[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 124 (Wednesday, September 17, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H7372-H7380]
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} 1118
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.
Barrett of Nebraska, 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
Tuesday, September 16, 1997, amendment No. 41 by the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra] had been disposed of and section 515 was open
for amendment.
Are there further amendments to this section of the bill?
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, what rules of the House permit a former
Member of the House to accost verbally another Member of the House on a
matter that affects that Member?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair is not aware of any such rule
that permits that.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Well, Mr. Chairman, what procedure does a Member of the
House have when they are accosted by a former Member of the House to
have that Member removed?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair will consult with the gentleman
on that question.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Well, I would like an answer, because I have just had
Mr. Dornan, a former Member of this House, come up and verbally accost
me. And I do not expect in the greatest democratic institution in the
world to have to take what my foreparents did not do, in a country in
which they left to avoid, is that to have to come to this body and
listen to a former Member of the House proceed in that way and to use
words that were both profane and at the same time to use words that
were demeaning.
So I want to know, in public, what procedure do we have to not have
that type of action happen on the House floor?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair will consult with the gentleman
and the Sergeant at Arms on that question.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
If in fact a Member of the House, a present Member of the House, were
to make comments that were inappropriate, their words could be taken
down. They would not be allowed to speak. I want to know whether or not
there is a procedure existing that in fact will create the opportunity
to not have this type of occurrence that happened on the House floor.
[[Page H7373]]
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair can direct and will direct the
Sergeant at Arms to maintain decorum in the House.
Mr. MENENDEZ. And I will hold the Chair to that expectation.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. I thank the gentleman.
Amendment No. 67 Offered by Mrs. Lowey
Mrs. LOWEY. 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 offered by Mrs. Lowey:
Amendment No. 57: Page 102, after line 24, insert the
following new section:
Sec. 516. Subsection (k) of section 9302 of the Balanced
Budget Act of 1997, as added by section 1604(f)(3) of the
Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, is repealed.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The point of order is reserved.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The point of order is reserved.
Point of Order
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the Member continues to be harassed and that
is not consistent with our rules.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Former Members are requested to observe the
rules.
The gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey] may proceed.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment with the
gentlewoman from New Jersey, Mrs. Marge Roukema, my distinguished
colleague and coauthor of this amendment, who has been an important
leader on this issue.
I am offering this amendment today to repeal a disgraceful giveaway
to the tobacco industry that was slipped into the budget bill at the
last minute. The other body voted 95 to 3 to repeal this provision last
week, and I introduced legislation to repeal this provision that has
over 60 cosponsors from both sides of the aisle.
Mr. Chairman, the Republican leadership slipped this infamous $50
billion tobacco tax giveaway into the budget bill in the middle of the
night. Now we are going to shine a spotlight on this provision and see
who will stand with the American people and who will stand with the big
tobacco companies.
At the heart of this issue is the understanding that American
taxpayers should not be subsidizing big tobacco companies, but that is
exactly what has happened. When asked about this provision, Kenneth
Kies, the staff director of the Joint Committee on Taxation, said,
``The industry wrote it, submitted it and we just used their
language.''
This is unacceptable. The Congress should be passing laws to protect
the health of all Americans; it should not be lining the pockets of the
tobacco industry.
Tobacco products, Mr. Chairman, kill 400,000 Americans every year.
Americans spend $50 billion each year to respond to the adverse health
effects of smoking. Every day more than 3,000 American teenagers start
smoking. One in three will die from cancer, heart disease and other
illnesses caused by smoking. American taxpayers, Mr. Chairman, should
not be subsidizing this deadly product.
I urge all of my colleagues to stand up for the health of the
American people and vote for this amendment.
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. LOWEY. I yield to the gentlewoman from New Jersey, the coauthor
of this amendment.
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from New York and
really appreciate this opportunity. I will ask for my own time later,
but I do want to commend her for approaching this subject and really
make a presentation to our appropriators, the ranking member and the
chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I have got to say that this is a very important
amendment. This is a relevant issue; relevant because the President
today is making a presentation on the tobacco pact, relevant because
just last week the Senate past the identical provision to the identical
bill.
I would suggest, and here I do not want to be too facetious, and I do
not intend to be a William Weld here. I believe in following the rules
and normal procedures of the House. But what we are asking here today
of the appropriators is that we be given permission under this
circumstance to use the rules of the House where waivers are permitted
for this very particular issue that is high profile. This amendment is
relevant and is an answer to our taxpaying public that we are not
giving a tax favor to the tobacco industry on the backs of the
taxpayers of this country.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. LOWEY. I yield to the distinguished ranking minority member, the
gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is not in order under the
rules of the House. It is a nongermane amendment. Unlike the other
body, this House does have rules which relate to germaneness. I do not
think either I or the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] want to
stand in the way of getting something done which is obviously the will
of the House, but we have a long way to go on this bill.
The Durbin amendment, make no mistake about it, is going to be
accepted in conference. I congratulate both of the gentlewomen for
being interested in this, and I would be willing to withdraw my
reservation if we have an understanding that this is going to take very
little time of the House today. If we are going to debate something for
a considerable period of time, and we have a tight schedule with many
other Members who have noticed germane amendments, then I would be
constrained to object, even though I do not want to.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. LOWEY. I would be delighted to yield to the chairman, the
gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the Members that the day
that Senator Durbin offered and passed the amendment in the Senate, he
came to me and asked me if I would do everything possible to see that
it was sustained in conference, and I assured him that I would.
{time} 1130
I assured him, also, that I was certain that the conference would
sustain the position of the Senate on this disgraceful tax giveaway to
the tobacco industry that should never have found its way into earlier
legislation.
My colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], is correct,
this is not a matter that is germane to this bill. But in a broader
sense, it really is. Tobacco causes many of our health problems in this
country, and I think it is appropriate that we address this matter in
our conference and end this tax giveaway.
If this amendment were to be adopted, there would be identical
provisions in both the House and Senate bills. The provision would not
be suspect to conference. The provision would be accomplished without
any further discussion.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey]
has expired.
(On request of Mr. Porter and by unanimous consent, Mrs. Lowey was
allowed to proceed for 5 additional minutes.)
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will continue to yield,
I feel, as the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] does, that if we can
expeditiously finish this matter very quickly on the floor in this
bill, that is a proper way to proceed.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me say that the gentlewoman from New
Jersey [Mrs. Roukema] and the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey]
have shown tremendous leadership on this issue. I am delighted that
both of them can offer this amendment together, and I hope that we can
wind up debate very quickly and allow this to become a part of our
bill.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. LOWEY. I thank the chairman, and I am delighted to yield to the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me say that I think every thoughtful
Member of this House understands what happened on the tax bill was an
outrageous sneak play which delivered an illegitimate benefit to an
industry that is not entitled to it. I would insist on its being
eliminated and the Durbin amendment being accepted even if this
amendment were not offered.
[[Page H7374]]
But in the interest of driving home the message and saving time, I
would be willing to withdraw my objection and support the amendment
under the conditions that we just described.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. LOWEY. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, it is correct that this particular
provision was tucked in under a title of the balanced budget amendment,
the balanced budget agreement, somewhere around page 300 or 400, under
the misleading title of Technical Amendments to Assist the Small
Business Protection Act. And the small business that was protected here
was the tobacco industry.
I have been on this floor on a number of occasions prior to this
morning asking that the removal of this $50 billion tax giveaway be
scheduled on the same day that we have reform of the soft money
provisions in campaign finance, because I do not think it is a
coincidence that the No. 1 soft money contributor to the Republican
Party is Philip Morris, the No. 2 contributor is R.J. Reynolds. And I
do not think it is a coincidence that this morning if we conducted a
political paternity test, we could not find anyone willing to take the
test.
This provision did not appear in this bill through divine
intervention. It occurred because of the involvement and the corruption
of our political system. Not one minute, not one second was devoted on
the floor of this House or the U.S. Senate to debate this provision. It
was wrong. It is the very kind of thing that the people of America are
caused to be most cynical about this institution.
So I am pleased that we are taking the leadership to remove it, but
we ought to get at not only the symptom, the $50 billion tax break. It
is a symptom of the corruption of this system. We ought to get at the
source and the cause, and that is the interference and corruption, not
only by the American tobacco industry, but by others.
Every American ends up paying through tax breaks just like this that
get stuck into this legislation because the soft money political system
is corrupt and it is wrong. And until Speaker Gingrich comes out here
and schedules it for debate, this kind of thing will keep recurring
again and again and again, and we will be forced to come to the floor
to undo it whenever we find out about the fact that we are facing $50
billion tax breaks.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, again I am very pleased
that the chairman and the ranking minority member are in support of
this amendment that my colleague, the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs.
Roukema] and I are offering. We expect that this amendment will be
accepted by the committee as we move forward in the process.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). The Chair would
inquire, does the gentleman from Illinois withdraw his reservation of a
point of order?
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I am concerned that we are going to get off
the subject, as we did just a moment ago, and this will turn into a
long and lengthy debate. I do not want that to happen. If it does, I
would insist upon my point of order. Can I continue to reserve that
point?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois may continue to
reserve his point of order.
Mr. PORTER. I continue to reserve.
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, could there be an agreement on the time
limit rather than a point of order? Is that possible?
Mr. PORTER. It is certainly possible if we ask unanimous consent. I
have not consulted either side as to what time they might want. Let me
ask.
I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment and all
amendments thereto cease in 10 minutes, with 5 minutes to the majority
and 5 minutes to the minority.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Illinois?
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, I am
looking for 5 minutes myself. Could it be a 10-minute time period?
Mr. PORTER. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I would like
to simply inquire of the Chair what amendment we are on now? That is my
first inquiry; and second, to ascertain if in fact it is still the
intention of the House to rise today, at least for the purposes of
votes, by 4 p.m.?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair advises the gentleman from
Wisconsin that the Committee is on the Lowey amendment, preprinted, No.
67.
Mr. RIGGS. Further reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, did I
understand the unanimous-consent agreement would also include any
amendment to this amendment?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Illinois modify his
request as to 10 minutes on each side?
Mr. PORTER. I do, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Illinois?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentlemen from Illinois [Mr. Porter]
and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] each will control 10
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, might I just indicate that I hope the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] can yield back my 10 minutes
without using them. I think we cannot afford this much time on a
nongermane amendment if we are going to finish this bill.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Illinois continue
to reserve his point of order?
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I do not continue to reserve my point of
order.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of a point of
order.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The point of order is withdrawn.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema], the cosponsor of the amendment.
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding the
time.
Let me say that that this amendment which the gentlewoman from New
York [Mrs. Lowey] and I have presented deals in a legally binding way
to repeal the $50 billion tax windfall that, was surreptitiously
inserted into the tax bill in the dead of night without the knowledge
of the Congress and the voters.
Particularly, I want my colleagues to understand that the taxpayers
would be required to pick up the cost of that $50 billion, removing it
from the assessment on the tobacco industry. So this is about relieving
taxpayers and reducing their taxes.
I want to say also that it is coincidental but very timely that we
are taking it up right now, since today, as we know, not only the
President but many Members of both parties have expressed concerns and
objections to the so-called tobacco pact. And I think that we really
should be taking a tough stance not only to protect the taxpayers but
to protect American health.
Remember, we are talking about taxpayers bailing out the tobacco
industry. Now let me say, in addition to what my colleague, the
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey], has already laid out, that this
vote will make us accountable to the voters. This was put in the tax
bill without anybody's knowledge. And I think the cynical voters out
there are ready to throw up their hands and say, ``Oh, boy, that is
that Washington crowd doing it again'' if we do not permit a vote on
this issue.
Let me say this makes us accountable, but I also want to stress this
is the only way we can do it with legal standing. Any other alternative
is just instructive and has no standing in the conference with the
Senate. Whether we use it as an amendment to another bill or whether we
do a motion to instruct the conferees, it does not have the standing
that the Durbin-Collins amendment from the Senate has on their bill. We
should have that same parallel provision on our bill.
And so I respectfully must say that this vote will say to the
American people that we stand for their health and for their children's
health, and that the taxpayers should not be required to pay and bail
out the tobacco industry. We must correct the wrong that was done in
that budget deal in that tax
[[Page H7375]]
package, and we can help regain the confidence of the American people
and restore some credibility to this House.
I want to thank my colleague, the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs.
Lowey]. I want to thank the chairman and ranking member of the
Committee on Appropriations for understanding how critical this is and
for permitting us under the rules to use the waiver rule in the House
to bring this issue before our colleagues.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this
amendment to repeal the tobacco tax giveaway. For years, the tobacco
industry has denied the truth--that smoking kills. Its ads have made
smoking appear glamorous and cool, and they have blatantly targeted
children with characters such as the omnipresent Joe Camel.
But the truth isn't as comforting as tobacco commercials would have
you believe. The truth is, every day 3,000 people under the age of 18
become regular smokers. The truth is, one out of every three of these
kids will die of a tobacco-related illness like cancer or heart
disease. The truth is, cigarettes kill more Americans than AIDS,
alcohol, car accidents, murders, suicides, illegal drugs, and fires
combined.
The way the tobacco industry targets children is a crime. And now
that we are at the brink of a settlement that will force the industry
to pay for its crime, a $50 billion tax giveaway for big tobacco is
snuck into the tax bill in the dead of night. We don't know who put it
there. No one will stand up to take responsibility.
It truly boggles the mind. This is not an industry that markets games
or toys. We are talking about an industry that markets a product which
is proven to cause cancer, heart disease, and lung disease. It has
tacitly admitted to targeting children by retiring characters such as
Joe Camel. And last month, the head of Philip Morris admitted in a
court of law that 100,000 Americans might have died from smoking-
related illnesses. That same day, another story ran where the Speaker
of this House defended this tax giveaway as fair.
My friends, we shouldn't even be here today debating this amendment.
In 1993 alone, taxpayers spent over $50 billion in health care costs to
care for people who were stricken by cancer and other diseases caused
by tobacco.
We should be ashamed of ourselves for even considering helping the
tobacco industry to pay for its mistakes. The tobacco industry does not
deserve to be bailed out by taxpayer dollars. I urge every member of
this House to support this amendment to repeal the tax giveaway.
[From the Washington Post, Aug. 22, 1997]
Smoking May Have Killed Thousands, CEO Agrees
West Palm Beach, FL.--About 100,000 Americans ``might
have'' died from smoking-related diseases, the head of Philip
Morris Cos. Inc. conceded today to state lawyers suing his
company.
Geoffrey C. Bible, chairman and chief executive officer of
the nation's largest cigarette maker, made the admission at
the end of nearly two hours of questioning in preparation for
trial of a lawsuit.
Ron Motley, a lawyer representing the state, called Bible's
statement a major breakthrough because except for one
maverick, other industry leaders have not made such a
concession. Bennett S. LeBow, chief executive officer of the
smallest of the major cigarette makers, Liggett Group, Inc.,
has said that cigarettes kill and are addictive.
Members of Congress are pressing the tobacco industry for
admissions before they consider approving a $368 billion
settlement that would wipe out most lawsuits against the
industry.
Florida was the first of 40 states suing the major tobacco
companies to bring a case to trial. It seeks $12.3 billion
for the public cost of smoking related illnesses. Jury
selection began Aug. 1 and continues during the taking of
depositions.
Motley asked Bible: ``Would Philip Morris agree that a
single American citizen who smokes their products for 30 or
more years, a single one, has ever died of a disease caused
in part by smoking cigarettes?''
Bible answered, ``I think there's a fair change that one
would have, might have.''
Motley followed up, ``How about a thousand?''
Bible said, ``Might have.''
Motley pressed, ``How about 100,000?''
Bible responded, ``Might have.''
``I salute Philip Morris for the first time in 40 years
being forthright and candid,'' Motley said on CNN afterward.
``It's a very public, health-spirited way of looking at
things.''
Responding to allegations that cigarette makers manipulate
nicotine levels in cigarettes to capitalize on its addictive
qualities, Bible said, ``I wouldn't even let them discuss
adding nicotine, let alone adding nicotine to attract
children.''
____
Gingrich Defends Tobacco Tax Break--$50 Billion Credit Is Part of Fair
Overall Deal, Speaker Says
Marietta, GA.--House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) today
defended a new $50 billion tax credit for the tobacco
industry as part of an overall plan that is fair.
``I think people were misreading the tax provision,'' he
said. ``We're not cutting a break for the tobacco folks.''
The credit is part of a bipartisan tax bill that includes a
15-cents-a-pack tax increase on cigarettes. The tax proceeds
would be credited against the money tobacco companies agree
to pay in a proposed $368 billion settlement of state
lawsuits against the industry.
The tax will pay for expanded child health care programs.
Clinton administration officials have said they will seek
to offset the $50 billion tax credit when the proposed
tobacco deal is reviewed by Congress.
State attorneys general have threatened to withdraw support
for the deal unless the credit is blocked. Tobacco companies
said any increase in the settlement's costs could kill the
deal.
Gingrich said the tax credit is only part of the final deal
with the tobacco companies.
``Whatever the final package is, we want to make sure that
it's real,'' he said. ``It's all one pot of money, and I'm in
favor of maximizing the amount of money available for
children's health.''
Gingrich spoke to reporters after touring a vocational
training center in his congressional district north of
Atlanta.
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Lowey-
Roukema amendment to H.R. 2264, the Labor, Health and Human Services,
and Education appropriations bill. This amendment would repeal the
stealth, windfall tax credit that was given to the tobacco industry as
part of the Taxpayer Relief Act. This $50 billion tax credit was not
included in either the House or Senate versions of the tax bill and was
adopted without debate and review. This tax provision should never have
been enacted and should be repealed as quickly as possible.
I am pleased to be a co-sponsor of legislation sponsored by
Representative Lowey to repeal this tax credit and strongly support
this effort to eliminate this ill-advised tax provision. The House of
Representatives should approve this amendment, just as the Senate did
earlier this month by a vote of 95 to 3.
The balanced budget agreement we enacted in July raised the cigarette
excise tax by 15 cents per pack to help pay for a children's health
care initiative to provide insurance coverage for uninsured children.
The tobacco tax credit completely undermined this intent by subtracting
the increased excise tax paid by the industry from whatever they would
have to pay as part of a global tobacco settlement. In essence, the
children's health initiative would have come at the cost of important
public health and smoking cessation initiatives that were to be funded
by the global agreement. The children's health initiative was intended
to be in addition to these other initiatives, not an alternative to
them. The Lowey-Roukema amendment restores this clear congressional
intent.
The children's health initiative and the cigarette excise tax to fund
it are completely separate issue from the global tobacco agreement and
ought to be considered by Congress as such. The Lowey-Roukema amendment
makes this clear and allows us to consider these issues separately. Let
us pass this amendment and repeal the tax credit now, then give the
global tobacco settlement and the President's proposals to reduce
underage smoking the careful and thorough deliberation they deserve.
President Clinton today announced that he would support raising
cigarette excise taxes by $1.50 per pack if tobacco companies fail to
reduce smoking among young people. The administration proposal would
stipulate targets to cut teen smoking and if these targets are not met,
tobacco companies would pay higher penalties that would not be capped
or tax deductible as a business expense. I look forward to reviewing
these proposals with the goal of crafting legislation that reduces
underage smoking and protects the public health.
I urge my colleagues to vote for the Lowey-Roukema amendment to
repeal this unfair, irresponsible tax credit provision.
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire of the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Porter], is he prepared to yield his time back if we do
the same here?
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for speakers,
and I would be prepared to yield my time back, yes.
Mr. OBEY. In that case, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey].
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 36 Offered by Mr. Coburn
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
[[Page H7376]]
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 36 offered by Mr. Coburn:
At the end of the bill, insert after the last section
(preceding the short title) the following section:
Sec. 516. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or
any other part of the Public Health Service, to conduct or
support any program in which blood samples are collected from
newborns and tested for the human immunodeficiency virus in
circumstances in which the samples do not indicate the
identity of the newborns, from whom the samples were taken.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, my friend the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Ackerman] is not here and will be arriving on the floor shortly. This
really is his amendment that I have agreed to introduce with him, and I
want to give him credit for it.
In 1995, the CDC was practicing what I believe to be an
unconscionable practice, and that was blindly testing newborn infants'
blood for the HIV virus, discovering who was positive, yet never
telling the mother, never notifying the parents that in fact their
children were positive for HIV, which also implied that the mother was
positive for HIV.
The tremendous amounts of moneys that have been spent by this country
on research to treat this deadly virus have succeeded in bringing us
very new, very good, very effective treatments in terms of delaying the
ravages of this disease.
Each day, approximately 20 infants in this country are born to HIV-
positive mothers. Thanks to the new treatments and thanks to the ban
that was agreed to by the CDC in terms of withdrawing this blind
testing, most moms now are being identified during their pregnancy,
they are being treated, and their children are not becoming infected
with HIV. However, concerning to Mr. Ackerman, as well as myself, was
an indication by the CDC in the last 3 months that they intended to
resume blind testing.
What I think is important is we would want the American public to
know that we feel that this is a tremendously unethical practice to
identify someone with a disease and have medicines available that could
prevent that disease, first, second, markedly increase the quality of
someone's life, and third, markedly prolong the quantity of that life,
and then withhold it, we feel is unethical.
{time} 1145
Mr. Chairman, I will submit for the Record a letter that I received
on September 9 of this year. I would like to read that and then submit
it. This is from the Department of Health and Human Services, from
Richard Tarplin, the Assistant Secretary for Legislation.
Dear Congressman Coburn: Knowing of your continued concern
regarding unlinked HIV testing of newborn blood specimens, I
would like to inform you that the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention will pursue surveillance methodologies that do
not include HIV serosurveys using any type of blood specimens
of newborns without identification.
CDC will continue discussion with HIV prevention partners
to identify alternative approaches to monitor HIV trends in
women of childbearing age.
Dr. Satcher has recommended this approach, and the
Department has concurred.
The text of the letter is as follows:
Department of Health &
Human Services,
Washington, DC, September 9, 1997.
Hon. Tom Coburn,
U.S. House of Representatives, Cannon House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Coburn: Knowing of your continued concern
regarding unlinked HIV testing of newborn blood specimens, I
would like to inform you that the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention (CDC) will pursue surveillance methodologies
that do not include HIV serosurveys using any type of blood
specimens of newborns without identification.
CDC will continue discussion with HIV prevention partners
to identify alternative approaches to monitor HIV trends in
women of childbearing age.
Dr. Satcher has recommended this approach and the
Department has concurred.
Sincerely,
Richard J. Tarplin,
Assistant Secretary for Legislation.
This is a great letter when it comes to babies knowing that, in fact,
if they are tested, they are going to be notified by the CDC. But what
is very, very worrisome about this letter is they did not mention
anything about testing adults blindly and not agreeing to withhold
treatment from them.
Mr. Chairman, I am very sorry that the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Ackerman] is not here at this time. It is our intention to put into the
record that we expect the CDC and have their concurrence that they will
test no one blindly for a disease that will, in fact, take their life
when we do have medicines that could prevent or at least prolong that
life. It is our intention to withdraw this amendment pending that
approval, knowing that we are now on record, that the CDC has committed
that they are not going to do blind, unethical testing for any reason
on anybody with HIV.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). Is there
objection to the request of the gentleman from Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Riggs
Mr. RIGGS. 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. 14 offered by Mr. Riggs:
At the end of the bill, insert after the last section
(preceding the short title) the following new section:
Sec. . (a) Limitation on Penalties Under IDEA.--None of
the funds made available in this Act may be used by the
Department of Education to investigate, or to impose,
administer, or enforce any penalty, sanction, or remedy for,
a State's election not to provide special education and
related services under the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.) to individuals who are
18 years of age or older and are incarcerated in adult State
prisons.
(b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to any
withholding of financial assistance to a State by the
Department of Education pursuant to the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.).
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, earlier this year when the Congress passed
amendments to the landmark Federal special education and civil rights
statute called IDEA, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, we
included in that package of amendments a number of incentives intended
to make it easier for States such as my own, California, to serve adult
prison inmates who happened to fall within the age group covered under
the Federal special education law. These are adult prison inmates,
incarcerated individuals between the ages of 18 and 21, so I want to
say at the outset and make very clear to my colleagues that we are not
talking about children or juveniles. We are talking about convicted
adult felons.
Under that package of amendments, we intended to make it easier and
less costly for States to serve this particular category, this
particular segment of the total IDEA-eligible population in America.
However, we did add an additional provision that made it explicitly
clear, in my view, that the States still, despite these inducements,
had the sole discretion, the sole option, the sole right to decide
whether to serve these adult prison inmates, and if the States elected
not to serve this segment of the IDEA-eligible population, they would
only face the forfeiture of that small pro rata share of the total
State allocation of Federal special education dollars.
I was one of the principal negotiators, one of the principal
sponsors, one of the principal drafters of these amendments, and I can
attest to the fact that it was our intent throughout these negotiations
to limit the Federal Government and the Department of Education's
remedy against a State, to limit their sanctions against a State to
only the forfeiture of that small percentage of their total State
allocation of Federal special education dollars.
Since that legislation has become law on obviously a bipartisan,
bicameral basis, signed into law by the President with some fanfare
down at the White House, the Department of Education has taken a
different position. They now say that they may pursue other legal
remedies against a State such as California in addition to the loss of
that small percentage of funds represented by the adult prison inmate
population as a percentage of the total IDEA-eligible population in the
State. The Department of Education has corresponded with the State
[[Page H7377]]
of California saying that they may very well refer this matter to the
Justice Department. So I have offered an amendment that makes it
explicitly clear that States will not be penalized, cannot be
penalized, under the IDEA amendments that passed earlier this year for
failing, or for deciding to provide special education to 18- to 21-
year-old individuals in adult prisons.
That is the reason that I am proceeding with this amendment. It was
part of our negotiations on this floor last week with the minority
party. I was told on that occasion that my amendment would be accepted,
and if that understanding, that agreement with the minority party
survives to this moment, then I do not intend to pursue a recorded vote
on my amendment.
I just want to stipulate again that my amendment does not break the
agreement, the unique, some said historic, bipartisan, bicameral
agreement that enabled us to move this legislation expeditiously
through the Congress earlier this year after the last several
Congresses had been unable to pass revisions and amendments to the
Federal special education statute. Indeed, it is very consistent with
that legislation.
My amendment again, Mr. Chairman, prevents the Department of
Education from using any funding under this act to force States,
specifically California, to provide special education services to adult
prisoners in a manner inconsistent with the IDEA amendments enacted
into law last June. Again, I want to stress to my colleagues that we
did under those amendments make it easier and less costly for States to
serve that portion of the IDEA-eligible population. My amendment is not
about children with disabilities. It only applies to the way in which
the Department of Education requires special education services for
adult prison inmates ages 18 to 21 in adult prisons. Many of these
individuals are obviously serving long-term sentences for violent
crimes.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from California
[Mr. Riggs] has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Riggs was allowed to proceed for 30
additional seconds.)
Mr. RIGGS. It is my view, Mr. Chairman, and it is the intent of my
amendment, that States should not be forced to spend their very
precious and limited Federal and State special education money on
education services, special education services, for adult prisoners if
the States so elect. If a State does not serve these felons, it is and
was the intent of our amendments earlier this year that the U.S.
Department of Education should only withhold a pro rata share of the
State's total Federal funding for special education.
I hope Members will look at my amendment, I hope that they will vote
for my amendment and help protect children with disabilities.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
(Mr. MARTINEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, regretfully I rise in opposition to the
amendment offered by the gentleman. Regretfully, I say, because we all
had a deal, we shook hands, tantamount to shaking hands. There were
many Members who were in disagreement with certain portions of the bill
on both sides, but all decided, in order for unanimous support of this
bill and a bipartisan effort, to forgo their own personal feelings.
This particular issue we had a great discussion on, a great deal of
decision on before it was signed. I think we all understood what it was
at the time. To say that these are adults is carrying it to an extreme
in many cases. In many States the laws actually try as adults children
as young as 13 or 14 years old, and many of these young people we are
talking about in these adult lockups are actually still children.
As the Members know, this amendment would limit the enforcement
ability of the Department when States violate the Individuals With
Disabilities Education Act with respect to children with disabilities
incarcerated in adult correctional facilities.
Mr. Chairman, only 3 months ago on June 4, President Clinton signed
the IDEA amendment into law. It was done so after one of the most
bipartisan showings of support for a piece of legislation which has
passed out of this Congress this session. With this overwhelming show
of support, both Republicans and Democrats embraced this legislation as
a truly bipartisan compromise aimed at addressing the needs of children
with disabilities. Key to this agreement was an understanding that the
core group, the many people I just spoke of, of Members who supported
this legislation would not offer or support changes to IDEA.
I must respectfully point out to the chairman of the subcommittee
that this amendment now would be inconsistent with that agreement.
Under the recently enacted IDEA amendments, States are allowed to makes
modifications to the plan and individualized program provisions
required by the act, but they are still required to provide services to
children with disabilities in adult correctional facilities. In fact,
at a hearing the chairman heard from two witnesses, one his own, one
ours, that said it would be the dumbest thing in the world not to
educate these young people in institutions. If a State does not serve
this population, they would be deemed in violation of the act, and the
Department would be required to take enforcement action against such a
State.
This amendment would undercut this core assurance, thereby negating
the Department's ability to enforce the act nationwide. It severely
weakens the tools which the Department has under the act to enforce the
requirement that all children with disabilities receive a free and
appropriate public education. In addition, this will deny a population
of children who, upon being released from a correctional facility, will
not have the education to give them any chance of becoming a
contributing member of society. Instead these individuals will be left
again at the whims of a society which has not yet learned to deal with
its problems. Without the vital education services which children with
disabilities desperately need, these children will result in future
additional burdens to our society.
Why do we need to increase the burden of our criminal justice and
social welfare system when we can give these children the ability to
reclaim their lives? Why not deal with the problem now instead of
allowing it to balloon into an unmanageable social disaster? These
policy questions cannot be ignored.
In closing I would like to stress that I am confused by the
gentleman's purpose in offering this amendment. Less than 2 months ago,
we both watched the President sign the IDEA amendments of 1997. We both
signed off on the legislation even though both of us fully realized
that we did not absolutely have everything each of us wanted. Both of
us compromised on issues with a goal of coming to an agreement that we
could both support. This agreement is embodied in the bipartisan
legislation that was signed into law by the President.
Now we are going back on this agreement and proposing changes which
would affect the IDEA statute. How can I in good faith expect the
gentleman not to have a change of heart on other items upon which we
have reached a consensus? These are important questions which Members
will have whenever we try to mold any bipartisan agreement in the
future.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, we accept the
amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I would say on this side of the aisle that I
reluctantly accept the amendment as well. I understand that this issue
was subject to extensive negotiations during the reauthorization of the
Individuals With Disabilities Act. I would point out that that
reauthorization took 2 years. I think that this amendment is not
consistent with that. However, I am willing to accept the amendment in
the interest of comity and time. I anticipate we will discuss this
issue extensively in conference on the bill to reach a solution that is
more satisfactory to everyone.
I will accept very reluctantly the amendment at this time, and I
would ask Members to recognize that we have a 5 p.m. deadline today,
and if we are to finish this bill, we need to finish the bill.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
[[Page H7378]]
Mr. Chairman, although this amendment has been accepted by
representatives from the Committee on Appropriations on both sides, I
rise to speak very briefly against the amendment. I oppose the
amendment for two reasons. One, it is bad public policy. The people in
prison will get out, and we know that education will make a difference
in their ability to survive and be productive citizens outside. This
amendment reduces the education available for prisoners and, therefore,
is bad public policy.
In addition, Mr. Chairman, I would like to read a statement from
Secretary Riley dated July 30, 1997 in which he says:
I understand that an amendment will be offered to the
Labor/HHS/Education appropriations bill that would undermine
the very important bipartisan and bicameral agreement on the
IDEA that President Clinton signed into law less than 2
months ago. The IDEA legislation is the product of a
painstaking process that reflected thoughtful compromises on
behalf of all parties and that will bring about improved
services and results for children with disabilities.
{time} 1200
It took at least 2 years to get a balanced agreement and
now, before it is even given a chance to work, efforts are
being made to upset it.
The Secretary goes on to say,
As a full participant in this agreement, I strongly oppose
any effort to undermine its enforcement. I am committed to
honoring the principle that all children 3 to 21 have access
to a free appropriate public education. Congress reaffirmed
this principle in passing the IDEA amendments last month,
which included new provisions allowing reasonable resolution
to issues regarding educational services in adult prisons,
particularly concerning violent offenders.
Mr. Chairman, I include the letter from Secretary Riley for the
Record.
U.S. Department of Education,
Office of the Secretary
Washington, DC, July 30, 1997.
Statement by Secretary Richard W. Riley
I understand that an amendment will be offered to the
Labor/HHS/Education Appropriations bill that would undermine
the very important bipartisan and bicameral agreement on the
IDEA that President Clinton signed into law less than two
months ago.
The IDEA legislation is the product of a painstaking
process that reflected thoughtful compromises on behalf of
all parties and that will bring about improved services and
results for children with disabilities. It took at least two
years to get a balanced agreement and now, before it is even
given a chance to work, efforts are being made to upset it.
As a full participant in this agreement, I strongly oppose
any effort to undermine its enforcement. I am committed to
honoring the principle that all children ages 3-21 have
access to a free appropriate public education. Congress
reaffirmed this principle in passing the IDEA amendments last
month, which included new provisions allowing reasonable
resolution to issues regarding educational services in adult
prisons, particularly concerning violent offenders.
Mr. Chairman, I therefore would prefer that my colleagues reject the
amendment, although I know it is going to be adopted on a voice vote,
because it dishonors the historic, bipartisan legislation signed last
month, and because it represents bad public policy.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SCOTT. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I too oppose this amendment, although I know it is
moving forward. Simply to say if we are really sincere about ending
recidivism and breaking the cycle of crime, we know that the best way
to do that is to provide education for those inmates who will be out in
our society. What better investment to ensure people do not return to a
life of crime?
The amendment is misdirected and misguided and does not steer us in
the direction of rehabilitation and ensuring that these young men and
women can come and be viable citizens.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the chairman of the subcommittee for
his steadfast efforts over the last week to try to improve the targeted
dollars going to IDEA. We had a bill that everybody agreed to in this
Congress, and moved it through to try to get more money to these
children.
The gentleman has a perfecting amendment here. I am pleased it has
been accepted, and we are trying to move the debate forward. But I
think it is a very targeted thing, to try to keep these funds directly
on the kids affected, and not be wasted away in a lot of places where
people in fact may not be coming out of the prison system.
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SOUDER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman worked very hard on this legislation, as
did the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott] and the gentleman from
California [Mr. Martinez], my good friend, and the distinguished
ranking member of the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and
Families.
I just want to make sure again, I do not know if this will allay
concerns for those who believe we should be serving this population,
but I want to point out one of the compromises we made on a bipartisan
basis was to give States greater flexibility in providing special
educational services to 18- to 21-year-old inmates in adult prisons.
Indeed, there were some, including the Governor of my home State,
Governor Wilson, whose view I very much respect, who believed we should
have flatly prohibited providing services to this segment of the
population.
We did not do that. Instead, what we did do in the legislation is
allow prison education to be delegated to the prison or corrections
system. We relaxed standards to acknowledge the security requirements
associated with serving this population in a prison environment or
within a correctional facility, and, most importantly, as I stressed
earlier, we provided that a State deciding not to provide services to
this prison population only would forfeit that pro rata share of
Federal funding for that small segment of the totally IDEA eligible
population.
This seems again to be very reasonable, and it is the intent of my
amendment to confirm that Congress indeed intends to give the States
the option not to provide IDEA special education services to adult
felons age 18 to 21 in adult prison while receiving only a limited
monetary penalty.
I do take exception to anyone who would contend that my amendment
somehow would unravel the bipartisan agreement on the IDEA Amendments
Act, that it somehow violates the spirit of those good faith,
bipartisan, bicameral negotiations.
Again, I view my amendment as purely a clarifying amendment to
confirm that the carefully crafted compromise agreement on this issue
was indeed structured to allow states to make an election to not
provide costly IDEA special education services to convicted felons.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SOUDER. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I would just point out that the position
taken by the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] was offered, and
many of us thought it had been in fact rejected; that if there were a
financial penalty, the financial penalty would be limited to the pro
rata share of the persons not served, but at no point was an option
given that there were other enforcement mechanisms possible.
We differ in terms of what we thought. Everybody else thought there
was in fact no option, that the position articulated had in fact been
rejected.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, the merits of affirmative
action is not what this amendment is about. We'll get our opportunity
to engage in that debate when we consider the so-called Civil Rights
Act of 1997 which is sponsored by Mr. Canady. The question posed by
this amendment offered by my colleague, Mr. Riggs, is whether, by
popular sovereignty, a State can undermine, and in fact, ignore the law
of the land, and prohibit the Federal Government from enforcing the
Federal law.
By prohibiting the Department of Education from withholding
assistance to institutions which do not comply with title VI of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, this provision will set a very dangerous
precedent indeed. We must not, as a national legislative body, endanger
the national interest, and the stability of our Union, by passing an
amendment prohibiting the Federal Government from enforcing Federal law
in California, or in any other State which seeks to negate the national
will of our citizenry, as codified in our law.
[[Page H7379]]
The law of the land requires that public educational institutions
that receive Federal funds may not discriminate in admissions. Title 42
of the United States Code, section 2000d declares that:
no person * * * shall on the ground of race, color, or
national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied
the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination
under any program or activity receiving Federal financial
assistance from the Department of Education.
In implementing title VI's mandate for equality of opportunity in
public education, the Code of Federal Regulations section 100.3(b)(6)
provides that if an institution's:
noncompliance or threatened noncompliance cannot be corrected
by informal means, compliance * * * may be effected by the
suspension or termination of or refusal to grant or to
continue Federal financial assistance or by any other means
authorized by law * * *
If we today, in a very shortsighted fashion, attempt to isolate this
particular provision from the broader potential consequences, we will
be doing ourselves, and more importantly, the Nation, a historic
disservice.
By allowing the State of California and other intended States to
affirmatively reject Federal civil rights law--in effect, pick from the
panoply of benefits associated with Federal law--Federal funds, whether
for public education, or for highway and transportation projects, these
same States must uphold the obligations associated with our republican
form of government.
History demonstrates that inherent in a State's effort to undermine
Federal law is the fertile soil through which the seed of dissension is
sown. If we allow Federal law to be undermined in this instance, who is
then to stop tobacco growing States from holding a referendum on the
tobacco settlement, or border States challenged by immigration issues
from negating Federal immigration mandates, or States with lower per
capita incomes from rejecting minimum wage increases.
Mr. Chairman, the strength of the Union is contingent upon the
ability of the Federal Government to enforce the goals of the Union.
States must not be allowed to pick and choose, to embrace Federal
benefits, while rejecting Federal protections.
This body roundly embraces the notion of unfunded mandates--the
guiding principle that we cannot, as a Federal legislative body, impose
mandates on States and localities without adequately funding such
mandates. The reverse is true as well. If Federal funds are granted to
assist States in providing a quality education to its citizens, those
States may not undermine title VI's mandate that these taxpayer dollars
are expended in nondiscriminatory manner
Mr. Chairman, the question before us today is not whether you are for
or against affirmative action, it is whether we can allow a State to
ignore Federal law and undermine Federal enforcement of that law. A
vote for this amendment is a vote prohibiting the Federal Government
from enforcing a Federal law and in favor of exempting a State from
complying with Federal law. In order to provide domestic tranquility,
protect our national interest, and indeed build a more perfect union,
Mr. Chairman, all Americans must have an equal opportunity to a quality
public education.
And, so colleagues, whether you are for affirmative action or not,
that is not what this amendment is about. Do not vote to undermine our
ability to enforce the provisions amongst the States we fight for on
this floor on behalf of our constituents in our efforts to build a more
perfect union. Mr. Chairman, on these grounds I urge a ``no''' vote on
the gentleman's amendment, and yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas, Mr. Chairman, I rise in vehement opposition
to the amendment offered by Representative Riggs of California. This
amendment is nothing more than an effort to force the Department of
Education to apply a Federal ban on affirmative actions programs in
education in States that have passed proposition 209 like efforts.
This is an attack on the Federal civil rights laws that so many have
fought and even died to have enacted.
This amendment would, in effect, prohibit the Office for Civil Rights
at the Department of Education from enforcing Federal civil rights
laws. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and title IX of the Education
amendments of 1972 would not be enforceable.
This amendment effectively bars the Department of Education and the
Office of Civil Rights from carrying out its statutory responsibility
to enforce Federal antidiscrimination provisions relating to how
Federal financial assistance is dispensed under a variety of education
programs and activities. Even the most blatant cases of discrimination
would have no remedy by the Department of Education if this amendment
goes into effect.
Additionally, this amendment prohibits the Office of Civil Rights
from enforcing Federal civil rights laws in all 50 States, which
creates a patchwork of civil rights enforcement. This goes against the
uniform longstanding national policy of the uniform application of
civil rights laws.
While this amendment proports to apply only to Federal grant
recipients located in States where State law, or a Federal court order
prohibits the enforcement of affirmative action programs, we know the
true effect of this damaging and dangerous amendment. It will set a
difficult precedent for other efforts and amendments to ban all
affirmative actions programs of the Federal Government.
The Federal civil rights laws have proved monumental in bringing
about real changes in American education and have improved the
educational opportunities of millions of students. The Federal civil
rights laws have been in place to preserve minorities' rights when
States would not act. We need do nothing to promote State actions over
Federal law as it relates to protecting civil rights.
What has been the impact of civil rights laws in the United States?
The dropout rate of African-American students--ages 16 to 24--declined
from 22.9 percent in 1975 to 12.1 percent in 1995. Total minority
enrollment at colleges and universities increased 63.4 percent in the
past decade. Since 1990, the number of Latino and Hispanic students
enrolled in higher education increased by 35 percent, the number of
African-American students increased by 16 percent and the number of
American-Indian students increased by 24 percent.
We should stop this amendment in its tracks now, before it picks up
steam and rolls over all of the hard work and tireless efforts of
Americans of all creeds who have stated over and over again that
affirmative action works.
What are we really talking about when we talk about affirmative
action? We are talking about diversity, opportunity, and the ability
for persons who have historically not been able to gain access to
education and jobs in this country to simply have access to these
important arenas.
The 160,000 members of the American Association of University Women
have affirmed that affirmative action programs continue to expand equal
opportunity for hundreds of women and minorities in education and
employment.
In 1992, the Bureau of Labor Statistics found that only 6.6 percent
of all working women were employed in nontraditional occupations. Women
in nontraditional occupations earn 20 to 30 percent more than women in
traditional occupations.
Affirmative action programs in education and training open doors that
were consistently slammed in the faces of women across this country. It
allows opportunities for women and girls who might otherwise be tracked
into low-wage, predominantly female jobs with little or even no
opportunity for real advancement or economic independence.
This amendment is premature. Proposition 209 in California is
undecided law. There are serious constitutional challenges to
proposition 209 which must be heard by the Supreme Court.
In Texas, the Hopwood decision has resulted in a major setback for
African-Americans and minorities to enter into graduate and
undergraduate programs at public institutions. Among the freshman class
of 6,500 students at the University of Texas, only 150 are African-
American students. This is half of last year's enrolling class. At the
law school, only 4 African-Americans and 26 Hispanics will be entering
the first-year class. This is an outrage.
What are we prohibiting when no one has acted yet. We are keeping
qualified, energetic, and eager students from attending schools of
higher education across this country. We are allowing blatant racism to
go unpunished and unanswered if we allow this amendment to pass.
I am pleased this amendment was eventually withdrawn.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). The question is
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs].
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, on October 1, 1997, the deadline for the child support
enforcement system automation program comes upon us. The consequence of
the States' failures to meet the automation and centralization of the
computer systems obligation for enforcement of child support which were
imposed by the 1988 Family Support Act will mean the automatic cutoff
of all TANF, formerly AFDC funds, and child support funds.
At least 11 States in this country, including California, clearly
cannot meet that October 1 deadline. It is quite possible that seven,
eight, or nine other States will also not meet that deadline. The
consequence of the failure to meet the deadline is that the cutoff of
the
[[Page H7380]]
TANF funds and the child support funds will mean a loss of $4 billion
to the State of California. States like the State of the great chairman
of the subcommittee, Illinois, will lose close to $700 million in
funds. Ohio, South Dakota, New Mexico, Hawaii, Maryland, Michigan,
Nevada, Pennsylvania, all of these States are not going to meet that
deadline.
I had originally intended to offer an amendment to delay the
imposition of those deadlines and to provide for a moratorium for 6
months so that we could both look at the situation and have time to
change the law. I have been persuaded by the fact that my amendment
would not be in order, that was helpful in persuading me, but in
addition to that, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw], the chairman
of the key subcommittee of the authorizing committee, has a strategy
which I would like to yield to the gentleman to describe, which will
deal with the possibility of my State and many other States in this
country losing an incredible amount of money, totally destroying the
whole structure of the Welfare Reform Act the gentleman worked hard on,
meaning the inability to enforce interstate child support collection
functions and a number of other key functions.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BERMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. SHAW. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me to clarify exactly
where we are on this, because as the gentleman quite correctly stated,
this is not only a problem that the Californians are concerned about,
but it is a problem that at least 9 other and perhaps 10 other States
are concerned about, as the gentleman said.
The deadline was extended under the Welfare Reform Act to October 1
of this year. In that there are a number of States that have tried to
comply and been unable to comply for some very technical reasons, we
have had this matter under discussion in the committee itself.
The way the law presently is written and hopefully will remain is
that after this deadline, there is a period of time of approximately 6
months in which the various States can, and I am sure will, appeal in
order to pick up the added time and also in order to negotiate with the
Secretary, also in order to give this Congress an opportunity to go
back and review exactly where we are.
It is my intention as chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Resources
to bring a bill to the floor, in cooperation with the Secretary, that
would give her certain discretion in imposing any penalty, and, of
course, I am sure she would never impose the tremendous penalty as to
total defunding, as the gentleman pointed out, in California.
Nonsupport by noncustodial parents is probably the biggest reason for
welfare in this country today. We are only collecting about $14 billion
a year out of a total of almost $50 billion that is due. That is a
horrible situation, and it is necessary that we solve the problem by
making it easier to track the deadbeat parents down in order to be sure
that they live up to their obligations.
My own State of Florida will probably make the deadline, but I found
out in a hearing just the other day that in order to make that deadline
it has had to rely on and continue to use an antique computerized
system, which it was characterized as. The State of Florida will be on
time with the deadline, but they are going to be on time using an Edsel
instead of something that would be more modern than that.
That is a problem, and it was sort of the law of unintended
consequences that took place.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman]
has expired.
(On request of Mr. Shaw, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Berman was
allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I am very much aware of the California
problem. I have spoken to the gentleman's Governor, he has been in my
office, Governor Wilson. Secretary Eloise Anderson was in my office as
late as yesterday discussing this problem with me.
California it appears has a fragmented system, but it is very high-
tech and it is a very good system, and California wants to retain their
system. We are going to try to work out a way so that the intention of
the law will be brought forward and that various States as California,
who have used new technology and has been innovative in the way that
they have taken care of their system and updated their system, are not
penalized by a Federal mandate if they meet the spirit of the law.
So I would say to the gentleman, I look forward to continuing to work
with him and other Californians as well as Pennsylvanians and some of
the other States the gentleman mentioned, in seeing that they do meet
deadlines and that the deadlines are really enforced in a very
reasonable way and that the Secretary is given latitude.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, just to sort of pin
down the issue perhaps a little bit more precisely, California becomes
vulnerable on October 1. So do these other at least 11 States. The
process, as I understand it, is that by December or January, HHS will
assess and decertify the States, and there is an appeals process. So,
as the gentleman pointed out, it is very unlikely any money will be
withheld for the next 6 months. But the fear in California, Senator
Feinstein has worked on this issue, spoken with the President, and is
pursuing whatever mechanisms she can to try and deal with it, the fear
is that ultimately something will happen, the legislation will not
move, and California will now be found to have been in default, owing
$4 billion. Next year's payment will be held back because of this, and
the fact is the underlying law California will not be able to comply
with in 6 months or 1 year anyway.
So there are two issues, the need for California and the other States
to know that the penalty structure will be fundamentally changed, it is
nuts to withhold TANF or AFDC funds, $3.7 billion in the State of
California because of the failure to meet the computer model, and there
will be a new penalty structure dealing with child support enforcement
proportional to the sins in the sense it will be structured. And then
the underlying question also, which is how do we achieve the
centralization and coordination we need without, as the gentleman
indicated by implication, encouraging old technologies rather than new
technologies and requiring the scrapping of very expensive computer
systems. These are both difficult questions.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from California
[Mr. Berman] has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Berman was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, people will want to go to the conference
committee here and try to get this extension of the moratorium. I know
the gentleman's feelings about it. Anything the gentleman can say to
reassure people on this point would be very important.
Mr. SHAW. If the gentleman will yield further, first I want to make
it very clear that California is not going to lose $4 billion. In fact,
I would doubt that they will end up in the long run losing anything.
{time} 1215
Both this Member of Congress as well as the Secretary, and I assume
the President, want to leave the deadline in place but want flexibility
in administering the consequences.
We are looking at the law and we are going to do everything we can to
restructure it to answer this California problem.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). The Committee
will rise informally.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shaw) assumed the chair.
____________________