[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.

                          ____________________