[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.

                          ____________________