well-being of their work force.
  They want people to come in and show them areas where they could be 
safer and could provide a better workplace for their work force. There 
are not enough dollars currently to do that. That is why we are 
suggesting we reallocate dollars from one portion of OSHA to another.
  I think this fits very much in line with what has been going on the 
last couple days as it relates to this particular appropriation bill. I 
would like to bring my colleagues up to speed on the last three 
amendments that we have voted on, and what the priorities of this 
conference and the other conference are, because I think it spells out 
where we stand and what we think is important in terms of where the 
Federal dollars are being spent. We had one amendment that suggested we 
take the increase in OSHA spending, and this is not a cut in OSHA 
spending, but we take the amount that was increased and we move it to 
vocational education.
  The two conferences were very lopsided in their votes on this. The 
Republican conference voted 155 to 156 to move the increase in OSHA 
spending to vocational education; that is, take the increased dollars 
from OSHA and move it over to an education program. The other side 
voted 35 to 180.
  There is a clear split here in the philosophy of these conferences as 
to which issue and which program is most important that we spend the 
dollars on; in this particular vote, an increase in OSHA spending, a 
move to education, the Republican conference voted 2 to 1 to go ahead 
and do that. The other side was almost unanimous the other way.
  Another one we had, another amendment, was to increase spending, 
again in the OSHA area, and move that to help disabled children in the 
IDEA Program; that is, the Disabled Children Education Program. Again, 
it is a movement from the OSHA account, and again, not a cut in the 
OSHA account. But the new dollars that were being added to this, the 
increase in spending over last year's level, the idea is to move those 
dollars to this education program to help the most needy students in 
our country, the disabled students.
  Again, the conferences were very split on this. The Republican 
conference voted 164 to 59, again, a 2 to 1 agreement within the 
Republican conference, that these dollars should in fact be moved over 
to help our disabled children. The other side was 3 to 200. So again, 
we see the different priorities here between the two conferences.
  That is what this debate is all about. One conference agrees that the 
money should be spent to increase spending in OSHA, and again, there is 
no debate about whether it should be cut back, it is a debate about 
whether it should be increased, if those increased dollars should go to 
OSHA or they should go to help disabled students. Again, the 
conferences are very split, with the Republican conference voting 2 to 
1 that the money should go to help the disabled

[[Page H7026]]

students versus an increase in spending in OSHA.
  We had one more that took the increase in OSHA to another education 
program. That was 152 to 59 in the Republican conference, again, a 2 to 
1 priority to put the money into education versus increase the amount 
of money spent on OSHA.
  Now today we are really debating an amendment that is within the OSHA 
parameters itself: should the money go to the enforcement, which is 
what has turned off so many people in the country, or should OSHA be 
prepared to go into the businesses, tell them how to comply with the 
rules, help them see how to provide the safest workplace for their work 
force, and then allow them to meet those requirements; or should it be 
writing out fines and scaring businesses so that they are afraid to see 
the OSHA person.
  Businesses out there are very interested in the safety of the work 
force. I come from the business world, and I know businesses are 
extremely interested in the safety of their work force. That is a top 
priority in virtually every business we saw.
  What we wanted in the business world was the ability to provide the 
safest workplace possible for our work force. What we did not want was 
to be so overburdened with rules and regulations that we threw up our 
hands and said, we can't comply with these rules no matter what we do, 
and even if we try, the Government is going to come in here and fine us 
for something because they have so many rules nobody could possibly 
understand them.

                              {time}  1145

  That is what businesses did not want.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Bereuter). The time of the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann] has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Neumann was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, what this amendment is doing is getting us 
to the point where the businesses that would like to provide the safest 
workplace possible have the ability to do that, working in conjunction 
with OSHA. OSHA becomes a workplace-friendly assistant in providing the 
safety for the work force, as opposed to a threat with so many rules 
and regulations that nobody can abide by them.
  Mr. Chairman, I would close my argument by reminding people that the 
enforcement part is getting 3 to 1 more than the compliance part, or 
the part that would actually help businesses provide the safer 
workplace.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. PELOSI. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann] 
gave the House some interesting comparisons in the difference in voting 
patterns between the Democratic Caucus and the Republican Caucus.
  I find those interesting, but what I think needs to be understood is 
that what the committee tried to do is not to find a Democratic answer 
or a Republican answer to these problems, but to find a bipartisan 
American answer, and it came up as the committee product and I think it 
ought to be supported.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman says that OSHA ought to engage in 
voluntary compliance activities and not mandatory enforcement 
activities. My response is that they ought to do both, because we have, 
as I said earlier, good businessmen and bad businessmen. We have 6 
million businesses in this country. We have only 900 Federal inspectors 
to review the activities of those companies. It seems to me that those 
numbers alone indicate that there is a lot of work to be done to 
protect workers' lives in both the voluntary compliance portion of 
OSHA's responsibility and the enforcement compliance portion.
  Mr. Chairman, I would hope that Congress would recognize its 
obligation to also support both.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, whatever the good 
intention of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Souder] to have this 
legitimate discussion about how funds are spent at OSHA, the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann] made it very clear that once again we see 
this within the context of the Republican majority trying to gut the 
ability to have safety in the workplace.
  Mr. Chairman, while hiding behind children in America, disabled 
children at that, the Republican majority is trying to say: Give us a 
few crumbs for these children, while we jeopardize the economic 
security and the safety of their parents in the workplace.
  Mr. Chairman, the argument made by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Neumann], and others on the Republican side, ignore completely the 
reforms of the Clinton administration as far as OSHA is concerned. I 
put some on the Record yesterday, and would just only like to add a few 
more to say that compliance assistance is a major emphasis of the new 
OSHA under the Clinton administration.
  The new OSHA uses commonsense enforcement to emphasize results, not 
redtape. The old OSHA practice of setting standard priorities was 
haphazard. The new OSHA instituted a priority planning process to focus 
on the most important issues.
  Why, then, does the Republican majority want to gut the ability to 
promote safety in the workplace? This amendment slashes Federal funding 
for workplace safety and health by 16.5 percent. It would lead to a cut 
in about 300 FTE's in OSHA's enforcement efforts. OSHA's staff of 
compliance officers could be cut by 25 percent. I repeat, despite the 
good intentions of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Souder], OSHA's 
compliance staff would be cut by about 25 percent.
  Mr. Chairman, experience shows that without credible OSHA enforcement 
presence, fewer employers will request consultation assistance and be 
willing to engage in a cooperative effort to partner with OSHA. In 
fact, the National Association of Occupational Safety and Health 
Consultation Programs, which as the Chairman knows represents the State 
agencies to help private business with consultation, they have said 
that firm, fair, and effective enforcement of workplace safety and 
health standards is essential to reducing occupational fatalities, 
injuries, and illnesses. That is why they oppose this amendment.
  They also say enforcement and consultation are complementary 
approaches to the same end. Any effective strategy for achieving 
overall safety and health compliance must include both approaches in 
balance.
  Mr. Chairman, that is what the bill of the gentleman from Illinois 
[Mr. Porter] strives to do, and I rise in defense of the committee 
bill. The Souder amendment would transfer $25 million from the OSHA 
Federal enforcement account. Enforcement and compliance assistance are 
both important. The committee bill strikes an appropriate balance.
  Since fiscal year 1995, compliance assistance funding has increased 
by 79 percent. At the same time, funding for enforcement has decreased 
by 5 percent. Removing the careful balance between compliance 
assistance and enforcement has consequences in terms of protecting 
American workers from death and injury.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman from California 
[Ms. Pelosi] has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Ms. Pelosi was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Souder 
amendment. Protect American workers. Keep funding priorities in 
balance. Support the bipartisan committee bill and reject once again, 
for the fifth time since Friday, this attempt on the part of the 
Republican majority to gut enforcement of safety in the workplace.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment as making 
simply good sense for America, urging OSHA to work with employers to 
ensure safety, rather than to threaten employers.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHADEGG. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to respond to the comments 
that we just heard and put some of this in perspective. I think it is 
sad when

[[Page H7027]]

we start using words like ``gutting'' and ``slashing,'' when in fact 
there is no change to the OSHA funding level in this particular 
amendment proposal. There is no change to funding at all.
  Mr. Chairman, the only question is whether it goes to the enforcement 
part or to the part that helps businesses provide compliance and 
provide a safe workplace. Mr. Chairman, I heard the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] say that we need both. We definitely need to do 
both of these, and for a change I absolutely agree with the gentleman. 
We do need to do both.
  Mr. Chairman, what this amendment is doing is creating more of a 
balance between how much we spend in each place. We are currently 
spending $127 million on enforcement and only $45 million on the other 
portion of this, or the compliance portion. What this amendment is 
doing is trying to create a stronger and a better balance between these 
two so that the OSHA group can become a group that is worker friendly 
and that can actually accomplish the goal of providing a safer 
workplace for our work force.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me briefly state 
that I think this amendment strikes the right balance. I said, in 
discussing a similar OSHA amendment last evening, that as a young man I 
worked on a construction site and I was dependent upon the people who 
managed that site for my safety. If they were negligent, if they had 
dangerous practices, I could have been injured on that site.
  Mr. Chairman, I think worker safety is important to all Americans. 
One of my colleagues recently commented that the last thing any 
employer in America would ever do would be to call the Federal agency 
charged with worker safety and invite them in to help look at a job 
site and improve safety on that job site. Why? Because they would be 
desperately afraid that that organization, OSHA, rather than working to 
solve the problem, rather than giving them advice on how to avoid 
future injuries, would simply punitively punish them for what they had 
done, slap fines on them, slap them on the wrist and issue a critical 
report.
  Mr. Chairman, we need a balance. Human conduct is easy to understand. 
We need to achieve goals with both the carrot and the stick. This is a 
measure to say let us give a little bit more incentives. Americans, 
humans respond to incentives. This says let us shift some of this money 
to incentives to protect workers rather than just punitive measures.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHADEGG. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, to reiterate this point, because we heard 
this last night, this is what Mr. Dear wants to have OSHA go to. We are 
not trying to wipe out the agency. He wants to move to working more 
toward businesses. We started that process and we are merely 
accelerating a process that the committee acknowledges that they want 
to do. Nobody accuses them of slashing and gutting.
  Mr. Chairman, we have to make some adjustments in the rhetoric here 
on the floor. In consultation visits with the State money for grants, 
we have made 26,000 visits, which is $1,200 a visit. When they do the 
inspection, they made 35,000 for $125 million, which is $3,000 per 
inspection.
  Mr. Chairman, we can reach more of these businesses. It will not take 
277 years to get to every business in America. Furthermore, not every 
business in America is a violator. If we fund more for conferences, 
more for consultations, more for working with businesses, then we can 
have a declining amount in enforcement focused on those who are not 
following through. So when we have the follow-up to see whether the 
people have worked with it, and the checking, we can have more targeted 
enforcement because we will have more people understand.
  Mr. Chairman, that is what we are doing. We need an adjustment in the 
rhetoric on the floor in this debate.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, it seems to me that we 
can improve the climate on job sites across America by this kind of 
measure. My brother is in the construction business in Tucson, AZ. He 
builds homes. And he, rather than having a working relationship with 
OSHA, lives in daily fear of OSHA. That is not the kind of model we 
ought to be encouraging. That is not the kind of structure which will 
enhance to the greatest degree possible worker safety in this country.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from Indiana and I join him in 
his amendment. I think it does strike the proper balance for worker 
safety in this country, which is achieved through both incentives to 
improve worker safety and punishments for those who choose to be 
negligent, choose to have unsafe work sites, and choose to cause 
injuries by their own negligent conduct.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHADEGG. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman indicates that we ought to set 
OSHA up so that businessmen can respond to positive incentives.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. 
Shadegg] has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Obey, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Shadegg was 
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
was under the impression that what we learned when we reformed welfare 
is that there are some people who respond to positive incentives and 
some people who respond to negative incentives, and we need to have 
both in order to make the world work.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, that is precisely what 
I believe the gentleman's amendment does. It strikes a proper balance 
between incentives and punishment. And, indeed, that is what he seeks 
to do by the amendment, and that is what I believe he is doing.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, and 
if I could complete my thought, I was simply going to say that I think 
that many businesses respond to those positive incentives because they 
know that if they do not, they have the possibility of fines coming at 
them. That is why we are trying to preserve the balance between the 
programs.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, again reclaiming my time, I guess I have a 
more positive view of human nature than does the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey]. I do not believe that those businesses across 
America respond to worker safety challenges just because they are 
afraid of OSHA. Indeed, I believe employers across America genuinely 
care about safe working conditions for their employees.
  Indeed, the businesses I know recognize that skilled and valuable 
employees who become injured are a grave loss to them. That skilled and 
valuable employees who are lost to a job site because of an injury, 
they do not fear the OSHA penalty. Of course that is something that 
causes them problems, but they fear the economic impact they lose by 
the loss of that employee. I do not think it is appropriate to give 
them as a motive the belief that all they do is respond positively 
because of their fear.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would again continue to 
yield, that is not what I am suggesting. What I am suggesting is that 
there are plenty of both types of businessmen and we need to be able to 
respond to both types.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, again reclaiming my time, what I think 
this amendment shows is that we believe there is not a proper balance. 
We believe there ought to be more incentives.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, continuing the discussion that we have been having here 
this morning, I would rise to suggest that while the majority of 
businesses in fact want to do the right thing regarding their 
employees, it makes economic sense, it makes good sense as employers 
who care about their employees. The reality is that this is about 
balance. And when, in fact, there is a problem, when, in fact, someone 
is knowingly proceeding to create a situation that is dangerous for 
workers, OSHA has to have the ability to respond and to protect workers 
and, as well, protect the majority of businesses by standing up to 
those that proceed in a way that hurts workers.

[[Page H7028]]

                              {time}  1200

  We have heard this morning various comments and discussions about 
what Joseph Dear has been doing and OSHA, what has been done, no 
question about it, moving on the right track, reinventing OSHA, moving 
more toward the notion of education and voluntary compliance, and those 
are the kinds of things that we want to see done.
  I am in full support of that. I want very much to see that continue 
as an emphasis. But I think that it is important to understand what Mr. 
Dear himself believes about this amendment. I would like to read a 
statement that he has just issued this morning:

       When I began the task of reinventing OSHA in 1993, one of 
     the first realizations we at the agency had was that in order 
     to be fully effective, OSHA must utilize a full range of 
     tools and options. We carefully crafted a program that was a 
     balance of compliance assistance and enforcement, knowing 
     that a credible enforcement effort is necessary to ensure 
     that employers would not look upon the agency as merely a 
     paper tiger.
       The effort in the House to shift 16 percent of OSHA's 
     budget, $23 million, from enforcement to compliance 
     assistance does not serve either the program or America's 
     workers well. Under the new OSHA, serious violators know they 
     will face serious consequences. The Agency has demonstrated 
     it does not penalize those employers who take workplace 
     safety and health seriously and act in good faith. It is 
     unthinkable that the new OSHA's proven track record, short 
     though it may be, should be cutoff at this critical juncture 
     with the shortsighted shift in priorities.

  I would agree. I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this 
amendment.
  Frankly, as a member of the Committee on Agriculture, I understand as 
well, working on food safety issues, that there is a direct 
relationship between what my constituents are concerned about in food 
safety as consumers and what happens in terms of OSHA. When we look at 
the fact that we have now through Hudson Foods seen the largest recall 
in the history of the country in meat, and we know that they were, in 
fact, under investigation by OSHA for violations on safety, there is a 
relationship. There is a relationship when they are cited for their 
place of employment not being kept clean and orderly or in a sanitary 
condition and that pieces of chicken and chicken fat were allowed to 
accumulate on the floors and under elevated platforms in the fillet and 
cut-up department, thus causing slip and fall injuries.
  I would suggest it not only causes slip and fall injuries but that it 
also caused sanitary problems that related to what was happening there 
at the plant that resulted in the recall of meat and the safety of the 
public being jeopardized as it related to food safety.
  There is a relationship. When Hudson was cited for drainage not being 
maintained when they used their wet processes, it is not only a safety 
issue, it is a food safety issue and a worker safety issue.
  I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment. I 
appreciate the fact that the focus that is desired by my colleagues is 
on education and on voluntary compliance. I support that. But it is 
very important that we have a balance that allows in those situations, 
which I believe are few but serious, it is critical for the health and 
safety of the public and American workers that OSHA have the ability to 
step in and protect health and safety.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. STABENOW. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I believe I heard the gentlewoman state a 
figure that was beyond where the amendment went. The amendment only 
takes 20 percent of enforcement and moves it to compliance. It leaves 
80 percent of compliance dollars there at the Federal level and the 
State compliance dollars there, so there is nearly $200 million of the 
$220 million left in enforcement. It increases the compliance only $20 
million. I wanted to make it clear that 80 percent of the enforcement 
is still there.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Bereuter). The time of the gentlewoman 
from Michigan [Ms. Stabenow] has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Ms. Stabenow was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the fact that the dollars 
are still there for enforcement. My concern is that this amendment 
would cut OSHA's enforcement staff by 25 percent. I think, given the 
climate in which we are in, the concerns about food safety, the 
concerns about worker safety, the injuries and deaths that are still 
occurring across the country, I would suggest 25 percent is too much 
and it goes in the wrong direction and we need to maintain the balance.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I rise to oppose the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot during the discussion on this 
amendment about moving funds from Federal enforcement to Federal 
compliance assistance. I have to tell my friend from Indiana and my 
colleague from across the border in Wisconsin that that is exactly what 
I have been doing as chairman of the subcommittee for the last 3 years. 
We have consistently moved more money into compliance assistance and 
taken the money from Federal enforcement and made a better balance.
  The gentleman from Arizona said we have got to find balance in this. 
How do we find balance? Do we do it by simply saying, ``I know what 
balance is?'' ``Balance is more my way than anyone else's way?'' No, we 
find it by sitting down between majority and minority and working out 
where there is an acceptable balance. In doing so, we must recognize 
that the minority has a greater concern with those businesses that 
violate the law and do so, as some do, intentionally. We have a greater 
concern with trying to find a cooperative way to have business and 
government work together.
  I believe that we have found, through the process of negotiation, the 
right balance in this account. We have increased money for compliance 
assistance overall by 22 percent, and the increase for enforcement is 
only 1 percent in the bill.
  This funding decision has moved us further in the direction of 
compliance assistance. We have done so consistently over the last 3 
years. I think the amendment is simply one that would do exactly what I 
believe cannot be done, and that is lose the bipartisan basis upon 
which this bill has reached this point and eventually, I would be 
afraid, lose the bill entirely.
  I would say to the gentleman that we have done what the gentleman 
wants us to do philosophically and that this amendment can only provide 
mischief and lead to the bill being defeated, which I think would be a 
terrible mistake.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PORTER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to recite the numbers to 
demonstrate the change that has occurred since the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Porter] has become chairman.
  The enforcement portion of OSHA's budget has declined by 5 percent in 
those 3 years. The compliance portion of the budget has been increased 
by 80 percent, from $45 to $81 million. I think that is a very large 
swing in emphasis which continues under this bill. I hope that the 
House will recognize the good efforts made by the gentleman from 
Illinois.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PORTER. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, the Compliance Assistance Program, which I 
realize is only part of all the compliance efforts, is $45 million and 
it was $30 million, or roughly $34 million prior to the $11 million 
increase. So the increases sound larger, but, in fact, the dollar 
amount of a smaller increase in enforcement is about two-thirds of the 
dollars of the increase in compliance.
  When we came in, in the authorizing committee and were first working 
with OSHA reform, we were proposing much more dramatic changes. I 
understand that inside this you have moved it in the right direction. 
Part of what this debate is about is that at one point we were talking 
like 75/25. Now we are talking such small, incremental changes and what 
we are, in effect, doing is upping that incremental change but still 
leaving the disproportionate balance for enforcement at almost 3 to 1, 
exact opposite of what we started with.

[[Page H7029]]

  This amendment in trying to respond, many of us wanted to move the 
dollars over to education. But if we are going to keep it in OSHA, then 
we think that we should have accelerated that process. We are not 
disagreeing on the thrust of where you and the ranking minority member 
were going, but we believe it should of occurred at a faster rate.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Souder].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 164, 
noes 255, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 373]

                               AYES--164

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bono
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Campbell
     Canady
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Deal
     DeLay
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Foley
     Fowler
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kingston
     Klug
     Largent
     Latham
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Mica
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Packard
     Pappas
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Wicker

                               NOES--255

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Callahan
     Camp
     Capps
     Cardin
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hyde
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDade
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Ney
     Northup
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Baker
     Cannon
     Carson
     Cox
     Dellums
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Hilliard
     Oberstar
     Owens
     Quinn
     Schiff
     Serrano
     Towns

                              {time}  1227

  Mr. PASCRELL and Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. EWING and Mrs. KELLY changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 373, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

                              {time}  1230


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Shadegg

  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Shadegg:
       Page 24, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $25,000)''.

  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by bringing my colleagues two 
bits of what I think will be good and welcome news. The first is that 
having gone through more than 2 days I believe of debate on title I to 
this bill, this is the last amendment to title I and with luck we can 
debate it with relative speed.
  I want to compliment the members of the committee and the 
subcommittee. At two separate points in this legislation, the bill sets 
what I think are important standards for the expenditure of the moneys 
being appropriated. I think it is critical that we do that. Our task 
here is to ensure that the moneys that we take from taxpayers and 
allocate to various programs are spent in the most effective and 
efficient way possible. To ensure that, at two separate points in this 
bill, the bill sets a limit on the maximum amount of money which may be 
paid to an employee or a contractor of the National Institutes of 
Health to perform under a grant of $125,000. At a separate point in the 
bill, it sets a similar limit. This limit is imposed upon independent 
contractors and administrators who are performing work for the Job 
Corps, and it says that no one shall be paid under the funds 
appropriated in this bill at a rate of more than $125,000, as a 
contractor or administrator, as their salary for one year.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment before us simply says that while I agree 
that a cap of $125,000 is an appropriate limit for a researcher at the 
National Institutes of Health, I submit that it is an excessive salary 
and a misuse of the funds appropriated under this bill to pay an 
administrator or a contractor under the Job Corps program, whose 
function is to educate and train children, a salary of $125,000 a year. 
The amendment says that the salary for an administrator or a contractor 
within the Job Corps, whose job it is to inspire and train our youth, 
should not be excessive.
  Why is it important that we change that number? Because every dollar 
that goes to administration within the Job Corps program is taken away 
from education and training. I think it is appropriate that we say, let 
us use those dollars to the greatest extent possible to educate and 
train the disadvantaged youth within the Job Corps program. Let us not 
use them to pay what is in America today an excessive salary.
  And so the amendment I have offered says that the maximum amount 
allocable under the legislation for one year's

[[Page H7030]]

salary for an administrator within the Job Corps or a contractor or 
employee performing that function would not be $125,000 a year, but 
rather would be $100,000 a year.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHADEGG. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Did the gentleman say that this is the last amendment to 
title I?
  Mr. SHADEGG. I did.
  Mr. OBEY. In that case on this side of the aisle, we would be 
delighted to accept the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHADEGG. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, we will be delighted to accept 
the amendment, too.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I am thrilled with the willingness to 
accept the amendment, and I accept that.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Bereuter). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Shadegg].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

           TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

              Health Resources and Services Administration


                     health resources and services

       For carrying out titles II, III, VII, VIII, X, XII, XIX, 
     and XXVI of the Public Health Service Act, section 427(a) of 
     the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act, title V of the 
     Social Security Act, and the Health Care Quality Improvement 
     Act of 1986, as amended, $3,616,068,000, of which $225,000 
     shall remain available until expended for interest subsidies 
     on loan guarantees made prior to fiscal year 1981 under part 
     B of title VII of the Public Health Service Act: Provided, 
     That the Division of Federal Occupational Health may utilize 
     personal services contracting to employ professional 
     management/administrative and occupational health 
     professionals: Provided further, That of the funds made 
     available under this heading, $2,500,000 shall be available 
     until expended for facilities renovations at the Gillis W. 
     Long Hansen's Disease Center: Provided further, That in 
     addition to fees authorized by section 427(b) of the Health 
     Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986, fees shall be collected 
     for the full disclosure of information under the Act 
     sufficient to recover the full costs of operating the 
     National Practitioner Data Bank, and shall remain available 
     until expended to carry out that Act: Provided further, That 
     no more than $5,000,000 is available for carrying out the 
     provisions of Public Law 104-73: Provided further, That of 
     the funds made available under this heading, $203,452,000 
     shall be for the program under title X of the Public Health 
     Service Act to provide for voluntary family planning 
     projects: Provided further, That amounts provided to said 
     projects under such title shall not be expended for 
     abortions, that all pregnancy counseling shall be 
     nondirective, and that such amounts shall not be expended for 
     any activity (including the publication or distribution of 
     literature) that in any way tends to promote public support 
     or opposition to any legislative proposal or candidate for 
     public office: Provided further, That $299,000,000 shall be 
     for State AIDS Drug Assistance Programs authorized by section 
     2616 of the Public Health Service Act: Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds made 
     available under this heading may be used to continue 
     operating the Council on Graduate Medical Education 
     established by section 301 of Public Law 102-408: Provided 
     further, That, of the funds made available under this 
     heading, not more than $4,600,000 shall be made available and 
     shall remain available until expended for loan guarantees for 
     loans made by non-Federal lenders to health centers under 
     section 330(d) of the Public Health Service Act as amended by 
     Public Law 104-299, and that such funds be available to 
     subsidize guarantees of total loan principal in an amount not 
     to exceed $53,300,000: Provided further, That notwithstanding 
     section 502(a)(1) of the Social Security Act, not to exceed 
     $105,624,000 is available for carrying out special projects 
     of regional and national significance pursuant to section 
     501(a)(2) of such Act.


               medical facilities guarantee and loan fund

           federal interest subsidies for medical facilities

       For carrying out subsections (d) and (e) of section 1602 of 
     the Public Health Service Act, $6,000,000, together with any 
     amounts received by the Secretary in connection with loans 
     and loan guarantees under title VI of the Public Health 
     Service Act, to be available without fiscal year limitation 
     for the payment of interest subsidies. During the fiscal 
     year, no commitments for direct loans or loan guarantees 
     shall be made.


               health education assistance loans program

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the cost of guaranteed loans, such sums as may be 
     necessary to carry out the purpose of the program, as 
     authorized by title VII of the Public Health Service Act, as 
     amended: Provided, That such costs, including the cost of 
     modifying such loans, shall be as defined in section 502 of 
     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided further, That 
     these funds are available to subsidize gross obligations for 
     the total loan principal any part of which is to be 
     guaranteed at not to exceed $85,000,000: Provided further, 
     That the Secretary may use up to $1,000,000 derived by 
     transfer from insurance premiums collected from guaranteed 
     loans made under title VII of the Public Health Service Act 
     for the purpose of carrying out section 709 of that Act. In 
     addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the 
     guaranteed loan program, $2,688,000.


             vaccine injury compensation program trust fund

       For payments from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program 
     Trust Fund, such sums as may be necessary for claims 
     associated with vaccine-related injury or death with respect 
     to vaccines administered after September 30, 1988, pursuant 
     to subtitle 2 of title XXI of the Public Health Service Act, 
     to remain available until expended: Provided, That for 
     necessary administrative expenses, not to exceed $3,000,000 
     shall be available from the Trust Fund to the Secretary of 
     Health and Human Services.

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, could I interrupt to ask which page the Clerk 
is on? I think Members had been under the impression that we were still 
reading title I.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk is currently on page 29.
  The Clerk will resume reading.
  The Clerk read as follows:

               Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


                disease control, research, and training

       To carry out titles II, III, VII, XI, XV, XVII, and XIX of 
     the Public Health Service Act, sections 101, 102, 103, 201, 
     202, 203, 301, and 501 of the Federal Mine Safety and Health 
     Act of 1977, and sections 20, 21 and 22 of the Occupational 
     Safety and Health Act of 1970, title IV of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act and section 501 of the Refugee Education 
     Assistance Act of 1980; including insurance of official motor 
     vehicles in foreign countries; and hire, maintenance, and 
     operation of aircraft, $2,343,737,000, of which $20,000,000 
     shall remain available until expended for equipment and 
     construction and renovation of facilities, and in addition, 
     such sums as may be derived from authorized user fees, which 
     shall be credited to this account: Provided, That in addition 
     to amounts provided herein, up to $48,400,000 shall be 
     available from amounts available under section 241 of the 
     Public Health Service Act, to carry out the National Center 
     for Health Statistics surveys: Provided further, That none of 
     the funds made available for injury prevention and control at 
     the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to 
     advocate or promote gun control: Provided further, That the 
     Director may redirect the total amount made available under 
     authority of Public Law 101-502, section 3, dated November 3, 
     1990, to activities the Director may so designate: Provided 
     further, That the Congress is to be notified promptly of any 
     such transfer.
       In addition, $45,000,000, to be derived from the Violent 
     Crime Reduction Trust Fund, for carrying out section 40151 of 
     Public Law 103-322.

                     National Institutes of Health


                       national cancer institute

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to cancer, $2,513,020,000.


               national heart, lung, and blood institute

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to cardiovascular, lung, and 
     blood diseases, and blood and blood products, $1,513,004,000.


                 national institute of dental research

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to dental disease, 
     $209,403,000.


    national institute of diabetes and digestive and kidney diseases

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to diabetes and digestive and 
     kidney disease, $874,337,000.


        national institute of neurological disorders and stroke

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to neurological disorders and 
     stroke, $763,325,000.


         national institute of allergy and infectious diseases

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to allergy and infectious 
     diseases, $1,339,459,000.


             national institute of general medical sciences

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to general medical sciences, 
     $1,047,963,000.


        national institute of child health and human development

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect

[[Page H7031]]

     to child health and human development, $666,682,000.


                         national eye institute

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to eye diseases and visual 
     disorders, $354,032,000.


          national institute of environmental health sciences

       For carrying out sections 301 and 311 and title IV of the 
     Public Health Service Act with respect to environmental 
     health sciences, $328,583,000.


                      national institute on aging

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to aging, $509,811,000.


 national institute of arthritis and musculoskeletal and skin diseases

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to arthritis and 
     musculoskeletal and skin diseases, $269,807,000.


    national institute on deafness and other communication disorders

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to deafness and other 
     communication disorders, $198,373,000.


                 national institute of nursing research

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to nursing research, 
     $62,451,000.


           national institute on alcohol abuse and alcoholism

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to alcohol abuse and 
     alcoholism, $226,205,000.


                    national institute on drug abuse

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to drug abuse, $525,641,000.


                  national institute of mental health

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to mental health 
     $744,235,000.


                national human genome research institute

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to human genome research, 
     $211,772,000.


                 Amendment No. 34 Offered by Mr. Coburn

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to have an 
amendment that I have at the desk read.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Oklahoma?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I would like 
to know which amendment that is.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin reserves the 
right to object.
  Will the gentleman from Oklahoma identify the amendment for the 
Clerk?
  Mr. COBURN. Yes, Mr. Chairman, page 25, 26, and 37.
  Mr. OBEY. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, we are already past that point in 
the bill and I am constrained to object.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, it is important, the whole purpose for this bill is to 
make sure that we have a fair and open and honest debate on what is 
occurring in this bill. I have been standing at this point patiently 
trying to be polite as we read this bill, wishing to be recognized and 
not interrupting. Although I may not have followed the exact protocol 
of the House, nevertheless I have been standing here prepared to offer 
this amendment which was preprinted, which was available.
  This is an amendment that should be considered by this House. The 
reason it should be considered is there are several thousand people in 
the United States who are HIV positive who will not be able to get drug 
treatment. This amendment brings money for those people. If this body 
wants to on a technical error deny people triple drug therapy that will 
prolong their life and delay the onset of AIDS, then so be it. But it 
is a shameful act if in fact we do not consider a debate or a 
characterization of this amendment.


                 Amendment No. 34 Offered by Mr. Coburn

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that this amendment 
be heard and considered on the floor of this House. Lives are depending 
on it, thousands of lives are depending on it. It is unconscionable 
that we would not even debate additional moneys for people who will die 
should this therapy not be available to them. I would beg and plead 
with the gentleman from Wisconsin that he would allow consideration of 
this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pending the request, the Clerk will 
designate the amendment for clarity.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 34 offered by Mr. Coburn:
       Page 25, line 18, after the first dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $34,868,000)''.
       Page 26, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $51,000,000)''.
       Page 37, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $2,388,000)''.
       Page 41, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $22,668,000)''.
       Page 44, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $4,812,000)''.
       Page 45, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to consideration of the amendment?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I would simply 
make this point. I stood on the floor just a moment ago and interrupted 
the Clerk to make certain that Members understood exactly where she 
was, because I did not want Members to miss their opportunity to offer 
amendments. I did that as a courtesy to Members who I knew had 
amendments, but it is not my responsibility to then do their job for 
them. Their job is to be ready to offer the amendments at the 
appropriate point in the bill. I went out of my way to try to alert 
people to the fact that the Clerk was in title II. I cannot help it if 
the gentleman did not respond to that.
  The fact is that we have already almost doubled the account the 
gentleman wants to add some more money to. We went in this bill from 
$167 to $299 million. That is hardly a failure to meet our 
responsibilities.
  The fact is that this committee has already well responded to this 
issue. I would further point out that the House has been informed that 
this bill is going to be debated this week and next week. We have not 
attempted in any way to cut off debate, but we are certainly not going 
to allow the gentleman to ignore the rules of the House for the purpose 
of extending debate after we purposely engaged in a courtesy that 
alerted people to where the Clerk was in the bill. At this point, I am 
sorry, but I object.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the 
gentleman from Oklahoma.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from Wisconsin 
[Mr. Obey], there is no question that I am not a career legislator, and 
there is no question that I do not have the Parliamentary skills of a 
skilled, long-term legislator like the gentleman. But there is nothing 
wrong with the intent of my heart and my desire to bring forth an issue 
that has to do with life and death, although my skills as a legislator 
are somewhat less.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I reclaim my time under my reservation to say 
I have not questioned the gentleman's heart or motives in any way. I 
attempted to do him a courtesy. He did not take advantage of it. That 
is not my fault.
  I am not going to allow Members to get around the rules in order to 
continue to engage in a protracted filibuster, and I do object.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Bereuter). Objection is heard.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman yield back the time on 
his pro forma amendment or does he wish to proceed?
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time remains?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] 
has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. COBURN. I would like to continue discussing this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized 
for 3 minutes.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, this debate is characterized by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] as a way to delay this bill. That 
is completely false and not true. This amendment comes at the heart of 
everything that I have been trying to do on the HIV epidemic in this 
country, and to not allow an amendment to offer additional treatments, 
lifesaving treatments, is wrong.
  Yes, this committee did increase that funding, but there still are 
going to be

[[Page H7032]]

30,000 Americans who will not have triple drug therapy available to 
them. Unfortunately, most of them will not be associated with what we 
most often identify with, because many of the ones that have been in 
programs that have been there long-standing will have the treatment.
  The people that will not get this treatment are going to be African-
American women, they are going to be IV drug users, they are going to 
be people who have no means whatsoever to fend off this disease. We 
have spent billions of dollars researching this disease, and now we 
bring forth an amendment.
  I stood at this stand trying to be polite, failing to interrupt. My 
mistake, there is no question, I would say to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], but I did not intend to go around the rules of 
this House. I did not intend to be an obstructionist. I intended to 
offer this amendment to save the lives of people who will not, will 
not, have these drugs available to them.
  If, in fact, this House says that we should not offer this amendment 
because we did not interrupt at the proper time while somebody else was 
speaking in an attempt to be orderly and to be appropriate, then so be 
it. I find that disgusting. I find it unconscionable that our House 
would not consider this amendment, if in fact it is unimportant to this 
body to treat everyone in this country who has HIV.
  If it was any other disease that was killing people, the No. 1 killer 
between 25- and 44-year-old people in this country, this body would not 
have any question about considering any amendment at any time to make 
sure that that took place.
  The fact that this is viewed as only an obstructive amendment and is 
not taken for the purposes for which it was offered is offensive to me, 
but, most importantly, it is offensive to those poor people who will 
not be treated.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a genuine amendment. It takes money from 
programs and brings them down to the President's own request. It takes 
no money below anything that the President asked for. It uses those 
moneys that were in excess to help people who do not have insurance, 
who are unaided by any other way, to allow triple drug therapy for them 
in the treatment of this deadly and dreaded disease.
  I would beg the House to reconsider the position. I would ask the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] once again to reconsider his 
position. If not, then I will be resigned to the will of the House, but 
I am embarrassed and ashamed of the position of the House.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I simply want to repeat some facts and make a point. 
The program that the gentleman seeks to add money to has already been 
increased by the committee under the leadership of the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Porter] this year in this bill from $167 million to $299 
million. I challenge you to find a larger percentage increase in a 
large program in the bill. It will be very difficult to do.
  I think, under the circumstances, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Porter] and the subcommittee, and the full committee that reported this 
bill to the House on a bipartisan basis, have more than responded to 
the need.
  Now, the gentleman is perfectly entitled to his view that there ought 
to be more. But the fact is the newspapers have been full of accounts 
from Members who are offering these amendments, including the 
gentleman, that they intend to keep us here for a long, long time on 
this bill.
  The rules of the House require Members to be here in a situation in 
which they are prepared to offer their amendments at the proper time. 
Because it was apparent to me that we were already in title II, even 
though it was a Parliamentary disadvantage to the committee and to 
myself, I interrupted the Clerk's reading in order to note to the House 
that we were already far ahead into title II.
  That should have alerted the gentleman. I extended a courtesy to him. 
The gentleman should be thanking me instead of attacking me.
  Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that I have tried to be courteous to 
Members on both sides, and I have tried to extend many courtesies, 
including the opportunity to strike the last word many times, when the 
normal course of events in the House and the normal rules would not 
provide for that.
  With all due respect, I am sorry the gentleman did not offer his 
amendment at the proper time, but the rules are meant to eventually 
enable the House to produce legislation. I think we have been more than 
fair to those who have been taking a good deal of time. I think the 
committee has been more than fair to the program at hand.
  This subcommittee takes a back seat to no one, certainly the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] does not, the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Pelosi] does not, and other Members, when it comes to 
dealing with this problem.
  I would say that I think the most sensible thing for the House to do 
at this point is to move on. There are a good many other amendments, 
and I have already been informed by the gentleman and others that we 
will be here for at least 2 weeks on a bill that was expected to take 2 
days. I think I have been very patient, but I do not intend to be a 
sap.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I want to associate myself with his remarks about the fine work of 
the subcommittee under the leadership of the gentleman from Illinois 
[Mr. Porter], and our ranking member, and the gentleman from Wisconsin 
[Mr. Obey], to increase the funding for the ADAP program by $132 
million. These funds for drugs for people with HIV and AIDS is very, 
very important.
  The gentleman's attempt to put in an amendment to increase that 
number, while taking money from other areas that affect people with 
AIDS, I think is not well-founded.
  Had the gentleman offered the amendment, I would have opposed it. As 
one who has had over 13,000 people die of AIDS in my district, I 
believe I have some standing on this issue. I certainly want the 
highest figure, and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] and the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] worked for the highest figure, and 
will continue to work with the administration for an even higher figure 
by the end of the day, but not at the expense, for example, of the 
Office of Civil Rights, which works to end discrimination against 
people with HIV-AIDS and against a number of other functions within our 
bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I have frequently said this bill is lamb-eats-lamb. 
That is to say, everything in it is good; there is no place to go get 
an offset. Unfortunately, the gentleman's offsets are not productive, 
and, indeed, work counter to the interests of people with HIV-AIDS.
  Mr. Chairman, once again I commend the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Obey] for his courage on this issue.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I think what we have reached here is a situation where 
this House can decide fundamentally do we want to allow Members to be 
heard on what are critical issues in this bill or do we want to adopt a 
gag procedure that says we are not going to allow you to address issues 
having to do with treating AIDS patients, issues with how our title X 
family planning amendments are going to be passed, issues that are very 
important in constructing this bill and determining what the will of 
the House is.
  What I would like to do, Mr. Chairman, is once again try to do this 
in an effort of accommodation, without having to disrupt the procedures 
of this Committee of the Whole or the Whole House, and ask unanimous 
consent that we return to page 25, line 18, and proceed to consider the 
bill from that point forward.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, once again, I object.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, in that case, I move that the Committee 
do now rise.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by 
the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.

[[Page H7033]]

                             recorded vote

  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 42, 
noes 375, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 374]

                                AYES--42

     Aderholt
     Bachus
     Barr
     Barton
     Bryant
     Cannon
     Chenoweth
     Coburn
     Combest
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Graham
     Hastert
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hostettler
     Jones
     Largent
     Manzullo
     McIntosh
     Neumann
     Norwood
     Pappas
     Pitts
     Riley
     Rogan
     Royce
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Scarborough
     Schaffer, Bob
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Souder
     Strickland
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Yates

                               NOES--375

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Capps
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Paxon
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Bentsen
     Bono
     Brown (CA)
     Carson
     Dellums
     Foley
     Gonzalez
     Hilliard
     Johnson, Sam
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Schiff
     Serrano
     Solomon
     Towns
     Wolf

                              {time}  1321

  Mr. Oberstar and Mr. McDermott changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Messrs. Pitts, Doolittle, Cannon, Shimkus, Scarborough and Barr of 
Georgia changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the motion was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Porter], chairman of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human 
Services and Education, in a colloquy.
  Mr. Chairman, I know that the gentleman from Illinois is aware of the 
food safety initiative that the President has made a top priority as a 
result of increased incidence of food-borne illness in the United 
States. I know, from serving on the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural 
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies that we 
have provided $28.8 million to improve inspections done by the Food and 
Drug Administration and expand preventive safety measures.
  The other significant component of the food safety initiative is 
found in the bill we are considering today for the Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention. The major contribution the CDC will make to the 
food safety initiative deals with surveillance. We need to not only 
monitor the food supply, but to develop a rapid response to outbreaks 
due to food-borne illnesses.
  Mr. Chairman, the CDC received an allocation of $2.4 billion in this 
year's bill, which is $86 million more than the administration 
requested. I know by tradition the committee does not specify how the 
CDC must use the additional funds; however, it is clear that the 
committee has provided the resources necessary to fully fund CDC's 
portion of this new and promising food safety initiative.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask could the gentleman from Illinois comment 
on the committee's view of the importance of the $10 million of the 
additional funding provided for the CDC going toward the agency's 
involvement in this food safety initiative?
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FAZIO of California. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, it is appropriate, I believe, to highlight, 
as the gentleman from California does, the importance of food safety 
activities conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 
As the gentleman mentioned, the committee bill increases funding for 
the CDC above the President's request, including the funding for the 
infectious diseases program which supports CDC's food safety efforts.
  Mr. Chairman, we understand from the CDC that with the funds provided 
in the committee bill, the agency would increase funding for food 
safety by $10 million to a total of $14.5 million. The committee 
strongly supports the CDC in its efforts. The importance of food safety 
activities has been reinforced with recent headlines about disease 
outbreaks traced to food-borne infectious agents.


               Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mrs. Chenoweth

  Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to a portion of 
the bill already passed, and I ask unanimous consent just to discuss 
it.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Bereuter). The Clerk will designate the 
amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 16 offered by Mrs. Chenoweth:
       In the item relating to ``Health Resources and Services 
     Administration--health resources and services'', insert after 
     the first dollar amount (before the comma) ``(reduced by 
     $9,000,000)''; and in the fifth proviso (relating to the 
     program under title X of the Public Health Service Act), 
     insert after the dollar amount ``(reduced by $9,000,000)''.

[[Page H7034]]

       In the item relating to ``Administration on Aging--aging 
     services programs'', insert after the dollar amount (before 
     the colon) ``(increased by $4,725,000)''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth]?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I am happy to 
yield to the gentlewoman from Idaho to discuss her amendment under my 
reservation, and then I want to explain why it is that I am going to do 
what I am going to do.
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I wish I were clairvoyant across this 
body so that I would understand what the gentleman from Wisconsin wants 
to do. But I do know, having watched the gentleman, not only from the 
time that I have been in this body but before that, I really feel that 
in his heart the gentleman would be sympathetic to this particular 
amendment, and I think that most House Members would be.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is fairly benign. It is something that 
we are all very, very concerned about, and that is that we increase 
funding for senior citizens' meals in senior citizens centers. We do 
that by transferring out of title X family planning, which would be 
declined by $9 million. That would bring it back to where the 1997 
levels were, and then we would be able to increase senior citizen 
congregate meals $4.75 million, which again would simply establish the 
meals and the funding for the senior citizen meals at 1997 levels.

                              {time}  1330

  Like I say, not being clairvoyant, I am not quite sure what the 
gentleman from Wisconsin has in mind, but I believe that my amendment 
is consistent with his thinking and his actions in the past.
  I very much appreciate this consideration. Our senior citizens are 
having a very, very difficult time on fixed incomes. Most of the time, 
the time that they spend in the senior citizen centers is the only time 
that they can get out of the house and be able to spend time with their 
peers and having enjoyable times.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time under my reservation, let 
me recite again for Members who have come to the floor what the 
situation is.
  After the adoption of the last amendment to title I, the Clerk began 
to read title II. There were a number of Members on both sides of the 
aisle who were entitled to offer amendments in title II. I stood and 
asked the Clerk to stop reading to make clear to the House where she 
was in the bill so that Members who had amendments could be alerted to 
the fact that they should be offering their amendments at that time.
  I cannot recall a single instance in which a committee manager has 
done that before in the years I have been in this House. I did it even 
though it disadvantaged the committee because I wanted to be fair to 
Members who were offering amendments. No amendments were offered. We 
passed some 10 pages of that section.
  At this point there are a number of amendments that are no longer 
eligible to be offered at this point in the bill.
  The Chenoweth amendment, the committee had determined that we were 
going to accept the Chenoweth amendment, if the gentlewoman offered it, 
because we regarded it as a reasonable amendment in contrast to the 
other amendment that engendered controversy, which tries to increase an 
account which we have already increased by almost 100 percent in the 
bill.
  As a courtesy to the majority, I am willing to withdraw my objection 
to consideration of the gentlewoman's amendment, but not without an 
appreciation of the fact that the committee has bent over backward to 
be fair to each and every Member who had an opportunity to offer an 
amendment.
  It is the responsibility of this committee, when we are informed 
through the press and on the floor by two gentlemen last night that 
they intend to keep us here for more than 2 weeks on this bill, it is 
our responsibility to move the bill forward wherever we can. Despite 
that fact, in this instance I am willing to withdraw my objection to 
this amendment but only this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Bereuter). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentlewoman from Idaho?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I think that a number of us here, when 
the bill moved much quicker than we expected, as I was watching 
television this afternoon and saw the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Obey] make his remarks calling attention to the fact of where we were, 
and I fully recognize that the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] did 
that, my heart stopped. Once I got it going again, I came right over 
here to the floor.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that memories are 
short.
  Last year, Mr. Kennedy, on our side of the aisle, came to the floor 
asking to offer an amendment which the Clerk had just passed by two 
paragraphs. He was denied that opportunity to do so by the majority. So 
were a number of other Members who missed their amendments. So that is 
the normal order of things around here.
  Members are expected to know their own business, and we are not 
engaging in any action that has not been engaged in under the rules of 
the House, and correctly so by the majority.
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I just wish that 
I did have the parliamentary experience and skill on the floor of the 
House that Mr. Kennedy does have and does possess. But there are a 
number of us who missed a step this afternoon. For that, we are deeply 
sorry and deeply grateful that we can move ahead.
  Mr. Chairman, what are senior congregate meals?
  Let me tell my colleagues. Again, I repeat, for many senior citizens, 
especially those who are alone or on fixed incomes, senior centers 
provide a place to congregate and an excuse to get out of the house and 
be able to socialize.
  Just as important, senior centers provide low-cost, hot, nutritious 
meals. But without adequate funding for the congregate meals program, 
few local senior centers could afford to provide these very much needed 
hot meals.
  I have been in close touch with our senior citizens. Here, in fact, 
coming from McCall, ID, are just some of the signatures, line by line 
by line, of the senior citizens' signatures from just one senior 
citizen center. This is so important for our seniors. They have given 
so much to our country.
  The fact that we would extend more funding to family planning for 
healthy, vigorous teenagers and cut the funding for senior citizens is 
something that I think, on second thought, that we really do not want 
to do. I appreciate the Members of the House for their consideration on 
this. I especially appreciate the gentleman from Wisconsin for his 
consideration.
  I have received hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of signatures in 
support of funding for nutritious meals for our senior citizens. My 
amendment is the essence of our American agenda. It is fiscally proper 
and morally responsible, Mr. Chairman.
  So why is title X funding being increased?
  Well, I cannot answer this, but I believe it is the priorities of the 
American people that we make sure that our senior citizens are fed 
well, healthy, and nutritiously. The thing that we have got to remember 
is that title X programs have been shown to be inefficient, 
ineffective, and riddled with criticism and controversy.
  Since title X was enacted, the teenage out-of-wedlock rate has 
actually doubled and the teenage abortion rate has actually doubled and 
the increase of sexually transmitted disease has increased to a point 
where 1 in 4 sexually experienced teenagers are infected every year.
  Mr. Chairman, when we get back to our districts next week and visit 
our elderly constituents of the local senior center, will we be able to 
look into their eyes and tell them that abortion counseling is more 
important than hot meals to be served at our senior centers?
  I think we all feel about the same way on this, that our seniors need 
to not only be cared for; we need to live up to our promises with our 
senior centers and to our senior citizens. But they need to be honored 
and respected

[[Page H7035]]

in the manner that I believe this amendment will do.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say to the gentlewoman from Idaho that I 
determined, and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] agreed earlier, 
that we could accept this amendment and we do accept it. I certainly 
agree with the gentlewoman's remarks regarding the senior citizens' 
programs. I do not agree at all with the gentlewoman's remarks 
regarding title X.
  But the point I would like to make is that it is very difficult when 
you are reading a bill paragraph by paragraph or section by section to 
return to an earlier part of the bill when someone misses the point at 
which they are to offer an amendment. Once you do that, you have to do 
it for everyone who misses the opportunities the rules provide, and 
pretty soon you have chaos on the floor. You do not have an orderly 
procedure and no one knows where you are.
  I would say to the gentlewoman from Idaho that I believe that the 
gentleman from Wisconsin is being very gracious in allowing this 
amendment to be taken up at this point, and that I hope all Members on 
both sides of the aisle will be very vigilant in watching as we read 
the bill so that we can have amendments offered at the proper time.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Chenoweth amendment. I do want 
to say, I appreciate our colleagues on both sides of the aisle for not 
objecting to consideration of this amendment at this point. I think it 
perhaps proves the point that the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] 
and I were making, that these are very vital and important issues and 
ought to be addressed on the floor of the House.
  I cannot tell my colleagues how important this program is that the 
Chenoweth amendment seeks to obtain additional funding for. Last 
Christmas, Ruthie and I both volunteered with a program run out of our 
local hospital that delivers hot meals to indigent senior citizens who 
otherwise would have no hope for having a nutritious meal. To see the 
love and thanks in their eyes as we rang the doorbell and delivered 
those meals told me how important this program is for those citizens in 
this country.
  I have to, frankly, agree with the gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. 
Chenoweth], it would be difficult for me to go back home and say, we 
chose to have family planning services above those meals. I think she 
is doing us a great service by bringing this amendment forward, setting 
forth clearly that this House is in strong support of those programs 
for meals for senior citizens at the centers and in their homes.
  I want to commend her on that effort and, again, thank Members on 
both sides of the aisle who allowed this issue to come forward. 
Hopefully, we will be able to see a full discussion of all of the 
issues that we have in this bill so that we can truly say that the 
House of Representatives today and in the coming days has debated the 
priorities in one of the most important funding bills of our entire 
government.
  As we have said earlier in the debate, there are some fundamental 
differences about whether we want to continue to fund programs that 
primarily affect people here in Washington or do we want to send this 
money out to programs that are doing good things for real Americans 
outside of the beltway?
  My choice is for the latter, and I will continue to support 
amendments that seek to redirect priorities in this bill in that 
manner.
  Mr. Chairman, that is the remainder of my comments on this amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support 
of the amendment to H.R. 2264 offered today by my friend and colleague 
from Idaho, Mrs. Chenoweth. The amendment will restore the unjustified 
cut in funding for the Older Americans Act's Congregate Meals Program 
included in H.R. 2264.
  As we make the tough choices needed to balance our budget, we cannot 
forget the needs of our senior citizens, most of whom live on fixed 
incomes and have limited means.
  The importance of Congregate Meals for the senior citizens of New 
Jersey and across this Nation cannot be overstated. In 1996, the Mercer 
County, New Jersey Office on Aging reported that 1,483 persons received 
almost 119,839 nutritious meals provided in part under the Older 
Americans Act. For many of these senior citizens, the meals provided at 
the 13 senior centers in Mercer County represented their main meal for 
the day. There is abundant evidence that senior citizens who live on 
their own suffer from poor nutrition and depression, and the Congregate 
Meals Program is critical to keeping people healthy and out of 
expensive long-term care institutions.
  Equally important is the fact that Congregate Meals often form the 
nucleus of senior citizen outreach efforts. The meals are social events 
by which seniors are connected with other critical services. The Mercer 
County Office on Aging informs me that the Congregate Meals Program 
serves to draw in senor citizens to their 13 senior centers. A senior 
who arrives at the center to eat a nutritious meal will also improve 
their social skills and learn about other services and opportunities.
  The situation is much the same in Ocean County as well. I have 
received word from Phil Rubenstein, executive director of the Ocean 
County Office of Senior Services, that tomorrow approximately 600 
individuals will eat a meal and enjoy the company of others at a 
Congregate nutrition site.
  Unless the cuts in this important program are restored, senior 
citizens centers across this country will have a harder time conducting 
their outreach efforts, and seniors will suffer from reduced 
opportunities to receive other important services as well.
  In conclusion, cutting Congregate Meals is extremely shortsighted and 
will only serve to undermine the effectiveness of an array of senior 
citizen services provided under the Older Americans Act. I urge all of 
my colleagues to support the Chenoweth amendment to H.R. 2264.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment 
offered by the gentlelady from Idaho.
  Mr. Chairman, let me emphasize something I have said time and time 
again here on the House floor: Senior nutrition programs are Government 
and local partnerships that work. They provide humanitarian assistance 
to old Americans who are grateful for the helping hand of their 
neighbors.
  Congregate Meals programs, in particular, give seniors the 
opportunity to get out of their homes, socialize, and eat nutritious, 
low-cost meals. In short, they allow seniors to feel like they are a 
part of the community.
  At a time when the senior population in our country is growing 
rapidly, Congress needs to expand its support for senior meal programs. 
It makes good fiscal sense to support them--because a dollar spent on 
senior nutrition programs goes a long way. In fact, Federal funding for 
Congregate Meals and Meals On Wheels actually saves money in the 
Medicare and Medicaid programs.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for the Chenoweth 
amendment, and help restore funding for Congregate Meals programs to 
fiscal year 1997 levels.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote and, 
pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Miller] withdraw his point of order?
  Mr. MILLER of California. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The point of no quorum is considered 
withdrawn.
  Does the gentleman from California withdraw his demand for a recorded 
vote?
  Mr. MILLER of California. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The amendment is agreed to.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that the gentleman will join with me in a 
colloquy. I am very grateful for the hard work that he and his 
subcommittee have put into this 1998 Labor, HHS and Education 
appropriations bill. My constituents and I are very pleased with the 
increased attention to health issues and funding in this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to bring to the gentleman's attention one issue 
of great concern to the residents of the Sixth District of Arizona, the 
growing incidence of osteoporosis.
  As you know, Mr. Chairman, osteoporosis affects 28 million Americans. 
The problem is especially acute in Arizona, where fully 14 percent of 
the residents are afflicted with osteoporosis. For these reasons, I

[[Page H7036]]

would ask the gentleman that as he goes into conference on the Labor, 
HHS and Education appropriations bill, that he give consideration to 
the Senate report language suggesting an osteoporosis public education 
campaign. Such a campaign would target young women to assist them in 
maintaining appropriate health behaviors that can have a significant 
effect on bone strength that can last a lifetime. Funding for such a 
campaign would come from the amount designated by the bill for the 
Office on Women's Health.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the gentleman consider the startling 
trends in osteoporosis as we proceed to conference and that the 
gentleman keep the affected families in mind.
  Again, I thank the gentleman for his time and consideration of this 
important issue.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Arizona is correct. The 
prevalence of osteoporosis is startling. The American public should be 
made aware of the health benefits of proper diet and exercise that can 
affect long-term bone health.

                              {time}  1345

  The gentleman should know that my wife, Kathryn, is also very 
interested in this issue. She has recently written the Secretary of 
Health and Human Services in support of the gentleman's intended effort 
in this regard, and I will take the gentleman's request under 
advisement and thank him for his work on this issue.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, again I thank the chairman of the 
subcommittee.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. If there are no further amendments at this 
point, the Clerk will read.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Istook

  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment made in order under 
the rule, which I would like to bring up at this time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment if 
it is in order at this point.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I understand there may be another Member 
that has an amendment that would, in the normal course of things, 
precede mine, so I would reserve my right to bring it up before we 
conclude title II.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman ask unanimous consent to 
withdraw his amendment, because the gentleman's amendment is not in 
order at this time?
  Mr. ISTOOK. Yes, Mr. Chairman, at this time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                 national center for research resources

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to research resources and 
     general research support grants, $436,961,000: Provided, That 
     none of these funds shall be used to pay recipients of the 
     general research support grants program any amount for 
     indirect expenses in connection with such grants: Provided 
     further, That $20,000,000 shall be for extramural facilities 
     construction grants.


                  john e. fogarty international center

       For carrying out the activities at the John E. Fogarty 
     International Center, $27,620,000.


                      national library of medicine

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to health information 
     communications, $161,171,000, of which $4,000,000 shall be 
     available until expended for improvement of information 
     systems: Provided, That in fiscal year 1998, the Library may 
     enter into personal services contracts for the provision of 
     services in facilities owned, operated, or constructed under 
     the jurisdiction of the National Institutes of Health.


          Amendment No. 24 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment number 24.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 24 offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
       In the item relating to ``National Institutes of Health--
     national library of medicine'', insert after the first dollar 
     amount (before the comma) ``(reduced by $2,500,000)''.
       In the item relating to ``Office of the Secretary--general 
     departmental management'', insert after the first dollar 
     amount (before the comma) ``(increased by $2,000,000)''.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, it is of great interest to 
our community and this Nation, as we talk about the education of our 
children and providing them with opportunities, that we also give them 
the ability not to start their matured, adult life too early. My 
amendment goes to the general concern in this Nation of increasing the 
funding by $2 million to prevent teenage pregnancy. In particular, this 
amendment deals with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
with the intent to provide the CDC more dollars for their CDC teen 
pregnancy prevention program.
  The concept of this program I find very valuable and interesting, in 
that it works to enhance coalitions in the community that would work 
together to provide the necessary skills and tools for our young women, 
our teenage girls, our preadolescents to themselves prevent teenage 
pregnancy.
  For example, this program deals with youth development, involving 
building the special talents of individuals, leadership training, job 
skills opportunities and achievement, prevention skills development, 
including family life and planning of education through school health 
education and after-school programs, educational enhancement, community 
service, and role modeling.
  It also does something that is extremely important for a young girl 
just about to cross the precipice of adolescence, the creation of 
supportive environments including enhancing constructive parent-child 
communications, school policies and norms, community opinion leaders' 
support, and dialog between individuals.
  For many of us who may think that the teenage pregnancy issue will go 
away or has gone away, let me simply say to my colleagues that every 
year approximately 1 million teenagers in this country become pregnant 
and 90 percent of those pregnancies are unintended.
  The teenage pregnancy rate for women under 20 has increased by more 
than 20 percent since the early 1970's. Of the 1 million teens who 
become pregnant, about half give birth, about 40 percent choose 
abortion, and the remaining 10 percent miscarry.
  How many of us have heard the tragic stories on prom night, where 
teenagers have given birth at their prom night, which should be an 
exciting night of joy and enthusiasm but turns into a criminal offense 
and sometimes the ending, tragically, of a newborn baby; and of course, 
the terrible devastation on family and that young teenage mother.
  There are significant social and economic costs associated with 
premature parenthood for the child, the parent, and for society at 
large. Fewer than 60 percent of teen mothers graduate from high school 
by age 25. When we begin to talk about welfare reform, this is where we 
should begin.
  In my district, Mr. Chairman, I am very proud that we have begun to 
convene those who are proposing to coalesce around these very issues of 
teenage pregnancy prevention. They are already working individually, 
and I have convened them over the last year and intend to have them 
work together.
  Mr. Chairman, I would hope that we would continue to emphasize this 
coalition effort and that Texas Southern University, under the guidance 
of Dr. Bobby Henderson, will be part of this pivotal responsibility.
  Because of that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to raise a question with 
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] on this very important issue 
of teenage pregnancy prevention and my amendment and the issue of the 
importance of teenage pregnancy prevention.
  I am offering an amendment to include an extra $2 million to this, 
recognizing the $13.7 million and, as well, recognizing the very hard 
work of this committee. It is my intention in the spirit of 
conciliation to withdraw this amendment; however, my district has a 
very high concern with the issue of teenage pregnancy and I want to 
implore of the committee, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] and 
the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey]. I would like to raise the 
question that although the committee does not traditionally segregate 
funds, I do want to note that Houston, the fourth largest city in the 
Nation, does not have this CDC teen pregnancy prevention program 
designated.

[[Page H7037]]

  I would like to work with the gentlemen to engage this city, the 
fourth largest city in the Nation, with several groups that are working 
on teenage prevention, that they may be organized in a coalition and 
might be eligible for such funds under the CDC teen pregnancy 
prevention program.
  I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R. 2264, the Labor-HHS-
Education appropriations bill. This amendment increases funding by $2 
million for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention with the 
intent that these funds be used for their teen pregnancy prevention 
program and offsets that increase with a $2 million reduction in the 
$3.6 billion funding for the Health Resources and Services 
Administration.
  The teen pregnancy program operated by the CDC is a demonstration 
program in operation in 13 communities around the country. This 
pregnancy prevention program works with existing programs in these 
communities to help them develop a unified effort to prevent teen 
pregnancy. They identify problems, strengths, and offer solutions for 
resource shortages that are community based. They do not try to change 
the message of the community pregnancy prevention programs, but instead 
work to amplify their messages by molding them into one voice.
  Currently, the teenage pregnancy program at CDC is funded at $13.7 
million. With the additional funds, the teen pregnancy program will be 
able to expand their work into other communities. This $2 million is 
important to our fight to prevent teenage pregnancy.
  Every year approximately 1 million teenagers in this country become 
pregnant and 90 percent of those pregnancies are unintended. The teen 
pregnancy rate for women under 20 has increased by more than 20 percent 
since the early 1970's. Of the 1 million teens who become pregnant, 
about half give birth, about 40 percent choose abortion, and the 
remaining 10 percent miscarry.
  There are significant social and economic costs associated with 
premature parenthood for the child, the parent, and for society at 
large. Fewer than 60 percent of teen mothers graduate from high school 
by age 25--compared to 90 percent of those who postpone childbearing. 
According to one study, early childbearing reduced schooling by 1 to 3 
years.
  In addition to lower educational status, early childbearing has an 
impact on the economic status of teens by affecting employment 
opportunities, marital options, and structure. Teen mothers are four 
times as likely as women who have their first child after adolescence 
to be poor in their twenties and early thirties and are more likely to 
have lower family incomes later in life.
  Teenage girls have a higher risk of pregnancy complications--
including maternal mortality and morbidity, miscarriages and 
stillbirths, premature births, and nutritional deficiences--than adult 
women.
  The personal impact of teenage childbearing is two-fold, diminishing 
the opportunities of both the mother and the child, for the children of 
teenage parents are more likely to become teenage parents themselves, 
thus perpetuating the cycle of poverty.
  In addition to the personal and societal costs of teen pregnancy the 
economic costs are terrific, totalling more than $20 billion each year. 
This amount could be halved if childbearing were postponed until the 
mother was age 20.
  Early childbearing may be delayed with education and a supportive 
environment. Teens who have healthy parent-child communications, high 
self-esteem, and high educational aspirations are more likely to 
postpone childbearing.
  It is critical to our children's future that we focus our attention 
on preventing adolescent pregnancy. I would now ask my colleagues to 
support this amendment. However, because we have agreed to work with 
the chairman and ranking member to help Houston and the 18th 
Congressional District in the area of funding for teenage pregnancy 
prevention. I now withdraw this amendment.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, we would certainly be more than willing to 
work with the gentlewoman. I do not know the mechanism by which CDC 
designates the places where the program is to be conducted, but I 
certainly am willing to work with the gentlewoman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. 
Jackson-Lee] has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas was allowed to 
proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will continue to yield, 
I would certainly be willing to work with the gentlewoman and with the 
CDC to see that we can address this need in the gentlewoman's 
community.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
and thank the ranking member, Mr. Chairman.
  In conclusion, I might note that the different locations are west and 
east, and in the State of Texas we only have one, and in the fourth 
largest city in the Nation we do not have such a program. I would look 
forward to working with the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] and 
appreciate both his kindness and his very hard work on this 
legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, in the spirit of working with the ranking member and 
compromising on this issue, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The amendment is withdrawn.
  Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the gentleman from Illinois in a 
colloquy, if I may.
  I would like first to thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] 
for his fine work on this usually contentious piece of legislation. I 
know he and his staff have worked long hours to craft this piece of 
legislation, and I appreciate all of his hard work and dedication.
  I want to engage the gentleman in a colloquy regarding the Centers 
for Disease Control AIDS prevention funds. Let me first say that I 
believe we should all have compassion for the victims of AIDS. I 
support continued funding for AIDS treatment prevention and care. 
However, it seems to me that the Federal AIDS education campaign has 
emphasized condoms first and treated abstinence as a largely 
unrealistic goal, even though medical experts agree that it is the most 
medically sound response.
  I believe the focus should be changed to personal responsibility on 
the part of those infected. I am specifically concerned about the 
viability of groups such as PFOX, the Parents and Friends of Ex-gays. 
PFOX is a national organization that reaches out to men and women who 
want to leave the gay life-style. PFOX's ultimate message is that 
homosexuals have options. No one has to be gay and enter its 
subculture, instead, they can be heterosexual or live a life of 
abstinence. My question relates to the eligibility for CDC prevention 
funds.
  Are there any restrictions in this bill that would prevent those 
funds from being allocated to groups or organizations such as PFOX that 
advocate abstinence as a means of AIDS prevention?
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I would say to my friend from South 
Carolina that as long as those organizations meet the usual eligibility 
requirements for CDC AIDS prevention grants and receive high scores in 
the peer review process, there is nothing in this bill to restrict them 
from receiving CDC funds.
  Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I 
would ask, second, would it be permissible for me to enter into this 
record an encouragement of the Centers for Disease Control to consider 
allocating funds to groups, such as PFOX, that promote abstinence as a 
means to prevent the spread of AIDS?
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would again yield, 
certainly that would be permissible, and I would encourage these groups 
to apply for AIDS prevention funds.
  I would like to emphasize, the committee encourages CDC to support 
local grantees that advocate a wide range of AIDS prevention measures, 
including abstinence and other effective techniques.
  Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
his time.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Earlier we had a discussion about several amendments to this bill 
that

[[Page H7038]]

would have affected funding in title X, the family planning program; 
and I must inform my colleagues on the House floor that there are still 
some additional amendments that Members would like to see considered 
here.
  I appreciate the consideration which was given to the gentlewoman 
from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth] and her very important amendment to take 
funding from that program and fund a program that had been reduced in 
funding to provide meals to senior citizens.
  Some of the other amendments that I think are critically important in 
this area have to do with policy preferences that really should be 
debated by this Congress. For example, should we be fully funding 
research to prevent breast cancer in this country?
  I think it is a critical issue. More than 1 out of 10 women will be 
struck with breast cancer sometime during their lives. My mother-in-law 
is currently undergoing treatment for a recurrence of breast cancer. We 
need to talk to those women and act to reassure them that this 
Government is doing everything possible to ensure that research is 
being done to find the cause of breast cancer, to find treatment that 
works and to make sure that that is widely available and known in the 
scientific community.
  I think these issues are very important, and I guess I would ask my 
colleagues to be considerate as we are moving forward in discussing 
what are legitimate differences of priorities in these spending bills 
and allow us to move forward with amendments and not adopt a procedure 
that would gag some of the very important ones.
  We do not have hundreds of amendments that have been passed over. It 
is not as if it is going to make it impossible to reach final 
consideration on this bill, but it is a very important question on 
priorities within this title that, due to the procedural restrictions 
in the way it is being discussed, may not be addressed.
  I would ask my colleagues to allow us to move forward with those 
amendments. There are not many, but there are a few very, very 
important ones that we need to address in this Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, let me also say that I think that this whole debate has 
been very helpful in crystallizing some of the fundamental differences 
in approach. Many of us believe that the budget agreement is something 
that the Congress and the President, that we all need to live up to, 
but that within that agreement there are serious questions on 
priorities.
  Do we want to fund programs that primarily fund bureaucracies here in 
Washington or do we want to take those funds and redirect them to 
programs that get outside the beltway in the area of education, funds 
that will get to our schools so that they can implement programs to 
help the disabled and students who need their education improved; in 
the area of health, making sure we do research at NIH that will benefit 
patients and not create bureaucracies at the Department of HHS; in the 
area of labor, to make sure that what we are doing there in regulatory 
agencies actually improves safety in the workplace, improves conditions 
of American workers so that they have a chance to have a good job and a 
good opportunity that will be safe for them.
  These philosophical debates fall into a general category of who do 
you trust. Do you trust the bureaucracies in Washington or do you trust 
people, local government, private institutions, State governments to do 
what is best for their communities?

                              {time}  1400

  I think it is an important debate that we have in this Congress. 
Frankly, it is a debate that has been glided over as we have discussed 
in the last few months the budget agreement, because people got lost in 
terms of numbers and funding and appropriations and tax cuts and they 
lost track of that more fundamental question that we want to redirect 
our attention to here in Congress and, that is, what is the appropriate 
role of the Federal Government in these different programs.
  Mr. Chairman, as we move forward, I understand there will be 
disagreements about particular amendments, I understand that some 
people may question motives. I would ask them not to, but to take 
seriously what is being discussed in each of these amendments and vote 
their conscience, so that we can go back to the American people and 
say, this Congress has discussed these issues and we look forward to 
continuing that in the coming days, in working with the chairman of the 
subcommittee and the ranking member on the other side of the aisle, to 
make sure that we have a full and healthy debate, not only on the 
details but on those general philosophical questions.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McINTOSH. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. PORTER. I would say to the gentleman, he started by talking about 
medical research and particularly research on breast cancer. I am sure 
that the gentleman is aware that despite in 1996 a need to cut $9 
billion from the discretionary----
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Bereuter). The time of the gentleman 
from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh] has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Porter, and by unanimous consent, Mr. McIntosh was 
allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
that despite the need to make very deep cuts in spending in this bill 
and despite a budget resolution that would have made very deep cuts in 
funding for the National Institutes of Health, 80 percent of whose 
money goes to local academic medical research centers all across 
America, we raised funding for NIH by 5.7 percent. This increase 
occured while everything else in the bill was being cut. Last year we 
increased NIH by 7.5 percent and this year increased it by 6 percent. 
The increases for the National Cancer Institute were higher than the 
NIH average and we have placed biomedical research at a very, very high 
priority in crafting the Labor-HHS bill.
  I would also say to the gentleman that as he was speaking, I was told 
that the amendments that were passed over are now being redrafted in a 
reach-back form that the gentleman from Indiana believes is in order. 
If so, those will be able to be heard. I also want to assure him that 
our purpose here in providing the process and debate is to shape this 
bill and that we want to provide everyone who wishes to participate in 
that process every opportunity, within the bounds of the other business 
that the House must conduct, to do that. I hope at the end of this 
process we will all have looked back on the process and said it was 
done in a fair way, it was done in a way that gave us an opportunity to 
participate and that we can live with the result.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me say I 
appreciate the efforts of the chairman to assist in redrafting those 
amendments so they can be discussed on the House floor at the 
appropriate moment in the bill, and his staff has been suggesting ways 
in which we can do that. I am told that, yes, the two should be able to 
be redrafted and be able to be offered at a later time and at an 
appropriate point in debate. I do appreciate the general notion that 
the gentleman has worked very hard to increase funding for medical 
research. I would, however, remind the House that the entire bill, when 
looked at from that perspective, is increasing on the order of 10 
percent, and so our efforts are to even go beyond the good work that 
the chairman has done in getting funds for that medical research and 
suggest ways that perhaps we can find even more funds from programs 
that in our view at least are perhaps lower priorities and should not 
be increased. I know we have a philosophical disagreement on title X.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McINTOSH. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. PORTER. The bill is not being increased by 10 percent and a great 
deal of the increase in the overall bill is from entitlement programs.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
McIntosh] has again expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. McIntosh was allowed to proceed for 30 
additional seconds.)
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois to 
finish his point.
  Mr. PORTER. About 7 percent.

[[Page H7039]]

  Mr. McINTOSH. Seven percent on the discretionary programs. Our goal 
essentially in this area is to help the chairman even do better and 
perhaps go beyond that 7 percent in the medical research area, because 
we view that as a key priority, where the Government can help people. 
It is not a huge bureaucracy, it is a research program that as the 
chairman pointed out, 80 percent of it is beyond Washington and being 
done in some of our best medical universities around the country.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                         office of the director

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For carrying out the responsibilities of the Office of the 
     Director, National Institutes of Health, $298,339,000: 
     Provided, That funding shall be available for the purchase of 
     not to exceed five passenger motor vehicles for replacement 
     only: Provided further, That the Director may direct up to 1 
     percent of the total amount made available in this Act to all 
     National Institutes of Health appropriations to activities 
     the Director may so designate: Provided further, That no such 
     appropriation shall be decreased by more than 1 percent by 
     any such transfers and that the Congress is promptly notified 
     of the transfer: Provided further, That NIH is authorized to 
     collect third party payments for the cost of clinical 
     services that are incurred in National Institutes of Health 
     research facilities and that such payments shall be credited 
     to the National Institutes of Health Management Fund: 
     Provided further, That all funds credited to the NIH 
     Management Fund shall remain available for one fiscal year 
     after the fiscal year in which they are deposited: Provided 
     further, That up to $500,000 shall be available to carry out 
     section 499 of the Public Health Service Act.


                        buildings and facilities

       For the study of, construction of, and acquisition of 
     equipment for, facilities of or used by the National 
     Institutes of Health, including the acquisition of real 
     property, $223,100,000, to remain available until expended, 
     of which $90,000,000 shall be for the clinical research 
     center; Provided, That, notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, a single contract or related contracts for the 
     development and construction of the clinical research center 
     may be employed which collectively include the full scope of 
     the project: Provided further, That the solicitation 
     and contract shall contain the clause ``availability of 
     funds'' found at 48 CFR 52.232-18.

       Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration


               SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

       For carrying out titles V and XIX of the Public Health 
     Service Act with respect to substance abuse and mental health 
     services, the Protection and Advocacy for Mentally Ill 
     Individuals Act of 1986, and section 301 of the Public Health 
     Service Act with respect to program management, 
     $2,151,943,000.


     RETIREMENT PAY AND MEDICAL BENEFITS FOR COMMISSIONED OFFICERS

       For retirement pay and medical benefits of Public Health 
     Service Commissioned Officers as authorized by law, and for 
     payments under the Retired Serviceman's Family Protection 
     Plan and Survivor Benefit Plan and for medical care of 
     dependents and retired personnel under the Dependents' 
     Medical Care Act (10 U.S.C. ch. 55), and for payments 
     pursuant to section 229(b) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 429(b)), such amounts as may be required during the 
     current fiscal year.

               Agency for Health Care Policy and Research


                    HEALTH CARE POLICY AND RESEARCH

       For carrying out titles III and IX of the Public Health 
     Service Act, and part A of title XI of the Social Security 
     Act, $101,588,000; in addition, amounts received from Freedom 
     of Information Act fees, reimbursable and interagency 
     agreements, and the sale of data tapes shall be credited to 
     this appropriation and shall remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That the amount made available pursuant to section 
     926(b) of the Public Health Service Act shall not exceed 
     $47,412,000.

                  Health Care Financing Administration


                     GRANTS TO STATES FOR MEDICAID

       For carrying out, except as otherwise provided, titles XI 
     and XIX of the Social Security Act, $71,530,429,000, to 
     remain available until expended.
       For making, after May 31, 1998, payments to States under 
     title XIX of the Social Security Act for the last quarter of 
     fiscal year 1998 for unanticipated costs, incurred for the 
     current fiscal year, such sums as may be necessary.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, if I might inquire as to when in the debate 
amendments would be allowable that are restraining amendments or 
limiting amendments or blocking amendments as far as prohibitions. 
Could we have a ruling of the Chair?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. If the gentleman could identify those 
amendments by name and number.
  Mr. COBURN. Manzullo-Coburn in terms of needle exchange. Coburn in 
terms of CDC, use of funds.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair would advise that the Istook 
amendment, for example, is made in order at the end of title II under 
the unanimous consent request that is functioning as a rule for 
consideration of this bill. That would come at the end of page 63. The 
Chair would entertain comments about the other amendments that are 
thought to be pending but is not prepared to engage in a parliamentary 
decision at this point.
  Mr. COBURN. Might we have a decision as to an amendment that 
prohibits the use of Federal funds on needle exchange programs; should 
that come at the end of title II as well?
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, it is our understanding that that comes in 
the general provisions of the bill at the end. That was our 
understanding.
  Mr. COBURN. May we have a ruling that that is where that would come?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Would the gentleman identify the name and 
the number of the amendment?
  Mr. COBURN. It is Coburn, and I believe it is 35.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma is advised that 
it comes at the end of the bill. Amendment 35, that would be on page 
102.
  Mr. COBURN. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. Chairman, there is another amendment, a Coburn-Ackerman 
amendment, that prohibits the use of CDC moneys for blind testing for 
infants for HIV testing.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This would be the Coburn amendment No. 36?
  Mr. COBURN. I believe so.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. That was also drafted to come at the end of 
the bill. That would be on page 102.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       For making payments to States under title XIX of the Social 
     Security Act for the first quarter of fiscal year 1999, 
     $27,800,689,000, to remain available until expended.
       Payment under title XIX may be made for any quarter with 
     respect to a State plan or plan amendment in effect during 
     such quarter, if submitted in or prior to such quarter and 
     approved in that or any subsequent quarter.


                  payments to health care trust funds

       For payment to the Federal Hospital Insurance and the 
     Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds, as 
     provided under sections 217(g) and 1844 of the Social 
     Security Act, sections 103(c) and 111(d) of the Social 
     Security Amendments of 1965, section 278(d) of Public Law 97-
     248, and for administrative expenses incurred pursuant to 
     section 201(g) of the Social Security Act, $63,581,000,000.


                           program management

       For carrying out, except as otherwise provided, titles XI, 
     XVIII, and XIX of the Social Security Act, titles XIII and 
     XXVII of the Public Health Service Act, the Clinical 
     Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988, and section 191 of 
     Public Law 104-191, not to exceed $1,679,435,000 to be 
     transferred from the Federal Hospital Insurance and the 
     Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds, as 
     authorized by section 201(g) of the Social Security Act; 
     together with all funds collected in accordance with section 
     353 of the Public Health Service Act, the latter funds to 
     remain available until expended, together with such sums as 
     may be collected from authorized user fees and the sale of 
     data, which shall remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That all funds derived in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 9701 from 
     organizations established under title XIII of the Public 
     Health Service Act are to be credited to and available for 
     carrying out the purposes of this appropriation.


      health maintenance organization loan and loan guarantee fund

       For carrying out subsections (d) and (e) of section 1308 of 
     the Public Health Service Act, any amounts received by the 
     Secretary in connection with loans and loan guarantees under 
     title XIII of the Public Health Service Act, to be available 
     without fiscal year limitation for the payment of outstanding 
     obligations. During fiscal year 1998, no commitments for 
     direct loans or loan guarantees shall be made.

                Administration for Children and Families


                   family support payments to states

       For making payments to each State for carrying out the 
     program of Aid to Families with Dependent Children under 
     title IV-A of the Social Security Act before the effective 
     date of the program of Temporary Assistance to Needy Families 
     (TANF) with respect to such State, such sums as may be 
     necessary:

[[Page H7040]]

     Provided, That the sum of the amounts available to a State 
     with respect to expenditures under such title IV-A in fiscal 
     year 1997 under this appropriation and under such title IV-A 
     as amended by the Personal Responsibility and Work 
     Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 shall not exceed the 
     limitations under section 116(b) of such Act.
       For making, after May 31 of the current fiscal year, 
     payments to States or other non-Federal entities under 
     titles, I, IV-D, X, XI, XIV, and XVI of the Social Security 
     Act and the Act of July 5, 1960 (24 U.S.C. ch. 9), for the 
     last three months of the current year for unanticipated 
     costs, incurred for the current fiscal year, such sums as may 
     be necessary.
       For making payments to States or other non-Federal entities 
     under titles I, IV-D, X, XI, XIV, and XVI of the Social 
     Security Act and the Act of July 5, 1960 (24 U.S.C. ch. 9), 
     for the first quarter of fiscal year 1999, $660,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended.


                   low income home energy assistance

       For making payments under title XXVI of the Omnibus Budget 
     Reconciliation Act of 1981, $1,000,000,000, to be available 
     for obligation in the period October 1, 1998 through 
     September 30, 1999.
       For making payments under title XXVI of such Act, 
     $300,000,000: Provided, That these funds are hereby 
     designated by Congress to be emergency requirements pursuant 
     to section 251(b)(2)(D) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985: Provided further, That these 
     funds shall be made available only after submission to 
     Congress of a formal budget request by the President that 
     includes designation of the entire amount of the request as 
     an emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act.


                     refugee and entrant assistance

       For making payments for refugee and entrant assistance 
     activities authorized by title IV of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act and section 501 of the Refugee Education 
     Assistance Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-422), $415,000,000: 
     Provided, That funds appropriated pursuant to section 414(a) 
     of the Immigration and Nationality Act under Public Law 104-
     134 for fiscal year 1996 shall be available for the costs of 
     assistance provided and other activities conducted in such 
     year and in fiscal years 1997 and 1998.


                 child care and development block grant

       For carrying out sections 658A through 658R of the Omnibus 
     Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (The Child Care and 
     Development Block Grant Act of 1990), $1,000,000,000 to 
     become available on October 1, 1998 and remain available 
     through September 30, 1999: Provided, That of funds 
     appropriated for each of fiscal years 1998 and 1999, 
     $19,120,000 shall be available for child care resource and 
     referral and school-aged child care activities.


                      social services block grant

       For making grants to States pursuant to section 2002 of the 
     Social Security Act, $2,245,000,000: Provided, That 
     notwithstanding section 2003(c) of such Act, as amended, the 
     amount specified for allocation under such section for fiscal 
     year 1998 shall be $2,245,000,000.

                             Point of Order

  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the social 
services block grant provision in title II of the bill on the grounds 
that it violates clause 2(b) of rule XXI of the rules of the House.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of 
order.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, clause 2(b) of rule XXI states that no 
provision changing existing law shall be reported in any general 
appropriation bill. Specifically, in the social services block grant 
provision of title II of the bill, the amount to which States are 
entitled under section 2003(c), beginning on line 24 of page 41 of the 
Social Security Act, is reduced from $2,380 million to $2,245 million. 
This change of authority over the entitlement amount falls under the 
jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means and clearly violates 
rule XXI 2(b), which prohibits legislating on an appropriations bill. 
Therefore, the point of order applies, and I urge the Chair to sustain 
the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does any other Member wish to be heard on 
the point of order?
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, we concede the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The point of order is conceded and 
sustained. The provision is stricken.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


    children and families services programs (including rescissions)

       For carrying out, except as otherwise provided, the Runaway 
     and Homeless Youth Act, the Developmental Disabilities 
     Assistance and Bill of Rights Act, the Head Start Act, the 
     Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, the Native American 
     Programs Act of 1974, title II of Public Law 95-266 (adoption 
     opportunities), the Abandoned Infants Assistance Act of 1988, 
     part B(1) of title IV and sections 413, 429A and 1110 of the 
     Social Security Act; for making payments under the Community 
     Services Block Grant Act; and for necessary administrative 
     expenses to carry out said Acts and titles I, IV, X, XI, XIV, 
     XVI, and XX of the Social Security Act, the Act of July 5, 
     1960 (24 U.S.C. ch. 9), the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act 
     of 1981, title IV of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 
     1981, title IV of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 
     section 501 of the Refugee Education Assistance Act of 1980, 
     and section 126 and titles IV and V of Public Law 100-485, 
     $5,565,217,000, of which $537,165,000 shall be for making 
     payments under the Community Services Block Grant Act: 
     Provided, That to the extent Community Services Block Grant 
     funds are distributed as grant funds by a State to an 
     eligible entity as provided under the Act, and have not been 
     expended by such entity, they shall remain with such entity 
     for carryover into the next fiscal year for expenditure by 
     such entity consistent with program purposes.
       In addition, $99,000,000, to be derived from the Violent 
     Crime Reduction Trust Fund, for carrying out sections 40155, 
     40211 and 40241 of Public Law 103-322.
       Funds appropriated for fiscal year 1998 under section 
     429A(e), part B of title IV of the Social Security Act shall 
     be reduced by $6,000,000.
       Funds appropriated for fiscal year 1998 under section 
     413(h)(1) of the Social Security Act shall be reduced by 
     $15,000,000.


                    family preservation and support

       For carrying out section 430 of the Social Security Act, 
     $255,000,000.


       payments to states for foster care and adoption assistance

       For making payments to States or other non-Federal 
     entities, under title IV-E of the Social Security Act, 
     $3,200,000,000.
       For making payments to States or other non-Federal 
     entities, under title IV-E of the Social Security Act, for 
     the first quarter of fiscal year 1999, $1,157,500,000.

                        Administration on Aging


                        aging services programs

       For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided, the 
     Older Americans Act of 1965, as amended, $810,545,000: 
     Provided, That notwithstanding section 308(b)(1) of such Act, 
     the amounts available to each State for administration of the 
     State plan under title III of such Act shall be reduced not 
     more than 5 percent below the amount that was available to 
     such State for such purpose for fiscal year 1995.

                        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, $159,636,000, together with $5,851,000, 
     to be transferred and expended as authorized by section 
     201(g)(1) of the Social Security Act from the Hospital 
     Insurance Trust Fund and the Supplemental Medical Insurance 
     Trust Fund.


                      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, $31,921,000.


           Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. Burton of Indiana

  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. 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. Burton of Indiana:
       Page 44, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(decreased by $1,000,000)''.
       Page 73, line 15, after the first dollar amount, insert the 
     following ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.

  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, this is a noncontroversial 
amendment, I believe. My cosponsor is the gentlewoman from Colorado 
[Ms. DeGette].

                              {time}  1415

  This regards the We The People program, and the goal of the We The 
People Program is the most fundamental of American purposes, the 
perpetuation of American democracy. The We The People Program is 
conducted across our Nation in elementary, middle, and high schools, 
preparing students to take their civic obligations very seriously.
  The program's material grounds students in the basic text of American 
democracy, including the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, 
the Bill of Rights, and the Federalist Papers, and follow the 
development of American constitutional principles throughout our 
Nation's history.
  Since its inception 9 years ago, more than 22.6 million students have 
studied and benefited from the We The People Program, and at least 
70,000 teachers have utilized their materials. The $5.5 million funding 
level provided for in this amendment was originally proposed in the 
President's budget and

[[Page H7041]]

was supported by 62 Members from 32 States that signed a letter to the 
gentleman from Louisiana, Chairman Livingston, supporting the $5.5 
million level.
  Members other than myself who have testified on behalf of this 
program include the gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy], the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas], the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. 
Bachus], the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Neal], and the gentleman 
from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton].
  Every Federal dollar for this worthy program secures at least $10 in 
matching support from the private sector. There is a 10 to 1 ratio from 
the private sector for this program.
  The CBO has scored this amendment as revenue neutral or negative. 
This is offset by a transfer of funds from another area on page 44, 
line 24, where we are decreasing the amount by $1 million and adding $1 
million after the first dollar amount on page 73, line 15.
  Mr. Chairman, we believe this is a worthwhile project. It is one that 
everybody in the country I think would support, almost without 
exception. Young people today really need to know about the 
Constitution. They really need to understand what the Federalist Papers 
were all about. They need to understand the Bill of Rights. This 
program shows by its history that it is very worthwhile and benefits 
everybody in this country, but particularly our young people.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to urge my colleagues to support the Burton-
DeGette amendment, and I want to thank the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
Burton] for his support and efforts on behalf of We The People. I can 
think of no better lesson for the students of this country than the 
value of bipartisanship where we can find it, and this amendment is a 
great example in this regard.
  I know firsthand how well this program works, because there is a high 
school back in my district in Denver, East High School, whose students 
have done extraordinarily well in the We The People competitions over 
the last decade. East High School has been among the top 10 finalists 
seven times in the last 9 years, and they won the competition in 1992. 
This year they came to Washington once again and won honorable mention 
by placing in the top seven of the national competition.
  I know about East High School's great achievements because for 
several years in the early 1990's I was a volunteer coach for the East 
High School Bill of Rights team, and I will tell you that these high 
school students, even though I was a practicing attorney, often knew a 
lot more about the Bill of Rights as a result of the We The People 
program than I did. So I am a strong proponent of this program, and I 
believe that not only should it be continued at the high school level, 
but extended to junior high schools as well.
  Mr. Chairman, a lot of times we as policymakers all ask ourselves the 
question, how do you solve the problem of a disenchanted and cynical 
electorate? I do not think there is a magical solution, but I think 
programs like We The People come very close to providing as good a 
remedy as we will ever get.
  In an era where political ambivalence, voter apathy, and distrust of 
government characterizes too many of our constituents, it is essential 
that we should support a program for high school and junior high school 
students to learn about their government and learn how important 
players they can be.
  The $1 million in the Burton-DeGette amendment provided to We The 
People will allow it to expand its Project Citizen Program designed for 
students in grades 6 through 9, the optimum age, according to 
researchers, for building student interest in civic life and politics.
  Project Citizen calls on students to work together on a class project 
to identify and study a public policy issue of particular interest to 
them. Project Citizen focuses students' attention on behalf of State 
and local governments, which are often neglected in civics courses and 
textbooks, even though they are the levels of government most often 
utilized and immediately affecting the lives of citizens.
  The increased funding will be used to fully implement the Project 
Citizen Program in all 50 States and help it become as quality a civic 
education program for middle school students as the We The People 
Program is for the high school students.
  When we first started working on this program at East High School, 
very few schools actually participated. In the 10 years since the 
program began, though, over 75,000 teachers have implemented the We The 
People Program in the classroom. I think that this growth in 10 years 
speaks for itself about the success of the program. This program, I 
believe, can really change attitudes toward government and toward what 
government can do in our society.
  Mr. Chairman, for those reasons, I really again applaud my colleague 
from Indiana [Mr. Burton] for offering this amendment with me, and urge 
my colleagues to accept the Burton-DeGette amendment.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. DeGETTE. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, we accept the amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. DeGETTE. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, on this side we also accept the amendment.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentlewoman from Colorado [Ms. 
DeGette] and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] for offering this 
amendment. This program is a valued program, and it does teach children 
about the Bill of Rights and about our civic system of government in 
this United States.
  I must also say that I think the same students studying the 
Government would be surprised to find out that here in the people's 
House, we are unable to get an issue as important to the electoral 
process and to the participation of the American people within the 
electoral process, a matter of campaign finance reform, scheduled in 
the House of Representatives.
  These very same people who are studying about the Bill of Rights and 
the Constitution of the United States and guaranteeing one man-one 
vote, a fundamental finding of the Supreme Court, will find out that it 
is not one man-one vote, not one person-one vote, but it becomes 
something other than that when you engage in the soft money 
exploitations of the campaign laws of this country.
  We are witnessing hearings now that continue to discover the 
overwhelming amounts of soft money that have been plowed into 
campaigns, some disclosed, which we are finding about; unfortunately, 
much of it not disclosed, that we have not yet found out about, soft 
money that has flowed to both parties, that dramatically amplifies the 
voice of those individuals giving soft money to both parties, entities 
such as the Philip Morris Co., R.J. Nabisco, Federal Home Loan, Union 
Pacific, Southern Pacific, Atlantic Richfield, Walt Disney, Chevron, 
Coca Cola, Boeing, AT&T, the telecommunications corporation, and 
Anheuser-Busch. The list goes on and on and on.
  What it adds up is millions and millions of dollars that have been 
funneled to each party, to overwhelm the basic limitations that we have 
in this system to try to make sure that individuals can participate 
with meaning in the election of Members of the House of 
Representatives.
  So while I strongly support this amendment and this program, and I 
commend the authors of this amendment for bringing it to the floor, I 
think that we ought to fully understand that it is not all as these 
young people will study.
  The hard-ball realities of politics is that there is a filibuster 
going on in this House against bringing campaign finance reform to the 
floor of the House so the body can work its will, so we can have 
competing proposals on the floor, so hopefully we can get rid of the 
soft money that has become sewer money, that is undermining the 
processes in this House, that is undermining our electorial process, 
and, in fact, caused people to stay away from the elections in this 
country because they do not believe that their vote counts, they do not 
believe that their voice matters, they believe that the big special 
interests are those who win day in and day out.

[[Page H7042]]

  It is very hard to argue against the public on that matter, because 
the fact of the matter is that the big special interests are engaged in 
both parties. They are betting on both black and red. If they were at 
the roulette table, they cannot lose. They cannot lose.
  The fact of the matter is it ought not to be allowed to continue, and 
we ought to have the right in this House before we get out of this 
House this year, in this month of September, we ought to be able to 
have a free and open debate on campaign finance reform. But we are not 
able to have that.
  Therefore, continuing the process against the actions of the 
Republican leadership here to bottle up campaign finance reform, I will 
be asking for a vote on this amendment, and I encourage Members to 
support this worthy amendment dealing with the program of We The 
People.
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the Burton-DeGette 
amendment to increase funding for civic education by $1 million, from 
$4.5 million to $5.5 million. The ``We the People * * * Citizens and 
the Constitution'' civic education program is a proven educational 
program which provides teacher training and resources with the goal of 
preparing elementary, middle, and high school students to become 
contributing members of the American civic culture. The program focuses 
on the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights and fosters civic 
competence and responsibility among students.
  The ``We the People * * * Citizens and the Constitution'' civic 
education program has been especially successful in my district. This 
year students from Lincoln High School in Portland, OR placed third in 
the national competition, and last year Lincoln High placed first in 
the country. It is an honor to represent these hardworking students and 
to support continued investment in this program.
  The ``We the People * * *'' program provides an excellent opportunity 
for students to gain an informed perspective on the significance of the 
U.S. Constitution and its place in our history and our lives. I urge my 
colleagues to support the Burton-Gette amendment and continue the 
expansion and success of civic education for our children.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and 
pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Evidently, a quorum is not present.
  Does the gentleman from California insist on his point of no quorum?
  Mr. MILLER of California. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 2, rule XXIII, the Chair 
will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within which a 
vote by electronic device, if ordered, will be taken on the pending 
question following the quorum call. Members will record their presence 
by electronic device.
  The call was taken by electronic device.
  The following Members responded to their names:

                             [Roll No. 375]

                       ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--409

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Paxon
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1443

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Four hundred nine Members have answered to 
their name, a quorum is present, and the Committee will resume its 
business.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand of the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] for a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 417, 
noes 3, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 376]

                               AYES--417

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello

[[Page H7043]]


     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Paxon
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--3

     Bass
     Ensign
     Thomas

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Becerra
     Berry
     Boehner
     Carson
     Dellums
     Gonzalez
     Hilliard
     Owens
     Schiff
     Serrano
     Smith, Linda
     Torres
     Towns

                              {time}  1453

  Messrs. THOMAS, BASS, and ENSIGN changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                Announcement by the Chairman pro tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Bereuter). The Chair will advise 
Members that their failure to be in the Chamber in a timely fashion is 
delaying the proceeding of the Committee, and the Chair requests their 
cooperation.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                        office for civil rights

       For expenses necessary for the Office for Civil Rights, 
     $16,345,000, together with not to exceed $3,314,000, to be 
     transferred and expended as authorized by section 201(g)(1) 
     of the Social Security Act from the Hospital Insurance Trust 
     Fund and the Supplemental Medical Insurance Trust Fund.


                            policy research

       For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided, 
     research studies under section 1110 of the Social Security 
     Act, $14,000,000.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Souder

  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

  Amendment offered by Mr. Souder:
       Page 45, after line 11, insert the following:

                          Revision of Amounts

       The amounts otherwise provided by this title are revised by 
     reducing the amount made available for ``Health Resources and 
     Services Administration--Health Resources and Services'' (and 
     the amount specified under such heading for the program under 
     title X of the Public Health Service Act to provide for 
     voluntary family planning projects), and increasing the 
     amount made available for ``National Institutes of Health--
     National Cancer Institute'', by $40,690,000 and $36,000,000, 
     respectively.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order that the amendment 
violates clause 2, rule XXI. The Congress cannot, through a reachback 
amendment, add funding to an unauthorized account. And when the 
Congress itself periodically authorizes legislation, they vacate the 
generic authorizations, and it seems to me under these circumstances 
that the amendment is out of order.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
Souder] wish to be recognized on the point of order?
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I believe that the amendment is germane. I 
understand the concern. I would like to address the House on the point 
of order.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman may be heard on the point of 
order.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, the question of the point of order goes 
back to our earlier discussion, which was there was a group of 
amendments that we intended to offer at an earlier point, and when one 
failed, several failed. We have tried to craft an amendment that we 
felt would be in order by inserting a different section.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment would move funds from title X over to the 
National Cancer Institute for breast cancer research. I am disappointed 
because, as we tried to search through, it was not completely clear as 
to whether it would be able to withstand a point of order. I am 
terribly disappointed that the minority party would object and exercise 
this point of order to stop us from moving funds to breast cancer and 
from title X.

                              {time}  1500

  I am disappointed because I think we have tried to work together 
through this bill and we have tried to recraft the amendment to make it 
in order.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Bereuter). Are there other Members who 
wish to be heard on the point of order?
  If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  Under the precedents of July 12, 1995, as recorded in House Practice 
at page 142, and July 16, 1997, an amendment adding matter at the 
pending portion of the bill to effect an indirect increase in an 
unauthorized amount permitted to remain in a portion of the bill 
already passed in the reading is not ``merely perfecting'' for purposes 
of clause 2(a) of rule XXI.
  The Chair is not aware of an authorization of appropriations for the 
National Cancer Institute beyond fiscal year 1996, 42 U.S.C. 285a-8.
  The Chair finds that appropriations for the National Cancer Institute 
have been the subject of periodic authorization as first cited in 
section 417(B) of the Public Health Services Act. Consequently, 
reliance on organic law as the source of authorization is no longer 
well placed.
  Because the most current statutory authorization lapsed with the 
fiscal year 1996, the proposal to appropriate

[[Page H7044]]

for the National Cancer Institute is not authorized.
  The point of order is sustained.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Coburn

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Coburn:
       Page 45, after line 11, insert the following:

                          Revision of Amounts

       The amounts otherwise provided by this title are revised by 
     increasing the amount made available for ``Health Resources 
     and Services Administration--Health Resources and Services'' 
     (and the amount specified under such heading for State AIDS 
     Drug Assistance Programs authorized by section 2616 of the 
     Public Health Service Act), reducing the amount made 
     available for ``Agency for Health Care Policy and Research--
     Health Care Policy and Research'', reducing the amount made 
     available for ``Administration for Children and Families--
     Refugee and Entrant Assistance'', reducing the amount made 
     available for ``Office of the Secretary--General Departmental 
     Management'' from general Federal funds, and reducing the 
     amount made available for ``Office of the Secretary--Policy 
     Research'', by $34,868,000, $2,338,000, $22,668,000, 
     $4,812,000, and $5,000,000, respectively.

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] 
reserves a point of order.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn].
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would shift $35 million from 
various programs that have been funded above the President's request, 
programs that have been funded above the President's request in the 
State AIDS drug assistance programs. The funds would be redirected 
primarily from administrative accounts that do not directly benefit 
people into an ADAP program which directly benefits hundreds of 
thousands of people infected with HIV.
  As assistance to those who have HIV, this program provides medicine 
for lower income, uninsured individuals who are HIV positive but do not 
qualify for Medicaid. Pressures on the State ADAP groups have led 35 
States to implement emergency measures in the last year leaving 23 
States to cut patients or restrict their access to medically necessary 
drugs in fiscal 1997.
  In 1996, for the first time in the history of the HIV epidemic, AIDS 
deaths declined. They declined because of triple drug therapy. 
Unfortunately, that decline was not manifested or recognized in women. 
AIDS deaths actually increased. Unfortunately, that decline was not 
recognized in minority populations or in children. Those deaths 
actually increased.
  What this amendment is designed to do, although the chairman of this 
committee has worked hard to increase the funding, there will still be 
between 30,000 and 70,000 Americans who are HIV infected, who are 
uninsured and low income, who will not have availability of these 
drugs.
  When I am in Oklahoma, at least once a month I work in a free clinic. 
Routinely we cannot have available funds through ADAP for people with 
HIV to receive triple drug therapy. Does this solve all the problem? 
No. The moneys that are taken for this program are coming from moneys 
that have been appropriated above what the President of the United 
States requested for the various areas which it has been taken and are 
moved to help those people who otherwise will not have an opportunity 
to have this drug therapy.
  I said earlier, if this was any other disease other than HIV, where a 
million people were infected and did not know they were, where 350,000 
Americans have died and another 350,000 are living with AIDS, there 
would be no question that this body would fund medicines for every one 
of them. To oppose this amendment on the basis of saying we have done 
enough is not a good enough answer to the people in Oklahoma, to the 
people in New York, to the people in Florida who do not have this 
therapy. They deserve to have this therapy, regardless of how they 
contracted this disease. It can prolong their life. It can vastly 
improve the quality of their life.
  Let us talk about where this money comes from: $2 million comes from 
the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research overhead associated with 
that; refugee and entrance assistance, $22 million comes from that. Do 
we have more of an obligation to those coming into our country than we 
have to our citizens born here and infected with this virus that we are 
not going to have available drugs for?
  Finally, it comes from the Office of the Secretary of Health and 
Human Services, General Department, Management and Policy Research, a 
total of almost $10 million.
  I would ask this body to consider this question: If you had a friend 
who could not afford to spend the $6,000 to $7,000 a year to buy these 
drugs and we are spending money in other areas in this bill, we are 
increasing bureaucratic overhead, we are increasing salaries of 
bureaucrats while those, the poorest of the poor, those with the 
inability to pay for themselves are dying because we choose not to fund 
this appropriately.
  Mr. Chairman, had I been able to find moneys, other moneys funded 
above the President's request, this request would have been much 
larger. And it breaks my heart that we cannot find the moneys to take 
care of the people in this country that have this dreaded disease.
  I beg this House to support this amendment, to not listen to the AIDS 
action groups who want to continue to fund their programs as long as 
their little group is funded when those who are of minority status, 
when those who are women who have done nothing to contract this disease 
do not have available to them a way to have this disease treated.
  We all hope some day for a cure for this disease. We do not have a 
cure. But we certainly have a way to buy time for those that cannot 
afford these medicines.
  I beg the Members of this body to not say we have done enough. We 
have not done enough. Tell that to the first person who is not going to 
get this treatment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. 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.
  Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Could I ask the gentleman from Oklahoma a question. Does he represent 
Okmulgee?
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman; will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. COBURN. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me say, I was born in the gentleman's 
district. I was born in Okmulgee.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I knew the gentleman had redeeming 
qualities.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, my father was the only man in America who 
moved to Oklahoma during the Depression to get a job. I was born there 
by accident.
  I would simply say that I do not think the folks in Okmulgee would 
vote for this amendment if they fully understood it.
  This bill already increases funding for AIDS drugs from $167 to $299 
million. That is an increase of 79 percent. Last year, this committee 
also increased funding for this program by $117 million. That means 
that this committee in 2 years time, under the leadership of the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] has raised this account from $50 
to $299 million. I would say that that is going a far piece to meet our 
responsibilities in this area.
  I would also point out that the area that the gentleman chooses to 
take the money from, the major area, is an especially savage source for 
his money. We had a major debate in this country last year on welfare 
reform. We, I think, properly cut back on the benefit levels that we 
were going to provide for immigrants. I do not think that our 
immigration policy ought to be used as a substitute for an 
international welfare policy.
  But refugees are a far different matter. Refugees come to this 
country, whether they came to this country because they were Russian 
Jews escaping the Soviet Union or whether they came to this country 
because they were Hmong refugees who fought and bled and died to help 
our GI's in Vietnam and in Laos and lost their country because of it.
  When those refugees come to this country, they come to this country 
not because a local government or a State government has asked them to 
but because the Federal Government has told them to come.

[[Page H7045]]

  We have cut back aid to refugees when they come to this country from 
the first 36 months that they live here to 8 months. The gentleman's 
amendment would cut that back some more.
  I want to talk to my colleagues for a moment about one group of 
refugees who I do not think we should be savaging by the gentleman's 
amendment. That is the Hmong. That is spelled H-m-o-n-g. They were 
known as the Montagnards in earlier times. They were used by the CIA as 
operatives during the Vietnam war and as secret battlefield allies in 
our secret Laos campaign.
  They made great personal sacrifices for this country, including the 
loss of their homes and the loss of their lives to assist our country. 
They rescued downed Americans pilots. They sabotaged the Ho Chi Minh 
Trail at our request. They guarded high-technology mountaintop 
navigational facilities in Laos at our request, which allowed all-
weather air strikes against North Vietnam. And they fought as ground 
troops for 10 years to reduce the opportunity for the North Vietnamese 
to fight Americans in South Vietnam.
  Ten percent of their entire population died as a result, including 
women and children and the elderly. And they lost their homeland to 
Communist forces. They were forced to live in refugee camps, some of 
them for many years. Some of them are just now, after that long 
agonizing period of time, finally coming to the United States. Those 
refugees should not be dumped on to the shoulders of local property 
taxpayers or State governments. Gov. Pete Wilson is correct when he 
objects to the fact that the United States makes immigration and 
refugee policy and then dumps the consequences on States and local 
taxpayers.
  The United States for very good reasons determined that these Hmong 
refugees had sacrificed their all.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin 
[Mr. Obey] has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Obey was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, they sacrificed their all on behalf of 
America's troops in Vietnam, America's pilots in Vietnam and Laos. Now 
the reward that they would get under this amendment is to have scaled 
back further the benefits which some of these folks get in return for 
the favors they did to the United States.

                              {time}  1515

  I think that that action on our part would be unconscionable, and so 
I would ask the gentleman to recognize that the source of his money is 
wrong; and in my view, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] has 
already more than amply funded the account into which he wants to put 
the money, and I would ask on a bipartisan basis that we reject the 
amendment.
  Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin is correct, the chairman of this 
subcommittee has done an unbelievable job of trying to raise the 
funding of what is a very, very crucial health issue in this country, 
and I commend the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] for his work and 
I commend the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] for, in fact, his 
work also.
  But when we are faced with the reality that there are 1,000 new 
patients utilizing ADAP per month, then, quite honestly, the growth 
that we have was not quite enough.
  The chairman was very responsive to the request of a number of 
Members for a specific amount, and as this year has gone on, and this 
process, quite honestly, we realize that it is not enough; that as 
States, 35 as the gentleman from Oklahoma has stated, start putting 
conditions on those who quite frankly will die without this potential 
treatment that will not cure them, but it will slow the growth of the 
disease until possibly we can find a cure, then in fact the gentleman 
from Wisconsin is right, to some degree we are prioritizing where the 
American people's money is spent.
  Prioritizing it when we take it away from bureaucrats in Washington 
is a relatively easy thing; where we give a benefit to some and not to 
others, that becomes much tougher. Hopefully, Congress will see in the 
future that if we eliminate more bureaucrats, we do not have to make 
choices between those who get and those who do not.
  But, in fact, we have a very distinct population that we know are 
sick, that in fact the population that is affected is shifting from 
predominantly males now to women and infants, to those that we are 
going to be emotionally tied to in the future; that their hope for life 
is on our ability to recognize the progresses of science and of 
medicine and to make sure that in fact no person who is sick is 
deprived of a way to access that medicine.
  We will have individuals in this country without additional funding 
for ADAP that will fall through the cracks. They will not and cannot be 
recognized for Medicaid payments. And in fact, 16 States instituted 
waiting lists for access to certain protease inhibitors. Thirteen 
States have capped ADAP enrollment. Fifteen States capped or restricted 
access to protease inhibitors. Eleven States reduced the numbers of 
drugs covered by ADAP.
  To my colleagues on the floor, I would only say there is a wrong 
trend. For those of us who have to deal with health issues, the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] and others on the minority 
side have worked tirelessly to make sure that the concerns and the real 
health problems of many in this country have been addressed. And they 
are not limited just to those with HIV; they span across party lines.
  And I would suggest to my colleagues this has no party affiliation; 
this is an issue about health. My only concern is that for those 
patients, be it those with HIV or others who have visited my office 
this year, who will not be back next year because we have stymied the 
development of new drugs or because we have underfunded those that we 
have, will in fact be the losers, not those of us here, not the 
American taxpayer. In fact, the loser is the one who we could not get 
the treatment to.
  This is about treatment, it is about compassion, it is about 
prioritizing where the Federal dollars are spent.
  I am confident that this body will in fact make the right decision 
and increase this funding even more so that in fact those who are most 
at risk will receive the benefit they are due.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise with a great deal of sorrow to speak against 
this amendment because despite the perhaps good intentions of our 
colleague, the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn], for offering it, 
it smacks of so much cynicism that I oppose it very, very sadly.
  It seems that for the first half of the week, or beginning last 
Friday, the Republican majority decided to exploit the good intentions 
of the American people and the attitude of the American people toward 
disabled children in order to have a political advantage for the 
Republicans. And now they are trying to exploit the appropriate 
sentiment that the American people have for people with AIDS by 
introducing this most unproductive amendment.
  As I say, perhaps the maker of the motion and those who support it 
come to the table with good intentions, but the appearance of this 
amendment is one that really does violence to all of the hard work that 
has been done by our chairman, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Porter], by our ranking member the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], 
and so many people who have worked so very hard to increase the funding 
for AIDS prevention, research and care and nondiscrimination against 
people with HIV/AIDS.
  As has been indicated by our ranking member, the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Porter] has increased the funding in this bill for AIDS 
and ADAP, ADAP is AIDS Drugs Assistance Program, by over $132 million. 
Is that enough? No. Do we need more? Yes. But that is an issue that 
should have been taken up in the budget talks, when we were giving tax 
breaks to the wealthiest people in America and funding defense programs 
without question, instead of going into what I call our lamb-eat-lamb 
bill of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education.
  So that instead of trying to grandstand on the misery of people with 
HIV and AIDS, we could be increasing the funding without having it come 
at the expense of women's health, which is

[[Page H7046]]

cut in this amendment. Women's health which saw a significant increase 
in fiscal year 1997 funding could suffer reductions in programs 
encouraged by the subcommittee, including National Centers of 
Excellence in Women's Health, implementation of the National Women's 
Health Information Center and the Missiles to Mammogram program. Or 
reductions in minority health, which would adversely impact a variety 
of programs aimed at improving the health status of disadvantaged 
populations.
  And the list goes on and on. As we cut the administration of the 
Secretary's office, we decrease the ability of the Department to meet 
the needs of the people of our country.
  But do not only take my word for it. Those people who are in the 
trenches every single day, helping to meet the needs of people with 
HIV/AIDS, for example, AIDS Action, on behalf of 2,000 community-based 
organizations which they represent, urge opposition to the amendment. 
And they say, ``Although additional funds for ADAP is needed, the 
majority of the offsets for this amendment come at the expense of other 
important public health programs. Chairman Porter has carefully crafted 
a bill that addresses the entire AIDS portfolio. In the broadest 
context of AIDS health care services, this amendment would upset that 
delicate balance.''
  Or then we have a message from NAPWA. NAPWA is the National 
Association of People With AIDS. It does not represent groups, it 
represents individuals, and it opposes the amendment by saying, ``While 
new resources are desperately needed for the ADAP program, we should 
not have it at the expense of the needs of refugees or even the needs 
of the Federal agency that has to administer these funds.''
  Or the National Organization Responding to AIDS, NORA. NORA is a 
coalition of over 175 health, labor, religious, professional, and 
advocacy groups which collectively represent the broadest possible 
consensus of issues concerning HIV and AIDS policy legislation and 
funding. NORA opposes the amendment by saying, again, ``Although 
additional funding for ADAP is certainly needed, the offsets would come 
from other public health programs, such as health care for the 
homeless, migrant health centers and other health programs which serve 
vulnerable populations. The additional offsets from administrative and 
policy research accounts help ensure that scarce Federal resources are 
spent effectively, and they should not be kept back.''
  The organizations that day-to-day work with people with HIV/AIDS urge 
prevention programs advocate for more research and certainly advocate 
for more funding for the ADAP program, and all oppose the amendment of 
the gentleman from Oklahoma. I certainly welcome the opportunity to put 
forth on this floor at any chance we get, the fact that there is need 
for more funds or for ADAP, and certainly in conference and certainly 
at the end of the day we should have more funding, but not at the 
expense of women's health and not at the expense of minority health.
  I urge our colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Coburn amendment.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would simply say this in response to the gentlewoman 
from California, that the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] is the 
one who is in the trenches. Here is a man who understands what is going 
on with the AIDS epidemic in this country, and he has come to the floor 
today to pour out his heart and his soul to make sure that money is 
used for the people for whom the money has been intended. And I think 
it would be grossly unfair to say that the gentleman is exploiting the 
very people whom he is trying to help.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MANZULLO. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I think there are some very basic questions 
we have to ask in this country. We have an epidemic that involves well 
over 1 million people, almost one-half of 1 percent of our population.
  We talk about priorities, for example, how many Montagnards are going 
to come into the country this year? The funding level is $3 million 
above last year. I doubt that one new Montagnard will come into the 
country this year that the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] 
explained that that money was for. The fact is that this money will 
treat 6,000 people. It will prevent them from dying.
  Now, we hear that the AIDS Action Council and NAPWA and NORA oppose 
this. They are the groups that have the money. They do not have any 
problem because they are taking care of their groups. This is for money 
to go to States to buy drugs for those people who are not currently 
being served by any of these organizations. Yes; they are outside of 
it. They are the people that are the least advantaged in this program.
  The question I would like to ask is, Why is it not good enough to 
fund this for everyone who has HIV that cannot get treatment? I cannot 
use his name, because I am a doctor bound not to divulge, but I have a 
patient and he cannot get treated. The drug companies have been very 
beneficial in trying to get us medicines, so this young man, 27 years 
of age, is going to die in less than a year because he has moved from 
HIV to full-blown AIDS because he cannot, George cannot have the money 
because Oklahoma is out of money, because the money is not available 
for him to have it.
  Despite what we do for the hundreds of people that come in that have 
HIV, that do not have the material means to get it, the drugs, we do 
not have enough.
  To say that we are cynical and that we are exploiting the very people 
that we are trying to help, I have been a practicing physician for 15 
years, I have delivered babies, and one of my most favorite patients, 8 
years old, just died of AIDS. Her mother was HIV positive when she was 
born. We did everything to try to save her life.
  It sorrows me greatly that my intentions are questioned, that I would 
be accused of exploiting people, that my honor in terms of trying to 
correct this epidemic and the efforts that I have made, that my motives 
would be questioned.
  I think it is very unfortunate that a statement such as that is made 
on the floor of this body. Never have I accused anyone in this body who 
has, from their heart, tried to make changes in the laws of this 
country to help people, accused them of being exploitative. I think it 
leads us away from where we need to be.
  There are 1 million people with HIV in this country. We have an 
obligation in this epidemic to do everything to stem the tide, and that 
means treat these 6,000 people who presently do not have the medicine. 
That is all we are talking about, 6,000 lives that will not be here 
next year when we decide we need to get more money.
  Six thousand lives, give them a chance to live. Give them the same 
opportunity that somebody that is hooked in with NAPWA, that is hooked 
in with NORA, that is hooked in with some of the preexisting, set 
organizations.
  The fact is, there are a lot of people running out there that do not 
have that ability, do not have that access.

                              {time}  1530

  It is working well in the communities that have a large number of 
people with HIV. It is not working well in the communities that do not. 
In the States that are lower population, there are tons of people who 
are not getting treatment.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to stand again to thank the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Porter], our chairman, for working so hard in a 
bipartisan way to bring our committee together and the caucus together 
to support what I believe has been a very fair bill. Again, we have had 
a difficult time in this committee and we have for all the years I have 
been serving on it because we have to make a lot of tough choices. For 
those, the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn], I want to say with 
great respect to our colleague who has been working in the trenches and 
understands the pain and suffering out there, we understand it and our 
chairman understands it as we go through those difficult decisions. Our 
chairman has been

[[Page H7047]]

an extraordinarily supportive advocate, probably the most strongest 
advocate for the National Institutes of Health, working to prevent the 
scourge of AIDS, working to focus attention on research so we can 
finally end the pain and suffering.
  I would like to ask the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] as we 
are making these difficult decisions why on July 11, 1996 he voted for 
an across-the-board cut for the Labor-HHS appropriations bill. I want 
to remind the gentleman that the across-the-board cut had a definite 
negative impact on AIDS research and prevention, and as we fight to 
establish priorities, we have to be very careful that when we support 
an across-the-board cut as the gentleman did on July 11, 1996, this 
directly negatively affected the work that we are doing in that regard.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. LOWEY. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. I would be happy to answer that. I was involved in trying 
to get an across-the-board cut in every appropriations bill in 1996. 
The purpose for that is to try to control the spending so we could 
balance the budget. There is no question it affected priorities of mine 
just like it affected priorities of other people who voted on that. The 
decision that I made was simply, is it a more valiant effort to try to 
save money so we will have money to spend in something like this in the 
years to follow. The fact is we are going to steal another $300 or $500 
billion from our children over the next 5 years in this supposed 
balanced budget agreement.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Reclaiming my time, I just want to remind the gentleman 
again and my colleagues that as we work so hard to balance our 
priorities, across-the-board cuts can negatively impact the important 
work that the National Institutes of Health is doing and in providing 
for the invaluable dollars we need to buy these important drugs.
  I would just alert him that we welcome him as a supporter to these 
very important issues, and again I would urge my colleague to vote down 
this amendment because for those of us who care deeply about this 
issue, this again is a shameful and cynical way to deal with our 
priorities. I just want to remind the gentleman that that vote cost $12 
million in prevention money, $30 million in research and $20 million in 
care.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. LOWEY. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Let me simply remind 
once again that this committee in the past 2 years has already 
increased the account the gentleman wants to put money into from $50 
million to $299 million. He would seek to increase that money even more 
and he would seek to do so by gouging the refugee account, which is 
there to meet our obligations to refugees who have met their 
obligations of friendship to the United States. I would urge the defeat 
of the amendment.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I did not even know about this particular problem, or 
even the program until my staff brought it up, a program in which 
multiple drugs are applied to help people with AIDS, and that it is one 
of the most exciting measures that individuals have to keep life 
sustained. I would like to sincerely thank the gentleman from Wisconsin 
[Mr. Obey] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] for what they 
have done in this bill. It is a pretty well balanced bill. I sincerely 
would like to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], who in his 
opposition to this bill spoke clearly on the issue, went through any 
politics, and it was very well done. But, Mr. Chairman, the one thing 
that is probably the most disheartening portion of this entire body is 
where instead of going to the issues, we start throwing politics into 
it. Tax breaks for the rich, the gentlewoman from California brings up. 
When we take a look and we throw politics into it or if a Republican 
does something that is not caring, and if it is a Democrat that wants 
to go after AIDS money, then it is caring for the children. Well, this 
is. I think the gentleman has got an issue in which he believes in on 
an issue-oriented basis and he is fighting for it.
  When we take a look at education and the politics, being subcommittee 
chairman when they say the Republicans are cutting education. For 
example, the President wanted the direct lending program. It costs $5 
billion more a year, and we wanted to eliminate it but yet they said we 
are cutting education instead of talking to the issues.
  On this particular issue, there are certain areas in which I believe 
the Federal Government has got a direct responsibility. No, I do not 
think the Federal Government ought to give money for the National 
Endowment for the Arts. That is a difference in issue. But I do believe 
that where we have a function that is not a States rights issue, it is 
in medical research. States cannot do that. They do not have the 
wherewithal to do it. We give it to the universities to take care of 
problems like the gentleman is trying to take care of. When we talk 
about 6,000 people that are going to be helped by this amendment and 
their life is going to be sustained, to bring politics into it to me is 
one of the worst things. Either you believe in it or you do not. I 
happen to believe that the gentleman is well-intentioned.
  I am going to support the amendment. I really did not know how I was 
going to support on the issue, and I listened back and forth to the 
debate and I thought the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] gave a 
very convincing argument based on the issues and not on politics.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want 
to frame this issue for what it really is. We have a lot of money out 
there being spent for AIDS treatment, AIDS programs, for people with 
AIDS. But we do not have a lot of money out there for people who have 
HIV right now, who do not have AIDS yet. As a matter of fact, we do not 
even know who half a million of them are. The purpose of this amendment 
is for those people that we do know who they are. This is for 6,000 
people who know they have HIV, who cannot get drug treatment. That is 
what this is about.
  The contrast is we have a group that says we have done enough. How 
much is doing enough when somebody is going to die between now and next 
year? When 6,000 people are going to die? If this was not this epidemic 
that got such a tainted reputation from its start because it was 
associated with life-styles and it became associated with life-styles, 
this is a disease, it does not care if you are gay or straight, if you 
are a man or a woman, or what color your skin is, if you are a newborn 
baby or an older woman, it does not like us. To say we have done 
enough, that 6,000 people between now and this time next year are not 
going to get the drugs to prevent them from converting to full-blown 
AIDS, I think it is just regrettable. It is regrettable that we are 
going to use the argument, we are going to let the politics of AIDS 
guide what we do on this, the politics that allow an extra 500,000 
people to become infected, the politics that says we are not going to 
treat this as an epidemic and treat it in public health standing. We 
are not going to allow that to happen.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I worry that this debate is not really about increasing 
funding for AIDS patients, but instead it becomes a cynical attack on 
other very deserving programs. For one thing, how anybody could say 
that we on this side of the aisle are stating that this is enough, they 
do not know the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi]. Have my 
colleagues ever heard the gentlewoman from California say we have done 
enough for AIDS prevention, AIDS research, and AIDS care? Never. This 
is not what this is about. This is about taking one deserving program 
and pitting it against another for funding and, on emotional value, 
against other deserving programs.
  We know there is an AIDS epidemic. But let us talk about funding AIDS 
programs by cutting the B-2 bomber program, $2.2 billion for each B-2 
bomber that will not even fly in the

[[Page H7048]]

rain. Would that not be a good way to fund AIDS programs, AIDS 
research, AIDS care, and AIDS prevention?
  Let us talk about AIDS prevention. Why are we not talking about 
education and programs that teach our children about safe sex and about 
contraception? Why are we not talking about needle exchange programs so 
that we will prevent AIDS in the first place? Let us stop talking about 
pitting one deserving program against another. Refugees are deserving. 
Civil rights programs are deserving. Veterans are certainly deserving. 
AIDS patients need care, we need the research, and we need to take care 
of every single AIDS patient in America. This is America. We have 
enough. We could take care of every AIDS patient if we chose, and we 
could do it without pitting these funds against other deserving funding 
programs. We must have the will. That is what is missing. It appears 
that we do not have the will to take care of deserving people unless we 
take away from other deserving programs and other deserving 
populations.
  I say, Mr. Chairman, let us vote against this amendment and let us 
make sure we support all deserving programs and not pit one against the 
other.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. WOOLSEY. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for her very 
eloquent statement about the difficult choice that is presented.
  I do want to say though to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] 
that the issue between the House and the Senate on the amount of 
funding in the bill for the ADAP program is not resolved between the 
House and Senate. The Senate conference may present an opportunity for 
there to be more funding available from the defense budget to put into 
the ADAP program and I would hope, listening to his eloquent 
presentation about the need for more ADAP funds, that he would be an 
advocate with us for receiving that funding from transferring it from 
the defense budget for domestic priorities as is possibly suggested.
  Mr. COBURN. If the other gentlewoman from California might yield for 
a moment, first of all, I was one of the Republican conservatives who 
voted against the B-2 bomber, and I have every time. I would love to 
see that money.
  Ms. PELOSI. I did want the gentleman to also know that again, 
reiterating what the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey] said, that 
it was a blow to us when the gentleman voted for the across-the-board 
cut, over $50 million cut. Actually it adds up to $52 million. The 
exact amount of this amendment, he cut in an across-the-board cut last 
year. So when an amendment of this kind comes along proposed by someone 
who supported a cut of exactly this amount of money in prevention, 
research and care at the expense of minority health, women's health and 
other worthy programs within this piece of legislation, it raises 
questions.

                              {time}  1545

  Those questions can easily be answered when we go into conference or 
negotiate with the Senate about what our 602(b) allocation will be and 
the opportunity of funding coming from the defense budget to the 602(b) 
for this Labor-HHS bill. I would hope that the recognition of need will 
not go away. It will still be there.
  May I just say another thing. The gentleman said there is no help for 
people with HIV. ADAP drugs are administered to people with HIV, and, 
in fact, the best prospects are when people take these drugs earlier, 
because the immune system has not been as devastated as it would be in 
a person who has a more veteran case of AIDS or HIV.
  So, in any event, I hope the gentleman will be with us to take money 
from defense to meet this very important need that he calls to the 
attention of the body.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to state very simply that I support the 
amendment of the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Coburn]. It is a very 
easy thing to do. We are dealing with an area here of people's lives, 
and it is a simple matter of a ``yes'' on this vote saves 6,000 
American lives, and a ``no'' on this vote will not allow these people 
to be treated.
  I am very disappointed and disheartened that we cannot have an honest 
debate on a simple amendment without politicizing it when people are 
particularly trying to do good for the American people from the bottom 
of their heart. So I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
simply to help save these 6,000 lives and vote ``yes'' on this 
amendment.
  I do not take argument particularly with the gentleman from Wisconsin 
[Mr. Obey] about where the money comes from. I spent a year of my life 
in the Central Highlands and I knew a lot of Montagnards, and I can 
assure Members that I would want them to be treated with the greatest 
respect and care. But I am also fairly certain that it has been many 
years since the Montagnards tried to come back into the United States.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NORWOOD. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, the fact is that many of them are coming to 
the United States right now because those refugee camps have just been 
closed down. They are entering California, Minnesota, Wisconsin, 
thousands of them.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would ask the 
gentleman, how many thousands came into the country last year?
  Mr. OBEY. I do not know last year. Three thousand to four thousand 
will come in this year.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NORWOOD. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I think it is a great question. Are we 
going to support 3,000 to 4,000 Montagnards or are we going to allow 
6,000 people to have HIV drugs that will prevent them from having AIDS? 
That is a legitimate debate, I do not deny that.
  But the questions that were raised a moment ago that this money was 
taken from deserving programs, let us talk about where the money is 
coming from again. Almost $10 million from the Office of the Secretary, 
the General Department of Management and Policy Research. That is a 
good thing for Americans to spend their money on, while 6,000 people 
die?
  I agree that if this body thinks that that is what we should do, then 
that will be the will of the House. I do not believe that is what the 
minority party believes. They do not believe we ought to spend $10 
million additional, above what the President requested, on general 
policy research and general department management, instead of spending 
extra money to help people live with HIV and prevent them from dying.
  So we are really not contrasting deserving programs. We are talking 
about people who do not have available to them drugs, and, because they 
do not, they will not be with us a year from now.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not want to leave this body saying I voted to 
spend money on a bureaucrat and let 6,000 people die in the streets of 
this country from AIDS, when we could have prevented it. That is what 
the real debate is. The debate is about people with HIV and whether or 
not they ought to get help versus bureaucrats and the spending of the 
money on the government on things that will not impact someone's life.
  So, again, I would ask consideration for this. I would yield back to 
my friend from Georgia, [Mr. Norwood], and thank him for allowing me 
the time to speak.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] 
and others on our side of the aisle who have offered amendments that I 
am very flattered.
  They have offered to put money back into special education: A program 
we have increased by $1.1 billion over the last 2 years. They have 
offered to put money back into biomedical research: A program we have 
increased by $1.6 billion over the last 3 years. And here, Mr. 
Chairman, the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] wants to put

[[Page H7049]]

money into the Aids Drug Assistance Program [ADAP]: A program and 
account that we have increased 600 percent in the last 3 years, from 
$50 to $299 million.
  The President requested $167 million for the ADAP account. We thought 
that that was inadequate, and increased it by $132 million, 79 percent, 
to a total of $299 million. The funding level, however, is not a 
ceiling, it is a floor. Money can be spent for drugs under Ryan White, 
title I, the Big City Account; it can be spent under title II, the 
States Account; it can be and is spent under Medicaid.
  All of those sources make funding available for AIDS drugs. Members 
know very well that if we were actually short of money for protease 
inhibitors that would keep 6,000 people alive, we would come to the 
floor of the House and provide it in supplemental funds.
  Let me say to the gentleman, his amendment takes most of the money 
out of refugee resettlement. That program is an unfunded mandate upon 
the States and local communities. We will ultimately have to spend 
money for refugees under general assistance payments, exactly what we 
should not do.
  Refugees come in to the United States as a result of Federal 
policies. We ask the States to share in the cost of assimilating them, 
and now we are going to cut the amount of money that is available to 
them. We have already cut the program, I might say, from originally 
providing 36 months of assistance. We are now down to 8 months of 
assistance. All of those now uncovered costs are pushed over on the 
States and local communities. I think it is wrong to cut that account.
  The amendment also cuts HHS policy research by $5 million. That 
sounds good. The committee increased that program by $5 million for a 
very specific purpose, to fund an objective study of welfare reform 
outcomes by the National Academy of Sciences. We believe that such a 
study is very important for welfare reform. I think a rigorous 
evaluation of what is going on in this new program is critical for 
congressional oversight. I think it is money very well spent.
  You say that we are increasing funding for the Agency for Health Care 
Policy and Research. We are not. However, you would take out $2.4 
million. We provided a modest amount of funding for AHCPR at the 
request of our own authorizing committee chairmen.
  The gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] and the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Bilirakis] sent us a letter saying the President's request 
for AHCPR represents barely the minimum level of commitment needed for 
AHCPR to carry on its critical research activities. I believe, in fact, 
that the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] serves on that 
subcommittee that is chaired by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Bilirakis]. I am surprised the gentleman would propose to cut a program 
that the subcommittee chairman strongly supports.
  Mr. Chairman, in the end, I believe that we have done everything that 
we possibly can to provide funding for people who are HIV infected. We 
would never think of not providing the funding that is needed for 
protease inhibitors. We have provided everything in the bill that is 
necessary. There are additional funds available under title I, title 
II, and certainly under Medicaid.
  I think the gentleman's amendment is simply superfluous. But I would 
say to the gentleman, I am very flattered that he would like to 
increase an account that we have already increased by 600 percent.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PORTER. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I guess I would just like to inquire, is it 
the gentleman's belief that there are not people in our country today 
under the funding proposal we are putting forward who are not going to 
get treatment for HIV that cannot afford triple drug therapy?
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I believe we will do 
everything necessary to provide the funds that are needed for anyone 
that is HIV infected and is entitled to be served under Ryan White, and 
that we are providing funds, as I say, from at least four different 
sources for these drugs.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, 
according to the National ADAP monitoring project, there will be 
280,000 individuals eligible for this. The cost is $6,000. So what we 
are really talking about is we need well over $1 billion, if we are 
going to truly offer it to everyone that needs it.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Illinois 
[Mr. Porter] has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Coburn, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Porter was 
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. 
Coburn].
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, so the question that comes is, are there 
people that are going to be out there that are not going to have 
available treatment?
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Illinois, Chairman Porter has done a 
wonderful job in increasing this, there is no question. But I do not 
think we have gone far enough.
  I am willing to join with the other side to find further ways to fund 
it. If we could transfer money from the B-2 bomber to do this, I will 
vote for it. Unfortunately, as you all well know, we cannot do that.
  So I would say this is not cynical. This is not some sleight of hand. 
The fact is there are people out there that are not going to get 
treated, and we ought to rise to the occasion and do it.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, obviously, this 
amendment will cost States and localities $23 million in additional 
mandated costs for refugees. I think that this is our responsibility. 
As I said, if funding for AIDS is not sufficient through any of the 
four different accounts I mentioned, Members can be assured that we 
will do everything possible to provide it.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the amendment's defeat.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I will be brief and probably will not use all my time. 
I want to keep this whole thing brought back into perspective a little 
bit.
  I have been sitting listening to this debate for the last couple of 
days, talking about spending dollars here and spending dollars here and 
spending dollars here. I just want to remind everybody in this place 
that that is dollars that we are spending coming from the hard-working 
families out there in America. The institution we are in is going to 
collect those dollars out of the paychecks of hard-working families out 
there in America in order that they can spend those dollars on all the 
different programs.
  For all of my colleagues listening today, I want them all to remember 
and to understand that there are a lot of us here that have not 
forgotten that all of these dollars that they are talking about 
spending are coming from hard-working people out in America.
  We are very concerned when we see a spending increase in a particular 
bill of $5.2 billion, or 7 percent, in one portion of the budget. Many 
of us out here are concerned that the overall spending level is too 
high, but that is what was agreed to in the budget agreement, and that 
is what has brought on this debate about which programs the money 
should be spent on.
  Mr. Chairman, for my colleagues, I would like them all to know many 
of us are very, very concerned, and remember through all of these 
debates that this is the people's money that we are spending, and these 
dollars that they are talking about spending on various programs are 
coming from the people through their hard-earned work that are 
collected in taxes and brought out here to Washington, DC.
  Mr. Chairman, I just rise because we have been going on in these 
debates for quite some time, and it has all been about what we are 
going to spend the people's money on. We have not forgotten these are 
tax dollars collected from the people.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NEUMANN. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I think it is also well to remind ourselves 
that this bill in fiscal year 1996 carried the

[[Page H7050]]

greatest level of deficit reduction in the House of any piece of 
legislation; $9 billion in cuts on a $70 billion base. The reason that 
there is an increases in this year's bill of the magnitude the 
gentleman has just described is that this increase was part of an 
agreement between the majority and the minority, between the Congress 
and the White House. In that agreement the majority got tax cuts that 
it sought and restraints in entitlement increases in the future that it 
sought, in return for certain agreements to provide for priorities that 
the minority sought.
  So the reason that the allocation for this account is as high as it 
is, is simply because it is carrying out a balanced budget agreement. 
We are bringing this bill to the floor within the context of bringing 
the budget into balance, which is, I know, your No. 1 priority, but 
also for all the time I have been in Congress, my No. 1 priority.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I certainly respect 
the Chairman [Mr. Porter]. I did not rise to object to what the 
gentleman is doing, but rather, after listening to this debate about 
spending money so long out here, I felt it was time somebody stood up 
and reminded everyone this is the taxpayers' money being spent, and we 
are still very, very concerned about the level of spending.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 141, 
noes 282, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 377]

                               AYES--141

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Ewing
     Forbes
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Klink
     Largent
     Lewis (KY)
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Mica
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shuster
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Upton
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Wicker

                               NOES--282

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Campbell
     Capps
     Cardin
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Ney
     Northup
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Traficant
     Turner
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Carson
     Dellums
     Dickey
     Gonzalez
     Hilliard
     Owens
     Schiff
     Serrano
     Towns
     Velazquez

                              {time}  1619

  Messrs. RODRIGUEZ, GREENWOOD, HALL of Texas, MURTHA, BILIRAKIS, 
GUTKNECHT, WEYGAND, SAXTON, and INGLIS of South Carolina changed their 
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. HUNTER, CRAPO, GOSS, HUTCHINSON, and HILLEARY, and Ms. DUNN 
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder 
of title II be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to 
amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Bereuter). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the remainder of title II is as follows:

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 201. Funds appropriated in this title shall be 
     available for not to exceed $37,000 for official reception 
     and representation expenses when specifically approved by the 
     Secretary.
       Sec. 202. The Secretary shall make available through 
     assignment not more than 60 employees of the Public Health 
     Service to assist in child survival activities and to work in 
     AIDS programs through and with funds provided by the Agency 
     for International Development, the United Nations 
     International Children's Emergency Fund or the World Health 
     Organization.
       Sec. 203. None of the funds appropriated under this Act may 
     be used to implement section 399L(b) of the Public Health 
     Service Act or section 1503 of the National Institutes of 
     Health Revitalization Act of 1993, Public Law 103-43.
       Sec. 204. None of the funds appropriated in this Act for 
     the National Institutes of Health and the Substance Abuse and 
     Mental Health Services Administration shall be used to pay 
     the salary of an individual, through a grant or other 
     extramural mechanism, at a rate in excess of $125,000 per 
     year.
       Sec. 205. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be 
     expended pursuant to section 241 of the Public Health Service 
     Act, except for funds specifically provided for in this Act, 
     or for other taps and assessments made by any office located 
     in the Department of Health and Human Services, prior to the 
     Secretary's preparation and submission of a report to the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the Senate and of the House 
     detailing the planned uses of such funds.
       Sec. 206. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be 
     obligated or expended for the Federal Council on Aging under 
     the Older Americans Act or the Advisory Board

[[Page H7051]]

     on Child Abuse and Neglect under the Child Abuse Prevention 
     and Treatment Act.


                          (transfer of funds)

       Sec. 207. Not to exceed 1 percent of any discretionary 
     funds (pursuant to the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act, as amended) which are appropriated for the 
     current fiscal year for the Department of Health and Human 
     Services in this Act may be transferred between 
     appropriations, but no such appropriation shall be increased 
     by more than 3 percent by any such transfer: Provided, That 
     the Appropriations Committees of both Houses of Congress are 
     notified at least fifteen days in advance of any transfer.


                          (transfer of funds)

       Sec. 208. The Director of the National Institutes of 
     Health, jointly with the Director of the Office of AIDS 
     Research, may transfer up to 3 percent among institutes, 
     centers, and divisions from the total amounts identified by 
     these two Directors as funding for research pertaining to the 
     human immunodeficiency virus: Provided, That the Congress is 
     promptly notified of the transfer.


                          (transfer of funds)

       Sec. 209. Of the amounts made available in this Act for the 
     National Institutes of Health, the amount for research 
     related to the human immunodeficiency virus, as jointly 
     determined by the Director of NIH and the Director of the 
     Office of AIDS Research, shall be made available to the 
     ``Office of AIDS Research'' account. The Director of the 
     Office of AIDS Research shall transfer from such account 
     amounts necessary to carry out section 2353(d)(3) of the 
     Public Health Service Act.
       Sec. 210. Funds appropriated in this Act for the National 
     Institutes of Health may be used to provide transit subsidies 
     in amounts consistent with the transportation subsidy 
     programs authorized under section 629 of Public Law 101-509 
     to non-FTE bearing positions including trainees, visiting 
     fellows and volunteers.
       Sec. 211. (a) The Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     may in accordance with this section provide for the 
     relocation of the Federal facility known as the Gillis W. 
     Long Hansen's Disease Center (located in the vicinity of 
     Carville, in the State of Louisiana), including the 
     relocation of the patients of the Center.
       (b)(1) Subject to paragraph (2), in relocating the Center 
     the Secretary may on behalf of the United States transfer to 
     the State of Louisiana, without charge, title to the real 
     property and improvements that as of the date of the 
     enactment of this Act constitute the Center. Such real 
     property is a parcel consisting of approximately 330 acres. 
     The exact acreage and legal description used for purposes of 
     the transfer shall be in accordance with a survey 
     satisfactory to the Secretary.
       (2) Any conveyance under paragraph (1) is not effective 
     unless the deed or other instrument of conveyance contains 
     the conditions specified in subsection (d); the instrument 
     specifies that the United States and the State of Louisiana 
     agree to such conditions; and the instrument specifies that, 
     if the State engages in a material breach of the conditions, 
     title to the real property and improvements involved reverts 
     to the United States at the election of the Secretary.
       (c)(1) With respect to Federal equipment and other items of 
     Federal personal property that are in use at the Center as of 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary may, 
     subject to paragraph (2), transfer to the State such items as 
     the Secretary determines to be appropriate, if the Secretary 
     makes the transfer under subsection (b).
       (2) A transfer of equipment or other items may be made 
     under paragraph (1) only if the State agrees that, during the 
     30-year period beginning on the date on which the transfer 
     under subsection (b) is made, the items will be used 
     exclusively for purposes that promote the health or education 
     of the public, except that the Secretary may authorize such 
     exceptions as the Secretary determines to be appropriate.
       (d) For purposes of subsection (b)(2), the conditions 
     specified in this subsection with respect to a transfer of 
     title are the following:
       (1) During the 30-year period beginning on the date on 
     which the transfer is made, the real property and 
     improvements referred to in subsection (b)(1) (referred to in 
     this subsection as the ``transferred property'') will be used 
     exclusively for purposes that promote the health or education 
     of the public, with such incidental exceptions as the 
     Secretary may approve.
       (2) For purposes of monitoring the extent to which the 
     transferred property is being used in accordance with 
     paragraph (1), the Secretary will have access to such 
     documents as the Secretary determines to be necessary, and 
     the Secretary may require the advance approval of the 
     Secretary for such contracts, conveyances of real or personal 
     property, or other transactions as the Secretary determines 
     to be necessary.
       (3) The relocation of patients from the transferred 
     property will be completed not later than 3 years after the 
     date on which the transfer is made, except to the extent the 
     Secretary determines that relocating particular patients is 
     not feasible. During the period of relocation, the Secretary 
     will have unrestricted access to the transferred property, 
     and after such period will have such access as may be 
     necessary with respect to the patients who pursuant to the 
     preceding sentence are not relocated.
       (4)(A) With respect to projects to make repairs and energy-
     related improvements at the transferred property, the 
     Secretary will provide for the completion of all such 
     projects for which contracts have been awarded and 
     appropriations have been made as of the date on which the 
     transfer is made.
       (B) If upon completion of the projects referred to in 
     subparagraph (A) there are any unobligated balances of 
     amounts appropriated for the projects, and the sum of such 
     balances is in excess of $100,000--
       (i) the Secretary will transfer the amount of such excess 
     to the State; and
       (ii) the State will expend such amount for the purposes 
     referred to in paragraph (1), which may include the 
     renovation of facilities at the transferred property.
       (5)(A) The State will maintain the cemetery located on the 
     transferred property, will permit individuals who were long-
     term-care patients of the Center to be buried at the 
     cemetery, and will permit members of the public to visit the 
     cemetery.
       (B) The State will permit the Center to maintain a museum 
     on the transferred property, and will permit members of the 
     public to visit the museum.
       (C) In the case of any waste products stored at the 
     transferred property as of the date of the transfer, the 
     Federal Government will after the transfer retain title to 
     and responsibility for the products, and the State will not 
     require that the Federal Government remove the products from 
     the transferred property.
       (6) In the case of each individual who as of the date of 
     the enactment of this Act is a Federal employee at the 
     transferred property with facilities management or dietary 
     duties:
       (A) The State will offer the individual an employment 
     position with the State, the position with the State will 
     have duties similar to the duties the individual performed in 
     his or her most recent position at the transferred property, 
     and the position with the State will provide compensation and 
     benefits that are similar to the compensation and benefits 
     provided for such most recent position, subject to the 
     concurrence of the Governor of the State.
       (B) If the individual becomes an employee of the State 
     pursuant to subparagraph (A), the State will make payments in 
     accordance with subsection (e)(2)(B) (relating to 
     disability), as applicable with respect to the individual.
       (7) The Federal Government may, consistent with the 
     intended uses by the State of the transferred property, carry 
     out at such property activities regarding at-risk youth.
       (8) Such additional conditions as the Secretary determines 
     to be necessary to protect the interests of the United 
     States.
       (e)(1) This subsection applies if the transfer under 
     subsection (b) is made.
       (2) In the case of each individual who as of the date of 
     the enactment of this Act is a Federal employee at the Center 
     with facilities management or dietary duties, and who becomes 
     an employee of the State pursuant to subsection (d)(6)(A):
       (A) The provisions of subchapter III of chapter 83 of title 
     5, United States Code, or of chapter 84 of such title, 
     whichever are applicable, that relate to disability shall be 
     considered to remain in effect with respect to the individual 
     (subject to subparagraph (C)) until the earlier of--
       (i) the expiration of the 2-year period beginning on the 
     date on which the transfer under subsection (b) is made; or
       (ii) the date on which the individual first meets all 
     conditions for coverage under a State program for payments 
     during retirement by reason of disability.
       (B) The payments to be made by the State pursuant to 
     subsection (d)(6)(B) with respect to the individual are 
     payments to the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund, 
     if the individual is receiving Federal disability coverage 
     pursuant to subparagraph (A). Such payments are to be made in 
     a total amount equal to that portion of the normal-cost 
     percentage (determined through the use of dynamic 
     assumptions) of the basic pay of the individual that is 
     allocable to such coverage and is paid for service performed 
     during the period for which such coverage is in effect. Such 
     amount is to be determined in accordance with chapter 84 of 
     such title 5, is to be paid at such time and in such manner 
     as mutually agreed by the State and the Office of Personnel 
     Management, and is in lieu of individual or agency 
     contributions otherwise required.
       (C) In the determination pursuant to subparagraph (A) of 
     whether the individual is eligible for Federal disability 
     coverage (during the applicable period of time under such 
     subparagraph), service as an employee of the State after the 
     date of the transfer under subsection (b) shall be counted 
     toward the service requirement specified in the first 
     sentence of section 8337(a) or 8451(a)(1)(A) of such title 5 
     (whichever is applicable).
       (3) In the case of each individual who as of the date of 
     the enactment of this Act is a Federal employee with a 
     position at the Center and is, for duty at the Center, 
     receiving the pay differential under section 208(e) of the 
     Public Health Service Act or under section 5545(d) of title 
     5, United States Code:
       (A) If as of the date of the transfer under subsection (b) 
     the individual is eligible for an annuity under section 8336 
     or 8412 of title 5, United States Code, then once the 
     individual separates from the service and thereby becomes 
     entitled to receive the annuity, the

[[Page H7052]]

     pay differential shall be included in the computation of the 
     annuity if the individual separated from the service not 
     later than the expiration of the 90-day period beginning on 
     the date of the transfer.
       (B) If the individual is not eligible for such an annuity 
     as of the date of the transfer under subsection (b) but 
     subsequently does become eligible, then once the individual 
     separates from the service and thereby becomes entitled to 
     receive the annuity, the pay differential shall be included 
     in the computation of the annuity if the individual separated 
     from the service not later than the expiration of the 90-day 
     period beginning on the date on which the individual first 
     became eligible for the annuity.
       (C) For purposes of this paragraph, the individual is 
     eligible for the annuity if the individual meets all 
     conditions under such section 8336 or 8412 to be entitled to 
     the annuity, except the condition that the individual be 
     separated from the service.
       (4) With respect to individuals who as of the date of the 
     enactment of this Act are Federal employees with positions at 
     the Center and are not, for duty at the center, receiving the 
     pay differential under section 208(e) of the Public Health 
     Service Act or under section 5545(d) of title 5, United 
     States Code:
       (A) During the calendar years 1997 and 1998, the Secretary 
     may in accordance with this paragraph provide to any such 
     individual a voluntary separation incentive payment. The 
     purpose of such payments is to avoid or minimize the need for 
     involuntary separations under a reduction in force with 
     respect to the Center.
       (B) During calendar year 1997, any payment under 
     subparagraph (A) shall be made under section 663 of the 
     Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government 
     Appropriations Act, 1997 (as contained in section 101(f) of 
     division A of Public Law 104-208), except that, for purposes 
     of this subparagraph, subsection (b) of such section 663 does 
     not apply.
       (C) During calendar year 1998, such section 663 applies 
     with respect to payments under subparagraph (A) to the same 
     extent and in the same manner as such section applied with 
     respect to the payments during fiscal year 1997, and for 
     purposes of this subparagraph, the reference in subsection 
     (c)(2)(D) of such section 663 to December 31, 1997, is deemed 
     to be a reference to December 31, 1998.
       (f) The following provisions apply if under subsection (a) 
     the Secretary makes the decision to relocate the Center:
       (1) The site to which the Center is relocated shall be in 
     the vicinity of Baton Rouge, in the State of Louisiana.
       (2) The facility involved shall continue to be designated 
     as the Gillis W. Long Hansen's Disease Center.
       (3) The Secretary shall make reasonable efforts to inform 
     the patients of the Center with respect to the planning and 
     carrying out of the relocation.
       (4) In the case of each individual who as of October 1, 
     1996, was a patient of the Center and is considered by the 
     Director of the Center to be a long-term-care patient 
     (referred to in this subsection as an ``eligible patient''), 
     the Secretary shall continue to provide for the long-term 
     care of the eligible patient, without charge, for the 
     remainder of the life of the patient.
       (5)(A) For purposes of paragraph (4), an eligible patient 
     who is legally competent has the following options with 
     respect to support and maintenance and other nonmedical 
     expenses:
       (i) For the remainder of his or her life, the patient may 
     reside at the Center.
       (ii) For the remainder of his or her life, the patient may 
     receive payments each year at an annual rate of $33,000 
     (adjusted in accordance with subparagraphs (C) and (D)), and 
     may not reside at the Center. Payments under this clause are 
     in complete discharge of the obligation of the Federal 
     Government under paragraph (4) for support and maintenance 
     and other nonmedical expenses of the patient.
       (B) The choice by an eligible patient of the option under 
     clause (i) of subparagraph (A) may at any time be revoked by 
     the patient, and the patient may instead choose the option 
     under clause (ii) of such subparagraph. The choice by an 
     eligible patient of the option under such clause (ii) is 
     irrevocable.
       (C) Payments under subparagraph (A)(ii) shall be made on a 
     monthly basis, and shall be pro rated as applicable. In 1999 
     and each subsequent year, the monthly amount of such payments 
     shall be increased by a percentage equal to any percentage 
     increase taking effect under section 215(i) of the Social 
     Security Act (relating to a cost-of-living increase) for 
     benefits under title II of such Act (relating to Federal old-
     age, survivors, and disability insurance benefits). Any such 
     percentage increase in monthly payments under subparagraph 
     (A)(ii) shall take effect in the same month as the percentage 
     increase under such section 215(i) takes effect.
       (D) With respect to the provision of outpatient and 
     inpatient medical care for Hansen's disease and related 
     complications to an eligible patient:
       (i) The choice the patient makes under subparagraph (A) 
     does not affect the responsibility of the Secretary for 
     providing to the patient such care at or through the Center.
       (ii) If the patient chooses the option under subparagraph 
     (A)(ii) and receives inpatient care at or through the Center, 
     the Secretary may reduce the amount of payments under such 
     subparagraph, except to the extent that reimbursement for the 
     expenses of such care is available to the provider of the 
     care through the program under title XVIII of the Social 
     Security Act or the program under title XIX of such Act. Any 
     such reduction shall be made on the basis of the number of 
     days for which the patient received the inpatient care.
       (6) The Secretary shall provide to each eligible patient 
     such information and time as may be necessary for the patient 
     to make an informed decision regarding the options under 
     paragraph (5)(A).
       (7) After the date of the enactment of this Act, the Center 
     may not provide long-term care for any individual who as of 
     such date was not receiving such care as a patient of the 
     Center.
       (8) If upon completion of the projects referred to in 
     subsection (d)(4)(A) there are unobligated balances of 
     amounts appropriated for the projects, such balances are 
     available to the Secretary for expenses relating to the 
     relocation of the Center, except that, if the sum of such 
     balances is in excess of $100,000, such excess is available 
     to the State in accordance with subsection (d)(4)(B). The 
     amounts available to the Secretary pursuant to the preceding 
     sentence are available until expended.
       (g) For purposes of this section:
       (1) The term ``Center'' means the Gillis W. Long Hansen's 
     Disease Center.
       (2) The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Health 
     and Human Services.
       (3) The term ``State'' means the State of Louisiana.
       (h) Section 320 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
     247e) is amended by striking the section designation and all 
     that follows and inserting the following:
       ``Sec. 320. (a)(1) At or through the Gillis W. Long 
     Hansen's Disease Center (located in the State of Louisiana), 
     the Secretary shall without charge provide short-term care 
     and treatment, including outpatient care, for Hansen's 
     disease and related complications to any person determined by 
     the Secretary to be in need of such care and treatment. The 
     Secretary may not at or through such Center provide long-term 
     care for any such disease or complication.
       ``(2) The Center referred to in paragraph (1) shall conduct 
     training in the diagnosis and management of Hansen's disease 
     and related complications, and shall conduct and promote the 
     coordination of research (including clinical research), 
     investigations, demonstrations, and studies relating to the 
     causes, diagnosis, treatment, control, and prevention of 
     Hansen's disease and other mycobacterial diseases and 
     complications related to such diseases.
       ``(3) Paragraph (1) is subject to section 211 of the 
     Department of Health and Humans Services Appropriations Act, 
     1998.
       ``(b) In addition to the Center referred to in subsection 
     (a), the Secretary may establish sites regarding persons with 
     Hansen's disease. Each such site shall provide for the 
     outpatient care and treatment for Hansen's disease and 
     related complications to any person determined by the 
     Secretary to be in need of such care and treatment.
       ``(c) The Secretary shall carry out subsections (a) and (b) 
     acting through an agency of the Service. For purposes of the 
     preceding sentence, the agency designated by the Secretary 
     shall carry out both activities relating to the provision of 
     health services and activities relating to the conduct of 
     research.
       ``(d) The Secretary shall make payments to the Board of 
     Health of the State of Hawaii for the care and treatment 
     (including outpatient care) in its facilities of persons 
     suffering from Hansen's disease at a rate determined by the 
     Secretary. The rate shall be approximately equal to the 
     operating cost per patient of such facilities, except that 
     the rate may not exceed the comparable costs per patient with 
     Hansen's disease for care and treatment provided by the 
     Center referred to in subsection (a). Payments under this 
     subsection are subject to the availability of appropriations 
     for such purpose.''.
       Sec. 212. None of the funds appropriated in the Act may be 
     made available to any entity under title X of the Public 
     Health Service Act unless the applicant for the award 
     certifies to the Secretary that it encourages family 
     participation in the decision of minors to seek family 
     planning services and that it provides counseling to minors 
     on resisting attempts to coerce minors into engaging in 
     sexual activities.
       This title may be cited as the ``Department of Health and 
     Human Services Appropriations Act, 1998''.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Istook

  Mr. ISTOOK. 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. 3 printed in House Report 105-214 offered by 
     Mr. Istook:
       At the end of title II, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following section:
       Sec.   . (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no 
     provider of services under title X of the Public Health 
     Service Act shall be exempt from any State law requiring 
     notification or the reporting of child abuse, child 
     molestation, sexual abuse, rape, or incest.
       (b) None of the funds appropriated in this Act or any other 
     Act for any fiscal year may be made available to any provider 
     of services

[[Page H7053]]

     under title X of the Public Health Service Act if such 
     provider knowingly provides contraceptive drugs or devices to 
     a minor, unless--
       (1) the minor is emancipated under applicable State law;
       (2) the minor has the written consent of a custodial parent 
     or custodial legal guardian to receive the drugs or devices;
       (3) a court of competent jurisdiction has directed that the 
     minor may receive the drugs or devices; or
       (4) such provider of services has given actual written 
     notice to a custodial parent or custodial legal guardian of 
     the minor, notifying the parent or legal guardian of the 
     intent to provide the drugs or devices, at least five 
     business days before providing the drugs or devices.
       (c) Each provider of services under title X of the Public 
     Health Service Act shall each year certify to the Secretary 
     of Health and Human Services compliance with this section. 
     Such Secretary shall prescribe such regulations as may be 
     necessary to effectuate this section.

  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ISTOOK. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to limit the time 
for the debate.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Illinois?
  Mr. MANZULLO: Mr. Chairman, I object.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that goes to the heart 
and soul of what happens in the families in the United States of 
America, what happens with our most precious possessions and 
involvements, our children and the role between parent and child.
  Mr. Chairman, this goes to the heart of what families do with their 
children, what we teach our children, and the role that we undertake as 
parents, and, unfortunately, how one of the major programs in this bill 
interferes with that.
  One of the most important things that most of us teach our children 
is that certain things should be reserved for marriage. We are talking, 
of course, about the sexual conduct of teenagers. We are talking about 
the fact that the out-of-wedlock teenage birth rate has doubled since 
the adoption of a particular Federal program, a program that allows 
counseling and contraceptives and condoms and IUD's and birth control 
pills and other chemicals to be given to youngsters.
  Mr. Chairman, I am talking about people as young as 13 and 12 years 
old even, and their parents never know about it and their parents are 
never notified, they are never involved. Two million dollars a year of 
our tax money goes to this program. One and a half million teenagers a 
year go to the so-called title X clinics. A third of the caseload that 
they handle is teenagers.
  Now, if my child is involved in something they should not be, if they 
were using drugs illegally, if they were involved in a gang activity or 
something against the law, I would be notified. Yet, even though for 
any other type of medical treatment a teenager is required to get the 
consent of their parent, Federal law creates an exception if they are 
going to go into a federally funded clinic and get birth control and 
contraceptives.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, what happens is very fascinating. Some people try 
to paint a picture that teenagers do what they have always done. But 
what is not known is since Federal law has cut teens off from so much 
of the advice and counsel of their parents, it is not just teens and 
teens.
  Mr. Chairman, look at some of the headlines from Charleston: ``Bus 
driver guilty in teen seduction''; from Austin: ``Older fathers and 
teen mothers and tougher laws''; Omaha: ``Going after men who prey on 
minors''; the Rocky Mountain News in Denver: ``Adult men blamed in teen 
pregnancies''; Chicago: ``Older men who impregnate teens targeted.''

                              {time}  1630

  The Washington Post, ``California cracks down on men to curb underage 
pregnancies.''
  You see, studies in recent years have shown that 60 percent of young 
women who have sex before the age of 15 were coerced by males an 
average of 6 years older than them, and that two-thirds of births to 
teenage girls across the country is a situation where the father is not 
a teenager but they are 20 or older.
  Sexual predators who prey on young women have the opportunity given 
to them to give them that extra little bit of reassurance and keep the 
relationship going because they simply take them to a title X clinic, a 
Federal clinic, where they are given the contraceptives and their 
parents are never told about it. A situation that under the laws of 
almost any State in the country would be illegal, that might be labeled 
sexual abuse or child abuse or molestation or statutory rape, is 
totally ignored.
  We have laws on the books in just about every State saying that if 
there is this kind of activity involving a minor, you are supposed to 
report it. But we have a Federal regulation that says what they do in 
the title X clinics is absolutely confidential and cannot be shared 
with anyone, not law enforcement, not the parents.
  This amendment fixes that. It says, if there is a situation, such as 
I described, involving an underage child, title X providers must report 
that and comply with State law the same as anyone else who deals with 
services to our young people. It says, before any contraceptives are 
going to be given to a minor in a title X program, their parent will be 
notified 5 days before that is disseminated.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not a requirement for parental consent, but it 
is a requirement of notification to fix this problem.
  Mr. Chairman, I would certainly urge adoption of the amendment.


   Amendment Offered by Mr. Castle as a Substitute for the Amendment 
                         Offered by Mr. Istook

  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as a substitute for 
the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. 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 No. 4 printed in House Report 105-214 offered by 
     Mr. Castle as a substitute for the amendment offered by Mr. 
     Istook:
       At the end of title    of the bill, insert after the last 
     section (preceding the short title) the following section:
       Sec.   . None of the funds appropriated in the Act may be 
     made available to any entity under the title X of the Public 
     Health Service Act unless the applicant for the award 
     certifies to the Secretary that it encourages family 
     participation in the decision of minors to seek family 
     planning services and that it provides counseling to minors 
     on how to resist attempts to coerce minors into engaging in 
     sexual activities.

  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, ironically enough, considering the 
discussion which we have going on today pursuant to a Republican 
amendment, title X of the Public Health Act, the National Family 
Planning Program, was enacted in 1970. It was sponsored by then-
Congressman George Bush and it was signed into law by then-President 
Nixon, two good Republicans.
  The program, as we know, provides grants to public and private 
nonprofit agencies who support projects which provide a broad range of 
family planning and reproductive services as well as screening for 
breast and cervical cancer, sexually transmitted infections, and high 
blood pressure. It also supports training for providers and information 
and education programs, and a research program which focuses on family 
planning service delivery improvements.
  More than 4.3 million clients were served through a network of over 
4,200 centers funded, in part, by the program. Almost 60 percent of the 
health care providers are operated by State, county, and local health 
departments.
  By law, none of the funds provided under the National Family Planning 
Program may be used for abortions. Today, we have an amendment before 
us, presented by the gentleman from Oklahoma, which would require 
parental notification with a 5-day waiting period, or consent.
  I know all of us would like to think that every teenager out there 
has a wonderful relationship with loving parents, but the fact of the 
matter is that many teenagers simply do not. There are young people out 
there who are afraid of their parents. There are young people out there 
who do not have parents. There are young people out there who, frankly, 
have nobody who they can turn to if a circumstance

[[Page H7054]]

arises in which they need help in the kind of parlance that we are 
talking about with respect to title X.
  So there are young people who unfortunately would rush out and have 
unprotected sex if they knew practicing safe sex would come at the 
price of having a parent or their parents find out.
  Studies show, and this is important, that if parental involvement 
were mandated, 80 percent of teens would no longer seek care at 
facilities, but fewer than 1 in 100 would discontinue sexual relations. 
That is an incredible ratio when we consider it. This would, obviously, 
lead to higher pregnancy rates and more abortions.
  I know the gentleman from Oklahoma feels very deeply about this issue 
and cares as much as I do about young people. But his parental 
notification/consent amendment would effectively drive a stake in the 
heart of the family planning program and it would encourage even more 
irresponsible behavior.
  I understand the desire to get parents involved in their kids' 
decisions. I could not agree more with that. My amendment does that. It 
encourages family planning providers to encourage the involvement of 
parents when teens seek contraception and other family planning 
services. I think that is a very important step.
  Mandated parental notification/consent would scare teens into doing 
something stupid, like having unprotected sex in secret, rather than 
having their parents find out that they wanted to do the right thing, 
they wanted to be safe.
  Leading medical groups, including the American Medical Association, 
the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American 
Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Academy of Family Physicians, 
all oppose mandatory parental notification for young people seeking 
family planning services.
  I believe that the substitute will do nothing to prevent the 
victimization of children.
  First, currently, if evidence of rape, sexual abuse, incest or any 
other crime is uncovered, title X personnel direct the client to 
appropriate care providers and notify appropriate legal authorities. It 
has always been the law that recipients of title X funds are in no way 
exempt from State-imposed criminal reporting requirements. Our 
substitute amendment strengthens the Federal role in stopping the 
sexual predators who prey on minors.
  Under my amendment, title X grantees must counsel their clients on 
how to resist and avoid such coercive sexual relationships. This will 
not only help young people avoid such situations, but it will also help 
more counselors identify these situations and provide the proper 
assistance to end them.
  As I have indicated, we agree on the goal of parental involvement. We 
all want children to abstain from sexual relations at a young age and 
feel like they could approach their parents on this and every other 
subject. We would like to think that they all have good and open 
relationships, but that is not reality. Reality is that that is not the 
way it is. And the truth of the matter is that a lot of these kids need 
help. And if they do not get that help, the problems are going to be a 
lot greater than if they do get that help.
  So my judgment is that we need to listen carefully to this debate. I 
think it should be a full and extensive debate. But we need to 
understand the import of what the Istook-Manzullo amendment would do. 
It would lead to a situation in which children are simply going to 
refuse to go for planning, in which case there is going to be unwanted 
pregnancies and more abortions.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Istook-Manzullo 
amendment.
  (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I do not expect to use the full 5 minutes. 
This is essentially a rather simple question. It is not a simple 
subject but the question is simple.
  When I first came to Congress, 1975, it is a long time ago, the 
fashion in political advocacy was to use the word ``defense.'' 
Everything that had a ``defense'' in it was going to have a leg up in 
passage. The Defense Education Act.
  In the Clinton era, the key phrase was ``change.'' We all campaigned 
as agents of change.
  Lately, family values has become a universal aspiration. We all stand 
foursquare for family values. One family value is parental 
responsibility. Any program that deliberately bypasses parents to 
provide birth control devices to minors, in my judgment, is an 
egregious violation of family values.
  It is little less than legitimating promiscuity. What kind of a 
lesson do we teach? We teach youngsters, young ladies in particular, 
young women, to conceal from their parents the fact that they are 
engaged in sexual activity and we, the clinic, will facilitate, if not 
condone, that activity by providing condoms, drugs, or pills.
  We legislate as though every family or most families are 
dysfunctional. I submit there are dysfunctional families but they are 
the minority and not the majority. Sexual activity has serious, serious 
consequences, the movies on cable television notwithstanding.
  We frustrate family values by legitimating the concealment from 
parents of a child's participation in activity of the most sensitive, 
intimate, and consequential nature. We should be strengthening parental 
rights, not diminishing them.
  I suggest a vote for the Manzullo and Istook amendment is the 
appropriate one. I think if you vote for Istook and Manzullo and vote 
against the Castle amendment, a gentleman for whom I have boundless 
admiration but do not agree with him in this situation, oppose the 
substitute and vote for Istook and Manzullo, and then if you do that, 
you can campaign for family values with a straight face.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Castle amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me say that there is virtually no 
Member of this House, certainly on that side of the aisle, for whom I 
have more respect than the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde]. I have a 
great deal of fondness for him personally as well.
  I want to say that I very much enjoyed the opportunity to work very 
closely with him just a couple of weeks ago in fashioning a new 
compromise on this bill which expands the effect of the Hyde amendment 
to cover HMO situations. I think that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Hyde] correctly indicated that there was a problem with HMO's who tried 
to get around the Hyde amendment, and I am pleased that we were able to 
work with him to expand that amendment. I think that should help unify 
the House behind this bill.
  In this instance, however, I differ with the gentleman's judgment, 
although I did not on the other question, because I think here the 
issue is not what we want our children to do but how we think we can 
best affect what it is they do. This is not a question about goals. It 
is a question about approaches. It is a question of what you think 
works, at least in my view.
  I think the virtue of the Castle amendment, and I would urge Members 
to just read the language, because what the Castle amendment says is 
that none of the funds in this bill may be used unless clinics certify 
that they encourage family participation in the making of these 
decisions and that they also provide counseling to their clients on how 
to resist efforts at coercive sex from adults.
  I think that is important. If there are sexual predators walking 
around communities, the answer is not to screw up the ability of these 
clinics to provide needed services. Those services which will, in my 
judgment, help to prevent abortions. The answer is to throw the book at 
those sexual predators and keep them in jail.
  Now, I thought that when we passed legislation such as the welfare 
reform bill that we were trying to send a message that we expect people 
to recognize personal responsibility. I do not believe we ought to take 
off the hook the predators who engage in the kind of acts cited by the 
gentleman from Oklahoma by saying: ``Oh, it was the fault of the 
clinics because they did not have the right procedures.'' It was the 
fault of the individuals who engaged in that conduct!
  Let me simply say that I wish that every family in America worked in 
a way that enabled young people to talk to their parents. The problem 
is, and I run into a lot of them, the problem is that there are a lot 
of families that do not work that way. These youngsters

[[Page H7055]]

on some occasions are going to wind up engaging in inappropriate sex 
either with consultation with some adult or they are going to engage in 
it with consultation with no adult at all.

                              {time}  1645

  If, for those children, that is the choice, then I would prefer that 
they at least have some opportunity to talk to an adult, because the 
consequences are not only unwanted pregnancies, there are also unwanted 
abortions and an increase in sexually transmitted diseases.
  I would also like to make a point that the American Hospital 
Association and the American Public Hospital Association have reviewed 
the text of this amendment and they indicate that their reading of it 
is that the parental consent requirement applies not just to title X 
funds, but to all funds used to provide contraceptives, including State 
and privately raised funds. That means if a hospital or clinic fails to 
abide by the parental consent requirements, they believe that they 
would have to forfeit all Federal funds.
  I do not think we want to see that happen, and so I would 
respectfully urge that we support on a bipartisan basis the Castle 
amendment.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, 
and before I get to the meat of my comments, I want to point out that 
that amendment that I rise in support of calls for a parental 
notification, not consent. So we need to debate the facts here.
  I encourage all my colleagues to support the Istook-Manzullo 
amendment and reject the Castle amendment. If we really do support 
family integrity, the United States, and indeed going back into 
history, British law has a long-standing tradition of parental rights 
where parents have the authority and control over raising their kids.
  We, in this country, beginning with this program as it began in 1975, 
began in a direction that is in direct violation of that principle in 
the sense that now the Federal Government is funding a program that 
will allow minor children, females, to go in and see a physician and 
get contraceptive services, to include injections of medications, 
placement of IUD's, without parental consent, with absolutely no 
knowledge of their parents.
  Some of these interventions are not without risks. As many of my 
colleagues know, prior to coming here, I was a full-time practicing 
physician. One of the drugs that is dispensed, for example, in these 
clinics, is injections of a drug called Depo-Provera, a drug that has 
associated with it the potential complications of thromboembolic 
disease, which is blood clots, blood clots in the legs, blood clots 
traveling to the lungs.
  These clinics can place IUD's. IUD's are associated with a 
tremendously enhanced risk of infectious complications, and all of this 
can be done without parental consent.
  Our children cannot get aspirin from a school nurse without parental 
consent; our children cannot get their ears pierced, but they can go 
into a title X clinic and get access to these medical services.
  The supporters of this policy as it has existed for the past 20 years 
claim that, oh, it is necessary because these young girls are sexually 
active and they have to have access to these services; and if they have 
to tell their parents, it is going to cause a lot of conflict, and some 
of them come from difficult homes, et cetera.
  There used to be a time in this country where the kinds of conflict 
that would be introduced by these young girls talking to their parents 
about this issue would be considered healthy, it would be considered 
good. But now we want to intervene and say no, no, no, we just want to 
give them these services.
  Now, I would, perhaps, be somewhat sympathetic to the supporters of 
the existing policy if, indeed, this program was having some kind of a 
positive impact, but we all know what the impacts have been. Actually, 
the teen pregnancy rate in this country has gone up dramatically, and, 
indeed, probably what is more significant is the incidence of venereal 
disease and the long-term complications of those venereal diseases, 
such as infertility, which has just gone up 5-, 10-, 15-fold over the 
last 25 years. If we talk to any practitioner who engages in that 
practice, he will tell us that is a tribute to the high rate of 
promiscuity.
  Let me close by just saying this. We cannot have our cake and eat it 
too. We cannot say, I support family values, I am opposed to all this 
sexual activity for teenagers, but, yes, we have to fund contraceptive 
services to be done in a fashion where parents do not even know.
  I just want to point out that this amendment calls for parental 
notification. And, in addition, I just want to add one more important 
thing, a point that was made by the gentleman from Oklahoma, in that 
many, many of these girls are having sexual activity with men who are 
over the age of 18. In most States that is statutory rape, and in some 
instances, these children have been seduced and are, in effect, being 
abused.
  As a matter of fact, I believe we are going to hear the story about a 
specific case of that occurring in the district of the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Manzullo], where a young girl was seduced and was being 
sexually abused and getting contraceptive services with the assistance 
of this man who was abusing her.
  In my opinion, this policy, as it has existed for the past 20-plus 
years, is a direct affront to the principle of standing up for family 
values and believing in the rights of moms and dads to have a role to 
play in the care of their children; and I would encourage all my 
colleagues to support the amendment of the gentleman from Oklahoma and 
oppose the Castle substitute.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Castle substitute and 
in strong opposition to the Istook amendment.
  The Istook amendment would do great harm to our efforts to lower the 
number of unintended pregnancies and abortions and to our efforts to 
reduce the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/
AIDS in our young people.
  On the face of it, it may seem reasonable to require parental consent 
and notification for contraceptive services, but the Istook amendment 
ignores the realities of the young people who seek care at these 
clinics. The vast majority of these teens are already sexually active, 
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.
  Much has been made of the new Istook amendment, with some confusion 
as the true impact of the latest modifications. Today's version would 
require parental consent or written notification with a 5-day waiting 
period before minors could receive contraceptive services. It is clear 
that the effects of this amendment would be the same as in the original 
version.
  If teens are required to obtain written parental consent or 
notification for any title X services, many of them are going to avoid 
the program completely. It is important to remember that some 
contraceptives provide protection from STD's, sexually transmitted 
diseases. The opportunity to provide accurate, potentially life-saving 
education on the transmission of HIV and other STD's could also be lost 
if teens avoid these services because of parental consent requirements. 
And delays in services will only lead to unintended pregnancies, more 
abortions, and higher rates of STD's and HIV.
  As has been mentioned, the medical community is also overwhelmingly 
opposed to parental consent and notification 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 should 
be available to adolescents without their parents' consent or 
knowledge.

  Now, the Castle substitute properly requires that title X programs 
encourage parental involvement when teens seek family planning 
services. It also provides counseling to minors to prevent coercive 
sexual activity. In its letter endorsing the Castle substitute, the 
American Medical Association states,


[[Page H7056]]


       We believe that the substitute amendment properly balances 
     the need for a strong patient-physician relationship with 
     parents', families', and society's overwhelming concerns with 
     preventing unintended pregnancies among minors.

  That is a direct quote.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Castle 
substitute and to vote ``no'' on the Istook amendment. Let us act 
responsibly by encouraging parental involvement while also protecting 
the health of our Nation's youth.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I now ask unanimous consent that debate on 
this amendment and the Castle amendment thereto close in 3 hours; that 
half of that time be allocated to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. 
Istook] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Manzullo] or their 
designee; that the other half be allocated equally to the gentleman 
from Delaware [Mr. Castle] or his designee and the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] or his designee.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Illinois?
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object.
  For clarification, the gentleman phrased it as 3 hours from now. By 
that, does the gentleman mean 1\1/2\ hours per side? If there is 
something else delaying the business, it would not be counted against 
either side; so that 1\1/2\ hours, divided, would be the time the 
gentleman mentioned?
  Mr. PORTER. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This amendment will be debated for 3 hours 
divided, 1\1/2\ hours controlled by the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. 
Istook] or his designee, 45 minutes controlled by the gentleman from 
Delaware [Mr. Castle], and 45 minutes controlled by the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  Mr. PORTER. Or their designees in each respective case, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Or their designees. That has been stated.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Watts], my corepresentative.
  Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, across our Nation parents are 
engaged in a daily struggle for the hearts and minds and souls of their 
children. Their struggle is with an American culture which, under the 
protection of our constitutional freedoms, too often expresses these 
freedoms in a message of moral, ethical and sexual liberation that 
reaches even our youngest children.
  Through television and advertising, through the Internet and other 
sophisticated methods of communication, our children are bombarded with 
these messages, sometimes subtle, sometimes overt; messages which 
celebrate immoral behavior, messages which promote promiscuity, 
messages over which we, as parents and adults, have little or no 
control.
  The struggle against these influences is particularly difficult to 
working parents who have discovered that between the hours of 3 p.m. in 
the afternoon, when school lets out, and 6 o'clock in the evening, when 
they get home from work, we have allowed the development of an adult-
free, supervision-free culture. Studies have shown this is the time 
when teenagers experiment with drugs, commit juvenile crime, and engage 
in sexual activity.
  In this battle, one would think the Government should be an ally for 
the family, but in the case of the title X program, it most certainly 
is not. On the contrary, title X allows the child to lead an 
independent sexual life without any regard for the rights and 
responsibilities that parents have to intercede to counsel, to guide, 
to protect, and to raise their own children. The Government usurps that 
function and legitimizes the chasm between parent and child.
  In this regard, the Istook-Manzullo amendment seeks only to allow 
parents to be informed of their child's decision concerning this 
critical part of their development as a human being. This seems to me 
such a minimal request when one considers the extraordinary 
responsibilities of parenthood. If we expect individuals to be 
responsible as parents, we must guarantee them their rights as parents.
  I confess that it amazes me that this fact is subject to debate 
considering that if my daughter's school nurse wanted to give her an 
aspirin, it is mandatory that they notify the parents or the guardian.

                              {time}  1700

  However, if a health clinic wants to give her birth control pills, 
the parents do not have to be notified or if some adult man is having 
sexual activity with my daughter, something happens, again they do not 
have to notify the parents. I think that is crazy for Government to 
intervene and take the rights of parents and say that their parent or 
guardian, the person that is responsible for that child, they should 
not be notified.
  I commend my colleagues from Oklahoma and Illinois for their 
leadership on this issue. This is a vote to help American families 
regain control over their lives. I encourage a ``yes'' vote on this 
very, very important amendment.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Horn].
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strongly oppose the Istook-Manzullo 
amendment and to support the Castle-Porter substitute. The United 
States has a teen pregnancy rate of twice as high as England, France, 
Wales, and Canada. One million young women under the age of 20 become 
pregnant each year. This costs our fellow taxpayers and ourselves $7 
billion annually. Only 36 percent of sexually active teens seek 
services from family planning clinics after they suspect pregnancy. 
Requiring parental consent or parental notification for contraceptive 
services will lower the number of teens seeking this service and 
therefore increase the cost of unplanned pregnancies, increase the 
incidence of sexually transmitted diseases and increase the rate of 
abortions.
  This is pro-abortion legislation of my good colleagues, the gentleman 
from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Manzullo], because that is what the result of their proposal is going 
to be. Twenty-three States, including California, have laws that 
explicitly allow contraceptive services for teens without parental 
consent. As one can see, the results of this amendment would be to 
violate States rights, which surprise me, coming from these two 
gentlemen, and increase the cost to the taxpayers, which also surprises 
me. This would be hypocritical at a time when Congress is working to 
give more power to the States and reduce the strain on taxpayers.
  From every perspective, the Istook-Manzullo amendment is simply bad 
public policy and to overcome bad public policy, I urge my colleagues 
on both sides of the aisle to strongly support the Castle-Porter 
substitute and to get around to solving the problem rather than simply 
have ideological issues that make no sense in the real world.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the gentlewoman from New 
York [Mrs. Lowey], a member of the subcommittee.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by saying how disappointed I 
am that the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] is violating the 
agreement that our chairman and ranking member agreed to in order to 
keep the bill free of controversial and extreme amendments. Mr. 
Chairman, the Istook amendment represents the latest attack by family 
planning opponents against our Nation's flagship program. Two years ago 
family planning opponents tried to zero out funds for the title X 
program. Fortunately, they failed. Last year family planning opponents, 
led by the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook], offered an amendment 
very similar to today's. Thankfully the amendment also failed.
  We must defeat the Istook amendment once again. The Istook amendment 
would deny contraception to minors unless they have the consent of 
their parents or waited 5 days after their parents were notified before 
obtaining contraception. Some of my colleagues are making a distinction 
between notification and consent, but who is kidding whom? The 5-day 
waiting period before contraception can be obtained is no different 
than parental consent. That is why the AMA, the

[[Page H7057]]

American Academy of Pediatricians, Child Welfare League, Public Health 
Association, Social Workers and Nurses Association all oppose the 
mandatory parental notification restrictions in the Istook amendment. 
Because they know, they understand that parental notification laws 
drive minors away from seeking basic health services. But the Istook 
amendment does not just prohibit the use of title X funds for 
contraceptive services to minors. It could also bar programs from using 
any Federal, State, or private funds for this purpose. This is so 
important, Mr. Chairman, that 24 States have passed laws assuring that 
minors can get access to contraceptives.
  Furthermore, hospitals, community health centers, and other 
organizations that receive title X funds could face the loss of all 
Federal funding if they provide contraception to minors without abiding 
by the Istook parental notification consent restriction regardless of 
which funds they use. That is why the American Hospital Association and 
the National Association of Public Hospitals are opposed to the Istook 
amendment.
  Let me say as my colleagues did, as a mother of three, a grandmother 
of one, soon to be, please God, a grandmother of 2, we would like all 
youngsters to have parents such as many who spoke this evening. It 
would be wonderful if all parents had that kind of relationship with 
their youngsters. Unfortunately, it just does not exist in this 
country. In fact, we would prefer that teens would abstain from having 
sex altogether. But unfortunately we understand that minors will not 
change their behavior. There is a lot of work we can do to help them 
move to change their behavior, but what we are going to see if this is 
passed, many teenagers will forgo contraception rather than facing 
their parents, and that is unfortunate but it is the fact, and in fact 
studies show that 80 percent of teens seeking family planning services 
have already been sexually active for nearly a year. In fact, my 
colleague said that Federal law cuts children off from contact with 
parents. What the substitute does is encourage the contact with 
parents, but we have learned that mandating it just does not work. What 
we are going to create is more teenage pregnancies unfortunately.
  By denying contraceptive services to tens of thousands of teens, the 
Istook amendment will simply result in higher rates, not only of teen 
pregnancy, of STD's and more abortions. If teens are required to obtain 
parental consent for contraceptive services, they will also avoid STD 
and HIV screening and routine gynecological exams.
  Our Nation already leads the Western world in teen pregnancies. 
Millions of teens have some kind of STD and the incidence of AIDS among 
teens is alarming. We need to address these problems, but not by making 
title X services more difficult to obtain.
  Mr. Chairman, we have a real teen pregnancy crisis in this country, 
and the Istook amendment will only make it worse. Opponents of family 
planning are exploiting a tragic situation in Illinois to gather 
support for their position. If the 37-year-old teacher in question is 
found guilty of carrying on an illegal and amoral relationship with a 
teenager, he should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. We are 
in agreement on that. Let us not exploit that situation for this 
purpose, because there is no connection. If school authorities knew 
about the relationship, they should be held responsible. We should not 
be blaming the title X program for this man's actions.
  Title X clinics are now required to report cases of rape, child 
molestation, and abuse. Clinic personnel would have been required to 
report this illegal relationship had they known about it. Let us stop 
exploiting this tragedy in the name of national policy. I urge my 
colleagues to support the Porter substitute instead. The Porter 
substitute will require that title X programs encourage the involvement 
of parents when teens seek contraception and other family planning 
services. By encouraging parental involvement rather than mandating it, 
we can ensure that teens will not pass up necessary health care 
services. This is the same language that passed the House last year.
  The Porter substitute also requires that young women seeking title X 
services receive counseling on how to resist and avoid coercive 
relationships with male sexual predators. We cannot be tough enough on 
sexual predators and by voting for the Porter substitute, we can help 
to stop them. Let us remember, Mr. Chairman, if the Istook amendment 
passes, teens will not stop having sex but they will have more 
unintended pregnancies. Let us not make the teen pregnancy crisis in 
this country worse.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds in response.
  Mr. Chairman, contrary to what the speaker has represented, there is 
not any requirement for title X providers to report these situations. 
The Congressional Research Service, which provides the information for 
us in Congress, double checking the laws for us, confirmed that in 
writing to me, and I have it if anyone would want to look at it.
  Further, when we talk about the escalation of teen pregnancies, 
actually, Mr. Chairman, it is since the adoption of title X that the 
teen pregnancy rate out of wedlock has exploded in this country. Slow 
increases turned into a doubling after title X was adopted.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Crane].
  (Mr. CRANE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
Oklahoma for yielding me this time. I want to compliment him and my 
distinguished neighbor, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Manzullo]. The 
case that the gentleman from Illinois will get into in some detail 
occurred in a portion of my old district that I lost apparently just on 
the eve of the molestation of that little girl by that pervert teacher. 
But a thing that I think is important as a father of seven daughters 
is, I certainly would want to be notified and communicated with in a 
similar type circumstance. I think as a parent I have an absolute right 
to be notified, and that I make that kind of a decision for a minor 
child. I think a minor child, as in the case that the gentleman will 
elaborate on more fully later, a minor child involved in this kind of 
situation at the age of 13 is hardly in a position to be making any 
kind of significant judgments about what is proper behavior. One needs 
the parental consultation and involvement.
  I would urge my colleagues, because it does not sabotage the 
remainder of title X, but it does put that important qualification in 
there, and I would urge my colleagues to support the Istook-Manzullo 
amendment.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Manzullo].
  (Mr. MANZULLO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, all laws have faces, and every statute we 
pass in this body has a consequence. Let me tell you about a 
consequence as a result of title X that has occurred in the district 
that I represent.
  She was 13 when she was first molested by her 37-year-old teacher. 
The relationship went on for a year and a half. He, tired of using 
condoms, took her to the McHenry County Illinois Health Department, at 
that time she was 14, where, without the knowledge of her parents, she 
was injected, her arm pierced by a hypodermic needle containing the 
powerful drug Depo-Provera.
  This happened on at least two or three occasions at the age of 14. 
Under no circumstances could she consent to sexual relations, so the 
people who gave her the shots knew that she was being statutorily 
raped, and there was no report of that made.
  She became anorexic and her parents finally asked her what happened, 
and today she is in therapy 5 days a week, because, for a year and a 
half, this little girl's incident was not reported to the authorities 
because of the confidentiality requirement under title X.
  All acts have consequences. Depo-Provera, the very chemical that is 
used in the State of California for sexual predators who voluntarily 
want to be chemically castrated, Depo-Provera, the very chemical whose 
side effects include blood clotting. Depo-Provera, the controversial 
hormonal agent injected into her arms, without the knowledge of her 
parents. Depo-Provera, drugs being ingested, given to

[[Page H7058]]

children as young as 12 years old, and it happened 6,500 times in the 
past 2 years in the State of Illinois.
  This is what is happening in these title X clinics. And I do not 
blame the health providers. I blame the U.S. Congress, which has said 
over the past several years that parents have absolutely no role to 
play in their children's sexual involvement.
  A child being injected with such a powerful drug. In fact, the ACLU 
said that they objected to the California prisoners who wanted 
voluntary chemical castration based upon the cruel and unusual 
punishment because of the tremendous side effects of that drug. That is 
what is going on in America today.
  This amendment does two things: No. 1, it restores the parent as the 
person in charge of the household. No. 2, it sends a message, that the 
confidentiality requirements of title X do not shield health care 
providers from reporting that children that young are involved in 
sexual activities.
  That is what this amendment is about. If, as they say, well, the 
title X providers are already covered by this particular reporting law, 
then do not worry about it, the next State may not. If it applies, it 
applies; if it does not apply, it does not apply.
  But we guarantee under Federal mandate that the rape that is taking 
place in this country, that the Guttmacher Institute, which is the 
research arm of Planned Parenthood, is saying that little girls are 
becoming younger in age and their sexual partners are becoming older in 
age.
  We have wholesale rape going on in this country. We are saying the 
U.S. Congress should make it a policy that whoever takes Federal funds 
is bound by the State reporting laws.
  Yes, if she had gone to a high school clinic or principal or teacher, 
that person, under penalty of 1 year in jail, would have had to report 
that to the authorities.
  What this law does is very simple: It allows for unrestricted 
information and counseling. It requires a title X clinic to provide 
notification to the parent or legal guardian for minors seeking 
contraceptive services and devices. It allows for judicial bypass as an 
exemption for emancipated minors. It attempts to include parents in the 
conversation.
  In McHenry County, IL, where there is no requirement for parental 
notification, 52 percent of the children receiving these services 
already have parental involvement, and included in that 48 percent was 
this precious 14 year old who was in daily counseling because nobody 
reported that, at age 14, it is illegal for her to have sex in the 
State.
  What the amendment does not do, it does not prevent the treatment of 
or testing for sexually transmitted diseases. That answers the question 
of the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey]. Parental notification is 
not required for minors to be treated for STD's. It does not deny 
services to teens, and it does not require parental consent.
  This is a very reasonable amendment. This amendment says the 
following: Who is in charge of the children of this Nation? Is it the 
U.S. Congress or is it the parents?
  The amendment says something else, that anybody who receives one dime 
of Federal dollars is bound by the same State reporting laws as the 
States are.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, teenage pregnancy is indeed a serious 
problem, and many of us have been engaged in efforts to resolve that 
problem. The approach you take depends on where your own perspective is 
in assessing this critical issue. Teenage pregnancy not only is a 
problem for the teen parents and their immediate family, but it is, 
indeed, a problem for society. Some of us have been engaged in this for 
years.
  Yes, teenage pregnancy has gone up over the years, but to blame the 
title X program is really not to understand the complexity of teenage 
pregnancy. Teenage pregnancy is the result of a premature act just like 
any other premature act that teens may involve themselves in where the 
consequences are less detrimental. It engages not only the family, it 
also engages the church and the community. Until we understand that 
young people want something to say yes to, they will always say yes to 
something, perhaps to whatever comes along, sometimes the wrong thing. 
We must provide positive options for them to choose.
  To try to correct this problem by blaming title X as the reason for 
the failure of society, the failure of parents to be engaged with the 
child, is certainly not to understand the complexity of the problem. We 
all should be concerned, all of society, just as there are things that 
all of us should do.
  I support parents being involved. I encourage family involvement. I 
am a mother of four, a grandmother of four, and I hope to be a 
grandmother of five soon, and I have had now some 8 teenage forums 
where I bring people together to say we have a collective 
responsibility.
  I am here to say that the Istook amendment does not respond to that 
collective responsibility. It is very narrowly focused, though well-
intended.
  Yes, parents should be involved. Good parent relationship is the 
right way to go. But if we believe this we are in denial of reality, 
particularly if you want to engage young people.
  My heart goes out for the situation in Illinois. I would be enraged, 
too. But should I blame the whole society for the perverted act of one 
individual? How cruel of me to condemn all of the people, because 
indeed one made a mistake.
  Title X is not perfect, but it certainly cannot be given credit for 
the large increase in teenage pregnancy. All of us collectively should 
take our share of the responsibility for this problem as well as 
providing ways to resolve it.
  The latest statistics for my State show that the teen pregnancy rates 
are down. This includes lower rates in the counties I targeted for my 
teen pregnancy prevention forums.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say, as has been spoken before, I think there 
would be some consequences that even the sponsors of the Istook 
amendment would not like, if it were enacted into law. Indeed, you are 
trying to get parents to be notified. Notification and parental consent 
are not one and the same, however to a teenager they are usually 
synonymous.
  The hospitals are interpreting that the effect of this amendment 
would mean that they would be denied funding for Medicaid and other 
Federal programs. Hopefully, that is not the case.
  Already there are 24 States where, indeed, the violation of the law 
requires consent of contraceptives for minors. So what would this bill 
do in those 24 States?
  The unintended consequences also show that you are pushing your young 
people to abortion. There are no good answers to teen pregnancy. The 
good answers are to get engaged with young people early, by providing 
positive options and not just focusing on where they can get 
contraceptives.
  Certainly, we want to all be for preventing teenage pregnancy, but 
this is the wrong way. I urge a strong ``no'' vote on the Istook 
amendment.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Frelinghuysen].
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Istook amendment and in 
support of the Castle-Porter amendment. We all want parental 
involvement in the critical issues of family planning, but I fear that 
enactment of a policy requiring parental notification or consent for 
some title X services may well just have the opposite effect.
  Confidential access to reliable and timely information regarding 
family planning and other primary care services is crucial for young 
people. Studies indicate that requiring parental notification for young 
people receiving family planning services would mean that many teens 
would delay or avoid altogether perhaps seeking these services and 
would be derived of a reliable source of information.
  I fear by requiring parental notification, Congress may 
unintentionally increase the number of unintended pregnancies, sexually 
transmitted diseases, and AIDS cases.
  Mr. Chairman, leading medical groups with the best credentials, 
including the American College of OB-GYN's, the American Academy of 
Pediatrics, and the American Academy of

[[Page H7059]]

Family Physicians oppose mandatory family notification, and all for 
good reasons. Whatever a family's economic or social background, many 
teenagers are unable to speak to their parents about these issues. What 
we all want is for our children to make smart and informed decisions 
and involve us as parents in every stage of their physical and 
intellectual growth.
  However, if they do not, and some may not, I think that we would all 
agree that we want them to have access to means that would protect 
their health and their futures and provide them with reliable 
information.
  I urge my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, to adopt the language of the 
Committee on Labor, Health and Human Services, as included in the bill, 
and most specifically support the Castle-Porter amendment.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to note, and this has not been 
mentioned by the speakers, that this amendment clearly permits the 
judicial bypass that is typical for States when they say a child needs 
a service which the parent is not providing, to get around the problem 
of parents that may not be responsible.
  But, Mr. Chairman, I would submit that we should not be presuming 
that the parents of 1\1/2\ million teenagers per year are irresponsible 
and, therefore, nobody should get parental notice.
  Certainly also the amendment only applies to providing 
contraceptives. It does not prohibit, for example, disseminating 
information or treatment for sexually transmitted diseases.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina 
[Mr. Jones].
  Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Istook-Manzullo 
amendment. This common sense approach simply requires parental 
notification before a title X clinic can distribute contraceptive drugs 
and devices to a minor.
  I am one that has always believed that a parent should be notified of 
their child's health-related needs. A majority of parents in my 
district and throughout this country are in strong support of this 
amendment.
  We are not denying a minor's choice in visiting a clinic. We are 
simply requiring a parent to be notified. Unfortunately, some of my 
colleagues have misinterpreted the amendment and believe it requires 
parental consent for children to visit title X clinics. That is 
absolutely wrong.
  Americans are increasingly enraged with the breakdown of the social 
institutions of our society. I believe this is evident with the recent 
case in Illinois.
  As you have just heard, a young female student was taken to a title X 
clinic by her junior high schoolteacher to receive numerous injections 
of a contraceptive drug. Further, this teacher had been sexually 
molesting the child for 18 months. This is sick and this is outrageous. 
Rightfully so, the child's parents were horrified and are pursuing 
legal action.
  Unfortunately, I believe this is just the tip of the iceberg when it 
comes to the breakdown of our social structure and, more importantly, 
the loss of parental involvement. In my opinion, the Istook-Manzullo 
amendment is very much needed to help repair the social fabric of this 
country by allowing parents to be involved in their child's life.

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. Chairman, this Nation was founded on Judeo-Christian values. 
Family ties and values have been a part of this foundation. This 
amendment strengthens that tie. I encourage my colleagues to support 
this amendment, and help restore the rights of parents across this 
Nation.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton].
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, teenage sex is wrong. That is the message I carry to my 
district. I stand with those who have called for total abstinence. That 
is what I taught my children.
  I only wish that were the rule. I have to think beyond my own middle-
class upbringing and paradigm, the values that I live by. I am forced 
every day, because of the people I represent, to think AIDS, think HIV, 
think STD's, think teen pregnancy.
  By the time many youngsters get to the title X clinic, they have 
already had a pregnancy. A third of them got there because they already 
thought they were pregnant. I am glad they got there in time. Most who 
come have been active for almost a year, sexually active for almost a 
year.
  We simply have to face the extraordinary, varied nature of family 
life today. Most families do not look like yours and mine. Increasingly 
they do not. In my district there are families that are deeply 
religious, and for whom sex before marriage is simply unimaginable. 
There are others for whom sex before marriage is the rule. The Istook 
amendment wants me to forget about the most troubled, the most 
vulnerable to pregnancy.
  Mr. Chairman, in my district, AIDS, which used to be characterized as 
a gay disease, is becoming a black disease. I cannot sit by and let 
that happen. Seventy-two percent of the reported cases in 1996 were of 
black people in my district, many of them teens. It is impossible to 
pretend today that families need only to get together and they can 
straighten this out. I wish, how I wish.
  There is no family life for many I represent, much less communication 
within a family. Dozens of organizations in the field understand this. 
That is why they oppose this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I ask Members to 
oppose it as well, and to vote with the Porter amendment.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5\1/2\ 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 involved in this debate 
is genuinely concerned that we reduce transmission of sexually 
transmitted diseases, that we reduce teen pregnancy in this country. We 
all want the same thing. We want a result. What our debate is about is 
how do we get there.
  As somebody who has delivered 1,500 teenagers, I hope Members will 
take the time to hear what I have to say. I am not talking about 
opinions, I am talking about the experience of 15 years of dealing with 
teenagers. This weekend I delivered two 16-year-old girls. I delivered 
babies for them.
  I want to tell the Members what the real truth is. First of all, out 
of those million teenage pregnancies that occur in this country, over 
half occur because of statutory rape; people, adult men, having 
intercourse with minors, illegally violating the law in every State in 
this country. So half of them result because we have not decided that 
we are going to enforce that regulation. That is No. 1.
  No. 2, if you have a teenager who goes to any type of family planning 
clinic, 12 percent within the first year will be pregnant, with the 
best training, the best conditioning, because teenagers uniformly are 
irresponsible. Even if they have been taught what we know about how to 
prevent pregnancy, they do not concentrate as hard as they should. Many 
of them fail to remember to brush their teeth, let alone to take the 
birth control pill that was given to them at that clinic.
  For those young women who are going to be sexually active, we should 
provide it. But there are some other things we ought to know. As we do 
that, we have over 12 million new cases of sexually transmitted 
diseases in this country every year. Last year NIH released that data. 
Of that, 3 million occur in our adolescent teenagers in this country. 
Two-thirds of those diseases are incurable.
  A condom offers no protection against human pappiloma virus, the No. 
1 sexually transmitted disease. CDC cannot even get a handle on it, it 
is so pervasive. At California, Berkeley, they did a study just of the 
coeds there. Forty percent of the women there are infected with this 
disease. That was in 1992. That was in 1992.
  So we have a big problem. I do not want to challenge anybody's 
motivation in how we solve this. I think we need to redefine the 
debate. Let us redefine this debate on how we solve this problem, and 
look at the different components of this. Part of it is we need to 
start enforcing the statutory rape laws. We ought to talk about that.

[[Page H7060]]

  Should the Government be in the place in terms of alcohol 
consumption? Should we start an alcohol consumption clinic funded by 
the Federal Government to prevent our children from consuming alcohol 
as adolescents, because some parents are not going to do a good job of 
that?
  I do not like title X because I do not think it is effective. As a 
doctor who asks patients who come into my practice when they are 
teenagers, I had a 14-year-old I saw Saturday morning, pregnant. I 
asked her, had she used anything. She had been to the health department 
and had gotten everything they had wanted her to, but she still got 
pregnant.
  But regardless of that, we are going to have title X. This body has 
decided that. But should we not say, parents, your child has made a 
decision to become sexually active, and we are going to help them? But 
we want them to know that. So we have a great opportunity for 
intercedence in a parent.
  Will it always be positive? No. Is there opportunity for negative, 
that they might not come back? Yes. Is there a greater opportunity that 
we might help those children? I think there is. I think we should 
decide on the side of doing, at least having the faith to give the 
parents the opportunity to do it. If it does not work, we can always 
change it. We can change it in 1 year.
  In 1996 we said, we were going to do a study to find out if family 
planning works. Guess what, it is 2 years later from the 1995 debate. 
We all talked about it and said we will do this. We have not done a 
study, so everybody is going on the basis of opinion. There is not a 
study.
  The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Frelinghuysen] mentioned a study. 
I said I wanted to see the study. I wanted to read it. I have read 
everything I can on sexually transmitted diseases and teenage 
pregnancy. I have never seen any study like that, not in a reputable 
journal anyway.
  Everybody's intentions are the same thing. No matter what happens on 
this vote, let us resolve to all get together on this debate and design 
something so we know what the facts are, rather than go on our opinion 
or our gut or whatever.
  I may be dead wrong because my patient population may be wrong, but 
let us get together. Let all of us get together and work together to 
solve this problem. We can do it, and we should.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest].
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me. I would like to start off by making a comment about America in 
general, what makes this country successful.
  I would say the hallmark of the Nation, of this democracy, is human 
initiative using good judgment. It is not the Government dictating any 
policy. I say that as a general rule of thumb for individuals across 
this great Nation, in the diversity of situations they find themselves 
in.
  Most are very positive, very loving, filled with commitment, 
compassion, humility, and discipline. But there are exceptions to that. 
It is the initiative, that we want people to take responsibility to 
solve their problems.
  All of us here want to solve the problems of unwanted pregnancy, of 
statutory rape, of sexually transmitted diseases, and all of these 
things. Everybody on the House floor right now is committed to do that. 
None of us have all the right answers. None of us are absolute in our 
knowledge and absolute in our certainty how to resolve those human 
issues that will be around for generations and generations and 
generations to come. This is just a small, little piece of the puzzle.
  This discussion is going to do some positive good to help resolve the 
nightmare that some people go through. But human initiative, in my 
judgment, is the key: How do we resolve this problem?
  I would say to my good friend, the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. 
Coburn], the doctor, who is a very knowledgeable person, and I take a 
lot of his advice home to my family, that teenagers are not uniformly 
irresponsible. Many of them are. Many of them come from very 
irresponsible homes, irresponsible communities, but especially 
irresponsible homes. Teenagers are on the brink of beginning to reflect 
the nature of their home life.
  So what we are trying to do here is to discuss the difficult issue of 
raising children, and that is very difficult. Parents, we would hope 
every single one of them would be good parents by being responsible, by 
exposing their children to other adults that are responsible, by having 
a good home life with friends and neighbors and other family members 
from the extended family, and that is a wonderful environment.
  The problem is, there are some homes that are not like that. As a 
school teacher for many, many years, I have had students come to me in 
desperate situations because they have been sexually abused by their 
parents, or parent, or physically abused or mentally abused. And the 
difficulty that the Istook amendment would place upon them is 
untenable.

  All of us want to resolve this problem, and certainly we want the 
parents to be responsible, and certainly we want the parents, the 
responsible parents, notified; and the responsible parents are going to 
know about these situations because they are going to create around 
them an environment of support from the school to the church to the 
synagogue to the mosque to the neighborhood to the police department to 
you-name-it. Those are responsible people, exchanging their lives and 
information, and sharing things with other people.
  It is the isolated situations, whether it is in a home that has 
difficulty with poverty or whether it is in the wealthiest of families, 
there are families where children are isolated from the community and 
need our help and need our judgment.
  So the hallmark of America is human initiative, using good judgment. 
I encourage my colleagues to vote for the Castle amendment, because I 
think it begins the process of doing that.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kentucky [Mr. Lewis].
  Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the 
Istook-Manzullo amendment. My question is, what did parents do, mothers 
and fathers do, before title X? What did they do before Congress got 
involved in trying to manage the raising of their children?
  I just looked at the chart a little while ago, and it looks like 
since 1970, teenage pregnancy rates have doubled. Sexually transmitted 
diseases have exploded on the scene. So can we stand here today in the 
halls of Congress and pat ourselves on the back for title X, and for 
what a great job has been done in stopping teenage pregnancy, in 
stopping sexually transmitted diseases? Can we do that?
  For 200-plus years mothers and fathers in this country were able to 
take care of their children. It is amazing that this great body can be 
so presumptuous to think that they can do a better job. I think the 
statistics prove that they have not been able to do a better job. It 
seems like that would be the face of it.
  What is wrong with allowing parents to be put back in the decision-
making process when it comes to their children? It is not your 
children, it is the children of the parents of this Nation.

                              {time}  1745

  Like I said, they were certainly able to do a pretty good job until 
we got involved in it.
  Mr. Chairman, under current title X regulations, clinics across the 
country are free to provide contraceptive devices without notifying the 
parents, and this violates the most fundamental right of being a 
parent, the right to be involved in their children's life when making 
crucial decisions.
  Yes, there are bad parents out there, but, lo and behold, the 
majority of parents in this Nation are good parents. But my colleagues 
are painting with a broad brush and saying that all parents are bad. 
All of them; that parents in this Nation cannot make good decisions for 
their children.
  Mr. Chairman, I say for 200-plus years they were able to do a darn 
good job. But, no, big government, this Government had to get involved. 
What is wrong with taking a look now at where we are? Just like the 
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn], my colleague the doctor, a little 
while ago said, let us stop, let us take a look at it.

[[Page H7061]]

  Mr. Chairman, I have just sponsored a bill, the Family Impact Act, 
that proposes when Federal agencies put forth new regulations, we stop 
and see how those regulations are going to affect the family. Do my 
colleagues not think we need to stop now just for a little while and 
see how title X has affected the family? How not notifying parents 
about particular problems, like those mentioned by the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Manzullo], mentioned a little while ago, has affected the 
family? Stop and say: What is wrong with this picture? What should we 
do now?
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to think that if we are going to be 
helpful in this Nation to our children and our parents, that we would 
at least take a look when things are not going right and say what can 
we do to correct it?
  Well, this amendment corrects the problem. It makes sure that parents 
are involved. It does not mandate that children must get their parents' 
permission to use contraceptives, but it does make sure that they are 
notified. What is wrong with that? It simply requires that they provide 
information to the parents if their child asks for contraceptive drugs 
or devices.
  It also protects the child by requiring title X providers to report 
evidence of child abuse, child molestation, sexual abuse, rape, or 
incest to the proper State authorities.
  Mr. Chairman, it is time that this Government makes sure that parents 
are once again involved in the raising of their children. Is that not 
the least parents should have? Like I said, I think they did a good job 
until this institution got involved. We need to look and see where we 
are and where we need to go, and I think this is a good step in this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to support the Istook-Manzullo 
amendment.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Oregon [Ms. Furse].
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, in this body we are supposed to at least 
make sense. That is why I rise in support of the Castle amendment, 
which makes sense, and oppose the Istook amendment, which makes 
absolutely no sense.
  Why does it make no sense? I believe that the Istook amendment will 
actually increase teen pregnancy. It seems to me pretty ridiculous to 
pretend that all homes are loving, supportive. We would all wish they 
were. But most of us know that not all homes are that way, that there 
are some homes where a child would be in actual physical danger of 
trying to get the parents' consent or knowledge.
  We have heard some horrible, horrible cases here today. I want to 
remind my colleagues of a case in Oregon where the father of a young 
woman raped her. When she told her teacher of that rape, he killed her. 
So what about those families where the sexual predator is in the 
family?
  Now, the Castle amendment makes absolute sense because it will reduce 
teen pregnancy. I want to talk a little bit about a program we have in 
Oregon called STARS. It teaches abstinence and it allows teenagers to 
talk about abstinence, but it also teaches teenagers how to say ``no''. 
No to sex. No to coercion. No to abuse.
  Mr. Chairman, that program has been introduced into Oregon by our 
first lady, Sharon Kitzhaber. It is utilized in half of the counties in 
Oregon, but it has been in practice in Georgia for 5 years. Mr. 
Chairman, let me tell my colleagues what that program has done in 5 
years. In 5 years, this program, which would be like one of the ones 
the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle] is asking be included, that 
program has reduced teen pregnancy by 33 percent.
  So if we want to make sense, if we want to reduce teen pregnancy, do 
like the gentleman from Delaware. If we do not want to make sense and 
we do not care about teen pregnancy, really, truly, then we would go 
with the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to support the Castle amendment, make 
sense, and reject the Istook amendment.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I have been reading over the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] as to when a provider can provide 
contraceptive drugs or devices. It says if the minor is emancipated 
under applicable State laws, which is redundant as far as I can see; if 
the minor has the written consent of a custodial parent or custodial 
legal guardian, which is where that language came in; if a court of 
competent jurisdiction has directed that the minor receive the drugs or 
devices. I cannot imagine a minor going to court, a 14-, 15-, 16-year-
old going to court. And then the key provision, and in fairness to them 
it says the provider has given actual written notice to a custodial 
parent or a custodial legal guardian notifying the parent or legal 
guardian of the intent to provide the drugs or devices at least 5 
business days before providing the drugs or devices.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to put themselves in the mind of a 
child. It could be a 16-year-old child or a 15-year-old child, whatever 
it may be. The studies show us that this child has been having sexual 
activity for a period of 1 year. This is a child almost inevitably that 
has not told the parents. This child has stated he or she will go on 
having sexual activity and they want some sort of protective devices, 
contraceptives or whatever they may be, and they go to Planned 
Parenthood, or they go to some sort of an outlet of a State, or 
whatever it may be. At that outlet they are counseled.
  Mr. Chairman, by our legislation we would encourage family 
participation in the decision of the minors. It provides counseling to 
minors on how to resist attempts to coerce minors into engaging in 
sexual activities, and that is how it should be. Frankly, that same 
child is simply not going to get into a situation in which it has to 
have written notice sent to a custodial parent. That is not going to 
happen. That means that that child is not going to receive any 
counseling whatsoever. The child is not going to receive any 
encouragement to see his or her family. The child is not going to 
receive any counseling with respect to coercion by an older person, 
such as the Illinois case, in the chances of sexually transmitted 
diseases, the chances of pregnancy occurring out of wedlock and the 
consequences of that become much greater as a result of this 
legislation.
  It is a simple matter. We have to think this out very carefully. I do 
not have a single question in my mind about the authenticity of the 
feelings of the individuals involved, but I think they have reached the 
wrong conclusion and they have set up more difficulty than they have 
provided relief for. So I believe we should support the Castle-Porter 
amendment.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 45 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, actually the points raised by the gentleman from 
Delaware [Mr. Castle] are already covered amply by the legislation. For 
example, counseling does not require any sort of parental notice nor 
consent. In fact, if the child has a sexually transmitted disease, it 
requires treatment. Also, there is no need of parental notice or 
parental consent because there is an immediate health care need. It is 
only when they are seeking contraceptives that it comes into play.
  Furthermore, the urging of family involvement is already the law and 
has been for several years. The amendment adds nothing there. And, 
finally, the bill already contains language that says you are going to 
counsel minors on resisting sexual advances and so forth. The Castle 
amendment adds absolutely nothing to what is already in the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado, [Mr. 
Bob Shaffer].
  Mr. BOB SHAFFER of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I find it surprising, 
frankly, that this debate takes place to the extent that it does and 
with the passion that it does.
  Mr. Chairman, I wish to address a number of points. The credibility 
that really eludes the arguments of the opponents of the Istook 
amendment is rooted in a number of points that I wish to address.
  First of all, Mr. Chairman, I ask that Members remember this is an 
appropriations bill. One would think that this was a bill over a 
particular activity or another piece of legislation. But what this 
really is about is about cash and about funding and about funding a 
particular activity through the title X clinics.
  One of the comments that was made by the opponents of this amendment

[[Page H7062]]

was that if adopted, it would, quote, deny contraceptive services. Mr. 
Chairman, I point out that this amendment only ensures that public 
funds are not spent in a way that undermines parental authority. In 
fact, contraceptive services to children, for those who support that 
kind of thing, can continue on with the Istook amendment.
  In fact the proponents of the substitute amendment, which favors 
contraception for children, suggests that the groups like the AMA, the 
American Academy of Pediatrics, the Hospital Association, the American 
Association of Public Hospitals, the American OB/GYNs all support the 
concept of contraception for children and oppose the Istook amendment.
  Well, these groups are fine organizations. They are in many cases 
privately funded organizations. Let them pay for contraception for 
children if they really and truly do believe the importance of it.
  What is at debate here today, again, is not whether this activity is 
legal or should or should not take place. What is in question is the 
extent to which our Federal Government should subsidize an activity 
that is so offensive to so many and does undermine the principal 
authority of parents and families throughout our country.
  Mr. Chairman, in my district out in the eastern plains of Colorado, 
there are tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands for whom 
contraception alone is an offensive proposition. They believe that it 
in fact violates their religious precepts that they practice as a part 
of their daily life. Frankly, they are not asking to impose that belief 
on anyone else.
  But just as there are those who hold those beliefs and ideals dear, 
and abide by them daily, there are others who believe that 
contraception for children is a good idea. Now, those individuals are 
in fact imposing their values, their brand of morality, on all of the 
rest. They are in fact taking the cash on April 15, the income taxes of 
hard-working individuals who find this activity abhorrent, they take 
their cash and they spend it in a way that violates that public trust.
  Mr. Chairman, my wife and I are raising three daughters and a young 
boy, and if I ever found out that my government was providing advice 
and contraceptive services to my children without my knowledge, I can 
only say that it would be very difficult to forgive those who allowed 
that to take place. I believe I would find a way to do that eventually, 
but it would be difficult and it is difficult for every parent in this 
country to handle that as well.
  Mr. Chairman, it is more difficult still to understand that it is 
possible today, in fact likely today, and in fact is occurring today, 
that that scenario will duplicate itself and repeat itself and the very 
parents who are offended by that activity are bearing the costs 
themselves.
  Yes, right here in America, parents are paying as taxpayers for 
agents of the Government to teach their children values that are 
contradictory to those which are taught in the home. We should not 
allow that to occur.
  It has been said by those who are in favor of contraception for 
children that the United States leads the world in sexually transmitted 
diseases. That was not always the case. It has only been the case since 
we have allowed the Federal Government to intrude into the bedroom on 
children, to subsidize the sexual activities of children.
  Mr. Chairman, how often have we heard that: Keep government out of 
the bedroom? We should not use taxpayer dollars to ease children into a 
bedroom. We should not use taxpayer dollars to equip them for an 
activity for which they are not fit to engage. We should not use 
taxpayer dollars to teach a false sense of security for an activity 
that can kill them, that can scar children, that can devastate their 
futures and which drives a wedge even further between children and 
their parents.
  Mr. Chairman, if we want children to learn, we buy them books. If we 
want children to brush their teeth, we buy them toothbrushes and 
toothpaste. If we want them to obtain jobs, we teach them how to work. 
If we want them to be baseball players, we buy them baseballs and 
baseball gloves.
  If we want them to stop fighting, we take away the clubs. If we want 
them to stop shooting, we take away the bullets. If we want them to 
stop taking drugs, we take away the needles. If we want them to have 
sex, all we have to do is give them the tools, as we do today, to have 
sex, to think that they are responsible, to treat them like married 
adults, when actually they are foolish children.

                              {time}  1800

  One other opponent of the Istook amendment said that in order to 
understand this issue and vote the way they think we ought to vote, we 
only need to put ourselves in the mind of a 15-year-old. As a Member of 
Congress, I say hell no. We are the U.S. Congress. We are sent here to 
represent a country and honor the values of this great Nation, not to 
think like children, not to pass foolish pieces of legislation that 
take cash from parents and use it to pry their authority away from 
their family obligation and their rights as parents. We should pass the 
Istook amendment and honor that sacred institution of our families.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to the 
gentleman.
  I want to make it very clear that for those of us who strongly 
support family planning, we strongly support abstinence on the part of 
children and in no way are we encouraging sexual activity.
  What we are trying to do is to prevent sexually-transmitted diseases. 
We are trying to prevent teenage pregnancy. That is why we are so 
strongly supportive of family planning, because 80 percent of the 
youngsters who go to these family planning clinics are already sexually 
active.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Davis].
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the 
Castle substitute. I do so because I believe that the Istook-Manzullo 
reporting requirements are duplicative and unnecessary.
  Furthermore, I have heard some strange logic here this afternoon. The 
logic that says, if individuals are already involved in sexual 
activity, and we know it, facing the truth is oftentimes painful, but 
the fact of the matter is, many of our young people today have already 
begun to become sexually active before seeking information, advice, or 
family planning information.
  The real fact of the matter is, when we deny those individuals the 
services that they need, we are relegating them in many instances to a 
lifetime of poverty, of misery, of despair, of the inability to care 
for children that they have, in fact, produced. The reality is that we 
are increasing the need for welfare.
  There is no way that young mothers, 18, 19, 20 years old, can take 
care of three or four children. And we would deny them information 
because we know that many teenagers are not going to share with their 
parents the fact that they are sexually active.
  I support Castle because it is a vote for realness.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Utah [Mr. Cook].
  Mr. COOK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Istook-Manzullo 
amendment to title X.
  I am from Utah, a State with a reputation for strong families and 
meaningful parental involvement. Our laws recognize a parent's right to 
have a voice in the choices children make. Our elected officials ponder 
ways to strengthen the families, realizing that strong, healthy 
families are the best solution to most ills in our society.
  Our public education system recognizes and respects the vital, clear 
voice of parents. And yet, our children can get birth control devices 
from federally funded agencies without the knowledge of their parents. 
This troubles parents in my district. This troubles me.
  Whether Congress intended this or not, the current title X policy 
undercuts parental involvement in this most critical area of a 
youngster's life, their sexuality. In Utah, teens must have parental 
consent to play on sports teams or participate in field trips, yet they 
can obtain birth control devices without notifying their parents.
  It is important to note here that we are talking about parental 
notification, not parental consent. I am a pro-life Congressman. I am 
anxious that Federal policy not subtly encourage abortions. Some have 
argued that notifying a parent of a child's request for

[[Page H7063]]

birth control will lead to more abortions. I disagree. I think alerting 
parents to their youngster's sexual activity will do more to halt 
unwanted pregnancies and abortions than just dispensing free birth 
control devices.
  We have tried that. We have been trying it for decades. During the 
years we have freely dispensed birth control, teen pregnancy rates have 
doubled. The number of teens seeking abortions have soared accordingly. 
Sexually transmitted diseases have reached epidemic proportions.
  What further proof do we need that our existing policy is not 
working? It is time to be doing what we should have been doing all 
along, bringing parents back into the loop.
  I have been disappointed to hear the misleading rhetoric surrounding 
this bill. This bill is pro-children. This bill is pro-family. This 
amendment is pro-safety. We are requiring recipients of title X funds 
to report child abuse, molestation, rape, or incest. These crimes 
should never go unreported, regardless of the wishes of a frightened 
child. Failure to report these crimes is failure to protect a child. 
Just giving youngsters birth control and some pamphlets in those 
horrific circumstances is like putting a Band-Aid on a hemorrhaging 
wound. The crime must be stopped. The criminal must be punished. The 
victim must be helped.
  This bill not only ensures responsible, caring parents a voice in 
their children's life; it also ensures youngsters meaningful protection 
against abusive parents and sexual predators. The full protection of 
the law, not just the protection of a birth control device.
  I urge passage of the Istook-Manzullo amendment, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Greenwood].
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
the time.
  I have to begin by saying that my heart is with, in many ways, the 
makers of this amendment. My heart is with the gentleman from Oklahoma 
[Mr. Istook] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Manzullo], because I 
understand what they want to do. They want to protect our children from 
the elements of our culture that would undermine the values that we try 
to teach them at home. They do not want a world in which our kids are 
sneaking behind our backs and getting information that rightly ought to 
come from us.
  As the gentlemen know, I have two daughters. They are 10 and 12. My 
wife and I are engaged in this struggle every single day. We are 
considered the fuddy-duds in our neighborhood, I think, because my 
daughters are always saying, how come everyone has their ears pierced 
already and we cannot? How come everybody can wear makeup to school and 
we cannot? How come you will not let MTV come into the house? I called 
the cable station and I do not let MTV come into the house. So that is 
pretty square, I guess.
  We work real hard in our family on communications with our kids 
because we know that if we can establish communications about these 
issues, I stayed up late the other night with my daughter, 12-year-old, 
on the question of makeup. And I said, it is bigger than makeup. I will 
tell you what I am afraid about. I am afraid that people on Madison 
Avenue and people in Hollywood, in order to sell a product, are trying 
to create an image. And kids your age feel that if they do not fit that 
image that is provocative, 12 or 13 or 14 years, that there is 
something wrong with you. I am afraid of these people stealing your 
childhood away from you.
  That is why we have these discussions. We communicate like that every 
day in our family.
  If we succeed at this level when we are talking about pierced ears 
and makeup, then I think we will succeed when the heavy issues come 
like sexuality, going out to parties, and dating, and all of those 
things that have me scared to death already.
  The parents in America that succeed at doing this, for them this 
language is moot. It does not matter. We do not need the government, 
for those of us, for parents who have succeeded, we do not need the 
government establishing communications. We do not have to mail a 
letter, nobody has to mail a letter to me saying your daughter is over 
here because I am going to know what my daughter is doing, if I 
succeed.

  But we also know that really good parents who try hard do not succeed 
at this. It is hard to talk about. It is hard for any kid. Think of it 
yourself. How many of us can honestly say that when we were 15, 16, and 
17 we could sit down at the table and talk about sexuality over dinner? 
Let us not pretend, by the way, that that is what happened in this 
country for 200 years. Silence was the order.
  But some parents will not succeed. And for those parents who also, 
just like I do, hope that our kids are abstinent and do not get 
involved in sexuality before they are mature enough to do it, we hope 
that they will be abstinent until they are 18, at least until they are 
married, that this is not an issue. But what we know is that 56 percent 
of young ladies under the age of 18 are already sexually active. And it 
is higher with the males, 73 percent.
  So what are we going to do about that? We know that that is going on. 
There are a lot of variables that determine whether a teenager is 
sexually active. It has to do with how they communicate with their 
parents. It has to do with how they respond to peer pressure. It has to 
do with what kind of a situation they are in.
  But do you know what does not have any influence on whether a kid is 
sexually active? The availability of birth control. They do not refrain 
from being sexually active if they cannot get birth control, and they 
do not become sexually active because they can. That is not the way 
this works. That is not the way the birds and the bees work.
  Kids become sexually active or they do not become sexually active for 
a lot of reasons. And the kids who can talk to their parents are in 
great shape. But if we tell kids who cannot talk to their parents and 
who are sexually active that we are going to send a letter home to mom 
and dad or you cannot come into this clinic and get contraceptive 
services, I wish that would solve the problem. I wish those kids would 
say, OK, no more sex. We are finished, cannot get the pill. I wish that 
that would work, because that is what the framers of this amendment 
hope happens. But it will not happen. That is not what happens. They 
continue to be sexually active.
  We know the story. They become pregnant; they get sexually 
transmitted diseases. They have no one to talk to. They have abortions. 
That is the bottom line. That is what happens with this language. None 
of us wants that.
  There has been a lot of criticism of family planning clinics in this 
country, a lot of talk about what has happened with the teenage 
pregnancy rate. It has gone down 8 percent since 1991. These clinics 
are working. We should protect the work that they do with the Castle 
amendment.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman].
  (Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Castle-Porter 
substitute.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Castle-Porter substitute and 
against the underlying amendment.
  As a mother of four, including a young adult daughter and teenage 
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 or their father is based on 
trust and respect and cannot be mandated by law.
  At the same time, as a policymaker, I want to reduce the instances of 
unwanted pregnancies and cases of sexually transmitted diseases. Would 
requiring parental consent for family planning services achieve that 
goal? Clearly not.
  Instead, it would create a barrier and overturn statutes in 49 States 
by imposing a one-size-fits-all Washington policy. More importantly, 
studies show that 80 percent of sexually active teenagers would stop 
seeking family planning services if parental consent were required. The 
result would be more unintended pregnancies, possibly more abortions, 
and certainly more cases of sexually transmitted diseases.
  The difficulty we face as parents and policymakers is finding the 
balance between policies that encourage the active involvement of 
parents in their children's decisions and policies

[[Page H7064]]

that reduce teen pregnancies. The substitute amendment offered by 
Messrs. Castle and Porter is the preferable, though far from perfect, 
approach.
  The Castle-Porter substitute requires that title X grantees encourage 
the involvement of parents when teens seek contraception and other 
family planning services. To be sure, some may claim that title X 
grantees could easily provide the certification required by the 
amendment without genuinely making the effort to encourage teenagers to 
discuss their situation with their parents.
  But I have met with many title X grantees and I know that they share 
the concern which has been expressed by both the proponents of the 
Istook-Manzullo amendment and the Castle-Porter substitute--that only 
through strong family bonds and only by encouraging teenagers to seek 
contraceptive advice can we reduce unwanted pregnancies and some of the 
other health risks facing sexually active young people. And they all 
make a very concerted effort to achieve both goals.
  Support the Castle-Porter substitute which will reduce unwanted 
pregnancies and cases of sexually transmitted diseases while 
encouraging to the greatest extent practicable family involvement in 
the decisions of our children.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 40 seconds.
  I think the thoughtful comments of the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Greenwood] deserve some response.
  When he says good parents do not need this because this never happens 
in good families, of course it happens in good families. Good families 
want to get involved when something happens that is a surprise to them.
  If we say that availability of birth control has no affect on sexual 
activity, I lived through the 1960's and the early 1970's. I know all 
the writings that are out there saying that the availability of the 
pill and so forth and birth control had a huge affect on sexual 
activity in America.
  I do not think that we can say, here is a hammer, here is a nail, 
here is a board. But believe me, I am not encouraging you to have it. I 
do not think that would be realistic.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes 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 today in strong support of the 
Istook-Manzullo amendment and in opposition to the Castle substitute.
  I am deeply concerned about the incident that occurred in Illinois, 
and even more concerned about current law allowing this type of 
atrocious behavior to continue to occur unless something is done and 
something is done soon.
  I am distressed that it takes the exposure of such an atrocious 
situation for an issue such as this to receive appropriate attention. I 
am encouraged that this amendment is on the floor today, and I urge 
every Member to support the Istook-Manzullo amendment.
  Currently, there are nearly 1.5 million teenagers using the title X 
program. This means that the parents of 1.5 million teenagers receiving 
federally funded services pay taxes for those purposes. I think it is 
not rational to believe that those parents do not want to be informed 
when their children are being supplied with possibly potentially 
harmful contraceptives.

                              {time}  1815

  As the father of the two most beautiful little girls in the world and 
as a Member of Congress responsible for allocating taxpayer dollars, I 
find this issue extremely troubling.
  This amendment is critical for parents to be just that, parents. 
Unfortunately, the title X program virtually eliminates the role of 
parents in their children's receipt of medical care, and potentially 
harmful medical care at that.
  Opponents of this amendment claim this amendment would result in 
higher pregnancy rates and more abortions. I find this difficult to 
understand in light of the fact that teen pregnancy rates have doubled 
since the title X program was created. At best, there is no correlation 
between the funding of this program and a reduction in the teen 
pregnancy rates, and in fact, it may be concluded that this program has 
actually facilitated its increase.
  Parents have been deleted from the picture and clinic employees are 
now responsible for providing contraceptives without any interest or 
legal procedure to actually question the teenager about his or her 
sexual activities.
  This amendment, the Istook-Manzullo amendment, would simply require 
clinics to report to the proper authorities any abuse, rape, incest or 
molestation that title X clinic patients have experienced, and would 
allow parents to simply be informed of any contraceptives their minor 
child is receiving. This amendment does not prevent the treatment, 
counseling or testing for sexually transmitted diseases under current 
law. Parental notification is not required for minors to be treated for 
STD's.
  In addition, it does not deny any services to teens. It does not even 
require parental consent, but it will at least let a parent know when 
their 13-year-old daughter is coming into a clinic for a Depo-Provera 
shot while some 25-year-old monster waits in the car. I think parents 
deserve at least that much.
  Simply put, I encourage all of us to consider how much longer we will 
continue to allow child molesters and rapists to hide behind the 
Federal morass of title X regulations.
  Mr. Chairman, it seems that in this body we continue to legislate 
based on the lowest common moral denominator. We are saying that 
because there are parents, a minority to be sure, a minority of parents 
that in some way cause problems for their children when they find out 
their children have been sexually active; or in the case of the lady 
from Oregon talking about the father that killed his daughter when she 
reported the sexual molestation, that we must bring everyone in the 
country under that same concept of regulation.
  Mr. Chairman, I would say that not every parent is like the parent in 
Oregon or not even close. Many of us as fathers and mothers want to 
know about these situations when they come into our children's lives. 
And the idea that we can set up this because we need this for the 
children is to say that, for example, we need to eliminate the status 
of minors altogether.
  If we believe that there is a case in America or some cases in 
America whereby some parents may not act responsibly when informed of 
these things, why can we not extrapolate from this and say, let us do 
the same thing for alcohol abuse. Let us simply not notify the parents, 
but have a clinic operator inform the child and counsel the child. Or 
tobacco use, how about we not tell the parent that the child is 
involved in tobacco use because the parent may be averse to that?
  No, Mr. Chairman, in this country we continue to recognize the 
importance of parents in the lives and decision-making of their minor 
children. This bill does not stop funding of a program that, at best, 
has no correlation to reducing pregnancy rates. This does not even talk 
about consent. We are not asking that I give my consent if my daughters 
receive Federal family planning.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a responsible amendment, and I seek that the 
membership elect to accept the Istook-Manzullo amendment.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from New York [Ms. Slaughter].
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to take just a moment to answer a 
question one of my colleagues asked about, what did parents do before 
1970? I was at the University of Kentucky in the 1950's, and I can 
answer that question. I think I should.
  Women who got pregnant in those days died from botched abortions or 
they died from septicemia or they became sterile, unable to have 
children in the future, or they were sent away to what was called a 
Florence Crittenden home with other women who had, in the jargon of the 
day, ``got themselves in trouble,'' to wait 9 months until their babies 
were born.
  And their families told their friends and everybody else they had 
moved away with a relative for a little while. It was common. They had 
no opportunity again to go back and finish their education. They were 
from the ``good'' families. Poor women just had no options.
  The men involved got off without any problem because it was a case of 
spontaneous generation, the woman had ``gotten herself into trouble.'' 
They continued their education and lives, and had every opportunity to 
become titans of industry. The women were disgraced.

[[Page H7065]]

  That has changed, and I am happy for it.
  I wish that every child in America lived in an ideal home, but they 
do not. But even in ideal homes, in good homes, where 99.9 percent of 
everything is discussed, there comes a time every now and then when a 
child may not want to talk this over with their parents.
  It is a tragic thing that happened in Illinois, it is a case of 
statutory rape, and of course it must be prosecuted. In my district we 
do that; and if my colleagues do not prosecute in their districts, I 
want to recommend it to them.
  But this amendment has a far broader reach. It says that none of the 
funds in this act or any other act for any year can be made available 
to any title X provider if they do not fulfill this amendment. That 
means they risk the loss of Medicare funds, Medicaid funds, graduate 
medical reimbursement, disproportionate share payments, and everything 
else that we do for health care facilities in this country.
  Because of the broad-reaching nature of this amendment, it has been 
strongly opposed by the American Medical Association and the hospitals.
  Now, let me say one thing that is very important here. I think this 
law would preempt State laws on this issue because 24 States have laws 
that mandate confidentiality between providers and adolescents. What we 
say here over and over again on this floor, what I hear is, we should 
never enforce anything from Washington; the States know best, the local 
areas know best. In this case we are saying, no, that is not the case. 
No, no, Washington knows best on this issue after all.
  Now, States deserve to have their considered laws on doctor-patient 
communications remain intact, and I urge my colleagues in the strongest 
possible terms to reject the Istook-Manzullo amendment, as well-meaning 
as it may be, and to support Castle-Porter.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Manzullo].
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I want to respond that the Congressional 
Research Service has supplied a memo dated July 28, 1997, stating the 
title X regulations do not require that title X providers report cases 
of incest or statutory rape.
  We are trying to change that law. We are trying to make it mandatory 
on the part of title X providers, that they have the same reporting 
requirements as State people do. It is just that simple.
  So it is incorrect to state, as many Members on the other side have 
said, that title X providers are already required to report these 
violations.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Largent].
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, let me say first of all that I am really 
proud to call myself a Member of Congress. It is a privilege and an 
honor, and with that privilege comes a great deal of responsibility.
  But I also have to tell my colleagues that I am even more proud to be 
known as a father, a dad. I have four children, three of them 
teenagers. And with that privilege of being called a dad come even 
greater responsibilities.
  I have to tell my colleagues that it really saddens me that we even 
have to debate this issue. As a Member of Congress, in fact, I am 
embarrassed; as a parent, I am offended.
  Let me just say flat out what this debate is about. This is about, is 
it right to notify parents when their children receive counseling, 
contraceptives, sexually transmitted disease inspections or testing; is 
it right?
  Just think about that, as a parent. To use tax dollars that moms and 
dads from all over this country are sending to Washington, DC, should 
we use those tax dollars to do those things to our children and not let 
their parents know about it? Just on the very surface of the debate, it 
is laughable. And I want to tell my colleagues again that, as a parent, 
I am offended.
  If we listen, just below the surface of the debate, of those that are 
opposed to letting parents know what is happening to their children, 
the message, the underlying message is that we cannot trust parents.
  That is the message: We cannot trust parents. So the debate is really 
about this.
  Who cares the most about my children? Is it people here in Washington 
that want to hand my children contraceptives or examine them or offer 
these services to them or is it me? Who can protect my children the 
best, me or my fellow colleagues?
  I want to tell my colleagues, I do not believe any of them care or 
love my children as much as I do. I do not care who they are, there is 
nobody here in Washington that loves my children more than I do. And 
yet there are many people that are trying to impose what they think is 
right for my children and other people's children in this country on us 
as parents, and that is wrong. And that is what this entire debate is 
all about.
  Understand, this is about just letting parents know. This is not 
about asking for their consent.
  I get calls all the time. I cannot say all the time; I have often 
received calls from my children's school, from the school nurse. The 
school nurse will call to say that my daughter has a headache, and the 
nurse needs to get my consent to give her two aspirin. The nurse thinks 
she should administer those to her, but she needs my consent. Is it OK 
with me.
  Not only do they have to notify me, they have to get my approval to 
give her two aspirin. And yet my daughter could go to a federally 
funded clinic, be tested for sexually transmitted diseases, be given 
condoms, given counseling, and I would not even know about it. They 
would not have to call and ask for my permission, not even notify me; 
and that is wrong.
  I want to tell my colleagues what is happening all across our country 
to a lot of different institutions of authority, and I want to say that 
the family institution is an institution of authority, but what is 
happening is not hammer blows against those institutions of authority. 
Whether it is the Government or our schools or law enforcement or 
families, it is not hammering against those institutions of authority; 
it is a slow erosion.
  This is one of those ways to slowly erode away the authority of 
parents in their children's lives, their ability to direct their 
children's lives, to counsel them, as parents, to provide protection 
for them. This is one of those things that is slowly eroding that 
authority away. And when we erode authority away, we erode respect away 
from parents.
  It is no wonder we have the problems with teenage crime and violence 
and pregnancy that we have today, because we continue to erode the 
authority of all parents.
  So the question is this, and I will finish by saying the question is 
this, and I want to say up front that I do not question the motives of 
anybody involved in this debate on either side. I really do not, 
because I believe in my heart that every Member of Congress is seeking 
the answer to this question. And that question is this: How can we best 
help kids in our country today?
  I believe every Member of the Congress is trying to answer that 
question in this debate that we have before us; and I will tell my 
colleagues that the conclusion that I have reached, and the reason that 
I support the Istook-Manzullo amendment is this: I have concluded that 
the best way we can protect the children of our country today is to 
involve their parents, because I believe parents care the most for 
their children. So we need to help those parents by at least allowing 
them to know what is happening to their children.
  I urge support for the Istook-Manzullo amendment.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Hefner].
  (Mr. HEFNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time remains on each 
side?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] has 43\1/4\ 
minutes remaining; the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle] has 29\1/2\ 
minutes remaining; the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey] had 26\1/
2\ minutes remaining before yielding.
  The gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Hefner] is recognized for 3 
minutes.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, I have a tremendous amount of respect for 
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter]

[[Page H7066]]

and for the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle], and it has been 
interesting to listen to this debate. And I listened to the gentlewoman 
from Kentucky, who comes from a rural district as I come from a rural 
district in North Carolina, and she talked about what has changed, and 
she was right.
  Back when we were growing up, and I am a lot older than most people 
here, but when a girl got herself in trouble, it was always a woman 
that got herself in trouble. The guy was not particularly involved in 
it. It was always the woman that got herself in trouble and she bore 
the brunt of it for the rest of her life, if she was even allowed to 
live in the community.

                              {time}  1830

  We are not here today to encourage people to be promiscuous. We are 
not here to say that family planning is telling our children to be 
promiscuous, to go out and have sex with everybody that comes along. It 
is obvious that family planning centers, and I have talked to the 
people that work there, and they strongly urge people to have 
abstinence. They do not say every time that you go to a family planning 
clinic you have got to go have an abortion.
  The gentleman from Oklahoma said that the people that were talking 
about supporting the Castle amendment are urging people, the kids, not 
to trust their parent. I have four grandkids. I love them just as much 
as he loves his kids. But these kids I am talking about are the ones 
that have parents or families that are split, maybe they are living 
with an aunt or a grandmother, and can you imagine the frustration and 
the fear in a 14-year-old when they come to a problem where they do not 
know what to do? They want to go someplace and talk to somebody. It is 
terrible. And the kid says, ``I don't have anybody to go home and talk 
to. I don't have anybody to notify.'' What are you going to do? Are you 
going to give a waiver and go through the courts?
  This is a serious business that we are talking about. If everybody 
was raised in a good, solid home where the mom and dad loved everybody 
and you could talk about it, it would be one thing, but I am concerned 
about the ones that do not live in this environment. They are the ones 
that bother me.
  We are certainly not encouraging people to be promiscuous. We are 
certainly not doing that. We love our kids just as much as you do. But 
this amendment in my view is wrongheaded. The Castle amendment 
addresses it in an absolute, rational way, and this is what we are 
trying to get, to the point that we are trying to get to. But I just 
want Members to know that all family planning institutions are not 
folks that advocate abortion. I might say this. Most of the people that 
are supporting the Istook amendment do not support family planning. Let 
us get that straight right now.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  I would just like to make a point. I thought the gentleman from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Largent] made a very good point. He said he does not 
question anyone's motives and I certainly do not either. This has been 
a fair debate. I certainly do not even begin to question anyone's 
motives. But he raised the issue, and I think this is at the heart of 
it. How can we best help kids today? We may be talking about kids from 
good families but for some reason have a tremendous fear of talking to 
their parents about this at all. We may be talking in many instances 
about kids who have troubled circumstances in one way or another or are 
afraid to talk to parents. Do we want them in a situation in which they 
get no professional guidance whatsoever with respect to what they might 
do sexually for the remainder of their lives? Or do we want them to get 
some sort of guidance?
  We have to understand that in the State clinics, which I have seen, 
and I assume in Planned Parenthood and other places, that the advice 
that I have seen is generally one of counseling, of trying to persuade 
kids to practice abstinence, to get away from sex in every way 
possible, and any kind of a device or whatever is always something that 
is only done at the end and that is the way it should be, and I think 
often these kids need counseling and help, to talk to their parents, to 
talk to guidance counselors in school or whatever it may be. I wonder 
what a kid would think. Would a kid go to a clinic if indeed that 
clinic has some sort of a notification provision? Admittedly, the 
notification provision is for the supplying of certain equipment in 
this circumstance and not just counseling, or would it go to a 
circumstance where the child, he or she, would feel welcome and could 
get some help? I would judge that that child is much, much more likely 
to go to a clinic in this circumstance. And I think most parents, even 
though they would rather be notified themselves and be the ones giving 
the guidance, they would probably rather have them have good advice and 
counseling than have nothing whatsoever.
  For those reasons, I still believe strongly that the provisions in 
the Castle-Porter amendment are the ones which should prevail but are 
also the ones that are in the best interests of the young people of 
this country.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CASTLE. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. ISTOOK. I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from Delaware 
[Mr. Castle]. I think when we talk about some parents being responsible 
and some parents not being responsible, we know it is true. I believe 
the vast majority of parents are responsible. So much of the concern is 
that in order to provide what we see as help to those who have 
irresponsible parents, that standard is applied in the case of 
responsible parents and provides an inducement, an incentive, if you 
will, that can help draw their children into that. It is the fact that 
the current law does not distinguish.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, let me reclaim the few seconds that are 
left. I believe in the case of responsible parents in most instances we 
are going to find those children are never going to go to any of these 
clinics or receive that advice, they are going to go to their parents 
or get help otherwise. In certain circumstances that could happen, but 
for the most part it is in more troubled circumstances. We are going to 
see this child reach out for help. That is my belief. I think it is 
documented. I admit that I have not seen a lot of studies on it, but I 
think by common sense we can reach that conclusion.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Yielding myself 15 seconds, Mr. Chairman, I can certainly 
relate that from experience. I know of parents who I personally know 
are extremely responsible parents, and yet their children have been 
drawn into that nevertheless. I do not think we could make that 
assumption. But I appreciate the opinion of the gentleman, as I know he 
appreciates mine.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bentsen].
  (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Istook 
amendment and in support of the Castle substitute.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the Istook amendment to deny important 
health care services and information to young people who may have no 
other way to get the help they need and in support of the Castle 
substitute.
  I believe we all share the goal of reducing teen sexual activity and 
teen pregnancy. We all agree that achieving this goal begins in the 
home and is the primary responsibility of parents. And we all agree 
that abstinence is the best approach to encourage young people to take. 
But let us not bury our heads in the sand and pretend we live in a 
perfect world where every teenager can turn to a parent for this 
assistance. The effects of mandating parental consent can have 
devastating results. Rather than promoting parental involvement, 
mandatory notification laws can have the unintended effect of 
increasing health risks to adolescents because many kids will avoid 
proper health concerns to avoid telling their parents.
  Title X-funded clinics already encourage teens to talk with a parent 
about sex, health, and contraception. Requiring parental consent under 
all circumstances takes away the ability of medical personnel to 
exercise their judgment as to when family involvement would be 
inappropriate or nonexistent. The mainstream medical community 
including the American Medical Association agrees that contraceptive 
services, prenatal care, and HIV/AIDS diagnosis treatment should be 
available to teens on a confidential basis.
  Family planning is a necessary investment. Each dollar spent on 
family planning saves about $3 in medical care. Denying services to 
thousands of youth will simply result in higher rates of sexually 
transmited diseases, more

[[Page H7067]]

unintended pregnancies, and more abortions. Right now, publicly funded 
family planning programs, including title X, help prevent 386,000 
unintended pregnancies to teenagers annually. These programs help avoid 
155,000 teenage births and 183,000 abortions. If teens are required to 
obtain the consent of parents for contraceptive services, they will 
avoid seeking any title X services.
  I urge support for the Castle substitute which would require that 
title X programs encourage the involvement of parents when teens seek 
contraception and other family planning services. By encouraging 
parental involvement rather than mandating it, we will ensure that 
parents have the primary responsibility in these matters, but we will 
also ensure teens continue to have access to necessary health care 
services.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Colorado [Ms. DeGette].
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, each year publicly funded family planning 
prevents 386,000 unintended pregnancies to teenagers, it prevents 
155,000 teenage births, and it prevents 183,000 abortions. If we are 
going to stand here and try to say with a straight face that parental 
notification of birth control is going to prevent teenagers from having 
sex, we are living in an Ozzie and Harriet world that has not existed 
in this country, if it ever existed, for 40 or 50 years. If we want to 
prevent these unintended pregnancies, if we want to prevent unintended 
disease and if we want to prevent all of these things from happening, 
we need to have family planning service.
  I happen to believe, as all of us do, that children should not have 
sex as teenagers and that we should teach abstinence-based sex 
education to our teenagers. But let us be realistic. Parental 
notification is not going to stop teenagers from having sex. What it 
will do is take that chart that has been shown by the proponents of the 
Istook amendment throughout the afternoon and evening and it is going 
to take that line that shows increased unwanted teenage pregnancies and 
it is going to put that line right off the top of that chart. That is 
not what any of us want here today.
  Just listen to some of the comments that teenagers themselves have 
made in my district when they were asked the question of what would 
happen if they had to talk to their parents before getting birth 
control. These are teenagers, some of them came from good homes, but 
did not feel they could talk to their parents, and some came from bad 
homes where they might have been victims of incest or child abuse.
  One 17-year-old said: ``I don't think it's a good idea, because more 
teens will do it unprotected rather than having their parents know that 
they are having sex.''
  Another honest girl told the surveyors that, quote, ``I wouldn't have 
come here if I had to have a parent with me and I think a lot of other 
people wouldn't, either.''
  Let us listen to the word from the teenagers. I too have two young 
daughters, and I care more about them than I care about anything in 
this world. I love my daughters, I talk to them every day. Luckily for 
me, they are not 12 yet, but they are 3 and 7. I am heartsick at the 
idea that one of them may have sex before they are ready, before they 
are an adult. I am even more heartsick at the thought that one of my 
precious girls might have an unintended pregnancy or, worse, a fatal 
disease because, for whatever reason, they did not feel that they could 
come to my husband or to me. For that reason, I urge Members' 
opposition to the Istook amendment.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Pitts].
  (Mr. PITTS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, today we heard the tragic story of the 13-
year-old girl from Illinois who was molested by her 37-year-old gym 
teacher for a period of 18 months while a title X family planning 
clinic provided the contraceptives. Mr. Chairman, we should not allow 
this tragic child abuse to happen again. Our current law aids and abets 
child molesters. This Congress must protect our Nation's daughters. 
Federal law requires that taxpayer-funded title X clinics provide 
contraceptives regardless of whether a child's parents know she is 
seeking birth control. If this 13-year-old's parents had been notified, 
her molester could have been stopped.
  The Istook-Manzullo amendment will stop the use of Federal funds in 
the title X family planning program from being used by sexual predators 
to molest young girls. This amendment does two things. First, it 
requires title X clinic staff to follow State law when reporting any 
evidence they discover that a child is a victim of abuse, sexual 
molestation, rape or incest, and, two, it requires title X clinic staff 
to give parents notice, that is not consent, that is just informing the 
parents of the child's decision, before giving a child contraceptive 
drugs or devices only.
  This year the California general assembly passed a law which requires 
parental consent for body piercing. By 73-3 in the general assembly, 
26-4 in the Senate, they passed this law. This is the same girl who 
would be provided an IUD to be implanted or birth control pills or an 
injection with Federal funds. The Alan Guttmacher Institute reported 
that 6 out of 10 girls who had sex before age 15 were coerced by males 
an average of 6 years their senior. Mr. Chairman, I ask Members today, 
when is Congress going to stop supporting sexual predators? I urge 
Members to vote for this vital amendment to protect our Nation's 
daughters and oppose the Castle substitute.
  Do not be fooled. The Castle substitute does nothing to stop the 
molestation of our daughters. The case in Illinois would still have 
happened under the Castle language. Vote for Istook-Manzullo, vote to 
strengthen parental rights. Vote against legitimizing promiscuity.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Porter], the chairman of the subcommittee.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman not only for yielding 
the time, but most especially for his tremendous leadership in offering 
the substitute amendment and his leadership on these very, very 
critical issues.
  Mr. Chairman, we should start out by admitting to ourselves that this 
particular amendment, this subject matter, does not belong in an 
appropriations bill. It is a matter that belongs before an authorizing 
committee. It is a matter that should not be taken up here, and it is a 
matter that, unlike an appropriation, would make under its terms a 
permanent change in the authorizing law, a permanent change in U.S. 
law.
  Mr. Chairman, in my judgment, confidential access to family planning 
services is absolutely critical to providing teenagers appropriate 
medical care and timely advice. I believe that the Istook-Manzullo 
amendment would be destructive of that happening. It would create a 
barrier between teenagers and health care services, and would, in 
effect, destroy any chance to get the kinds of services that prevent 
pregnancies, help to prevent sexually transmitted diseases, and in the 
end help to prevent abortions.
  Most teenagers that go to a family planning clinic, as has been said 
often here on the floor, are sexually active when they go there.

                              {time}  1845

  Some are pregnant, unfortunately. Others want to get contraceptives 
so that they do not get pregnant.
  Ideally, all of these teenagers would talk to their parents about 
their health care decisions. Ideally, every parent should have an open 
and honest relationship with their children in which they can 
communicate about sexual matters and questions of sexual activity.
  We would all hope that the world was an ideal place where this would 
obtain. Unfortunately, we know very well it is not. In the real world, 
many children cannot or do not talk to their parents. These children 
simply do not have an adequate relationship with their parents, and, in 
some cases, a parent is actually sexually abusing the child.
  Unfortunately, the Istook-Manzullo amendment will not instantly turn 
a dysfunctional parent-child relationship into a positive, open 
relationship, and, unfortunately, we have to deal with the world as we 
find it, the real world, and not an ideal world.
  If you are talking about title X clinics, you are talking about 
clinics that serve poor women. Yes, there are some women who go to 
title X clinics that are not poor, but the overwhelming

[[Page H7068]]

majority of them come from poor families and they are in poor areas. 
These clinics are not being accessed by people who have good 
relationships with their parents. In many cases they are from broken 
families, from families in poverty, from circumstances that simply do 
not work to provide for parental consent.
  The proponents of the amendment talk about the circumstances of a 14-
year-old girl. They talk about it as if the title X clinic were the 
cause of her relationship with a high school teacher 20 years older 
than she.
  The fact of the matter is that this relationship existed for more 
than a year before the title X clinic was ever involved. The title X 
clinic did not cause this relationship; the title X clinic did not 
facilitate the relationship.
  It is extremely unfortunate that this occurred, and obviously we all 
deplore it, but at the bottom line the title X clinic may have 
prevented a 14-year-old child from becoming pregnant.
  I believe that, in the end, and while it is well-intended, the 
Istook-Manzullo amendment will increase sexually transmitted diseases, 
will increase unwanted pregnancies, will increase, therefore, abortion, 
and I believe, will not help the situation, however well-intended it 
is.
  I believe that the amendment will drive teenagers away from seeking 
the kinds of counseling, the kinds of advice, the kinds of knowledge 
that they need to avoid sexually transmitted diseases, and it will not 
lead to the kind of results that the sponsors wish.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to say one thing relating to the question of 
sexual abuse which has come up over and over again. There is not one 
State in the Union that does not require anyone with knowledge of a 
sexually abusive condition to report that to the authorities. If sexual 
coercion is going on, everyone, today, must report it to the 
authorities, and this amendment would add nothing to that requirement 
that already exists.
  Unfortunately however well-intended the amendment is, it would not 
only not work, it would not only not help teenagers, but it would 
actually destroy any chance they have of coming to grips with becoming 
an adult in a responsible way.
  I would urge Members to support the Castle substitute, which is well-
drafted to provide exactly what is needed in these circumstances, and 
to oppose the Istook-Manzullo amendment.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/4\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I heard the gentleman from Illinois [Chairman Porter] 
say, well, the program should not be done on an appropriations bill.
  The problem is, title X has not been authorized by Congress. Its 
authorization expired 12 years ago, and there is no other opportunity 
except through appropriations bills to affect it.
  We heard a claim that it is providing services to poor women. 
Actually, Mr. Chairman, the so-called confidentiality requirement is 
used to provide services to any socioeconomic group, because they say, 
``Do you want us to tell your parents?'' They say ``no.'' ``OK, then we 
cannot count your parents' income. We will only count your income as a 
teenager. What is it?''
  Of course, it is not anything beyond the poverty level, because you 
are only talking about a young lady or a young man.
  Finally, I know of no case in the entire country, despite the 
underage children that go in there, where a title X clinic has ever 
reported a case of incest, has ever reported a case of statutory rape, 
has ever reported a case of child molestation or abuse.
  Mr. Chairman, they have never reported these. And that is the essence 
of the problem. They do not report them. I do not know of a single 
case. If the Chairman knows, I am sure he will advise us.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Porter].
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I would simply say I do not know of the 
statistics in that area, but I do not think people go into the title X 
clinic and say, ``I am being sexually abused.''
  The Castle amendment would have people counsel young people about 
that exact question and see if they can determine that. So I think that 
it will accomplish a great deal more than would ever be accomplished 
under the amendment the gentleman has offered.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PORTER. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, in response to that, the language of the 
Castle amendment only repeats what is already in the bill. The Castle 
amendment does not add anything or change anything. Those requirements 
are already in the bill.
  As I say, I know of no case where a title X clinic has ever reported 
things. But they do know what their laws are on what is the age of 
sexual consent in their State, and they are not paying attention to 
them.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt].
  (Mr. TIAHRT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Istook-Manzullo 
amendment and in opposition to the Castle substitute.
  The opponents of the amendment, the Istook-Manzullo amendment, sent 
out a ``Dear Colleague'' which reads:

       Under the Istook amendment, a clinic must notify a parent 
     in writing if a teen requests contraceptives. Five days 
     later, the teen may return to the clinics for contraceptives. 
     Parents who do not consent will prevent their teenagers from 
     returning to the clinics.

  Mr. Chairman, this is inaccurate. The parents do have the right to 
consent or the right to do nothing, and the child still gets the 
contraceptives.
  What it does require is that title X clinics report to proper 
authorities any child abuse, child molestation, sexual abuse, rape or 
incest, and that means that no parent involved in an incestuous 
relationship will receive notice. Rather, they will be reported to the 
proper authorities.
  It does allow for unrestricted information and counseling, which is 
duplicative in the Castle amendment, and it requires the title X clinic 
to provide notification to the parents or legal guardians for the minor 
seeking contraceptives. It does allow for judicial bypass and an 
exemption for emancipated minors, but it does attempt to include 
parents in the process.
  It does not prevent treatment or testing from sexually transmitted 
diseases. Parental notification is not required for minors to be 
treated for STD's, and it does not deny any services to teens. It does 
not require parental consent, only notification.
  This is about trust really. It boils down to trust. Are we going to 
trust kids and parents or do we trust government?
  This is not about somebody else. This is about us right here on the 
floor. It is about you, and it is about me, and it is about Jessica, my 
16-year-old daughter, who some of you met in Pennsylvania at the 
Hershey retreat.
  So I ask, how does this affect me? How does this affect the rest of 
America? I believe most parents would do the right thing when notified. 
They would talk to their kids.
  I know that I love my children more than any clinic can. But will all 
parents react properly? Probably not, according to most people's 
judgment. But, you know, this is not a risk-free society. It never will 
be. But they will be faced with a very important issue, the reality of 
what is going on in their children's lives.
  If you do not trust yourself or those parents, this amendment will 
cover that. It has already taken into account that they can consent, 
again, for the children to get contraceptives and counseling, or they 
can simply do nothing and allow the clinic to provide this.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TIAHRT. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I do not think notification would ever 
occur, because I think in almost every case the teenager would simply 
not go to the clinic. They would not get the counseling, they would not 
get the information, they would not know about sexually transmitted 
diseases, they would not get contraceptives. It simply would cause the 
clinic to stop functioning and stop providing those services.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, what I think it will 
do, Mr. Chairman, is it will force the parents to deal with the issue, 
and the children too, and that is not a thing

[[Page H7069]]

that is occurring now. It is my hope the parents will do the right 
thing. They will talk to the kids about commitment, about personal 
responsibility, about the value of lasting relationships and 
abstinence. But if we do not notify the parents, we cannot give them a 
chance.
  So let us put our trust in people and not in the Government. Let us 
trust ourselves, not some institution.
  I know there is a great deal of concern about less than ideal 
families.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TIAHRT. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield for a 
question, I am confused about this. One does not need consent, but one 
has to have notification. In what form would be the notice of 
notification? Would that be a card or a telephone call or what? Or 
would the kid be sent to take a letter home to their parents, or what?
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I do not know how the 
regulation is written.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TIAHRT. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, the Secretary of HHS would be authorized 
to issue regulations as to the form of written notice.
  Mr. HEFNER. A written notice to the last known address?
  Mr. MANZULLO. That is correct.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think that the real 
underlying issue here is who do we trust? Do we trust people or are we 
going to put our faith in government?
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from California [Ms. Woolsey].
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Istook-
Manzullo amendment, because, quite simply, this amendment puts the life 
and the future of young women all across this country in danger.
  Mr. Chairman, it is time to stop pretending that unwanted pregnancies 
and sexually transmitted diseases just go away if we do not talk about 
them. It is time to recognize that teen pregnancy and teen abortion 
rates actually drop when young people have access to the preventive 
reproductive health care that they need.
  Mr. Chairman, I find it ironic that those who call for greater 
responsibility from our youth are the same people who would deny young 
women the tools they need to be responsible. It is equally ironic that 
the Congress would consider interfering with young women's health care, 
when almost every major medical and public health organization in this 
country opposes the parental consent requirements in this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, who do we listen to? If the Istook amendment passes, 
who will young women, those who do not have safe, supportive families, 
who will they turn to for sound medical advice? Who will help them 
avoid unwanted pregnancies and disease? Who will help them make 
responsible choices about their future?
  Mr. Chairman, let us stop playing with the lives and the futures of 
young women. Let us defeat the Istook-Manzullo amendment and adopt the 
Castle substitute.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York, [Mr. Houghton].
  (Mr. HOUGHTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1900

  Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, we are really talking about title X. 
Title X goes back to 1970. This is something that George Bush was very 
much involved in, and President Nixon signed into law. It has been very 
successful, as Members know, not only in terms of the things we have 
been talking about, but in terms of testing for breast and cervical 
cancer and infectious diseases. It really has been an extraordinary 
program. The thing I hate to do is to sort of tamper with it.
  I am a grandfather of 15 children. I identify with the parental 
understanding and consent and all things like that; but I think the 
thing that bothers me is that when you thrust the Government right in 
the middle and say, ``This is mandatory,'' it destroys the very fabric 
of the family. It destroys the thing which we have been trying to do. 
It destroys, undercuts the very statistics we are all so proud of.
  It seems to me that if we are going to march down this road, we want 
to do it in a practical, in a sensitive, in a really profamily way, so 
we let the families and the churches and the friends and the 
communities work their will and their influence on children. And 
therefore, I am very much in favor of the Castle amendment.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Mississippi [Mr. Parker].
  Mr. PARKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I have enjoyed this debate today. I do not question the 
motive of anyone on either side. For in excess of 30 years we, as a 
society, have done everything in our power to try to change the look of 
this country. We have tried with social engineering to do everything 
that we could to make people act in a different way. I submit that we 
have failed miserably.
  The status quo that we are talking about today says that what we want 
to do is continue the same process, the same path we have been walking 
down, and if we continue to do that, we are going to get the same 
results.
  It would seem to me that somewhere along the way we, as a body, 
should try our best to take the families that we have in this country 
and strengthen them. It seems to me we should be supportive of 
families, that we should uplift them, that we should be able in some 
way to help them in such a way that they can make it through rough 
times.
  It seems to me it is a very odd scenario that we, as a body, have 
made the determination that what we should do is interject lies and 
deceit in this family relationship. There are those who say, well, 
there are a lot of families out there that are dysfunctional. That is 
true. But if we expect the worst of people, that is exactly what we are 
going to get.
  I will tell the Members this: This amendment cannot do anything 
nearly as bad as what we have had happening for the last 35 years. We 
have gotten more pregnant teenagers, we have gotten more people 
pregnant out of wedlock, we have gotten more communicable, sexually 
transmitted diseases in this country than at any other time in our 
history. It is getting worse every year.
  I think it would be a wise move on our part to move away from the 
lies and deceit that we have interjected in these relationships and we 
want to constantly interject in these relationships, and do something 
positive for a change. The moral relativism that has occurred with the 
advancement of the policies that are in place now is ridiculous. It has 
been hurtful for every family.
  I think we should do something revolutionary. We should put some 
truth into relationships. We should allow the truth to be told to 
parents, and then we would, I think, see a positive difference. I must 
tell the Members that what we are doing now has been the most hurtful 
thing to our families of any other policy we have ever advocated.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi], a member of the 
subcommittee.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Istook-Manzullo 
amendment and in strong support for the Castle-Porter amendment, and 
commend them for their leadership in bringing this very important 
amendment to the floor.
  Listening to the debate, it is clear that an amendment of this kind 
and a discussion of this kind of issue goes right to the heart of 
American families. It strikes fear into our hearts, we who are parents, 
and I am the proud mother of five children.
  The very idea that our children may be sexually active before they 
are married is something that is not anything that we would support, so 
we all promote abstinence and support building families and truth in 
relationships; and where there is truth in relationships, where parents 
have engendered that

[[Page H7070]]

truth, there probably is not a problem. But where there is a problem, 
title X is an answer.
  Listening to the debate and listening to my colleagues sincerely put 
forth their ideas, it is clear to me that it is time for this House of 
Representatives to have a discussion of the facts of life, because they 
are being ignored in this debate.
  The facts in relationship to this issue are these: There are 
effective methods to reduce adolescent sexual activity and pregnancy, 
but sticking our heads in the sand is not one of them.
  The restrictive amendment proposed by the gentleman from Oklahoma 
[Mr. Istook] will deny many teenagers contraceptive services. It will 
not cause them to be less sexually active. The fact is, it will cause 
them to be less responsible in their sexual activity. Certainly we 
promote abstinence, but certainly we recognize that not all young 
people follow that lead, and they need more advice and counseling.
  Studies show that if restrictive parental involvement of this kind, 
and not of the kind very smartly put forth by the gentleman from 
Delaware [Mr. Castle], studies show if the restrictive parental 
involvement were mandated, 80 percent of teens who do seek 
contraceptive care now would no longer seek that care, and less than 1 
in 100 would stop sexual activity. The National Center for Health 
Statistics recently reported that the birth rate among teenagers has 
fallen since 1991, due both to fewer teenagers having sex and better 
contraceptive use among those who are.
  There are reasons why the medical community is firm in its opposition 
to the Istook amendment. The American Medical Association, the American 
Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Academy of Family Physicians 
all oppose mandatory parental consent.
  The substitute, the Castle-Porter substitute offered today, 
encourages parental involvement which is appropriate and helpful for 
many teens. It recognizes that mandatory notification or consent does 
nothing to prevent either sexual activity or unintended pregnancies.
  I call the Istook amendment the classic law of unintended 
consequences, the consequences of more sexually transmitted diseases, 
more teen pregnancies, and more abortions, unfortunately. And of 
course, the other services that are provided at title X clinics would 
not be provided, as well.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Castle-Porter substitute and 
oppose the Istook amendment.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Idaho, Mrs. Helen Chenoweth.
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  I listened very carefully to the gentlewoman from California as she 
put forth her very eloquent debate on this issue. She is right, because 
the crux of this whole issue really is truth in relationships. It is a 
very, very important thing in this day and age.
  I think one of the reasons why I am so strongly supportive of the 
Istook-Manzullo amendment is because the relationship between the 
parent and the child, as far as how the Government interacts in that 
relationship, must be strengthened.
  The Government needs to take a position of showing ultimate respect 
for the parents with regard to their relationship with the children, 
unless there is reasonable cause to believe that that relationship is 
horribly abusive. And in many cases the relationship is abusive; we 
always want to stand guard against an abusive relationship like that.
  Mr. Chairman, it is a very sensitive thing for young women to have to 
approach their parents and say, gosh, Mom, I am pregnant. That is a 
very difficult moment in a family's life together. But being a woman 
who before coming to Congress was engaged in counseling other women in 
other situations, I have found time and time again that once that 
hurdle is overcome, that the relationship between mother and daughter 
or the relationship between father and son or father and daughter or 
daughter and father actually strengthens.
  Nine times out of ten the parents, of course, after finally getting 
their breath and realizing, yes, this is taking us off into a new 
passage, rally around with all the natural instincts of parents with 
that child to help them through this very difficult time.
  Mr. Chairman, let us run this picture back again. When teenagers may 
approach their parents and say, I want to become more sexually active 
and I feel that I am ready for this, the fact is that the parents then 
have the chance to be able to counsel with their own child as to what 
their best judgment would be as parents.
  The fact is, and I so agree with the gentlewoman from California 
about the fact that our young people need to understand that there are 
consequences to actions, yes, they do, but they need to understand that 
within the context of what is being taught in the home and in the 
churches, as well as in society and in the schools.
  So I very strongly support the Manzullo-Istook amendment because I 
strongly believe it does two very, very important things: First, it 
strengthens States' rights in that it says, it simply says, 
notwithstanding any other provision of law, no provider of services 
under title X of the Public Health Services Act shall be exempt from 
any State law requiring notification or the reporting of child abuse, 
child molestation, sexual abuse, rape, or incest. So again, the Federal 
Government should, under its rightful responsibilities, uphold State 
law.
  I find this amendment to be somewhat benign, except in the fact that 
I do believe that it strongly enhances the ability of parents and 
children to handle their problems as a family.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Connecticut [Mr. Shays].
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not a debate I was eager to get involved in, 
because it is a very sensitive issue. You are always afraid you might 
say the wrong thing when you speak from your heart. But that is the way 
I want to speak.
  I know our children are having children. I have conducted a number of 
hearings on my Subcommittee on Human Resources. I know that 82 percent 
of all teen pregnancies are unintended. I know that more than half of 
the unintended pregnancies end in abortion. I know the teen birthrate 
in the United States is the highest of any industrial nation.
  I also know that I wrestle with, as I think all Members do, the issue 
of values. I want our children to have values and want our society to 
have values. I strongly disagree with people in this country who think 
we cannot teach values. I think a decision to not have values is a 
decision not to teach values.
  So I stand before the Members as someone who really wants our 
children to know what to do and what not to do. I want our Government 
to contribute to that, and not to be conflicting with it.
  But I rise in support of the Castle-Porter substitute amendment to 
the Istook-Manzullo parental notification amendment because, with all 
my heart and soul, I believe that if the amendment stands without the 
substitute, we are going to have more sickness, we are going to have 
more disease, we are going to clearly have more pregnancies, and we are 
going to have more abortions. I think that is ultimately the result.
  I support family planning assistance. The Istook amendment will not 
prevent young people from having sex. We are not going to outlaw sex. 
It is still going to happen.

                              {time}  1915

  But the Istook amendment will deter teens from seeking contraceptive 
services. Approximately 86 percent of teens coming to title X clinics 
for family planning services have already had sex. Title X family 
planning clinics offer a wide range of services, including 
contraceptive, socially transmitted disease screening and treatment, 
HIV screening, and routine gynecological examinations. Requiring 
parental notification for contraception will deter too many teens from 
seeking these very important services.
  So I do not reluctantly oppose the Istook amendment; I strongly 
oppose it. I believe the Castle substitute to the amendment is 
essential if we want less sickness, less disease, less pregnancies, and 
less abortions.
  Mr. Chairman, I really believe that what we are trying to talk about 
in

[[Page H7071]]

values really begins with what a parent teaches his or her child. And 
this is an area that gets a little more dicey, but frankly those 
children who have been involved in sexual activity are in a 
circumstance where they need help. Unfortunately, in many cases they do 
not think they can turn to their parents.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra].
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, this is a core, gut issue. As a father, I 
can only echo the thoughts of the gentleman from Oklahoma who spoke 
earlier tonight, that it is embarrassing and disappointing that this 
Congress will insert itself between a parent and a child.
  Listening to the debate, I am frustrated. I get to the boiling point 
of anger, believing that there are those in this House who believe that 
it is this Congress' responsibility and right to intervene between a 
parent and a child and that this Government is better at teaching 
values and better at solving these kinds of problems than what a 
parent, a family, a church can do. It is actually a frightening 
thought.
  Mr. Chairman, all this amendment does is say that as these decisions 
are made, a parent has a right to be notified before the Government 
starts handing out contraceptives, before the Government starts handing 
out advice.
  Mr. Chairman, my kids going into this type of an agency, they do not 
know my kids' names, they do not know the background, they do not know 
the parental values, they do not know the issues going on at home. 
Heaven forbid that they would start dealing with this issue with my 
kids.
  What makes us believe that this government was ever given the right 
to raise our kids and teach them about these issues? There is 
absolutely no right for the Federal Government to become involved in 
these issues.
  Mr. Chairman, all we are asking for is parental notification. What we 
have today is a relationship and a process which destroys the 
relationship between a parent and the child. It encourages a veil of 
secrecy between children and their parents.
  If title X is so good, and if title X solves so many problems, why do 
we not change the focus of title X and instead of focusing on the kids, 
let us go to the parents? What makes us afraid of taking this approach 
and selling it to parents and saying here is a program, here is a set 
of values, here is a set of issues that we think your kids ought to 
know about. Sign them up today and we will help you raise your kids. 
Why do we start with the kids and go to the kids and break the 
relationship?
  If we are worried about the families, why are we engaged in 
activities of breaking down the family structure rather than going to 
the parents and saying, you know, we know a lot about these issues. 
There are programs in the Federal Government that are here to help. 
They are so good, we are not ashamed to come to you as parents and to 
talk with you as parents to help you get the kind of advice and the 
information necessary to raise your kids.
  But instead of going to the parents, no, we are afraid to go to the 
parents because we know that most American parents do not support this 
kind of an approach and this kind of intervention with their kids.
  It is time for us to be building families, not to be putting programs 
in place that destroy families and tear down the relationships between 
parents and kids. It is no surprise to me that this administration also 
is the administration that eliminated the parental impact statement or 
the family impact statement.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to say to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Hoekstra] that many of us are very frustrated and angry at the rising 
rate of teenage pregnancy. And if the relationship between the parents 
and the children were so good, then there should not be any concern 
about those children going to the title X clinics.
  So let us work together to promote abstinence, because I share the 
gentleman's concerns and I am very angry at the rate of teenage 
pregnancy, which is now escalating over the last 10 years.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. 
Jackson-Lee].
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from 
New York [Mrs. Lowey] for her leadership, and I thank my colleagues who 
have come to the floor.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to make a simple statement. First of all, as a 
parent of a daughter, I would offer to say that all of us would hope 
our family relationships, our ability to communicate and show nurturing 
and love to our children, leaves the door open for those children to 
come to us with their most intimate secrets. All of us as parents pray 
every day that we will never have the tragedy that faced the young lady 
at her prom in New Jersey, the tragedy of the young couple who are now 
being charged for a tragedy that occurred with an alleged stillborn 
baby. Those are the end results, the tragedies of America.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would require that a minor attain the 
consent of a custodial parent or legal guardian before receiving 
contraceptive drugs or devices from a provider receiving funds under 
title X. Notice that I said parent or legal guardian. That means that 
the legal guardian may not have a blood relationship with that child.
  There are issues of incest and poor relations and frustration and 
fright. If there is a good relationship, we can be assured that our 
child will be there to ask us for advice and guidance. More 
importantly, we will be there to talk to our child about what happens 
in life as they move toward maturity and the feelings in their body.
  But yet now we are asking for the long hand of the government to 
intrude in a process that is confidential. Title X is a confidential 
provider and a confidential process. In fact, the Federal law requires 
that parents are encouraged to participate, but yet there is this 
confidentiality that allows that child to be protected away from incest 
and threat.
  Mr. Chairman, I would encourage my colleagues to defeat this 
amendment and support the Castle-Porter substitute to encourage our 
children to be protected.
  I rise today to voice my opposition to the Istook amendment to H.R. 
2264, the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill. The Istook amendment 
requires that a custodial parent or legal guardian be notified before 
their child receives contraceptive drugs or devices from a provider 
receiving funds under the title X family planning program. The 
amendment also contains a provision permitting the courts to give 
consent for a minor to receive such drugs or devices if parental 
consent cannot be obtained.
  I agree with my colleague, Mr. Istook, that adolescents should be 
encouraged to seek their parents' advice and counsel when facing 
difficult choices regarding family planning and prevention. Indeed, 
Federal law already requires title X providers to encourage family 
participation in reproductive health decisions. The Government, 
however, cannot mandate healthy family relations where they do not 
already exist. While many teens do discuss their situation with a 
parent, not every teen is able to speak openly with his or her parents.
  This amendment will prove harmful to teens by deterring them from 
seeking needed health care to prevent teen pregnancy. Studies confirm 
that when parental involvement is mandated by law, particularly in the 
case of family planning, adolescents are likely to delay or avoid 
seeking needed care.
  In one of these studies, it was reveled that if parental involvement 
were mandated, 80 percent of the adolescents surveyed would no longer 
seek care. However, less than 1 in 100 of those same adolescents would 
discontinue sexual relations. In another such study, 58 percent of high 
school students surveyed in three public schools in central 
Massachusetts reported having health concerns they wished to keep from 
their parents. Approximately 25 percent of the students said they would 
forgo seeking certain types of medical treatment if there was a 
possibility of parental disclosure by physicians.

  Every year, approximately 1 million teenagers in this country become 
pregnant, and 86 percent of births to unmarried teenagers are 
unintended. Such high rates of teen pregnancy are a burden to us all--
to the teenagers, to their children, and to society as a whole. Fewer 
than 60 percent to teen mothers graduate from high school by age 25--
compared to 90 percent of those who postpone childbearing. Further, 
teen mothers are four times as likely as women who have their first 
child after adolescence to be poor in their

[[Page H7072]]

twenties and early thirties and are more likely to have lower family 
incomes later in life. Additionally, teenage girls have a higher risk 
of pregnancy complications--including maternal mortality and morbidity, 
miscarriages and stillbirths, premature births and nutritional 
deficiencies--than adult women.
  The personal impact of teenage childbearing is twofold, diminishing 
the opportunities of both the mother and the child for the children of 
teenage parents are more likely to become teenage parents themselves, 
thus perpetuating the cycle of poverty.
  Given the reproductive health crisis currently facing American youth, 
it is clear that continued access to confidential reproductive health 
services is critical. Restricting access to these services will make it 
more difficult for at-risk teens to escape poverty and will put 
adolescents' lives, health, and future fertility at risk.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the Istook amendment. We 
must not interfere with the goal of preventing teenage pregnancy.
  Several organizations oppose the Istook amendment, they are:
  American Hospital Association, American College of Obstetricians and 
Gynecologists, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of 
Family Physicians, American Public Health Association, and American 
Medical Association.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I have been concerned about this issue for some time as 
a Governor. When I became Governor of Delaware, we had the highest 
infant mortality rate of any State in the country. This is a State that 
is reasonably wealthy.
  I am the cochairman, with the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey], 
of the Congressional Advisory Panel for the National Campaign to Reduce 
Teen Pregnancy. It is a tremendous concern.
  One point that I just want to discuss here tonight is the correlation 
that we are hearing between the advent of family planning and the 
increase in teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, and 
sex in general, in this country. I just do not happen to believe that.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not have the percentages, quite frankly, of how 
many people actually go to these clinics. But I imagine it is a very 
small percentage of young teenagers who are involved in sex or who 
become pregnant in any way whatsoever. But obviously with 
permissiveness in society across the board, with a greater disregard of 
marriage than we have had heretofore, we have some tremendous societal 
problems that we have to address.
  Mr. Chairman, so to say that these two are directly related to each 
other I think is really going too far. And when you think about that 
and realize what is the best way to deal with our poorest children, 
because basically the title X clinics are for poor children, they 
charge fees if you have income above a certain level. It is for our 
poor children, a lot of whom have family problems.
  Do we want to encourage the kids to go in there and get advice and 
help? And the answer is yes. We want to do everything we can to get the 
kids in the door, to get the advice of these counselors and the help of 
these counselors. It is that simple.
  Again, Mr. Chairman, I cannot stress enough how much I believe in the 
faith and the intent of those on the other side of this particular 
issue. But I believe with all my heart that the way we are going to 
help teenagers the most, the way we are going to help them with respect 
to dealing with this problem, is to make this an inviting and a warm 
circumstance. The best way to do that is to pass the Castle-Porter 
amendment which will address the issue that way.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arkansas [Mr. Dickey].
  Mr. DICKEY. Mr. Chairman, I have four children. All of them are boys, 
except for two. It is ``except for two'' that bothers me now, even 
though they are of age. They are grown. Laura and Rachel are very fine, 
well-adjusted kids, and I am thankful for this. Their mother and I both 
are.
  But what I see here is that the parents have all the responsibility, 
but our government is trying to take the authority away, so that if 
there is something wrong, it is the parents. But we are taking the 
authority away and showing no respect that the kids can give to them as 
parents.
  Look at what we do in our schools. We thrust the government in 
between the parent and the child. Let us say on prayer in schools, at 
home and in church parents who choose to do so will talk to their kids 
about prayer. They send them to school and the people say no, your 
parents may do that, but that is not correct. That is not the thing to 
do.
  We send our kids to school and we say to them, obey your teachers, 
obey the school officials. This is the way things are supposed to be 
done. The schools send the kids home and say disregard your parents.
  Mr. Chairman, we are in an uphill battle now as far as trying to get 
more values back into our Nation and we cannot do it through the 
government. We cannot. And the circumstance we have right now is that 
we have circumstances where grown adults hear from kids without the 
parents knowing about it. They learn of things like statutory rape, and 
they stay quiet. They do not tell the parents, they do not tell the 
authorities, because they have this feeling that if they do, the kids 
will not confide in them later.
  What we need to start having to happen is that for kids to start 
confiding in their parents. We need to stop thrusting the government in 
between the parents and the kids.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to please vote for the Istook-
Manzullo amendment.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran].
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, 10 years ago, when I was mayor of the city 
of Alexandria, which is just across the Potomac River from us, perhaps 
the toughest thing that I had to do was to establish a family planning 
clinic for teenagers. I say I felt I had to because of the intolerably 
high incidence of teenage pregnancies and abortions and sexually 
transmitted diseases.
  So we availed ourselves of all of the data. We talked with the 
students and parents at length. We had this very same debate that we 
are having today, except that it lasted a year. Mr. Chairman, we came 
to the conclusion that if we required parental notification, we might 
as well save our time and effort and money, because the students were 
not going to use it.
  Now, let me say, frankly, it has not been a panacea. We still have 
nearly 50 percent of the older teenagers who have had sexual 
intercourse at least once. The national figure is about 40 percent.

                              {time}  1930

  But what it has done is to reduce the number of teenage pregnancies. 
It has reduced the number of abortions. It has reduced the number of 
sexually transmitted diseases. It has improved the health of our 
student body. And although the information is only anecdotal, from 
talking with the parents, I know that there are far more parents who 
are communicating with their teenagers because of the existence of that 
family planning clinic, because the first thing they suggest is 
abstinence, and then the second thing they urge is to talk with their 
parents. It is working. That is what family planning clinics all over 
the country do.
  One of the statistics that we have to bear in mind, and it was the 
case in Alexandria, is that nearly 90 percent of the teenagers that go 
to these family planning clinics are already sexually active. So we are 
not talking about encouraging any sexual licentiousness. What we are 
talking about is being responsible, doing what is in the best interest 
of our young people. Support the Porter-Castle amendment.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson].
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
Castle amendment. I would say that this has been a worthy discussion. 
It is clear that we are all united in wanting good law and government 
to strengthen families. We are united in wanting trust and good 
communication between parents and children. We are united in wanting to 
reduce teen pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases, and abortions.
  It is, indeed, extraordinarily difficult to decide how to accomplish 
these goals from Washington, but what I want to point out to my 
colleagues

[[Page H7073]]

about this amendment is slightly different than that debate and 
dialogue that has proceeded here for the last hour and a half.
  According to lawyers for the American Hospital Association and the 
National Association of Public Hospitals who have reviewed the text of 
the amendment, they believe it is written more broadly than was first 
thought. The parental consent requirement applies not just to title X 
funds but to all funds used to provide contraceptives, including State 
and privately raised funds. So if a hospital or a clinic fails to abide 
by the parental consent requirements in this bill, it forfeits all 
Federal funds which it might be receiving from title X, Medicaid, 
breast and cervical cancer screening funds, community health center 
funding or any State or private funding.
  On the other hand, in 24 States it is a violation of State law to 
require a parent, guardian, or judge to consent to contraceptives for 
minors. Therefore, this amendment puts hospitals in between. They must 
violate State law or run the risk of losing their Federal funds in 24 
States.
  Now, that is the reading of the amendment by the lawyers for the 
American Hospital Association, the National Association of Public 
Hospitals.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, the problem is that they have read it as 
parental consent. Ours is parental notification. The gentlewoman has 
used ``consent'' during the course of the argument. I am sure that is 
the way they phrased it.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I think that is probably 
my mistranslation of the dialogue that has been taking place over the 
course of yesterday and today. They mistake that because many of us 
believe that notification in this instance is essentially equivalent to 
consent. But if I may then correct my words to say ``parental 
notification'' requirement, it is still the same.
  In other words, I believe that my central message is still accurate, 
that this amendment will put hospitals in 24 States in a very difficult 
position. They will either have to violate State law or run the risk of 
losing all of their Federal funds.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes and 15 seconds to the 
gentleman from Utah [Mr. Cannon].
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, the issue we face today is an emotional 
issue. Like my friend and colleague from Arkansas, I have several 
children, seven to be exact, all of whom but two are also boys. In my 
case, like my friend, the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Dickey], I have 
a Laura and a Rachel. I also have a Jane, Emily, Elizabeth, and another 
possibly on the way.
  As we consider the issue before us, it is in the context, of course, 
of this growth in unmarried teens having pregnancies leaving us a 
legacy of single family homes, higher welfare costs, and extensive 
juvenile crime. Everyone agrees that something should be done.
  On one side some believe that easy access to contraceptives will make 
the problem go away. Others, including me, believe that the fundamental 
problem is the diminished role of the family, not the lack of 
pharmaceuticals. Families are the building blocks of our society and 
even the best clinician can never be the equal to a caring parent when 
a child begins to think about sex. That is why I support the Manzullo-
Istook amendment and why I oppose the Castle amendment. It sets forth a 
simple minimal standard when it comes to taxpayer-funded contraceptives 
for our children; that is, that parents must be at least notified 
before services are provided.
  As legal and moral guardians of our children, we as parents have a 
right to know. We require parental consent before giving immunization 
or providing surgery to minors. We must at least notify one parent 
before a child is given birth control. Parents, not clinic workers, 
must be able to help their children with such sensitive decisions, and 
parents deserve the opportunity to make their views known to the child 
before the child makes a life altering decision.
  This measure reaffirms and reinforces our central role as parents in 
the lives of our children. If this Congress believes that Government 
should strengthen families, not pull them apart, we will reinforce 
parental authority by supporting this amendment.
  One of the unintended consequences of this law, title X, birth 
control funding, is that the Federal Government becomes the widely 
recognized schoolmaster who our children then look to in making 
decisions about morality. That is the impropriety of our current 
situation and why I support the Istook-Manzullo amendment.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Crapo). The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Can the Chair advise as to who has the right to close?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] or 
his designee, the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey], would have 
the right to close.
  Mr. MANZULLO. This is on the substitute amendment. It is not the 
committee position. Therefore, would not the person who provides the 
amendment have the right to close?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. At this point the debate has essentially 
become fungible between the amendments, and the Chair is perceiving the 
debate to be, therefore, on the first degree amendment. Therefore, a 
member of the committee in opposition to the first degree amendment 
would have the right to close.
  Mr. MANZULLO. What does that mean, Mr. Chairman?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It means that the gentlewoman from New York 
[Mrs. Lowey], as the designee of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Obey], would have the right to close.
  Mr. MANZULLO. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
Talent].
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, in 1965 the out-of-wedlock birthrate was 6 
percent. Today, it is 32 percent. We have had an explosion of 
illegitimacy in the country at the same time as contraceptives have 
been widely available without restriction to children. All of the 
sociological data indicates that these kids are not having kids because 
they do not know the facts of life or do not have access to 
contraceptives. They are getting pregnant because they are choosing to 
get pregnant because our society has consistently sent them the message 
that they should do what is expedient ahead of what is right, precisely 
the kind of policy that the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] is 
trying to change.
  Mr. Chairman, these kids do not need condoms. They desperately need 
to be told the truth, that for them sexual experimentation is 
physically, emotionally, and spiritually dangerous. They are much more 
likely to get that message from their parents than they are from the 
Government. If we have not learned that lesson from the last 30 years, 
then experience has truly gone through us without stopping.
  Support the Istook amendment. Oppose the Castle amendment.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro], a member of the 
subcommittee.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by making my 
position clear. I think that parents should be involved in their 
children's lives and in their decisions. The Castle-Porter substitute 
ensures that clinics encourage teens to discuss these decisions with 
their parents, and I support that language.
  I urge my colleagues to examine the Istook amendment, a misleading 
amendment. The gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] claims his 
amendment requires parental notification but not consent. He claims 
that under his amendment teens will have the same access to testing for 
sexually transmitted disease that they do now. But the facts show that 
he is wrong.
  Despite protestations, the Istook-Manzullo amendment is a parental 
consent amendment. The bill requires parental notification in writing 5 
days before a teen can return to a clinic and receive birth control. 
This is, in effect if not in name, a parental consent amendment. If 
teens think their parents will be told, they will not come to the 
clinic in the first place. This amendment will scare teens away from 
getting the contraceptives that they need to avoid pregnancy.

[[Page H7074]]

  Medical organizations, including the American Medical Association, 
make no distinction between parental notification and consent. In fact, 
they oppose both. They point out that if parental notification or 
consent is required that the youngsters will not go to the clinics. 
Those are not my words, this is the American Medical Association.
  Teens are screened for sexually transmitted diseases, many of which 
have no obvious early symptoms, especially for women, only after they 
go to a clinic for birth control. They do not go to clinics to be 
screened for sexually transmitted diseases, they go for contraceptives 
and are then persuaded to be tested. By the way, it is important to 
know that State law requires that the knowledge or incidence of rape 
that may be reported in that State clinic must be reported by the 
clinic. State law determines that.
  That is why all six living Surgeons General, those who served under 
Presidents Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton, oppose 
parental consent. In 1994, the six Surgeons General wrote in opposition 
to a Helms parental consent amendment: ``We support the efforts of 
public health professionals and health care providers to encourage 
minors to involve their families in all aspects of health education and 
health services. We would strongly oppose a Federal mandate that 
requires parental consent as a condition of receiving Federal funds.''
  In fact, the amendment is even more far-reaching. Lawyers for the 
American Hospital Association and the American Public Hospital 
Association who have reviewed the text of the amendment have pointed 
out that the parental consent requirement applies not just to title X 
funds but to all funds used to provide contraceptives, including State 
and privately raised funds. If a hospital or clinic fails to abide by 
the parental consent requirements, it would forfeit all Federal funds 
which it might be receiving, including Medicaid, breast and cervical 
cancer screening funds, et cetera.
  But in 24 States, it is a violation of State law to require a parent, 
guardian or judge to consent to contraceptives for a minor, in 24 
States. Therefore, hospitals must violate State law or run the risk of 
losing all of their Federal funds, even those which care for seniors, 
the disabled and others who, in fact, have nothing to do with family 
planning. Let me be clear once again, I support parents' rights to 
guide their children. The Istook amendment will undermine that 
objective.
  As the six Surgeons General wrote, ``there are data showing that 
adolescents will forgo counseling, education, and services if parental 
consent is required. A policy of this nature would sharply reduce the 
hope of reaching those teenagers who are most at risk and reduce the 
ability of health professionals to encourage family involvement or 
assist adolescents in taking responsible action.''

                              {time}  1945

  Whether we call it parental consent or whether we call it parental 
notification, the Istook-Manzullo amendment will, in fact, increase 
teen pregnancy, teen abortion, and sexually transmitted disease.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Castle substitute and to 
oppose the Istook-Manzullo amendment.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Istook].
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I hear people say, oh, they are already 
required to follow the law and report statutory rape or incest or child 
molestation or sexual abuse or whatever we want to call it. Title X is 
providing services to 1.5 million teens each year. It has been in 
existence for 27 years.
  I have not heard of one single instance where any of these teens 
pulled into the program, adolescents as young as 12, 13 years old, has 
ever, ever, ever, ever, in 27 years, had a title X provider report a 
case that it is statutory rape, it is child abuse, it is incest. Not a 
single instance in 27 years.
  It is time we fix that. The amendment fixes it.
  After all, title X was adopted in 1970. The birth rates for unmarried 
teens has doubled since title X because it provides a false sense of 
security that it is OK and safe for them to have sex.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York [Mrs. Maloney].
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
Istook amendment.
  This is a difficult issue for me. As the parent of two daughters, if 
one of my daughters were receiving advice from a family planning 
clinic, I would want to know. But a reality is that most of our young 
people do not consult their parents or any adult about their sexual 
activity. In fact, studies show that 80 percent of teens who currently 
seek family planning advice at clinics would stop going if they had to 
ask their parents. Only 1 percent of those kids would stop sexual 
relations.
  This amendment would effectively increase the number of abortions, 
increase teen pregnancies, increase the spread of sexually transmitted 
disease and increase the spread of AIDS. Whether we are asking for 
parental consent or parental notification, the result is the same: 
Confidentiality is crushed and, with it, the intent of the program.
  How many times a day do we ask our teenagers to act responsibly? Let 
us give them the freedom to do as we ask. We can encourage our young 
people to consult their parents, we can ask parents to be there for 
their children, but we as a government simply cannot mandate these 
sorts of relationships.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the Istook amendment and a 
``yes'' vote for the Castle amendment.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Greenwood].
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time and for his leadership on this issue.
  When I was in school I learned that one of the worst ways to confound 
logic was to use generalizations. Whenever we generalize, we make a 
mistake, and there has been a lot of that in this debate.
  My good friend, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra], talked 
with great passion about his concern that this language, the Castle 
language, would undermine communications in the family; it would 
somehow spread itself into our families. And yet here we are on the 
other side of this argument saying that is not the case.
  There has to be some reason why honorable people seeking the truth 
find themselves with a different perspective, and I think it is this: 
Roughly half of the teenage girls in this country are not sexually 
active before the age of 18. So if we take that population for 
starters, we are not having any effect on them. They are not sexually 
active, they are not going into clinics, and so the families are 
untouched by this.
  Of those who are, most of them never find their way to a family 
planning clinic. They are sexually active, but they do not begin that 
process by going to a family planning clinic.
  That is not how this process works. Usually what happens is, after 
they have been sexually active for about a year, they get scared, they 
think they are pregnant or they think they might have a sexually 
transmitted disease, and then they go into the clinics to find out. And 
when they are there, they find a counselor who says, let us talk about 
this and let us get your parents involved. And 55 percent of the 
teenagers who do go to the clinics, this relatively shrinking 
population of American teenagers, do involve their parents.
  So what we are really talking about is a very small fraction of 
America's teenagers, and these are the kids who are sexually active, do 
go to a clinic, do not involve their parents because they cannot. We 
have to make that distinction.
  Yes, most American families will not be touched by this. They do not 
need my help, they do not need the Istook-Manzullo amendment, they do 
not need Congress involved in this issue at all. But if there is any 
doubt in anyone's mind that there are teenagers in this country who are 
prematurely sexually active and have not the parental and family and 
church resources to guide them, let us take a walk out of this building 
and in 3 minutes we will find scores and scores and scores of those 
teenagers for whom the family values we have been talking about are 
nonexistent. The church resources, the community resources are 
nonexistent, and yet we know they are sexually active because all of 
the indicators show the results of the pregnancies and the sexually 
transmitted diseases.

[[Page H7075]]

  So, for God's sake, for those kids, for those kids that are not like 
our kids, support the Castle amendment and give them a hand.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] has 17\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle] has 6\3/4\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey] has 
3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Istook].
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, one of the great blessings in my life is 
being the father of five children. Three of them are girls. All three 
of my daughters are teenagers. We have made the evolution from young 
teenagers to older teenagers.
  I heard the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Greenwood] recount, for 
example, going through with his daughters situations like, can I get my 
ears pierced, when do I start wearing makeup, when can I get a driver's 
license. We go through all those experiences, and over and over, we run 
across situations where our children are told they have to have mom or 
dad's permission, they have to have the consent of a parent, whether it 
is piercing of ears or things such as that.
  We can have a child that is involved in an automobile accident, and 
we find that for emergency medical care they have to have that parental 
consent. We have situations if a child is going to have aspirin at 
school, if they are going to be going on a field trip, these are just 
samples from some of our schools, from one in Virginia, authorization 
for medication, to be completed by a parent or guardian before they are 
going to give any sort of simple medicine to a schoolchild.
  Field trip permission form. This particular one from the Fairfax 
County public schools. And then this one, which by the way is from the 
public schools which my children attend or have graduated from in Ponca 
City, administering medicines to students. It is the policy of the 
board that with written parental permission medicines can be 
administered to your child. Over and over we have that.
  And here is a standard medical consent form, an allergy shot consent 
form. Here it says signature of patient or parent, ``patient'' if they 
are of legal age, ``parent'' if they are not.
  Here we have the consent or even notice that was provided to the 
parents of the 14-year-old in Illinois who was lured and coerced and 
pulled into a sexual relationship with a 37-year-old man to get the 
shots of Depo-Provera, an extremely controversial drug with plenty of 
side effects. That is the consent that was required. That is the notice 
that was required. Nothing. It can have interactions with other health 
issues with our children, but we will never know about it.
  We may make a decision that relates to giving our children some other 
medicine or some other treatment, and we do not know about potential 
interactions because title X avoids it.
  So we have these things that are going on which are contrary to the 
way that people are trying to live their lives and instruct their 
children, and it all comes about because there is in the title X 
regulations a requirement of confidentiality. And it is Federal law; it 
supersedes State law.
  I hear people say, what about the State law? The answer is, Federal 
law supersedes it. In fact, we just had decisions in Utah over parental 
consent on that. One came down about 2 weeks ago in Texas that Federal 
law controls over State efforts or interests in providing parental 
notice or parental consents.
  And this confidentiality is used to declare a child eligible for 
title X, because then we do not consult the parents on the income so 
they can become automatically eligible. And in addition to that, the 
confidentiality is used to avoid turning things in.
  We have a whole chart of what is the age of consent, what are the 
laws in the different States? And the youngest any State has, and there 
are only two of them, two States say that age 14, a minor, could give 
consent to sexual relations. Two other States say 15; 27 States say 16; 
five say 17; 14 say 18; and they all have different standards according 
to the State law on what is considered statutory rape or sexual abuse 
or child abuse or child molestation.
  We think those laws are important. They ought to be followed. But 
title X, with this little confidentiality requirement, has been on the 
books for 27 years. It is now treating 1.5 million teenagers a year. We 
know that many, many, many, many, many of them are below the age of 
consent. They are at the age where the law says, we want to protect 
them, we want to protect them. Anyone that gets involved in a sexual 
relationship with them can go to jail.
  Everyone else has requirements to report child abuse or sexual abuse, 
but out of the 1\1/2\ million treatments a year, 27 years, which is 
potentially, what, 40 million treatments, I do not know of a single 
case, not 1 for 27 years, where a title X provider has ever said, this 
is a situation where incest is going on, this is a situation where 
statutory rape or child molestation or sexual abuse is going on. They 
do not report it.
  We hear from doctors in hospitals that say, oh, I do not want to have 
to report that. Everybody else in this country is responsible for 
protecting our children and reporting situations like that, but we have 
some people that do not want to get involved, and they are the ones 
that are making the judgment calls and the decisions on whether our 
children are receiving these treatments subsidized by hundreds of 
millions of dollars of taxpayers' money.
  I think it is kind of common sense to say, I want my kids protected. 
Everyone wants their children protected. Let us say simply that if they 
become aware, they know what the age of consent is, if they become 
aware of these things, they should report it to the proper authorities, 
just like everybody else does.
  Millions of cases with title X providers providing services to 
minors, no reports. They do not turn them in, even though it goes on. 
That is the first part.
  The second part, of course, is notifying the parent, the parent that 
would have the consent to anything else involving the health and safety 
and well-being and counseling and guidance of their children.
  But we cut them off. We isolate them. We say we have made a national 
decision that is more important than the decisions parents will make in 
their homes. We have made a national decision because some people, and 
they do, some people do have problems communicating with their parents 
to that degree; but because some have the problem, we are going to make 
it the law to cover 250 million Americans instead of saying, we are 
going to set up a system that only covers those that have a problem.

                              {time}  2000

  The amendment does that. It has the so-called judicial bypass 
language which tracks mechanisms that already exist in every State when 
a parent is not responsible and needs to be bypassed. We have got it in 
there. But instead we are told, Oh, let's vote for a substitute, a 
substitute that says, Well, let's counsel people on how to avoid sexual 
predation. The trick is that language is already in the bill. The 
requirement that they encourage teens to get their parents involved has 
been the law for years. The so-called substitute is just a figleaf, it 
is just something to try to hide behind because some people do not want 
to tell their constituents how they voted on parental notice, how they 
voted on requiring title X providers to report it if they know of a 
situation.
  Title X was adopted in 1970. This is 1970. The birth rates for 
unmarried teenagers in 1970, 22.4 births per 1,000 teenagers. This is 
it now. This is the year title X was adopted, 1970, and created this 
bypass for parents involving guidance and direction for their children. 
Since then, the out-of-wedlock birth for teens has doubled: 44 per 
1,000. Because after all if teens think they are being protected, ``Oh, 
I've learned how to do this'' and they forget to take the pill, forget 
the diaphragm, leave behind an IUD or whatever it may be, they make a 
mistake, they think they are protected, they are teens, they are still 
kids, they make the mistakes and they end up with more pregnancies. If 
you do things to make sexual activity by teens easier, there will be 
more sexual activity, there will be more out-of-

[[Page H7076]]

wedlock births and there will be more abortions, too. The thing to do 
is to try to diminish the number of teenagers having sex, not to 
subsidize it with hundreds of millions of dollars of our taxpayer 
money, which is what is happening now.
  Please help me protect my children. I am going to have grandchildren 
someday, grandparents care, too. Let us protect our kids and our 
grandkids. Let us make a commonsense amendment to this Federal program 
and say, first and foremost, the parents have a role in their kids and 
Uncle Sam should never try to take that away. I urge defeat of the 
Castle substitute and adoption of the underlying amendment.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Edwards].
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I only wish life were so simple. We pass 
the Istook amendment and magically parents and teenagers communicate on 
all personal issues. Teenagers stop having sex and dysfunctional 
families become close. Would it not be nice? I do not mind if some 
people choose to live in a dream world. But I mind greatly when some 
political dreams become a nightmare for thousands of young Americans.
  Maybe this amendment will make some feel good in the comfort of their 
happy home this evening, but the reality is it will result in misery 
for thousands of young Americans. For me, Mr. Chairman, that is simply 
too high of a price for others to pay for me to feel good tonight. In 
the real world, the consequence of this amendment is more abortions and 
more unplanned pregnancies. If our moral message to teenagers is that 
they should face the consequences of their actions, maybe we in 
Congress should stop preaching and start practicing tonight on this 
amendment. Vote ``no'' on the Istook amendment.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Porter], the chairman of the subcommittee.
  Mr. PORTER. I thank the gentleman for again yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I have heard the proponents of the amendment cite 
concent issues over and over again. Obviously, notification in this 
amendment is therefore equivalent to consent. What we are really 
talking about is consent and not notification. Beyond that, it is very 
clear that if you provide notification, the young people from 
dysfunctional families, the ones that cannot talk to their parents, are 
the very ones that will never get the services.
  I have heard the gentleman from Oklahoma say over and over again, he 
does not know of any cases being reported of sexual abuse by title X 
clinics. It is not very convincing to me that that is a fact. The fact 
that he does not know it means nothing to me. I do not know that I have 
the statistics available, but let me say that the laws of 50 States 
require that sexual abuse be reported and adding a Federal law to say 
the very same thing is not going to change whatever the result may be.
  I have also heard a number of Members out here quoting the statistics 
from 1970 on and suggesting that we are far worse off in terms of teen 
pregnancies and the like. No doubt. But where would we have been 
without title X clinics? We have gone through a sexual revolution in 
this country where all the old taboos in the 1960's went out the 
window. At least title X clinics were there to provide some guidance 
and some responsibility and prevented, I think, in many cases many, 
many unwanted, unplanned pregnancies that otherwise would have occurred 
and many cases of sexually transmitted diseases.
  We have heard over and over again this evening about a 14-year-old 
girl who was sexually abused by her high school teacher. The fact of 
the matter is that that is the use of innuendo, in my judgment, in the 
worst possible way. This relationship began a year before the victim 
ever went to the title X clinic. There is not any question about that. 
The clinic did not know about this relationship. It did not cause it. 
If anything, it prevented the 14-year-old from becoming pregnant. I 
urge Members to vote ``aye'' on the Castle amendment.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 1 minute.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, before I left the floor I heard that the 
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] has three daughters. I have three 
daughters of my own. They are no longer teenagers. Obviously they all 
were. Like all teenagers, they had problems. Their relationship with 
their mother and father was dictated more by the context of our family 
than it was by law. I suggest that the Castle alternative does what the 
American public wants done. That is, they want to encourage families to 
be involved with one another. That is obviously beneficial to the 
children, to the mother, the father, and to America. But they do not 
want to discourage young people from getting the health care that they 
desperately need from time to time. That is why I believe the Castle 
alternative is what the American public believes is a commonsense 
alternative, encouraging us to attain a worthy objective but not 
discouraging us from having healthy teens.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 7\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to 
involve parents in the conversation of their children's sexuality, 
because the U.S. Congress has made a decision that parents are 
irrelevant when it comes to their sexuality. We are trying to reverse 
it. Because of the present law, parents are being denied the 
opportunity to protect their children from sexual predators in many 
cases, from giving advice on abstinence or getting out of a 
relationship once a parent is notified that his or her child is about 
to receive sexual devices. It denies the parents the opportunity to 
work with their children and contraceptives, if that is the choice, and 
in fact in over half the children visiting clinics, the parents are 
already involved in a conversation. Parents are being denied the 
opportunity to protect their children from being given a prescriptive 
medication that in itself could have harmful side effects, such as 
Depo-Provera, and parents are being denied the opportunity to protect 
their children from being given prescriptive medicine which could harm 
the child by mixing the drug with medication the child is already 
taking. In fact, before Depo-Provera is given, there has to be a 
complete medical history. But most of all parents are being totally 
excluded from their right to raise their children. There is no evidence 
to the claim that pregnancies and abortions will increase once parents 
are involved.
  Let me give my colleagues a study. We have a study that shows the 
more involved a parent is with a child, the less likely the child will 
become pregnant. A study entitled Family of the America's Foundation, 
Fertility Appreciation for Families Program conducted by the University 
of New Orleans involved 3,600 adolescents and 2,500 parents from across 
the country. It was a special program designed to involve parents in 
discussing and counseling sexuality with their children. The purpose of 
the followup study was to determine the effect of the program which 
stressed parents involvement in sexual education and decisionmaking of 
their children and to see how that would affect adolescent premarital 
relationships. The conclusion, when parents are involved in discussing 
child sexuality, the rate of pregnancy of the children is 22 times 
lower than the national average. That means irrefutably that when 
parents exercise their right to raise their children, which this law 
denies them by putting a barrier of confidentiality between the child 
and the parent, that means the child is being protected.
  Who protects the child? Not the State. It is the parent, because the 
parent becomes involved in it. In all this debate tonight, not one 
person has stood up and said, is it not terrible that a 14-year-old 
child in Crystal Lake, IL, was shot up with Depo-Provera. Look what 
Upjohn says about their drug which was injected into the veins of that 
precious little girl: ``Patient should be counseled. This product does 
not protect against HIV/AIDS.''

[[Page H7077]]

  It is rubbish to say that when you give girls contraceptives, they 
are protected against infection of HIV. They are not. There is no 
female protection against HIV. In fact, when the boys stop using the 
condoms and the girls go on the pill or the other devices, that 
increases the opportunity for STD's with the kids. And Upjohn says it 
could affect bone mineral density changes, it could cause thrombotic 
disorders; that is, blood clots. It could cause temporary blindness. No 
14- or 15-year-old child is capable of making an informed decision as 
to whether or not she should take that drug. That is the bottom 
question here. Do you believe a 14-year-old is capable of making an 
informed decision that she can take these drugs? If you do, let her 
have all the drugs she wants. Just throw the parents out of the 
equation, which it is now. But in America today, little girls as young 
as 12 years old are being injected, they are being implanted and they 
are ingesting very, very strong drugs.
  In fact, this is the drug that is the drug of choice for the States 
such as California that allow chemical castration of convicted 
pedophiles who choose themselves voluntarily to undergo castration. 
Think about that, Members of Congress, that in their clinics today our 
precious little ones at the age of 12 are given the same drug that is 
used to give to convicted pedophiles for chemical castration. That is 
horrible. And what else goes on in these clinics? What is not going on 
is the fact that they are not reporting the cases of rape and incest 
and sexual abuse. If you are concerned about incest, you should vote 
for this bill. When the little kid goes there, the title X provider has 
to call the police and the father goes to jail.

                              {time}  2015

  That is how you protect the children. We have heard a lot of talk in 
the past several years about protecting the children. This is an 
opportunity to protect the children. This is an opportunity to allow 
children to receive STD protection, STD medication, without parental 
notification, because there is an epidemic going on.
  All this says is this: If you believe that the parents of America 
have a right to be involved in the conversation of sexual activity with 
their children, then you must vote for Istook-Manzullo. If, on the 
other hand, you believe that the Federal Government knows better than 
the parents; if, on the other hand, you believe that we are to penalize 
all the parents in this country because of a handful of parents that 
cannot communicate with their children, then parents become irrelevant. 
Then you might as well say, Give them all the drugs they want. You 
might as well say, Give them all the alcohol they want. You might as 
well say, Give them all the tobacco they want.
  But there a reason we have parents. The purpose of the parent is to 
protect the children. Under title X regulations, a child is deprived of 
the opportunity to be counseled by his or her parents before receiving 
birth control devices.
  Think about 12-year-old little girls around this country being 
implanted with Norplant. Think about 12-year-old girls being shot in 
the arm with Depo-Provera. Think about 12-year-old girls getting 
prescriptions for birth control pills, all without even the knowledge 
of their parents.
  All this amendment says is give parents the right to know that their 
children are involved in sexual activity.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MANZULLO. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I do not know of any provisions of in title 
X or any other provisions that prevents parents from sitting down with 
their children and discussing sexual activity and the facts of life. 
Does the gentleman?
  Mr. MANZULLO. That is right, parents can still talk to their kids.
  Mr. PORTER. Parents today can talk to their kids.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Except when the health department says they cannot.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Delaware is recognized for 3\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I listened to the arguments. I, frankly, 
think some of them are sensationalized, probably some are factually 
correct.
  But the truth of the matter is that we are pretty united in our goals 
here tonight. There are some 4.3 million individuals who go to these 
clinics for help in some way or another.
  We all, all of us, want to help our kids. There is nobody here who 
does not want to do that. We all would like to have parental 
involvement. I think the question is correct, is there always parental 
involvement? Generally, we are dealing with cases in which parents and 
kids cannot talk or identify with each other in any way whatsoever.
  You have to put these two amendments on a scale and you have to 
determine what is best for our children, how best to help our kids and 
families. What should we do?
  If you put down the Castle-Porter amendment, you will see that a 
child can go to a clinic and receive counseling, and be told that 
abstinence comes first, and be told that they should not be involved in 
sex in any way whatsoever. They will be encouraged to speak to their 
parents.
  That clinic will deal with abusive or illegal relationships when they 
know about it, and they did not know about the one in Chicago, by the 
way. There will be a place to turn to for help and advice. They may be 
willing to go in and get that help, although I still suspect there are 
a lot of children who will not even bother to go in there at all, but 
at least we have someplace for them to go.
  If we have a circumstance in which we are saying you have to have 
parental notification before they get there, that may be a fine law, 
but the consequences are that that number of children who would go to 
the clinic for help is going to diminish greatly. And when it 
diminishes, you are inviting the problems that come with it, which 
involve greater sexual activity, no discussion with parents whatsoever, 
it discourages responsible behavior, and it could result in more 
unintended pregnancies, and it could result in more abortions, which, 
of course, always follow from unintended pregnancies.
  Nobody intends that and people can reach different conclusions as far 
as that is concerned, but I do not know how one can really with clear 
logic look at this and not realize the conclusion that you probably are 
talking about unintended pregnancies and possible abortions, and that 
is not helping kids the way we want to help kids in the United States 
of America.
  Mr. Chairman, family planning is extremely important to make 
absolutely sure that we are bringing home the interests of all of those 
kids who just otherwise will not receive help, and the effect of the 
Istook amendment is to cut that off altogether. The effect of the 
Castle-Porter amendment is as it should be. By the way, it has always 
been the law that recipients of title X funds are in no way exempt from 
State-imposed criminal reporting requirements. They have to do that.
  We strengthen the Federal role in stopping sexual predators who prey 
on children. They must counsel their clients on how to resist and avoid 
such coercive sexual relationships. As I have already indicated, it 
involves counseling, it involves urging them to talk to their parents, 
it involves dealing with the abusive relationships, and it involves a 
place where they may have some comfort in going to and not getting 
advice on the street. That is what it is all about.
  We need to help our kids in every way we can. We have a tremendous 
problem in this country. Quite frankly, you cannot blame all teenage 
sex or pregnancy or maybe even any of it on family planning. It is a 
result of other social permissiveness that has come across this 
country, and I think we have to deal with it as best we can.
  The only way to deal with it tonight, and the best way for this House 
to deal with it tonight, is to vote for the Castle-Porter substitute.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Olver].
  (Mr. OLVER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the Castle substitute and 
against the Istook amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Istook amendment and in 
support of the Castle substitute.

[[Page H7078]]

  The Istook amendment mandates parental notification, tantamount to 
parental consent, for birth control services under title X.
  It is tough for a sexually active teenager to talk about 
contraception with a parent. Even for a teen who has a close, 
supportive relationship with her parents. For an adolescent with 
abusive parents, it can be downright dangerous.
  Because they fear parental disapproval or punishment, many teenagers 
will only use confidential family planning services. When parental 
permission is required, these teenagers tend to delay or altogether 
avoid, reproductive health care at great danger to themselves rather 
than abstain from the sexual activity that leads to children bearing 
children.
  We all would like to believe that requiring parental consent will 
reduce teen sexual activity. Unfortunately there is no such evidence.
  We all agree that family participation is ideal and title X 
counselors are required to encourage teen clients to talk with their 
families about birth control.
  But not all adolescents can involve their families in sexual 
decisions and the judicial bypass in this amendment for such teens is a 
farce.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Castle substitute. It is 
a reasonable proposal.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized for 3 
minutes.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, the Istook amendment is a direct attack on 
the title X program. Parental consent and notification laws just do not 
stop teens from having sex. In fact, the Istook amendment will increase 
teen pregnancies, increase abortions, increase sexually transmitted 
diseases. That is why it is opposed by the doctors, the AMA, who treat 
and care for our teens.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for the Castle substitute. 
Under the Castle substitute, no funds can go to title X clinics unless 
they encourage families to participate in the decision of minors to 
seek contraceptive services.
  The Castle substitute will help ensure that teens receive effective 
counseling, to behave responsibly, and avoid illegal and coercive 
sexual activities with adults.
  Title X clinics do not encourage teens to have sex. Eighty percent of 
the teens who seek title X services are already sexually active when 
they walk into the clinic door. Title X clinics simply help teens who 
are already sexually active from getting pregnant or catching a 
sexually transmitted disease.
  Mr. Chairman, our friends argue that the title X clinics come between 
the parent and the child and that they encourage deceit and deception. 
That is nonsense. Problems begin at home, not at the title X clinics. 
If there are problems, let us not scapegoat title X; let us work with 
our families, let us work with our communities. Our families and our 
communities must do more.
  Mr. Chairman, supporters of the Istook amendment want to legislate an 
``Ozzie and Harriet'' world, where every family is a loving one and 
every parent is willing and able to speak with their teenage children. 
Unfortunately, too many of our teens come from broken homes where their 
parents neglect them, and that is the problem here, not the title X 
program.
  As a mother, as a grandmother, I do believe that teens should remain 
abstinent, but I know that we cannot legislate abstinence from the 
floor. I believe teens should act responsibly, but I know that Congress 
cannot mandate responsibility.
  For those teens who are desperately seeking help, who are struggling 
to remain responsible and take control of their lives in terribly 
difficult circumstances, I urge Members to vote against the Istook 
amendment and for the Castle substitute.
  Mr. Chairman, these are very, very difficult decisions. As we 
struggle with them, we all try to do the right thing. We know that we 
have problems in this country because of the breakdown of families. 
Many of us are worried when we look at the charts and we see teenage 
pregnancy rising every year. That is why the gentleman from Delaware 
[Mr. Castle] and I are working with a national campaign to fight 
teenage pregnancy. We encourage Members to join us.
  But mandating responsibility, telling the clinics that they cannot 
help those children who desperately need help, just does not make any 
sense. Our families need help. Our churches have to do more. Let us 
support the Castle-Porter substitute.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment. How dare the opponents of choice force the most abhorrent 
restrictions on a woman's constitutionally protected right to choose 
into an appropriations bill and expect us to accept it?
  This bill provides funding for breast cancer and AIDS research, Head 
Start, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and student loans--all 
programs that benefit millions of Americans every day. Without 
pernicious amendments stripping the rights of millions of Americans, 
this bill would pass in a strong bipartisan manner. And yet, now we see 
the opponents of choice hold all these programs hostage to promote 
their extreme anti-choice views. This is an outrage. It is 
inappropriate, unwarranted, and unacceptable.
  The Istook amendment would essentially destroy the title X program 
which provides funding for those who seek health assistance, birth 
control, and help in fighting sexually transmitted diseases. Right now, 
reports indicate title X helps prevent 386,000 unintended pregnancies 
to teenagers annually. And yet, studies show that 80 percent of teens 
who don't already consult their parents would not seek care if they 
were required to. These restrictions, therefore, will deter young 
people from seeking any assistance at all, and, as a result, their 
diseases will go untreated, unwanted pregnancies and abortions will 
increase, and sexually transmitted diseases will spread unchecked. How 
can we possibly endorse risking the lives of these young men and women 
by forcing such onerous restrictions on their access to these programs? 
How dare you put their lives in jeopardy? We must not scare more teens 
away from responsible planning by eliminating the vital confidential 
component of these services.
  Let me say further, that I am appalled that some Members of this body 
are using the unfortunate story of the 13-year-old girl in Illinois, to 
urge support for this provision by stating that our Government is 
funding sexual predators. That is a disgusting misrepresentation of a 
tragic story. In these materials, circulated to Members of Congress, a 
sad tale of sexual abuse of a young woman is recounted. The young woman 
obtained birth control to protect herself from pregnancy caused by 
repeated statutory rape committed against her by a 37-year-old man. The 
group, in a bizarre and disgusting twist of logic, claims that we are 
supporting sexual predators by making title X funds available. Sick men 
who take advantage of young girls are criminals, and our laws are 
designed to punish them, not support them. It is absurd to say that 
title X caused this young girl to be abused. Anyone making that 
argument should be ashamed. Furthermore, as the bill stands, it already 
includes language to help prevent sexual coercion, so this Istook 
amendment is unnecessary in that regard.
  This legislation is one in a series of battles we have fought this 
year. These votes are not about particular Government programs or 
particular procedures, they are about the fundamental right to choose. 
I don't believe we need to vote on this issue at all--the Supreme Court 
has already spoken. Obviously, there are those in this body who feel 
differently. Still, a vote on whether or not to eliminate the right to 
choose ought to be a separate vote. No ban on abortion should proceed 
until there is a constitutional amendment to restrict the right to 
choose, which will never happen. But folks, by voting for this 
amendment we are undermining the Supreme Court, the President of the 
United States, and the American people by allowing vague language 
hidden in an appropriations bill to greatly restrict the right to 
choose. We cannot allow this abuse of the process, which is being 
manipulated in such a way to promote an extreme and unpopular postion--
repealing the right to choose.
  I urge my colleagues to denounce these amendments so that we can have 
a clean appropriations bill that funds desperately needed programs. 
Reject the Istook amendment.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of the Castle substitute, 
which encourages teens to talk with their parents about sex, health, 
and contraception while safeguarding their access to family planning 
services at title X clinics.
  Today, 82 percent of teen pregnancies are unintended, and over half 
of these pregnancies will end in abortion.
  Each year, the family planning services provided by title X clinics 
prevent 386,000 unintended teen pregnancies, avoiding 155,000 births 
and 183,000 abortions.
  Despite this progress, opponents of title X funding continue their 
attempts to dismantle the title X program, this time under the guise of 
protecting vulnerable teenagers.
  The Istook amendment will not protect teenagers from sexual abuse. 
But it will ensure that more of the Nation's most vulnerable teens 
won't use birth control, more will get pregnant, and more will have 
abortions.
  The Istook amendment places teens' health at risk. Teens who are 
prevented from seeking

[[Page H7079]]

family planning services at these clinics will no longer benefit from 
the other services these clinics provide, including screening and 
treatment for sexually transmitted diseases and HIV, routine 
gynecological exams, and breast and cervical cancer screening.
  The castle substitute protects America's youth. It encourages family 
participation in the decision of minors to seek family planning 
services. It requires title X programs to encourage parental 
involvement when teens seek family planning services. And it requires 
these programs to counsel minors on how to resist and avoid coercive 
sexual relationships.
  Mr. Speaker, assuring teens access to confidential family planning 
services reduces teen pregnancies, reduces abortions, and protects 
vulnerable teens. I urge my colleagues to support the castle 
substitute.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to 
the Istook amendment and for the Castle substitute. What we have is 
another attempt to do away with the title X program, which provides 
funding for family planning services. Services provided under title X 
reach out to many of America's teenagers who are already at risk in 
their everyday lives.
  Family planning services are one way that these teenagers can receive 
guidance and education about issues confronting them about sex, 
reproductive health, contraception, and prevention of disease. By 
requiring teens to obtain parental consent in order to receive family 
planning services, and by mandating clinics to notify parents that 
their children are seeking such services, the Istook amendment will 
have the effect of decimating the entire family planning system in our 
country.
  The teens we need to be most concerned about--the teens we are trying 
to prevent from having unwanted pregnancies or contracting a sexually 
transmitted disease--would become even more endangered if this parental 
mandate were to take effect.
  Perhaps many people are forgetting what it means to be an at-risk 
teen. At-risk teens are not the children of many of us in this room 
today. At-risk teens are not the children of parents they can talk to 
freely about many important issues and values that are affecting their 
everyday lives. At-risk teens are more often trying to escape sexual or 
physical abuses within their own homes--even from their own parents.
  I encourage every teenager to talk with their parents about these 
very important issues and parents to talk responsibly with their 
children. That is why I am in support of a substitute amendment offered 
by my colleague, Mr. Castle.
  Mr. Castle substitute will require that title X programs encourage 
the involvement of parents when teens seek family planning services. 
Encouraging parental involvement is important, and in and ideal world, 
all teens would have parents they could feel comfortable talking to and 
be able to sort out what kind of activity is appropriate. But in the 
real world, we can not take away an opportunity for at-risk teens to 
receive essential services, by forcing a mandate upon them that will 
not work in the real world.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the Istook amendment and support 
the Castle amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time on this amendment has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Delaware [Mr. Castle] as a substitute for the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook].


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, does that mean that those Members who 
favor the Castle substitute amendment would vote ``yes'' on the first 
vote, and those who favor the Istook-Manzullo amendment would vote 
``no'' on the first vote?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will merely state the question. The question 
is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle] 
as a substitute for the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Istook].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 2(c) of rule XXIII, the Chair 
announces that he may reduce to not less than 5 minutes the period of 
time within which an electronic vote, if ordered, may be taken on the 
Istook amendment.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 220, 
noes 201, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 378]

                               AYES--220

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Buyer
     Campbell
     Capps
     Cardin
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Ford
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gordon
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Lantos
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Neal
     Ney
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Turner
     Upton
     Vento
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--201

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Costello
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Forbes
     Fox
     Gallegly
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kildee
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Poshard
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Redmond
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shimkus
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller

[[Page H7080]]


     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Carson
     Cooksey
     Dellums
     Flake
     Gonzalez
     Hilliard
     Lewis (GA)
     Nadler
     Schiff
     Serrano
     Towns
     Velazquez

                              {time}  2045

  Messrs. ARMEY, COX of California, WICKER, PICKERING, LaFALCE and SHAW 
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. CUMMINGS and Mr. THOMAS changed their 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 noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.


                        Parliamentary Inquiries

  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. SOUDER. My parliamentary inquiry is that since the second-degree 
amendment passed, is it true that no longer does the Istook-Manzullo 
amendment include a parental notification?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman does not state a parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, is it not true that the Castle amendment 
having now been passed, we are voting in essence to adopt the 
underlying amendment as amended by the Castle amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 254, 
noes 169, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 379]

                               AYES--254

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Buyer
     Campbell
     Capps
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gordon
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Lantos
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--169

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burton
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Forbes
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kildee
     King (NY)
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Mollohan
     Myrick
     Neumann
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Poshard
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Redmond
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Talent
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Carson
     Dellums
     Flake
     Gonzalez
     Hilliard
     Nadler
     Schiff
     Serrano
     Towns
     Velazquez

                              {time}  2057

  Messrs. ISTOOK, COOK, LIVINGSTON, and COX of California changed their 
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. VISCLOCKY and Mr. BERRY changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                              {time}  2100


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Filner

  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Filner:
       At the end of title II, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following section:
       Sec. 213. Of the amounts made available in this title for 
     the account ``Office of the Secretary--general departmental 
     management'', $12,800,000 is transferred and made available 
     under section 30403 of Public Law 103-322 for the Community 
     Schools Youth Services and Supervision Grant Program Act of 
     1994.

  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment called 
the community schools preservation amendment. It is an amendment 
designed to stop crime before it happens.
  The appropriations bill we are considering terminates funding for the 
Community Schools Youth Services and Supervision Program. Currently, 
that program funds 54 community schools and projects all around the 
Nation. My amendment would restore full funding to this valuable 
program.
  Mr. Chairman, according to the Administration on Children and 
Families, because of their unique structure, the community schools 
projects around this Nation will not receive funding without a direct 
appropriation and they will close, community schools across the Nation 
will close.
  Section 30403(a) of the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law 
Enforcement Act authorized modest funding for these projects which are 
finding innovative solutions to the problems of

[[Page H7081]]

drug abuse, crime, and violence in our communities by working 
collaboratively with citizens, schools, and law enforcement.
  Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues know, funding for this amendment must 
be offset by reduced spending in other areas. Reluctantly, I have 
chosen to try to transfer $12.8 million from the administration of this 
department. I hope that is clear. I have a different amendment than 
what was earlier published. This transfers money from the 
administration account and not from the community schools block grant. 
Again, I am transferring money for this program from the administration 
account and not from the community schools block grant.
  In San Diego, which I represent, the Mano a Mano program has been 
successfully addressing problems in Barrio Logan in San Diego. Children 
participating in services provided by Mano a Mano have higher school 
attendance rates, higher grades, and better classroom behavior. 
Conflict resolution and management skills provided have resulted in 
less suspensions from school and fewer visits to school administrators, 
stopping the behavior that leads to juvenile crime before it happens.
  Additionally, the Federal funds provided to this project have allowed 
them to develop partnerships with other crime prevention organizations 
in the area. This project is so important that the city attorney of San 
Diego and other local officials have contacted me expressing the 
serious need for this community schools project.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment. It provides 
funding for local projects that are finding local solutions to problems 
of drugs, crime, and violence in our young people.
  We are bringing, Mr. Chairman, long-term crime rates down, and we 
will keep them down with these local projects. It is imperative that we 
see our at-risk communities as a national priority. I hope my 
colleagues with join with me to save these truly community schools.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, before the House recessed in July, we had a rather 
contentious deliberation over how to deal with updating our juvenile 
justice laws. One of the things that we all said, that we all agreed 
on, was the need to prevent crime among young children. That is what we 
are talking about in the funding of the community schools issue.
  What is it? It is small funding for each school that really allows a 
community to invest in very poor children who need a future. We know 
that most juvenile crime occurs between the hours of 3 p.m. and 6 p.m., 
when parents are still at work and after children have been dismissed 
from school.
  Mr. Chairman, last Congress this project was, once again, at risk and 
utilizing a bipartisan group of Members on both sides of the aisle. We 
moved together to salvage this program.
  Let me tell my colleagues, because it is very typical of these 
projects throughout the United States, about the community school 
program in San Jose, CA.
  When I went to this school, the after-school program is run primarily 
by Catholic charities in collaboration with the school district, the 
district attorney. I went to this meeting at 7:30 in the evening. There 
were the parents in their rough work clothes. They had just come back 
from work. There were tears in their eyes because their hope for their 
children was that their children would become good students.
  This is a program that is oriented toward academic excellence, toward 
tutoring children so that they can achieve in math and in reading, to 
giving them hope for a future and giving peace of mind to hard-working 
parents who do not want their children out on the streets while they 
are still at work.
  I will say that in the case of the Catholic charities project in my 
district, there is a 5-year plan for each child that the parents buy 
into, that the teachers buy into, so that at the end of 5 years not 
only will the child be law abiding but the child's academic achievement 
is intended to increase beyond grade level.
  We are now in our third year. I am pleased to announce that our 
progress is good. Not only are children not getting into trouble, not 
only are children not being victimized in tough neighborhoods, not only 
are parents being relieved of their worry that their children may be 
victimized while they are waiting before they get home from work, but 
academic achievement is on the rise.
  Lots of times Members may look at a line item in the budget and say, 
I do not know what that is; maybe it is disposable. But I am here to 
tell Members of the House, and there are certainly Members on both 
sides of the aisle who know it firsthand, that this is seed money that 
allows communities to invest in young people and their academic 
excellence. It is a prevention effort that works. I heartily recommend 
and endorse the gentleman's amendment and urge its passage.
  I would like to reemphasize that the concern expressed by some 
Members that I understand and empathize, about the source of funding, 
has been altered. Legislating is about listening, learning, and 
improving. We did that. We learned that the source of funding was 
defective. The gentleman from California [Mr. Filner], to his credit, 
has changed it. I believe that the Members who expressed concern have 
withdrawn their opposition to the amendment.
  I would urge adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I will be very brief, Mr. Chairman. I want to explain what the 
committee did. This program we eliminated in fiscal year 1996 in the 
House bill, the Senate put it back in in conference.
  We eliminated this program in the fiscal 1997 bill, and the Senate 
put it back in in conference. We eliminated this program in this bill, 
one of 25 programs this year that we have eliminated, and I think for a 
very good reason.
  We have a program called After School Learning Centers that is funded 
at $50 million, far in excess of the amount of money here. This is a 
program that was recommended by the President in his balanced budget 
agreement. We have $556 million available through safe and drug-free 
schools that can be used for exactly the same purposes as the money in 
this program. There is even an argument, we can use community service 
block grant money for this purpose.
  We felt under the circumstances that the program is redundant and 
unnecessary. We put the money that otherwise might have gone in it into 
battered women's shelters instead. This used up our crime trust fund 
allocation. I think it is a much better use of the money. There is 
money for exactly this purpose in a number of programs. The program 
simply is not needed.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I certainly want to commend the leadership on both 
sides of the aisle who have put this bill together. I know there are 
difficult decisions to be made. But I also know that today we have been 
talking a lot about family, about encouraging parents and children to 
come together and communicate and to work together and that we all 
know, as the old adage goes, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of 
cure.
  What we have in this amendment is an ounce of prevention. It is well 
worth the dollars that were just committed, as the gentleman preceding 
me, the leader spoke about the other dollars in the budget which are 
important. These community school grants are equally important because 
of what they allow communities to do.
  In the case of my community in Lansing, it is the schools and the 
city working together to form something called the focus center, a 
place where young people can come, where there is tutoring, learning of 
life skills and communications. They are able to spend time together.
  These are young people who have not been encouraged to go to school, 
who are now going to school and grades are coming up. We talk about the 
need for education. This particular program has encouraged young people 
both to go to school; attendance is up. Grades are up. Parents are now 
involved themselves in parenting classes, getting their GED. This is 
the kind of program done through the community schools grant which 
makes a difference for a very small investment.
  We have in our community young people participating in urban 4-H, 
learning leadership skills, going to the

[[Page H7082]]

county fair, exhibiting and having an opportunity to work together on 
projects and learn specific skills.

                              {time}  2115

  I had the opportunity to see their projects at the fair and to watch 
their excitement, and it was terrific to see.
  The people who have put together this program in Lansing have done a 
marvelous job. The Lansing chief of police says that this program 
should be continued because of the positive effect on our neighborhoods 
as evidenced by a reduction in crime. Through the Community Schools 
Program parents are involved in the neighborhoods, children are 
involved, they are making choices not to get involved in sex and drugs 
and gangs but to go to school and to be a part of something that is 
positive. This is a very small investment to make for very, very large 
returns.
  There is a young man who wrote to me, among many young people who 
wrote to me about this project, Bradley Wicks, who is a 17-year-old 
participant in our project. He said, ``If it were not for this focus 
center, we as kids would have nothing to do and would turn to gangs and 
drugs. I was one of the lucky ones who found help here at the center 
and got the help I needed to change my life. I am not sure where I 
would be otherwise.''
  If, for a small investment, with all that we do, with all that the 
States are required to do in terms of the correctional system, all of 
the prisons that are built, and frankly, in my own State we have 
tripled the number of prison beds in the last 10 years and I do not 
feel three times safer, with all of that going on, this small ounce of 
prevention is well worth it. It is an investment in families and 
children and neighborhoods.
  I would urge my colleagues, in this amendment, in the conference 
committee, in working together on the final budget, to make this small 
investment in Community School programs that work, that support 
families and children and neighborhoods and get the kind of results for 
our communities that we say we all want.
  Mr. McINTYRE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, the Community Schools Preservation Amendment serves a 
critical purpose. It restores much-needed funds to an education grant 
program that really works. When we talk about failed programs, when we 
talk about concern for children and families, when we have something 
that works, we ought to proceed with it and stand by it.
  As the old adage goes, if it is not broken, we should not try to fix 
it. This is a program that has been entirely successful. In 
southeastern North Carolina, in the Seventh District that I represent, 
we are home to one of these fine programs. The Communities in Schools 
Program of Robeson County is a shining example of how educators, local 
community leaders, law enforcement officers, and students work 
together. This program works day in and day out. It is an opportunity 
where we can coordinate the delivery of existing health, social, 
education, and support services for troubled youth and their families. 
They are doing work that could not be done by existing agencies in 
Robeson County.
  I have seen firsthand this program work in North Carolina. It keeps 
children in school, it works with families to make sure children have a 
healthy home, and in the end, helps make our Nation a better place to 
live as we do what we all want to do, and that is to strengthen our 
families.
  Mr. Chairman, the Community in Schools Program staff has worked to 
earn the trust of their community and of their schools. They are able 
to point to past successes and to future efforts that are already in 
the works so that this program can continue. This program is an 
excellent way that we can steer children away from a life of crime.
  In a recent survey, police chiefs around our Nation indicated that 
investments like the Community Schools Program was one of the best ways 
to resist crime and to help youth avoid risky behavior. Other studies 
have shown that these programs can reduce juvenile delinquency by as 
much as 80 percent. Please name another program that can do that to 
reduce juvenile delinquency by 80 percent.
  Do we want to be responsible for eliminating a successful program 
such as this? We should not. We should not turn our backs on programs 
that are already helping our families, already helping our youth, 
already helping our teenagers, and guiding them in the direction that 
we all desire that they will be able to move forward in for a positive 
family environment, a positive environment in our schools and a 
positive environment for safe neighborhoods and safe schools.
  The Community Schools Preservation Amendment is a program that works. 
Indeed, it is a small investment that gives a mighty big return.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  I have just been informed by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Souder] 
that he will not be offering his amendment tonight and that, therefore, 
we believe there will be no further recorded votes, according to my 
understanding, will not be.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am delighted to hear 
what the chairman has indicated. Let me simply say with respect to the 
amendment before us that I recognize what the gentleman from Illinois 
has said with respect to other portions of the bill that fund similar 
programs, but I would simply ask Members to realize one thing: All of 
the studies show that by far the most youth crime is committed between 
the hours of 3 and 6 in the afternoon. That is why I think that the 
intent of the Filner amendment is good and I support what the gentleman 
is trying to do.
  I would urge, however, that the gentleman consider withdrawing the 
amendment, because I think that would give us a greater opportunity to 
work with the Senate conferees to try to achieve some restoration of 
funding for this program, which I believe would complement some of the 
other programs that are aimed at taking teenagers off the street.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  It sounds, from the earlier statements, in the last few years that 
the Senate, or the other body, has been a little bit more prescient 
than us in this program. So I appreciate the gentleman's statement of 
trying to win their support again.
  I thank the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. McIntyre], the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lofgren], the gentlewoman from 
Michigan [Ms. Stabenow], for their support, and the dozens of other 
Members, the gentleman from New York Mr. Lazio and [Mr. Weldon] on the 
other side, who have expressed support.
  But, Mr. Chairman, based on the ranking member's statement, I ask 
unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment at this time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Porter], the chairman of the Labor, Health and Human 
Services Subcommittee.
  As the chairman may know, more than 3,000 people die each year 
waiting for an organ donation that never comes. That equals one death 
every 3 hours, eight people every day. Every 18 minutes another name is 
added to the list of 50,000 people awaiting transplants.
  Last year, then Representative Durbin and I cosponsored the Organ 
Donor Insert Card Act, which put an organ donor signup card in the tax 
return checks of nearly 70 million households. It is my hope that this 
effort will result in more organs available for transplant.
  As my colleagues may know, this year the Senate has added a provision 
under the leadership of now Senator Durbin and Senator Frist in its 
version of the Labor, Health and Human Services appropriations bill, 
which

[[Page H7083]]

calls upon the Department of Health and Human Services, in coordination 
with the General Accounting Office, to survey 5 percent of the 
hospitals participating in the Medicare and Medicaid Programs in order 
to ascertain how their organ donation programs are working.
  I would ask the chairman to work with the chairman of the Committee 
on Commerce and the ranking member of the Committee on Commerce, as 
well as our colleagues, to address this issue when we go to conference 
with the Senate.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CAMP. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  I would say to my friend from Michigan that obviously the Senate does 
not have rules such as we have in the House, and they may add 
legislative provisions even to an appropriations bill. This is an 
authorizing provision on the appropriations bill. I would certainly not 
take any position in regard to it in conference without the assent of 
the authorizing committee.
  It sounds, from what the gentleman has described, like a very good 
program, but I would have to take my guidance from the authorizing side 
in regard to it in conference.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the 
chairman's remarks.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the chairman of the Labor-HHS 
Subcommittee in a colloquy concerning rural health care.
  I would say to the gentleman from Illinois I intended to offer an 
amendment today that would provide a $2.3 million increase to the Rural 
Outreach Grant Program. An increase of nearly $2.3 million would bring 
the Rural Outreach Grant Program in line with the Senate bill. The 
grant program was level-funded in the House.
  Mr. Chairman, I come from a large rural district in central northwest 
Pennsylvania. Federal dollars for rural health care have been and 
continue to be increasingly difficult to come by. The Federal Rural 
Outreach Grant Program promotes innovation in the delivery of health 
care to rural areas by encouraging collaborative efforts among health 
care entities and the communities in which they are located.
  Mr. Chairman, I will not offer my amendment. However, I would like to 
ask the chairman that as he works with the Senate during conference on 
the Labor-HHS appropriations bill, he will make a commitment to rural 
health care by working toward the Senate number for the Rural Outreach 
Grant Program.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me 
and for his statement.
  I have to say that I have become aware recently of the importance of 
innovations that affect rural health care, like telemedicine and access 
to the National Library of Medicine's data bank. And I appreciate the 
gentleman's decision not to pursue the amendment on the floor today, 
and I commit to him that I will make every effort in conference to 
increase the funding for the Rural Outreach Grant Program.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I 
want to thank the chairman for his support of this program, and I 
appreciate his willingness to work with me on the issue of rural health 
care.
  The CHAIRMAN. If there are no other amendments to the pending portion 
of the bill, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                   TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION


                            education reform

       For carrying out activities authorized by titles III and IV 
     of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act, the School-to-Work 
     Opportunities Act, and section 3132 of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965, $1,135,000,000, of which 
     $458,500,000 for the Goals 2000: Educate America Act and 
     $200,000,000 for the School-to-Work Opportunities Act shall 
     become available on July 1, 1998, and remain available 
     through September 30, 1999: Provided, That none of the funds 
     appropriated under this heading shall be obligated or 
     expended to carry out section 304(a)(2)(A) of the Goals 2000: 
     Educate America Act, except that no more than $1,500,000 may 
     be used to carry out activities under section 314(a)(2) of 
     that Act: Provided further, That section 315(a)(2) of the 
     Goals 2000 Act shall not apply: Provided further, That up to 
     one-half of one percent of the amount available under section 
     3132 shall be set aside for the outlying areas, to be 
     distributed on the basis of their relative need as determined 
     by the Secretary in accordance with the purposes of the 
     program: Provided further, That if any State educational 
     agency does not apply for a grant under section 3132, that 
     State's allotment under section 3131 shall be reserved by the 
     Secretary for grants to local educational agencies in that 
     State that apply directly to the Secretary according to the 
     terms and conditions published by the Secretary in the 
     Federal Register.

  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2264 
and I would like to commend Chairman Porter for his hard work and 
diligence in crafting this appropriations bill. Included in this 
legislation is language which will waive an ineffective and burdensome 
regulation now mandated by the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended 
by the Higher Education Amendments of 1992. This act blindly requires 
all lenders who participate in the Federal Family Education Loan 
Program to perform expensive, comprehensive annual audits on their 
student loan portfolios. Similar corrective language was included in 
the continuing resolution adopted for fiscal year 1997, and thus 
expires on September 30 of this year.
  I represent small banks and credit unions which maintain and service 
small student loan portfolios in compliance with the Federal Family 
Education Loan Program. The profit on these portfolios is estimated to 
around 3 to 5 thousand dollars annually, while the audit required by 
the Department of Education costs anywhere from 2 to 14 thousand 
dollars annually. As you can see it does not make sense for small 
lenders to service these loans and participate in the FFEL program. In 
fact, many small lenders are selling their portfolios and leaving the 
student loan business altogether. This is not fair to student borrowers 
in rural areas who are increasingly unable to utilize lending 
institutions that they are familiar with. This is also not fair to 
smaller lenders who wish to service and maintain student loans. If this 
policy is enforced, small lenders will be effectively cut out of the 
student loan business and consumers will be denied the opportunity to 
do business at their local bank.
  I contacted the Department of Education about the possibility of a 
waiver or alternative to this detrimental mandate. The Department 
stated, ``. . . lender audits are required by statute . . .'' and that 
the ``. . . statute does not provide authority for the Department to 
waive the annual audit based on the size of the lender's FFEL portfolio 
or the cost of the audit.'' Furthermore, according to the Department of 
Education's Office of the Inspector General, lender portfolios totaling 
less than 10 million dollars do not even have to send their audit to 
the Department for review. They are only required to ``. . . hold the 
reports for a period of three years and shall submit them only if 
requested.'' That means lenders waste thousands of dollars on a 
compliance audit that is never sent anywhere or reviewed by anyone. I 
have no doubt that protecting the integrity of the student loan program 
is important to all of us. However, this current situation does not 
protect any portfolios under 10 million dollars because no one review 
the results of the audits.
  The Office of the Inspector General at the Department of Education 
has also expressed concern regarding this burden in their Semiannual 
Report--October 93 to March 94--stating, ``. . . we are concerned that 
the cost may outweigh the benefits of legislatively required annual 
audits of all participants, regardless of the size of participation or 
the risk they represent to the program.'' In this report the inspector 
general recommends that a threshold be established for requiring an 
institutional audit, ``. . . and we continue to believe that a 
threshold is necessary for both the institutional and lender audits. 
Such a threshold would eliminate the audit burden for the smaller 
participants in the program while helping assure that scarce 
departmental resources are focused on the areas of greatest risk.''
  This provision works in concert with the Department of Education and 
the authorizing committee which have expressed the need for an audit 
threshold. This language will help the little guy in the student loan 
business and ensure consumer choice and convenience. It is my hope that 
the Congress will be able to enact a permanent solution to this 
problem. I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 2264.
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my 
concern with a provision in this legislation. I applaud my colleagues 
for their hard work in reaching this year's unprecedented budget 
agreement that successfully expanded the Pell Grant Program and 
provided new tax incentives for education. I also wish to thank the 
chairman and the ranking member for their hard work in bringing this 
legislation to the floor for consideration.

[[Page H7084]]

  However, I am especially concerned that this legislation completely 
eliminates one of the most successful higher education financial aid 
programs in history. The State Student Incentive Grant Program, or 
SSIG, has succeeded in encouraging the development of need-based 
financial aid programs in all 50 States. It has not only provided the 
seed money that was intended at its inception 25 years ago, but has 
also helped maintain State commitments to need-based financial aid in 
subsequent years.
  This is a program that gives the neediest students opportunities to 
attend higher education institutions, through grants and work-study 
jobs. Yes, the Pell Grant Program is making a college education 
accessible for many low-income students, but SSIG helps States retain 
those students who absolutely could not afford college without the 
supplemental funds that pay the financial shortfall that Pell and other 
financial aid programs cannot support.
  It now serves over 700,000 students at 2- and 4-year colleges and 
universities nationwide, and it does so by leveraging over 780 million 
dollars in State matching funds. In speaking with students and program 
administrators in my State, I have been repeatedly told that the 
Federal funds are essential in encouraging policy-makers to maintain 
state funding levels. In 13 States, the SSIG funds comprise at least 25 
percent of available student grant aid. Additionally, in an independent 
survey of State financial aid administrators, 86 percent indicates that 
the elimination of the SSIG would result in States reducing the number 
and amount of need-based grants. It is evident that an elimination of 
this program could have dramatic impacts on students in States across 
the Nation.
  The SSIG Program was never given a sunset date for a good reason: it 
continues to serve as an efficient and economical incentive for States 
to help make higher education accessible. As college costs continue to 
rise, and as the ratio of grants to loans continues to decline, it is 
imperative that we retain incentives for States to continue their 
efforts. I am disappointed that this legislation overlooks the 
essential benefits of this program. However, I urge my colleagues to 
join me in future efforts to restore this valuable program.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore [Mr. 
Camp] having assumed the chair, Mr. Goodlatte, 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. 2264) 
making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human 
Services, and Education, and related agencies for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________