[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 104 (Wednesday, July 29, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H6577-H6592]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND 
             INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999

  The Committee resumed its sitting.
  (By unanimous consent Mr. Linder was allowed to speak out of order.)


                          Personal Explanation

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, regrettably I was not present to vote on 
Rollcall Numbers 337, 338 and 339 last Friday afternoon. Had I been 
present I would have voted aye on 337, no on vote 338 and aye on vote 
339 which was the final passage of the Patient Protection Act.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Scott).
  (Mr. SCOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the motion which will be 
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) a little bit later 
in the evening.
  Mr. Chairman, in 1994 the Consumer Product Safety Commission decided 
to grant part of a petition by State fire marshals, State fire marshals 
who have been asking the CPSC to develop a safety standard for 
upholstered furniture to address the problems of fires started from 
small open flames such as lighters, matches and candles. Every year 200 
people are killed and 600 injured unnecessarily by fires which start on 
upholstered couches and chairs. Most of the fires start when children 
play with lighters and matches, and every year 40 children under age 5 
die in fires started by burning upholstered furniture.
  These fires, Mr. Chairman, cost an estimated $1 billion and are 
completely avoidable. These fires could be avoided by using fire-
retardant chemicals to reduce the flammability of upholstered 
furniture. The CPSC has been working for the past 4 years to conduct 
tests and evaluate all of the issues relating to the proposed standard 
to reduce fires, but the upholstered furniture industry does not want 
this standard to move forward, so in subcommittee an amendment was 
added to tie the CPSC up in red tape and paperwork and delay the 
development of these standards.
  Mr. Chairman, the study required in this bill is unnecessary, it is a 
stall tactic, and the CPSC estimates that it would take more than 5 
years and cost nearly a million dollars to do this unnecessary study. 
In the meantime more fires will occur putting peoples' lives in danger. 
Each year that goes by before the standard is put in place 200 people 
die, each year 600 people are injured unnecessarily, and each year that 
goes by nearly $1 billion in damages and social costs from these 
preventable fires occur. Each year that goes by 40 more children under 
age five will die from fires and burns.

                              {time}  1845

  Will we continue to sacrifice the lives of our children and firemen? 
Will we pander to the upholstered furniture industry to stop the CPSC 
from taking steps to prevent these completely avoidable fires? No. I 
urge my colleagues to support this motion to recommit.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield to my colleague, the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, we will vote on a motion to recommit with 
specific instructions to strike section 425. This section puts the 
interest of an industry over the interest of our citizens. Today we won 
a victory on children's sleepwear fire safety standards. We 
demonstrated Congress' bipartisan commitment to ensuring that our 
children are safer from fires. Now we must continue that commitment by 
allowing the Consumer Product Safety Commission to proceed on 
upholstered flammability standards.
  In a letter to the Committee on Rules, the Consumer Product Safety 
Commission called this language an obstacle to their work. They said, 
and I quote:

       The proposal creates additional costs to an ongoing project 
     and adds considerable delay and redundancy with no additional 
     benefits to the American public. This is only intended to 
     interfere and disrupt the orderly process already developed 
     by the Consumer Product Safety Commission to consider a 
     serious hazard facing American consumers.

  That is not stated by any Congressperson. That is stated by the CPSC. 
Unfortunately, if this VA-HUD appropriations bill passes with section 
425, the $16 billion upholstery manufacturing industry will receive an 
early Christmas present. That is what this is all about.
  While the industry is laughing its way to the bank, thousands of 
Americans will be in jeopardy and will continue to be in jeopardy. They 
will be

[[Page H6578]]

burned because the industry spent thousands of dollars lobbying against 
a national upholstery flammability standard. Thirty-seven hundred 
people a year are killed by house fires. Seventeen hundred youngsters 
are injured due to residential fires, most of which are starting when 
upholstery furniture catches fire.
  This bill blocks the progress that has been made by the Consumer 
Product Safety Commission. The provision not only delays the project, 
but it is totally redundant and provides no further benefit to the 
American public.
  While we wait, over 25,000 men, women, and children will have died as 
a result of burning furniture if we wait a year or 18 months. The 
Consumer Product Safety Commission calculates that an upholstery 
flammability standard will have an annual net savings of $300 million.


                 Amendment No. 31 Offered By Mr. Riggs

  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 31 offered by Mr. Riggs: At the end of the 
     bill, insert after the last section (preceding the short 
     title) the following new section:
       Sec.   . None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be 
     used to implement section 12B.2(b) of the Administrative Code 
     of San Francisco, California.

  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I will try to be as brief as I can for this 
debate, because I believe that this is the last substantive amendment 
pending to the bill before we move to recommittal and final passage.
  I am glad the Clerk read my amendment because the amendment has been 
revised and modified now a couple of times in part because of what I 
think is the legitimate criticism of earlier versions of the amendment 
from some of my colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle.
  So the amendment in its current form is intended to do one thing and 
one thing only, and that is to prevent the City and County of San 
Francisco government, which is one unit of local government, one 
political subdivision, and to the extent that my amendment, if it 
passes, reflects the thinking and the intent and the will of the 
Congress, by inference, any other local government, to prevent the city 
and county of San Francisco government from being able to use Federal 
taxpayer funding, Federal taxpayer funding to condition any city 
contract to a private organization to require that private 
organization, whether it be a for-profit business or a not-for-profit 
community-based charitable organization, to provide domestic partner 
benefits to their employees.
  I think that that is the basis for a very legitimate, a very serious 
debate in the people's House before any local government can use 
Federal taxpayer funding in this fashion.
  So I want to stipulate at the outset that this is not, in my view, a 
matter involving local autonomy. It does not force the city and county 
of San Francisco to change its current law, city ordinance on the use 
of city funding, local taxpayer funding in this fashion, no matter how 
misguided I might think that is. For that matter, it does not apply to 
any city contracts with State taxpayer fund.
  While I would disagree with the policy, it does not interfere with 
the city and county of San Francisco's decision to offer domestic 
partner benefits to their own employees. It only applies at that point 
where the city and county attempts to condition the city contract using 
Federal taxpayer funding to impose this requirement on the private 
sector. Therein lies, I think, a very important distinction.
  Secondly, the way the city's ordinance is currently drafted, chapter 
12B of the San Francisco Administrative Code, it requires private 
organizations doing business with the city to provide benefits to 
unmarried domestic partners to the same extent as spouses of married 
employees.
  I think we should have a debate on whether we want to elevate that 
relationship to the same status as marriage, which I consider to be a 
sacred institution and which I define as the covenant between one man 
and one woman. I think we can have a very legitimate debate on that.
  But the real problem I have with the city ordinance is, as I have 
mentioned, that it applies to all city contracts and grants using 
monies deposited or under the control of the city. I quote from the 
ordinance. So it applies to Federal taxpayer funding as well as State 
and local taxpayer funding. Hence, the need for my amendment.
  This is a relatively recent law, relatively recent development in San 
Francisco. Since its implementation by the elected decision makers for 
the city and county of San Francisco, that is to say a majority of the 
San Francisco Board of Supervisors, there have been a number of 
organizations that have resisted this policy, some of them for-profit 
businesses, large corporations like United Airlines, Federal Express. 
It needs city approval in order to be able to do business, to have 
facilities in San Francisco International Airport.
  Those large corporations, for-profit entities, they have resources 
that smaller nonprofit community-based charitable organizations do not. 
So I am not here really on their behalf. I am here on behalf of 
Catholic Charities and Salvation Army, two venerable organizations. 
They have longstanding relationships with the city and county of San 
Francisco government that have found themselves suddenly forced to 
accept this policy or lose its city contracts.
  In the case of Catholic Charities, they were able to work out 
apparently an agreement that is a slight variation of the city law. But 
in the case of the Salvation Army, which refused to buckle to the city 
policy, the Salvation Army forfeited $3.5 million of its $18 million 
budget. Here is the headline from the San Francisco Examiner newspaper.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs) 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Riggs was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, the headline says ``The Salvation Army has 
decided to end its contracts with San Francisco and shrink programs 
serving the homeless, drug addicts and the elderly because of a dispute 
over the city's domestic partners law.
  Some, if not most, or even all of this funding originated with 
Federal taxpayers and was appropriated by this body, in this annual 
spending bill, as well as other annual spending bills.
  What I want my colleagues to know is that the city law provides for a 
specific exemption, a sole provider exemption, otherwise known as a 
waiver, and that the city and county of San Francisco, upon the 
recommendation of the city's Human Rights Commission, has granted a 
number of waivers to private contractors doing business with the city 
of San Francisco, including Blue Cross, Encyclopedia Britannica, the 
U.S. Tennis Association, Lawrence Hall, Paramount, the large 
corporation that operates two amusement parks in the San Francisco Bay 
area so that 9,000 underprivileged kids living in San Francisco could 
go to those amusement parks this summer; yet it refused to grant a 
waiver to the Salvation Army and Catholic Charities.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I think this is an appropriate debate to take. I 
think we should take a stand. We should not sanction domestic partner 
relations; that we should say unequivocally that the American people 
want leaders who will respect and support rather than dishonor and 
undermine marriage and the family, and most importantly, I think we 
should support the rights of private organizations, whether it be the 
Boy Scouts, Catholic Charities or Salvation Army, to adhere to the 
traditional values that they have always followed.
  So I ask support from my colleagues for my amendment which simply 
would not allow Federal taxpayer funding from this bill to be used to 
force or to coerce private groups and businesses to adopt policies that 
they find morally objectionable.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Riggs 
amendment. When I came to the floor to oppose the amendment, I did so 
on the basis of the issue of local autonomy. Having the concern that I 
do about the impact of a vote on my colleagues that I wish the maker of 
this motion would share, I am concerned when I hear him making 
statements about the practice in San Francisco that is not true. Either 
the

[[Page H6579]]

gentleman is ill-informed or he chooses to ignore the truth in this 
situation.
  What this amendment will do is to single out one city. I ask my 
colleagues, do you want your city singled out next? None of the funds 
appropriated by this act may be used to implement Section 12B.2(b) of 
the Administrative Code of the city of San Francisco.
  This is the fifth version of the Riggs amendment. It took five 
versions for the gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs) to conclude what 
he wanted our colleagues to consider because this is a very sloppy 
approach to legislation. It is in violation of local autonomy and it is 
unconstitutional.
  As I said, I came to talk about this in terms of local autonomy, and 
if I have the time I will, but I do want to set the record straight.
  First of all, the city of San Francisco is not forcing anyone to act 
against his or her or their principles. Indeed, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Riggs) said he is here on behalf of Catholic Charities. 
He said that.
  Catholic Charities and the city of San Francisco have entered into a 
very amicable agreement about how Catholic Charities will continue to 
provide the services that it does exceptionally well in helping with 
the homeless and with child care and other delivery of services as 
contractors to the city of San Francisco. There is peace between 
Catholic Charities and the city of San Francisco. I do not know why the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs) wants to create a war there.
  In terms of the services provided by the Salvation Army, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs) says that there has been a 
shrinking of programs and they have not been able to provide the 
services that they have been contracted to do, and that simply is not 
true. Indeed, the gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs) says that San 
Francisco has offered sole-sourcers the opportunity for a waiver but it 
would not offer that waiver to the Salvation Army. Not true.
  That waiver is available to Salvation Army. They chose not to accept 
it, and in September their contracts will lapse and San Francisco will 
award the contracts for the delivery of services that Salvation Army so 
ably provides. Perhaps the contract will go to Catholic Charities which 
is complying with the law in San Francisco, as I say, very peacefully.
  I say to my colleagues I care about the impact of this vote on them 
and I do not want to ask them to do something that is not in their 
interest at the end of the day, and I believe it is in their interest 
at the end of the day to protect the local autonomy.
  Indeed, in the words of our colleague, the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Riggs), who said on another occasion, when he was arguing against 
Federal control, he urged us, and I quote, to decentralize authority 
and responsibility and, yes, funding and revenues back to the States. 
This was in the context of the block grants in education.
  Then he said, in turn, we will be disbursing power to our fellow 
citizens.
  Well, that is a great idea. Why not support it today?
  In another statement, he advised the House, we have to have a 
national policy which specifies that the Federal Government no longer 
can impose mandates on State and local government.

                              {time}  1900

  Well, if the maker of the amendment were to be true to those words, 
he would vote down his own amendment today.
  The Riggs amendment would prohibit, as I say, any funds from being 
used to implement section 12B, or the antidiscrimination section of the 
San Francisco Code to the Administrative Code of San Francisco.
  I want my colleagues to hear the words of the U.S. Conference of 
Mayors. If any of my colleagues have cities and towns in their 
districts, and I assume that they do, they might want to know that they 
have said: ``The modified,'' and this is now the 5th modification, 
``Riggs amendment strikes at the heart of a local jurisdiction's 
obligation to ensure that civil rights are protected within its 
boundaries.''
  The Office of Management and Budget warns that ``The amendment would 
impose an unfunded, expensive and extremely burdensome administration 
requirement on the city.''
  Can my colleagues just see it now? We are going to administer some 
homelessness or child care or whatever the service is, and we are going 
to have to figure out what part of it going to Catholic charities is 
federal, in a way that meets the criteria of the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Riggs) but not those of the City of San Francisco and 
the Constitution of the United States.
  Mr. Chairman, this body is not the city council of any city in the 
country. I urge my colleagues to vote against this ill-advised, poorly-
formed amendment.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs), who serves 
in this House from the State of California, is retiring from his 
position at the end of this year; and I would make a suggestion that if 
he wants to get involved in the laws adopted by the City of San 
Francisco, he ought go to San Francisco and run for the city council.
  Because what this amendment has us do here in Washington is interfere 
with the legitimate local judgments about city contracts by the city 
itself. It prohibits the use of Federal funds to implement Chapter 12B 
of San Francisco's Administrative Code, but, obviously, the City does 
not use Federal funds to implement its ordinances. It does not use 
Federal funds to pay its employees or its department of public works. 
When the City issues an RFP, it does not spend Federal dollars.
  So what is this amendment all about? It is a message amendment. It is 
an attack on the City of San Francisco. It is an affront to the 
citizens of San Francisco and to the progressive corporate citizenship 
of companies which provide domestic partner benefits. It is a slap at 
both small mom and pop businesses and Fortune 500 companies like 
American Express, IBM, and Shell Oil.
  The amendment may not have any real effect on the City's business, 
but it will unquestionably encourage prejudice and intolerance. It will 
encourage future attacks on local government, and it will fail to do 
what it purportedly seeks to accomplish; it will fail to interfere with 
San Francisco's local judgment about its own contracts.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to put into the Record following my comments 
here on the floor a letter from the Human Rights Campaign Fund, the 
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the United States Conference of 
Mayors, and the American Civil Liberties Union, and a resolution 
adopted by the City of Los Angeles, all opposing this amendment.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose it. It is an unwarranted, 
extraordinary interference with local community judgment. It is not the 
job of the Congress to be micromanaging the business of American 
cities.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge defeat of this amendment. I include at this time 
the letters I just referenced.

        Vote No on the Riggs Amendment to VA-HUD Appropriations

               (Working for Lesbian and Gay Equal Rights)

       Representative Riggs (R-CA) intends to introduce an 
     amendment when the House resumes consideration of the VA-HUD 
     Appropriations bill. The amendment would prohibit the City of 
     San Francisco from using VA-HUD funds to implement its entire 
     city ordinance against discrimination in city contracts. The 
     ordinance requires all city contractors to prohibit 
     discrimination based on factors which include race, color, 
     religion, sexual orientation, domestic partner status, 
     marital status, or AIDS/HIV status.
       UNPRECEDENTED FEDERAL INTERVENTION. The Riggs amendment is 
     an example of gross micro-management of one particular city 
     by the federal government. Congress sets a dangerous 
     precedent and poses a threat to all localities if it begins 
     to use its power to appropriate funds as a means to 
     intimidate and coerce local governments. While the federal 
     government conditions the use of federal funds, these 
     conditions are based on the federal law authorizing the grant 
     program (which is openly debated in Congress) or existing 
     federal government regulations on the use of federal funds 
     (which are subject to public comment). The Riggs amendment is 
     ``de facto'' legislation on an appropriations bill without 
     appropriate committee consideration and debate.
       NO NATIONAL INTEREST AT STAKE. In a recent decision 
     regarding the San Francisco ordinance, the U.S. District 
     Court held that local governments have the discretion, as do 
     individual consumers, to pick and choose the companies and 
     organizations with which they will do business. Federal grant 
     requirements similarly require grantees to comply with civil 
     rights and other federal

[[Page H6580]]

     law in order to do business with the federal government. 
     While Representative Riggs may disagree with San Francisco's 
     ordinance, there is no national interest at stake in its 
     application.
       MEAN SPIRITED PUNISHMENT. Punishing the people in one 
     particular city because their duly elected leaders set a 
     government policy clearly within their jurisdiction is a 
     mean-spirited Congressional action. While the Riggs amendment 
     does not cut off federal funds, use of those funds forces the 
     city to violate its own rules and regulations. VA-HUD dollars 
     are meant to help state and local governments meet the needs 
     of their citizens. They are not meant to punish a locality 
     for setting government policy.
       THE ORDINANCE IS FLEXIBLE. The San Francisco ordinance 
     requires city contractors who already provide benefits to 
     married partners of employees to also provide benefits to 
     domestic partners of employees. Several exceptions to the 
     ordinance exist which, for example, have allowed San 
     Francisco to craft an agreement with Catholic Charities that 
     is satisfactory to both. Catholic Charities is now delivering 
     care, housing, counseling and other services under a city 
     contract.
       THIS IS AN HRC KEY VOTE.
                                  ____

                                                 The United States


                                         Conference of Mayors,

                                                    July 22, 1998.
       Dear Member of Congress: On behalf of The United States 
     Conference of Mayors, I am writing to express our continued 
     opposition to an amendment to the VA-HUD Appropriations bill 
     which would be a major undermining of local autonomy and the 
     principles of federalism.
       The modified amendment proposed by Representative Frank 
     Riggs (CA) would prohibit any funds under the bill from being 
     used by the City of San Francisco to implement sections of 
     its municipal code that provide specific civil rights 
     protections. These protections include prohibiting 
     discrimination on the basis of race or national origin, 
     religion, gender, disability or age.
       The nation's mayors are seriously concerned with this 
     unwarranted intrusion into local decision making. The 
     modified Riggs amendment strikes at the heart of a local 
     jurisdiction's obligation to ensure that civil rights are 
     protected within its boundaries.
       We again urge you to oppose this amendment on the grounds 
     that the principles of federalism and local autonomy must not 
     be held hostage to the provision of needed federal funding. 
     The amendment would establish a very dangerous precedent and 
     we urge you to oppose its adoption.
           Sincerely,
                                                J. Thomas Cochran,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                          Leadership Conference on


                                                 Civil Rights,

                                    Washington, DC, July 22, 1998.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the Leadership Conference 
     on Civil Rights (LCCR), a coalition of more than 180 national 
     organizations representing people of color, women, labor 
     unions, persons with disabilities, older Americans, major 
     religious groups, gays and lesbians and civil liberties and 
     human rights groups, we write to express our strong 
     opposition to the so-called modified Riggs amendment to H.R. 
     4194, the FY '99 VA-HUD Appropriations Bill. If enacted, this 
     amendment would mark a profound departure from this nation's 
     bipartisan commitment to equal protection under the law and 
     cause irreparable harm to countless Americans.
       The modified Riggs amendment would prohibit the 
     implementation of Chapter 12B of San Francisco's 
     Administrative Code in programs funded by this bill. Chapter 
     12B includes fair employment protections prohibiting private 
     vendors who do business with the city from discriminating on 
     the basis of race, gender, color, creed, national origin, 
     disability, and sexual orientation. Chapter 12B also provides 
     for enforcement of these nondiscrimination protections 
     through the local Human Rights Commission.
       Each year, government entities (federal, state, and local) 
     purchase goods and services from private vendors. For most of 
     the nation's history, women and people of color faced 
     insurmountable legal barriers that deprived them of the 
     opportunity to compete for these government contracts. Even 
     after these legal obstacles were removed in the 1960's, 
     Congress has repeatedly recognized that systemic illegal 
     discrimination continues to deprive countless individuals an 
     equal opportunity to secure the federal government's 
     procurement dollars. Similarly, state and local governments 
     have enacted numerous program to ensure they are not an 
     active participant in the continuing cycle of discrimination.
       Prohibiting the City of San Francisco from ensuring 
     nondiscrimination within programs under its jurisdiction not 
     only would represent an unprecedented intrusion in local 
     government autonomy, but more important, would mark a 
     significant retreat in the nation's bipartisan commitment to 
     effective civil rights enforcement. State and local 
     governments have a compelling interest in expanding 
     employment opportunities and ensuring that taxpayer dollars 
     are not inadvertently being used to subsidize discrimination.
       On behalf of the Leadership Conference, I urge you to 
     continue the bipartisan tradition of supporting non-
     discrimination by rejecting the revised Riggs Amendment that 
     would endanger equal employment opportunities.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Wade Henderson,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                                             ACLU,


                                   Washington National Office,

                                    Washington, DC, July 23, 1998.
       Dear Representative: The American Civil Liberties Union 
     strongly urges you to oppose the Riggs Amendment to the 
     Veterans Administration/Housing and Urban Development 
     Appropriations bill. The Riggs Amendment will most likely 
     come up for a vote as early as this afternoon or tomorrow 
     morning.
       Congressman Riggs has proposed four different versions of 
     his amendment to punish the City of San Francisco for 
     contracting with businesses that provide domestic partnership 
     health care benefits to their employees. Several of those 
     versions are unconstitutional as lacking any legitimate 
     governmental purpose under the Supreme Court case of Romer v. 
     Evans, or as directly violating the constitutional 
     prohibition on Congress passing any bill of attainder--
     specifying a person or organization for punishment instead of 
     passing a generally applicable law.
       The fourth and latest version of the Riggs Amendment raises 
     an entirely new set of problems. It provides that ``none of 
     the funds appropriated by this Act may be used to implement 
     Chapter 12B of the Administrative Code of San Francisco, 
     California.''
       In his rush to punish San Francisco for encouraging its 
     vendors to provide the partners or spouses of both gay and 
     lesbian and heterosexual employees with the same health care 
     benefits, Congressman Riggs is attacking a city law that also 
     protects against discrimination based on race, religion, 
     color, gender, and national origin. Riggs has broadened his 
     attack to include all minorities.
       The San Francisco City Council passed Chapter 12B of its 
     Administrative Code to eliminate all forms of discrimination 
     against its employees and persons working for its vendors. 
     The objective is to protect the basic civil rights of persons 
     working for the city--even if those workers are in positions 
     that have been privatized.
       The Riggs Amendment will punish San Francisco for doing 
     what all federal civil rights laws permit San Francisco to 
     do. Specifically, federal civil rights laws do not preempt 
     state and local civil rights laws. The purpose of preserving 
     the rights of state and local governments to pass their own 
     civil rights laws is to encourage them to enforce civil 
     rights laws at the state and local level and reduce the need 
     for the federal government to intervene.
       The Riggs Amendment violates the historic federal principle 
     of not preempting stronger state or local civil rights laws 
     by punishing a city for passing a provision that provides 
     effective protection for persons based on such 
     characteristics as race, religion, color, natural origin, 
     gender, and sexual orientation. If it passes, the Riggs 
     Amendment will be a big step backward for the protection of 
     civil rights at the state and local level.
       For these reasons, the ACLU strongly urges you to vote 
     against the Riggs Amendment.
           Sincerely,
     Laura W. Murphy.
     Christopher E. Anders.
                                  ____



                                          City of Los Angeles,

                                        California, July 24, 1998.
     Re: Include in city's Federal Legislative Program Opposition 
         to Riggs Amendment to H.R. 4194--VA, HUD, and Independent 
         Agencies appropriations bill--which would prohibit any 
         HUD funds from being distributed to a locality which has 
         an ordinance requiring contractors to provide health care 
         benefits to domestic partners of company employees.
       I hereby certify that the attached resolution (Miscikowski-
     Wachs), was adopted by the Los Angeles City Council at its 
     meeting held July 24, 1998.
                                     J. Michael Carey, City Clerk.
                                        By Judi R. Clarke, Deputy.

Resolution
                                  ____


       Whereas, Congress is in the process of enacting various 
     appropriation bills to fund all Federal programs for the 
     fiscal year beginning October 1, 1998; and
       Whereas, one of these bills is H.R. 4194, which makes 
     appropriations for Veterans Affairs, HUD, and Independent 
     Agencies, including funding for homeless programs, housing 
     programs for people living with HIV/AIDS, low-income elderly 
     housing and lead abatement programs; and
       Whereas, Representative Frank Riggs has introduced an 
     amendment to this legislation which, although worded 
     differently in its various iterations, would essentially 
     undermine local autonomy and put the Federal Government in 
     the role of dictating policy to cities around the country; 
     and
       Whereas, this amendment would essentially prohibit any HUD 
     funds from being distributed to a locality which has an 
     ordinance requiring contractors to provide health care 
     benefits to domestic partners of company employees; and
       Whereas, although currently worded to specifically apply 
     only to the City of San Francisco, the real impact of this 
     amendment stretches far beyond the borders of any particular 
     city. The issue is the right of any municipality in America 
     to consider and enact ordinances within their traditional 
     purview without Federal intervention; and

[[Page H6581]]

       Whereas, the effect of this amendment would be to reduce 
     lead hazard reduction activities for children, eliminate 
     funds for low income elderly housing, curtail services to the 
     homeless and eliminate resources for housing for people with 
     AIDS; and
       Whereas, the San Francisco ordinance under attack by this 
     amendment merely requires contractors who already provide 
     benefits to married partners of employees to also provide 
     benefits to domestic partners of employees; and the ordinance 
     provides several exceptions to exempt certain contractors, 
     such as Catholic Charities and the Salvation Army from some 
     of these requirements; and
       Whereas, this ordinance has been upheld by a U.S. District 
     Court in San Francisco which held that local governments have 
     the discretion to pick and choose the companies and 
     organizations with which they will do business; and
       Whereas, the Riggs amendment has been modified four times 
     in an effort to secure its passage, the last version 
     narrowing to apply only to the City of San Francisco. 
     However, its intent is far reaching and has serious 
     implications for all cities, including the City of Los 
     Angeles which has implemented various efforts to benefit 
     domestic partners, secure living wages for workers and 
     eliminate substandard/slum housing--all programs which may 
     fall victim to some future Congressional initiative such as 
     the Riggs amendment; now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That the Council of the City of Los Angeles 
     hereby includes in the City's Federal Legislative Program 
     opposition to the Riggs Amendment to H.R. 4194--the VA, HUD, 
     and Independent Agencies appropriations bill, and any similar 
     legislation which would prohibit any HUD funds from being 
     distributed to a locality which Has an ordinance requiring 
     contractors to provide health care benefits to domestic 
     partners of company employees, and would undermine local 
     autonomy and put the Federal Government in the role of 
     dictating Policy to cities around the country.
                                                 Andy Miscikowski,
                                      Councilwoman, 11th District.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Riggs amendment, because, 
frankly, this amendment is a clear intrusion into the affairs of a 
local government. It targets an ordinance approved by only one city in 
this country, San Francisco; and, frankly, it sets a terrible precedent 
in so doing.
  As has been mentioned, the U.S. mayors oppose the modified Riggs 
amendment saying that, quote, the modified Riggs amendment strikes at 
the heart of a local jurisdiction's obligation to ensure that civil 
rights are protected within its boundaries, unquote. The Leadership 
Conference on Civil Rights has also expressed its strong opposition, as 
have other organizations.
  Further, the amendment violates the Constitution's prohibition 
against the enactment of ``bills of attainder'' by naming specific 
targets for punishment through the prohibition of funding. I think it 
would clearly be challenged in the courts.
  The amendment would have a substantial financial impact on the City 
of San Francisco. The Office of Management and Budget has determined 
that the amendment would impose an unfunded, expensive and extremely 
burdensome administrative requirement on the City, unquote.
  Mr. Chairman, contrary to the charges made by amendment supporters, 
the City of San Francisco has worked with organizations with differing 
beliefs to reach agreements satisfactory to both; and as has been 
mentioned and I will reiterate, in fact, Catholic charities and the 
City have reached just such an agreement in regard to the ordinance.
  So Mr. Chairman, I repeat, this is a clear instance in which the 
Federal intervention in local affairs is not appropriate. There is no 
justification for this intrusion in local decisionmaking. In fact, this 
amendment would set a dangerous precedent if it were approved, and I 
hope it will not be approved.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, San Francisco has two representatives in Congress, and 
I am proud to join the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), my 
friend and colleague, in expressing my strongest disapproval of this 
proposed amendment.
  This amendment by the gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs) should be 
called the ``Big Brother Amendment,'' because it engages in a 
preposterous degree of micromanagement of the affairs of a city. And it 
is not surprising that the national organization representing the 
mayors of our country and the national organization representing the 
counties in our country are as opposed to this amendment as are we.
  It is simply preposterous for the Federal Government to interfere 
with city ordinances that merely provide for equality of opportunity 
and fairness. Micromanagement has no role in our legislative process. 
And to find a subsection of a section of the San Francisco city 
ordinance to be unacceptable to the Congress of the United States by 
individuals who favor block grants and who tell us to allow local 
decisionmaking is so hypocritical as to boggle the mind.
  But this is not just interference in local decisionmaking. This is a 
poorly disguised assault on a persecuted minority, and I hope my 
colleagues across this political spectrum, from the far right to the 
left, will oppose this amendment. There is no room in our society for 
fermenting divisions, hate, and persecution, and this amendment should 
be rejected.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs). I do so because I believe the 
amendment represents an unwarranted intrusion into the local affairs of 
one particular city.
  The Riggs amendment says that none of the funds in this bill may be 
used to implement section 12B.2(b) of the Administrative Code of San 
Francisco, California. This particular section of local law requires 
contractors doing business with the City of San Francisco to provide 
the same benefits to their employees' ``domestic partners'' as they 
provide to employees' spouses. Domestic partners are defined as persons 
registered as such with a government agency pursuant to a State and 
local law. The apparent intent of the Riggs amendment is to prevent the 
City from applying this requirement on contracts that use funding from 
HUD or one of the other Federal agencies covered by this bill.
  San Francisco's domestic partnership law is motivated, in part, by a 
belief that, as a matter of principle, spouses and domestic partners 
should be treated equally with respect to employee benefits. The 
practice of providing benefits to domestic partners has been adopted by 
a great many employers throughout the country, ranging from local 
governments to large corporations.
  I also understand that the City's law is motivated, in part, by a 
desire to make health benefits more widely available and thereby reduce 
costs for public health programs.
  Now, whether one agrees or disagrees with the particular approach 
chosen by San Francisco, we should all be able to agree that these are 
legitimate goals for a municipal government to be pursuing and that the 
City's elected officials have every right to adopt this rule.
  We are so often told, especially by members of the majority party, 
that greater power must be returned to State and local governments and 
that the Federal Government should be providing assistance, largely 
through block grants with few strings attached. And, indeed, many of 
the programs administered by the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development that are funded in this bill, there has been an increasing 
emphasis on local control and local decisionmaking.
  The Riggs amendment turns this principle on its head. It singles out 
one particular city and says that city cannot apply a particular local 
ordinance to block grant and other funds.
  Mr. Chairman, do we believe in local control and local decisionmaking 
or do we not? If we truly believe in local control, that principle 
should apply regardless of whether Congress happens to agree with all 
of the decisions made by every locality. Does Congress really need to 
turn itself into some sort of super review body for city councils 
picking and choosing those local enactments with which it agrees and 
disagrees and singling them out for disapproval in appropriation bills? 
I hope not. We should not start down that road.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge defeat of the Riggs amendment.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.

[[Page H6582]]

  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs).
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend and colleague for 
seeking recognition and for yielding to me, because at this point in 
the debate I think it is important that we perhaps clarify some 
erroneous impressions that I believe my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle are laboring under. Certainly I hope that they are not trying 
to perpetuate some of this nonsense that I have heard in recent days as 
we diligently sought to narrow the scope and the impacts of my 
amendment.
  Just for the record, there were three versions, not four, not five, 
and I do not think there is a need to constantly exaggerate.
  Just for the record, the City and County of San Francisco is the only 
such city with this kind of law, this kind of ordinance on the books, 
using Federal taxpayer funding to force private organizations to comply 
with the law. They are very proud of that fact. They are proud of the 
fact that they have a ground-blazing ordinance, their groundbreaking 
domestic partners law, the equal benefits ordinance which requires that 
organizations doing business with the City provide health care benefits 
to gay, lesbian and unmarried partners of their employees if they 
provide the same benefits to husbands and wives. And I do not think we 
will get any dispute over here that that is what the ordinance says and 
what it seeks to do.
  So I guess the question to my colleagues is, do my colleagues have 
any concern about unwarranted intrusion into the private sector? I 
guess not. Do my colleagues really think that we should elevate a 
relationship between two unmarried people to the same relationship as 
two married people? And if we do not, that that is a form of 
discrimination, as I have heard people who oppose my amendment say 
repeatedly? Do my colleagues really feel that that is a form of 
discrimination, that unmarried people are treated differently under the 
law than married people? Do my colleagues think that that should be the 
policy of the United States Government, that unmarried people in a 
relationship are treated the same as married people?
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Georgia controls the 
time.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, is this a rhetorical question or a serious 
question?
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Georgia controls the 
time. I will continue on. I will continue on, because, obviously, the 
gentleman has the ability to get more time on that side of the aisle.

                              {time}  1915

  I do not want people, our colleagues who might be following this 
debate, to labor under a false impression. Of course the Conference of 
Mayors, of course local officials, are going to go on record as 
opposing the amendment. They want as few strings attached as possible. 
We recognize that.
  The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) is right when she says 
that generally speaking it is the Republican philosophy to decentralize 
funding and to maximize local control. The problem here is that we are 
talking about Federal taxpayer funding, not just State and local 
government funding, but Federal taxpayer funding.
  My amendment does not jeopardize, as some have attempted to portray, 
receipt of these funds. The city and county of San Francisco would 
still get their full allocation of funding under the bill. They just 
could not use the funding to require that private organizations accept 
this policy against their fiscal and/or moral objections.
  So my amendment merely prohibits the city and county of San 
Francisco, the first unit of local government to adopt such a law and 
to use Federal taxpayer funding, to force this law on private sector 
contractors, from attaching any domestic partner conditions to city 
contracts with Federal taxpayer funding because it now has had the 
unintended effect, at least in the case of the Salvation Army, of 
jeopardizing, if not disrupting, $3.5 million in funding to serve the 
homeless, to serve AIDS patients, and to provide meals to elderly 
citizens.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. KUCINICH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I think a national civics lesson is in 
order here. First of all, as a former mayor of the city of Cleveland, I 
think that I understand what all mayors understand, and that is that 
people in our cities pay taxes to city, State, and to the Nation. So 
people in cities across this country give their tax dollars to the 
Federal Government. They are Federal taxpayers. That does not give them 
any less rights, it actually gives them more rights. It gives them 
something to say at all levels.
  I am very concerned, as a former mayor and as a former city 
councilman, that the Riggs amendment would usurp the right of a local 
community, and by reference, all local communities, to make their own 
laws. The principle of home rule is something that every one of us in 
the Congress of the United States ought to support. We ought to support 
the principle of home rule.
  People make laws at a local level to promote their own safety, to 
provide for their own services, to make sure that people have their 
waste collected, have their streets plowed in the winter, the streets 
clean, to make sure that the people have good recreation and health 
care. People establish local governments specifically to do that, and 
they also establish laws which relate to the concerns of people in the 
community.
  People elect local officials because there are some decisions that 
are made at a local level, the decision of which ought to be made by 
the people of that locality. The history of the Federal Government does 
not provide for preemption of State or civil rights laws where State or 
civil rights laws of a locality have gone further than the Federal 
Government.
  There is no place like home, and there is no government institution 
like home rule. How precious is this right of self-government? How 
precious is this right of home rule? People together, coming together 
at a local level, they elect their members of council to address local 
issues which are of importance to the people in their neighborhood, 
their community, and their city.
  City councils meet as legislative bodies to make the laws for a city. 
It has been said before, we are not a plenipotentiary legislative body 
that seeks to make laws at every level of this government. We make 
Federal laws. We do not make laws for city councils and the city of San 
Francisco or Cleveland or Chicago or New York.
  All across this land, mayors and councils meet daily, meet weekly, to 
do what they feel is in the best interests of their community. Local 
government exists for local matters, and the Federal Government exists 
for Federal matters, and we should not try to usurp the job and the 
duty of local government.
  But when an amendment is created and aimed specifically at one city, 
in this case, San Francisco, California, I submit that it attacks home 
rule not only in San Francisco, but it attacks home rule in every city 
in the United States of America. As a former mayor, I can tell the 
Members that that ought not to happen, because that is not what the 
founders or the framers meant when they created a United States. It 
attacks home rule in New York, in Cleveland, in Chicago and Los 
Angeles, in every city and in every suburb and in every town.
  Local government means power to the people in its finest. Aside from 
this attempt to dictate to San Francisco, there is an undercurrent here 
which is not worthy of this Congress. I ask the Members, whatever 
happened to keeping government out of people's private lives? Whatever 
happened to live and let live? Whatever happened to do onto others as 
you would have them do unto you? Whatever happened to judge not, that 
ye be not judged?
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back, but I do not yield back anybody's 
constitutional rights.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise with some regret to strongly oppose the 
amendment of my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs).

[[Page H6583]]

  Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a couple of points. The first is that 
many may not know, but the early part of my life in a professional 
sense involved years in the health and life insurance business. I know 
a good deal about the group health insurance business and the way those 
contracts are formed.
  I feel very strongly that in this arena, the marketplace ought to 
have something to say. Indeed, as my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Stokes) indicated, there are corporations across the country who, 
in specifications they have outlined in terms of health insurance 
contracts, have included, among other things, provisions such as the 
ones that are being discussed here. The marketplace will work. People 
who are bidding to place those contracts can either choose to compete 
or not compete. So, frankly, I think, in the clearest sense, that ought 
to be true in this instance in the bay area of California.
  Above and beyond that, it strikes me that beauty often lies in the 
eyes of the genuflector, and I find people in this House, sometimes on 
both sides of the aisle, stand and pound their chests in support of 
local control. Indeed, I have often said to my friends who are involved 
in educational issues at the local level, friends, be very careful as 
you turn to Washington and look for your educational dollars, and 
recognize that we only give 10 cents on the dollar for educational 
purposes, but very quickly those who are delivering that dime want to 
spend your entire dollar, for they love the control, using the Federal 
dollar as the reason to control.
  In this case, in a most fundamental way, local government is 
reflecting its views as to what their policy should be, and very much 
reflecting their community in total, the epitome of what local control 
is all about.
  It seems to me that the first thing the Congress should know is that 
we do not have all the answers to all the problems around. Indeed, that 
government that serves best is the government that is closest to the 
people who would be served.
  So for all of those reasons, I would strongly urge the Members of 
this body to reject the Riggs amendment.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman knows, we are friends and 
colleagues of the same State congressional delegation, and I respect 
the gentleman's opinion and views. But I want to explain one more time 
why I think we should give this very careful thought.
  That is simply this: In the instance of the Salvation Army, we have 
an organization that has had a longstanding relationship with the city 
of San Francisco. I do not think there is any argument to that. They 
have long had a presence in the San Francisco Bay area that is 
specifically within the city and county of San Francisco.
  There are a lot of destitute and very needy people in the city of San 
Francisco. This is an organization dedicated through its founding 
principles, yes, its Judeo-Christian principles, on which it was 
founded, to helping the desperately poor and truly needy among us in 
our society.
  So there is an organization that is put in this quandary. They have a 
presence, a longstanding presence there. They have had a relationship 
with local government. Local government adopts this law. They condition 
their contracts; and ultimately, the contractor, this private 
organization, objects to the contract and to the law on moral and 
religious grounds.
  The problem that I have is that that is not the marketplace working. 
If it is a private for-profit entity, that is one thing, but this is a 
private not-for-profit charitable Christian organization that objects 
on moral and religious grounds, but wants to stay there in the city and 
continue to provide the services.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I must say 
to the gentleman that there is probably not an organization in the 
country that I feel more closely to than the Salvation Army. I have 
worked with them not just here at home but overseas, in many instances 
in the country of India. I have a great sensitivity there.
  But indeed, the marketplace does play a role here. Indeed, I am sure 
the Salvation Army, like other organizations working with the city, can 
find a way through this. But we should not be overriding that 
fundamental element of local control because of either a single 
organization, or in this case, because some disagree here at the 
Federal level.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FILNER. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, because this is a very 
destructive amendment, I rise to oppose it, and I hope my colleagues 
will defeat it handily.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Lewis) for reminding other Members of his party that they are again 
conveniently forgetting their own sacred mantras of local control and 
no Washington interference to meet their own extreme partisan ends. Do 
they not get it, Mr. Chairman? They cannot have it both ways: honor and 
even sanctify local control when it suits them, but then disregard it 
when it conflicts with their own partisan agenda.
  I am very concerned that this Congress is attempting to micromanage 
the affairs of the American public.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FILNER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I do feel this is a very 
serious issue. I would really regret it if we paint an issue like this 
in partisan terms.
  Mr. FILNER. I thank the gentleman.
  In any terms, Mr. Chairman, this is a very harmful precedent to set. 
Members should mark my words that each and every one of our 
communities, as the gentleman from Ohio stated, becomes instantly 
vulnerable to the very same congressional meddling if we pass this 
amendment.
  As a former city councilman and deputy mayor of the city of San 
Diego, I recall that my city's working with the Federal Government was 
a two-way relationship. The city met the reasonable requirements and 
guidelines of Federal grants and programs, and the Federal Government 
did not meddle in our city's internal affairs and policies. It was a 
mutually respectful arrangement that this Congress should continue to 
honor.
  Mr. Chairman, the city of San Francisco has the right to conduct its 
business as it sees fit. Whether it is domestic partnership benefits or 
term limits or parking restrictions, if the people of San Francisco do 
not agree with the policies of their government, it is their 
prerogative to address these issues at the ballot box. It is not the 
prerogative of this Congress.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to be consistent in their demand to 
honor local control. Let the people of San Francisco and every city in 
America govern themselves.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FILNER. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
thank him for his statement. I know that he is a former member of the 
city council, and deputy mayor or vice mayor.
  Mr. FILNER. Deputy mayor.
  Ms. PELOSI. Deputy mayor of San Diego. I appreciate the perspective 
he brings to this debate.
  I particularly want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) for his opposition to this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, just for the record, because a statement I made was 
contradicted by the maker of the motion, I want to submit for the 
Record the five versions of the Riggs amendment. This will be a 
resubmission, Mr. Chairman, because they have already appeared in the 
Record on July 15, in the case of one of them; on July 16, in the case 
of two of them; on July 21, in the case of another one; and the 
amendment that we have before us.
  Mr. Chairman, I also want to say that it is interesting that the 
gentleman stood up and said he spoke here on behalf of Catholic 
Charities and Salvation Army, and now he is backing off

[[Page H6584]]

the Catholic Charities defense because he knows it was not a legitimate 
one. It is one that does not say that if you oppose the Riggs 
amendment, then you support domestic partners.

                              {time}  1930

  That is not the issue at all. It is about local autonomy. And, as I 
say, there is nobody here to have to defend Catholic Charities. They do 
a good job themselves. They are in contract with the City of San 
Francisco to provide the services that Federal dollars do provide. We 
do not want them to have to spend some of that money trying to separate 
which dollar is a San Francisco dollar, which dollar is a California 
dollar, which dollar is a Federal dollar. We would rather they have the 
maximum use of those funds for the delivery of services to meet the 
needs of the people of our community.
  Mr. Chairman, I am very proud to represent San Francisco, 
particularly so in conjunction with my colleague, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lantos), who spoke so eloquently against this amendment 
earlier. But we all respect our cities that we represent and we respect 
our colleagues; and when we ask them to vote for something, we should 
be on the level with them.
  When this legislation comes to the floor, it is about local autonomy. 
I do not think that the VA-HUD bill is the appropriate venue for us to 
have a discussion about domestic partners. I do not think it is the 
appropriate venue for us to tell all the corporations in America, many 
of the largest corporations in America, and I have the list which I 
will submit for the Record, that what they are doing is immoral and 
indecent. Perhaps the gentleman thinks that is a legitimate debate for 
this Congress to have. Let him bring it up as an authorizing measure, 
but not to interfere with this VA-HUD bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the amendments offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs):
       Amendment No. 15. At the end of the bill, insert after the 
     last section (preceding the short title) the following new 
     section:
       Sec. XX. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be 
     provided to the City of San Francisco because the City 
     requires, as a condition for an organization to contract 
     with, or receive a grant from, the City, that the 
     organization provide health care benefits for unmarried, 
     domestic partners of individuals who are provided such 
     benefits on the basis of their employment by or other 
     relationship with the organization.
       Amendment No. 24. At the end of the bill, insert after the 
     last section (preceding the short title) the following new 
     section:
       Sec. XX. None of the funds appropriated by title II may be 
     provided to any locality that requires as a condition for an 
     organization to contract with, or receive a grant from, the 
     locality, that the organization provide health care benefits 
     for unmarried, domestic partners of individuals who are 
     provided such benefits on the basis of their employment by or 
     other relationship with the organization.
       Amendment No. 25. At the end of the bill, insert after the 
     last section (preceding the short title) the following new 
     section:
       Sec. XX. None of the funds appropriated by title II may be 
     provided to the political entity known as the City and County 
     of San Francisco, California.
       Amendment No. 30. At the end of the bill, insert after the 
     last section (preceding the short title) the following new 
     section:
       Sec. XX. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be 
     used to implement Chapter 12B of the Administrative Code of 
     San Francisco, California.
       Amendment No. 31. At the end of the bill, insert after the 
     last section (preceding the short title) the following new 
     section:
       Sec. XX. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be 
     used to implement section 12B.2(b) of the Administrative Code 
     of San Francisco, California.

  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to echo some of the comments that have been made 
by my colleagues, most particularly the comments just made by my 
colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), with respect to 
the marketplace and the fact that, in these instances, the marketplace 
dictates that these provisions do be provided. Do my colleagues know 
why? In order to get the best people.
  These provisions need to be provided because, in this tight labor 
market, employers want to make sure they get the best possible talent. 
And I am sure the gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs) means no slight 
to those who are receiving human services. Because, obviously, we want 
the best people out there who are capable of delivering human services 
to be the people that we have deliver human services. We would not want 
to shut out anybody from being able to deliver those human services.
  So I think we need to address that point that the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lewis) brought up, because I think it is a very good 
point. It is not a matter of these private companies having extra money 
so they can dig into their pockets and do something that feels good. 
These companies adhere to stock markets. They need to provide the best 
maximum profit. And the reason they know they can do it and provide 
these benefits is because they know they are going to get the best 
possible people. The City of San Francisco should be no different from 
these private corporations.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to bring to the attention of my colleagues 
in the House, however, the issue that is being brought up here, the 
issue with respect to local autonomy. It has been echoed over and over 
again that the Council of Mayors has rejected the Riggs amendment. They 
have spoken very strongly on this issue. I want to add that the 
National Association of Counties and County Executives has also come 
out vigorously against the Riggs amendment because of its usurpation of 
local control.
  But I want to bring to the attention of my colleagues the fact that 
this really is usurping local control. In fact, so much so that it will 
undoubtedly end up in the courts. I am not making anything up here, 
when the gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs) himself acknowledges 
that the only city that is going to be affected is San Francisco.
  Mr. Chairman, I thought we were passing a bill that would provide 
coverage to all the cities and towns in America. But, apparently, the 
gentleman wants to micromanage and effect a policy in one city in this 
country. To me, that violates the case of Romer v. Evans, which said 
that Congress cannot pass any bill of attainder which specifies that 
Congress cannot carve out one city and town or person for direct impact 
when passing any legislation. That any legislation that the Congress 
proposes must impact the whole body of general information that the 
amendment seeks to change, and it cannot specify in one instance. So, 
for that reason, this will be tied up in the courts.
  Let me tell my colleagues what will practically be the result of when 
this is tied up in the courts. When this is tied up in courts, it will 
tie up approximately $65 million in Federal funds which will be tied 
up. What are those funds? The very programs that the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Riggs) says he cares about are going to be compromised 
because of his amendment.
  Homeless people are not going to get the McKinney Grant funds because 
of the Riggs amendment. People who are homeless because of AIDS are not 
going to get the necessary Federal funds because the gentleman from 
California is on this political witch-hunt.
  So do not think that this is any old amendment for Members to go in 
there and cover themselves with political stripes saying, ``I was 
strong today because I stood up and beat up on some minority in this 
country and was able to scapegoat some group in this country.'' Do not 
be so quick to do that, because when we do that we are affecting real 
people's lives. Real people are going to be affected by this, because 
of some ideological march that the gentleman from California is on.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask my colleagues to join the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lewis) and others in rejecting this mean-spirited, 
bigoted, bigoted amendment.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, there has been a great deal of comment from the other 
side on this issue, and I think it is only fair that I yield to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs) so that he may respond.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Mica) for yielding this time to me. I do want the opportunity to 
respond, since the previous speaker in the well I think just referred 
to me as being ``mean-spirited'' and ``bigoted.'' I guess the proper 
thing to do is to consider the source.
  But I also want to respond by saying that I did not know the 
gentleman

[[Page H6585]]

from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy) was a constitutional expert. I did not 
realize he was a legal scholar.
  Mr. Chairman, I do realize that he is reading from a letter, because 
I have a copy of the same letter. I can read from the same letter. I 
have a copy from the ACLU, the Washington office, which the gentleman, 
the renowned constitutional scholar, was just referring to regarding, 
``The Riggs amendment is an unconstitutional bill of attainder.'' But 
right above that it says, in their opinion, ``the sole objective of the 
Riggs amendment is to punish San Francisco for attempting to use its 
municipal spending powers to help equalize health care benefits for 
married heterosexual couples and unmarried, due to State law, 
homosexual couples.''
  That is kind of a convoluted way, I guess, of explaining their 
interpretation of my amendment. But it is the purpose of my amendment 
not to allow them to use Federal taxpayer funding to condition 
contracts to equate married heterosexual couples with, as they put it, 
unmarried homosexual couples.
  I also want to respond to a couple of points. The gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi) is correct. I stand corrected. We apparently 
had five versions of the amendment, three of which we drafted in 1 day.
  It is rare that one can stand up on the floor and get criticized by 
one's colleagues for making a good-faith effort. I served with the 
gentlewoman on the Committee on Appropriations in the last Congress, so 
I am well aware of the tactics. It is rare that when one makes a good-
faith effort to address, as I said at the outset, legitimate concerns 
raised by one's colleagues that one is then criticized for raising 
those efforts.
  Be that as it may, I want to go back to Salvation Army and Catholic 
Charities. I will insert the San Francisco Examiner article in the 
Record at the appropriate time that quotes Mr. Richard Love, an 
appropriate name, spokesman for the Salvation Army who said that, after 
11 months of negotiation, the organization told city officials that it 
could not comply with the ordinance. It is giving up $3.5 million in 
city contracts to serve the needy. Three programs, including meals for 
1,700 senior citizens, received taxpayers' dollars and will be reduced, 
but the programs will not be closed.
  So it seems to me that the actual effect at the local level was 
exactly the opposite of what the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. 
Kennedy), in a kind of hysterical rhetoric, was trying to describe.
  The part about Catholic Charities though, well, staying on Salvation 
Army, it quotes Mr. Love as saying, as I pointed out to the gentleman 
from California (Chairman Lewis), chairman of the subcommittee and the 
primary author of the legislation, ``The Salvation Army objects to the 
domestic partners law on religious grounds.
  ``The Army's belief system, grounded in traditional interpretation of 
Scripture, does not perceive domestic partnership arrangements as 
similar to the sanctity granted marriage partners.''
  That is the position of the Salvation Army. But then they went on to 
say that the Salvation Army says that the group will continue to 
``provide services to individuals, regardless of race, religion, sexual 
orientation, or marital status.'' They just do not want this policy 
forced on them, because it contradicts their founding principles and 
the beliefs that they have long adhered to. They have been in San 
Francisco for 118 years.
  Mr. Chairman, with respect to Catholic Charities, and this I do want 
to personally address to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy), 
since he is a member of one of best-known Catholic families in America, 
it says, ``Last year the City of San Francisco and the Roman Catholic 
Archdiocese of San Francisco, which has affiliated agencies with city 
contracts, fought the mandate.''
  Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Pelosi) they fought the mandate. They did not go along with it, 
Catholic Charities. ``In the end, they reached an accommodation which 
allows employees of Catholic agencies, or any other organization doing 
business with the city, to designate someone in their household as 
eligible to receive spousal-equivalent benefits, and that could include 
a spouse, a sibling, other relative, or other married partner. Citing 
Church doctrine, the Archdiocese has been a vocal foe of sanctioning 
domestic partner relations, homosexual or otherwise.''
  So I think it is very inappropriate to give the impression that 
Catholic Charities went along willingly.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. WOOLSEY. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, let the Record show that no one here says 
that Catholic Charities approved of domestic partners laws. What we are 
saying is that no law in San Francisco forces Catholic Charities to 
accept domestic partners laws or stops it from contracting with the 
City.
  Catholic Charities and the City of San Francisco have reached their 
accommodation. There is no fight here in our city on this issue. I do 
not know why the gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs) wants to start 
one on this floor.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I rise in strong 
opposition to this amendment, an amendment designed to prevent San 
Francisco from requiring their contractors to offer domestic partner 
benefits.
  This legislation is discriminatory, hypocritical, mean-spirited and 
ill-conceived. This legislation is hypocritical because it blatantly 
denies local control. In essence, it says local officials are free to 
make decisions about local issues, unless we, the Federal Government 
and individuals in the Congress, do not agree with that local decision.
  I thought Republicans wanted more, not less local control. I guess I 
was wrong.
  This amendment is discriminatory because it once again singles out 
one group, gays and lesbians, for second-class treatment.
  This legislation is mean-spirited because it will deny thousands of 
people living in domestic partnerships the funds that they need to have 
health care for themselves.
  Finally, the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Riggs) is ill-conceived because it is an attempt to play politics with 
the vitally important appropriations process.
  This amendment, which has wide-reaching implications for our country 
through precedents, if through no other way, was rushed to the House 
Floor without going through the normal committee process because the 
right-wing element in this country wants to score some political 
points.
  The fact is, Mr. Chairman, San Francisco chooses to view domestic 
partnership as a legitimate life-style, a choice that thousands of 
people make. The Federal Government has no right to tell San Francisco 
what is right or what is wrong.

                              {time}  1745

  The Federal Government has no place in interfering with local 
decisions. This Congress has no place in judging another person's 
lifestyle.
  I urge my colleagues to make this truly moral choice and vote against 
this amendment and support the principle of home rule.
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an amazing day. We have a member of Congress, 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs) who has decided that he knows 
better than San Francisco council members who were elected by San 
Francisco city citizens.
  Wake up, citizens of Portland, Oregon and Portland, Maine. Understand 
that this amendment affects you and the people you elect.
  In fact, this amendment is an equal opportunity offender. It is 
offensive on a bipartisan basis. It is offensive to the people of this 
country, and it is offensive to the whole issue of home rule.
  I say we should vote for local control, stop the nonsense, vote 
against the Riggs amendment.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Those who would take this amendment lightly or who would sit on the 
sidelines of this debate, I would warn them, because it reminds me of 
the words of Martin Niemoeller commenting on Nazi Germany. He said 
that, they came first for the Communists,

[[Page H6586]]

and I did not speak up because I was not a Communist. Then they came 
for the Jews, and I did not speak up because I was not a Jew. Then they 
came for the trade unionists and I did not speak because I was not a 
trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, I did not speak. I 
was a Protestant. Then they came for me. And no one was left to speak 
up.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak up for those individuals who would be 
affected by this amendment. It is the City of San Francisco today, 
could be New York tomorrow, Los Angeles next week, New Orleans next 
month and even perhaps Chicago next year. I rise against this amendment 
because I agree with those who have suggested that it is indeed a mean-
spirited maneuver that is designed to punish a certain group of 
individuals in one particular city.
  This amendment would bar the City of San Francisco from using HUD 
funds to execute its entire city ordinance against discrimination in 
city contracts. If enacted, the well-being of tens of thousands of 
veterans, disabled people, children, victims of natural disasters, 
individuals with HIV and AIDs would be jeopardized in order to punish a 
locality.
  I agree with those who have stressed the issue of local control, home 
rule, citizenship, meaning that people can decide what it is that they 
will and will not do. I would hate to see us move back to the days of 
witch-hunting, back to the days of trying to determine what others 
should and should not do. But I simply close, Mr. Chairman, by saying 
that I strongly oppose any measure that seeks to discriminate based on 
sexual orientation, and I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment 
and let America be America, the America that it has never been but the 
America that it can and must become.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, although the sponsor of this amendment 
would have us believe that this amendment is not as egregious as its 
earlier incarnation, the fundamental fact remains: its purpose is to 
nullify a duly adopted local ordinance, micro-manage a city, and punish 
those who don't share a narrow-minded vision of America.
  I have to ask why, in the Congress where Members on both sides of the 
aisle routinely preach the virtues of states' rights, local governance, 
and devolution of federal power, we're even considering such a thing. 
This amendment is really the height of hypocrisy.
  If the people of San Francisco--or any city for that matter--have 
chosen to use their municipal spending powers to prohibit 
discrimination in city contracts and help equalize health benefits for 
married heterosexual couples and unmarried same-sex couples, what 
business do we have in stepping in and overruling that action?
  As the U.S. Conference of Mayors has stated, passage of this 
amendment ``would establish a very dangerous precedent.'' It could harm 
more than 30,000 people who benefit from federal funding for low-income 
elderly housing, homeless programs, and housing for people with AIDS. 
It also would serve to blackmail other municipalities who--through the 
democratic process--want to adopt similar ordinances that prohibit 
discrimination in city contracts.
  Call me cynical, but I don't believe the sponsors have had a change 
in heart on the issue of local control. The truth is that, in this 
election season, the Republican leadership has decided it's in their 
political interest to push proposals backed by the Radical Right in 
order to mobilize their base for the November elections.
  This amendment is just one in a series of attacks on those who don't 
fit the Right Wing's vision of America. In the next few days we'll 
debate an amendment to strip gay and lesbian federal employees of basic 
protections against being fired simply because of their sexual 
orientation.
  This is not the direction we should be heading in. I urge all Members 
to defeat the Riggs Amendment and work instead on bringing all 
Americans together.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the 
Riggs Amendment, which is a unacceptable intrusion into local affairs. 
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle constantly preach to us 
about government intrusion into local affairs. According to them, 
government has no place in education. No place in protecting our 
environment. No place in protecting the safety of American workers.
  But when it suits their purpose, it suddenly becomes acceptable to 
dictate how a city should run its affairs. San Francisco has been a 
model for the nation in providing benefits for domestic partners. This 
is a policy determined by San Francisco's government. This is a policy 
supported by San Francisco's citizens. This is a policy meant to end 
discrimination and ensure equality under the law.
  This amendment would single out the city of San Francisco for 
punishment because it enacted a policy that the Congressional Majority 
just doesn't like. Requiring any city to go against its own ordinance 
in order to use federal funds is simply unacceptable. Congress has no 
place dictating local affairs to this extent. That's why this amendment 
is opposed by the U.S. Conference of Mayors, which called it an 
``unwarranted intrusion into local decision making.''
  I urge my colleagues to stand up for local decision making and for 
civil rights and oppose this amendment.
  Mr. NADLER, Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to this 
amendment.
  This amendment flies in the face of the ideals that many of its 
proponents purport to hold dear. In debates after debate, my colleagues 
from the other side of the aisle warn darkly of the dangers of 
intruding into the affairs of State and local governments. Is that not 
exactly the effect of this amendment? Some may say that those who have 
espoused the belief that State and local governments deserve autonomy 
would be committing a gross act of hypocrisy if they were to support 
this amendment.
  Beyond that fact, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment 
because it is outrageously mean-spirited. This amendment is a blatant 
effort to deny gay men and lesbians, who live as domestic partners, 
health benefits through their partners' employment.
  If this amendment were to become law, San Francisco and other cities 
fearing government intervention would be forced to choose between 
ensuring their domestic partners receive appropriate health care 
benefits or, ensuring that funding is available to assist those in need 
of adequate housing. This is nothing short of blackmail. By punishing 
localities that set policies that help ensure equal rights in health 
care benefits, thousands would be hurt through the loss of Federal 
housing dollars.
  In the past few weeks, we have hear much from some Members from the 
other side of the aisle about their views on homosexuality. Now, these 
appalling statements are being put into action through attempts, such 
as this amendment, to legislate away rights that have been hard fought 
and won fair and square. This level of bigotry must not be tolerated in 
this body. We must not stand by and allow such a mean-spirited and 
dangerous amendment to prevail. I urge my colleagues to oppose this 
amendment.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity 
to speak on this issue tonight. The Riggs amendment would unfairly deny 
Federal funds to any locality that requires private companies and 
organizations contracting with the locality to provide health care 
benefits to unmarried domestic partners of its employees.
  Equality in employee compensation is a legitimate public policy goal 
recognized by a myriad of different entities including cities, 
municipalities, private and public colleges and universities and 
private employers both large and small.
  This amendment infringes on the right of local government to operate 
freely and without gross Federal interference. The passage of this 
amendment would affect an enormous demographic pool. The private lives 
of our workers and who they choose as life partners should not 
interfere with their ability to receive spousal benefits. Thousands of 
people including veterans, the disabled, the elderly, and victims of 
natural disaster would lose access to spousal benefits, along with the 
targets of this amendment--the gay and lesbian community.
  It is irresponsible for Congress to act on such an important matter 
without appropriate committee considerations and debate. Equality in 
employee compensation is a legitimate public policy goal and when 
employees are denied benefits for their life partners, they are being 
unequally compensated as compared to their married co-workers, as 
defined in this amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote ``No'' on the 
Riggs amendment.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to this 
outrageous amendment. Mr. Speaker, this bill brings me memories from my 
childhood, but not a single good one. I remember how excited I was 
about going to school. The sad reality was that when I started school, 
I was unable to attend public schools because education was segregated. 
I was unable to attend public schools because of the color of my skin. 
I was unable to attend public schools because I was black. It did not 
matter that my father proudly served in the military with patriotism 
risking his life to protect my freedom and that of others regardless of 
skin color. No, it didn't matter. I, like many others, was subjected to 
the painful calvary of discrimination. It wasn't until many courageous 
men and women from all over the country decided to join forces to fight 
prejudice and the injustice of segregation that these barriers were 
broken. I learned so much from those

[[Page H6587]]

experiences and there is one lesson I will never forget, 
discrimination--no matter what form it takes--is wrong.
  Mr. Speaker, this amendment has gone through four rewrites. Not one, 
not two, not three, but four rewrites and the latest version is still 
unfair, invasive, and unconstitutional. Mr. Speaker, the San 
Francisco's civil rights ordinance has the full support of the City and 
County of San Francisco, its elected mayor and Board of Supervisors. 
This amendment constitutes nothing but a chilling attack on San 
Francisco's civil rights laws. It sends out to undermine the civil 
rights laws of the City and County of San Francisco, a prospect that 
should sound alarm bells for anyone who supports the effort to attain 
civil rights in this nation.
  Mr. Speaker, I thought that our friends on the other side of the 
aisle were in favor of more powers for local government not against. 
Well, may be I'm reading the wrong papers or may be it is that some 
people have decided to be selective about who to attack, when to 
attack, and why. If we are the House of the people, we are not to 
violate their trust by launching a malicious attack on the City of San 
Francisco and its wonderful people. But the people of San Francisco are 
not the only ones opposing this amendment. The U.S. Conference of 
Mayors has indicated that they are ``* * * seriously concerned with 
this unwarranted intrusion into local decision making * * *'' Mr. 
Speaker, the passage of this amendment would establish a frightening 
precedent, which is why the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National 
Association of Counties, the City of Los Angeles, and others have 
voiced strong opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I come from a religious family and I continue to 
practice my faith. I learned early in life that if we believe in 
justice we also need to believe in tolerance and respect. Mr. Speaker, 
I have no doubt in my heart that every single Member of this House 
agrees with me that discrimination is wrong. Every single person is 
created equal! If that is the case we need to oppose this attack on 
civil rights. I encourage my fellow Members to vote no on this 
amendment.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, the Riggs Amendment might just as well be 
called the ``Join the District of Columbia Club'' amendment. Until now, 
bald intrusion into the affairs of a local jurisdiction was confined to 
the nation's capital. Now another noble city joins the ranks of local 
jurisdictions run by the Congress of the United States.
  San Francisco local code not only bars discrimination based on sexual 
orientations; San Francisco requires contractors who benefit from city 
contracts to provide health care and other benefits to domestic 
partners only if they provide these same benefits to married partners. 
This is a wise policy because it assures health care at no cost to the 
city from companies who profit from city contracts. Otherwise the city 
of San Francisco might well be left to pay for the health care of 
people with AIDS or other illnesses.
  Is there nothing we will not do to promote gay bashing? Some of the 
most revered principles in this chamber have been sacrificed in the 
name of anti-gay chest thumping--religious tolerance, civil rights, 
privacy, service in the armed forces, and now, devolution and local 
control. We've done enough harm through Federal laws. But this is still 
a Federal republic. Let each jurisdiction decide its own local laws 
locally.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and, pending that, 
I make the point or order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will count for a quorum.
  Evidently a quorum is not present.
  Pursuant to clause 2 of rule XXIII, the Chair announces that he will 
reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within which a vote 
by electronic device, if ordered, will be taken on the pending question 
following the quorum call. Members will record their presence by 
electronic device.
  The call was taken by electronic device.
  The following Members responded to their names:

                             [Roll No. 348]

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

                              {time}  2009

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand of the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Riggs) for a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 214, 
noes 212, not voting 8, as follows:

[[Page H6588]]

                             [Roll No. 349]

                               AYES--214

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fossella
     Fox
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--212

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gordon
     Goss
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Burton
     Gonzalez
     LaTourette
     McDade
     Moakley
     Porter
     Yates
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  2016

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, earlier this evening, although I was in the 
Capitol building, I did not hear the bell for the vote on Rollcall No. 
349 and consequently was not present for the vote. Had I been present, 
I would have voted ``no.''
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read the final lines of the bill.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       This Act may be cited as the ``Departments of Veterans 
     Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999''.

  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I insert the following for the Record.

                U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission

           [Statement of Chairman Ann Brown, August 3, 1994]


                          children's sleepwear

       I voted today to terminate the Commission's rulemaking 
     proceeding to amend the Standards for the Flammability of 
     Children's Sleepwear in sizes 0-6x and 7-14. I also voted to 
     terminate the stay of enforcement after providing firms an 
     adequate lead time to bring their sleepwear garments into 
     compliance with the flammability standards.
       The proposal approved by the Commission today would exempt 
     so-called tight-fitting sleepwear garments from the 
     flammability standards, and sleepwear garments for infants 
     under one year of age. In considering whether to support 
     continuing the rulemaking proceeding, I have made it clear 
     that my primary concern is that the Commission take no action 
     that would reduce the level of safety currently provided by 
     the children's sleepwear standards. I am unable to support 
     changing the sleepwear standards unless I can make the 
     statutory findings that the changes would not present an 
     unreasonable risk of the occurrence of fire leading to death 
     or personal injury, or significant property damage. Since I 
     am not convinced by the evidence currently available that I 
     can make this finding, I cannot vote to support the proposed 
     amendments.
       I am concerned that the available data fail to support the 
     conclusion that exempting tight fitting garments from the 
     regulation will not decrease safety. Available injury and 
     death data demonstrate to me that the sleepwear standards are 
     working. Although incident data was not kept on a statistical 
     basis before issuance of the sleepwear standards in 1972 
     (sizes 0-6x) and 1975 (sizes 7-14), it is clear that a 
     significant number of burn injuries and deaths associated 
     with children's sleepwear did occur. Over the years, the 
     actual numbers of injuries and deaths associated with 
     sleepwear injuries and deaths appear to have declined 
     dramatically. Although there is speculation that this decline 
     may be based on such things as the reduced number of persons 
     smoking and safer appliance such as space heaters and ranges, 
     it is merely speculation. It is just as likely that the 
     injuries and deaths have declined because the sleepwear 
     standards are working.
       I recognize that there is a consumer preference for cotton 
     children's sleepwear garments especially in infant sizes, and 
     that the Commission staff has encountered difficulty in 
     enforcing the sleepwear standards because of this consumer 
     preference. I have taken this into account in reaching my 
     decision. I understand and am sympathetic to these concerns.
       I do not disagree with the staff's conclusion that tight-
     fitting cotton garments present less of a hazard than loose-
     fitting cotton garments. I am skeptical, however, of the 
     staff's conclusion that if the standard is amended, parents 
     will switch from loose-fitting cotton garments (e.g. t-
     shirts) to exempt tight-fitting sleepwear. There is no 
     factual evidence of consumer demand for tight-fitting 
     sleepwear. There is no factual evidence that consumers would 
     switch from loose-fitting noncomplying garments to exempted 
     tight-fitting garments. It is at least as likely that the 
     purchase of tight-fitting garments will be at the expense of 
     garments that meet the children's sleepwear flammability 
     standards. If so, the level of safety afforded children may 
     well be reduced. Further, even if skin tight garments could 
     reduce burn injuries, I am concerned that it is not practical 
     to think that consumers will actually sleep in them. We may 
     well find that consumers purchase tight-fitting garments in 
     larger sizes to increase comfort, thereby obviating any 
     safety benefit staff has indicated might be achieved with 
     tight-fitting garments.
       Regarding the proposed exemption for sleepwear for infants 
     less than six months of age, existing evidence shows that 
     infants at this tender age are exposed to ignition sources. 
     The exemption would cover at least 20% of sleepwear garments 
     in sizes 0-14. I am unable to agree to an exemption that 
     could leave these infants more vulnerable to injury or death.

[[Page H6589]]

     
                                  ____
                                                     U.S. Consumer


                                    Product Safety Commission,

                                   Washington, DC, April 10, 1998.
     Hon. Rosa DeLauro,
     U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congresswoman DeLauro: Thank you for your letter 
     opposing the change in the CPSC's children's sleepwear 
     standard. I appreciate your kind words about my opposition to 
     the change. As you know, I share your views. I continue to be 
     concerned that parents will not switch from loose fitting 
     garments to tight fitting sleepwear. I also am unable to 
     agree with the nine month exemption that could leave infants 
     more vulnerable to injury.
       In these circumstances, it appears the only remedy is 
     legislative action to restore the previous rule. If you 
     decide to introduce a bill to achieve that result, my staff 
     and I would be pleased and honored to assist you in drafting 
     an appropriate bill.
           Sincerely,
     Ann Brown.
                                  ____


           [From the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Jul. 27, 1998]

                So Now We're Back to Flammable Pajamas?

                            (By Molly Ivins)

       Austin--Keeping your eye on the shell with the pea under it 
     seems to get harder and harder. While the media are focused 
     on the thrilling antics of Monica, Ken Starr and Co., there 
     are just a few other itty-bitty items that you might want to 
     pay some attention to. Your babies, for example. Congress is 
     now engaged in a quiet donnybrook over whether to keep the 
     old flammability standards for children's pajamas. Thought 
     that one was over, did you? Thought that after the consumer 
     movement forced pajama manufacturers to make kids' PJs from 
     flame-resistant material back in 1972--and after the number 
     of children burned to death every year from having their PJs 
     catch on fire decreased tenfold--that no one was ever going 
     to question whether that was a good idea again.
       Wrong. Consumer protection is so politically incorrect 
     these days that Congress won't even listen to groups 
     representing firefighters and trauma care providers on this 
     issue, much less consumer advocates.
       The Consumer Product Safety Commission revised its 
     flammability standards for sleepwear in 1996, in theory 
     because parents were letting their kids sleep in oversize 
     cotton T-shirts, which are comfortable but highly flammable. 
     According to ``The Washington Post,'' from 200 to 300 kids a 
     year are treated in emergency rooms for burns related to 
     billowy sleepwear. Under the new standards, snug-fitting 
     garments such as long underwear can be sold as sleepwear, and 
     pajamas for infants younger than 9 months need not be flame-
     resistant.
       Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., introduced a bill in May to 
     reinstate the earlier standards and then tried to tack it 
     onto the VA-HUD bill as an amendment in June. Cotton 
     lobbyists learned of the move and started lobbying 
     Republicans--including Reps. Henry Bonilla, Larry Combest and 
     Mac Thornberry, all of Texas.
       Bonilla will move to strike DeLauro's amendment today. He 
     told ``The Washington Post'' last week, ``I don't have a huge 
     cotton constituency in my district, but my state does,'' and 
     added that the Texas drought has already taken a toll on 
     cotton farmers. ``They came to me and explained this would 
     place severe restrictions on what they could produce.''
       Excuse me--did I just hear someone say we should bail out 
     the cotton farmers by letting more little kids get burned to 
     death every year? Did anyone think to ask the cotton farmers 
     whether they approve of this move? Because I seriously doubt 
     that they do.
       DeLauro said, ``It is just mind-boggling to me that we 
     would allow special interests to influence this 
     legislation.'' However, according to Bonilla's press 
     secretary this week, his main motive here is procedural: 
     DeLauro's bill never got a hearing, and here she is trying to 
     tack it onto an unrelated bill.
       I find this objection breathtaking--using the amendment-on-
     an-unrelated-bill maneuver has been a specialty of 
     Republicans in this Congress. As previously reported, they 
     have used unrelated bills to pass amendments damaging the 
     environment, fouling up the Department of Interior's efforts 
     to get a fair royalty from the oil companies (the Kay Bailey 
     Hutchison special) and innumerable other horrors.
       (The ``St. Louis Post-Dispatch'' recently editorialized: 
     ``Republicans are sneakily trying to chisel away at 
     environmental protections. . . . they are using the 
     legislative rider to slip through anti-environmental bills 
     that would wilt under the glare of public scrutiny. . . . 
     This summer the riders have multiplied like E. coli.'')
       In fact, I'd bet good money that the Republicans have done 
     more actual legislation by the sneaky amendment-and-rider 
     method than they have passed actual legislation (an easy bet, 
     given their remarkable nonperformance in general). Boy oh 
     boy, if that's now an objection on procedural grounds, these 
     R's will never get anything passed.
       We could go on and on with these examples, but let's take a 
     look at the broader perspective instead.
       There are two things we can do about corporate misbehavior 
     in this society: We can have the government regulate 
     corporations for health, safety and environmental damage, or 
     we can let people who have been damaged by corporations haul 
     them into court and sue the b-----. What is happening is that 
     both avenues of control are being squeezed out of existence. 
     ``Regulation'' is a dirty word to the Republicans, and at the 
     same time they are restricting the right of citizens to sue 
     in every way they possibly can.
       According to a study by the Violence Policy Center, the 
     latest effort was a bill placing wide-ranging limits on 
     product liability lawsuits against ``small business.'' You 
     may think that ``small business'' means the mom-and-pop candy 
     stores. Nah. Specially included as a ``small favor'' in 
     ``small business'' are, among others, manufacturers of 
     Saturday-night-specials, the AK-47, the TEC-9 and the Street 
     Sweeper. Cut, eh?
       Look, friends, this is all fairly simple. Corporate money 
     dominates politics, and the politicians dance with them what 
     brung `em. Until we force politicians to change the way 
     campaigns are financed, rule by corporate money will 
     continue. And while we're on the subject, please notice that 
     corporations have put millions and millions and millions of 
     dollars into the campaign to convince us that lawsuits 
     against do-badding corporations are rotten, unfair and nasty. 
     Welcome back to flammable pajamas.

  The CHAIRMAN. If there are no further amendments, under the rule the 
Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
LaHood) having assumed the chair, Mr. Combest, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4194) 
making appropriations for the Departments of Veterans Affairs and 
Housing and Urban Development, and for sundry independent agencies, 
boards, commissions, corporations, and offices for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 1999, and for other purposes, pursuant to House 
Resolution 501, he reported the bill, as amended pursuant to that rule, 
back to the House with further sundry amendments adopted by the 
Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment?
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a separate vote on the so-called 
Coburn amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is a separate vote demanded on any other 
amendment? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment on which 
a separate vote has been demanded.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following new sections:
       Sec. ___. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are 
     revised by reducing the amount made available under the 
     heading ``DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT--
     Federal Housing Administration--FHA--mutual mortgage 
     insurance program account'' for non-overhead administrative 
     expenses necessary to carry out the Mutual Mortgage Insurance 
     guarantee and direct loan program, and increasing the amount 
     made available for ``DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS--Veterans 
     Health Administration--medical care'', by $199,999,999.
       Sec. ___. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are 
     revised by reducing the amount made available under the 
     heading ``DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT--
     Federal Housing Administration--fha--general and special risk 
     program account'' for non-overhead administrative expenses 
     necessary to carry out the guaranteed and direct loan 
     programs, and increasing the amount made available for 
     ``DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS--Veterans Health 
     Administration--medical care'', by $103,999,999.

  Mr. COBURN (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Oklahoma?
  There was no objection.


                        Parliamentary Inquiries

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, to clarify for the House, is 
this the amendment that will transfer administrative funds for FHA's 
program that are in the HUD provisions and move those moneys to 
veterans programs?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Would the gentleman like the amendment read?

[[Page H6590]]

  The reading of the amendment was suspended by unanimous consent and 
would the gentleman demand a reading of the gentleman from Oklahoma's 
amendment?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I believe my question was 
clear.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. WAXMAN. My inquiry is whether it is timely to ask for another 
separate vote in the House of an amendment adopted in committee.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The House has proceeded past that 
opportunity when the Chair inquired earlier.
  The question is on the amendment.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 351, 
noes 73, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 350]

                               AYES--351

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

                                NOES--73

     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Brown (CA)
     Clayton
     Conyers
     Cummings
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Gilchrest
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kilpatrick
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lazio
     Lee
     Lewis (CA)
     Livingston
     Lofgren
     Luther
     Markey
     Martinez
     McDade
     McDermott
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Miller (CA)
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Owens
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Rangel
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Scott
     Sherman
     Skaggs
     Stark
     Stokes
     Tierney
     Torres
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Woolsey

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Boehner
     Burton
     Clay
     Gonzalez
     Harman
     Meehan
     Moakley
     Obey
     Yates
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  2036

  Mr. DOGGETT changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. SHAYS and Mr. ABERCROMBIE changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the 
engrossment and a third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time


                 Motion to Recommit Offered By Mr. Obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. OBEY. I certainly am, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Obey moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 4194, to the 
     Committee on Appropriations with instructions to report the 
     same back to the House with an amendment as follows:
       On page 55, line 7, strike the sentence beginning on line 
     7, and strike section 425.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is 
recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, the rule under which this bill was considered 
contains a self-executing provision, the effect of which was to delay 
from anywhere between 2 and 5 years the Consumer Product Safety 
Commission's adoption of a rule protecting consumers from flammable 
furniture. Because of the way that rule was adopted, Members were 
precluded from offering any amendments to that provision.
  The proponents of that provision will say that all this provision 
does is to allow for more study and to get more science before the 
Commission proceeds. In fact, in my view, the real purpose of this 
provision is to stall and stall and stall some more, in hopes that 
eventually they will get a commission with a different makeup so that 
the rule will never proceed at all.
  Mr. Speaker, this is part of a pattern. What has been happening is 
that law firms around this town have been hired by clients. Those 
clients are hired to prevent action by the government to prevent 
consumers or workers from being protected by new actions of the 
government.
  So whether it is children's pajamas or whether it is OSHA being 
precluded from offering a new rule to stop the development of carpal 
tunnel syndrome by millions of workers or whether it is consumers 
continuing to die because of flammable furniture, those law firms find 
friendly voices in Congress who will carry out their wishes and we wind 
up with language like this in the bill.
  I think the issue is very simple in this case. More deaths occur in 
this country from upholstered furniture than from any other product 
under the Consumer Product Safety Commission jurisdiction.

[[Page H6591]]

  So the vote is very simple. If Members want to vote to save lives, 
Members will vote for this amendment to allow the Commission to proceed 
to develop rules that will protect the public from flammable furniture. 
If Members want to let yet another industry continue to expose 
consumers to life-threatening products, then Members will vote against 
the amendment. It is as simple as that.
  I would urge an aye vote on the motion to recommit.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this procedural 
motion.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Mississippi 
(Mr. Wicker).
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my chairman for yielding. I thank 
him for a good bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the bill and certainly urge defeat of 
the Obey motion to recommit with instructions.
  In the 1970s, the Consumer Product Safety Commission issued a 
regulation concerning children's sleepwear, and in this 1970s 
regulation, the CPSC required that baby's sleepwear be coated with a 
chemical known as tris, T-R-I-S. Thereafter, the regulation went out 
and all of the baby sleepwear in America was coated with this chemical.
  It turns out that this chemical caused cancer. It was a pesticide. It 
had to be recalled at enormous expense to the American people, at 
enormous danger to American consumers, and it continues to be a black 
mark on the history of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
  This is what then Congressman Al Gore had to say about the tris 
disaster with the Consumer Product Safety Commission: Quote, ``The 
magnitude of this nightmare is difficult to fathom. Here we take all of 
the sleepwear for children of this country and soak it in what is 
basically a pesticide, a mutagenic, and then we wrap up American 
children in these garments.'' I unquote then Congressman Al Gore.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, if you believe this is the only mistake that the 
Consumer Product Safety Commission will ever make, then perhaps you 
need to vote for the motion to recommit by my friend from Wisconsin.

                              {time}  2045

  If my colleagues believe that Federal regulatory agencies are always 
right and never make a mistake and never need an outside scientist 
looking at what they propose, then maybe my colleagues should vote for 
the motion of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  What are we talking about here? We are talking about a proposed 
regulation by the Consumer Product Safety Commission that says every 
bit of upholstered furniture in the United States of America will be 
coated with flame-retardant chemicals. My colleagues might ask, what is 
wrong with this? Let us just coat furniture with a flame-retardant 
chemical.
  Well, here is the problem. EPA, our own Federal Government, says that 
these chemicals are harmful. Let me just list three of them, if I can 
pronounce them:
  Decabromodiphenyl oxide. EPA says it is a class C carcinogen. It 
causes cancer.
  Ammonium nitrate. Do my colleagues know what EPA says about this 
flame retardant chemical that would go on furniture? It says it causes 
adverse affects across whole ecosystems.
  Antimony trioxide, a B2 carcinogen. It causes tumors.
  That is what the Consumer Product Safety Commission is proposing that 
we put on furniture in the United States of America.
  Now, if it does not bother my colleagues to have thousands and tens 
of thousands of Americans exposed to what the EPA says is a toxic 
chemical, then maybe my colleagues should vote for this motion.
  Mr. Speaker, I think the scientists raise serious questions. We are 
all for saving lives. Every Member of this Congress wants to prevent 
fire-related deaths, and we have done that working through the 
subcommittee of the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and working 
with voluntary and mandatory programs with industries. But we need to 
ask ourselves the question: Are we preventing one kind of harm while 
allowing all sorts of other dangers to come about?
  How do we resolve questions like this? We do not make the decisions 
ourselves. We are elected officials. We turn it over to science. And in 
this Federal Government, we have procedures for reasonable scientific 
peer review; and, despite the hyperbole, that is exactly what this 
well-crafted bill and well-crafted compromise by the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lewis) does. It turns the issue over to scientists 
within the Consumer Product Safety Commission. It turns it over to 
scientists within the National Institutes of Health, an agency that we 
are plussing up the funding for.
  So I say when my colleagues vote in just a moment, vote against 
taking unwarranted risks with American industrial workers and 
consumers. Vote for sound science. Vote for the bill and against the 
Obey motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5 of rule XV, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for an electronic vote on 
final passage.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 164, 
noes 261, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 351]

                               AYES--164

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clement
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Ford
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neumann
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                               NOES--261

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Etheridge
     Everett

[[Page H6592]]


     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Harman
     Moakley
     Neal
     Shuster
     Torres
     Yates
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  2104

  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the passage 
of the bill.
  Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XV, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  This is a five-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 259, 
nays 164, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 352]

                               YEAS--259

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Christensen
     Clayton
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Ensign
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Meek (FL)
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                               NAYS--164

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Crane
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hamilton
     Hastings (FL)
     Herger
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Morella
     Nadler
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snyder
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Chambliss
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Harman
     McDade
     Moakley
     Neal
     Weldon (PA)
     Yates
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  2113

  Mr. Costello and Mr. Herger changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Mr. Mascara changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________