[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 136 (Friday, October 2, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H9280-H9282]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4274, DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH 
       AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999

  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 564 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 564

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 4274) making appropriations for the 
     Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and 
     Education, and related agencies, for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 1999, and for other purposes. The first reading 
     of the bill shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed 90 minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Appropriations. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. Points of order against provisions in the 
     bill for failure to comply with clause 2 or 6 of rule XXI are 
     waived except as follows: beginning with ``: Provided'' on 
     page 41, line 9, through line 19; page 95, line 18, through 
     page 109, line 19. Where points of order are waived against 
     part of a paragraph, points of order against a provision in 
     another part of such paragraph may be made only against such 
     provision and not against the entire paragraph. The 
     amendments printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report and only at the appropriate point in 
     the reading of the bill, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment except as specified in the 
     report, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of 
     the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. 
     All points of order against the amendments printed in the 
     report are waived. During consideration of the bill for 
     amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may 
     accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the 
     Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in 
     the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that 
     purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII. Amendments so printed 
     shall be considered as read. The chairman of the Committee of 
     the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time during further 
     consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a 
     recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five 
     minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any 
     postponed question that follows another electronic vote 
     without intervening business, provided that the minimum time 
     for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions 
     shall be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Camp). Pursuant to the rule, the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Fairport, New York (Ms. 
Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mrs. MYRICK asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks and to include extraneous material.)
  Mrs. MYRICK. All time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  This rule provides for consideration of H.R. 4274, the fiscal year 
1999 appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human 
Services under an open rule. There will be 90 minutes of general 
debate, divided equally between the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Appropriations.

                              {time}  0915

  The rule waives clause 2 and clause 6 of rule XXI against provisions 
in the bill except as otherwise specified by the rule. The provisions 
in the bill which are subject to points of order, and they have been 
authored by both Republicans and Democrats, violate the protocol that 
legislative provisions included in appropriations bills be sanctioned 
by the appropriate authorizing committee chairmen.

[[Page H9281]]

  Mr. Speaker, the rule makes in order and waives points of order 
against the amendments printed in the Committee on Rules report. The 
rule authorizes the Chair to accord priority in recognition to Members 
who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record, 
allows for the chairman of the Committee of the Whole to postpone votes 
during consideration of the bill and to reduce votes to 5 minutes on 
the postponed question if the vote follows a 5-minute vote. Finally, 
the rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or without 
instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, the Labor, Health and Human Services appropriations bill 
is the single largest appropriations bill that comes before Congress 
each year, exceeding even the level of spending in the defense bill. It 
includes most of the health care, medical research, education and job 
training programs that touch so many people's lives and, therefore, 
generate tremendous support in communities around the country. At the 
same time, many of those same programs, because they touch on areas of 
daily life which were outside the purview of government, especially the 
Federal Government in Washington, for so long in this country, raise 
deep and often emotional questions about values.
  Between the highly charged social issues that this bill cannot help 
but be immersed in, and the funding difficulties that are inherent in 
any effort to set priorities within a balanced budget framework, this 
is always an extraordinarily difficult bill to craft and enact into 
law. The chairman of the subcommittee, my friend from Wilmette, 
Illinois, has tackled this incredible challenge in as commendable a 
fashion as possible. His bill deserves a fair hearing on the House 
floor.
  Mr. Speaker, it is impossible to detail how the Labor-HHS 
appropriations bill allocates nearly $82 billion in discretionary 
funds. However, I must note that the bill is based on the principle 
that issues like health care, education, substance abuse and job 
training are best addressed by solutions crafted at the local level, 
not imposed top down by Washington bureaucrats. The Federal Government 
will help local communities meet these needs by providing vital 
resources, but we will give those communities flexibility to meet local 
needs. That is why the bill increases funding for key block grant 
programs by $879 million over the President's request. That is a trend 
that should continue in coming years.
  The rule provides for a vigorous debate on Title X, family planning 
regulations. In addition, as an open rule, Members can attempt to 
change the spending priorities in the bill. However, at the end of this 
process, it is critical to remember that a bill which attempts to scale 
such lofty heights, but which can never enjoy unlimited resources, will 
leave some people unhappy.
  I believe this rule will permit the House to engage in a spirited 
debate worth having. I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to 
recognize that fact and support this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume, and I thank my colleague, the gentlewoman from North Carolina, 
for yielding me the customary half-hour.
  (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, both the rule and the underlying bill 
have provisions that I support, but they also include provisions that I 
must oppose.
  In general the rule is an open rule that would allow the Members of 
the House to offer germane perfecting amendments. However, the rule is 
partisan and unfair in which provisions of the bill it protects from 
points of order. The rule protects provisions that will delay new 
worker safety provisions, particularly those designed to protect 
workers from repetitive motion injuries. But it subjects to a point of 
order by a single Member, important language guaranteeing a woman the 
option of choosing an obstetrician-gynecologist as her primary 
physician.
  The rule makes in order a vital amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) to modify ill-conceived restrictions 
that this bill would place on Title X family planning services. The 
current version of the bill would require all clinics that provide 
Title 10 family planning services to minors to notify his or her 
parents 5 days before doing so. I would suggest that this provision 
takes a hopelessly naive view of our world and our children. As much as 
we might wish we could, Congress cannot legislate healthy family 
relationships and good communication between parents and children.
  The parental consent provision of this bill sets up a deceptively 
attractive choice for Congress. Its proponents claim that we are simply 
ensuring that minors involve parents in their decisions to become 
sexually active and to seek family planning. In reality, however, this 
legislation will not compel any young man or young woman to talk to 
their parents about decisions. Instead, it will simply drive minors 
away from family planning services and lead them to engage in risky 
sexual behavior without the benefit of contraceptives. A vote for the 
Greenwood amendment is a vote to reduce teen pregnancy and sexually 
transmitted diseases, and I urge all of my colleagues to support it and 
oppose the Istook substitute.
  Like the rule, the underlying bill has some very positive provisions 
and others that I strongly oppose. As a former microbiologist and 
supporter of basic biomedical research, I applaud the committee's 
decision to increase funding for the National Institutes of Health, and 
I am pleased to see that the committee report addresses vital health 
issues like eating disorders, colorectal cancer, and female genital 
mutilation.
  I am very pleased that the bill provides $30 million for the 
education of homeless children, Mr. Speaker. This small initiative has 
had a big effect on helping homeless children stay in school and giving 
them the tools to succeed.
  I also commend the $834 million increase in Pell Grant funding. It 
will allow more economically disadvantaged students to participate and 
increases the maximum grant to $3,150.
  However, I am extremely disappointed by the committee's decision to 
slash funding for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program by $1.1 
billion. In my home district of Rochester, New York, the average winter 
temperature is 12 degrees below freezing. I am sure my colleagues would 
not deny my constituents access to literally life-saving home heating.
  The bill will hurt American workers also. Workplace safety 
enforcement is cut. The riders in the bill delay all new worker safety 
safeguards and block the reform of Black Lung benefits.
  But, Mr. Speaker, perhaps most egregiously, the majority has not 
taken advantage of an opportunity to raise the performance of our 
public schools. This bill does nothing to fund school modernization, 
nothing to reduce class size, nothing to help train teachers, and 
nothing to fulfill an agreement, made just last year, to provide 
opportunities for children unable to read.

  Mr. Speaker, our children represent this Nation's most precious 
resource, and I hope that no one in this chamber would ever dispute 
that fact. If we fail in our solemn responsibility to prepare them for 
the future, we will be faced with a work force unable to compete in a 
global economy.
  When I criticize the bill, I recognize that many of its problems stem 
from the fact that the subcommittee was not given a high enough 
appropriation allocation to meet all of the important needs in its 
jurisdiction. And the fact that we have never adopted a final budget 
resolution, as required by law, certainly contributed to that failing.
  Mr. Speaker, I have been proud to support Labor-HHS appropriations 
bills in the past, but this bill will hurt the poor, who will have to 
choose between food and heat; it will hurt children, who will not 
receive the special assistance they need to fulfill their potential; it 
will hurt the American worker, who may be unnecessarily injured on the 
job.
  Mr. Speaker, we can craft a better bill and we can craft a better 
rule. I ask my colleagues to defeat the rule and the bill so that we 
can do better.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
simply congratulate my very dear friend from Charlotte, North Carolina, 
for her spectacular presentation of the

[[Page H9282]]

opening remarks on this rule, and to rise in strong support of this 
rule and urge my colleagues to vote in favor of it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Camp). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5, rule I, further 
proceedings on this motion are postponed.

                          ____________________