[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 120 (Thursday, September 11, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H7206-H7247]
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 of
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} 1042
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.
LaHood, Chairman pro tempore, in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole rose on
Wednesday, September 10, 1997, the bill was open for amendment from
page 78, line 12, through page 78, line 22.
Are there any amendments to this portion of the bill?
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Corporation for National and Community Service
domestic volunteer service programs, operating expenses
For expenses necessary for the Corporation for National and
Community Service to carry out the provisions of the Domestic
Volunteer Service Act of 1973, as amended, $227,547,000.
Corporation for Public Broadcasting
For payment to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, as
authorized by the Communication Act of 1934, an amount which
shall be available within limitations specified by that Act,
for the fiscal year 2000, $300,000,000: Provided, That no
funds made available to the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting by this Act shall be used to pay for receptions,
parties, or similar forms of entertainment for Government
officials or employees: Provided further, That none of the
funds contained in this paragraph shall be available or used
to aid or support any program or activity from which any
person is excluded, or is denied benefits, or is
discriminated against,
[[Page H7207]]
on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, or
sex.
Amendment No. 28 Offered by Mr. Crane
Mr. CRANE. 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. 28 offered by Mr. Crane:
Page 79, strike lines 8 through 21.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this
amendment and all amendments thereto close in 30 minutes and that the
time be divided 15 minutes for the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane],
5 minutes for myself, and 10 minutes for the gentlewoman from
Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Illinois?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The amendment will be considered for 30
minutes. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane] will be recognized for
15 minutes, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] will be recognized
for 5 minutes, and the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro] will
be recognized for 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane].
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
CPB is funded by a 2-year advance appropriation, and this year
Congress will provide CPB funding for the fiscal year 2000.
In the 104th Congress, the House Committee on Appropriations provided
only $240 million for CPB in fiscal year 1998. However, $10 million was
added back in conference, and now in the 105th, the Committee on
Appropriations has increased funding for CPB in fiscal year 2000 from
$250 to $300 million.
The CPB funding bill has come before the floor during this week and I
have reintroduced my amendment to terminate funding for CPB. At a time
when we are trying to balance the budget, we must eliminate agencies
like the CPB, and I am not exclusively targeting CPB. We must reduce or
eliminate much of the Washington bureaucracy.
{time} 1045
For the past 4 years the Republicans have continually reduced funding
for CPB. For fiscal year 1996 the appropriation was $275 million; 1997,
$260 million; 1998, $250 million.
I have with me the report from the Committee on Appropriations from
the 104th Congress and it notes that the bill provides $240 million for
the Corporation for Public Broadcasting for fiscal year 1998, a
decrease of $20 million below the comparable 1997 funding level and
$56,400,000 below the President's request.
This level of funding will continue the process of graduating the CPB
from annual Federal appropriations with the goal of achieving
independence from the Federal Government that was the goal of the
Republican-controlled 104th Congress. And now, as I say, we are looking
at reversing what we made a commitment to do and escalating the
expenditure levels for CPB.
Federal spending is a small percentage of public broadcasting's
revenue. Of public broadcasting's $1.9 billion budget in 1995, only
about 15 percent of that comes from Federal appropriations. The
functions of public broadcasting, education, entertainment, diversity,
are now duplicated in other entities, such as cable, direct satellite,
VCR's, and public access shows.
PBS has a nondisclosure agreement with the producers of Barney.
However, the last figures from a 1995 Wall Street Journal article
reported that despite Barney's $1 billion gross revenues and Barney's
founder Sheryl Leach's $84 million earnings, almost nothing goes to
CPB. After public broadcasters provided exposure for Barney, Barney has
become an institution.
Barney was created by the Lyons group. Founder Sheryl Leach and her
partner were listed as one of Forbes Magazine's highest paid
entertainers with 1993-94 earnings of $84 million.
CPB discriminates in its distribution of money. It sends money to the
stations with the most powerful signals and the largest measured
audiences and shies away from financing more than one outlet in a
single market. However, many public TV stations themselves are now
redundant. CPB estimates that 58 percent of Americans receive two or
more public TV stations. Chicago gets three; New York, four,
Washington, DC, three; Kansas City, two.
Public broadcasting funds should go to rural stations where the need
for access and diversity is most acute. If CPB were truly the
philanthropic organization it claims to be, cuts in its budget would
not lead to the end of small stations; instead it would end big
stations where consumers have a number of choices. Small stations,
where there are limited alternatives, would be the last to go.
Finally, if private cable channels, such as Arts & Entertainment, C-
SPAN, ESPN, and the History Channel are all private and successful, if
CPB were privatized it could do well.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me begin by saying that the gentleman from Illinois, my colleague
in the Eighth District, is exactly right; that when I became chairman
of the subcommittee 2\1/2\ years ago, we did begin the process of
downsizing CPB with the intention of phasing out all appropriations. We
came down from a high of $315 million, to $275, then $260, then $250
million, which is the funding level now.
The leadership of the House suggested that CPB ought to become
independent and that it ought to graduate from dependence upon public
funds; a goal that I strongly supported. We did the downsizing of the
advanced appropriation for CPB with the express objective of putting
pressure on that process in order to bring about an independent status
for CPB and a funding source outside of the Federal Treasury.
Last year, former Representative Fields, then chairman of the
authorizing committee responsible for reporting the legislation
necessary to make CPB an independent corporation, ended that process.
In our subcommittee last year we reported out a bill that reduced CPB
funding from $250 to $225 million, but before we got to the full
committee, Chairman Fields issued a public letter indicating that we
should not approve any further downsizing of the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting, that we would not reach the goal of ending
appropriations.
That letter came as a great surprise to me, and under the
circumstances, I was forced to restore funding to the CPB budget. This
year we have a new authorizing chairman, the gentleman from Louisiana
[Mr. Tauzin], with whom I have discussed the future of CPB. It is my
understanding that he will not be able to report out legislation to
graduate CPB from Federal funding at this time.
Mr. Chairman, given that we have changed our policy on the
Corporation for Public Broadcasting, I believe that we cannot leave it
dying on the vine. If the policy is to transition CPB to independence,
I will, as I have, support it, but a reasonable timeframe to allow
public broadcasting to continue on its own seems now to be our policy.
If our policy is to continue CPB as a Federal enterprise, however,
and former Representative Fields and the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr.
Tauzin] have made it clear that that is our policy, then we must
provide sufficient resources to make the system work. It is for that
reason that I have added funding again to this account.
I am and continue to be a very strong supporter of public
broadcasting, which I think adds immeasurably to our society; and for
those reasons I would strongly oppose this amendment.
I might note for the Members that the same amendment was offered on
the fiscal year 1996 bill when it failed by 150 votes, 136 to 286; and
Members should be advised that they have previously voted on exactly
the same amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, immediately after the Republican revolution, Speaker
Gingrich told the American people that he would never permit a bill to
come to the floor with funding for public television. What happened?
Quite frankly, the Speaker failed, but the American public spoke out.
People who had never written to their Members of Congress
[[Page H7208]]
before, had never telephoned their Members of Congress before, started
writing and calling in droves.
Piles of letters started building up in congressional offices,
literally feet deep, defending public broadcasting. Parents whose
children had grown up with Ernie and Bert and Big Bird and Grover and
with Snuffleupagus; parents who preferred their children to be learning
gentle lessons of life from Mr. Rogers and Barney, rather than ``Cops''
or soap operas; men and women of all income levels who watch Wall
Street Week with Louis Rukeyser or ``Mystery'' or ``This Old House'';
men and women of all income levels whose drives to work are made more
tolerable by National Public Radio.
Public television reaches 90 percent of American households. The
American public does not view the Corporation for Public Broadcasting
as waste, fraud, and abuse.
Public broadcasting's children's programming helps prepare our kids
for school, teaching them about the world around them. It teaches the
ABC's, the 1-2-3's, and it teaches about neighborhoods and sharing and
right and wrong. It provides instructional broadcasting for elementary
school kids, with shows that teach about geography, such as ``Where in
the World Is Carmen San Diego''; and teaches about science, such as
``Dan, Dan the Science Man''.
Four out of five teachers in this country used television in their
classroom during the 1990 and 1991 school year, serving close to 24
million students. Three of the five most used programs cited by
teachers and 6 of the top 10 were initially broadcast by public
television.
Public television stations air nearly 1,900 hours of children's
programming every single year. Almost 50 percent of the television
programs for children which are aired each year is funded by CPB,
quality, noncommercial, nonviolent television.
If we ask any mother whether she would rather her children watch Mr.
Rogers or cartoons interspersed with advertising for toys and sugar
cereals, is there any doubt in anyone's mind which she would choose?
More than three-quarters of the country's public television stations
offer for-credit adult courses at various levels, in addition to
instructional videos for teachers and classroom use and informal
educational television that millions of adults watch at home on any
given night. None of this would be possible without public funding.
Federal funding represents a small percentage of public
broadcasting's income, about 15 percent, but it is a stable source
which makes it possible for public broadcasting to leverage other
private funds. For every $1 of Federal funding, public broadcasting
raises more than $5 from other sources, and by law, 89 percent of the
Federal funds allocated to CPB go directly to communities.
Public television cannot raise all of the funds it needs to operate
public television stations. While the license holders of characters
like Barney make a profit off of the sales of Barney stuffed animals,
for example, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and public
broadcasting stations do not benefit from those sales because they do
not own the rights to those characters.
The appropriation in this bill is still $62 million below what it was
when the Republican majority took control of the Congress, and it is
still below the President's request of $325 million. The Federal
investment represents only $1 per taxpayer. Is $1 too much to ask for
the television station which has educated so many of us, our children
and our grandchildren?
My colleagues, this amendment tries to do what Speaker Gingrich could
not do, and that is to eliminate the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York
[Mrs. Lowey].
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this
amendment which would eliminate the appropriation for public
broadcasting in this bill.
My colleagues who were here in the 104th Congress will recall that we
fought and won the battle over Federal funding for public broadcasting.
Members of the majority party attacked funding for public television
and radio on several occasions, but when the American people learned of
this attack, they expressed their sentiments loud and clear and the
result was a win for public broadcasting and a victory for the American
people.
I will never forget that fight because, although we were privileged
to be here in the House, to be on the committee, to stand up for the
importance of public broadcasting, I can remember the thousands and
thousands of letters, all the people from every part of this country,
large cities, small cities, people who listen to the radio in the
garage stations, seniors who stayed home listening to the television
and the radio, everybody was concerned; and it is the thousands and
thousands of people who won that vote and won that battle.
Mr. Chairman, ``Sesame Street'' and other federally supported
educational programs reach at-risk children in the home and help our
teachers in the classroom. News programs such as the ``Lehrer News
Hour'', those on NPR, inform our citizens. The cultural programs enrich
and make more humane all our lives. A failure to adequately fund
educational television and radio would be an abandonment of the
public's trust.
My colleagues, the $300 million appropriation for public broadcasting
in this bill is still below where it was prior to the start of the
Republican Congress and it is still below the President's request of
$325 million.
{time} 1100
The notion that Federal funds for public broadcasting do not make a
difference to local communities is absolutely false. Some 87 radio and
61 TV stations around the country rely on Federal funds for one-quarter
or more of their budgets. These stations, many of which are in rural
areas, are often harmed the most when we cut back on Federal support
for public broadcasting.
Let us remember that the funding we provide is an incredible value.
Every Federal dollar that public television stations receive from CPB
is used to generate $6 in non-Federal funds. Let us also remember one
of the prime audiences of public television, children.
I know that many of my colleagues share with me a concern about
violence in society. We know that children, if not on their streets,
then in their living rooms are bombarded by violent acts and violent
images. We also know that most children spend a lot of time in front of
the television. As a mother, we might wish that children spent more
time reading or engaged in other activities. The fact of modern society
is children watch television. Thankfully, they can turn to public
television for nonviolent educational programs.
Eighty-three percent of preschoolers watch public television. What we
need to do is expand funding and expand programming for public
broadcasting so that older children can have the same array of high
quality programming. The charge that public broadcasting is just for
the so-called elite elements of our society is blatantly false. Sixty
percent of regular viewers of public television come from households
with incomes of less than $40,000 a year.
Mr. Chairman, I will repeat what I have said time and time again in
the last Congress. The American people overwhelmingly support Federal
funds for public broadcasting. We have a responsibility to listen and I
strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin], the chairman of the authorizing
committee.
(Mr. TAUZIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the appropriations
subcommittee for yielding me this time. Let me first of all concede
that the authors of the amendment have made some valid points, that
public broadcasting is indeed in need of reform. Duopolies exist that
spending the kind of money that we are going to need to move public
broadcasting into the digital age will be a very expensive proposition
and that we will need to reform the whole concept of public
broadcasting to make it work in the digital age.
Let me also concede that there is something wrong in public
broadcasting, and I think part of it is our own
[[Page H7209]]
fault because we have chartered public broadcasting as a public entity
to do public-type broadcasting and yet condemned it to act like
commercial broadcasters, to go out into the private sector and seek
commercial-like advertising for its products and to compete with
commercial broadcasters for commercially viable products.
That was not the concept behind public broadcasting. We need to
return to the right concept. We need to fund public broadcasting
correctly. We need to reform out the duopolies, move it into the
digital age and make this thing work, but let me urge my colleagues to
resist this amendment, as the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey]
and I have urged them in a ``Dear Colleague'' letter this week.
We are currently working on those reforms at the subcommittee level.
The Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection
is right now drafting a set of reforms to make public broadcasting
indeed public broadcasting and to set up a trust funding mechanism for
the exercise of the public broadcasting function. We will be resisting
the efforts of some to make commercial broadcasters look like public
broadcasters, just as we will be resisting the effort to eliminate
public broadcasting or to make it look like commercial broadcasting.
It is time we have this debate, but to simply cut the funding now
when we are in the process of actually enacting these reforms, devising
them and setting out the proper funding mechanism for public
broadcasting is a severe mistake. Public broadcasting is very sacred to
America. We need to preserve it. But we need to reform it. The place to
do it is at the authorizing committee. I urge Members to reject this
amendment.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, if all the speakers are finished, I am
prepared to yield back the time of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Crane]. I am sitting in for him. I have an amendment which will follow,
which will just hold the funding level.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore [Mr. LaHood]. The gentlewoman from
Connecticut has 30 seconds remaining.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I would just conclude on this amendment that I think it
does not take us in the right direction. We ought to continue the
effort. What we should not be willing to do is to eliminate public
broadcasting, which in fact has helped to educate a generation of
Americans. We ought to continue this program for the good of this
country.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane].
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
Thursday, July 31, 1997, further proceedings on the amendment offered
by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane] will be postponed.
Amendment No. 25 Offered by Mr. Hefley
Mr. HEFLEY. 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. 25 offered by Mr. Hefley:
Page 79, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $50,000,000)''.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on
this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 30 minutes, and that
the time be divided 15 minutes for the gentleman from Colorado [Mr.
Hefley], 7\1/2\ minutes for myself, and 7\1/2\ minutes for the
gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Illinois?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley]
will control 15 minutes, and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter]
and the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro] will each control
7\1/2\ minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley].
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
What this amendment does is not do away with public broadcasting. I am
not trying to do away with public broadcasting. What I am trying to do
is to do away with the $50 million increase in public broadcasting that
is in this.
For the life of me, I do not understand how we get to this kind of a
point, kind of the business as usual that we just dump more money into
every program every year. In the past few years, and I think the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] explained it very well on the last
amendment, the Federal Government has appropriated less and less money
each year to the public broadcasting.
Let me give colleagues a little history on this. We all know that
public broadcasting is funded by 2-year advance appropriations. For
example, in 1993, Congress provided $275 million for public
broadcasting to use in fiscal year 1996. Since then, we have reduced
the yearly appropriation for public broadcasting down to $250 million,
appropriated last year for fiscal year 1999.
Reduced funding, even zero funding and privatization of public
broadcasting was a priority of this House just a very short time ago.
In fact, let me quote the House Committee on Appropriations report from
the first session of the 104th Congress. Recall that this report was
written in the year 1995 when $250 million was ultimately appropriated
for public broadcasting. The committee report actually states, ``This
level of funding will continue the process of graduating public
broadcasting from the annual Federal appropriations with the goal of
achieving independence from the Federal Government.''
Mr. Chairman, in 1995, the Committee on Appropriations of the House
of Representatives was on the right track. Now I would like to know
what happened. After all of that hard work to begin weaning public
broadcasting from the Government, why are we now taking a turn to
increase, enormously increase funding for this agency? It simply makes
no sense to me. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting uses taxpayer
money to fund programs which make millions of dollars for private
companies and individuals. A single celebrated public broadcasting
children's program generates more annual revenues than the National
Hockey League. Yet none of these millions are shared with taxpayers who
fund the shows.
We have had this debate before. We were on the right path to reduced
Federal funding of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. But
somewhere along the line this year our course was changed and the
appropriation for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting was increased
to $300 million. I do not understand this increase. I certainly do not
agree with it. Therefore, I offer this amendment to reduce the
recommended appropriation for the CPB by $50 million. That is the
amount of the increase, thus keeping the funding for the agency level
with last year's appropriation of $250 million.
Mr. Chairman, some of my colleagues have asked me how will you use
this $50 million? What is the offset you propose? My answer to this is
simple. I just remind Members that we do not have this money to spend
in the first place. Furthermore, because the CPB is funded with 2-year
advance appropriations, we are discussing money to be spent in 2000.
Therefore, an offset is not needed.
Our country is operating with a deficit that needs to be reduced. In
our strenuous attempts to reduce Federal spending, we have taken pains
to scrimp and to save. The funding for many other Government agencies
and programs has been reduced this year. So why should the Corporation
for Public Broadcasting receive a $50 million increase? If I am not
mistaken, breast cancer research did not receive a $50 million increase
this year. Maybe they did. Literacy did not receive it. Alzheimer's
research did not receive it. I cannot tell my colleagues what we could
do for the quality of life for our people in the Armed Services that in
some cases are living in Third World conditions around the world in our
Army bases, on the committee that I chair, if we had $50 million extra.
But we are putting it not into these things,
[[Page H7210]]
we are putting it into an increase in public broadcasting.
Again, my amendment will reduce the committee's proposed funding for
the CPB by $50 million so that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting
ultimately receives the same amount of money that was appropriated for
it last year. Please join me in supporting this level funding for the
Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment. As I said earlier, I am a
strong supporter of public broadcasting. I would say to the gentleman
this is not an item that is off-budget. It is simply an appropriation
for the year 2000 and charged against the allocation for the year 2000
when we come to it.
As I said before, we have dramatically reduced the budget for the
Corporation for Public Broadcasting from a high of $315 million down to
$250 million. At the time we asked the Corporation to undertake major
initiatives to downsize and to become more efficient. They did exactly
what we asked. By 1996, CPB had reduced its own staff by 25 percent. In
this bill, we have asked all administrative staffs to be cut, but I do
not know of a single agency that has made the dramatic reduction that
CPB has made.
In our hearings, we learned that over 70 percent of households in
this country receive more than one public television signal. In some
markets, households receive as many as 11 TV signals. We asked CPB to
address that problem. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting does not
have the legislative authority to unilaterally fix this problem, but
under the very strong leadership of Ambassador Richard Carlson, an
appointee of both the Reagan and Bush administrations, CPB led the
public television industry to adopt a one grant per market policy. This
new policy assures that where there is signal overlap, where there is
duplication, CPB will stop awarding multiple grants and make only one
grant per market.
The system has already achieved much greater efficiency and has
reduced duplication. I will continue through the appropriations
oversight capacity to ensure that these initiatives are preserved and
advanced. But I think the Members should recognize that we have cut
funding below a level commensurate with the efficiencies we have
required of CPB.
We were on a path to zero funding, and that policy has now been
changed. The funding level in this bill is lower than the funding level
we provided in the fiscal year 1994 bill, I would say to the gentleman
from Colorado. If one considers inflation, the funding the committee is
proposing is below the fiscal year 1993 level.
{time} 1115
So this appropriation that the committee is recommending for the year
2000 recommends a freeze, as compared to the amount provided in the
fiscal year 1993 bill. Few other agencies of this Government can make
this claim.
Mr. Chairman, the recommended level, I believe, is a good one. It
ensures that CPB continues to be efficient and reduce duplication, and
it ensures that the public broadcasting system has sufficient resources
to operate sufficiently. I would urge Members to oppose the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment and
yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel], who has
been a champion of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise strongly in opposition to this amendment. There
is no reason to have any kind of an assault on public broadcasting when
public broadcasting has been so successful and it is a public-private
relationship that works.
We talk a lot about eliminating wasteful Government programs. I think
we are all for eliminating wasteful Government programs. But when we
have a program that works, when we have a program that is not wasteful,
when we have a program that reaches so many millions upon millions of
Americans, why would we want to do anything to harm it? It seems to me
that these are the kinds of programs that we ought to be pumping more
money into, because they have been successful; not trying to pull money
away from it or trying to kill it.
Public broadcasting is a private-public partnership that works. It is
a success story that demonstrates what the Government and the private
sector can do when we work together.
CPB funds serve as seed money for new programs and station support.
For every Federal dollar invested, public broadcasting raises $6
additional. This Federal seed money is crucial to public broadcasting
stations, especially to those in underserved and rural areas of the
country, because it provides the fund-raising base needed to sustain
noncommercial programming. Ending this partnership or diminishing this
partnership will only hurt the children and families who rely on public
broadcasting as their source for news and education.
We all know access to public television is free. Many households in
this country cannot afford to pay $300 or $600 per year for cable TV.
This provides a service for those people.
Eighty-eight thousand adults per year get GED certificates. Two
million adults have gotten GED certificates as a result of public
broadcasting. Why would we want to stop that?
The American people see and know the positive results and the quality
and integrity of public broadcasting. Further cutting CPB will mean
that CPB will have to pander to the monetary and rating concerns of
commercial broadcasting.
Why would we want to put them in that category? The whole reason for
public broadcasting is not to have just another commercial broadcasting
station, where they have to worry about ratings and have to worry about
selling things and all these seedy commercials and seedy things that go
on.
We do not want that. We want a better quality of television, and
public broadcasting provides that better quality of television.
I have three children ages 3 to 16. My kids were all raised on public
broadcasting. I like to listen to public broadcasting, my wife does as
well, and my family. There are literally millions upon millions of
Americans in all walks of life who rely on public broadcasting.
Public broadcasting has an average of 5.5 hours per day of
instructional television, which is used by 1.8 million teachers to
teach 29 million students in 70,000 schools in the United States. Why
would we want to hurt that?
Eliminating support for public broadcasting would result in the
demise of quality shows, like the MacNeil-Lehrer News Hour Report, Mr.
Roger's Neighborhood, and even William F. Buckley's Firing Line. It
would increase the emergence of shows like Hard Copy and Jenny Jones,
without the presence of viable alternatives like those on public
broadcasting.
It is a myth to say we have increased funding, because if we look at
the current fiscal year 1999 appropriation, $250 million, it actually
provides 18 percent less buying power than in the fiscal year 1990
appropriation.
The report bill's increase in funding for CPB is less than the
inflation adjustment from the fiscal year 1990 funding level. Let us
also remember that CPB lost $99 million in rescissions in the 104th
Congress. So rather than an increase, we are really behind what we
would have been.
Public broadcasting is one of the Federal Government's most cost-
effective expenditures, just costing 98 cents per year for every
citizen. According to a national poll, public television ranked second
and public radio ranked third on a list of Government programs that can
provide the best value for the dollar.
Again, why would we want to cut this? The American people have been
very outspoken in their support of public broadcasting, and understand
its benefits and the quality and integrity of the programming.
Public radio and television are among the top five values in return
for tax dollars spent, according to a recent poll conducted by Roper
Starch Worldwide. Let us fully support CPB funding and vote against
this ill-thought amendment.
Mr. Chairman, public broadcasting is a private-public partnership
that works:
[[Page H7211]]
This is a success story that demonstrates what the Government and the
private sector can accomplish when they work together.
CPB funds serve as seed money for new programs and station support:
For every Federal dollar invested, public broadcasting raises $6 more.
The Federal seed money is crucial to public broadcasting stations,
especially to those in underserved and rural areas of the country,
because it provides the fund raising base needed to sustain
noncommercial programming.
Ending this partnership will only hurt the children and families who
rely on public broadcasting as their source for news and education.
Access to public TV is free. Many households cannot afford to pay
$300 to $600 per year for cable television.
Eighty-eight thousand houses per year get GED certificates--[MADULO].
The American people see and know the positive results in the quality
and integrity of public broadcasting.
Further cutting CPB will mean that CPB will have to pander to the
monetary and ratings concerns of commercial broadcasting.
If support for public broadcasting is severely cut or eliminated, the
quality of programming and the educational value it provides will
suffer as a result.
Eliminating support for public broadcasting would result in the
demise of quality shows like The MacNeil-Lehrer News Hour, Mister
Rogers Neighborhood, and, yes, William F. Buckley's Firing Line.
Children average 5\1/2\ hours per day of instructional television
used by 1 to 8 million teachers to teach 29\1/2\ million students in
70,000 schools. It would increase the emergence of shows like ``Hard
Copy'' and Jenny Jones without the presence of viable alternatives like
those on public broadcasting.
The bill provides a proper amount of funding and should be retained.
House of Representatives
Washington, DC, September 5, 1997.
Don't Cut CPB
Dear Colleague: We urge you to oppose amendments to the
Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations bill that could reduce
funding for your local public broadcasting stations through
the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB).
The Appropriations Committee approved a $300 million
advance allocation for CPB in FY 2000 with bipartisan
support. However, amendments may be proposed that would
either cut or eliminate funding for CPB. Funding provided
through CPB is vital to local public television and radio
stations throughout the nation and must be continued.
Public broadcasting is a private-public partnership that
works. It is a success story that demonstrates what the
government and the private sector can accomplish when they
work together. Weakening or ending this partnership will only
hurt the children and families who rely on public
broadcasting as their source for news and education.
The American people have been very outspoken in their
support of public broadcasting and understand its benefits in
the quality and integrity of the programming. Public radio
and television are among the top five values in return for
tax dollars spent according to a recent poll conducted by
Roper Starch Worldwide, Inc. Let's fully support CPB so the
American people can continue to receive the quality
programming they deserve.
Sincerely,
Eliot L. Engel,
Nita M. Lowey,
Tom Latham,
Members of Congress.
Corporation for Public Broadcasting
Hefley amendment would cut the CPB FY 2000 appropriation in
the bill by $50 million, to provide level funding with the FY
1998 and 1999 appropriations. The bill contains a $50 million
increase from $250 million in 1999 to $300 million in 2000.
(CPB is advance funded two years ahead the normal fiscal year
in the appropriations bill.)
The current FY 99 appropriation--$250 million--provides 18%
less buying power than did the FY 90 appropriation. The
reported bill's increase in funding (to $300M) for CPB is
less than an inflation adjustment from the FY 1990 funding
level.
CPB lost $99 million in rescissions in the 104th Congress.
Public broadcasting is one of the federal government's most
cost-effective expenditures, just 98 cents per year for every
citizen.
According to a national poll, public television ranked 2nd
and public radio ranked 3rd on a list of government programs
that provide the best value for the dollar.
APPROPRIATION HISTORY
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Current
appropriation Rescission appropriation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year:
1995........................ 292.6 -7 285.6
1996........................ 312.0 -37 275.0
1997........................ 315.0 -55 260.0
1998........................ 250.0 .......... 250.0
1999........................ 250.0 .......... 250.0
2000........................ 300.0 .......... 300.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approximately 87 radio and 61 TV grant recipients rely on
CPB funds for 25% or more of their budgets. These stations
are at the greatest financial risk of financial insolvency
should federal support be frozen at $250 Million through FY
2000.
A continued real-dollar decline in federal support would
increase the pressure to commercialize and threaten the non-
commercial nature of public broadcasting--an essential part
of its character and identity.
Although less than 17% of public radio funding is received
from federal sources, this funding source is vital as ``seed
money'', enabling public radio to leverage 5-6 dollars in
other funding for every dollar in federal funding.
Since 1995, CPB has worked to institute many of the changes
Congress expressed concern about. They reduced their own
overhead (which was already less than 5%) and created a new
grant program to fund consolidation and cost-cutting
projects.
According to a Department of Education study, 71.5% of
preschool children from households earning $25,000 or less
watch public broadcasting educational programming (Sesame
Street, Barney, Mr. Rogers, or Reading Rainbow) at least once
a week.
75% of Americans ranked children's programming aired on
public television higher than children's programs available
from other sources, such as broadcast networks and cable.
Access to Public TV is free. Many households cannot afford
to pay $300-$600 per year for cable TV.
69% of teachers report using PBS programming for
educational purposes in the classroom at least once a month--
more than double the next most frequently used source.
GED on TV enables 88,000 adults per year to obtain a GED
certificate. Over 2 million adults have received a GED
certificate through this program since its inception.
Public television stations broadcast an average of 5\1/2\
hours per day of Instructional television (ITV) used by 1.8
million teachers to reach 29.5 million students in 70,000
schools.
Public television's Adult Learning Service (ALS) is used by
\2/3\ of the nation's colleges. Over the past 15 years, over
4 million adults have participated in ALS with 400,000
working adults using the service each semester.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Nadler].
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, public broadcasting plays a crucial role in
our culture. It makes available to all Americans important programming
which may not be commercially viable and certainly not available to
those who cannot afford cable TV. For a relatively small investment by
the Federal Government, Americans are able to have access to thought-
provoking programming which, without public broadcasting, would go
unseen.
Public broadcasting not only adds richness and texture to the lives
of Americans nationwide, it provides an important service in educating
and enlightening both children and adults.
Constituents, thousands of them, call me and write me and tell me how
important the public broadcasting station is to their families and how
much they enjoy and benefit from its programming. From ``Sesame
Street'' to ``Mr. Roger's Neighborhood,'' the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting has a long tradition of providing quality children's
educational programming that parents trust.
The CPB has also helped broadcast a wide variety of cultural
programs, including dance and musical performances, ``Masterpiece
Theater,'' and the popular series on the Civil War. The CPB also helps
fund National Public Radio, which millions of Americans have come to
depend on for information and news.
Mr. Chairman, we ought to fully fund the CPB and reject efforts to
cut its funding. I urge Members to oppose and reject this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the Hefley amendment to cut funding
for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting [CPB].
Public broadcasting plays a crucial role in our culture. It makes
available to all Americans important programming which may not be
commercially viable and certainly not available to those who cannot
afford cable TV. For a relatively small investment by the Federal
Government, Americans are able to have access to thought-provoking
programming which, without public broadcasting, may go unseen. Public
broadcasting not only adds richness and texture to the lives of
Americans nationwide--it provides an important service in educating and
enlightening both children and adults.
In my own district, the CPB helps fund Channel thirteen, which offers
diverse educational and cultural programming that is highly valued by
the people of New York. Every year, I receive numerous letters from my
constituents expressing their appreciation for the services that
Thirteen provides. They tell me how important the station is to their
families and how much they enjoy and benefit from its programming. From
``Sesame Street'' to ``Mr.
[[Page H7212]]
Roger's Neighborhood,'' the CPB has a long tradition of providing
quality children's educational programming that parents trust. The CPB
has also helped broadcast a wide variety of cultural programs,
including dance and musical performances, ``Masterpiece Theater,'' and
the popular series on the Civil War. The CPB also helps fund National
Public Radio which millions of Americans have come to depend on for
information and news.
We ought to fully fund the CPB and reject efforts to drastically cut
its funding. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Hefley amendment.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
North Carolina, [Mr. Price].
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong
opposition to the Hefley amendment. The gentleman from Colorado has
pointed out in a letter to our colleagues that funding for the
Corporation for Public Broadcasting has decreased over the last 4 years
and was moving toward zero, and then he notes this year's appropriation
would increase funding slightly, he should have said, to a level of
$300 million and then he asks what happened.
I think we know what happened. What happened is that Congress has
realized the value of this funding. What happened is a poll this year
done by Roper Starch Worldwide indicates the public rated public radio
as the second best use of Federal dollars out of a whole range of
public programs. What happened is the American people have spoken up
and defended public radio and television.
Mr. Chairman, even at $300 million, CPB will be funded below the
fiscal 1997 level before rescissions. If every Government program could
do as well as this one has, leveraging $5 for every Federal dollar
appropriated, we would have balanced this budget long ago.
In North Carolina, we realize the value of this funding. We have a
weekly viewing public of 2.5 million for our public television
stations, and our people have spoken resoundingly for continuing this
investment, even as we balance the Federal budget. They have given
generously, about $3 in viewer contributions for every Federal dollar
received. Public Broadcasting is a sound and productive investment, and
we must reject this misguided attempt to cut this appropriation.
Mr. Chairman, the argument that viewers and corporate sponsors will
fill the gap misses the point. This is a partnership. Federal seed
money does not replace or restrict private giving, but stimulates it.
In North Carolina, CPB funding provides only 9 percent of the our
public television budget, but it is a crucial base of funding and it
helps bring forth participation from State government, the university
system, corporate sponsors, and thousands of loyal viewers.
Public broadcasting is a unique resource. Only PBS does programming
like ``Sesame Street.'' The networks run often violent cartoons as
their children's programming.
Federal funding is necessary to ensure the continuation of
educational programming which allows students in rural areas, where
attending a university to participate in lifelong learning is
physically impossible, to improve their skills. In North Carolina more
than 10,000 students have enrolled intelecourses for college credit and
more than 8,000 North Carolinians have obtained their GED's because of
our public television station, WUNC.
In the mountains of western North Carolina often the only over-air
station for households is North Carolina Public Television. These are
the people that we have to ensure have access to national news. Not
everyone can afford satellite dishes.
I hope my colleagues understand what has happened. Congress attempted
to cut this funding and the people said no. The people said we do not
mind spending $1 a year for public radio and television programming.
Even as we balance the budget, we must make investments in our future
and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is one of the best
investments that our Federal dollars can buy.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, there has been some wonderful changes around the House
of Representatives in the last 3 years, and I applaud those changes,
but as I sit here and listen to this debate, it is amazing to me how
even though changes occur, how much things stay the same in many
respects.
Only here in the House of Representatives would we say that it is a
myth to say that we are raising funding when we raise funding by $50
million. But it is a myth, based upon some kind of a measurement back
in the past of what we did in another era, and we are trying to get
away from that era with the changes that have occurred. It is a myth
that we are raising the funding for this. It is a myth to say that if
we do not do this, if we do not do this $50 million, that we are
cutting public broadcasting.
Things change, but things stay the same.
Let me make it very clear. What I propose to do here is not do away
with public broadcasting. What I propose is to hold the funding level
with what it was last year.
In compliance with the intention of the Committee on Appropriations
in 1995 when they said, we need to move public broadcasting, to begin
to wean them off the public funding, which, as was pointed out by the
other speakers, is a very small percentage anyway, to begin to wean
them off the public funding and make them independent. That is all we
are trying to do here. We are not destroying anything. We are just
trying to hold level what we did last year.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
distinguished and able gentleman from Louisiana, [Mr. Tauzin], chairman
of the authorizing committee.
(Mr. TAUZIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, let me again thank the chairman of the
Committee on Appropriations and beg the House their attention, because
I believe we have begun in this appropriations process a very important
debate on the nature of commercial broadcasting and public broadcasting
in our society, a debate that we will have to have on this floor in a
much more protracted way, in a much more detailed way, and a much more
substantive way than we can have in these 30 minutes.
Let me first concede that we have a confusion of purpose among the
law and the regulators in commercial and public broadcasting. As we
speak, the Gore commission is right now debating what recommendations
it wants to make to this body in terms of imposing new public mandates
upon commercial broadcasters. To do what? To do public broadcasting. To
do more educational programming, more free time for public debates by
candidates or more coverage of governmental operations. On what? On
commercial broadcasting, a function you would think would be designated
to public broadcasting interests in this country, to public radio and
public television.
On the other hand, because we have gone through a period where we
seem to think that public broadcasting ought to be funded by private
interests, we have more and more pushed public broadcasting to a point
where they have had to go to sell commercials, to actually try to get
programming on that is commercially viable, that will attract a large
audience, things we never intended for public broadcasting.
We intended public broadcasting to be something different than
commercial broadcasting, something very special and unique in our
society, that would do educational and public-type programming in arts
and culture and history and learning and what have you. We have
confused the two missions. So it is important we begin this debate
today.
But let me say to my friend who offered this amendment, I must rise
in opposition to the amendment. I think we went in the wrong direction
when we pushed public broadcasting more and more to look like
commercial broadcasting, and I think the Gore commission will be wrong
when it tries to demand of commercial broadcasters that they look more
and more like public broadcasters.
It is time we began to really draw the lines of distinction. It seems
to me that the best solution is to set up public broadcasting in the
way we intended it, separately funded by a trust fund mechanism that
does not necessarily rely upon so much commercial commercialization of
the public broadcasting interests in America.
Second, we ought to allow commercial broadcasters to do what we
authorized them to do, and that is to go out and commercially
broadcast, to make a profit and to provide entertainment,
[[Page H7213]]
sports and information and other programming to us, recreational
programming, on the basis of a profit motive.
{time} 1130
Now, how do we do that? We do that by reforming public broadcasting
and setting up an appropriate trust fund for that purpose. I am going
to suggest that our committee is doing just that.
We are prepared now and are beginning to actually draft legislation
that will reform public broadcasting and some of these duopolies that
so many people complain about. Help public broadcasting enter the
digital age, as we are instructing commercial broadcasters to do. If
commercial broadcasters want to use their digital licenses to do more
than one program of HDTV, and in fact get into other lines of business
with those digital licenses, there will be, I suggest, a source of
funding for a trust fund mechanism to make sure that public
broadcasting remains, in fact, public broadcasting, less dependent upon
taxpayers' support, but also less dependent upon the commercial world
for the support of its initiatives, as this Congress declares public
broadcasting's initiatives to be defined.
Let me say, I think America appreciates its public broadcasting.
America, in the most recent poll, lists public television and public
radio as two of the top three best dollar expenditures of the Federal
Government.
As it was pointed out earlier, 93 percent of the money is shared with
the local stations. A 6-to-1 return in other support for the Federal
dollars we put into it indicate a great public interest and support for
public broadcasting. This amendment, I think, takes us in the wrong
direction.
I am urging this House to reject it, give the authorizing committee a
chance to reform it, and then let us begin the good debate.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to amendments to cut
funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
Since 1994, when our committee began cutting appropriations for CPB,
which dropped 15 million from fiscal year 1996 to fiscal year 1997 and
will drop 10 million more next year, the corporation has been
aggressive in implementing policies to distribute its Federal funds in
more efficient ways. Through administrative cuts, the phaseout of
multiple base grants, a moratorium on adding new stations to grant
programs, and increased fundraising effort, the CPB is making strong
efforts to address the committee's concerns and make the most frugal
use of its tax dollars while still carrying out its mission to provide
excellence in programming.
For 30 years, the corporation has provided educational, cultural, and
informational programming to the American public. Public television is
available to every child and adult, regardless of family income, or
geographical location. CPB is dedicated to helping learners of all
ages. It provides responsible programming with a reputation for
excellence, nonviolent, educational programming which teaches our
children and prepares them for the classroom.
Federal support is the foundation used to leverage state, local,
university, and viewer support. It is a public/private partnership that
serves to benefit the widest array of Americans. It is an investment
that reaps enormous benefit for us all. I urge my colleagues to oppose
all cuts in funding to this important program.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Hefley and
Crane amendments to reduce or eliminate funds for the Corporation for
Public Broadcasting. The $300 million in the bill represents a slightly
more than 2 percent increase in public broadcasting's buying power over
the last decade. We should be investing more in this national cultural
and information resource.
I find it incredibly ironic that as we are debating whether to
adequately fund one of the most critical cultural institutions of our
time, we have recently simply handed over tens of billions of dollars'
worth of spectrum to commercial broadcasters--are they going to use
this spectrum to provide the depth and breadth of programs and services
found in public broadcasting? I don't think so.
Public broadcasters can and should play a significant role in
preparing our communities for the 21st century. We need to give them
the tools to do so. A Federal commitment to CPB is a commitment to
partnering with our communities to invest in our future.
The Nation's public broadcasting system is an outstanding example of
the public/private partnership at work. Every dollar appropriated to
CPB generates approximately five more from corporate donors,
endowments, viewers, and listeners. That's a five to one return on the
Federal investment--and the paybacks are in programs, services, and
jobs all across the country. I can't think of another Federal program
with such a high rate of return.
Public broadcasters are holding up their end of the partnership. In
fact, the CPB appropriation represents only 14 percent of the
industry's total income. While some might argue that 14 percent is
easily replaceable, I believe that the Federal component of the
partnership serves as critical seed money to leverage private
investments in programs and services. Without the initial CPB funds,
many public television, and radio stations would be unable to develop a
specific program or service concept to the point where other parties
would be interested in investing.
From improving the livability of our communities through programs
such as ``Planet Neighborhood'' to providing emergency communication
services, public broadcast stations use these funds to provide a
breadth and depth of critical programs and services to our communities
that are unparalleled elsewhere in the broadcast world.
Public broadcasting programs and services are particularly critical
for Oregon.
Without OPB, critical educational services would be lost, including:
The classroom TV service, which provides instructional television to
30,000 elementary and secondary teachers; college telecourses, which
have reached 80,000 students, making OPB one of the top distance
educators in America; and since 1987, OPB has prepared more than 3,000
Oregonians for high school equivalency exams, making it one of the
State's most highly attended secondary schools.
Public broadcasting is so important to Oregonian's that over half of
OPB's operating budget comes from more than 100,000 members. OPB's
television audience has the largest percentage of prime-time viewers of
any American public television market.
We have the tools, infrastructure, and innovative spirit to make
communities across the Nation more livable through cultural
opportunities. What we need is a national commitment to improving the
livability of our communities by investing in culture.
We won't be able to balance the budget by eliminating spending on our
Nation's cultural heritage. In fact, the Federal Government spends only
about \1/100\th of 1 percent on culture. If we attempt to use our
cultural investments to balance the budget, we will lose much more than
we would ever gain in deficit reduction.
I urge my colleagues to recognize the long-term economic and social
benefits an investment in culture convey to our communities and the
Nation as a whole and oppose the Hefley-Crane amendments.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, public broadcasting gives the American
people, both young and old, exceptional programming not available on
commercial television, such as the award-winning ``Civil War'' series,
the ``Jim Lehrer NewsHour,'' ``Masterpiece Theater,'' and PBS' unique
children's educational programming.
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting [CPB] is an asset to children
and families throughout the nation and is worthy of its funding.
According to a Roper Starch Worldwide, Inc. poll from July, 1997, the
American public rates public radio as the second best value in return
for tax dollars spent out of 20 services.
The quality and variety of educational, informational, and cultural
programming found on public broadcast stations cannot be found anywhere
else on radio or television.
Public broadcast stations are among a limited selection of stations
that cater to a large number of locally originated programs. In
addition, public broadcast stations in rural and underserved urban
areas greatly depend on Federal funds for their economic base.
CPB provides services that reach out to people of all backgrounds and
ages throughout the country. For example, many public radio stations
provide radio reading services for the blind. In my own district of
Rochester, NY the local public broadcasting station, WXXI, helps
prepare young children to learn when they enter school and provides
numerous college telecourses for adult education. In fact, the national
Public Broadcasting Service arm of CPB is the leading source of college
telecourses in the country.
CPB plays an essential role in our educational and cultural growth as
a nation. Vote against the Hefley amendment to the Labor-HHS-Education
appropriations bill to cut funding from the CPB.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley].
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
Thursday, July 31, 1997, further proceedings on the amendment offered
by the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley]
[[Page H7214]]
will be postponed, and will occur prior to the disposition of the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane].
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service
salaries and expenses
For expenses necessary for the Federal Mediation and
Conciliation Service to carry out the functions vested in it
by the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947 (29 U.S.C. 171-
180, 182-183), including hire of passenger motor vehicles,
and for expenses necessary for the Labor-Management
Cooperation Act of 1978 (29 U.S.C. 175a); and for expenses
necessary for the Service to carry out the functions vested
in it by the Civil Service Reform Act, Public Law 95-454 (5
U.S.C. chapter 71), $33,481,000, including $1,500,000, to
remain available through September 30, 1999, for activities
authorized by the Labor-Management Cooperation Act of 1978
(29 U.S.C. 175a): Provided, That notwithstanding 31 U.S.C.
3302, fees charged, up to full-cost recovery, for special
training activities and for arbitration services shall be
credited to and merged with this account, and shall remain
available until expended: Provided further, That fees for
arbitration services shall be available only for education,
training, and professional development of the agency
workforce: Provided further, That the Director of the Service
is authorized to accept on behalf of the United States gifts
of services and real, personal, or other property in the aid
of any projects or functions within the Director's
jurisdiction.
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission
salaries and expenses
For expenses necessary for the Federal Mine Safety and
Health Review Commission (30 U.S.C. 8701 et seq.),
$6,060,000.
National Commission on Libraries and Information Science
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses for the National Commission on
Libraries and Information Science, established by the Act of
July 20, 1970 (Public Law 91-345, as amended by Public Law
102-95), $1,000,000.
National Council on Disability
salaries and expenses
For expenses necessary for the National Council on
Disability as authorized by title IV of the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973, as amended, $1,793,000.
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I did have an amendment that I put at the desk, but I
have talked with the leadership of both sides, I have talked with the
leadership on the Democratic side, and I am going to withdraw that
amendment. But I do want to speak to school construction.
Mr. Chairman, we sit in this House and talk about testing. We sit in
this House and talk about higher standards. We sit here and talk about
parental involvement. But we never talk about the one thing that will
be the important factor in quality education, and that is an
environment that is conducive to learning.
The amendment that I was to introduce would have spoken to that, and
this amendment was simple. It was to speak to the whole notion of
allowing our children to have the quality education through an
environment that will be conducive to learning.
We know that schools have leaky roofs, they have bad plumbing, they
have asbestos, they have all types of hazards around them that will not
allow children to have the quality education and the environment that
is conducive to learning. The buildings that our children are forced to
try to learn in are the most deplorable types of buildings that anyone
would ask to have anyone come into.
One-third of all the elementary and secondary schools in the United
States serving 14 million students need extensive repair or renovation.
Over 60 percent of the Nation's 110,000 public, elementary, and
secondary school facilities need major repair.
Last year an estimated $112 billion was needed to repair and upgrade
school facilities to a good condition, not an excellent one; and yet,
it is amazing to me that we are talking about just $5 billion, in
trying to correct the ills that will afford our children a quality
education in our schools. If education is going to be a priority in
this country, then we must have the environment that is conducive to
the quality education that we want.
Furthermore, many schools do not have the physical infrastructure to
take advantage of computers and other technology needed to meet the
challenges of the next century. In my State of California, 87 percent
of schools report a need to upgrade or repair on-site buildings to good
overall condition. Seventy-one percent of all California schools have
at least one inadequate building feature, and of these building feature
problems, 40 percent are the roofs, 42 percent are interior walls and
windows, and 41 percent are plumbing. Forty-one percent are also the
ventilation and heating and air conditioning, and 37 percent of schools
do not even have sufficient capabilities to use the computers.
We talk about high-tech, we talk about the Information Highway, but
without having sufficient wiring in schools, we cannot have our
children prepare for what is called the Information Highway and this
whole high-tech era. As my colleagues know, it is by far the poorest
communities, such as my communities, that have the most difficulty
meeting the needs to maintain and improve school facilities.
So I urge all of my colleagues, as we come to this floor, not to just
talk about higher learning, higher standards, we want that; not to just
talk about parental involvement, we want that; not to just talk about
testing, we certainly want that; but we also want an environment that
is conducive to learning. That environment must include school
construction that will allow us to fix and repair those schools that we
ask our children to attempt to learn in.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my distinguished colleague, the
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Millender-McDonald] for bringing this
issue to our attention. The gentlewoman has been a leader on this
issue, and is a cosponsor of H.R. 1104, the Partnership to Rebuild
America's Schools. We currently have 113 cosponsors. The gentlewoman
from California [Ms. Millender-McDonald] has spent a great deal of time
touring the schools in her district, as I have in mine. There is
widespread support in this House for rebuilding our schools.
It seems to me that if we are going to put computers in each of our
schools, if we are going to build bridges to the 21st century, we have
to acknowledge that we cannot put computers in 19th century schools. As
I have driven up to some of our schools, there was coal being
delivered, plaster was falling down, large sheets of plastic were
holding up walls that were crumbling because of leaks in the roof. This
is a national emergency. The GAO has made it clear in their report that
there is over $112 billion needed to repair our schools.
As the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Millender-McDonald] has said,
if we are going to be partners with State and local governments in a
whole range of issues, such as building prisons, then how can we not
invest in our schools?
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my distinguished colleague again for
her leadership on this issue, and I want to assure the Members that not
only are there 113 cosponsors in this House, but there are parents,
there are children, there are PTAs, there are school boards all around
the country who understand that the Federal Government can be and
should be a partner with them.
Although our schools are a State and local responsibility, we do have
a responsibility to make sure that every child is educated in a safe
classroom and gets the best supplies they need.
I want to assure the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Millender-
McDonald] that we are going to work together to make this investment a
reality, and make sure the Federal Government is a partner in
rebuilding our schools. I thank her again for addressing this issue.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to take anywhere near 5 minutes, but I
had a discussion with the gentlewoman from California, and I do realize
her strong commitment in this area, as well as the commitment of my
senior Senator from Illinois.
But I have to say that this is not a Federal responsibility. There
are repairs of $120 billion needed in our Nation's schools that the
States and local school districts have not taken care of as they should
have, and as they have a responsibility for, and now want to come to
the Federal Government and
[[Page H7215]]
say, you do it for us; you raise the taxes, or deficit-spend, and let
us spend the money.
I believe very strongly that there are much higher priorities, such
as special education and impact aid, which is an obligation of the
Federal Government, and existing programs, and that the Federal
Government simply cannot undertake this responsibility that belongs to
the States and local school districts, and must be borne by them.
Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record a written statement further
explaining my views.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered by the gentlewoman is certainly
well-intentioned, but this provision would provide a woefully
inadequate response to a national problem which is properly within the
jurisdiction of local and State governments. Local governments across
this country bear the responsibility and have jealously guarded the
prerogative of educating students through the high school level. The
Federal Government simply does not nor should it bear the
responsibility of providing general capital and operating funds for
elementary and secondary education any more than it should dictate
curricula to local schools.
Under both Republican and Democratic leadership, this subcommittee
has considered and rejected several proposals during the 1990's to
establish Federal school infrastructure or construction initiatives.
Congress has repeatedly considered and rejected, as it should,
proposals to actively involve the Federal Government in financing of
public elementary and secondary education in this country. Even the
President's budget justification for 1995 indicated ``The construction
and renovation of school facilities has traditionally been the
responsibility of State and local government'' and ``we are opposed to
the creation of a new Federal grant program for school construction.''
Mr. Chairman, I believe this amendment is well-intentioned and
responds to studies released recently indicating great unmet school
infrastructure needs nationwide. The General Accounting Office [GAO],
for example, recently issued a report based on a self-reported survey
estimating $112 billion in school infrastructure needs in America. But
even if accurate, the study does not suggest that these needs ought to
be Federal responsibilities, and in fact, they are not. Nor does the
study indicate the vast Federal resources that contribute indirectly to
addressing this problem.
First, the GAO report does not provide a high quality of information.
The survey did not provide any standards for reporting infrastructure
needs. In fact, the data is based on self-reporting with an obvious
bias toward over-reporting needs in order to generate demand for
funding.
Nor does the study indicate the vast Federal resources already
dedicated to local school infrastructure needs. The Congressional
Research Service recently reported that for 1993, the last year for
which data are available, the Federal Government provided a tax subsidy
of $16.5 billion for the outgoing and capital costs of elementary and
secondary education. The report indicated the Federal Government had
tax expenditures of $1.4 billion for tax exempt bonds used for school
construction, $6.1 billion for the exclusion of the portion of property
tax payments from Federal taxation that go directly for education, and
$9 billion for the exclusion of the portion of other State and local
taxes that go directly for education.
Given that the GAO estimates national infrastructure needs at $112
billion and the CRS estimates Federal tax contributions of over $16
billion for education, this amendment to create a $3 million Federal
infrastructure fails to make a substantive contribution to the solution
of the problem. By way of illustration, the proposed funding represents
three-thousandths of 1 percent of the unmet need and an increase of one
Fiftieth of 1 percent of the current Federal tax investment in school
infrastructure.
Mr. Chairman, proponents of the various construction initiatives this
subcommittee has considered over the last several years indicate that
technology improvements are a major concern of schools and would
receive a substantial portion of any Federal funding dedicated to
infrastructure needs. However, in this area the Congress is already
providing substantial resources that dwarf the proposed funding level.
This bill already provides several hundred million dollars in direct
education technology appropriations in addition to an estimated $57
million in the title IV block grant program, $5 million in the Goals
2000 Program, and $450 million in title I program. The Department of
Education cannot even estimate the amount of Federal funds spent to
train teachers on the use of technology in the classroom.
Worst of all, this proposal is a one time infusion of a very small
amount of funding that is not part of an integrated or considered plan
to make a substantive, ongoing contribution to the infrastructure and
technology needs of schools. The CRS recently estimated the cost of
outfitting each of the approximately 2 million classrooms with
computers, software, and connections to the Internet from $9.4 billion
to $22 billion. The ongoing costs of upgrading technology, software,
and service charges for Internet connection range from $1.8 to $4.6
billion annually. The proposal in no way indicates how the Federal
Government, with a $3 million program, can make any serious
contribution to these needs.
The $112 million in unmet infrastructure needs reported by the GAO
represents one and one half times the total funding in this bill for
all labor, health, and education programs. Clearly, we do not have the
resources in this bill, even if we funded nothing else, to solve the
problem of local school infrastructure needs. State and local
governments spent $23 billion in 1992-93, the most recent year for
which data are available, an amount greater than total Federal
appropriations for the Department of Education.
Mr. Chairman, education infrastructure is the proper responsibility
of local governments, not the Federal Government. Even if we believed
otherwise, within the context of a balanced budget, the Federal
Government clearly does not have the resources to make a significant
and substantial contribution to eliminating unmet infrastructure needs.
This amendment is so small as to make no contribution if enacted. I
urge Members to oppose the amendment, focus Federal resources on
Federal responsibilities which are currently underfunded, and solve the
problems we can solve and should solve.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PORTER. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I will not prolong the debate, because I know there
have been many debates on this issue. But I hope that we can convince
our distinguished chairman that since there is precedent for the
Federal Government becoming a partner in building prisons and a partner
in building roads and highways, that together we can work to address
this serious issue in all of our schools.
If we can be a partner in providing computers for our schools and
other modern technology, I would hope we could work together to be a
partner in what many of us feel is of vital national interest.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I am sort of in the middle between the position of the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] and the position of the
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Millender-McDonald] and the
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey]. I congratulate both of them
because of their concern in this issue and their leadership in trying
to get Congress to face this issue.
I, for one, do not feel that the Federal Government can become a
major funding source for construction in the education area, but I do
think there is a constructive role the Federal Government could play in
the construction area.
I note that the Senate has added some funding for a version of school
construction in their committee bill, and I would hope that we could
work out some way to use that action as an opportunity to find a
constructive and well-defined role for the Congress and the Federal
Government to play in helping a very narrow band of school districts
around the country who do not have the financial capability to move
ahead with construction so that they might get out of that box.
I want to make sure that whatever initiative we proceed with is
targeted at urban poverty and rural poverty alike. I also want to make
certain that any formula that would be established in the distribution
of funds would place a greater emphasis on the need to assist districts
who have actual health and safety problems in their schools because the
furnaces do not run, the plumbing does not work, the windows are in bad
shape. There are a lot of incredibly dilapidated hulks in which
children are trying to learn, and they are a disgrace to the country.
There are some school districts who simply do not have the financial
capacity to proceed with any useful construction program, and I think
State governments and the Federal Government both have an obligation to
try to do something about that, because the students who come out of
those schools are mobile and move around the country, and we all suffer
the consequences of inadequate education.
[[Page H7216]]
{time} 1145
So I hope that we can avoid this issue being polarized. I hope that
we can move the Congress into a very narrow but, nonetheless, crucial
role in dealing with our school construction shortages in districts
with serious need.
I understand very well where both of the Members are coming from on
this issue, and I hope that we can use the Senate amendment as an
opportunity to move toward a useful consensus that will meet the
problem without making us vulnerable to a bottomless pit of funding
which the Government clearly cannot afford.
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] for his sensitivity on the issue,
and ask that the gentleman continue to work with the gentlewoman from
New York [Mrs. Lowey] and myself to try to find the common ground that
will help us to improve school construction.
Mr. Chairman, I would also like to thank the gentleman from Illinois
[Mr. Porter] and hope that the gentleman will continue to look at this
and find some common ground to work with the ranking member.
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I think that this is a real watershed issue of where
American public policy is reflected in how we are going to use Federal
funds, Federal taxpayer dollars, to spend those dollars effectively in
the coming years and in the coming century.
Without a doubt, with the actions we have taken this year, we have
been the educational Congress and the educational President with all
the tax breaks and incentives we have given. We have promoted wiring
every classroom in the United States with computers. We have promoted
the downsizing of schools so that we can have a smaller class size.
But, Mr. Chairman, when we think about it we cannot get there from
here unless we put money into construction. What is happening in the
United States, and California is probably the leading State in this
area because we have the largest number of students in the United
States, what happens is we are moving all of our expenditures for
school construction out of the regular budgets. The only way those
capital outlay programs are funded is through State bond acts or
through local general obligation bond votes. Those votes in California,
and other States I think are going to adopt those same requirements,
require a two-thirds vote. So it is harder and harder and harder for
schools to provide money for construction, which is absolutely
essential.
Here we are, the Federal Government, we are providing construction
for university buildings through agricultural research money, we
promoted money for prisons and for local jails, and those moneys can
actually be used to build classrooms in the jails and in the prisons,
but we have no money in the Federal Government to assist school
districts, no money for those that the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Obey] just talked about in the poor, rural areas, or in the urban
areas.
Mr. Chairman, this is essentially an area where we have to get
involved. We cannot afford to not commit some Federal dollars to this.
It is ridiculous that we have the money for roads, we have the money
for promoting economic development, we have money for everything but
the very essential that we have said is in our national interest and
our national security interest to have, a well-educated electorate. We
cannot do that unless we have school construction money.
So, Mr. Chairman, I think it is essential that this Congress begin
the first step of finding those funds. I appreciate this time to bring
that to the attention of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], who
is working hard on this, and to the attention of the gentleman from
Wisconsin.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder
of title IV be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to
amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore [Mr. LaHood]. Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Illinois?
There was no objection.
The text of the remainder of title IV is as follows:
National Education Goals Panel
For expenses necessary for the National Education Goals
Panel, as authorized by title II, part A of the Goals 2000:
Educate America Act, $2,000,000.
National Labor Relations Board
salaries and expenses
For expenses necessary for the National Labor Relations
Board to carry out the functions vested in it by the Labor-
Management Relations Act, 1947, as amended (29 U.S.C. 141-
167), and other laws, $174,661,000: Provided, That no part of
this appropriation shall be available to organize or assist
in organizing agricultural laborers or used in connection
with investigations, hearings, directives, or orders
concerning bargaining units composed of agricultural laborers
as referred to in section 2(3) of the Act of July 5, 1935 (29
U.S.C. 152), and as amended by the Labor-Management Relations
Act, 1947, as amended, and as defined in section 3(f) of the
Act of June 25, 1938 (29 U.S.C. 203), and including in said
definition employees engaged in the maintenance and operation
of ditches, canals, reservoirs, and waterways when maintained
or operated on a mutual, nonprofit basis and at least 95 per
centum of the water stored or supplied thereby is used for
farming purposes: Provided further, That none of the funds
made available by this Act shall be used in any way to
promulgate a final rule (altering 29 CFR part 103) regarding
single location bargaining units in representation cases.
National Mediation Board
salaries and expenses
For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the
Railway Labor Act, as amended (45 U.S.C. 151-188), including
emergency boards appointed by the President, $8,400,000:
Provided, That unobligated balances at the end of fiscal year
1998 not needed for emergency boards shall remain available
for other statutory purposes through September 30, 1999.
Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission
salaries and expenses
For expenses necessary for the Occupational Safety and
Health Review Commission (29 U.S.C. 661), $7,900,000.
Physician Payment Review Commission
salaries and expenses
For expenses necessary to carry out section 1845(a) of the
Social Security Act, $3,258,000, to be transferred to this
appropriation from the Federal Supplementary Medical
Insurance Trust Fund.
Prospective Payment Assessment Commission
salaries and expenses
For expenses necessary to carry out section 1886(e) of the
Social Security Act, $3,257,000, to be transferred to this
appropriation from the Federal Hospital Insurance and the
Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds.
Railroad Retirement Board
dual benefits payments account
For payment to the Dual Benefits Payments Account,
authorized under section 15(d) of the Railroad Retirement Act
of 1974, $206,000,000, which shall include amounts becoming
available in fiscal year 1998 pursuant to section
224(c)(1)(B) of Public Law 98-76; and in addition, an amount,
not to exceed 2 percent of the amount provided herein, shall
be available proportional to the amount by which the product
of recipients and the average benefit received exceeds
$206,000,000: Provided, That the total amount provided herein
shall be credited in 12 approximately equal amounts on the
first day of each month in the fiscal year.
federal payments to the railroad retirement accounts
For payment to the accounts established in the Treasury for
the payment of benefits under the Railroad Retirement Act for
interest earned on unnegotiated checks, $50,000, to remain
available through September 30, 1999, which shall be the
maximum amount available for payment pursuant to section 417
of Public Law 98-76.
limitation on administration
For necessary expenses for the Railroad Retirement Board
for administration of the Railroad Retirement Act and the
Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act, $87,228,000, to be
derived in such amounts as determined by the Board from the
railroad retirement accounts and from moneys credited to the
railroad unemployment insurance administration fund.
limitation on the office of inspector general
For expenses necessary for the Office of Inspector General
for audit, investigatory and review activities, as authorized
by the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, not more
than $5,000,000, to be derived from the railroad retirement
accounts and railroad unemployment insurance account:
Provided, That none of the funds made available in any other
paragraph of this Act may be transferred to the Office; used
to carry out any such transfer; used to provide any office
space, equipment, office supplies, communications facilities
or services, maintenance services, or administrative services
for the Office; used to pay any salary, benefit, or award for
any personnel of the Office; used to
[[Page H7217]]
pay any other operating expense of the Office; or used to
reimburse the Office for any service provided, or expense
incurred, by the Office: Provided further, That none of the
funds made available in this paragraph may be used for any
audit, investigation, or review of the Medicare program.
Social Security Administration
payments to social security trust funds
For payment to the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance
and the Federal Disability Insurance trust funds, as provided
under sections 201(m), 228(g), and 1131(b)(2) of the Social
Security Act, $20,308,000.
special benefits for disabled coal miners
For carrying out title IV of the Federal Mine Safety and
Health Act of 1977, $426,090,000, to remain available until
expended.
For making, after July 31 of the current fiscal year,
benefit payments to individuals under title IV of the Federal
Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, for costs incurred in the
current fiscal year, such amounts as may be necessary.
For making benefit payments under title IV of the Federal
Mine Safety and Health Act 1977 for the first quarter of
fiscal year 1999, $160,000,000, to remain available until
expended.
supplemental security income program
For carrying out titles XI and XVI of the Social Security
Act, section 401 of Public Law 92-603, section 212 of Public
Law 93-66, as amended, and section 405 of Public Law 95-216,
including payment to the Social Security trust funds for
administrative expenses incurred pursuant to section
201(g)(1) of the Social Security Act, $16,170,000,000, to
remain available until expended: Provided, That any portion
of the funds provided to a State in the current fiscal year
and not obligated by the State during that year shall be
returned to the Treasury.
From funds provided under the previous paragraph, not less
than $100,000,000 shall be available for payment to the
Social Security trust funds for administrative expenses for
conducting continuing disability reviews.
In addition, $175,000,000, to remain available until
September 30, 1999, for payment to the Social Security trust
funds for administrative expenses for continuing disability
reviews as authorized by section 103 of Public Law 104-121
and Supplemental Security Income administrative work as
authorized by Public Law 104-193. The term ``continuing
disability reviews'' means reviews and redeterminations as
defined under section 201(g)(1)(A) of the Social Security
Act, as amended, and reviews and redeterminations
authorized under section 211 of Public Law 104-193.
For making, after June 15 of the current fiscal year,
benefit payments to individuals under title XVI of the Social
Security Act, for unanticipated costs incurred for the
current fiscal year, such sums as may be necessary.
For making benefit payments under title XVI of the Social
Security Act for the first quarter of fiscal year 1999,
$8,680,000,000, to remain available until expended.
limitation on administrative expenses
For necessary expenses, including the hire of two passenger
motor vehicles, and not to exceed $10,000 for official
reception and representation expenses, not more than
$5,938,040,000 may be expended, as authorized by section
201(g)(1) of the Social Security Act, from any one or all of
the trust funds referred to therein: Provided, That not less
than $1,600,000 shall be for the Social Security Advisory
Board: Provided further, That unobligated balances at the end
of fiscal year 1998 not needed for fiscal year 1998 shall
remain available until expended for a state-of-the-art
computing network, including related equipment and non-
payroll administrative expenses associated solely with this
network: Provided further, That reimbursement to the trust
funds under this heading for expenditures for official time
for employees of the Social Security Administration pursuant
to section 7131 of title 5, United States Code, and for
facilities or support services for labor organizations
pursuant to policies, regulations, or procedures referred to
in section 7135(b) of such title shall be made by the
Secretary of the Treasury, with interest, from amounts in the
general fund not otherwise appropriated, as soon as possible
after such expenditures are made.
From funds provided under the previous paragraph, not less
than $200,000,000 shall be available for conducting
continuing disability reviews.
In addition to funding already available under this
heading, and subject to the same terms and conditions,
$245,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 1999,
for continuing disability reviews as authorized by section
103 of Public Law 104-121 and Supplemental Security Income
administrative work as authorized by Public Law 104-193. The
term ``continuing disability reviews'' means reviews and
redeterminations as defined under section 201(g)(1)(A) of the
Social Security Act as amended, and reviews and
redeterminations authorized under section 211 of Public Law
104-193.
In addition to funding already available under this
heading, and subject to the same terms and conditions,
$200,000,000, which shall remain available until expended, to
invest in a state-of-the-art computing network, including
related equipment and non-payroll administrative expenses
associated solely with this network, for the Social Security
Administration and the State Disability Determination
Services, may be expended from any or all of the trust funds
as authorized by section 201(g)(1) of the Social Security
Act.
In addition, $35,000,000 to be derived from administration
fees in excess of $5.00 per supplementary payment collected
pursuant to section 1616(d) of the Social Security Act or
section 212(b)(3) of Public Law 93-66, which shall remain
available until expended. To the extent that the amounts
collected pursuant to such section 1616(d) or 212(b)(3) in
fiscal year 1998 exceed $35,000,000, the amounts shall be
available in fiscal year 1999 only to the extent provided in
advance in appropriations Acts.
office of inspector general
(including transfer of funds)
For expenses necessary for the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act
of 1978, as amended, $10,164,000, together with not to exceed
$42,260,000, to be transferred and expended as authorized by
section 201(g)(1) of the Social Security Act from the Federal
Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal
Disability Insurance Trust Fund.
In addition, an amount not to exceed 3 percent of the total
provided in this appropriation may be transferred from the
``Limitation on Administrative Expenses'', Social Security
Administration, to be merged with this account, to be
available for the time and purposes for which this account is
available: Provided, That notice of such transfers shall be
transmitted promptly to the Committees on Appropriations of
the House and Senate.
United States Institute of Peace
operating expenses
For necessary expenses of the United States Institute of
Peace as authorized in the United States Institute of Peace
Act, $11,160,000.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there any amendments to this portion of
the bill?
If not, the Clerk will read:
The Clerk read as follows:
TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 501. The Secretaries of Labor, Health and Human
Services, and Education are authorized to transfer unexpended
balances of prior appropriations to accounts corresponding to
current appropriations provided in this Act: Provided, That
such transferred balances are used for the same purpose, and
for the same periods of time, for which they were originally
appropriated.
Sec. 502. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current
fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
Sec. 503. (a) No part of any appropriation contained in
this Act shall be used, other than for normal and recognized
executive-legislative relationships, for publicity or
propaganda purposes, for the preparation, distribution, or
use of any kit, pamphlet, booklet, publication, radio,
television, or video presentation designed to support or
defeat legislation pending before the Congress or any State
legislature, except in presentation to the Congress or any
State legislature itself.
(b) No part of any appropriation contained in this Act
shall be used to pay the salary or expenses of any grant or
contract recipient, or agent acting for such recipient,
related to any activity designed to influence legislation or
appropriations pending before the Congress or any State
legislature.
Sec. 504. The Secretaries of Labor and Education are each
authorized to make available not to exceed $15,000 from funds
available for salaries and expenses under titles I and II,
respectively, for official reception and representation
expenses; the Director of the Federal Mediation and
Conciliation Service is authorized to make available for
official reception and representation expenses not to exceed
$2,500 from the funds available for ``Salaries and expenses,
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service''; and the
Chairman of the National Mediation Board is authorized to
make available for official reception and representation
expenses not to exceed $2,500 from funds available for
``Salaries and expenses, National Medication Board''.
Sec. 505. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act,
no funds appropriated under this Act shall be used to carry
out any program of distributing sterile needless for the
hypodermic injection of any illegal drug unless the Secretary
of Health and Human Services determines that such programs
are effective in preventing the spread of HIV and do not
encourage the use of illegal drugs.
Amendment offered by Mr. Hastert
Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Hastert:
On page 93, line 2, after the word ``drug'' insert a
period, and strike out beginning with the word ``unless'' on
line 2 all the language thru line 5 on page 93.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on
this amendment, and all amendments thereto, close in 80 minutes, and
that the time be equally divided between the gentleman from Illinois
[Mr. Hastert] and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], or his
designee.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Illinois?
[[Page H7218]]
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment clearly states that the policy of this
Congress is not to use Federal money to hand out free needles in free
needle exchange programs.
Mr. Chairman, one of the things that we have seen escalating among
our youth is the increase in the use of heroin. In 1994, we had over
2,000 teenagers who, for the first time, used heroin. The way of using
heroin and inducing it into the body primarily is through needles.
Mr. Chairman, one of the things that I have looked at and tried to
study in the last 2 years, in my responsibility in looking at drug use
and the increase in drug usage among the youth of this country, was a
visit to Zurich, Switzerland. I revisited Zurich for the first time in
20 years. I had remembered Zurich as a pristine city on a lake in the
story book land of Switzerland.
However, Mr. Chairman, when I revisited last year in April and walked
the streets of Zurich, there was a look of devastation. Needle Park,
heroin use, methamphetamine use, heroin clinics where people have
increased the use of heroin in that country. As a matter of fact,
Zurich has become a mecca for heroin users throughout Europe. Why?
Because not only do they provide free heroin, but they provide free
needles.
Mr. Chairman, 15,000 needles a day are consumed in the streets of
Zurich. Some are obtained by walking into the train station and
depositing money into a machine and getting needles also at a very low
price. Why? Because ostensibly if we give free needles away, we curb
the increase of HIV.
Mr. Chairman, what recent studies have shown, the Montreal and
Vancouver studies have shown, is that intravenous drug users have a
greater chance of becoming HIV positive than intravenous drug users who
do not use the free needle programs. Intravenous drug users who
participate in free needle exchange programs have a 33-percent chance
of becoming HIV positive. Those who do not have a 13-percent chance of
changing from HIV negative to HIV positive.
So, basically, the studies, the statistics just do not prove that
free needle exchanges, No. 1, stop HIV positive increases. But mostly,
when we are spending $34 or $35 million to tell our youth in this
country that we should not smoke, that smoking is bad, that it hurts
your health, why then should we even think about beginning to give away
free needles, free needles whose only purpose is to shoot an illegal
drug, heroin, a free needle that leads to a child, a young person's
path down a slippery slope that begins with drug use, illness and many,
many times eventually death?
Mr. Chairman, this amendment prohibits the use of Federal dollars to
give away free needles for heroin addicts. I think it is self-
explanatory.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 7\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I grew up in an era where drug use was a rarity. I hate
a lot of things that have happened to this society. I hate what has
happened to our cities because of drugs, and I have to say that drugs
are not just a big city problem. My hometown is a city of less than
35,000 people, and yet we have even seen the problem there.
Mr. Chairman, I do not think anybody ought to use drugs, and I think
we need to have a strong policy in this country that discourages drugs.
I think much of the money that we spend abroad to interdict drugs is
wasted. I was told several years ago by a person who had been
responsible for administering the antidrug interdiction programs under
the Reagan administration that their private view was that nothing was
working internationally because of the nature of the capitalistic
system worldwide which, unfortunately, rewards a profit motive even for
evil products.
So, Mr. Chairman, I do not think this issue is about whether we like
drugs or not. I think we do have two fundamental problems in this
country. One is how we go about effectively reducing drug use; and
second, in that effort, how we do so in a way which saves the most
possible lives.
The wording in the bill before us reads as follows: ``Notwithstanding
any other provision of this act, no funds appropriated under this act
shall be used to carry out any program of distributing sterile needles
for the hypodermic injection of any illegal drug, unless the Secretary
of Health and Human Services determines that such programs are
effective in preventing the spread of HIV and do not encourage the use
of illegal drugs.''
The purpose of the amendment would knock out that exception so that
if even the Secretary determined that those programs were helpful in
preventing the spread of HIV, and did not encourage the use of illegal
drugs, those programs still could not be carried out.
Mr. Chairman, I understand the motivation of the people who offer
this amendment. They are offended by the idea, as am I, that the
Government should appear to be in any way encouraging the use of drugs.
Nobody wants to do that.
But more important than whether my sensibilities are offended is the
practical result of American policy in terms of lives that are
endangered or saved by that policy. That is why I must oppose the
gentleman's amendment. I do so because organizations such as the
American Medical Association, the American Public Health Association,
the National Academy of Sciences, the American Nurses Association, the
American Academy of Pediatrics, all tell us that the best public
policy, if we want to prevent the spread of a variety of diseases,
including HIV and AIDS, is to support the language in our bill.
Mr. Chairman, I would note the public officials and legal groups who
also take that position, including the U.S. Conference of Mayors and
the American Bar Association. I would also point out that virtually
every needle exchange program operating in this country provides
referrals to drug treatment programs which, in my view, is the key
ingredient in discouraging the use of drugs.
{time} 1200
Now, the Family Research Council has made an argument against this
because, among other reasons, they point to what has happened in
Zurich, Switzerland. The United States is not Switzerland and no
American city is Zurich.
As I understand it, the study that was done of the Switzerland
experiment took place in a city which allows the open use of hard drugs
in a number of those cities. Clearly, the Swiss experiment bears little
relationship to what would be contemplated in this country. We have
those who argue for the legalization of drugs in this country or at
least the decriminalization of drugs and the open distribution of them
in order to eliminate the profit motive. I doubt very seriously that
any proposal like that would stand a chance of a snowball in you know
where of being adopted by this Congress or by our Government.
It just seems to me that we have a tough choice forced upon us by the
complicated and sometimes perverse aspects of human nature, our
culture, our society, and the outrageous insistence of certain elements
of our society to make a buck regardless of the human or moral
consequences.
I do not know half the time which the right choice is in instances
like that, but I have to come down always on the side of having science
and scientific leadership guide politicians in these matters, rather
than having politicians making judgments independent of scientific
evidence or advice, because very often we do not have the expertise to
know what, in fact, is right in the scientific arena.
So I recognize the legitimate moral and social concerns raised by the
gentleman's amendment. I respect deeply the worries that folks on his
side of this issue have. I just think there is an honest disagreement
about whether or not the gentleman's amendment will lead to more damage
of human beings or not. That is the honest debate that is occurring
here today.
I hope Members respect that on both sides. I would urge in the
interest of saving lives that we allow the Secretary to have this
discretion if, after scientific review, they determine that such a
program, distasteful though it is to me, will in fact contribute to the
saving of lives and the prevention of a very damaging and fatal
disease.
[[Page H7219]]
Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from
Wisconsin. I hope we can talk about orderly and logical reasons. I was
in Switzerland. The heroin movement in Switzerland, the heroin giveaway
programs in Switzerland did not start out with giveaway heroin
programs. They started out with free needle exchanges, started out with
free needle exchanges in heroin in places like Needle Park and downtown
Zurich.
My concern is that, yes, science says maybe there is a hedge on HIV.
Others studies show that there is not. But I think that this is a place
where we have to debate what we feel is right and wrong and what this
country feels is right and wrong. I think the majority of my
constituents and certainly the majority of people across this country
feel that it is wrong to give free needles out to heroin users which
really encourage the use of heroin among our youth and our children.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes and 15 seconds to the gentleman from
Georgia [Mr. Barr].
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished
gentleman from Illinois who heads our subcommittee for yielding me this
time.
This amendment is important because what it attacks is both bad
science and bad policy of the Clinton administration. It is bad science
because there is no evidence whatsoever that providing addicts an easy
way to accomplish their actions, that is injecting their bodies with
deadly mind-altering drugs, is diminished or reduced in any way, shape,
or form by providing them the means with which to inject their bodies
with deadly mind-altering substances.
This is bad policy, Mr. Chairman, because what it does, that is the
underlying policy of the Clinton administration, is to, in effect,
launder money into drug needle exchange programs through grants from
the CDC that are otherwise prohibited directly by Federal law. And the
Congress, all of us, whether we like needle exchange programs or we do
not like needle exchange programs, should have some concern over the
integrity of laws that the Congress passes and stand up to an
administration, whether it is Republican or Democrat, that is flouting
the intent of the law passed by Congress and say, you cannot do that.
Mr. Chairman, I had the opportunity, as did the chairman from
Illinois, recently to travel to Switzerland. I did so just over this
past weekend. As the chairman has indicated, the epidemic of heroin
use, the increases in heroin use, the legalization of heroin use in
Switzerland was not the beginning. The beginning was needle exchange
programs. It has now reached the point in Zurich where any person,
whether they are 5 or 50, can walk up to a vending machine on the
street corner, put in about 2 dollars' worth of coins and get back a
box.
Inside that box is death. Inside that box are three syringes,
needles, instructions on how to inject deadly, mind-altering substances
into one's body. Why on the face of the Earth would our Government be
interested in doing that to our children? That is where this
administration is heading.
Would this administration, would those on the other side who so
eloquently argue against this amendment, which simply tells the
administration they cannot do what Congress has already prohibited it
from doing indirectly, why would we not at the same time, to be
consistent, go to our schoolchildren, who folks on the other side are
very vehement about saying we must stop teen smoking, why should we not
also have programs that provide free filters to cigarettes for those
students, because that is exactly what we are doing with needle
exchange programs? We are going to our children and saying, we do not
like what you are doing but here, as long as you are going to do it,
make it easier.
The experience in Switzerland, while the gentleman on the other side
is absolutely correct, is not directly parallel to ours, is precisely,
though, on point. Needle exchange programs further facilitate increase
and exaggerate the use of mind-altering substances. We do not need to
be a rocket scientist to figure that out.
Look at the statistics. Look at the sorry experience of what is
happening in Switzerland. Please, let us make sure that this
administration and no future administration is able to take the first
step toward putting boxes of syringes and needles in the hands of our
schoolchildren.
Support this amendment. That is all that it does. It simply reaffirms
what Congress has already done and would stop an administration from
surreptitiously going outside the intent and around the intent of
Congress and doing indirectly what they have been prohibited from doing
directly. This amendment is good policy. It reflects good science. It
is for our children.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Ganske].
Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Wicker-
Hastert amendment. This amendment may be popular, as evidenced by polls
that simplify the issue, but it is not enlightened public policy.
AIDS continues to ravage our country, from the big cities to the
little towns. Sure, we have multidrug treatment, it may delay death.
Maybe it will affect long-term survival. But despite these successes,
we still have needle sharing as one of the most significant modes of
HIV transmission.
In 1995, a panel of the National Research Council and the Institute
of Medicine reported that between 1981 and 1993 the proportion of AIDS
cases resulting from injection drug use rose from 12 to 28 percent.
They concluded that ``the HIV epidemic in this country is now clearly
driven by infections occurring in the population of injection drug
users, their sexual partners, and their offspring.''
One-third of all reported cases of AIDS in adults can be traced
directly or indirectly to injection drug use. Over half of the children
with AIDS got it from others who were injection drug users.
Mr. Chairman, we will never win this fight against AIDS if we fail to
reduce the transmission of HIV through shared needles. Numerous studies
have shown that needle exchange programs hold promise as a means to
slow the spread of AIDS. The General Accounting Office conducted a
review of these programs and found that a Connecticut program could
reduce new HIV infection among participants by 33 percent over 1 year.
Equally important, the GAO did not find evidence that these programs
resulted in increased drug use. In fact, a University of California
study indicated that some needle exchange programs have made
significant numbers of referrals to drug abuse treatment programs.
Even if needle exchange programs cannot change the behavior of the
drug users, they can at least reduce the number of times a needle is
reused, getting it out of circulation more quickly, reducing the
possibility that it will give HIV to somebody else.
One survey in the Journal of the American Medical Association found
that a needle exchange program removed more than 3,500 HIV-contaminated
syringes from San Francisco in 1 month. A 1997 consensus panel of the
NIH was emphatic on the possible benefits of needle exchange programs,
stating that they do not increase needle injecting behavior among
current drug users; they do not increase the number of drug users; they
do not increase the number of drug paraphernalia that is discarded.
In light of this evidence, which I have outlined, and many more
studies suggesting the benefits of needle exchange programs, it would
be wrong to close the door to Federal involvement in these projects.
Mr. Chairman, current law provides the Secretary of Health and Human
Services with the discretion to lift the ban on needle programs, if she
finds that these programs reduce the incidence of AIDS and also if they
do not increase the use of illegal drugs.
Given the number of people who are losing their lives to AIDS every
day, that discretion is appropriate. We should not change it. I urge my
colleagues to think of the thousands of children who get AIDS because a
parent got HIV from a dirty needle. Oppose the Wicker-Hastert
amendment. Preserve our options in preventing the spread of HIV.
Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn], a distinguished doctor.
[[Page H7220]]
(Mr. COBURN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, there are a lot of confusing issues about
the AIDS epidemic. I happen to be one of those that think that we have
handled the epidemic in an incorrect fashion. We have done so for a
very good reason, because there has been significant discrimination in
this country with those who have had HIV. But there are some things
that the American public ought to know about the concept of free needle
exchanges.
First of all, this prohibition will not limit the right of any State
to do this. That is where most free needle exchange programs are going
on.
{time} 1215
The other thing people should remember is a free needle exchange
program is a free needle exchange for a felon, somebody who has already
proven they do not respect our laws and who violates our laws. Now,
yes, they are addicted, but nevertheless they are felons.
Second, most people support their drug habit by selling drugs, IV
drugs. So if they are addicted to heroin, what happens is, they become
motivated to supply their habit by agreeing to sell more heroin for the
person that they are buying it from to take care of their addiction.
Third, it is not just heroin. In Oklahoma we have a significant
problem with IV methamphetamine, something that is made in small labs
throughout the State, and then people become addicted to IV
methamphetamine.
So for us to assume this is just a heroin problem is completely
wrong. For us to assume this is just people who have been victimized by
the drug culture is wrong. They are felons. They also are the very
people we are going to be giving free needles to who are going to be
encouraging people who are presently not drug addicted to become drug
addicted, and we are going to give them some of the tools to help them
do that.
Now, is the goal worthy? There are six studies that I have read in
North America that are associated with free needle exchange programs.
The information on decreasing HIV transmission is mixed. Two of the
studies show a marked increase in HIV transmission, as compared to
those who were not in a free needle exchange program; four do not show
that. So we do not know what the science says.
We can get out here and say that we know that the science is absolute
that it will do this, but we do not really know that. It is nice to
claim that in a debate, but we do not know that.
What we do know from the two most comprehensive studies that had the
same people in the beginning of the study and the same people at the
end of the study is that we see an increase in drug usage, one, and
that we see an increase in the transmission of HIV among those groups.
Another point: One of the concepts of drug treatment is not to enable
people to continue their addiction. There are a large number of people
who are very well involved in hard drug addiction who oppose the idea
of enabling people or making it easier for people to pursue their
addiction. It goes against some of the greatest concepts of addictive
psychiatrists when we say we are going to give people an easier way to
utilize their addiction.
The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] stated that of the various
groups that have recommended that this be done, from the American
Medical Association to the American Pediatric Society to the American
Public Health Association, the Montreal and Vancouver studies were not
available to them at the time they made those recommendations. So they
are acting on information that is not the latest of information.
I also want to share with my colleagues what is going on in Plano,
TX. Plano, TX, is not in my district, but here is a community of
200,000 people who have lost six youths this year from IV drug
overdose, six youth that are no longer here because they had access to
drugs.
It is debatable if this is a good way to slow HIV transmission. What
is not debatable is that this is not a good way to slow drug addiction.
This is not a good way to slow habits that are destructive to our
society, and it certainly is not a good way to lessen the ability of
those that are already addicted to, in fact, addict other people on the
basis that now we have made it easier for them to promote their wares
to support their habit.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. COBURN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
What the amendment before us would do is, even if we found a needle
exchange program could reduce the incidence of AIDS and if, when people
came in for needle exchange, they were then encouraged to go into some
program to cure their drug addiction, we would not be allowed to use
funds for that purpose. That is what troubles me about this amendment.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, just to answer that. I am not saying that
is not a good goal, but that is only a part of what this amendment
does.
This amendment violates the very sincere and straightforward
principles that we have learned about addiction.
I want to read to my colleagues about a participant who drove up, did
not have to give her name in a free New York needle exchange program.
Here is what she said:
I made a personal visit to the ``exchange'' and without one
dirty needle to exchange, I was supplied with 40 clean
needles, alcohol wipes, cotton balls and cookers, along with
a graphic description of the proper way to shoot up so as to
protect my health and prevent my loved ones from knowing I
was using drugs. Her instructions were, ``Don't shoot up in
your neck. If you get bad dope, your head can explode.''
I was also provided a needle exchange card making me exempt
from arrest or prosecution if I were to be stopped by police
and found to be carrying clean needles, a felony under New
York law. I lied in response to every question and purposely
reported I had been shooting up for only 6 months in the hope
they would lean on me to come for counseling.
In parting, I asked the worker whether I had to return the
needles he had supplied me in order to get more. He said, no,
I don't have to bring the needles back, but advised me to
discard the used syringes in an opaque container so no one
would see them. The sheer willingness to supply me with 40
syringes without expecting anything to be returned leaves a
grave unanswered question: What happens to those 40 dirty
needles?
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Waxman].
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
this time.
The problem in the argument that was just advanced by the gentleman
from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn], is that even if we found that the use of a
needle exchange program could reduce the incidence of AIDS, even if we
found that there would not be more drug use, but in fact people might
then be encouraged to go into programs to shake their addiction, we
would prohibit, if this amendment were adopted, the use of Federal
funds, by the decision of the local health people, to be used for a
needle exchange program. We would be saying to the local people, at
their discretion, that under no circumstances could they use this tool
of a needle exchange program to prevent the spread of HIV.
Now, I find it surprising that people who say we ought to use Federal
funds at the discretion of local governments to take the opposite
position when a needle exchange program is involved.
But before local public health agencies can even decide to have a
needle exchange program, the law says the Secretary of HHS must make
two findings: The Secretary of Health and Human Services must find that
a needle exchange reduces the spread of HIV and that the needle
exchange program does not cause any increase in illegal drug use.
The amendment before us would strike the ability of the Secretary to
get this information and possibly make this finding. It would say under
no circumstances, we do not care what the evidence may tell us, will we
allow a needle exchange program at the discretion of the local public
health officials.
This is short-sighted. These are the kinds of short-sighted decisions
that have kept us from approaching this AIDS epidemic with all the
tools at our disposal. We should not let the decision be made by people
in the Congress, who do not have the evidence but who have a lot of
fears about how their views
[[Page H7221]]
will be interpreted as to whether it is politically correct from the
point of view of an opponent who may attack a distorted statement of
those views. We ought to let these decisions be made on a scientific
basis.
Mr. Chairman, I urge defeat of the amendment.
Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to answer the
gentleman from California.
One of the things we found, especially in the largest needle exchange
program in New York, is that there is no referral to drug treatment
programs. Matter of fact, they offer the addict anonymity so that they
can hide their problem from their friends and their families so that
they do not get help. That is one of the real problems.
We also found in Switzerland a study of one of the needle exchange
programs and heroin-providing programs that has been tracked, of 1,035
heroin addicts given needles and clean heroin, only 83 exited the
program since 1992, many by dying, and at the hands of their own
government.
We talk about politically correct. Mr. Chairman, this is not
politically correct. This is what is right and wrong and how the people
of this country believe what is right and wrong. The job of this
Congress is to move that belief forward.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi
[Mr. Wicker].
Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I want to certainly rise in support of the
amendment, which would prohibit taxpayer dollars--taxpayer dollars--
from being spent to distribute needles to intravenous drug abusers. And
I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert] for his
leadership on this issue, not only on the floor, but also before his
subcommittee.
I also want to thank the distinguished chairman of the appropriations
subcommittee, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], for indicating
his support for this very important amendment to the appropriation
bill. I very much appreciate the gentleman from Illinois for supporting
this.
At the outset, I think it is important that we define what we are
talking about when we say needle exchanges. How does a needle exchange
program work?
Under a needle exchange program, an intravenous drug user comes to a
facility with a dirty needle that has been used to perpetrate a felony,
to inject either heroin or cocaine or another form of illegal drug, and
they exchange it for a new needle. They simply hand over the needle
that was used in the illegal drug act and receive, in return, a clean
needle.
In many cases, the illegal drug user will be given a permission slip
which would authorize him to carry the otherwise illegal drug
paraphernalia. So, in reality, the activity that we are talking about,
that we are talking about using Federal funds for today, is to
facilitate an act which is in fact illegal, which is in fact a felony
in almost all of the United States of America.
Now, where are we under the current law, under the current law and
the current appropriation bill that we are trying to amend?
For the past few years we have given the discretion to the Secretary
of Health and Human Services to allow for needle exchanges if she
determined that that should be done. And I believe the gentleman from
California [Mr. Waxman] has read the appropriate language about
determinations she must make.
I think this current law was a mistake. I think that this is a
decision that is so important and rises to such a level that it should
be made by the elected representatives of the people. The gentleman
from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] says this issue raises very serious moral
questions, and I agree. Those questions ought to be answered by the
representatives of the people.
We have had two distinguished physicians who have spoken on different
sides of the issue already this very afternoon. This demonstrates that
there are serious policy determinations that surround this issue, and
they should be made by the Congress of the United States, not by an
appointed official in the executive branch. I do not think Congress
should have punted this decision to the Secretary.
I think this is a decision that should be made by Congress. And the
gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman] is correct. If we make this
decision as a Congress, then we should change the drug laws, but that
decision ought to be made with our eyes open. We ought to make that
decision after full debate and after acknowledging this: that IV drug
use is now illegal; that it is now a felony; that in 45 States,
possession of needles, syringes, and other drug paraphernalia is
illegal; and that in providing for needle exchanges by the Secretary of
HHS we would not only be preempting laws against illegal IV drugs, but
also we would be going a step further in overruling these State laws,
against possession of needles, and we would be taking taxpayer funds to
provide for the illegal activity.
I say, vote against preemption of State and Federal laws against IV
drug use; vote against preemption of State laws which make possession
of drug paraphernalia illegal. Let us regain congressional discretion
over this major policy decision and vote for the Hastert-Wicker
amendment.
{time} 1230
Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WICKER. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. GANSKE. I appreciate the gentleman's comments. Nobody is arguing
to legalize illegal drugs. What we are talking about is a needle
exchange program.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, my point is the very activity that the
gentleman would authorize is illegal.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Waxman] for the purpose of responding to the gentleman.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to make a couple of points.
First, taxpayers' dollars are going to be used to treat and pay a
higher price for the care of patients who have AIDS than for a program
to prevent HIV infection. We are trying to prevent the spread of AIDS.
In order to prevent the spread of AIDS, the decision would reside at
the local level whether they want to use a needle exchange program and
use Federal funds. But before they can make such a decision, the
Secretary must find that a needle exchange program reduces the spread
of AIDS and the needle exchange does not cause any increase in illegal
drug use. Her decision is not discretionary. If she makes that finding,
we ought to then allow the local governments to make the decision to
have a program, if they choose that option.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Rangel], the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on
Ways and Means and the former chair of the Select Committee on
Narcotics.
(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this ban on needle
exchange only because, and I underline, only because it takes away the
discretion from the Secretary of HHS. I think it is an indictment of a
failed antidrug policy in this country that this august body has to
even consider the exchange of needles with people who have problems
that we are not even attacking why these hopeless people believe that
drugs is the only answer they have to a better life.
I truly believe that starting off on this path, I do not see any
different when we know the number of addicts that die because of
overdoses and impure drugs, why some do-gooder will not be saying, why
do we not give them purified drugs or something where they will be
protected under doctor's advice, and already we have people running off
talking about legalization and giving up what they call a fight that we
have not had it.
But because I do not know and I do not think anyone in this House
knows exactly how many lives are lost because of contaminated needles,
I am prepared to leave it up to the Secretary of Health and Human
Services and not make that political judgment myself.
Preferential Motion Offered by Mr. Miller of California
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer a preferential
motion.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Miller of California moves that the Committee do now
rise.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by
[[Page H7222]]
the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 39,
noes 362, not voting 32, as follows:
[Roll No. 387]
YEAS--39
Berry
Brown (OH)
Carson
Coyne
Davis (FL)
DeFazio
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dingell
Doggett
Eshoo
Farr
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gutierrez
Hinchey
Johnson, E.B.
Kind (WI)
Lowey
McDermott
McNulty
Meehan
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Mink
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Pelosi
Rangel
Slaughter
Stupak
Vento
Waxman
Woolsey
NAYS--362
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Bryant
Bunning
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clay
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeGette
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dixon
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Foglietta
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lucas
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McGovern
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Ortiz
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Pascrell
Paul
Paxon
Payne
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Redmond
Regula
Reyes
Riggs
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ryun
Sabo
Salmon
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Schumer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--32
Allen
Barr
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Burr
Clayton
Conyers
Davis (IL)
Delahunt
Dellums
Dooley
Flake
Gonzalez
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Lewis (GA)
Meek
Moran (VA)
Norwood
Roemer
Rush
Sanchez
Scarborough
Schiff
Smith (MI)
Smith, Adam
Solomon
Waters
Watt (NC)
Wise
{time} 1252
Mr. SHADEGG changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the motion was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
personal explanation
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 387, I was
unavoidably detained at a Social Security meeting away from the
Capitol. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore [Mr. LaHood]. The gentleman from Illinois
[Mr. Hastert] has 18\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman from
California [Ms. Pelosi] has 25 minutes remaining.
Following debate on this amendment, we will vote on the amendment of
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert], followed by votes on two
other amendments that were postponed.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the very distinguished
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], a member of the subcommittee.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment, which
would terminate the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human
Services' authority to determine if Federal funds can be used for
needle exchange programs.
HIV-AIDS is a very serious public health epidemic that must be dealt
with openly and aggressively. Our Nation's aggressive head-on attack to
conquering this devastating disease is what has led to AIDS patients
living longer and enjoying a fuller quality of life.
There was a time not too long ago when we could not use the word
``AIDS'' and the word ``living'' in the same sentence. As a result of
our pulling-out-all-the-stops approach to this disease, we can now
speak of living with AIDS.
{time} 1300
In fact, we should be here today speaking of how to apply the war on
AIDS blueprint to conquering diabetes, heart disease, cancer, and
violence. Yet, instead, we are here playing politics with one of our
Nation's most deadly diseases and major causes of premature deaths.
Mr. Chairman, research studies conducted by the National Commission
on AIDS, the General Accounting Office, the University of California at
the direction of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the
National Academy of Sciences, the Office of Technology Assessment, and
also the National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference
all support needle exchange as an effective means of controlling and
preventing the spread of HIV-AIDS.
Renowned public health and medical expert organizations, including
the National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association, the
American Public Health Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics,
all support needle exchange programs.
We must put this amendment into perspective. AIDS is now the leading
cause of death among Americans ages 25 to 44. Approximately one-third
of all reported adult AIDS cases are directly or indirectly associated
with injection drug use. Drug users account for approximately two-
thirds of all cases of newly acquired HIV infection. Over half of AIDS
deaths are injection-related.
It is imperative that we not create Federal policies that would
restrict the ability of the Federal Government and local communities to
end this HIV-AIDS epidemic. Let us not turn back the clock on HIV-AIDS.
Current law allows the use of Federal funds for needle exchange
programs if the Secretary
[[Page H7223]]
of Health and Human Services determines that these programs effectively
reduce HIV and do not encourage the use of illegal drugs.
Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to join me in fighting the spread
of this deadly HIV-AIDS disease by voting ``no'' to an amendment that
would prohibit the Secretary's authority to protect the health, safety,
and well-being of the American people, especially those most at risk
for HIV-AIDS. Vote ``no'' on relinquishing the Secretary's authority.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler], a leader in the fight against
AIDS.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, some things are no longer debatable. They
may have been debatable 5 years ago, but despite some assertions from
some gentlemen here, they are no longer debatable.
One, needle exchange does not promote drug use. We are all opposed to
drug use. Any number of studies and plenty of experience have found
that needle exchange does not increase drug use.
Also, needle exchange saves lives. These two propositions are not
debatable except by people who are ignorant of what the truth of the
matter is, from any number of studies and experience in 100 cities in
the United States.
Point two, if we want to send a message, we do not send a message at
the cost of people's lives. Some people may think, oh, it is only
junkies, let them die. They will not say it, but some people think
that. That is tomorrow. But beyond that, it is not just junkies. It is
their children who are born with AIDS, it is people they have sex with,
it is people who have sex with people they had sex with, it is the
whole transmission.
One-third of all AIDS transmission in the United States today is
because of our ignorant restrictions on needle exchanges. Do not pass
this amendment. If Members vote for this amendment, they are voting to
transmit AIDS and to have more people die of this scourge.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro], a distinguished member of
the subcommittee.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I understand the concerns expressed by the
proponents of this amendment. The issue makes me uncomfortable, but it
saves lives and it reduces drug use.
The experience of my hometown, New Haven, CT, has had me look very
hard and clear at the facts. The needle exchange program in New Haven
was created in 1991. A recent Yale University study talked about the
effects of the program. Let me let the Members know about this.
The program reduced sharing of needles by drug abusers from 71
percent to 15 percent of people who shared. It reduced the spread of
HIV by 33 percent. It helped 350 people each year get off drugs and get
their lives turned around. The New Haven Police Department indicates
that this caused no increase in the number of drug-related problems
during the time the program was in effect.
In the State of Connecticut, 53 percent of our AIDS cases are in drug
users. Most children with AIDS in Connecticut had a parent who was a
drug user. Stopping needle sharing saves lives, especially those of
innocent children.
Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Indiana [Mr. Souder], who has been a leader on this issue.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, it is hard to believe we are even debating
this amendment of giving free needles to enable people to abuse an
illegal substance, heroin, and possibly terminate their own lives and
the lives of others. It is truly astonishing that anyone who wants to
prevent drug abuse or help an addict get off drugs would support a
needle exchange program. In fact, what we are saying would be, here is
a clean needle, keep injecting yourself with this, it will kill you.
This is not compassion, this is truly just masquerading as compassion.
In fact, the lead author of the San Francisco needle exchange study,
a needle provider himself, was later found dead of an IV heroin drug
overdose. Beyond the evidence now coming in from the Canadian needle
exchange give-away programs in Montreal and Vancouver that show
increased HIV infection in addicts who participated in the program
versus those who did not, evidence is not clear. Earlier evidence was
suggesting one thing, and evidence coming in now is suggesting another.
One has to question the consequences of needle exchange programs for
the community involved. What happens when a clinic, with government
sanction, is allowed to dispense free needles to addicts? The zone
around the clinic dispensing free needles to IV drug users becomes a
no-go area for law enforcement. The result is, drug dealers move in,
certain they are immunized against prosecution and free to keep their
clients addicted.
In Manhattan, the lower east side community Board 3 passed a
resolution in November, 1995, to close down their needle exchange
program because the community was inundated with drug dealers. Law-
abiding businessmen shut down, and needed law enforcement was withheld
by the police.
In Willimantic, CT, after a toddler was stuck by a needle discarded
near the needle exchange program and an intoxicated man died from an
overdose after receiving clinic needles, residents protested and the
program was finally shut down in 1997. Do not be fooled, needle
exchange programs are only a subtle form of drug legalization, and at
least enables that.
I want to read from a statement from Dr. James Curtis on June 4,
1997, director of the Department of Psychiatry and Addiction Services
at the Harlem Hospital Center, a professor of clinical psychiatry at
the Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons on behalf of
the Black Leadership Commission on AIDS.
He describes his college and then he says,
The specific topic of needle exchange programs is one I
have carefully followed since they were first proposed almost
15 years ago. From the first and up until the present time, I
remain firmly opposed to the needle exchange because I am
convinced they would do much harm to black people. Addicts
need to be treated and can be effectively treated. They
should not be given needles and encouraged to continue their
addiction.
Dr. Curtis of the Harlem Hospital continues,
Let us examine needle exchanges. Addicts are well-informed
about how the HIV/AIDS is transmitted, and also about methods
of obtaining clean needles. It is absurd to believe addicts
cannot afford the small cost of injection equipment, but that
they can afford to raise the much larger amount of money to
purchase illicit drugs they will inject in their veins. By
giving free needles and syringes to addicts, we help them to
finance their addiction. . . . Often needles are supplied
free along with the purchase of powdered heroin, and cocaine
needles are sold freely on the black market, since large
supplies are regularly stolen from hospitals and physicians'
offices,
Dr. Curtis of the Harlem Hospital continues.
Furthermore, since needles and syringes can be prescribed
for diabetic patients, many addicts, whether they are
diabetic or not, obtain prescriptions this way. However, even
well-informed addicts, who carefully use clean needles for
years, eventually reach the point that they have used up all
of their veins. The unfortunate result is that when they are
admitted to hospitals for treatment for other medical or
surgical procedures, physicians often are sometimes unable to
find a vein to perform a life-saving function.
Furthermore, Dr. Curtis of the Harlem Hospital Center says,
The addict cannot remain an addict unless he or she
receives a lot of help from a group of other people. These
other people are referred to as enablers, other addicts and
well-intentioned family members or friends.
He said that needle exchange programs encourage denial and are
frankly enabling.
He also points out that the public has been led to believe that
persons who have a compassionate concern for drug addicts should favor
the use of clean needles, and anybody opposing the program is in favor
of forcing addicts to use dirty needles. In other words, it is a
contest between the liberal and humane persons versus those who are
prejudiced against addicts, black people, and persons with AIDS. In
actuality, the choices are not between clean needles or dirty needles.
It is a still better choice to be opposed altogether to needles.
It would be appalling to use our tax dollars to be enablers for
people who are putting their life and their communities at risk.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella], a great leader
in
[[Page H7224]]
the fight against AIDS, especially women with AIDS.
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her kind
words, and for yielding time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Hastert-Wicker amendment.
The bill before us today already prohibits the use of Federal funds for
needle exchange programs unless the Secretary of the Department of
Health and Human Services determines that needle exchange programs are
effective in preventing HIV transmission and that they do not promote
the use of illegal drugs.
The Hastert amendment would remove the authority of the Secretary to
manage public health threats and would, in effect, substitute political
expediency for sound science and public health policy. The bill's
language is the very same language on needle exchange that has been
part of this bill since 1990.
The American Medical Association, the American Bar Association, the
American Public Health Association, the Association of State and
Territorial Health Officials, the National Academy of Sciences, and the
U.S. Conference of Mayors, all have expressed their support for needle
exchange, as part of a comprehensive HIV prevention program. A number
of federally funded studies have reached the same conclusion and have
found that needle exchange does not increase drug use--including a
consensus conference convened by the National Institutes of Health,
earlier this year.
In my own State of Maryland, injection drug use is the major mode of
transmission for HIV/AIDS. Baltimore city's needle exchange program has
been associated with a 40 percent reduction in new cases of HIV, and
evaluation of the program has demonstrated that needle exchange did not
increase drug use. In fact, a bill was approved to continue the program
by an overwhelming vote in the Maryland State Legislature earlier this
year. It passed by a vote of 113 to 23 in the house of delegates and by
a vote of 30 to 17 in the State senate.
Nationally, 66 percent of all AIDS cases among women and more than
half of AIDS cases in children are related to injection drug use. It is
important to note that if the Secretary decided to lift the ban,
Federal funding for needle exchange programs would not mean that local
communities would have to implement them; only those communities that
believe such a program would be effective in their HIV prevention
strategy would do so--thereby leaving the decisionmaking to the local
communities. Community-based solutions have always been the most
effective prevention programs, and are consistent with our attempts in
this House to prevent the Federal Government from interfering with
local decisionmaking.
I urge my colleagues to act in the best interests of our Nation's
public health. Retain the Secretary's authority to respond to public
health threats, and vote ``no'' on the Hastert-Wicker amendment.
Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from North Carolina [Mrs. Myrick].
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment today.
I have just three simple points.
One, I speak as a parent and also as a former mayor who spent many,
many years in the local area fighting the drug war and knowing the
ravages of what happens. It is simply not proper for the Federal
Government to be funding a program, or any government, really, to fund
a program like needle exchange. In a time when drug use is again on the
rise, we simply should not send a message of tolerance in any form,
because we need to discourage drug use, not try and make it safer for
the user. It has been a fact, and it is still a fact, that when society
disapproval of drug use drops, we see drug use rise; and we are in the
midst of that there.
I reference one of the President's research reports in youth
attitudes toward drugs. It is talking about marijuana and 12th graders,
but it shows a definite rise. They are saying that there is a
correlation between that and a 3-year lag in the rising cocaine use
after that.
My concern is that heroin is now becoming the drug of choice.
Anything that we begin to do that literally encourages that in any way,
I believe is a big mistake. I urge people to support the Hastert
amendment.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra], the distinguished chair of the
Hispanic Caucus.
(Mr. BECERRA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time
to me, and for her continued fight on behalf of people with HIV.
{time} 1315
Mr. Chairman, certainly needle exchange programs will not reduce the
use of drugs. But all the evidence and all the research out there tells
us that needle exchange programs do reduce the spread of HIV.
The National Institutes of Health reports that needle exchange
programs have brought down the spread of HIV by some 30 percent. When
we consider that one needle costs a dime, and the estimate is that it
costs some $120,000 to treat someone who gets HIV, we can understand
why this is such a powerful program.
When we put on top of that the fact that one-third of all the cases
of HIV are now related to drug use, and the fact that most of the new
HIV cases among women and children are related to drug use, my
colleagues can see how powerful a weapon this is.
Certainly, we just do not do a needle exchange program by itself. If
we also want to address, and I hope we do, the issue of drug
prevention, we have treatment programs, we have other avenues to try to
make sure that we do reduce the use of drugs. But right now what we are
talking about is trying to stop the spread of AIDS and HIV, and we
should do whatever we can that has been proven to work to do so at a
minimal cost.
Mr. Chairman, we may not succeed just through needle exchange in
reducing drug usage. That is not the effort behind needle exchange
programs. But we have proven through needle exchange programs that we
will reduce the spread of HIV.
Why should we do this? Well, the U.S. Conference of Mayors tells us
we should do this. Why? Because they have to deal with this most
directly. We should follow the advice of those who have to deal with
people who unfortunately have become infected by the HIV virus.
Unfortunately, there are impediments. We should not be an impediment.
Let us let those local programs work and help them coordinate
nationwide and let us do the right thing in trying to stop the spread
of HIV. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Hastert amendment.
Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Weldon].
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this
amendment, and I would disagree with some of the people who would claim
that the current language in the bill does not represent a change in
policy. I think it does. I think we do not have the data to support
such a change in policy. For that reason, I highly encourage my
colleagues to vote for this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, let me say that I think I can bring a little bit of
perspective to this. Prior to coming to the Congress, I was a
practicing physician. Many of my patients were AIDS patients. Indeed,
my colleague and I for years were the only AIDS doctors in a county of
400,000 people. I saw them in my office. I went in the hospital in the
middle of the night.
I have also taken care of a lot of drug addicts and I can tell my
colleagues that these needle exchange programs, they cut down on the
frequency of sharing needles but they do not bring this down to zero.
If my colleagues deal with drug addicts, they will see why. They are
pretty irrational people in their behavior most often, and a lot of
them will cooperate with the exchange, but a lot of times they will
still share needles. It is just a bare fact.
We have heard from a lot of people today that all the data is in and
this works, needle exchange programs save lives. I can tell my
colleagues that that indeed is not the case. There have been some
significant articles in the medical literature that challenge that, and
I think it is really a major mistake for
[[Page H7225]]
the Federal Government to get on this bandwagon.
Specifically, there is a 1996 study that was published in Lancet, and
that is a British medical journal, a respected British medical journal,
that showed that needle exchange programs, the people in the program
have a two times greater risk of contracting AIDS. Not that it reduces,
as some people have been claiming, the transmission of AIDS by 30
percent, but that it doubles the transmission of AIDS. Now, this is a
study in a respected medical journal.
Mr. Chairman, additionally, probably one of the best journals, the
best medical journals, is a journal called Epidemiology. Epidemiology
is the study of the spread of disease, and they published in the Annals
of Epidemiology a study this year, January of this year, that showed
that needle exchange programs have no impact. There is no reduction in
the transmission of AIDS.
So, if my colleagues like needle exchange, they can whip out all
their studies that show it works. If my colleagues do not like needle
exchange, they can whip out these studies and show it does not work.
Mr. Chairman, what I say to my colleagues is we are talking about
Federal dollars and what we are going to be doing with Federal dollars.
I think, considering that so many people think it is so objectionable,
to do this, indeed, I have been informed by a Member since I have been
on this floor that needle exchange programs are illegal in something
like 45 States, I think it is very, very inappropriate for us to be
giving this administration the freedom to go out and start engaging in
more of this. I think we need more scientific data and more studies.
Mr. Chairman, I would encourage all of my colleagues to support the
Hastert amendment.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley].
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to first make the point there has
been a lot of notion of felonious drug use and that we are going to
promote it through opposition to this amendment. I remember a bumper
sticker that used to say, ``If we outlaw guns, only the outlaws will
have guns.''
Well, Mr. Chairman, if we outlaw needle exchange programs, then only
the outlaws will have needles, dirty needles that are killing them.
Clearly, I do not have any medical testimony that suggests that I
have the perfect answer. But I will suggest that the Federal Government
is spending $120,000 over their lifetime to care for somebody infected
with HIV virus, and it costs 10 cents to provide a sterile needle.
Mr. Chairman, I ask anyone listening to my voice, if given a free
needle will they inject themselves? The attending physician here has
people fainting by getting a flu shot. It is not something you would do
naturally, is find a free needle and then suggest I think I will try
heroin. It does not happen.
But what is happening is the disease of AIDS is being spread through
the use of hypodermic needles. Plain and simple. I know this is a very
sensitive area for people, and I do not want the Members who oppose the
good amendment of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert] to suggest
that we are for drug use, neither do I want the view of the gentleman
from Illinois to be taken lightly. He has very serious concerns.
Mr. Chairman, maybe this Congress, through the deliberations being
held today, could discuss creating a needle that is only for one-time
use, whether it is for a diabetic user or someone else. Maybe we invent
the technology that allows a needle to be only used once, a collapsible
syringe type that has one-time use only. Maybe that is a better
alternative, and we could eliminate this.
But if Members think that by not engaging in this debate we are
furthering the health care of average Americans, we are not. They will
still find the needle in the trash. They will still rob the doctor's
office. They will rob the pharmacy or they will claim to be a diabetic
to get that needle, and so the disease goes on and spreads throughout
our community; 67 percent are through injection of drugs, and then we
as a society pay for that.
What I thought was most important is that perhaps we have a chance of
getting a person into counseling. And I agree, the gentleman from
Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] was absolutely right when he suggested why should
they be given 40 needles in exchange for one? I do not agree with that
type of program. I think they have to be very well-controlled and
monitored.
But at the same time if we can lure one person off of heroin, one
person off of drugs, one person off of catching or being exposed to HIV
or AIDS, then we have done something meaningful here today. But to
blanketly say that this administration is promoting drug use by trying
to experiment in a very, very small controlled atmosphere is wrong.
Mr. Chairman, Members have denounced facts today that have been
proven in New Haven, CT, and Tacoma, WA, about the reduction of the
spread of AIDS. We see this. But in all due respect to the physicians
who testified for the amendment, they have some valid points. But let
us meet in the middle and talk about something new and different.
But most importantly, let us talk about lives and saving lives. Let
us talk about minimizing the spread of AIDS and HIV. And, hopefully,
let us talk about eradicating this Nation of the deadly drugs that are
out there on our streets.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson].
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to
the Hastert amendment. As we discuss this on the floor today, I think
it is truly important to keep reminding ourselves that the leading
cause of death amongst adults 25 to 44 years old is AIDS. The leading
cause of death. It is the seventh leading cause of death for all
Americans.
Furthermore, we are not debating here the Federal program. We are
debating whether the Secretary can use the money, after she has
reported to Congress that studies show that it does not increase the
number of drug users, injecting drug users, and that needle exchange
programs actually reduce the spread. So she would have to report on
those critical issues before anything could happen.
Mr. Chairman, in Connecticut, we have evidence, evidence that 52
percent of all injecting drug users were sharing needles. The needle
exchange program reduced that amount sharing to 32 percent. Now, needle
sharing is one of the three leading causes of AIDS spreading in
America, the No. 1 cause of death amongst adults 25 to 44.
Mr. Chairman, why would we not allow the Secretary to release the
money if she does the studies that come back and show, yes, like in
Connecticut, needle sharing reduced the percent of injecting drug users
who used other people's needles?
Now, it worked in Connecticut. The National Academy of Sciences found
that there is no credible evidence to date that drug use has increased
among participants as a result of the programs that provide legal
access to sterile equipment. And I quote, ``The National Academy of
Science's study concluded that the programs were effective at lowering
the number of contaminated needles in circulation.''
Mr. Chairman, given the role that contaminated needles play in the
spread of AIDS, and given that AIDS is the No. 1 killer of adult
Americans 25 to 44, I urge my colleagues to not only oppose the Hastert
amendment, but to allow our local mayors, our local program directors
to make the difficult decision whether in their circumstances needle
sharing is appropriate to fight AIDS and death.
Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, I have a news article here from the American Medical
News talking about the needle exchanges in Connecticut. Children are
finding needles in the streets and garbage. The States Attorney in
Connecticut said he has written the Governor, legislature, and the head
of the State Department of Public Health saying this is an abomination.
These needles are finding their way to the street corner, the same
brand that is in the needle exchange program. Frankly, it is a problem.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson].
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say
that
[[Page H7226]]
needle exchange programs have nothing to do with that problem of
discarded needles being available and spreading infection. But the
American Medical Association does support the underlying bill, as does
the National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directors, the
National Research Council, the Institute of Medicine, the American Bar
Association, and the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and those are the
people on the frontlines.
Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington [Mr. Nethercutt].
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I am going to support this amendment. I
want to provide some perspective on this issue by discussing who our
government subsidizes through providing Federal funding for needle
exchange programs or needle programs.
Mr. Chairman, I am vitally interested in the issue of diabetes, along
with the gentlewoman from Oregon, Ms. Furse, and Speaker Gingrich. I am
cochairman of the Diabetes Caucus. We have about 100 members in the
Caucus here in the House.
{time} 1330
There are 16 million diabetics in our country; 27 cents out of every
Medicare dollar is used to pay for the complications of diabetes. It
ranks about fourth on the death list in our country, not seventh like
AIDS, and AIDS is a very serious issue and I am very concerned about
it, but billions of dollars are spent on the consequences of diabetes.
At least 1 million children have diabetes, and they take two to three
injections a day. No subsidy for them, for families that have to deal
with this very serious disease that costs not only human suffering but
lots of money in our society. They do not get subsidized.
If the evidence is, and it sounds to me like it is conflicting here
today, if the evidence that the needle exchange programs perpetuate
AIDS and illegal drug use, then we would be far better off to spend
that money on subsidizing needle programs for diabetics, those families
who have a major problem in paying for that cost for their children and
for people all across the AIDS spectrum of our country.
I am going to support this amendment. I hope my colleagues will,
also.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington [Mr. McDermott], who has been a leader in the field of
preventing the spread of AIDS internationally.
(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself with the
remarks of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley] and the gentlewoman
from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] because it really makes it very clear
this is not a partisan issue. This is a public health issue.
My colleague from Washington made the best case for a national health
insurance program that I have ever heard. But we are not talking about
that today. We are talking about prevention of a disease. It is a
program that works. And people at the local level in my State, in
Tacoma, came up with local money to do this because they know what the
costs are if we do not prevent.
Benjamin Franklin said, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of
cure. We spend millions, hundreds of millions of dollars on the cost of
triple therapy, on homes for people living with AIDS, and all other
kinds of things, but we will not spend money on a program that works at
the local level to reduce the incidence of AIDS infection.
Members can argue out here and make this into somehow we are
promoting drugs. That is the argument that has been made all over the
country on this issue. But the fact is that if people are using clean
needles, they are not going to be spreading the drugs, and we know that
is a major route of infection, not only in the United States but
worldwide.
This epidemic is not getting smaller. It is getting larger. It is
spreading through all kinds of methods, but this is one of the main
ones.
In my view, to take the step of taking away from the Secretary a
route to deal with this issue nationally is simply to say we are
willing to come back in here and put another $100 million or $500
million or whatever into triple therapy.
As long as the pharmaceutical industry can find ways to keep people
alive longer, the costs are going to grow. If we want to be just
fiscally sound, this is a fiscally sound program. Every conservative in
the House ought to be for it because it saves money as well as deals
with the problem in a humane way.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Chair would advise Members
that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert] has 6\1/2\ minutes
remaining, and the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] has 7\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute and 30 seconds to the
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey], who is a member of the
Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education and
former chair of the Congressional Caucus on Women's Issues.
(Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her important
work on this issue and so many other issues on the committee.
Mr. Chairman, under current law no Federal funds may be used for
needle exchange programs unless the Secretary of HHS determines that
such programs are effective in preventing the spread of HIV and do not
encourage the use of illegal drugs.
This amendment would ban the Secretary from exercising this
authority. However, there is mounting scientific evidence that needle
exchange programs are useful in controlling the spread of the deadly
HIV virus while not encouraging elicit drug activity. Mr. Chairman,
this evidence comes from the most reputable scientific agencies in the
land, such as the NIH, the CDC, and National Research Council.
Leading sectors of the public health community support retaining the
Secretary's authority to lift the ban on Federal funding for needle
exchange programs and oppose this amendment. These organizations
include the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Nurses
Association, the AMA.
There is uncontestable evidence that the proportion of HIV cases
related to injection drug use has dramatically increased over the last
15 years. In fact, injection drug users now account for almost two-
thirds of all cases of newly acquired HIV infection.
This amendment will handicap public health officials from controlling
the spread of HIV and AIDS, particularly in our inner cities.
I urge my colleagues, vote ``no'' on this amendment.
Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. Sam Johnson].
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this
amendment. Americans do not support needle exchange programs. In fact,
62 percent of all Americans oppose needle exchange programs for drug
addicts, and 88 percent are concerned that the programs cause a public
health hazard as a result of poorly discarded needles.
Advocates of needle exchange programs say it will decrease the number
of injection drug users who contract HIV and this has been proven to be
untrue. According to a study from McGill and Montreal Universities,
injection drug users who participated in a needle exchange program in
Canada were two times more likely to become infected with HIV than
those who did not.
Without passage of this amendment, the Secretary can authorize needle
exchanges to be funded from taxpayer dollars. Under no circumstances
should we allow Federal dollars to be spent on needle exchange
programs, period.
Illegal drugs kill people, and I want to tell my colleagues, in my
own home town of Plano, seven youths have died since the first of
January this year, one of them in school, from drugs provided by clean
needles.
We have got to stop the deadly use of illegal drugs, not encourage
it. And Americans do not want, need, or deserve needle exchange
programs funded by taxpayer dollars. Support this amendment.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to respond to the
gentleman about the attitudes of the American people.
The gentleman from Texas, my friend, knows that I hold him in high
[[Page H7227]]
regard, but I question the poll data that he might be citing.
Indeed, in March 1996, the Kaiser Foundation found that 66 percent of
Americans favored, ``having clinics make clean needles available to IV
drug users to help stop the spread of AIDS.'' And this year, in April
1997, a recent poll by the Tarrance Group found 53 percent of
respondents approved needle exchange to help prevent HIV transmission.
And that is the response that the American people give when they are
asked if they want to support needle exchange programs to stop the
spread of HIV-AIDS, especially among IV drug users.
The Family Research Council poll that has been cited by some of our
colleagues today presented a scenario, the Swiss experience, which is
not what we are talking about here. We are talking about a needle
exchange. We are not talking about making drugs available. I do not
know anybody who supports that formulation that was presented in the
poll.
The facts are clear by the poll. Needle exchange to prevent AIDS plan
is supported by overwhelming numbers of the American people.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan [Ms.
Rivers].
Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, I did not go to med school. I went to law
school. As such, I do not speak the language of medicine. I speak the
language of logic.
I have to tell my colleagues, the last few days have been a
revelation here. Because if the way we reduce teen pregnancies is to
deny access to contraceptives to teens who are already sexually active,
and if the way that we reduce drug use and HIV infection is to deny
needle exchange to people who are already addicted to intravenous drug
use, then I have to believe that the way to stop fires already started
is to deny homeowners access to fire trucks.
Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Davis].
Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague
yielding me this time.
I think what we have is really competing public policy objectives,
Members of goodwill on both sides trying to get at competing
objectives.
On the one hand there is conflicting evidence, albeit some good
evidence, and this amendment would take away the discretion of the
Secretary to find that if, in fact, we can do more to prevent AIDS by
needle exchange programs, that we would not be able to do so.
But stopping AIDS and stopping the threat of AIDS is only one policy
objective. Even if this does that, and we have had a family member in
my family who has died of AIDS, my wife did that bike ride from Raleigh
to Washington to raise money for research for AIDS. I have been a
strong supporter of AIDS research. It is very important; stopping the
spread of AIDS is an important public policy objective. But we cannot
look at that in a vacuum.
We also have other policy objectives as well. Why I am troubled by
the needle exchange programs and Federal dollars going in to subsidize
that is the fact that we are, in effect, sending conflicting messages
to drug users. If you are an illegal drug user, the Federal Government
will, in effect, subsidize that use. But if you are on diabetes, as the
gentleman from Washington discussed a few minutes ago, if you are a
veteran trying to get help, you end up buying your own needles. I think
that is a bad message for the Federal Government to send. It is bad
public policy in that sense.
It is for those reasons that trouble me that I am supporting the
amendment in this case. The Federal Government should not be in the
business of subsidizing illegal behavior. We have a rising drug
epidemic in this country, and the message should be clear and concise,
without any confusion at all, that we are going to do everything we can
to stop the use of drugs, not to subsidize it.
The current policies, if this amendment does not pass, would in
effect end up having the Federal Government subsidize that. I think the
Members on the other side of this amendment have goodwill, but they are
looking narrowly at one public policy objective, when I think we have a
larger public policy objective here, and that is to stop illegal drug
use in this country. I think this amendment goes to that objective.
That is why I rise to support it.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from
Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
[Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, it is mostly political
suicide to stand up and oppose this amendment, but it is the high moral
ground to be able to recognize the devastation of AIDS and drug use.
This is not the Federal Government promoting drug use. It is allowing
local jurisdictions to make determinations that in their community the
sharing of needles that are clean most helps to stem the tide of
illegal drug use and the devastation that comes about.
Let us take the high moral ground, not the politically safe position,
and allow local jurisdictions to make the choices of using their funds
to save their community and to prevent the degradation of drug use and
the violence of drug use in our communities.
Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Mississippi [Mr. Pickering].
Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I
come with two personal questions. As the father of four and as a son
with a mother and father could I ask them for money to buy needles to
then inject drugs into another person's veins? Could any in this
Chamber actually stick a needle in another person's veins, and fill
them with deadly drugs? That will give them a slow but sure death?
Congress must say no. It is immoral to do otherwise? We must stand
together to give a clear signal that the problem is drug addiction. It
is not AIDS.
For the best in public health, for the most compassionate response, I
ask all to join in support of this amendment to prohibit taxpayer's
money, from funding something that we believe is wrong.
At a time when drug abuse in this country is spiraling out of control
and we hear daily of tragic tales where families have been devastated
by drug abuse--I believe that this amendment sends the right kind of
message.
The Federal Government is actively fighting a war on drugs, yet there
has recently been a debate to federalize a program to provide syringes
to drug addicts in hopes of lessening the spread of AIDS.
This is clearly an emotionally charged debate, but we cannot lose
sight of what kind of message this sends to the children of this
Nation.
I believe a federalized needle exchange program sends a mixed signal
that will undermine the credibility of all our other anti-drug efforts.
By implementing a needle exchange program we will be telling our
children to ``Just say no,'' unless you have a free needle!
Let me take a moment to remind my colleagues that heroin use is still
illegal in this country. I find it morally repugnant to think that we
would even contemplate making the United States Government a co-
conspirator in illegal drug use--that is destroying lives across this
Nation.
If we truly want to fight and win the war on drugs, we must stop
coddling addicts. Drug users need treatment, not encouragement to keep
injecting deadly drugs into their bodies--and those of their unborn
children.
I agree with Roman Catholic Cardinal John O'Connor who has said that
the needle exchange program ``drags down the standards of all society.
* * * It is an act born of desperation.''
Those who favor this program say that we may reduce the spread of
AIDS and we may not increase drug use. But, the President's own former
drug czar, Lee Brown, stated that his office could ``find no compelling
reason for the administration to depart from existing Federal policy
regarding needle exchange''--which does not allow for a Federal needle
exchange program.
The new majority in Congress has encouraged and fostered personal
responsibility. If we truly want the American people to take
responsibility for their own actions, we cannot in the same breath give
them a formal sanction for their illegal activities.
If the true intention of supporters of this program is the reduction
of AIDS by drug users, then they should join us in eliminating the use
of illegal drugs, not subsidizing it.
We should help addicts rid drugs from their lives, not give them a
cleaner, better way of shooting up. The problem is not AIDS or
needles--it is drug addiction.
{time} 1345
Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
[[Page H7228]]
Mr. Chairman, we have had certainly a spirited debate and, I think,
certainly a debate that tries to bring in logic and experience. Quite
frankly, the experience shows that free needle exchanges does not stop
drug use, it does not stop the spread of AIDS, and in fact the studies
cited show that AIDS spread.
Now, in this country, we face a huge challenge, a challenge as
debated on the other side by people like the Sorros movement, where
millions of dollars in California and Arizona were put into
advertising, to promote illegal drug use as a matter of fact, not to
make it illegal but to make it legal.
The same Sorros who owns the pharmaceutical companies, who owns the
banks in Colombia and has the conference in Colombia, these are the
people who are promoting needle exchanges and drug use in this country.
It is time that this Congress said no, that free needle exchanges are
for one thing and one thing only, and that is to give people the
ability to inject illegal drugs into their system and to pass needles
out to people who have the intent to spread illegal drugs to themselves
and others.
My fellow colleagues, it is wrong to do that. It is wrong public
policy to give needles out to kids, just as it would be wrong public
policy to give clean guns out to kids. My colleagues, we need to band
together, this Congress needs to stand up for what is right and against
what is wrong. And if we want to look at what is right, we need to ban
free needle programs and the ability of this Government to hand out
free needles.
It is not the intent of this country, it is not the intent of this
Congress, and it is not the intent of the American people; 45 States
ban free needle exchanges today. We should say no. Vote ``yes'' for
this amendment.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Before I close, I want to commend my colleague, the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Hastert], and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle
for the civility and the tone of this debate. I think it is an
important one for us to have, and I always enjoy working with the
gentleman from Illinois and want to thank him for his courtesy during
this debate.
Having said that, I rise in very, very strong opposition to the
gentleman's amendment. First, I would like to say what a privilege it
is to defend the subcommittee's position, to defend the bill; and I
would like to read to my colleagues what the bill says on this issue.
The bill says,
No funds appropriated under this act shall be used to carry
out any program of distributing sterile needles for the
hypodermic injection of any illegal drugs unless the
Secretary of Health and Human Services determines that such
programs are effective in preventing the spread of HIV and do
not encourage the use of illegal drugs.
What this amendment will do will remove the discretion from the
Secretary of HHS and say that if the Secretary determines that such
programs are effective in preventing the spread of HIV and do
discourage the use of illegal drugs, that she does not have the
discretion to have funds used on those needle exchange programs.
I just do not see how that makes sense from a humanitarian
standpoint, from a scientific standpoint, or from a fiscal standpoint.
Starting at the fiscal end, if I did not think it would frighten my
colleagues so much, I would have brought a hypodermic needle to the
floor. The exchange of clean needles is very important in many ways
including the fact that one hypodermic needle costs 10 cents.
The medical cost alone, lifetime medical cost alone of a person with
HIV/AIDS is $120,000, not counting loss of productive years, taxes that
person would pay, and just the human concerns we would have about that
person's health. So in the interest of balancing the budget and cutting
costs, the prevention a 10-cent hypodermic needle, a clean one, seems
to me very cost effective.
We are talking, I want to emphasize to my colleagues, about needle
exchange, not needle giveaway. The needle exchange programs do not
increase the number of hypodermic needles in circulation because it is
an exchange. To get a needle, one must bring a needle in. What these
exchange programs do is decrease the number of contaminated needles
that are in circulation, and in that way help stop the spread of AIDS.
The needle exchange programs are helping our young people because, in
some instances, it is the only way they are drawn into a system of
care. That is why on the scientific level there is so much support for
lifting this ban or for sticking with the language in our bill.
In February of this year the National Institutes of Health sponsored
a consensus development conference on interventions to prevent HIV risk
behaviors. The group recommended lifting the current restrictions on
the use of Federal funds for needle exchange programs, and that means
also supporting groups which use funds for needle exchange programs.
Their key findings were a 30 percent, or greater, reduction in HIV and
other disease transmission and a preponderance of evidence which shows
no change or indeed even decreased drug use.
During the NIH overview hearings that our subcommittee held, Dr.
Varmus, the director of the National Institutes of Health, testified
that in his view the ban on the use of Federal funds should be lifted
and that science supported the findings outlined in section 505 of the
appropriations bill. His findings were supported by Dr. Leshner of the
National Institute on Drug Abuse and Dr. Hyman of the National
Institutes of Mental Health.
Support the scientists that Congress has asked to give us their
opinions. Vote against the Hastert amendment.
Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to strongly oppose
the Wicker/Hastert amendment which would prohibit the use of Federal
funds to implement or promote programs that remove AIDS-tainted needles
from our streets. Passage of this amendment would mean that the
Department of Health and Human Services would not be able to make
determinations as to the scientific and public health merit of needle
exchange programs and other blood-borne disease transmission and
injection drug use.
Mr. Chairman, HIV transmission continues to rise at an alarming rate.
From 1981 to today, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has
received data on nearly 600,000 person wit AIDS from State and local
health departments. Giving the alarmingly high rate of HIV transmission
resulting from intravenous drug use, it is critical that informed
policies be established to help contain the spread of HIV.
Research to date, provides strong scientific evidence that needle
exchange programs can significantly reduce the risk of HIV among
injection drug users without adverse impact on communities. At least
six different government panels, and most recently a National Institute
of Health Consensus Development Panel, have reviewed needle exchange
programs and concluded that these programs are an effective method to
curb the spread of HIV and other blood borne diseases.
Numerous respected organizations, including the American Medical
Association, the American Bar Association, the U.S. Conference of
Mayors, the National Black Caucus of State Legislators, the National
Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directors, the National Research
Council and the Institute of Medicine have also, all concluded, that
needle exchange programs are effective.
It is vital, Mr. Chairman, if we are to begin to address this
epidemic, that we must preserve the discretion of the Secretary of
Health and Human Services to look at this issue on the basis of public
health concerns and not politically expedient ones. Legislative bodies,
such as this one, have been said to be the greatest threat to public
health because of our failure to respond to research findings.
We must stop being a threat to the health of our constituents and
meet the challenges that are important to saving millions of lives. We
must exercise courage on this critical public health issue and vote no
on this amendment.
Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in
opposition to the amendment which would prohibit local communities from
using Federal funds for needle exchange programs.
We all know that this is a difficult issue to debate. But, the fact
is, is that AIDS is a huge problem in all of our communities, and that
approximately one-third of reported AIDS cases are related to injection
drug use. Communities across our country are finding ways to reduce the
number of AIDS cases each year, including needle exchange programs.
Needle exchange programs have been implemented in more than 100
communities around the country, including several in my own State of
Connecticut, and there is a good deal of evidence that they are
successfully reducing the number of new HIV infections.
In my own district in Connecticut, Hartford's needle exchange program
actually takes in
[[Page H7229]]
more needles than it gives out. Almost 70,000 needles have been
exchanged; almost 40 percent of the needles returned to the program
prove to be infected with HIV antibodies. This program is removing
hundreds of infected needles from circulation, yet costs only $120,000
a year, the cost of treatment for two individuals with full-blown AIDS.
Because the HIV epidemic is different across our country, communities
need to be able to develop their own HIV prevention plans. In
Connecticut, the State-funded needle exchange programs are working to
decrease the spread of HIV. At a time when this devastating disease is
so rampant, I believe it is time we lend our support to our communities
and States.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and show our support
for local HIV-prevention programs.
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this
amendment, but I would like to make several points very clear. This
amendment is not about whether or not we should be providing free
syringes to drug users. Like most of my colleagues, I would oppose any
program that would promote any form of drug abuse, especially among
intravenous users.
However, let's speak to the facts, Mr. Chairman. There is no Federal
needle-exchange program in existence at this point. There have been
programs implemented in more than 100 communities around the country,
and many of those communities have seen a significant decrease of new
HIV infections as a result. This amendment, however, would not directly
address these programs. Rather, it would preclude the Secretary of
Health and Human Services from doing her job to identify public health
issues and promote programs to improve the health of the U.S.
population. This, Mr. Chairman, is a solution in search of a problem.
If anyone here contends that we are no longer in a crisis situation
concerning the spread of HIV in this Nation, then this Nation is in a
state of denial.
Approximately one-third of reported AIDS cases are related to
injection drug use, as are most new AIDS cases among the heterosexual
population. So I disagree with the sponsor of this amendment, my
distinguished colleague from Illinois, that this is a behavior that the
public health community should ignore.
Current language in this bill already prohibits local communities
from using Federal funds for needle exchange programs unless the
Secretary determines that exchange programs are effective in preventing
the spread of HIV and do not encourage the use of illegal drugs. This
effective prohibition has been in effect since 1990.
I hope that my colleagues and the American public will see through
this political gimmick and maintain current law. I urge a no vote on
this amendment and thank the chairman for this time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert].
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
Thursday, July 31, 1997, further proceedings on the amendment offered
by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert] will be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 506. (a) Purchase of American-Made Equipment and
Products.--It is the sense of the Congress that, to the
greatest extent practicable, all equipment and products with
funds made available in this Act should be American-made.
(b) Notice Requirements.--In providing financial assistance
to, or entering into any contract with, any entity using
funds made available in this Act, the head of each Federal
agency, to the greatest extent practicable, shall provide to
such entity a notice describing the statement made in
subsection (a) by the Congress.
(c) Prohibition of Contracts With Persons Falsely Labeling
Products as Made in America.--If it has been finally
determined by a court or Federal agency that any person
intentionally affixed a label bearing a ``Made in America''
inscription, or any inscription with the same meaning, to any
product sold in or shipped to the United States that is not
made in the United States, the person shall be ineligible to
receive any contract or subcontract made with funds made
available in this Act, pursuant to the debarment, suspension,
and ineligibility procedures described in sections 9.400
through 9.409 of title 48, Code of Federal Regulations.
Sec. 507. When issuing statements, press releases, requests
for proposals, bid solicitations and other documents
describing projects or programs funded in whole or in part
with Federal money, all grantees receiving Federal funds
included in this Act, including but not limited to State and
local governments and recipients of Federal research grants,
shall clearly state (1) the percentage of the total costs of
the program or project which will be financed with Federal
money, (2) the dollar amount of Federal funds for the project
or program, and (3) percentage and dollar amount of the total
costs of the project or program that will be financed by
nongovernmental sources.
Sec. 508. None of the funds appropriated under this Act
shall be expended for any abortion except when it is made
known to the Federal entity or official to which funds are
appropriated under this Act that such procedure is necessary
to save the life of the mother or that the pregnancy is the
result of an act of rape or incest.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Hyde
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Hyde:
Page 94, strike lines 16 through 21 and insert the
following (and redesignate the succeeding sections
accordingly):
Sec. 508(a) None of the funds appropriated under this Act
shall be expended for any abortion.
(b) None of the funds appropriated under this Act shall be
expended for health benefits coverage that includes coverage
of abortion.
(c) The term ``health benefits coverage'' means the package
of services covered by a managed care provider or
organization pursuant to a contract or other arrangement.
Sec. 509(a) The limitations established in the preceding
section shall not apply to an abortion--
(1) if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or
incest; or
(2) in the case where a woman suffers from a physical
disorder, physical injury, or physical illness, including a
life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from
the pregnancy itself, that would, as certified by a
physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an
abortion is performed.
(b) Nothing in the preceding section shall be construed as
prohibiting the expenditure by a State locality, entity, or
private person of State, local, or private funds (other than
a State's or locality's contribution of Medicaid matching
funds) for abortion services or coverage of abortion by
contract or other arrangement.
(c) Nothing in the preceding section shall be construed as
restricting the ability of any managed care provider or
organization from offering abortion coverage or the ability
of a State or locality to contract separately with such a
provider for such coverage with state funds (other that a
State's contribution of Medicaid matching funds).
Mr. HYDE (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Illinois?
There was no objection.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on
this amendment close in 10 minutes and that the time be equally divided
between the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] and the gentlewoman from
New York [Mrs. Lowey].
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 considered for 10
minutes; 5 minutes controlled by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde]
and 5 minutes controlled by the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey].
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde].
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this is an updated version of the Hyde amendment which
has been in the law since 1976. Essentially, the Hyde amendment denies
the use of Federal funds to pay for Medicaid abortions except where the
life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to
term and except in cases of rape and incest.
We have found over the years that the Hyde amendment, which as I say
has been the law since 1976 in one version or the other, needs to be
updated because of the prevalence of health maintenance organizations.
Early on, about 9 percent of the Medicaid patients were served by
health maintenance organizations and the general procedure was a fee-
for-service procedure. The Hyde amendment withheld Federal funds for
abortions, except, as I explained earlier, with the three exceptions.
Now we find about 40 percent of the Medicaid patients are being
served by health maintenance organizations, and the concern has been
expressed that under the vaguely worded plans of those HMOs, abortions
could end up being paid for with Federal funds. So
[[Page H7230]]
we have clarified the intent and applied it to managed care situations
so that no Federal funds can be expended for abortions, whether it is
fee-for-service or under a managed care plan.
I want to make clear this does not broaden the Hyde amendment. It
does not include anybody that has not previously been included. What it
does is clarify its applicability to the managed care situation. An HMO
can still perform and provide abortion services or, as they are
euphemistically called, ``reproductive services,'' if they are paid for
by non-Medicaid funds, namely State funds or private funds.
We also have clarified the exception for the life of the mother by
requiring a greater degree of specificity from the doctor certifying
the life-threatening situation. And that simply is recognizing that
some doctors conclude that merely being pregnant is life-threatening
and, hence, negating the effect of the Hyde amendment.
So it is an updating of the Hyde amendment; it is not a broadening.
It does not include anybody who was not included before.
I want to say before I yield my time that every word of this
amendment has been negotiated strenuously with the gentlewoman from New
York [Mrs. Lowey] and her supporters, the gentlewoman from California
[Ms. Pelosi] and the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro] and the
gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Slaughter] and others, and they in no
manner can be said to support the amendment. They have opposed it over
the years and they do so now.
But I would be remiss if I did not say that dealing with them on this
highly emotional issue was a professional experience and one that I am
pleased with because we retained civility while we disagreed
strenuously, and that is an ideal situation.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HYDE. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I certainly say I support the gentleman's
amendment. As he knows, I was involved in those negotiations, and I
think that they reached an extremely constructive result, and I
appreciate the attitude of all of the parties involved.
This is a logical action to reflect changes as HMOs deliver more and
more health services, and I appreciate the gentleman's constructive
attitude on it.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I also wish to thank the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] and the gentleman from Wisconsin
[Mr. Obey]. I omitted them in my praising of the women, but they were
very professional and helpful on this very difficult issue.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HYDE. I yield to my colleague from Illinois.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, as one who has been a long-long-time
supporter of the Hyde amendment, and as one who is most proud to have
cast his first legislative vote ever in favor of the gentleman from
Illinois as Speaker of the Illinois House, I was very pleased to work
with the gentleman and with the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey]
in attempting to find the common ground that is needed on this
amendment. We did that.
I commend the gentleman for his unending strong leadership in this
area and for what he deeply believes in, and am pleased to support the
amendment.
{time} 1400
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by thanking the gentleman from Illinois
for working with us to improve and clarify his amendment. Although I
disagree strenuously with the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] on the
abortion issue, he certainly is a gentleman and a man of his word, and
I am pleased that the gentleman has changed his amendment to satisfy
our concerns that it would have prevented private insurance plans from
offering abortion coverage. We no longer object to it on those grounds.
I also want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr.
Livingston], the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi], the
gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro] and all the people who
worked so hard to make this possible.
However, I continue to oppose the Hyde amendment for the same reason
I have opposed it every year since being elected to Congress. The Hyde
amendment, in my judgment, blatantly discriminates against poor women
by preventing them from obtaining safe, legal abortions. I abhor the
Hyde amendment, and I oppose its punitive restriction on low-income
women. A woman's ability to obtain an abortion should not depend on her
income. By creating a two-tiered health care system, the Hyde amendment
prevents lower income women from obtaining vital reproductive health
services. That is wrong. Federal health programs must cover the full
range of reproductive health care services, including abortion.
The Hyde amendment also puts the health of American women at risk.
Funding restrictions that deter or delay women from seeking abortions
make it more likely that women will bear unwanted children, continue a
potentially health-threatening pregnancy or have abortions later in
pregnancy.
I am also outraged that the amendment's life exception effectively
narrows the protection accorded to women by Roe versus Wade. The
antichoice Republican leadership has been waging war on the
reproductive rights of American women since taking over Congress in
1994. Poor women have been especially vulnerable to this assault.
In fact, in the last Congress I would like to remind my colleagues
that the Republican leadership voted to limit abortion rights more than
50 separate times, a new record, and the assault does not stop with
abortion. At the same time that the Republican leadership is reducing
access to abortion, they are also attacking family planning programs
that prevent unplanned pregnancies and reduce the number of abortions.
And so, if this is the Republican vision for women as we head into
the 21st century, no access to family planning, no access to safe,
legal abortion, no control over our own bodies, we have a different
vision. We will continue to fight to ensure that women are able to
obtain safe, legal abortions, and we will work to reduce the number of
abortions by providing women with greater access to family planning and
contraceptives. We will work to empower women to help them make
responsible choices about their own bodies. The Republicans have
chosen, unfortunately, to make our bodies their battleground. They will
not succeed, and they cannot succeed.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Hyde
amendment. While my colleague Mrs. Lowey worked diligently with Mr.
Hyde to clarify the scope of his amendment, it is still not language
that we can accept. The Medicaid Program provides for the use of
Federal and State funds for medical care for low-income individuals,
including necessary health care related to pregnancy. As the Supreme
Court decided in Roe versus Wade, abortion is a legal medical
procedure. By forcing poor women to carry possibly health threatening
pregnancies to term, the Hyde amendment is contrary to the goals of
Medicaid itself, which is designed to protect the health of indigent
women by enabling them to obtain needed medical services they are
unable to afford.
I believe it is the hope of all in this body that we can increase
biomedical research and contraceptive care in order to provide better
health choices for women so the number of abortions performed each year
will be reduced. But to deny poor women access to a legal medical
procedure is to segregate by class or financial resources. To limit the
right to choose only to those who can afford to choose is unacceptable.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the Hyde amendment.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to
the Hyde amendment.
Every year since 1977, Congress has attached a version of the Hyde
amendment to the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education
appropriations bill. For 20 years now, many of my colleagues have
supported the traditional Hyde amendment, which restricts the use of
Federal Medicaid funds to pay for abortion services and has made
exceptions only in cases of rape or incest or when the life of the
mother is in danger.
[[Page H7231]]
I am glad that an expanded version of the Hyde amendment that was
originally proposed is not being offered today. An expanded Hyde
amendment would have prevented private managed care organizations from
contracting with Medicaid if an organization provided coverage for
reproductive health services to private patients. This version would
have seriously infringed upon the rights of private health insurance
companies and the rights of women to receive legal coverage of
abortion.
But, once again, a form of the original Hyde amendment is before us
today, and this version of the Hyde amendment still infringes upon the
rights of women as it has for the past 20 years. The Hyde amendment
discriminates against the rights of low-income women. By preventing
Medicaid recipients from receiving coverage for abortion services, the
Hyde amendment singles out women on Federal assistance, and in doing
so, prevents these women from exercising a constitutionally protected
right.
Congress rejected making the language of the Hyde amendment permanent
in this year's budget bill. We must be as strong in our opposition to
this language during the appropriations process as we were in the
budget process. I would hope that this year, Congress will reconsider
the prohibitive language of the Hyde amendment and finally reject
adding this language to the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill.
I urge my colleagues to vote against the Hyde amendment and, for the
first time in 20 years, protect the rights of all women.
Sequential Votes Postponed In Committee Of The Whole
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Pursuant to order of the House
of Thursday, July 31, 1997, the Chair announces that following any
recorded vote on the pending amendment, he will reduce to a minimum of
5 minutes the period of time within which a vote by electronic device
will be taken on the Hefley, Crane, and Hastert amendments on which the
Chair has postponed further consideration.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I think that there was considerable
inattention to the Chair's comments, and I think that there may be
confusion in terms of which order we are going to be voting in.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The first vote will be on the Hyde
amendment, the second vote will be on the Hefley amendment, the third
vote will be on the Crane amendment, and the fourth vote will be on the
Hastert amendment. The last 3 votes will be 5-minute votes.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Hyde].
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 270,
noes 150, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No 388]
AYES--270
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehner
Bonior
Bono
Brady
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clement
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Etheridge
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kasich
Kildee
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Manton
Manzullo
Mascara
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murtha
Myrick
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Ortiz
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Pascrell
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Redmond
Regula
Riggs
Riley
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shimkus
Shuster
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Weygand
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--150
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baldacci
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Campbell
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Coyne
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gilman
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Harman
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hooley
Horn
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Mink
Morella
Nadler
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Pelosi
Pickett
Price (NC)
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Sisisky
Skaggs
Slaughter
Smith, Adam
Stabenow
Stark
Stokes
Strickland
Tauscher
Thompson
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--13
Bonilla
Borski
Delahunt
Dellums
Gonzalez
Green
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Moran (VA)
Payne
Schiff
Solomon
{time} 1423
The Clerk announced the following pair: On this vote:
Mr. Bonilla for, with Mr. Dellums against.
Mr. SHAYS and Mrs. CLAYTON changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. GILCHREST and Mr. GIBBONS changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
personal explanation
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I was inadvertently delayed for
rollcall vote No. 388, the Hyde amendment. Had I been present, I would
have voted ``yes.''
personal explanation
Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall vote No. 388, the
Hyde amendment of the Labor, Health and Human Services appropriations
bill, I inadvertently and mistakenly
[[Page H7232]]
voted ``aye.'' Please let the Record show that I intended to vote
``no'' on this amendment.
Amendment No. 25 Offered by Mr. Hefley
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The pending business is the
demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Colorado [Mr. Hefley] on which further proceedings were postponed
and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
recorded vote
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
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 155,
noes 265, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 389]
AYES--155
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehner
Bono
Brady
Bryant
Bunning
Burton
Buyer
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehrlich
Emerson
Ensign
Foley
Fowler
Gallegly
Ganske
Gibbons
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kim
Kingston
Klug
Largent
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Pappas
Parker
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Riggs
Riley
Rogan
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sanford
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Traficant
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
White
Wicker
NOES--265
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Bass
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Burr
Callahan
Calvert
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Conyers
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Ehlers
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Forbes
Ford
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Gordon
Granger
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Harman
Hefner
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
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
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas
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
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Ney
Northup
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Packard
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Poshard
Price (NC)
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Redmond
Regula
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (OR)
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Thompson
Thune
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weldon (PA)
Wexler
Weygand
Whitfield
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--13
Bateman
Becerra
Bonilla
Borski
Delahunt
Dellums
Gonzalez
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Payne
Schiff
Solomon
Taylor (NC)
{time} 1431
Mrs. CUBIN and Mr. HILL 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. BATEMAN. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 389, I was detained and
missed the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
Amendment No. 28 Offered by Mr. Crane
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The pending business is the
demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Illinois [Mr. Crane] on which further proceedings were postponed
and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 78,
noes 345, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 390]
AYES--78
Archer
Armey
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Boehner
Bono
Brady
Bryant
Burton
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Chabot
Chambliss
Christensen
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cox
Crane
DeLay
Doolittle
Dreier
Dunn
Ehrlich
Ensign
Graham
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Herger
Hilleary
Hostettler
Hunter
Inglis
Istook
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kingston
Largent
Linder
LoBiondo
Manzullo
McIntosh
Metcalf
Miller (FL)
Myrick
Neumann
Norwood
Paul
Paxon
Petri
Pitts
Pombo
Radanovich
Riley
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sanford
Scarborough
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shuster
Snowbarger
Solomon
Stearns
Stump
Talent
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
NOES--345
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Bonior
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bunning
Burr
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chenoweth
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crapo
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
[[Page H7233]]
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
Hastert
Hefley
Hefner
Hill
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hutchinson
Hyde
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)
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
Livingston
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
Menendez
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pappas
Parker
Pascrell
Pastor
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Redmond
Regula
Reyes
Riggs
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaefer, Dan
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Sununu
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Thomas
Thompson
Thune
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--10
Bonilla
Borski
Delahunt
Dellums
Gonzalez
Hastings (FL)
Meek
Payne
Schiff
Taylor (NC)
{time} 1440
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Hastert
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois
[Mr. Hastert] on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The Clerk designated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 266,
noes 158, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 391]
AYES--266
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bono
Boswell
Boyd
Brady
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clement
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Etheridge
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Gallegly
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kildee
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
LaFalce
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luther
Manzullo
Mascara
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Ortiz
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Pascrell
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Redmond
Regula
Reyes
Riggs
Riley
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sandlin
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wise
Wolf
Young (AK)
NOES--158
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baldacci
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Boucher
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Campbell
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooksey
Coyne
Cummings
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Foley
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Harman
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kolbe
Kucinich
Lampson
Lantos
Leach
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McKinney
Meehan
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Mink
Moakley
Moran (VA)
Morella
Nadler
Neal
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Pelosi
Pickett
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Rivers
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Skaggs
Slaughter
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Stabenow
Stark
Stokes
Tauscher
Thomas
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Velazquez
Vento
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Weygand
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--9
Bonilla
Borski
Dellums
Gonzalez
Hastings (FL)
Meek
Payne
Schiff
Taylor (NC)
{time} 1449
The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:
Mr. Bonilla for, with Mr. Dellums against.
{time} 1449
Mr. REYES and Mr. OBERSTAR changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy with
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter].
[[Page H7234]]
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Illinois is to be commended for his
strong support for the Job Corps program. As the gentleman is well
aware, Job Corps is our Nation's oldest, largest, and most
comprehensive national residential and training program for unemployed,
undereducated, and at-risk youth, and has provided almost 2 million
disadvantaged youth with needed skills to become productive members of
society. In the last program year, 75 percent of all Job Corps students
were placed into employment or higher education when they left the
program.
Mr. Chairman, this legislation provides over $1.2 billion for Job
Corps for fiscal year 1998. Through the leadership of the gentleman
from Illinois, Job Corps received a $93 million increase from this
year's appropriation. In its report, the subcommittee designated $2
million of this funding for the Department of Labor to use, and I
quote, ``For serving more at-risk youth through Job Corps, such as
constructing satellite centers in proximity to existing high-performing
Job Corps centers, particularly in States without Job Corps campuses.''
Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman is aware, my home State of Delaware
does not have a Job Corps center, despite substantial community support
for such a facility and a demonstrated need for the services that it
would provide to Delaware's economically disadvantaged youth. Delaware
is only a short distance from the Philadelphia Job Corps Center, a
center that is considered one of the best in the Nation.
Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman whether it was the subcommittee's
intent, when including this language and these funds in its bill, for
the Department of Labor to expend $2 million in fiscal year 1998 for
the potential purpose of establishing a satellite of the high-
performing Philadelphia Job Corps Center in Delaware.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CASTLE. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct that it was our
intent that the Department of Labor expend $2 million in fiscal year
1998 to pursue expansion of Job Corps programs in States that do not
currently have Job Corps presence, such as Delaware.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would further like to
ask the gentleman whether it is the subcommittee's intent that the
Department of Labor proceed expeditiously, this year, with site
selections, facility rehabilitation, and leasing of suitable sites in
areas that are allowable under guidelines spelled out in the committee
report, and that through this approach fiscal year 1999 funds could be
allocated for operational purposes.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, I
would tell the gentleman from Delaware that it is the subcommittee's
intent that the Department of Labor expend the funding within this bill
this year and move forward with the process of site selections,
facility rehabilitation, and the leasing of suitable sites in areas
that are allowable under the committee's guidelines. Through this
approach, fiscal year 1999 funds could later be allocated for
operational purposes.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman
from Illinois for this clarification and for his support.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 509. Notwithstanding any other provision of law--
(1) no amount may be transferred from an appropriation
account for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human
Services, and Education except as authorized in this or any
subsequent appropriation Act, or in the Act establishing the
program or activity for which funds are contained in this
Act;
(2) no department, agency, or other entity, other than the
one responsible for administering the program or activity for
which an appropriation is made in this Act, may exercise
authority for the timing of the obligation and expenditure of
such appropriation, or for the purpose for which it is
obligated and expended, except to the extent and in the
manner otherwise provided in sections 1512 and 1513 of title
31, United States Code; and
(3) no funds provided under this Act shall be available for
the salary (or any part thereof) of an employee who is
reassigned on a temporary detail basis to another position in
the employing agency or department or in any other agency or
department, unless the detail is independently approved by
the head of the employing department or agency.
Sec. 510. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to enforce the requirements of section
428(b)(1)(U)(iii) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 with
respect to any lender when it is made known to the Federal
official having authority to obligate or expend such funds
that the lender has a loan portfolio under part B of title IV
of such Act that is equal to or less than $5,000,000.
Sec. 511. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act
may be used for--
(1) the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research
purposes; or
(2) research in which a human embryo or embryos are
destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of
injury or death greater than that allowed for research on
fetuses in utero under 45 CFR 46.208(a)(2) and section 498(b)
of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 289g(b)).
(b) For purposes of this section, the term ``human embryo
or embryos'' include any organism, not protected as a human
subject under 45 CFR 46 as of the date of the enactment of
this Act, that is derived by fertilization, parthenogenesis,
cloning, or any other means from one or more human gametes or
human diploid cells.
Sec. 512. (a) Limitation on Use of Funds for Promotion of
Legalization of Controlled Substances.--None of the funds
made available in this Act may be used for any activity when
it is made known to the Federal official having authority to
obligate or expend such funds that the activity promotes the
legalization of any drug or other substance included in
schedule I of the schedules of controlled substances
established by section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act
(21 U.S.C. 812).
(b) Exceptions.--The limitation in subsection (a) shall not
apply when it is made known to the Federal official having
authority to obligate or expend such funds that there is
significant medical evidence of a therapeutic advantage to
the use of such drug or other substance or that Federally-
sponsored clinical trials are being conducted to determine
therapeutic advantage.
Sec. 513. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be obligated or expended to enter into or renew a contract
with an entity when it is made known to the Federal official
having authority to obligate or expend such funds that--
(1) such entity is otherwise a contractor with the United
States and is subject to the requirement in section 4212(d)
of title 38, United States Code, regarding submission of an
annual report to the Secretary of Labor concerning employment
of certain veterans; and
(2) such entity has not submitted a report as required by
that section for the most recent year for which such
requirement was applicable to such entity.
Sec. 514. (a) Fees for Federal Administration of State
Supplementary SSI Payments.--
(1) Optional state supplementary payments.--
(A) In general.--Section 1616(d)(2)(B) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1382e(d)(2)(B)) is amended--
(i) by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (iii); and
(ii) by striking clause (iv) and inserting the following:
``(iv) for fiscal year 1997, $5.00;
``(v) for fiscal year 1998, $6.20;
``(vi) for fiscal year 1999, $7.60;
``(vii) for fiscal year 2000, $7.80;
``(viii) for fiscal year 2001, $8.10;
``(ix) for fiscal year 2002, $8.50; and
``(x) for fiscal year 2003 and each succeeding fiscal
year--
``(I) the applicable rate in the preceding fiscal year,
increased by the percentage, if any, by which the Consumer
Price Index for the month of June of the calendar year of the
increase exceeds the Consumer Price Index for the month of
June of the calendar year preceding the calendar year of the
increase, and rounded to the nearest whole cent; or
``(II) such different rate as the Commissioner determines
is appropriate for the State.''.
(B) Conforming amendment.--Section 1616(d)(2)(C) of such
Act (42 U.S.C. 1382e(d)(2)(C)) is amended by striking
``(B)(iv)'' and inserting ``(B)(x)(II)''.
(2) Mandatory state supplementary payments.--
(A) In general.--Section 212(b)(3)(B)(ii) of Public Law 93-
66 (42 U.S.C. 1382 note) is amended--
(i) by striking ``and'' at the end of subclause (III); and
(ii) by striking subclause (IV) and inserting the
following:
``(IV) for fiscal year 1997, $5.00;
``(V) for fiscal year 1998, $6.20;
``(VI) for fiscal year 1999, $7.60;
``(VII) for fiscal year 2000, $7.80;
``(VIII) for fiscal year 2001, $8.10;
``(IX) for fiscal year 2002, $8.50; and
``(X) for fiscal year 2003 and each succeeding fiscal
year--
``(aa) the applicable rate in the preceding fiscal year,
increased by the percentage, if any, by which the Consumer
Price Index for the month of June of the calendar year of the
increase exceeds the Consumer Price Index for the month of
June of the calendar year preceding the calendar year of the
increase, and rounded to the nearest whole cent; or
[[Page H7235]]
``(bb) such different rate as the Commissioner determines
is appropriate for the State.''.
(B) Conforming amendment.--Section 212(b)(3)(B)(iii) of
such Act (42 U.S.C. 1382 note) is amended by striking
``(ii)(IV)'' and inserting ``(ii)(X)(bb)''.
(b) Use of New Fees To Defray the Social Security
Administration's Administrative Expenses.--
(1) Credit to special fund for fiscal year 1998 and
subsequent years.--
(A) Optional state supplementary payment fees.--Section
1616(d)(4) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1382e(d)(4))
is amended to read as follows:
``(4)(A) The first $5 of each administration fee assessed
pursuant to paragraph (2), upon collection, shall be
deposited in the general fund of the Treasury of the United
States as miscellaneous receipts.
``(B) That portion of each administration fee in excess of
$5, and 100 percent of each additional services fee charged
pursuant to paragraph (3), upon collection for fiscal year
1998 and each subsequent fiscal year, shall be credited to a
special fund established in the Treasury of the United States
for State supplementary payment fees. The amounts so
credited, to the extent and in the amounts provided in
advance in appropriations Acts, shall be available to defray
expenses incurred in carrying out this title and related
laws.''.
(B) Mandatory state supplementary payment fees.--Section
212(b)(3)(D) of Public Law 93-66 (42 U.S.C. 1382 note) is
amended to read as follows:
``(D)(i) The first $5 of each administration fee assessed
pursuant to subparagraph (B), upon collection, shall be
deposited in the general fund of the Treasury of the United
States as miscellaneous receipts.
``(ii) The portion of each administration fee in excess of
$5, and 100 percent of each additional services fee charged
pursuant to subparagraph (C), upon collection for fiscal year
1998 and each subsequent fiscal year, shall be credited to a
special fund established in the Treasury of the United States
for State supplementary payment fees. The amounts so
credited, to the extent and in the amounts provided in
advance in appropriations Acts, shall be available to defray
expenses incurred in carrying out this section and title XVI
of the Social Security Act and related laws.''.
(2) Limitations on authorization of appropriations.--From
amounts credited pursuant to section 1616(d)(4)(B) of the
Social Security Act and section 212(b)(3)(D)(ii) of Public
Law 93-66 to the special fund established in the Treasury of
the United States for State supplementary payment fees, there
is authorized to be appropriated an amount not to exceed
$35,000,000 for fiscal year 1998, and such sums as may be
necessary for each fiscal year thereafter, for administrative
expenses in carrying out the supplemental security income
program under title XVI of the Social Security Act and
related laws.
Sec. 515. Section 520(c)(2)(D) of the Departments of Labor,
Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 1997, is amended by striking
``September 30, 1997'' and inserting in lieu thereof
``December 31, 1997''.
Amendment offered by Mr. Hoyer
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Hoyer:
Page 102, after line 24, insert the following new section:
Sec. 516. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are
revised by reducing the amount made available for
``DEPARTMENT OF LABOR--Employment and Training
Administration--State Unemployment Insurance and Employment
Service Operations'' from the Unemployment Trust Fund (and
the amount specified under such heading for assisting States
to convert their automated State employment security agency
systems to be year 2000 compliant), and increasing the amount
made available for ``DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES--Centers for Disease Control and Prevention--Disease
Control, Research, and Training'' from general Federal funds,
by $7,000,000.
Mr. HOYER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Maryland?
There was no objection.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, this is a critically important amendment
that I offer on behalf of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest],
the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle], myself, and all the Members,
I believe, of the delegations of Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North
Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. This is obviously a
Central to South Atlantic problem.
Mr. Chairman, our amendment seeks to address a growing environmental
and health problem in the Chesapeake Bay watershed and throughout the
Atlantic seaboard. Many of my colleagues may be familiar with the
microscopic organism called Pfiesteria. While this organism has been in
the environment for millions of years, current conditions in the
waterways have triggered the cell to move into at least 24 different
stages, some of which are toxic.
Mr. Chairman, in the past few years, several of these stages have
become lethal to fish and cause adverse effects to humans who come in
contact with it. While North Carolina has previously witnessed a fish
kill on its shores in the billions, in late August Maryland experienced
a prolonged fish kill on the lower Pocomoke River in the district of
the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest].
Mr. Chairman, just yesterday I spoke with Maryland Governor
Glendening, who informed me of yet another fish kill, which my
colleagues read about today in the Washington Post.
{time} 1500
This elusive microscopic organism has been blamed for killing over
30,000 fish in the Pocomoke River alone this summer, as well as causing
adverse health effects, and this is a critical point, to humans,
including skin lesions, respiratory problems, memory loss, and immune
system depression.
All of the States from Delaware to Florida are concerned by this
organism and its effects on human health, tourism, and the economy. In
Maryland, it has already begun to take a tremendous toll on the seafood
industry.
Our amendment, Mr. Chairman, will appropriate $7 million to the
Centers for Disease Control to address the emerging issue of human
health effects from exposure to Pfiesteria. Specifically they will
develop and implement a multistate disease surveillance system that
will identify and monitor health effects in people who have been
exposed to waters likely to contain this organism.
The CDC, Mr. Chairman, is well-equipped to work with State health
departments and university laboratories, and these funds will be used
to develop a multistate response which will focus on waters in
Maryland, Delaware, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia,
and Florida.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Maryland would
explain to me, how do they know a fish has memory loss?
Mr. HOYER. The answer to that question is, Mr. Callahan, I would not
know because I forgot. I knew the answer once but I forgot it.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I can give a response to that. The
question is not whether fish have memory loss. The question is that it
has been confirmed that humans that come in contact with this micro-
organism not only have memory loss but have other severe neurological
problems that can lay dormant and reoccur 6 years later.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I will tell the
gentleman, I think the gentleman from Alabama knew that. I think he was
just giving us a little fish story.
But that aside, this is obviously a very serious problem. This
funding will not be the entire solution to the problem. The CDC,
however, will play a major role in this effort, specifically in the
public health arena.
Of course, as my friend, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest],
has just pointed out, the impact now is not just on fish, although
billions, I repeat, billions with a ``B,'' of fish have been killed in
North Carolina and now hundreds of thousands in Maryland. This funding
will be critical in determining the impact that has on human health, as
the gentleman from Maryland so correctly pointed out.
Mr. Chairman, Pfiesteria is responsible for killing more than a
billion fish. People and Newsweek magazine have called it the cell from
hell. This is a critical moment in the fight against Pfiesteria. I urge
my colleagues to support this amendment.
I also want to say to the chairman of our committee, the gentleman
from Illinois [Mr. Porter], I thank him and I thank the staff for
working very closely with us as this became a crisis situation and
evidently we had to move quickly.
[[Page H7236]]
I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking member,
and his staff for working with us.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today with my colleagues from States throughout
the mid-Atlantic region and Southeast, to offer a bipartisan amendment
to H.R. 2264, the Labor, Health, and Education Appropriations Act. Our
amendment seeks to address a growing environmental and health problem
in the Chesapeake Bay watershed and throughout the Atlantic seaboard.
Many of my colleagues may be familiar with a microscopic organism
called Pfiesteria. While this organism has been in the environment for
millions of years, current conditions in the waterways, especially high
nutrients, have triggered the cell to morph into at least 24 different
stages, some of which are toxic. In the past few years, several of
these stages have become lethal to fish and caused adverse health
effects to humans who come into contact with it.
While North Carolina has previously witnessed a fish kill on its
shores in the billions, in late August Maryland experienced a prolonged
fish kill on the lower Pocomoke River. And just yesterday, I spoke with
Maryland Gov. Parris Glendening who informed me of yet another fish
kill in a completely separate watershed on the lower-Eastern Shore.
This elusive microscopic organism has been blamed for killing over
30,000 fish in the river this summer, as well as causing adverse health
effects to humans including skin lesions, respiratory problems, memory
loss, and immune system depression.
Mr. Chairman, this is not a problem affecting only Maryland. In the
Delaware inland bays there have been reports of numerous fish kills.
And in addition to North Carolina, all of the States from Delaware
south to Florida are concerned about Pfiesteria and its effects on
human health, tourism, and the economy. In Maryland, it has already
begun to take a tremendous toll on the seafood industry.
Our amendment will appropriate $7 million to the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention to address the emerging issue of human health
effects from exposure to Pfiesteria. The Disease Control, Research, and
Training Operation of the CDC is in a unique position to lead the
public health response to this threat and has the crucial epidemiologic
and laboratory resources that are necessary to address this issue in a
timely manner. Specifically, they will develop and implement a multi-
State disease surveillance system that will identify and monitor health
effects in people who have been exposed to waters likely to contain
this organism. Moreover, they will initiate case-control studies when
new incidents of exposure are identified. The CDC is well equipped to
work with State health departments and university laboratories and
these funds will be used to develop a multi-State response plan which
will focus on waters in Maryland, Delaware, Virginia, North Carolina,
South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida.
Mr. Chairman, this funding will not be the entire solution to this
problem. The CDC will play a major role in this effort, specifically in
the public health arena. However, I will continue to work with my
colleagues in the seven identified States to develop a comprehensive
plan to address this problem, which will involve several Federal and
State agencies.
Mr. Chairman, Pfiesteria is responsible for killing more than a
billion fish. People and Newsweek magazines have called it the cell
from hell. This is a critical moment in the fight against Pfiesteria
and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. We must address
this problem now before it continues to spread across the rest of the
Atlantic seaboard.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to encourage my colleagues to vote for this
funding for the Centers for Disease Control for this rather
extraordinary situation, not only on the East Coast of the United
States but this is found under certain conditions in coastal waters
which meet a certain criteria worldwide.
We are concerned with this not only in the coastal waters of the
United States, but the Centers for Disease Control is looking into this
particular issue along with other scientists worldwide.
As my colleague from Maryland has stated, over a billion fish, that
is with a B, that is hard to imagine, but in the last 6 years over a
billion fish on the East Coast, most of them in the tidal estuaries of
North Carolina, have died as a result of this microorganism that comes
to life, has 24 different life cycles, several of them toxic. To give
Members some sense of this microorganism, it is a cross between a
vegetable and an animal, depending on the life cycle.
Now, in human beings, first of all, I want to make sure that Members
understand, we are not creating hysteria here, even though that sounds
like Pfiesteria, this is not a situation where Members can become
afraid of waters on the coastal areas of the United States. There are
certain conditions which they need to stay away from, but for the most
part, the Chesapeake Bay, the areas around North Carolina, from
Delaware to Florida, are fine.
But we have seen a phenomenon here that scientists have told us they
were not able to anticipate. As a result of that, this needs to be
studied, not only for fish health but for the health of human beings
who become exposed to these areas at a critical time.
What I would like to read just briefly to my colleagues are some of
the human health conditions that can result as a result of exposure to
these microorganisms called Pfiesteria.
You can have a drugged feeling effect. You can have uniform reddening
of the eyes. You can have blotches and lesions on the skin. You can
have severe headaches, blurred vision, nausea and vomiting, kidney and
liver dysfunction, acute memory loss. When I say acute memory loss, you
cannot add numbers between one plus two equals three.
There are certain conditions in North Carolina and around the world
where these physical effects have gone away and then mysteriously
returned years later. So we are dealing with a specific issue that we
basically have the science to fix, and we want to make sure that we dot
every I and cross every T.
The Centers for Disease Control needs $12 million. We are going to
appropriate $7 million here, move forward with the research, find the
solution to this problem and fix it. We have, as human beings,
interrupted by our human activity, the mechanics of natural processes
in the marine ecosystem. What that means is we need the best minds
available to figure out how we can resolve this issue.
My colleagues, I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Porter] for his help on this issue, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Obey], the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle], and especially my good
friend, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] for having this
amendment.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last number of words.
We have heard two excellent presentations by my colleagues from the
great State of Maryland with respect to the problems of Pfiesteria.
Indeed, that is what we are reading about in the national news in the
Pocomoke River, perhaps another river in the Maryland area. But
Delaware is close by Maryland. As a matter of fact. We have a Delmar
and a Marydel, DE. One never knows exactly what State they are in
sometimes.
I guarantee the fish do not know what State they are in. We have had
an outbreak of Pfiesteria in Delaware, sort of identified after the
fact in 1987, when I was Governor of the State. We have had some
concerns this year in Delaware. And several things have to be done.
It has been laid out, I think, by the two gentlemen who have spoken
before. I will not take the time of this House to reestablish
everything that will be done in this bill. But we do need, as has been
indicated, a multistate surveillance system. We do need case control
studies and we do need a biological test of human exposure.
Here is the basic problem. So far we have been dealing with this
issue as States, been dealing with it through our departments of
natural resources. That is true in all the States from Delaware down to
Florida. There is an expert at North Carolina State University who has
helped us a great deal. The bottom line is, there has not been a
united, concerted effort to make a difference in fighting the problems
of Pfiesteria. We have not necessarily identified what its effects are
on human health. We have already heard this is a single cell organism
that can manifest itself in a variety of ways, maybe up to 24, some of
which are toxic. All of that is not absolute at this point. We do not
know what causes this to go from a dormant form to one which is very
virulent and which can attack fish and perhaps, in that way, human
beings as well.
Is it the temperature of the water? Is it nutrients in the water from
all manner of sources which might exist, from runoffs or point or
nonpoint problems? We just simply do not know that. We
[[Page H7237]]
need to get the answers to that as well. We do not know what prevention
mechanisms should be put into place in our various States and, quite
frankly, the place to do this is right here at the Federal Government
level where we can coordinate the efforts of all the States.
I should point out, it is probably not just a localized problem. It
probably could exist in other parts of the country as well. In
addition, the research that could be done at the CDC might also help
with other waterborne-related diseases or problems dealing with our
fish and then our human beings in this country.
So for that reason, I would hope that we could universally, all of us
in this House of Representatives, come to the support of this very,
very important piece of legislation.
I am delighted to work with the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer]);
I am delighted to work with the gentleman from Maryland [Mr.
Gilchrest], two true experts on the environment. I think it makes a
great difference to those people who reside in our States but I think
to all people in America.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words, and I accept the Hoyer-Gilchrest-Castle amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The question is on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 37 Offered by Mrs. Emerson
Mrs. EMERSON. 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. 37 offered by Mrs. Emerson:
Page 102, after line 24, insert the following new section:
Sec. 516. No funds made available under this Act may be
used to implement any voluntary residency reduction plan
under section 1886(h)(6) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1395ww(h)(6)), as added by section 4626(a) of the
Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-33), unless the
Secretary of Health and Human Services certifies to the
Congress that the implementation of the plan will not result
in a reduction of the number of residents in primary care who
will be available to practice in underserved rural areas.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentlewoman's amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman reserves a point of order.
Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I applaud the work of the gentleman from
California [Mr. Thomas] and the Subcommittee on Health to save Medicare
from bankruptcy.
This was not an easy task and they are to be commended for developing
a sound bipartisan bill for America's senior citizens. There were
provisions in the bill I disagreed with, but they were not sufficient
to cause me to vote against the plan to save Medicare. However, had the
resident reduction program been a stand-alone bill, I would have
opposed the plan.
Quite frankly, I do not believe it is good policy to subsidize
teaching institutions for not teaching doctors. Earlier this year, I
formed a health care advisory team in my district and the most glaring
problem we defined in rural southern Missouri is a shortage of primary
care physicians. I can understand that there are some regions in this
country where there may be a physician glut. However, in rural Missouri
ours is not the problem of too many primary care physicians but too
few.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment I have proposed today would simply seek a
guarantee that the voluntary residency reduction plan will not lead to
fewer primary care physicians who are available to practice in rural
areas.
Mr. Chairman, it makes no sense to pay not to produce doctors. While
I understand the merits of the point of order against my amendment, I
would like to make it clear for the record that the intent of my
amendment is to prevent the Government from paying to produce fewer
doctors.
As the outreach coordinator for the Rural Health Care Coalition, I do
know of the longstanding commitment of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Porter] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] to ensure that
rural Americans are provided the best health care opportunities
available.
We in the coalition are grateful for their continued support, and I
look forward to working with them in the future to rectify the
misguided practice of paying hospitals not to train doctors who are
needed in rural America.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm].
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment
because it would ensure that underserved areas, rural areas, such as
the 17th District of Texas, will not be left with any fewer primary
care physicians as a result of the new voluntary incentive program
included in the balanced budget agreement, which would pay teaching
hospitals to train fewer doctors.
The balanced budget agreement included a number of provisions which
should help rural Americans obtain access to health care. I am grateful
for these statutory changes and for the leadership shown by the
gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] in ensuring the inclusion of
these provisions.
I am concerned, however, that this medical education provision would
set us back.
Our amendment, the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
Missouri, would require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to
certify to Congress that any voluntary incentive program would not
adversely affect underserved rural areas before any funds could be
released. It would ensure that any reduction in residents would not
result in fewer primary care physicians available to practice in rural
underserved areas.
I strongly urge this body to address this issue and correct this
provision.
{time} 1515
Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Kansas [Mr.
Moran].
Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's
yielding me this time.
This Medicare provision is a typical Government one-size-fits-all
solution to a problem that we do not have in rural America. In Kansas,
we have too few physicians, not too many. Rural communities have access
to one-half the physicians of those who live in urban areas, and in
fact, as our Nation as a whole has. Of the 66 counties in the First
Congressional District of Kansas, two-thirds of those have been
designated as medically underserved.
I work hard almost every week to try to assist communities and
hospitals in obtaining foreign-trained physicians in order to try to
satisfy these needs. Thirty-five foreign-trained physicians have been
admitted and are practicing in the First District in Kansas under this
J-1 visa program. We have another dozen applicants pending to fill a
very desperate need.
What we should be doing instead of utilizing money not to train
physicians, we should be paying hospitals and physicians to train
physicians who will then fulfill these needs in rural and other
underserved areas of the country. We should support physicians who are
willing to serve in those communities, and we also should assist in
keeping them there once they have been trained and are willing to serve
the needs of rural and other underserved areas of the country.
Mr. Chairman, in rural Kansas, this is not a quality-of-life issue,
this is a survival issue.
Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I include for the
Record a letter of support for this amendment from the National Rural
Health Association.
National Rural Health Association,
Washington, DC, September 8, 1997.
Hon. Jo Ann Emerson,
House of Representatives, Cannon House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congresswoman Emerson: I write to convey the National
Rural Health Association's (NRHA) strong support for your
proposed amendment to H.R. 2264, the Fiscal Year 1998 Labor-
HHS-Education Appropriations bill. The amendment, which calls
for the Secretary of HHS to certify to Congress that any plan
the Department accepts from teaching institutions to
voluntarily reduce the number of residents in its program
will not lead to a reduction in the amount of primary care
physicians who will be available to practice in underserved
rural areas, is a vital step in ensuring rural Americans have
access to primary care services.
Residency training programs have historically never been
correlated with our country's work force needs, but instead,
have grown up to meet the service needs of urban and
suburban-based teaching hospitals. This
[[Page H7238]]
has led to a grossly disproportionate distribution of
physicians and training of specialists. Before any type of
residency reduction program is implemented nationally, the
continuing shortage of primary care physicians in rural and
frontier area must be addressed.
Thank you for introducing this amendment and for your
leadership on this issue important to the future of health
care delivery in rural America. If there is anything the NRHA
or I can do to secure passage of this important amendment,
please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Darin E. Johnson,
Government Affairs Director.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Is there objection to the
request of the gentlewoman from Missouri?
There was no objection.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Romero-Barcelo
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Romero-Barcelo:
Page 102, after line 24, insert the following new section:
Sec. 516. (a) Allotments to Territories under the State
Children's Health Insurance Program.--Section 2104 of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397dd), as inserted by
section 4901(a) of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Public
Law 105-33), is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)--
(A) by amending the matter before paragraph (1) to read as
follows:
``(b) Amount of Allotments.--'',
(B) in paragraph (1), by striking ``, reduced by the amount
of allotments made under subsection (c) for the fiscal
year,'',
(C) in paragraph (1), by striking ``(other than a State
described in such subsection)'', and
(D) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(5) Data for territories.--If the data required under
paragraph (2)(B) and (3)(B) are not available with respect to
a State that is a territory, the Secretary determines to be
appropriate.'';
(2) by striking subsection (c); and
(3) by redesignating subsections (d) through (f) as
subsections (c) through (e), respectively.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--(1) Section 2104 of such Act
(42 U.S.C. 1397dd) is further amended--
(A) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ``subsection (d)''
and inserting ``subsection (c)'',
(B) in subsection (b)(4), by striking ``Subject to
paragraph (5), in'' and inserting ``In'',
(C) in subsection (c)(1), as so redesignated, by striking
``or (c)'',
(D) in subsection (d), as so redesignated, by striking
``subsection (f)'' and inserting ``subsection (e)'', and
(E) in subsection (e), as so redesignated, by striking
``subsection (e)'' and inserting ``subsection (d)''.
(2) Section 2105(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1397cc(a)) is
amended by striking ``2104(d)'' and inserting ``2104(c)''.
(3) Section 1905(u) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d(u)), as
added by section 4911(a)(2) of the Balanced Budget Act of
1997, is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ``2104(d)'' and
inserting ``2104(c)'', and
(B) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking ``2104(d)(2)'' and
inserting ``2104(c)(2)''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to allotments for fiscal years beginning with
fiscal year 1998.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed
in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Puerto Rico?
There was no objection.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentleman's amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Puerto Rico [Mr. Romero-
Barcelo].
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chairman, this amendment corrects the
Children's Health Care Insurance Program, a part of the budget
reconciliation agreement.
The President, upon signing this into law stated that this is a
victory for every child in a poor household who needs health care.
Unfortunately, there was no victory celebration by the children in
Puerto Rico and the other territories. The State Children's Health
Insurance Program extends to the children living in Puerto Rico an
egregious U.S. national policy which views the lives and the health of
U.S. citizens in the territories as far less valuable than the lives
and health of those residing in the States.
Puerto Rico's participation in the Children's Health Insurance
Program is less than one-seventh of what it would receive under the
standards established for the States. There is one and only one reason
for this treatment: The U.S. citizens residing in the territories have
no voting representation in Washington and, therefore, have no viable
means of defending themselves against such unjust treatment.
The budget reconciliation agreement provides Puerto Rico with
participation in the children's health care program of approximately
0.23 percent in the program, 0.03 percent for Guam, the U.S. Virgin
Islands, Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands. On average, this is
less than $11 million per year for a jurisdiction of nearly 3.8 million
citizens. If the program's funds were distributed nationally on a pro
rata basis, Puerto Rico's participation would average nearly $60
million per year over the next 5 years; and if Puerto Rico participated
under the same standards established for the States under the
reconciliation agreement, its average annual participation might be
even higher.
While we applaud all the efforts to protect others in the Nation, how
can anyone justify the failure of Congress and the White House to
similarly protect the children of U.S. citizens in the territories? It
certainly would not have been a relative expense to the Federal budget.
The cost of providing just treatment to the children living in the
territories under the children's health care initiative is negligible
in comparison to the total appropriation for the children's health
care.
The sole reason for the disparate treatment of children living in the
territories is that all the other children in America have voting
Members of Congress to represent them. The children in the territories
have no such participation in the democratic process of our Nation, and
where the whole process is being discussed, sometimes it is the
staffers inside that make the decisions, and at the last minute the
Congressmen and the Senators who are involved really in making the
decisions do not know what they are doing and they end up by
discriminating against a group of citizens. Who would dare take the
blame and proudly say that they are responsible for discriminating in
health care against children?
U.S. citizens; we are not talking about illegal residents, we are
talking about U.S. citizens. We are talking about children. And this
policy discriminates against the children in the territories.
For years we have complained about the poor treatment of the U.S.
citizens in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands and Guam and Samoa
that we receive under the Federal health care programs. We strongly
urge all of our colleagues to vote the full resources in the Congress
and the White House to correct this unfair discrimination toward the
children in the islands. To do otherwise will leave a permanent stain
on the creation of the children's health initiative which, as a program
for the protection of our Nation's children, should represent the
highest and most pure ideals of our society.
This Nation, which is an example of democracy throughout the world,
we defend other people's rights, other people's participation in the
democratic process, yet how can we as a nation espouse a policy which
discriminates against U.S. citizens, particularly against children in
their health care.
I hope that before the year ends, before we go into recess, this
issue of discrimination can be addressed.
Mr. Chairman, I know that there is a point of order that has been
raised, so I reluctantly ask unanimous consent to withdraw this
amendment, but I plead with my colleagues and the Members of this House
to make sure that before we go home this year that this discrimination
is addressed and resolved.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Puerto Rico?
There was no objection.
Amendment No. 62 Offered by Mr. Fattah.
Mr. FATTAH. 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. 62 offered by Mr. Fattah:
At the end of the bill, insert after the last section
(preceding the short title) the following new section:
[[Page H7239]]
Sec. 516. None of the funds made available under this Act
may be used by the Department of Education for a State or
local educational agency in a State in which the coefficient
of variation of per pupil expenditures in local educational
agencies statewide for elementary and secondary education in
such State is more than 10 percent.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentleman's amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The point of order is reserved.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fattah].
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I want first to congratulate the chairman,
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], and the ranking member, the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], on the fine work they have done on
this very important piece of legislation.
The amendment that I bring to the floor today is one in which we
would require States to equalize their investment in public education
within their State boundaries. We have seen sweeping the country now
legislation and court orders in States really addressing this issue.
In my home State of Pennsylvania, we have school districts in our
rural communities where we are spending $3,500 a year per student, and
we have other school districts where we are spending $16,000 a year per
student. In Ohio, the Ohio Supreme Court has just ruled on the
financing system in that State in which they spend $4,000 in the lower
spending districts and $12,000 in the higher spending districts. We
have seen all across the land, from Kentucky to Wyoming to New Jersey,
this issue being raised.
I wanted to raise it on the floor today because I think it is
essential relative to our push for educational excellence in this
country.
Now, we know that money is not everything, but I think it is safe to
assert that money matters. And if we are going to spend twice and three
and four times the amount on one child's education in one school
district that we spend on another, and we are going to, as a Federal
Government, put our stamp of approval on these State financing systems,
then I think it is extraordinarily unfair for us to come up with
standardized tests and act as if each of these children has been given
an equal opportunity and an adequate investment in terms of pursuing
their educational potential.
A point of order has been raised against this amendment, and I will
withdraw it, but I do think that it is something that the Congress has
sought to address in the past. In the Improving American School Act out
of the 103d Congress, there was an effort to create an approach to
support States who wanted to create a more equitable financing system.
I think that we should search for ways in which we could try to create
a more fairer playing field for all of these school districts that are
within these various State boundaries.
The State court system does seem to be addressing this matter, but I
would let my colleagues know that in all of these court cases it seems
to take 10 or 15 years before these cases can move their way through
the courts to some resolution. And in almost all cases, the courts have
found these State financing systems unconstitutional.
I would hope that we here in the Congress could find some way, and I
seek to do that through this amendment, to help encourage States to
create a more level playing field for all children and families in
their States in terms of public education.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to commend the gentleman from
Pennsylvania for raising this issue, and I think it is a fundamental
issue which States are ducking.
Children are mobile. A child educated in one school district will
move into another school district and the taxpayers in the district to
which he moves will experience the consequences of an underfunded
education for that individual.
I would simply say that in my own State, despite the fact that it is
better than most in this regard, I think my own State has a disgraceful
difference in purchasing power for these school districts. I have a
small school district, the Maple School District in my own
congressional district, and they spend about $5,000 per student; Maple
Dale, which is a very wealthy school district in the same State, spends
$10,045 per student.
I do not know how any rational person can expect that we can really
produce equal opportunity in this country with that kind of a huge
disparity.
I, for instance, strongly favor educational testing, but I think that
those who favor educational testing have an obligation to recognize
that if they are going to test children, then they also have an
obligation to take a position at the State and national level that will
push States into doing something to correct this problem.
I commend the gentleman for raising it. I wish there were some way we
could adopt, if not this identical proposal, at least something
similar, because we do not have equal educational opportunity in this
country as long as States continue to have some of these outrageous
variations in support levels for providing children with basic
education for the 21st century.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments, and
I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment in respect of the
point of order of the gentleman from Illinois.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The amendment is withdrawn.
Amendment No. 64 Offered by Mr. Hostettler
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 64 offered by Mr. Hostettler:
At the end of title V (relating to general provisions),
insert the following new sections:
Sec. . (a) None of the funds made available in this Act
may be used to administer or enforce the restriction on the
discretion of the National Labor Relations Board set forth in
the proviso in section 14(c)(1) of the National Labor
Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 164(c)(1)).
(b) The limitation established in subsection (a) shall not
apply to any labor dispute involving an employer whose
business activity in interstate commerce is greater than--
(1) the financial threshold amount in effect for the class
or category of the employer under the rules and standards of
the National Labor Relations Board pursuant to section 14(c)
of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 164(c)); as
adjusted by
(2) the percentage increase (since the threshold amount was
established or last adjusted) in the Consumer Price Index for
All Urban Consumers published by the Secretary of Labor,
acting through the Bureau of Labor Statistics, pursuant to
section 4 of the Act of March 4, 1913 (29 U.S.C. 2) and
section 100(c)(1) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29
U.S.C. 720(c)(1)).
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is simple,
straightforward, and necessary for the NLRB, the National Labor
Relations Board, to do its job.
The National Labor Relations Board currently has jurisdiction over
many labor disputes that involve enterprises that impact interstate
commerce. The board has traditionally addressed cases that
substantially affect interstate commerce. In 1959, Congress endorsed
this notion and enacted legislation known as the Labor-Management
Reporting and Disclosure Act.
Congress essentially gave discretion to the NLRB to decline cases
where its jurisdiction was not warranted.
{time} 1530
However, this law did provide thresholds whereby the Board could not
decline to assert its jurisdiction. These standards were based on raw
dollar amounts and are based, for the most part, on the gross annual
receipts of a business entity. Quite simply, the level at which the
NLRB's jurisdiction over businesses kicks in is based on a business'
economic activity and the thresholds vary depending upon the nature of
the business.
The reason for my amendment is that most of these thresholds have not
been modified since the law was enacted in 1959. Clearly, the
legislative method for determining jurisdiction is outdated and
therefore overly burdensome to many small businesses that should never
have been affected. My amendment merely indexes these thresholds for
inflation.
[[Page H7240]]
Let us take an example. In 1959, the gross annual receipts threshold
established for nonretail businesses was $50,000. As an aside, this
$50,000 means interstate business that substantially affected
interstate commerce. While the Board today exercises jurisdiction over
businesses that meet the $50,000 threshold, had indexation for
inflation occurred, the threshold for nonretail businesses would be at
least $261,859. To put it another way, a $50,000 threshold level today
would have been approximately $9,550 in 1959. These thresholds for
determining jurisdiction have never taken into account inflation.
Furthermore, the jurisdiction levels fail to account for size of
businesses.
According to John Runyan at the Labor Policy Association, in 1994, 20
percent of the NLRB's efforts were spent on bargaining units of 9
people or less and these efforts reached less than 2 percent of the
total number of employees involved in representation elections.
Clearly, this is unacceptable and my amendment is a simple and
straightforward way to address these inequities and allow the NLRB to
focus on the truly egregious cases. Leaders at the NLRB repeatedly
state that the caseloads are too heavy and this amendment gives the
NLRB greater discretion in taking on new cases.
But speaking of egregious cases, I do want to mention a few instances
where the NLRB has been very aggressive and these low and unfair
thresholds have contributed to the zeal of the Board in handling these
cases.
For example, the NLRB exercised a case against an Episcopal church in
New York City with a congregation of 600 and a primary school with
enrollment of 365 children. Its gross annual revenues were
approximately $1 million and its direct inflow was just over $50,000.
The NLRB exercised jurisdiction based on the current thresholds
established in 1959. I find it difficult to believe any of the business
conducted by the church substantially impacted interstate commerce.
In another instance, the NLRB handled a case involving a day care
center in Massachusetts that employed nine teachers, a janitor, a cook
and a social worker because it had gross receipts over $250,000. I
would contend, as was contended in the dissenting opinion, that this
day care service simply provides a local service and has minimal
correlation to interstate industry.
Furthermore, I must mention the case where a small business purchased
a machine valued at $50,000 from out of State and the Board exercised
jurisdiction over the business because of this one purchase alone.
Increasing the threshold would help avoid such frivolous cases and
enable the NLRB to pursue cases where real abuses and inequities are
occurring.
I would like to make another point. Even though these mandatory
thresholds are increased, the NLRB can still exercise its jurisdiction
over any case it deems appropriate. The thresholds only provide levels
at which the NLRB's discretion ends and they are mandated to exercise
their jurisdiction. In other words, the NLRB can choose to pursue a
case at any level, above or below this jurisdiction level that is set
out in this amendment. Furthermore, if there is a case that falls below
the threshold level and the NLRB has declined the case, that case can
be pursued in the State courts.
Clearly there is plenty of protection for employees at every level.
However, a little relief for both the NLRB and small businesses means a
more productive and effective NLRB. I would simply like to conclude by
reminding everyone that a similar provision as this was included in
last year's House passed a version of the Labor/HHS/Ed appropriations
bill. I ask for consideration and acceptance of this amendment.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I support the substance of this amendment. I think a
change in the law would make great sense since it has not been adjusted
for 40 years, I believe, maybe longer. But I frankly do not understand
why the amendment would not be subject to a point of order when in the
first place it is in a sense legislation on an appropriation bill but,
more important, if this were adopted, it would only be law for 1 year.
The gentleman from Indiana can correct me if I am wrong.
It seems to me that this is a clear example of why appropriators
ought to stand back and allow the authorizing committee to take this
matter up, to address it and to bring out a bill to make the correction
where it is needed.
It is true, this language was put into our bill at the request of one
of our Members, either last year or the year before. The provision
really does not belong here. It belongs in the hands of the chairman of
the authorizing committee. They have had ample time to undertake
legislation in this area. All it does in our bill, very frankly, and
again I sympathize with the substance of what the gentleman from
Indiana is trying to do, is to make our bill that much more difficult
to pass. We have worked very hard, as I have said earlier, to achieve a
bipartisan consensus. We had a debate earlier on the level of funding
for the NLRB which was quite contentious and the Members chose to stick
with the level that the subcommittee had recommended to them. While
this could be good legislation if the authorizing committee had taken
it up and brought it out on the floor. Had they done that I would
support it and vote for it. However, I must oppose it as an amendment
to this bill which will simply upset the bipartisan nature of what we
have worked to achieve. It will have little real effect since it could
only remain in effect in my understanding, for 1 year as part of the
appropriations process. I oppose the amendment.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PORTER. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. I appreciate the gentleman's point and it is a very
good point. The issue here is that as I do not sit on the authorizing
committee and I know that similar legislation is not forthcoming at
this point, the appropriation bill allows the only instrument at this
time to allow such a change and the Parliamentarian of the House said
that it would be made in order. It would be very good, I think, if it
could be part of an authorizing bill, but given that this is the only
possible vehicle this year to change it for 1 year, that is why I
offered the amendment. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. PORTER. If the gentleman would allow me to reclaim my time, again
I am not critical of the parliamentarians. They have obviously looked
over the precedents of the House, but I would say this clearly modifies
existing duties and powers of the agency. It imposes additional duties
on them. It can only last for 1 year, and it seems to me under that
circumstance it simply should not be permitted to be offered on this
bill.
Again, I agree with the gentleman in substance, but I just think it
is inappropriate to have it considered as part of our bill and I would
oppose it.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment again is just another one in a long line
of amendments over the past 3 years which has tried to savage the
ability of the National Labor Relations Board to defend the interests
of working people. Two years ago, the majority tried to cut the
National Labor Relations Board by 30 percent. They passed this
amendment in the House. That was one of the issues that led to the
Government shutdown. Last year they tried to cut it by 15 percent.
Yesterday they tried to cut it by 10 percent. Now they are trying to,
by another means, eliminate the ability of the National Labor Relations
Board to protect the legal rights of workers and corporations.
I would point out, first of all, that if this amendment passes, it
will create a large amount of confusion because there will be many
State laws which will cover more people than the Federal laws, and
employers and employees alike will have to relearn all of those new
relationships.
I would point out that the NLRB is charged with the responsibility to
see to it that collective bargaining takes place in a fair manner, they
are charged with the responsibility to prevent discrimination against
workers based on their support or opposition to a union. They are
charged with the responsibility to see to it that workers who are fired
for trying to organize a union can get back to work with back pay,
because firing those workers is an illegal act, which nonetheless
occurs frequently in this country.
[[Page H7241]]
They are also charged with the responsibility of enforcing the rules
against union violence and coercion on the picket lines, and they are
charged with the responsibility to settle worker jurisdiction disputes
between two competing unions. I have seen that problem often in my own
district where an employer gets whipsawed between two competing unions.
I would point out, also, that it is not the responsibility of the
Committee on Appropriations to make the determination about what level
ought to be in the law with respect to the jurisdiction of the NLRB. We
are a budget committee. We are supposed to decide what each program
merits and what we can afford to spend. It is the responsibility of the
authorizing committee to bring to the floor any recommendations to
change these thresholds. Virtually every fight that we have had on
Labor Department issues comes on an appropriation bill because, in my
judgment, the Committee on Education and the Workforce for a good many
years has not done the work it is supposed to do in a lot of these
areas, and I for one have had a belly full of members on the
authorizing committee bringing their disputes to this floor when they
cannot work them out in their own committee. That has been the case
under Democratic Congresses, it is the case now under a Republican
Congress, and I am much bemused by the fact that you will often have
authorizing committee members cry all over this floor about actions
that the Committee on Appropriations takes to impinge upon their
jurisdiction and yet 10 minutes later will be asking us to put a
provision in an appropriation bill which takes care of an authorizing
problem that they just cannot seem to get to.
And so it seems to me if you have got an argument, settle it where it
ought to be settled, in the committee that under the rules of the House
is given the responsibility and given the staff and has developed the
expertise to deal with these issues. Do not bring them to this floor
under general limitation amendments.
Let me point out, for instance, that you are talking about raising
the threshold to cover multimillion dollar businesses. In some
industries, that may be justifiable, in some it may not. But with all
due respect, our subcommittee does not have the expertise to make these
judgments.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). 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. This floor, with all due respect, does not have the
information to make those judgments. Committees are supposed to serve
the House by doing their own work in their own jurisdiction by
developing specific areas of expertise and then bringing that expertise
to the floor. If you have got the expertise, demonstrate it by getting
your own committee to buy your idea. Do not plague appropriation bills
with this mini-filibuster because you cannot get your problem solved in
another committee.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
{time} 1545
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention to squelch the
gentleman's bemusement, but I do not serve on the education authorizing
committee.
Mr. OBEY. That is not my fault. Get your leadership to put you there.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. No, I want to serve on the National Security and
Agriculture Committees.
Mr. OBEY. Then it is your fault, because you are not on the committee
that is supposed to deal with this problem. If you have got a problem
on this, take it to the right committee. Do not take it here.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. If the gentleman will yield, the Parliamentarian said
that this is the proper forum in which to offer this.
Mr. OBEY. The Parliamentarian did not. The Parliamentarian said that
it was germane. That does not mean it is smart to offer it to this
bill. It ought to be offered to the committee that is supposed to
handle this.
I have had my staff check it out. We have over 500 authorization laws
that some Member of this Congress is demanding to be changed, and you
are all coming to the floor asking the Appropriations Committee to
solve your problem.
Do your own work. If you are so interested in this issue, change
committees and get it done where it is supposed to get done.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on
this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 30 minutes, and the
time be equally divided between the gentleman from Indiana [Mr.
Hostettler] and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Illinois?
There was no objection.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn].
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I find the just previous comments rather
strange. We have just supported title X, which is totally unauthorized,
on the floor of this House, without any objection from Mr. Obey
whatsoever that the authorizing committee did not do his work.
There was no problem with him supporting that language. And to use an
argument against a Member of this body, who has the right and privilege
to offer any amendment under this bill, under the rules of this bill,
is wrong, and it should not be allowed.
The other thing that Mr. Obey brings up is that if you do this,
business is going to have to learn something new. Well, I would put
forward to Mr. Obey that HCFA changes the rules on Medicare every year,
and every hospital in this country, every doctor's office, every health
care agency that does anything, has to totally relearn the rules that
HCFA puts out. It is a lame excuse that should not be used.
The fact is, there has not been a growth to allow for inflation in
the coverage of the NLRB. The NLRB does some very important things. But
to waste their time in areas which is not well used and not wisely
spent, I think is inappropriate.
I will say again, and I will look forward to next year, Mr. Obey,
when we bring these amendments to the floor, that you will support what
you just said about nonauthorized programs should not be debated,
should not be left up to the expertise of your subcommittee, where you
voted for those unauthorized programs, but yet come to the floor and
admit you do not have the expertise to do it.
It is on both sides of the issue. * * *
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand the gentleman's words be taken down.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn)
will take a seat. The Clerk will report the words.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, Members are not under the rules supposed to
engage in personal attacks on other Members. The gentleman did that. I
demand the words be taken down.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend while the Clerk
reports the words.
{time} 1550
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I wish to withdraw my words as to speaking
out of both sides of one's mouth, and offer apology to the gentleman
from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] for that statement.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the words are withdrawn.
There was no objection.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I also would want to make a parliamentary
inquiry as to the number of unauthorized pieces of legislation that
have been voted on in this bill associated with this, to prove the
point.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair cannot respond to that parliamentary inquiry
at this point other than to suggest that the gentleman refer to the
committee report.
Mr. COBURN. I thank the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] seek to
yield time?
Mr. OBEY. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the gentleman's
apology.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs.
[[Page H7242]]
Mink], a member of the committee of jurisdiction on this matter, the
committee which should handle this issue.
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding
time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I believe there might be some merit to look at the
jurisdiction, exercise of jurisdiction by the NLRB. But certainly, to
bring this matter before the floor, to ask for a vote, is simply not
the way to go. The matter should be brought to the committee.
The Member of the majority certainly has access to the leadership on
the majority side of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and
will be able to work out a matter such as this and allow the committees
to deliberate on it, call hearings, have an analysis, to bring this
matter to the floor without our ability to understand even what the
impacts of this limitation would be?
And the most egregious part of this amendment is, as we know, an
appropriation bill has only the effect of 1 year. That means that this
limitation would be in effect only for 1 year, the life of the
appropriation bill. So the people who are affected by it are not going
to know whether, when the charges are brought, they fall within the old
jurisdiction or the new jurisdiction.
Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the employers will have a greater
havoc in terms of the stability of their own operations, to know
whether a matter can legitimately come under the Board or cannot come
under the Board. It will be a huge mess to try to untangle this whole
issue of jurisdiction, which is a very, very troublesome matter.
Second, it would seem to me that the employers out there listening to
this debate ought to be enraged at the idea that this instability in
jurisdiction would be foisted by the adoption of this amendment. What
is going to happen is, when jurisdictional issues are raised as to
whether the Board can look into an employer's complaint, there is going
to have to be an overhaul, again, of much of the confidential material
that will be necessary for the Board to have in order to make these
jurisdictional decisions, because they go to the operations of the
business: How much money, what the gross intake was, what the
expenditures were, in order to make a determination as to whether the
new jurisdictions would allow the Board to have jurisdiction or not
have jurisdiction.
I think it would be an extremely chaotic situation to have an
appropriation bill decide this very difficult matter of jurisdiction of
the Board. These matters ought to be left to the authorizing committee,
my Committee on Education and the Workforce, and I am sure that this
distinguished Member who has offered this amendment would have the
access and ability to work with the Republican members of my committee
and determine whether a bill can be fashioned which can be brought to
the consideration of our committee.
The idea of having this matter then go to the States for
determination is a second point of uncertainty. There would be no
uniform operations of the application of this law in order to determine
what is proper activity on the part of the working person, upon the
unions, as also against the correct operations of the employer.
Because if a business is exempted under this exemption provision
which has been offered and is no longer under the jurisdiction of the
Board, what happens is, it has to then fall under the jurisdiction of
the State or local communities, and we will then have no uniform labor
policy with reference to labor activity and worker protections.
It seems to me that whatever the merits are of looking at the
jurisdictional issues, it ought to be left to the committees. I urge my
colleagues to vote down this amendment.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Oklahoma [Mr. Istook].
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment of the
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hostettler]. I think it is interesting to
hear some people being concerned suddenly with redtape or procedure,
rather than the merits of this, because I thought we were here about a
particular government agency, and it is certainly not alone in this,
but a particular government agency that had its dollar threshold of
jurisdiction, in other words, the level at which it could start getting
involved in a business, set in 1959, and it has not been adjusted for
inflation since then.
We are told that there are no things certain in this world except for
two, that the only two certain things are death and taxes. Well, they
are wrong, Mr. Chairman. There is a third thing. The third thing that
is perpetual and eternal is a government program. Once it is in place,
it perpetuates its existence.
The National Labor Relations Board, when it had the jurisdictional
threshold set in 1959, there was a reason for it, so you could know
what kinds of disputes were a Federal case that needed to involve a
Federal agency in Washington, DC, and what other matters still covered
by Federal law really should be handled on the local level, and they
could be handled in the State courts, where it is more convenient for
everybody concerned, without hiring the specialists, without having the
huge expense of going back and forth to Washington or going to a
regional office of the NLRB. So the jurisdiction, when the NLRB could
get involved, was set at a particular level.
For example, for a nonretail business, if they had $50,000 a year of
gross volume, then in 1959 dollars, they said, that is a big enough
business that the NLRB ought to be involved in that. Today that
equivalent amount would require that you have a business doing business
with something closer to, I believe, around $300,000.
Mr. Chairman, it makes no sense not to adjust for inflation. We hear
people say, oh, we have to adjust Federal spending for inflation. After
all, costs go up. Taxpayers are rightfully concerned about bracket
creep, which Congress, after many years, finally adjusted so taxpayers
would not automatically be pushed into another bracket.
Last year, the NLRB spent 20 percent of its resources, 20 percent of
its huge Federal budget, working on cases involving employers with
fewer than nine people working for them. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that
is a waste.
The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hostettler] has an excellent
amendment to fix that.
In fact, it is such a nice amendment that last year the same thing
was in this very bill when it passed out of committee, when it came to
the House floor, and it was the position of the House of
Representatives that we ought to make this change for adjustment.
Nobody stood on this House floor and sought to have an amendment to
take it out or to change it. People who today say, well, that ought to
be covered by a committee of jurisdiction, last year were willing to
let it be covered in this identical piece of legislation.
In fact, it got in there with the approval of the committee of
jurisdiction. I know, because last year I was the one who was
sponsoring it and who asked for it. And this House of Representatives
agreed to it, and nobody on either side of the aisle, no Republican and
no Democrat, stood up and said, we think it is a bad idea.
Here I hear people complaining today about, well, it is a redtape-
type objection. We think you should have used some other procedural
method. We think Members of the House of Representatives should be
confined in the area in which they want to take part; that the
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hostettler], if he is not on a committee
that deals with labor, he should forget about labor issues.
Maybe we should just abolish the House floor and just let committees
make the decisions, and tell each Member of Congress, never mind your
constitutional duty, never mind your oath, never mind what you owe to
the people back home, whether it be in Indiana, Wisconsin, or Oklahoma,
or Pennsylvania, wherever it may be, you should not get involved in
things if you are not on that committee.
Last year every single Member of this House of Representatives had an
opportunity to object last year and say, we should not make this
change. Instead, the House of Representatives said that this measure,
which the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hostettler] is sponsoring today,
that yes, that should be part of this bill.
[[Page H7243]]
The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hostettler] is only asking that we be
consistent. I think that is a pretty simple, pretty basic request.
After all, I think what was going on with me in 1959, if things
adjusted for inflation. I was in elementary school. I used to walk home
from Castleberry Elementary School, public school, to home, and I would
stop at the Griddle if I had a nickel, because a nickel would get me a
Hershey bar. Mr. Speaker, it was bigger than today's Hershey bars are.
It was only a nickel.
Let us make the inflation judgment. Let us support the gentleman from
Indiana [Mr. Hostettler] in this amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I think some of us in this House, most especially me,
would be better off if we had fewer Hershey bars.
But let me simply make some observations. First of all, with respect
to the comments made by the gentleman from Oklahoma, not the previous
speaker, but the previous gentleman from Oklahoma, I understand that
new Members cannot be expected to be fully aware of the intricacy of
the rules of the House. I would note that some Members, at least two
Members yesterday, or 2 days ago, in conversations with me, seemed to
take great pride in that fact, which I do not understand. But
nonetheless, I understand why they do not have full familiarity with
it.
I think it is important for all Members to understand that there is a
distinction between the Committee on Appropriations being asked to
carry an unauthorized appropriation and the committee searching for
ways to add all kinds of unauthorized actions to bills that we have on
the floor. We have often, unfortunately, on the Committee on
Appropriations, been asked by Members of authorizing committees to put
provisions in our appropriation bills which are not yet authorized.
The Congress is supposed to work in two ways. The Congress is
supposed to, first, through its authorizing committees, decide what
basic law is; and then the Committee on Appropriations is supposed to
determine how much we can afford to spend on each of the programs that
are authorized by law.
The Committee on Appropriations on many occasions has had members of
the authorizing committee come to us and ask us to put unauthorized
items in the bill. When we have done so, they have then gone to the
Committee on Rules and attacked us for the very same things which they
asked us to put in the bill. It just seems to me that authorizing
committee members need to understand that we do not appreciate being
yinged and yanged, and on that issue, by Members who have lost
arguments in authorizing committees.
I would ask the authors of this amendment these questions. Since we
have not had the hearings and we do not have the expertise, why should
there be a threshold of $2,600,000 before the NLRB jurisdiction kicks
in for a retail establishment, but only $535,000 for a shopping center?
Why should there be a threshold of $2.8 million for art museums,
cultural centers, and libraries, but a threshold of only $283,000 for
nursing homes?
Can anyone tell me the specific reasons for the differences in those
amounts? I would be very surprised if they could.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, our amendment seeks only to index the
levels that were created in 1959.
Mr. OBEY. I understand that.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. I do know why those original levels, but the
philosophy was not to change them.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, taking back my time, that is exactly my
point. The gentleman does not know why the original numbers were
selected. Neither do we on the committee. The role of the authorizing
committee is to determine what those reasons were and to determine
whether or not those relative relationships still make sense in a
modern economy.
I would fully agree that virtually every one of these numbers
probably ought to be adjusted because inflation has had an effect. My
point is that I do not know what the correct level of adjustment is,
and I would suggest that no Member of this House, on the basis of
information which has been presented to us here today, can go out and
explain to the media or our constituents why these different
relationships should continue to exist.
Shopping centers in many areas of the country did not even exist in
1959. I would suggest that the economy has changed so much since then
that we probably need a far different level of threshold in
relationship to the other thresholds than we have in the law today. I
would grant that. But to simply come in here and say each of these
outmoded numbers should be adjusted by the same percentage is in and of
itself just as ham-handed and outmoded, I believe, as the original
statute.
{time} 1605
The place to correct that is in the authorizing committee, and that
is why I make an argument that may appear to be just a jurisdictional
argument, but which is basically a practical argument about how this
Congress can produce recommendations based on knowledge rather than
bias.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, as the chairman of the subcommittee
pointed out, this is a 1-year process. And the desire of this Member to
grant some regulatory relief to small business, as the NLRB has itself
said, that 20 percent of the caseloads are those individuals that are--
--
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I understand that. But I
am amused by the fact that a number of the Members on the other side of
the aisle who attacked the NLRB said that these lawyers down there were
not working hard enough, and now today the gentleman is telling me that
they have too much business. I do find it hard to watch arguments that
go two ways on the same agency.
Second, I would point out that I am persuaded by a letter which we
received from the Chamber of Commerce a number of years ago which said
as follows: ``Whatever the current situation in any State, it could
change substantially each time the State legislature convened. Although
the NLRB is not perfect, at least it rarely has changed in significant
ways.''
Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the last thing we want is to do
this on the appropriations process, which is an annual process, because
then we will have these numbers changing annually and that will drive
every businessman in America nuts.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman will state
it.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, my question is on language. When a Member
of Congress refers to the other Member as talking on both sides of the
issue, how does that differ from saying that someone talks out of both
sides of their mouth?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. On the latter example, Members should not
speak in personal terms about the motives or sincerity of other
Members.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, there is nothing wrong under the Rules of the House
when a Member points out that arguments are inconsistent with arguments
made the day before, and that is what I said and that is what I meant.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hostettler]
did not make those arguments yesterday, and the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] implied that he was reversing himself.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would say to the
gentleman no, I did not. The gentleman, is reading something into
something that I never said. I would again appreciate it, if the
gentleman is going to object to my words, that the gentleman make
certain he has heard them accurately.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I believe I did.
[[Page H7244]]
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Souder].
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a number of points.
One is that we can explain the different categories logically. For
example, shopping centers do not mean the sales of all the units inside
the shopping center; it means the sales that are controlled by the
shopping centers. Those ratios may be slightly changed, but by not
changing them at all for inflation, we merely stay with the old ratio.
So the argument that we do not have the new, precise relationships
down means that we keep the same relationships that we have always had.
That was not a logical argument.
As to the argument as far as the substance here, it may indeed be
true, both what some Members may have maintained on the floor that
there is not enough to do over at the NLRB, and at the same time it may
mean because they are chasing around a lot of little cases and they are
not focusing on the larger cases, which is what the amendment attempts
to do.
Mr. Chairman, nearly 20 percent of their representation efforts has
been on bargaining units of nine persons or less. Yet this 20 percent
effort only reaches 2 percent of the total number of employees. What we
are arguing is that it should be targeted. So this is really a small
business amendment. If the NLRB feels they need to intervene, they can
intervene.
Mr. Chairman, this is really a small business issue and precisely the
type of thing we have been trying to point out throughout this bill.
That is we need more, like in OSHA, more toward compliance and less
toward enforcement and overhead. If we were targeting to the higher
risk cases, we could do a better job of protecting the workers and
employees of this country, than by just going willy-nilly for the
benefit, predominantly for the benefit, in many cases, of lawyers, or
at least largely the case of lawyers.
Now to the substance on the question of whether something or not is
authorized, I understood the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] to
say, and I want to say that while we are at the end of a long stretch
here, that in general these debates have been very orderly and we have
not had the personal conflicts that we have seen here this afternoon,
which I think is unfortunate.
But the question is when the gentleman says that some programs that
are not authorized are asked to be carried; asked by whom? According to
the House rules, Members cannot bring something to the floor, even if
the authorizing chairman asks them to do it, and what usually happens
in the House rules, without a rule that protects the particular piece
of legislation from being subject to a point of order.
For example, Mr. Chairman, National Endowment for the Arts comes to
the floor without our ability to make a point of order. I would ask the
gentleman from Illinois if that is not correct.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SOUDER. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman yes; however,
the difficulty with that, and we on appropriations want the authorizing
committees to take up legislation and authorize these programs. It used
to be on this very bill that the chairman would not fund any program
that was not authorized. The difficulty was that so many programs
became unauthorized and the authorizing committees did not act, and the
Senate follows no such rule, they fund programs authorized or not. And
then when we go to conference, the House is put in a disadvantaged
position because they have done nothing on that particular program.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time merely, the gentleman
makes an excellent point, which is why we need to, occasionally on the
House floor, protect things from points of order, like the National
Endowment for the Arts. I attempted to offer an amendment to transfer
funds from Goals 2000 over to breast cancer and we found out, much to
all of our surprise to some degree, that the National Cancer Institute
is not authorized.
We went through a debate on what was going to be called Whole School
Reform, because there it was authorized, but authorized under a
previous Congress by sticking it in a bill that was moving through for
authorization without a single hearing, without a single subcommittee
process, without a single full committee vote, and, by the way,
happened when Congress was under control of a different party. Yet that
moved through with the appropriators. We will always be at a
disadvantage to the Senate and always at a disadvantage in this
process.
Mr. Chairman, informally if we do not allow amendments on the floor
that are not authorized, and informally I think it is a good rule to
say that if the committee chairman of the authorizing committee asks
the Committee on Appropriations to carry it, that they do. But the
point is that we do not have a hard and fast rule on how to do this.
Mr. Chairman, ergonomics, for example, was in this bill and, as we
heard on the first day of this debate, it was added for one more year.
In general, I absolutely agree with the gentleman from Wisconsin that
things should move through in an orderly process. The Committee on the
Budget sets targets, it goes to the authorizing committee and then goes
to the appropriating committee.
But as a practical matter, not only this Congress but every Congress
has dealt with this fundamental substantive fact: When the President is
of the opposite party of the House, often appropriations bills have to
carry authorizing language to do different things, because otherwise it
never gets done. Mr. Chairman, that is the case with this amendment,
and I say that as a member of the committee.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Wicker].
[Mr. WICKER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hostettler
amendment, which should be relatively noncontroversial.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in favor of this amendment which would
update the jurisdictional threshold of the National Labor Relations
Board.
While the NLRB has attracted quite a bit of attention during the past
2 years, I believe that the least controversial of the issues
surrounding the NLRB is this one. When the NLRB was created in 1959, it
had jurisdiction over nonretail businesses whose gross receipts were
greater than $50,000 per year, and retail businesses with receipts over
$500,000 per year. This level was developed so that the labor disputes
involving small businesses would remain under the jurisdiction of State
courts. Because these levels have not been increased to keep pace with
the rate of inflation, small business has come under the regulatory
hand of the NLRB. Congress intended that small business be regulated by
the States.
I believe that these thresholds should be updated for the same reason
that we increase Social Security recipients paychecks with an annual
COLA: Because the value of the dollar is not the same in 1997 as it was
in 1959.
I urge my colleagues to support small businesses and support
commonsense Government by voting for the Hostettler amendment.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann].
Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to answer some of the things that
have been said from the other side of the aisle here this afternoon. To
the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hostettler], my good friend and one of
the brightest and most well-respected Members of the freshman class
that came in in 1995, who does not serve on the Committee on
Appropriations, I would say that I do serve on the Committee on
Appropriations and the mere suggestion that somehow legislating on an
appropriations bill is not the appropriate procedure in this body is
almost a joking matter, when one looks at how many times it occurs not
only at the full House debate level, but at the subcommittee level and
at the full committee level.
Mr. Chairman, I would invite the gentleman from Indiana to join us in
an appropriations meeting some day and see how many times in fact they
do legislate on an appropriation bill. The legislation passes, it gets
added to the bill, and any sort of an inference that
[[Page H7245]]
the gentleman from Indiana is inappropriate in acting in this manner is
just plain wrong.
So, Mr. Chairman, I conclude my remarks to one of the brightest and
most well-respected Members of this body by suggesting that legislating
on an appropriations bill is a very common practice.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I wish to bring us back to the substance of this
amendment. The substance of the amendment seeks to simply index the
levels of jurisdiction, mandatory jurisdiction for the National Labor
Relations Board. And it is important that I stress the point
``mandatory level,'' because the National Labor Relations Board, under
this amendment and under current law, has the ability to look at any
case that merits, that deserves their attention at any level of gross
annual receipts. This amendment merely indexes the level of their
mandatory jurisdiction.
Most of these thresholds have not been changed since 1959, and I
think it is time we do so. The chairman of the full committee made an
excellent point, that this is going to be for a 1-year time period
only. But I hope that we would get back to the substance of the issue.
Mr. Chairman, I think that it is important to understand that when
one side of an argument does not have the merits of the argument on
their side, they tend to divert attention into areas of procedure and
process. Unfortunately, that is what has taken place at this time.
Mr. Chairman, I would simply ask for those Members who are watching
this debate, that they would simply consider the merits of this
amendment and would understand that we are seeking to grant regulatory
relief to small businesses and granting a relief of caseload, if they
so desire, to the National Labor Relations Board so that the National
Labor Relations Board can fully spend more time and more of their
resources on those most egregious cases that they see fit indeterminate
of this jurisdiction level, even above or below.
Mr. Chairman, I seek for acceptance and adoption of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to return to the merits of this issue. We
are told that the numbers that NLRB uses in determining whether it has
jurisdiction or not in any given industry are outmoded. Then we are
given a new set of numbers that are supposed to be better.
Mr. Chairman, I, for the life of me, do not understand why the heavy
hand of the Federal Government ought to come into play when a figure of
$283,000 is reached for a nursing home, but $708,000 for a hospital. I
do not understand why if we are going to modernize and update outmoded
numbers, we continue that kind of outlandish differential.
The differential between nursing homes and hospitals under existing
law is only $150,000. The differential under the gentleman's amendment
would be over $500,000. The gentleman is greatly expanding the
unfairness of the numbers by the adjustments he makes.
Why should architectural firms be subject to the NLRB jurisdiction
when their business hits $261,000, but retail businesses not subject to
that same jurisdiction until they hit a figure 10 times that amount? I
for the life of me do not understand why we should expand the
difference.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, no, I will not. The gentleman has had his
time. It is my time now.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is asking me questions.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask that the rules of the House be abided.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time is controlled by the gentleman
from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would ask why on hotels and motels, right
now there is a $500,000 differential between them in the law. Under the
gentleman's recommendation, there would be almost a $2 million
differential between hotels and motels. And symphony orchestras, why
should symphony orchestras be treated that much better than a hotel-
motel operator?
Mr. Chairman, my family used to run a hotel. I do not see why we
should be subjected to a threshold which is over a million and a half
dollars lower than a symphony orchestra. With all due respect to
symphony orchestras, I prefer bluegrass.
It just seems that the gentleman from Indiana is absolutely correct
in suggesting that these numbers ought to be adjusted. But the
adjustments that the gentleman makes are just as irrational. They will
last for only 1 year. It invites this House to jockey these numbers
around each and every year. That will lead to massive confusion on the
part of businesses.
{time} 1620
The net result, as I said earlier, is that it eliminates protection
of the NLRB for millions of workers in this country, and it also
greatly raises the threshold that would apply in protecting
corporations and businesses from illegitimate tactics.
I would urge rejection of the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The question is on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hostettler].
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 176,
noes 235, not voting 22, as follows:
[Roll No. 392]
AYES--176
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Ballenger
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bliley
Blunt
Boehner
Bono
Brady
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fowler
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gibbons
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kim
Kingston
Klug
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Packard
Parker
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Ramstad
Redmond
Regula
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sanford
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shaw
Shimkus
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Upton
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
NOES--235
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brown (OH)
Campbell
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hyde
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
[[Page H7246]]
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McDade
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Menendez
Metcalf
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Morella
Nadler
Neal
Ney
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pappas
Pascrell
Pastor
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Poshard
Price (NC)
Quinn
Rahall
Reyes
Riggs
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--22
Baker
Bonilla
Borski
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Christensen
Cox
Dellums
Gonzalez
Hall (OH)
Lewis (GA)
McCarthy (MO)
Meek
Murtha
Payne
Rangel
Ros-Lehtinen
Rush
Schiff
Shadegg
Taylor (NC)
Thompson
Mrs. KELLY changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. DAVIS of Virginia changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, today we faced the possible
weakening or elimination of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting
[CPB]. I am extremely pleased that both misadvised amendments were
defeated. I believe public broadcasting funding is a good investment.
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting is an excellent example of one
of the most successful public-private partnerships in the country.
Every $1 in appropriated funds leverages $5 in private investment.
More than 90 percent of the Federal appropriation goes directly back
to States and local communities, either for direct services or
programming. In 1993, for example, CPB's $253 million appropriation
created more than $1.5 billion in revenue for local stations. This
modest investment is critical to our local communities.
Public broadcasting programs are the only commercial-free shows
available on television, and have wide appeal; many are educational and
award-winning, such as ``Sesame Street'' and ``NOVA.'' I am sure that
almost every Member in Congress has fond memories of watching ``Sesame
Street,'' ``Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood,'' or the ``Electric Company''
themselves or with their children, along with new ones such as
``Barney.'' CPB programs are not just for children though; many of us
regularly tune into CPB supported shows such as ``This Old House'' and
the ``McNeil-Leher Hour.''
Public television and radio provide an important outlet which is not
dictated by corporate sponsors. Public broadcasting stations serve as
community institutions, much like libraries or museums, and as such are
supported by the community through financial aid. CPB is a public
service, ``owned'' by the American people.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise to commend Chairman
Porter, Ranking Member Obey, and the members of the Subcommittee on
Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies
Appropriations for their foresight in increasing appropriations in
recognition of the contributions made by this Nation's seniors through
the programs of the National Senior Service Corps--Foster Grandparents,
Senior Companions, and Retired and Senior Volunteers Program. The
resources which the committee proposes to make available through the
fiscal year 1998 appropriations process will go far toward affording
thousands more older Americans to share their experience of a lifetime
in helping children in need of a loving mentor, peers in need of a
caring friend to help out in daily living, and communities across the
Nation. I am proud to be considered a proponent of these important
programs.
In reporting companion versions of the fiscal year 1998 Labor/HHS/
Education funding measure, the House and Senate Appropriations
Committees suggested different methods for allocating their respective
increases in the senior volunteer programs. Since the time of committee
action, representatives of the National Senior Service Corps Directors
Associations have met with officials of the Corporation for National
Service in an effort to agree on a common plan for moving the programs
forward with these desperately needed funds. It is my understanding
that the parties have reached common ground for allocation of fiscal
year 1998 resources--reflected in an exchange of letters between
Corporation CEO Harris Wofford and the presidents of the respective
associations. I further understand that this agreement is a
recommendation for fiscal year 1998 funding only and should not serve
as a precedent for funding decisions in future fiscal years.
While no one is certain of the final outcome of this year's
deliberations on the Labor/HHS appropriations bill, it is my hope that
no matter the outcome--even if these funds end up in a continuing
resolution--the respective leaders on the part of the House and the
Senate on this funding legislation would agree to the highest possible
levels for each of the three programs--Senate level for the Foster
Grandparent Program and House level for the Senior Companion Program
and Retired and Senior Volunteer Program. Further, I would encourage
the leaders of the respective committees to embrace the funding plan
developed between the Directors Associations and the Corporation for
National Service as reflected in Mr. Wofford's letter, which I submit
for the Record.
Corporation for National Service,
Washington, DC, September 5, 1997.
Mrs. Mary Louise Schweikert,
President, National Association of Foster Grandparent Program
Directors, Laurelton, PA.
Dear Mary Louise: Discussions between the Corporation for
National Service and the National Senior Corps Directors'
Associations have resulted in a consensus recommendation to
resolve differences in report language between the House and
Senate Appropriations Committees for purpose of fiscal year
(FY) 1998 funding.
We agree that:
1. One third of new funds above the prior year level shall
be allocated to Programs of National Significance. Of this
one third, one-half shall be allocated consistent with
current law and one-half may be utilized within the confines
of each program but with the flexibility envisioned in
section 231 of the DVSA.
2. A ten cent stipend increase shall be provided to Foster
Grandparent and Senior Companion Volunteers to be effective
January 1, 1998.
3. The intent of the National Associations and the
Corporation is to provide each project with a 2.5 percent
administrative cost increase. The Corporation shall make a
best effort to resolve budget issues which arise from the
allocation of program funds on a percentage basis to States
to reach this goal.
4. Remaining funds after fulfillment of items 1-3 above,
may be utilized within the confines of each program but with
flexibility as envisioned in section 231 of DVSA.
5. Further, the Corporation will utilize the FY 1998
funding as detailed by the Administration budget request,
where applicable, to further senior service initiatives in
areas related to the national need of child literacy and
reading.
6. Finally, with the agreement, the need for detailed
report language from the Joint Statement of Managers of the
Conference committee is eliminated, and we will suggest only
broad language supportive of the programs and Senior Corps.
This will allow the Corporation, in consultation with the
respective Boards of the National Associations, to
appropriately and best respond to the programmatic and
administrative needs of the individual programs.
Thank you for your collaboration on working to find a
unified an mutual solution to this issue. Please let me know
at your earliest convenience, if you agree with these
understandings so that we can promptly communicate it to the
relevant committees.
Sincerely,
Harris Wofford,
Chief Executive Officer.
____
National Senior Service Corps
Directors Associations,
Washington, DC, September 9, 1997.
Hon. Harris Wofford,
Chief Executive Officer, Corporation for National Service,
Washington, DC.
Dear Harris, Thank you for your letter of September 5. The
consensus recommendations you set forth, consistent with our
discussions, holds great promise for the future of the Foster
Grandparent Program, Senior Companion Program, and Retired
and Senior Volunteer Program, as well as the continued
productive working relationship between the National Senior
Service Corps Director Associations and the Corporation.
While appropriate to the present circumstances, we share
your view that the fiscal year 1998 plan for allocating
resources we embrace should not be interpreted as a precedent
for future spending decisions and funding allocations among
the senior volunteer programs.
[[Page H7247]]
We also appreciate your commitment that each existing
senior volunteer project receive a 2.5 percent administration
cost increase over the funding levels appropriated for fiscal
year 1997. While we understand that administrative nuances
can affect the allocation of program funds, we accept your
assurances that the Corporation will take whatever steps
necessary to award an increase of 2.5 to every existing NSSC
project for FY 1998 so that we might retain and improve
program quality and efficiency.
Finally, we share your desire to work with the relevant
committees of Congress to assure that this mutual
understanding is carried out. We think it important that this
remarkable agreement be communicated in an appropriate manner
aimed at establishing a legislative history sufficient to
overcome what presently amounts to a conflict between
language included in the House and Senate committee reports
on the NSSC funding allocation for fiscal year 1998.
Sincerely,
Mary Louise Schweikert,
President, NAFGPD.
John Pribyl,
President, NASCPD.
Nan York,
President, NARSVPD.
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.
Boehner) having assumed the chair, Mr. LaTourette, Chairman pro tempore
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.
____________________