[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 139 (Wednesday, October 7, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H9911-H9932]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 4104, 
        TREASURY AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999

  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 579 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 579

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (H.R. 4104) making appropriations for the Treasury 
     Department, the United States Postal Service, the Executive 
     Office of the President, and certain Independent Agencies, 
     for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1999, and for other 
     purposes. All points of order against the conference report 
     and against its consideration are waived. The conference 
     report shall be considered as read.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, the proposed rule for the conference report to accompany 
H.R. 4104, the Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government 
Appropriations bill for fiscal year 1999 waives all points of order 
against the conference report and against its consideration. The rule 
provides that the conference report will be considered as read.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my very dear friend and my 
colleague from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) for yielding me the customary 
half-hour, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and oppose the 
conference report. I realize we are nearing the end of our session and 
I understand that tempers are growing very short, but I am also very 
disappointed to hear that my Republican colleagues on the Treasury-
Postal conference committee have deleted some Democrat-supported 
provisions, and it appears that they did so without any Democratic 
participation.
  As late as yesterday afternoon, discussions between Democrat and 
Republican conferees were ongoing and all indications were that the 
conference report would pass with a bipartisan majority. But this 
morning without so much as a notice of meeting, my Democratic 
colleagues learned that these Democratic provisions had been taken

[[Page H9912]]

out of the bill. Although these provisions were included in the first 
conference report this morning, they were removed and as a result not 
one Democrat has signed their name to this conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, this conference report gives new meaning to the term 
``martial law.'' Some of the provisions that have been removed include 
the provision of the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek) that Haitian 
immigrants be given the same protections as the Cuban and Nicaraguan 
immigrants; the provision of the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. 
Lowey); and the provision requiring standards for Federal child care 
facilities.
  We may also hear that the provision firing the FEC general counsel 
has been removed. But the assumption is that it may not be dead but may 
be resurrected not in this bill but in the continuing resolution. In 
case my colleagues do not remember, this is the reason firing someone 
for investigating the Christian Coalition and GOPAC, along with a lot 
of Democratic organizations and candidates.
  Mr. Speaker, regardless of which organization supports which party, 
if the FEC is not free to investigate who it will, when it will, our 
entire electoral system will suffer.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and oppose this conference 
report.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
First of all I need to correct the statement made by my good friend the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley). The statement if I recall 
correctly from the record here a couple of minutes ago was that there 
had not been a Democrat who had signed the conference report. In fact 
Senator Byrd has signed the conference report. I know that this has 
just come up. I just wanted to bring that to the gentleman's attention. 
Obviously we are not going to have the perfect bill. We went through 
this on some other legislation the other night. We had extensive debate 
on this bill. We have gone out, we have talked with our colleagues, we 
have worked with our colleagues on both sides of the aisle and 
determined what needs to happen with this bill so that this Congress 
can conclude its business for the American people and move on. We came 
up with several elements. Those are going to be described in some 
detail by the gentleman from Arizona whom I intend to yield to here in 
just a couple of minutes. But the point here is this was a compromise. 
There were Democrats involved in this. Obviously the rule I think today 
will pass with bipartisan support. I hope it passes with bipartisan 
support because this bill deserves bipartisan support because it is 
built on a bipartisan structure.
  The other day there were strong objections made by the other side. 
Frankly we looked at some of those objections and we have refined this 
bill so that we address in a fair manner those objections. Another 
point that I think we need to make. We have had some sacrifice on this 
side of the aisle. My colleague the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-
Balart) is very, very disappointed. He is very upset about this. I just 
spent the last 15 minutes trying to calm him down on the Haitian issue. 
I do not know anybody who has been more ardent in their support or have 
voiced their expressions on a more regular basis on this House floor in 
support of these Haitians. But that Haitian provision had to be 
dropped. That is the only way we could pick up those votes. He is very 
upset. He keeps standing up for the Haitians. I admire that position. 
But the fact is we have got to get these votes. We have got to move 
this bill. Ninety-nine percent of the content of this bill I think 
satisfies a lot of people. But we are never going to have the perfect 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time. I 
rise in strong support of this rule. The gentleman from Colorado and I 
were here the other night. The outcome was not a very good one. I hope 
today that we will have a better outcome to the rule for this 
conference report.
  Let me say a little bit about why I do support this conference 
report. I guess maybe it sounds a little bit like a Government 101 
lecture, and I apologize if it seems that way. I think we have to face 
some of the realities. The reality is that to get a conference report 
adopted and to the President for signature, you have to do two things: 
You have to get it out of the conference, and that means getting a 
majority of Democrats and Republicans on the conference to sign a 
conference report. The second thing you have to do is to get it passed 
in both houses. The only way we can do that is with the bill that we 
have here this afternoon.
  Now, there are provisions in here that are very controversial and 
some that I strongly supported. Let me just deal with the four issues 
that are different from where we were the other night when we got only 
106 votes for the rule, with only 17 votes from the minority side of 
the aisle to support a rule that had in it things that they said they 
strongly, strongly supported. One of those was expanding contraceptive 
coverage for Federal employees covered by Federal health programs. That 
expansion of coverage is something that passed here in the House, it 
passed in the Senate, but they were very, very different provisions and 
they were very, very controversial. Members will remember the 
controversy we had when that occurred on the floor of the House. It 
caused a tremendous weight to be added to this bill. It was very 
difficult for us to deal with those who oppose this kind of expansion 
of contraceptive coverage for Federal employees. I happen to believe we 
should have it. But I also have a responsibility to the 165,000 Federal 
employees that are covered by this who would be out of work this 
weekend if we do not have the conference report signed.
  The second is the Haiti Refugee Assistance Act. Now, this is also 
very controversial. There is bipartisan support for this from 
Republicans and Democrats in Florida and opposition to it from people 
on both sides of the aisle. It is a provision which clearly does not 
belong on this bill. It is not even vaguely related to the Treasury-
Postal bill. If this is very important, it is an issue which can be 
addressed again in the ongoing discussions about the omnibus spending 
bill which will cover those bills that we cannot get passed on the 
floor, those conference reports that we cannot get adopted. This 
provision can be addressed in that bill.

                              {time}  1700

  The third thing is the day care provision, a whole title that was 
added by the Senate. Some people are very strongly supportive on this 
side of the aisle, but there are some jurisdictional problems about 
this provision. There are issues about day care that those chairmen of 
those subcommittees of jurisdiction had real questions about, and it 
was controversial.
  And finally there was the FEC provision, the appointment authority 
for the General Counsel of the FEC, a highly controversial provision 
that had been added because some people on this side of the aisle 
believed that the general counsel of the FEC has been patently unfair 
in the kinds of rulings that he has given, and because there is no 
provision right now for getting rid of that individual. He is there 
literally until retirement because they cannot get votes to get rid of 
this person. So there was a provision to provide for an appointment 
authority for the general counsel.
  Now those four provisions, Mr. Speaker, are the provisions that are 
being dropped out of this bill. We could not get this bill to the floor 
without taking those out.
  Now I begged, I pleaded, with my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle the other night to support that rule. Three of those provisions: 
those dealing with day care, with the Haiti refugee assistance and with 
the contraceptive coverage, were strongly supported by most or many and 
most of the Members on the other side of the aisle. The other issue, on 
dealing with the FEC, was not, but they made it clear that three out of 
four was not good enough. It had to be four out of four.
  Mr. Speaker, I cannot get the bill to the floor, and we cannot pass 
this bill with that. As my colleague, my ranking member from the other 
side, has said time and again, this is a good bill. It provides for 
good money for law enforcement, to increase the amount of money we have 
for drug interdiction

[[Page H9913]]

for our Customs agents, it increases the flying hours for the black 
hawks. This is good law enforcement provisions in this bill. This is a 
good bill that covers the IRS reforms that we passed by wide margins in 
this Congress just a few months ago, to implement those reforms and get 
us moving forward with an IRS that is more user friendly.
  This is legislation that we need, and, Mr. Speaker, we need to pass 
this bill tonight. So we have dealt with this in a fair way. We have 
said we will take out all of the provisions that are controversial, and 
all four of the provisions that are in this bill that were 
controversial have been taken out.
  So what we have now is a bill that does, as it should do, an 
appropriation bill that deals with appropriations, that funds the 
agencies it says it is going to fund, that funds the agencies it should 
fund. And that is what this bill does, and it deserves the strong 
support, this rule deserves the support of this body, this conference 
report deserves the support, and I urge my colleagues to vote for it.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) the ranking minority member on the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I hope that we are not about to spend another 
couple of fruitless hours. Excuse me, but I have laryngitis, so 
probably everybody will be happy about that. But the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. McInnis) is nodding yes.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to put this bill in the context of what is 
happening to the budget in this end-of-the-session snarl that we always 
appear to get in.
  Last Friday Senator Byrd was told by Senator Stevens that the process 
which the majority party would like to follow is as follows: He was 
told that by Friday the Republican majority would have laid out for all 
of the bills that were still unsigned, they would lay out what the 
approximate wishes of the majority party would be on those bills, what 
the bills would look like if the majority party could write them. They 
then wanted us to take that paper and come back to them with our honest 
response about what our differences were that would have to be resolved 
in order for us to get signed bills, and they were hoping that we would 
have no more than 10 objections to each bill. We have gotten some 
information since that time, but we still frankly feel that the basic 
Johnnie Higgins work has not been done, the basic nitty-gritty work has 
not been done, in a number of these bills so that we know exactly what 
it is the majority wants to do. And I think one of the reasons for that 
is because there is a huge chasm between what the majority wants to do 
in the Senate and what the majority wants to do in the House. And so we 
still, even at the staff level, do not have a complete understanding of 
what it is that the Republican party would like to see on each of the 
bills in dispute.
  What we desperately need, if we are going to finish our work, is a 
complete understanding of where the majority party wants to go on these 
bills so that we can then sit down, have a clear understanding of what 
the differences are and work our way towards resolution of those 
differences.
  So it has been a very frustrating 2 days.
  In the midst of that this bill which fell in a heap a week ago 
because of unilateral judgments on the part of the majority, this bill 
is now back once again being brought here by unilateral judgments on 
the part of the majority, and what they have essentially done is to get 
rid of a number of provisions which had bipartisan support in the 
House, and now they are going to try to pass the bill with only 
Republican votes. Well, they can do that if they want, and they may 
even be able to pass it with only Republican votes, but the fact is 
that the other remaining issues still remain and this bill will not be 
finally disposed of until those issues are addressed. The gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) will in more detail get into the matter of 
what these amendments are.
  But it simply seems to me that yesterday we offered the majority this 
proposition. We said, ``If you drop one of the items that is causing so 
much controversy and has no bipartisan support, if you drop the item 
that we feel would gag the ability of the FEC to enforce the law on 
elections, we would provide the lion's share of our votes in the 
caucus, and we could easily pass the bill.'' Instead of continuing to 
pursue a bipartisan approach, the majority party has decided that they 
are going to take unilateral action to once again try to ram this bill 
through.
  All this action does is further delay our ability to resolve the 
differences between us. It is not the kind of negotiating posture that 
I would expect from a majority party that tells the press every hour on 
the hour that they want to get out of here by Saturday. If you want to 
get out of here by Saturday, they ought to start negotiating like they 
want to get out of here by Saturday rather than negotiating like they 
think they have got the next 2 or 3 months to be around here, or we 
will be around here for the next 2 or 3 months.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Obviously I take issue with some of the comments made by the previous 
speaker about the majority going out there and speaking to the press. 
Frankly, we have not had much time to speak to the media. We have been 
up there in the conference room trying to work out a compromise.
  Now last week that very gentleman stood up here and talked about a 
provision that was offensive to some Democrats over there. They could 
deliver those votes if that offensive, as they put it, provision was 
dropped, and it was. Now today it is a different trail, it is a 
different direction, it is a different path. As my colleagues know, I 
do not know which way they are going to travel.
  And the comments at the end just are taking a cheap shot at the 
Republicans. As my colleagues know, it is time to put that partisan 
stuff aside. We are in the final days, and the only way we are going to 
resolve this is to quit playing that partisan stuff and come together 
in a compromise.
  In addition to my comments, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) because I would like him to address these comments 
that are totally out of line in my opinion.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding this time 
to me, and it will not take me more than 1 minute.
  As I listened to the gentleman from Wisconsin and his comments, it is 
correct that yesterday there was a suggestion of an offer of a deal 
that might be made, and it was to drop out the one provision that we do 
not like in there, and keep the other three that we do like.
  So, Mr. Speaker, the offer was:
  What's mine is mine, what's is yours is also mine.
  That is basically it. It is four out of four. We have got four 
provisions in there, three we really like, one we do not like. We have 
to be given the fourth one. That is their idea of a compromise. It is 
like moving the goalposts all the time.
  Now we have got a provision here, a bill on the floor, where we have 
dropped out that one that was so controversial last week and that 
caused most of the Democrats to vote against it. But that is not 
enough, there has to be something else. So they always keep moving the 
markers, and we have to pass a bill, we do have to get out here, and we 
have to get our job done, and we are going to pass this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, it is a good bill. As my colleague from Maryland has 
said, it is a good bill which provides for good money for law 
enforcement, and we should pass this bill.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Mrs. Meek), my dear friend.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Massachusetts for yielding this time to me, and I rise today in strong 
opposition to the rule, and it is a very strong and hurtful opposition 
to the rule because I am a member of the Subcommittee on Treasury, 
Postal Service, and General Government, and under the leadership of our 
chairman we had a very good year. We worked very hard together, and 
also the Chairman and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) worked 
very well together. But at the very end it appears that things have 
come up that caused this bill to be objectionable to me.
  The revised conference report shows that once again the House 
leadership is

[[Page H9914]]

abandoning the Haitians. The revised conference report continues a 
policy of discriminating against Haitians. Many of my constituents are 
worried about the treatment that the Haitians have gotten. It has been 
unfair, it has shown that some Central Americans and some others like 
the Nicaraguans have been given one treatment and the Haitians the 
other. It is not a fair yardstick.
  Do we want to deport 40,000 Haitians back to Haiti after this country 
has allowed them to come in and to have a chance to get green cards and 
work in this country? In my district Haitians live in the same 
neighborhood as the Cubans and the Nicaraguans, which this Congress saw 
fit to give them a chance to get their green cards. Can my colleagues 
imagine that neighbors living next door to each other, one can receive 
a green card and another one cannot? We should not have abandoned that 
in this rule.
  Let me give my colleagues just a short bit of history on this matter:
  Last fall the Senate added to the Fiscal Year 1998 District of 
Columbia appropriations a bill giving permanent green cards to all 
Nicaraguans and Cuban immigrants who were in this country at the end of 
1995. This provision helped more than 150,000 people. That provision 
was added on the Senate floor without any Senate hearings. The House 
accepted the Senate provision on Cubans and Nicaraguans, but they would 
not accept any provision on the Haitians. The Senate then realized it 
had failed to help Haitian immigrants who had fled a terror similar to 
the terror of the Civil War in Nicaragua, so last November Senator 
Gramm and Senator Mack introduced a bill to correct this unintentional 
omission. This bill moved quickly through the Senate. It is only the 
House where there seems to be some real strong reason why there has to 
be this unfairness to Haitians. The Senate Judiciary Committee held a 
hearing, and then they approved the bill with minor changes. Then it 
came back to the House, and again the House stood in the schoolhouse 
door, as George Wallace used to do years ago, and now we need to show 
in terms of this conference report Haitian children are being 
devastated by this, they are here in this country.
  And I want to say, Mr. Speaker, this rule should go down. There are 
many other elements, but the Haitian issue is one that I ask my 
colleagues' consideration to kill this.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might 
consume.
  I listened to the gentlewoman from Florida and tell my colleagues 
that our colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart), is 
extremely disappointed as well on the Haitian issue, and that is 
understandable. But we cannot get the votes in here and give everybody 
what they want. I mean when we give one group what they want, then 
another group is mad. We are trying to come up with a compromise so 
that we can get on with the Nation's business.

                              {time}  1715

  The compromise will satisfy the most pressing needs which this bill 
does. The compromise will satisfy enough votes to secure the votes 
necessary to pass this bill, which this bill does, and so all of us are 
going to have to come to the table.
  So I appreciate the comments, and I appreciate the comments of my 
colleague, the gentleman from Florida, (Mr. Diaz-Balart), who stood up 
relentlessly for the Haitian issue. But the fact is we have to come to 
a compromise.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Lowey).
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this 
undemocratic rule and this conference report. I appreciate the openness 
and honesty of the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe), and I 
appreciate the work that the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) 
and my colleague the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) has put into 
this bill.
  It is really a shame that this bill, which in many ways is a good 
bill, had to end in this way. Frankly, to me, it is amazing, and I hope 
the American people are watching this, contraceptives may be 
controversial in this body in the Republican Congress, but not for the 
majority of women in this country who want to end and prevent 
unintended pregnancies, who want to reduce abortions in this country. 
Contraceptives is not controversial for the majority of American women.
  I truly am outraged, my colleagues, at the Republican conference for 
stripping from this conference report my amendment to provide 
contraceptive coverage to Federal employees. A majority of this House 
supported this provision twice, not once, but twice. It passed 
unanimously in the Senate by voice vote. But at every turn, the House 
leadership has tried it kill it.
  If we pass this conference report, the leadership of this Congress is 
telling American women once again that their basic health care does not 
matter to this Congress, that it does not matter to the Republican 
leadership. Killing this basic women's health provision was a back-door 
way to overturn the will of the majority in Congress.
  This truly is an insult to all 224 Members of the House Republicans 
and Democrats, pro-choice, pro-life who voted for my amendment. It is 
an insult to every Senator.
  The Republican leadership truly should be ashamed of themselves. They 
have stomped all over democracy today. The women of America, my 
colleagues, are going to see right through this sham, and those 
responsible for stripping through this provision I think will regret 
it.
  I only hope that the Members of the Republican conference who are 
such champions of this issue when it passed the House in July will see 
through the political games of the leadership and vote with us to bring 
down this rule and bring down this bill.
  I cannot stress enough, my colleagues, how critical this basic 
women's health provision is to the women of America. It will take us a 
huge step forward in our efforts to improve women's health, prevent 
unintended pregnancies, and reduce the number of abortions.
  With more than 2 million employees, the Federal Government is the 
Nation's largest employer. Approximately 1.2 million women of child-
bearing age are beneficiaries in the Federal Employees Health Benefits 
program. Currently over 80 percent of Federal health plans do not cover 
the full range of FDA approved contraceptives used by women, and 10 
percent of FEHB plans offer no coverage of contraceptives at all.
  Women pay 68 percent more in out-of-pocket health care costs than 
men. This provision will have reduced that gender gap in insurance 
coverage. With this vote, my colleagues, we will see who in this House 
will stand up with the women of America, who will stand up with right 
wing extremists that want to regulate every aspect of women's health, 
and we will see who in this House has respect for the democratic 
process and the will of the majority.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule, vote against this 
bill, and vote for basic women's health care that was supported by the 
majority of this House. That is the democratic way, small ``d.''
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am a little surprised by the previous comments. 
Obviously I guess the definition of a border is a line drawn in the 
sand to see how close you can get to it without going to the other 
side.
  I think that civility, when you talk about the leadership should be 
ashamed of themselves, that is not necessary. The leadership here on 
both sides of the aisle have been working very hard, and they are going 
to have some pretty intense hours here in the next few days to come to 
some kind of compromise. I do not think we ought to take cheap shots 
about saying leadership should be ashamed with themselves.
  Furthermore, I have been involved in working in the Committee on 
Rules and so on, and I have not seen any so-called right wing 
extremists, which again questions on civility, jumping out and making 
demands.
  The fact is, to my colleague, she did not deliver the votes. She 
voted yes the other day on the rule. I carried the rule. We lost that 
rule by a majority.
  The issue here is not whether there are right wing extremists. I have 
not discovered them in this body. The issue

[[Page H9915]]

is not whether or not the leadership ought to be ashamed of themselves.
  The fact is, for the majority of this bill, can we satisfy most 
concerns on the floor? The answer is yes. We cannot satisfy the 
gentlewoman's. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) has got a 
problem for the Haitians. But can we deliver the votes on the 
compromise on a bill that is mostly good? The answer is yes.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman has more time on her side 
than I do on mine. I think the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Moakley) will yield to her. If not, I would be happy at some point 
towards the end to yield to the gentlewoman when I know I have time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I feel like asking this body to wake me up when this is 
all over. Wake me up when you finish choosing what kind of 
contraception female Federal employees ought to use. The good faith of 
this body, indeed the sacred vote of this body and of the Senate is at 
stake.
  I have just come to the floor to say women are not going to take 
tampering with their contraceptive health. Look, we agree choice is 
controversial in this body. But I can tell my colleagues what is not 
controversial in this body or among the American people, and that is 
choice of contraceptives.
  There is a reason; that is because we have got to have a choice of 
contraception because some of that does not work on some of us. Some of 
it will make us sick. Some has long-term effects. Some has short term 
effects.
  So when Members of this body go into conference and try to make the 
diaphragm the only contraception that is available to women, they are 
insulting the women, not only of the Federal Government, but of the 
United states of America at their core.
  We are fooling around with women's health when we decide as a body to 
choose or to limit their choice of contraception. One does not have to 
be a women to know that one size does not fit all when it comes to 
contraception.
  If we want to preserve women's health, if we want to stop abortion, 
then the one issue that ought to unite us, pro-life and pro-choice, 
together is contraception.
  I ask this body not to let history record that we decided in this 
year to instruct women on what contraception they ought to use.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, may I get a time check?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The gentleman from Colorado 
(Mr. McInnis) has 16\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) has 13\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much as time I might 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I understand the previous gentlewoman's comments, but I 
think the issue here is not at all about women's health. Obviously 
people on both sides of the aisle in this fine institution care about 
women's health. There are women on both sides of the aisle. There are 
men on both sides of the aisle that care.
  This is a very important issue. It is a critical issue in any home in 
this country. So to suggest that perhaps some people do not care about 
the women's health I think is a little off base. I am trying to focus 
and bring us back to the direction that we are going.
  First of all, we have got a fair rule. Second of all, this rule 
follows the same structure as other conference committee reports. Third 
of all, let me talk about compromise.
  I spent this afternoon, I visited with my colleague, the gentlewoman 
from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), and she was adamant, she was adamant 
about this Haitian issue. But as I said to her and I say to my 
colleagues, look, we are trying to put together a good bill. We cannot 
make everybody happy. That is the struggle we are facing.
  My colleague over there, the gentleman from Maryland, said we had a 
good bill, but there were areas he had difficulty with. That was 
understandable. That was why it did not pass. It was a message to us. 
We have got to restructure it. We have got to rebuild this car.
  This car is not going to sell. Now we have got a car that can. And 
for people who want to put a modification on the car, they want to add 
a stereo or they want to put something else on it, that is fine if you 
can deliver the purchase price for it.
  That is our difficulty here. We are not attacking or assailing these 
issues. We are just saying we are trying to round up the votes.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, we all come to this House with 
the good intentions of our conscience and what is right for the Nation. 
I wish I could be convinced by my Republican friends on the other side 
of the aisle, the gentleman from Colorado and the gentleman from 
Arizona that seem to be arguing reason and goodwill, and we attempted 
to do all that we could.
  But why do I not share the real facts. This rule now is a punitive 
rule. This is a ``gotcha'' rule. They fully well know that the reason 
that there were many of us who voted against this legislation, this 
rule early on, was the punitive poignant attack on the FEC, general 
counsel, and others not allowing them to do their jobs.
  So what do they do? Yes, they do come back now and remove that 
provision. But the hard work of the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. 
Meek), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), and others, impacting 
40,000 Haitian refugees who simply want a green card after being here, 
equalizing their position in this Nation with many other Central 
Americans, they knew there was a contingent of people who worked and 
bled to get this done; they took it out.
  Then the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), who worked so very 
hard in a real compromise to provide contraceptive prescriptive drugs 
for those individuals in the Federal Government, they took it out.
  Then my good colleague, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), 
who said working Federal employees and others need day care, and we can 
provide it in a fair budget-wise manner, they took it out because they 
wanted to get in our eye. This is not a compromise. This is a 
``gotcha'' legislation or rule.
  This is to say we do not care that this rule goes forward. We are 
going to satisfy those on that side of the aisle. We are not going to 
be responsive to people who have toiled in this land, 40,000 Haitian 
refugees are made a pawn. Children who need child care made a pawn, 
women who need prescriptive drugs are made a pawn. Do not fool me with 
this calm talk about we tried to compromise. This is a ``gotcha'' game 
of politics. I will not tolerate it. The American people will not 
tolerate it either.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, some excitement here. If I just heard the words do not 
fool with this hobnob, or I am not exactly sure of the quote, but that 
is pretty close to what the gentlewoman from Texas just said.
  But the gentlewoman, when she had the Haitian provision in the last 
rule voted ``no'' on that. She voted ``no'' on that. Now she is saying 
vote no again. In other words, give me this way, give them this way.
  She has got to make some choices. She needs to be consistent in her 
voting record if she is going to get up and say hobnobbing fools. That 
is not what is happening here. What is happening here is the Congress 
is doing the business of the people. This Congress has to wrap this up 
in the next few days. The way to do it is we get the more level heads 
here on both sides of the aisle, as it should be, to come up with a 
compromise.

                              {time}  1730

  That is exactly what has occurred here.
  Mr. Speaker, as I said, my colleagues, the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Diaz-

[[Page H9916]]

Balart) and the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), brought up 
this issue, but their record is consistent. And I listened to the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), and she as well is consistent 
in her statements. And I think that is important. We have the 
consistency here, and we have some level heads that are trying to come 
up with a compromise. We do not have the perfect bill.
  If somebody over there who is objecting to this rule can come up with 
a perfect bill and deliver the 218 votes and the votes in the Senate 
and the President's signature, come up with it. So far, we have not 
discovered it. We would like to do it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Nadler).
  (Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, this is a blatantly unfair rule. It is not a 
compromise, it is not inadequate. It is obnoxious.
  We had a debate on this floor, and the House voted that Federal 
employees covered by this bill should have available to them 
contraceptive services for birth control. The Senate voted to make 
available contraceptive services for birth control to female Federal 
employees. An attempt was made on this floor to say that some forms of 
birth control are really abortions; that the pill should be outlawed 
because it is an abortifacient; that the IUD is not good, that is an 
abortifacient. This House intelligently voted that down by 2-to-1.
  The conference report, the conference committee, faced with a House 
vote that said, we want contraceptive services covered, faced with a 
Senate bill that said, we want contraceptive services covered, put 
contraceptive services in the conference report. Then the Committee on 
Rules saw it and they said, oh, no, we do not care what the House said, 
we do not care what the Senate said, go back and rewrite the conference 
report, and they did. And since they could not pick and choose among 
the contraceptive services because they did not have the votes in the 
House, people laughed at it.
  This conference report before us today says, American women who work 
for the Federal Government shall not have available to them any 
contraceptive services paid for by their health plans.
  Mr. Speaker, that is obnoxious. It is not a compromise, it is 
obnoxious.
  The antichoice extremist agenda is very clear. Not only do they want 
to ban abortions by any means necessary, the Supreme Court decision to 
the country notwithstanding, they want to ban contraception as well. 
They are not content with denying reproductive health services for 
women in prison or Federal employees or women in the Armed Forces or 
women on public assistance. They will not stop there. They want to 
eliminate contraceptive services as well.
  Although this debate is supposed to be about Federal health plans, we 
can all see the dangerous precedent they are attempting to set. They 
are actually calling every woman who takes a birth control pill an 
abortionist. This is absurd, it is offensive, it is obnoxious. We must 
restore sanity to this discussion of women's health, and we ought to be 
clear that the American people will not accept efforts to make 
contraception or, for that matter, abortion illegal.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this rule, send it back 
to the drafters, reject the rule as we did the last one. Let them come 
back again and do the will of this House and the will of the American 
people, and not say to American women, you cannot have contraceptive 
services.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I see that the gentleman is very aggressive in his comments. I would 
just remind the gentleman that he had that provision right in his lands 
last week, and he voted against it, so today all of a sudden he shows 
up, and all of a sudden we are going to get another ``no'' vote when 
the provision is gone. I mean, which way, which direction?
  I think it is time we level this thing off, calm it down, and let us 
hear from the other side of the issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. 
Northup).
  Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we inject a 
little honesty into this conversation.
  The fact is, 84 percent of all Federal employees' plans cover oral 
contraceptives, and nearly 40 percent cover all 5 forms of 
contraceptives.
  But rather than just make that statement, I brought to the floor 50 
copies and will provide as many more as needed of a list of all of the 
plans that serve Federal employees so that my colleagues can see the 
chart of just how many plans there are, about 600, and how many cover 
so many, an array, of different forms of contraceptives.
  The fact is that Federal employees have the envy of what the whole 
private sector needs and wants in health insurance. Every single 
Federal employee has the ability to choose whatever policy they want.
  What do we get? A booklet of policies. We get a booklet of high-cost 
HMOs, low-cost HMOs, fee-for-service, point of service. We have every 
option of every kind of health plan we want.
  What we ought to do is work to give what we have to the private 
sector, because the truth is that we have many different choices, many 
different plans, and most of them, most of them provide an array of 
contraceptive services.
  Mr. Speaker, what happens if we mandate that every plan cover every 
form of contraceptive? We take away the one choice that Federal 
employees have today that they will not have in the future, and that is 
affordable health insurance, because when one starts adding mandates, 
one starts doing what every State legislature has found for years, and 
that is, one starts adding to the cost of health insurance. And as it 
goes up, one starts on that slippery slope. Every woman who is 31 years 
old and is paying for every form of contraceptives for everybody in the 
workplace who cannot get pregnant says, why should I pay for their 
contraceptives and they not have to pay for my fertilization? And every 
60-year-old woman says, why should I have to pay for all the young 
women's contraceptives and they not have to pay for my estrogen?
  The fact is we can do what State legislators have done. We can add 
every mandate that everybody wants, every service, every provider, 
every need, and we will drive the cost of health insurance right 
through the ceiling.
  What we need to do is make sure that every employee in Federal office 
keep what they have now, the choice of whatever services they believe 
are important to their health, and then we need to make sure that it is 
also affordable. That is the best choice and the best gift that Federal 
employees have. What we need to do is take what we have and not ruin 
it, but make sure that the private sector have it, too.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, this week's issue of Time 
Magazine features what it calls a numbers column, and it quotes various 
expenditures and notable numbers like this one: Next year the Pentagon 
plans to spend $50 million for Viagra for troops and retirees.
  I think it is important to note that we are apparently willing to 
spend money for the potency of our armed services, but not willing to 
help prevent unwanted pregnancies by providing the full range of 
contraceptive services.
  But on the other hand, we were willing to help prevent unwanted 
pregnancies. This language already passed the House and the Senate. But 
there is a small minority on the conference committee that changed it.
  I believe that this language discriminates against women. When we 
defeated the rule for this conference report last week, it was clear 
that it could easily pass if only the language on the FEC were removed.
  Mr. Speaker, I am glad that we at least accomplished that, but I 
cannot support this bill, because it does not provide the full range of 
contraceptive services, thereby discriminating against women.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire as to the time remaining?

[[Page H9917]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) 
has 10 minutes remaining; the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Moakley) has 8 minutes remaining.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I have asked the gentlewoman to return because I think that the 
comments that she brought up are very pertinent to the subject, and 
since we seem to have gotten off the rule and onto the subject of 
contraception, I think we need to close this out, and then we can get 
back to the rule and the fairness of the rule. So I am asking that the 
gentlewoman from Kentucky come back.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. 
Northup).
  Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, I want to start with where this idea I 
believe originated. There are women today that are in the private work 
force. They have a choice of one policy. Their employer says, you can 
have this policy; you have to contribute the monthly payment towards 
it, and some of those policies, in fact, pay for prescriptions, but do 
not pay for oral contraceptives.
  We need to address that issue. I hope that the gentlewoman from New 
York (Mrs. Lowey) will bring it to us. I asked a long time ago why we 
did not ask for a GAO study that would study both the private and the 
public workplace to see what sorts of discriminations exist for women 
in terms of access to health insurance policies that give them what 
they need.
  Before we start fumbling around with the best choice that exists in 
the United States of America, and that is for Federal employees, before 
we start driving the price up, what we ought to do is be deliberative 
and see, first of all, do we have a problem? Do we have a problem in 
the public workplace; do we have a problem in the private workplace?
  But because this came so quick and unstudied, I did ask OMB a second 
question besides asking for a chart, and that was, is there any Federal 
employee anywhere in the United States that does not have access to 
policies that cover oral contraceptives; and the answer is, no, there 
is not one.
  So I think that before we push the price up at a cost, by the way, to 
many of the employees, because right now, what they may have chosen is 
the only affordable plan or the most affordable plan that meets their 
needs. If this plan either decides to drop out of the Federal employees 
health insurance plan because it cannot tailor something just to our 
mandate, and then they have to go to a more expensive plan, or if they 
have to pay more for the plan they currently have, we ought to ask them 
if that is what they want.
  I think the whole problem in health care is that somehow we in the 
Congress think that we can play God, that we can somehow hand out free 
health care. Nobody can hand out free health care. It feels good here, 
but somebody pays the bill. The taxpayers pay the bill, and the Federal 
employees who have to pay a higher copayment pay the bill.
  Please, do for Federal employees what the entire work force is asking 
us for, affordable health insurance, and do not take away that right 
that they have today.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, the wrong that is proposed here tonight has nothing to 
do with the price of care in an economic sense. It is not going to 
raise the cost of health care to anyone. In fact, the Republican 
Congressional Budget Office has already pointed out that any cost 
change is negligible. The price is not economics; it is the political 
price that the Republican conferees were unwilling to pay to say no to 
the extremists who demand interference in reproductive health care, and 
yes to this House and to the United States Senate which said, by an 
overwhelming majority, that it is wrong to discriminate against women 
across this country and say to them that they can get some 
prescriptions, but not others.
  Mr. Speaker, 80 percent of the health plans available to Federal 
workers do not provide all forms of contraception, and some women are 
unable to use certain forms of contraception. While our women Members 
like the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) have provided dynamic 
leadership on this issue, I am here to say that this is an important 
issue not just to women, but to men, to families all across this 
country; that the Federal Government ought to be a model employer, 
ought to set the example, and it ought not to be discriminating against 
women in saying they cannot get access to something that is so very 
important to their health care.
  I would say that this very debate, the first night the gentlewoman 
from New York (Mrs. Lowey) successfully put this amendment on to assure 
access to health care for women across this country was truly a 
defining moment.
  When Republican men stood on this floor and began to interfere and 
say, well, an IUD, I think that is abortifacient, the pill, well, maybe 
it is, they did not seem to have confidence that women understood what 
they were doing with their own bodies when health care was involved. 
They needed some Congressman to come in and tell them what kinds of 
contraception were appropriate and what kinds were not.

                              {time}  1745

  This is a radical decision this conference committee has made. It is 
wrong. We need to reject it, and say that the women of America are 
intelligent enough to make their own decision on this matter, and do 
not need any Republican help from the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Newt 
Gingrich) or anyone else.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, obviously the gentleman from Texas paints as pretty a 
picture as he can get on it. He likes to put roses and flowers into it.
  Let us talk about some economic reality here. First of all, I am 
astounded that in one-half of the gentleman's sentence he says there is 
no cost to the Federal Government, and in the next half of the sentence 
he says the cost is only negligible. That sounds like Democratic talk. 
That is what got us into a deficit: ``Well, it is just negligible, 
throw a few more bucks in.''
  The second point is, remember, it is wrong for Members to stand up 
here and act like we can offer to the American people and the Federal 
employees of this government Mayo Clinic coverage. We cannot do it. If 
we want to do it, we can do like they did in Kentucky. They kept 
expanding and expanding what they ought to put in their medical plan 
and their choices.
  If we want to talk about choice to the gentleman from Texas, their 
choices went from 47 plans to two plans. So what the gentleman is 
proposing up here is, let us go ahead and offer them the moon, which 
means that first of all and most importantly, most of these companies 
are not going to be competitive, which gives us the Kentucky example, 
47 choices to two choices.
  It is very important here that we understand that nothing is free. We 
do not get something for free. It just does not happen. Every time we 
give something to somebody free, we are taking it out of somebody 
else's pocket. It is debit-credit. It happens automatically.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Moakley), the ranking member of the Committee on Rules, for 
yielding time to me, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise, unfortunately, in opposition to this rule. I 
have been quoted numerous times on this floor as saying that this is a 
good bill. Let me repeat that statement. This is a good bill.
  Let me also repeat, for all my colleagues, that the gentleman from 
Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) has done a good job in shepherding this bill 
to this point. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) in my opinion is 
one of the fairest, brightest, hardest-working Members of this House. 
He is a gentleman for whom I have unrestrained

[[Page H9918]]

respect and affection and with whom I enjoy working.
  It is unfortunate that a provision that he supports is dropped from 
his bill and is causing us so much consternation on this side. There is 
an irony, I suppose, in that, as well.
  Let me now speak to where this bill is. I have said it is a good 
bill. The good news is, for America and for this House, that 99.999 
percent of this bill is agreed upon. We have four provisions, just 
four, that ultimately the conference could not agree on or could not be 
agreed upon in this House, because obviously the provisions that were 
included in the bill that came to the conference committee were agreed 
upon.
  There was one provision, as I pointed out in the last debate on the 
rule, that was unanimously opposed on our side of the aisle. We 
perceived it as a partisan issue. That is to say that it was not 
supported by Members of both parties. That was, of course, the 
provision that dealt with the FEC, which would have had the effect of 
immediately firing, as of January 1 or fairly immediately, January 1, 
1999, the incumbent counsel. We perceived that to be a payback, an 
action which would have been taken for the purposes of disciplining 
somebody who took an adverse action against GOPAC and the Christian 
Coalition.
  I know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle do not believe 
that was the motivation, and I accept their premise as being honest. 
But that was our perception of what that item was about, so it was very 
controversial. That item has now been dropped. We think that is 
appropriate.
  This issue will be discussed. I think the chairman of our committee 
has a legitimate concern about bringing in new blood to oversee this 
agency. I will be glad to work with him and talk to him about those 
issues. The right thing was done with respect to the FEC. We went into 
conference again to discuss this.
  I made it very clear to the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe), 
on behalf of the Democratic side that if the FEC was dropped, I say to 
my friend, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis), that at least 180 
members of my side of the aisle would vote for the rule and this bill 
if the FEC were dropped. We could not pledge all 207 because there was 
some controversy on other substance, but I believe we could have gotten 
180, which means that if the gentleman had 40 on his side or 100 or 
140, this bill would have passed overwhelmingly.
  Unfortunately, however, that was not to be. The chairman, as we left 
the conference, said the deal is off, we are not going to do a 
conference, we are going to put this in the omnibus bill. I have talked 
to the administration about that. I will tell my friends that the 
administration is going to be very, very hard and adamant on the 
inclusion of the contraceptive position of either this bill or the 
omnibus bill and the provision dealing with the Haitians.
  The child care provision most of us I think are for on both sides of 
the aisle. We have a procedural problem that is causing a very 
substantial problem. I do not think the chairman is against it, and 
certainly I am for it. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) is for 
it, and other Members are for it.
  With respect to the contraception, this, we believe, is the most 
egregious action that has been taken as this is reported back. First of 
all, let me tell my friend, the gentleman from Colorado, forget about 
what the Democrats say about cost. The Congressional Budget Office, I 
say to my friend, headed up by the selection of the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Kasich) and Mr. Domenici, two Republicans who head the Committees 
on the Budget in the Senate and in the House, said that there is no 
cost; not Democrats, not the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), 
but CBO says that, no cost. We were not scored for any cost whatsoever 
on this provision.
  So that I think that is dispositive. CBO has talked to OPM, OPM says 
there is not going to be any cost, and CBO says there is to be no cost. 
So that was not the issue. In fact, it should not be the issue, this 
being a bipartisan-supported bill. In fact, 51 Republicans joined 
approximately 178 Democrats in voting to sustain this provision, 51 
Republicans. What a significant number on the gentleman's side of the 
aisle, a very bipartisan support for this provision, which we perceive 
to be in the best interests of the health of America's women, in the 
best interests of the health of Federal employees, and in the best 
interests of pursuing a diminishing of abortions in this country. Will 
it be significant? We do not know. Will it affect that? We think it 
will.
  We hope that Members vote against this rule so that we can go back to 
conference, as we did before, include back those provisions that we 
think have bipartisan support, pass this rule, and pass this very good 
bill that the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) has worked so hard on.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I do want to make one point to the fine gentleman from 
the State of Maryland in regard to the CBO statement or the estimate 
that there is no cost.
  First of all, my point to the gentleman from Texas was that in one 
statement he said there was no cost, and in the next statement he said 
it was negligible, so I am not sure what it is. Frankly, I think the 
gentleman probably observed it a little more closely. The point is, 
there is a shift in cost. While it is true that the government does not 
pick up additional costs, the individual will pick up additional costs. 
I think we just need to clarify that. What the gentleman has said is 
accurate, but to complete the picture, we need to show that the 
individual will pick up additional costs.
  Mr. Speaker, I, of course, think it is important to get to this good 
bill. To get to this good bill we have to pass this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KOLBE. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  (Mr. MORAN of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, in the last four years I can't count the number of times 
I have been here on the House floor voting on bills, amendments, 
appropriations riders, and every possible vehicle for so-called anti-
abortion legislation. The reality is, every member of Congress is anti-
abortion. Every member of Congress wants to make abortion less 
necessary and eventually unnecessary. By improving access to affordable 
contraception, the Lowey amendment is an excellent way to achieve this 
goal.
  As a founding co-chair of the Congressional Prevention Caucus, I am a 
strong proponent of using preventive methods to improve the length and 
quality of human life and also to reduce the skyrocketing costs of 
health care. On average, women spend 68% more on health care costs than 
men. Much of these additional costs can be attributed to reproductive 
health care costs. The use of contraception can help to reduce these 
costs for women by preventing unplanned pregnancy, an expensive and 
potentially life threatening condition.
  Opponents of this amendment argue that 81% of FEHB plans already 
cover at least one form of contraception and that women federal 
employees already have a choice of plans. The one form is generally 
oral hormonal contraception known as ``the pill.'' Oral contraceptives 
are one of the five most common forms of contraceptive but it is not 
always recommended to some women who experience negative side effects 
or may be at higher risk of breast cancer or stroke. Alternatives 
should be accessible to women who decide in consultation with their 
doctor that it is a safer option. Ten percent of plans cover no forms 
of contraception at all.
  Regardless of the percentage of plans that cover this option and 
don't cover that option, contraception should be considered basic 
health care for women of reproductive age. As employers, we have a 
responsibility to choose what kind of health care we want to provide 
for our employees. We should be providing this basic preventive care 
and not forcing our employees to choose a plan that may not be the best 
plan for them because none of the other plans provide contraceptive 
coverage.
  Furthermore, if we are denying federal employees coverage of abortion 
services in their health plans, as we have since 1995, it would be 
hypocritical not to make methods to prevent the necessity of abortion 
as accessible as possible to federal employees. Contraception is a 
proven method in reducing the number of abortions. A recent study of 
the use of contraception in the former Soviet republics shows that 
preventing pregnancy with contraception reduces the number of 
abortions. In Kazakastan for example, abortion rates have fallen by 
more than 40% since the change in contraception policy by the 
government and widespread access to contraception was implemented.

[[Page H9919]]

  As adversaries of the ``abortion issue'' continue to disagree over 
pro-choice, pro-life semantics, we should be working together on 
policies that we can agree reduce the necessity of abortion. I urge my 
colleagues to work together where we can on this terribly divisive 
issue by supporting the Lowey amendment to provide comprehensive 
contraceptive health care coverage for federal employees.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I once again thank the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. McInnis) for his assistance here with the rule, and all 
of the members of the Committee on Rules. I want to thank the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) for the very nice words she 
said, and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for the nice words he 
said about the work that I have done, and the subcommittee Members and 
the staff.
  I reciprocate completely the respect and the strong feelings that I 
have for both the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) and the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer). I am very grateful for their 
assistance on this bill; assistance to a point, I guess, is where we 
are at. It does not extend all the way, as the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Hoyer) made clear the other night and again this afternoon.
  The fact of the matter is, and let me just review again what we are 
talking about, the fact of the matter is, we have a conference report, 
yes. As everybody in this body knows, the process is you pass a bill, 
the Senate passes a bill, you have to go to conference, and you have a 
conference report. Each of those is a different bill. Each of those is 
different than the form it was in in the other body or the form it was 
when it first passed this House.
  So the conference report has to be seen separately. It is not 
accurate to simply say that this was a controversy, this position was 
in or some form of it was in the House and some form was in the Senate 
bill, so therefore, ergo, it has to be included in this bill. That is 
not the case here.
  Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that the gentlewoman from New 
York (Mrs. Lowey) well knows, and she spoke passionately, and I do 
agree with her position that we should extend contraceptive coverage to 
Federal employees beyond where it is today, but we are not, as some of 
the speakers talked about here this afternoon, not cutting off 
contraceptive coverage. We are not denying it.
  As the gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. Northup) has pointed out, 84 
percent of the plans provide it in some form or another, and 40 percent 
provide all the forms of contraceptive coverage. We are keeping the 
current law where it is today. There is no change in the current law, 
so we are neither expanding it nor moving backwards, we are keeping the 
law where it is today.
  If this was so important, if this provision was so important, is so 
important to those who have spoken so passionately about it here this 
afternoon, where were they last Thursday night?
  Yes, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) was there and she 
spoke to it, and the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek), because of 
the Haiti position, and voted for the rule. But where were all these 
other people that this afternoon have said this is such an important 
provision? Why were they not there, speaking for the rule at that time?
  In fact, one of the people, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. 
Maloney) who was up here earlier, spoke against the rule last Thursday 
night. She said we should defeat it. Today she says it is very 
important to have that contraceptive coverage in there, that expansion 
of contraceptive coverage. It is important today, but it was not 
important last Thursday, or it was not as important. It is a moving 
marker. The field keeps moving. It is whatever there is today that we 
do not like in here is why we are going to be against this.
  I understand that the National Abortion Rights Action League has 
decided they will score this vote, but last Thursday night, when we had 
an opportunity to get to the floor with that in it and with the Haiti 
assistance, they did not score it. They did not think it was that 
important last Thursday night.
  I want to just say, in conclusion, that the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Hoyer) was correct in the way he described the sequence of events 
that occurred on this bill. When we finished the conference meeting 
yesterday morning, I did say that it looks to me as though we do not 
have any deal. I cannot see any way out of this.
  Yet today, the dynamics of this conference report have changed. There 
is now a way to get this through the Senate and the House that I 
believe is possible, and this is the only way. I know the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) believes very strongly that we should not 
have a government shutdown, that these 163,000 Federal employees that 
are supported by this bill should go on collecting IRS taxes, should go 
along with drug enforcement.

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. Speaker, this conference report is important. I urge my 
colleagues to support the rule and to support the conference.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
resolution.
  The previous resolution was ordered.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 231, 
nays 194, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 490]

                               YEAS--231

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     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
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kildee
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Turner
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--194

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards

[[Page H9920]]


     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Boucher
     Kennelly
     McCrery
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Saxton
     Waxman
     Weller
     Yates

                              {time}  1819

  Mrs. CHENOWETH and Mr. RAHALL changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 579, I call up 
the conference report on the bill (H.R. 4104) making appropriations for 
the Treasury Department, the United States Postal Service, the 
Executive Office of the President, and certain independent agencies, 
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1999, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). Pursuant to House Resolution 
579, the conference report is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see prior proceedings of the 
House of today.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and 
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).


                             General Leave

  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
on the bill (H.R. 4104) making appropriations for the Treasury 
Department, the United States Postal Service, the Executive Office of 
the President, and certain independent agencies, for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 1999, and for other purposes, and that I may 
include tabular and extraneous material.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Arizona?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, at the outset, let me begin by saying that we have had 
an extraordinary ordeal to get to where we are today, but as any Member 
that has ever worked on an appropriations bill, or any bill for that 
matter, knows, it requires the work of a lot of very good staff people 
to get us here.
  When we considered the bill on the floor, I paid tribute to all the 
staff on both the majority and the minority side, but this evening, Mr. 
Speaker, I want to just pay special tribute to two individuals who are 
going to be leaving the staff of this House of Representatives.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KOLBE. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I know the gentleman and I have had the 
discussion, but it is my understanding, and I do not know whether 
anybody has announced it, that we intend to roll votes until 8 o'clock. 
Perhaps we should tell Members, if that is the case.
  Mr. KOLBE. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
his point, and I would like to advise all those on the floor and 
otherwise in our hearing range that the intention and the understanding 
of both the majority and the minority side is that when we complete the 
debate on this conference report there will likely be a motion to 
recommit. But the vote on both the motion to recommit and on final 
passage of the conference report will not occur until at least 8 
o'clock this evening. So there will be approximately an hour and a half 
before we have any votes.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, if I might proceed. As I said, staff is obviously 
essential to getting any piece of legislation passed, but I want to pay 
special tribute to two staff people who will be leaving this body after 
having given it exceptional service.
  One is our congressional fellow, Francis Larken, who has worked for 
the subcommittee for the past year. He will be beginning his job as 
Assistant to the Special Agent in Charge for the U.S. Secret Service in 
New York.
  Frank has been a tremendous asset to this subcommittee, bringing not 
only the experience and knowledge that he has coming from the Secret 
Service and from Treasury law enforcement, but also from local law 
enforcement. He has been an absolutely essential part of our 
subcommittee staff, and I am very grateful for the work that he has 
done.
  Mr. Speaker, the other one I want to pay tribute to is an individual 
who has worked for me now for nearly 8 years on my personal staff, but 
for the last 2 years has absolutely been essential to this legislation, 
and that is my good friend and staff person Jason Isaak.
  Jason has been with us since he came directly out of college at 
Baylor University. He began as an intern and has progressively worked 
up through the office to a legislative assistant, legislative director; 
He has directed many important pieces of legislation, but none so ably 
as the work that I have had to do from my office on this subcommittee. 
He will be leaving this month in order to take a position in Phoenix, 
Arizona, returns to the State from where he came, and he will be 
marrying Miss Beth Barr, a former Olympic medalist in swimming.
  Mr. Speaker, I have a statement I will put in the Record at this 
point regarding both of these individuals and the exemplary service 
they have given this Congress and our country.
  Mr. Speaker, this week the Treasury Appropriations Subcommittee bids 
farewell to our Congressional Fellow, Francis J. Larkin, as he begins 
his assignment as Assistant to the Special Agent in Charge for the U.S. 
Secret Service in New York. Frank has proven himself to be tremendous 
asset to the work of this Subcommittee, bringing with him the 
experience he has gained with the Secret Service, from local law 
enforcement, as an emergency medical technician, and as a U.S. Navy 
SEAL. Frank began his fellowship in 1997 with the Senate counterpart of 
this Subcommittee, and so came to us with a strong background in the 
technical issues and folkways of the appropriations process.
  Working as a member of my subcommittee staff, Frank has brought a 
unique perspective to bear on many of the turbulent and sometimes 
arcane issues that we confront in the course of crafting appropriations 
bills, and in overseeing the agencies and programs in our jurisdiction. 
In particular, Frank's advice and contribution has been invaluable on 
matters affecting law enforcement, national security, and the Year 2000 
computer issue. Throughout his service here, Franks's consummate 
professionalism, good nature and level head have helped this 
Subcommittee and the Congress achieve progress on both short- and long-
term policy and budgetary issues.
  Specal Agent Larkin has served me, this subcommittee, and the House 
well: we will miss him as a colleague and as a friend. All of us on the 
Treasury Appropriations Subcommittee wish Frank and his family all the 
best as they begin their new lives in the New jersey/New York area.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few moments to recognize someone 
very special to me who soon will be leaving Capitol Hill to pursue new 
personal challenges.
  Jason Isaak, my legislative director, has been with me for the past 
seven years. Upon

[[Page H9921]]

graduating from Baylor University, Jason started as an intern in my 
office and has progressively worked his way up the ranks to his current 
position. He has managed many important issues for my office and has 
been my point person for Defense, Commerce, Justice, State and the 
Treasury Postal Service and General Government Appropriations.
  Jason is leaving Washington to take a position with a consulting firm 
in Phoenix and on October 24, 1998, will marry Miss Beth Barr, a former 
Olympic medalist in swimming.
  Mr. Speaker, Jason Isaak has made enormous contributions to our 
legislative process and will be truly missed for his professionalism, 
insight, and tireless dedication. As I mentioned, for seven years, he 
has been one of my key lieutenants, and I personally will feel a great 
loss when he leaves. Jason Isaak is truly a model for those who seek to 
constructively offer their intellectual skills and motivation to better 
this governmental process, and to do so with unflagging grace and good 
humor.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask you to join me in wishing Jason Isaak the very 
best for a brilliant career, one in which I foresee him potentially 
returning to Congress as a member of this great body.

                              {time}  1830

  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to talk about the conference 
report on H.R. 4104. This is a bill and a conference that has had more 
lives than a cat. It has had the perils of Pauline. It has had every 
other travail along the way, but here we are and I hope that, finally, 
tonight we are going to be able to pass this legislation. I want to 
thank all the members of the subcommittee, those on both sides of the 
aisle, those who have supported us in various provisions. I know that 
at times when we get to this legislation, there are times when they 
cannot be with us on the vote that we need them on final passage. But 
we would not be here this evening if it were not for the work of the 
distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and the other members 
of the minority side and all the members of this side of the aisle as 
well, I might say, who have helped us get to where we are tonight. The 
work has paid off. The conference report that is before us I believe is 
one that can make us all very proud because it is about law 
enforcement, it is about the operations of the Federal Government, it 
is about what this appropriations bill should be about.
  Six days ago when we brought this rule for this conference report, it 
failed, because it was saddled with four controversial legislative 
riders. Well, this evening we bring this back with all four of those 
provisions stripped. Gone is the provision so vehemently objected to by 
the minority regarding the appointment of the Federal Election 
Commission's General Counsel. Gone is the provision expanding 
contraceptive coverage for Federal employees. Gone is the provision 
providing for assistance and easier admission for Haitian refugees to 
the United States. Gone is the provision in the bill dealing with child 
care in the Federal Government. Everyone with an interest in these 
provisions is treated the same. In that sense, I believe it is a fair 
compromise. These provisions are stripped. They are stripped because we 
simply could not get a conference report to the floor and we could not 
get it passed if we had these provisions there.
  I for one believe that some of these provisions have real merit. 
Particularly I have been a strong supporter of the gentlewoman from New 
York (Mrs. Lowey) and the provisions that she had dealing with 
contraceptive coverage in the FEHBP. I also happen to believe that the 
time has come for us to change the way the General Counsel of the 
Federal Election Commission is appointed and that we should require a 
term for that person and we should require an affirmative majority vote 
for that person to be appointed or reappointed. But because politics 
has taken priority over the practical demands of governing, these items 
are not going to see the light of day--at least not in this 
appropriations measure. Quite honestly, it is not just that I am 
disappointed in this outcome. More than anything, I am fed up frankly 
with trying to negotiate these controversial legislative riders in an 
appropriations bill. As we have learned from this last week or from the 
last month, it is a no-win situation. This bill, which ought to be a 
relatively easy bill, has been through the wringer. I do not think 
there is any bill that has been brought to the floor this year that has 
been a more difficult bill to get to the floor and get passed.
  In case my colleagues have forgotten, let me replay a year in the 
life of the Treasury-Postal subcommittee. Our first rule providing for 
the consideration of the bill as reported went down in flames on June 
24 of this year on a vote of 125-291. The second rule squeaked by, by a 
vote of 218-201. During House debate on July 16, we had 48 points of 
order raised against legislative provisions in the bill. Final passage 
of the bill barely eked out with a vote of 218-203. Believe me, you 
could actually hear bones practically breaking in this Chamber to get 
to 218 votes. Last week the rule, the first time we considered the rule 
for considering the conference report, bombed on a vote of 106-294. 
Those votes were not because we failed to do our jobs as appropriators, 
and I say that of every member of this subcommittee, both on the 
minority and majority side. Far from it. Let me be clear about this. 
The Department of Treasury likes this bill very, very much and they are 
anxious to have it signed into law. It is the best bill they have seen 
in years. The debate on this bill is never about money. It is about 
legislative riders and only about legislative riders. This bill and the 
conference report deserves better treatment than to be battered about 
over legislative matters. It is an outstanding appropriations measure.
  I know all the Members are familiar with the legislative riders that 
have been causing us so much trouble, but let me just tell you about a 
few other items, items that these Members have been voting against each 
time they voted against the rule or each time they voted against this 
bill or the conference report:
  We provide $1.95 billion for drug-related activities, including $185 
million for the second year of the national media campaign. $20 million 
for the Drug Free Communities Act, so strongly supported by so many 
people on both sides of this aisle. $1.8 billion for the Customs 
Service, including $54 million for new narcotics detections 
technologies for both sea and land ports of entry. $15.2 million to 
address the badly needed maintenance needs of the air and marine 
interdiction programs. I am pleased to say that these funds will be 
reused to return three Black Hawk helicopters to operational status and 
to increase the flight hours for the entire Customs Black Hawk fleet 
from 18 hours per month to 30 hours per month. We have $3.2 million to 
fight crimes against children through the National Center for Missing 
and Exploited Children. We have $3.4 million to further combat child 
pornography and related Internet cyber smuggling. We have $7.9 billion 
for the Internal Revenue Service, including $211 million for ongoing 
efforts to revamp the IRS computer systems, $25 million for 
restructuring the way the IRS does business, $103 million for improved 
customer relations. And then there is $462 million for 14 new 
courthouse construction projects in order to accommodate the increasing 
demands we are placing on our judicial system.
  I can count on one hand the number of times that Members have offered 
appropriations-related amendments to this bill. Of the 14 amendments 
that were offered to this bill during House consideration, only three 
of them had anything to do with an appropriations matter. All the rest 
involved controversial legislative riders that have little or nothing 
to do with the work of this committee or this subcommittee.
  Well, I have an announcement. Not that it should come as any great 
surprise, but guess what? We are not going to be able to effectively 
govern if we continue to blur the lines between appropriations and 
authorization. We cannot run the Customs Service, the IRS, the Secret 
Service, the Office of National Drug Policy if we continue to hold this 
bill hostage to extraneous legislative matters.
  The conference report before us right now is one of which I am very 
proud and I believe every Member on both sides of the aisle can be very 
proud. It is not about controversial legislative riders. It is now 
about appropriations. It is now about funding these Federal agencies. 
It is about fiscal responsibility with respect to how we fund the 
agencies that come under the jurisdiction of this bill. It is about 
accountability to Congress and to the American people.

[[Page H9922]]

  Mr. Speaker, it is time for Members to set aside their disagreement 
over specific legislative matters that deserve more deliberate review 
and action than being stuck into this appropriations bill. It is time 
to put aside the politics and do the right thing. Vote for an 
appropriations bill that is free of these controversial riders and 
deals with appropriations matters as it should deal. Mr. Speaker, I 
encourage all of my colleagues to support this conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I include the following extraneous matter for the 
Record:

[[Page H9923]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH07OC98.001



[[Page H9924]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH07OC98.002



[[Page H9925]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH07OC98.003



[[Page H9926]]

  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes.
  (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I want to rise and speak on behalf of this 
bill and say that I am probably going to vote to recommit it. But I 
will reiterate one more time, this bill is 99.9 percent pure and good. 
The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) has done an outstanding job. 
This bill does in fact provide for the needs of the agencies that are 
within it, it provides funds sufficient for them to carry out their 
duties in an appropriate way, and it has not included provisions which 
would undermine their effectiveness. For that I think we owe the 
chairman of this committee a great deal of thanks because of his 
conscientious handling of this bill.
  Unfortunately as the chairman indicates and as we indicated in the 
debate on the rule, this bill has gotten caught up in four, what could 
be called extraneous issues. I would suggest, however, that one of them 
is not really extraneous to the extent that its provision in the bill 
is an appropriation matter in that it says none of the funds in this 
bill shall be spent to purchase policies which do not have full 
coverage for contraception. To that extent, that is an appropriation 
provision. The other three provisions essentially are legislation on an 
appropriation bill. The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) was able 
to offer it because it was in order under the rules. And when she 
offered it, it passed.
  I want to go back to that subject, but I want to thank the chairman 
for his work on this bill. I want to also join him in thanking the 
chief clerk of the committee Michelle Mrdeza, also Bob Schmidt, Jeff 
Ashford, Tammy Hughes, and Frank Larkin. I particularly want to join 
the chairman in his justifiable pride and appreciation at the work that 
Jason Isaac has done. I always want to make the observation that the 
public far too often sees us fighting and confronting one another as if 
we did not try to work constructively together. I want to say that the 
chairman, joined by Jason Isaac, has been a very positive interlocutor 
in trying to come to grips with the important issues confronting this 
bill. Jason, I want to on behalf of not only myself but all the 
Democrats on the committee, our Democratic staff, thank you for the 
extraordinarily able contribution you have made to the consideration of 
this bill over the past few years. It has been a joy to work with you. 
We respect your ability and your integrity. We wish you the best of 
luck.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill, and I am not going to make all my comments 
because I will adopt the chairman's comment and include my statement 
for the Record. But in particular this bill provides appropriate 
resources for the IRS. Why is that important? When we did IRS reform, I 
made the point that if you were not for IRS reform at budget time and 
at tax-writing time, all the reform legislation you passed was going to 
be meaningless. You need to give the IRS the resources to serve the 
public in a customer-friendly way. You also need good management. I 
want to congratulate again Secretary Rubin and Larry Summers, the 
Deputy Secretary, for bringing in a manager, Charles Rossotti. His 
predecessors have been outstanding people. For the most part they have 
been tax lawyers. Obviously that was an important skill to have, but 
really what IRS needed was management skill. Secretary Rubin brought in 
a manager with Mr. Rossotti from the private sector, an 8,000 person 
firm, an expert in the field of information management. He is doing an 
outstanding job. That is the good news.
  The second piece of good news is that the gentleman from Arizona and 
our committee has provided him the resources to make sure that reform 
in fact occurs. I want to thank the chairman again for that. The bill 
does fund as well law enforcement. Forty percent of Federal law 
enforcement is in this bill, whether on the borders, in our cities, in 
our schools, training kids how to stay out of gangs. This bill is a 
critical component of fighting crime in America in every community in 
America. The gentleman from Arizona is committed to that effort. He and 
I have the privilege of working together with our law enforcement 
officials in the Treasury Department to make sure they are as effective 
as we could possibly make them to keep our schools and communities and 
States and Nation as free of crime as we possibly can; as well to 
interdict drugs which are eating at the fabric of our society. This 
bill funds that effort. I congratulate him for it.
  Mr. Speaker, before my time concludes, I will include the rest of my 
remarks in the Record, talking about the programs that this bill does 
well by. Mr. Speaker, we will be discussing what this bill, however, 
deleted.
  When this bill went to conference, there were a number of provisions, 
four in number, that became contentious. One, the provision about the 
FEC which the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston) has been a very 
strong supporter and proponent of, was obviously very controversial and 
a confrontation between the two parties where one party was all against 
it and for the most part the other party was for it. I suggested that 
that provision be dropped because we could not get agreement on that 
provision, and I am pleased that it has been dropped. The other three 
provisions, however, were different, Mr. Speaker, and they were 
different because they had and still to this time, I believe, enjoy 
bipartisan support.

                              {time}  1845

  Not only do they enjoy bipartisan support in the House, but also in 
the Senate, and that bipartisan support also reflected itself in the 
conference. It is unfortunate that they were dropped. I will have more 
to say about them in a few minutes.
  But again, this is a good bill once we resolve these four items. I 
hope it moves forward.
  Almost half of the $13.4 billion in discretionary budget authority in 
this bill is targeted at law enforcement and anti-drug efforts.
  Roughly $450 million in provided to the drug czar for a variety of 
drug-fighting efforts, including $182 million for the very successful 
high-intensity drug trafficking areas [HIDTAS], and $185 million for 
the ONDCP's national media campaign.
  We provided IRS commissioner Rossoitti with funding that will enable 
him to continue with the reform and restructuring efforts. IRS is 
funded at $7.9 billion, $469 million less than the President's 
request--most of which is attributable to the IRS' Y2K needs, which 
should be funded in the supplemental being planned by the leadership.
  Secretary Rubin and Deputy Secretary Summers should be given credit 
for rescuing the failing tax modernization program. They provided the 
needed oversight to allow IRS to make the dramatic improvement in their 
computer systems area.
  This bill also funds many smaller agencies, including the National 
Archives, OPM, GSA, the FEC, and the Executive Office of the President, 
including the White House Office, and executive residence.
  I am pleased that the chairman and I were able to reach an agreement 
to modify the fence on $630,000 for spending on overtime expenses at 
the executive residence. I wish the fence were not there, however, the 
language will allow the White House to provide the General Accounting 
Office with its comments and once the GAO notifies the committees of 
its receipt of the White House comments, the fence is eliminated. I was 
informed today that GAD has given its report to the White House, and 
this well be finished soon.
  For GSA, I am very pleased that we are able to include over $500 
million for needed courthouse construction projects. Chairman Kolbe and 
I agreed that the courthouses needing funding were the only ones that 
would be funded in this bill. The courthouses included in this bill is 
identical to the list of construction projects recommended by the 
judicial conference as the top priority needs of the courts.
  In addition, I am disappointed that this bill does not include much 
needed funding for the Y2K problems facing the Federal Government.
  When this bill came out of the full committee, and funding for Y2K 
was stripped, I was assured that the leadership understood the urgency 
of the problem and understood that funding had to be provided.
  However, as of October, days after the beginning of the new fiscal 
year in the 3 months since the funding was stripped from this bill, we 
still have not dealt with this issue.
  I had very much hoped that the bill would contain the contraceptive 
equity language that passed the House and Senate.
  Since it does not, I am offering a motion to recommit this conference 
report with an instruction to include the House-passed contraceptive 
language.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H9927]]

  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the very distinguished 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston), Chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the very 
distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service, 
and General Government for yielding this time to me, and I want to 
congratulate him and the staff and all the Members on both sides for 
doing such a great job with what I think is a fine bill and a bill 
which I hope will go to the other body, get passed, be sent down to the 
President and be signed because there is a lot that is good about this 
bill. In fact, I appreciate the comments by the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Hoyer) talking about what is good about this bill. It is a good 
bill.
  And I was a little bit taken aback. Yes, there are four provisions 
which were irritants to many Members. I really appreciate the position 
of the gentleman when he said that whether it was one of the four that 
he was against, let us throw that one out and let us keep the other 
three. Well, that is a neat bargaining position, but that is not going 
to cut it because there are a lot of people in the House who are 
opposed to the other three, for one reason or the other, and they were 
not unanimous. Each of the four had its opposition, each of the four 
had its segment of people who were vigorously opposed to it, and 
together they came to the floor last Thursday night and cast their vote 
against the rule which prevented us from proceeding as we are 
proceeding tonight.
  It was a simple decision, was not political, was not a vendetta, was 
not intended to single any one group out. If there were four irritants 
on a very good bill, let us take out the irritants, and pass the very 
good bill and go on about our business.
  We have got three days, three legislative days between now and the 
end of the 105th Congress. It seems to me that if my colleagues did not 
get their provision kept in, but they are mad because the others that 
they liked were not also kept in, that they need to understand what a 
compromise means.
  I simply say that it just makes common sense, take all four out, pass 
the bill, send it to the Senate, let us go on about our business.
  This is a good bill. All of the Members have worked hard. We have had 
difficulty with the process, but we have not had difficulty with 99 
percent of the substance of this bill. Let us stop talking about 
process, let us stop taking political advantage.
  Yes, I have one of these provisions that I strenuously am in favor 
of. I lost. I lost my position on the FEC. I think that is a terrible 
mistake, but I am willing to concede it, and I would think my 
colleagues would be willing to concede it, and that is why I cannot 
understand why they would support a motion to recommit, rehash the 
process and undo this very fine bill which the gentleman himself 
concedes is great legislation.
  If it is great legislation, let us stop playing politics, let us move 
the bill to the other body, and let us get the President to sign it.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek), a member of the subcommittee.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, this bill needs to be defeated. It 
is amazing to me how we can make relative comparisons in this bill. My 
Chairman, a man I have a lot of respect for, enumerated a lot of things 
that are in this bill that are good. They are good. But most of the 
things the Chairman enumerated were things that deal in things or 
buildings or objects like IRS, Customs, and many other things that he 
enumerated. But one thing that he left out: he did not deal with human 
lives and how this bill is going to negatively impact 40,000 Haitians 
that are in this country.
  Why are they in this country? Not because they have the freedom to 
come here. They left fleeing a government which was unfair to them, a 
terrorist government, a government that caused them to go hungry, a 
government that caused them to give up their lives with their bodies 
washed ashore all along the Atlantic. These are the things this 
Congress has failed to look at.
  Mr. Speaker, I have tried for 4 years to get some relief in this 
Congress for the Haitians. Certainly in the House we have consistently 
ignored these people, consistently we have. We were able to the last 
time to admit the Nicaraguans and 5000 more Cubans. The Cubans already 
had an opening in this country. We always support people who need help 
in this Congress.
  I went along with the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) and 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) to help get the 
Nicaraguans and the Cubans in this country. Then they went along with 
me with the Haitians. And I want to say, Mr. Speaker, in this rider, it 
is not caused by all the people on the other side. We know who they 
are, and they know who they are. The good people on the other side have 
been swayed by a right-wing extremist group which for some reason 
cannot stand the idea of Haitians coming into this country and 
receiving green cards. Yet they can allow 150,000 of a people in this 
country who did not face similar kinds of terrorist actions as the 
Haitians.
  I cannot understand it, Mr. Speaker. I wish I had the answer as to 
why this disparity is being made here in this House. The Senate did 
what they thought was a humane thing to do. They voted to allow them to 
come in, this 40,000. They did not let everybody in. They thought about 
the children, they thought about the ones who came from Guantanamo, and 
they thought about the ones who had sought asylum in this country. 
There are many other Haitians in this country, over 100,000 others, but 
at least the Senate stepped forward and said we believe it is 
righteous, we believe in it.
  This House has shown that it believes in disparate treatment for 
Haitians. That is why this bill should go down, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Let me just say, Mr. Speaker, that the gentlewoman from Florida makes 
a very powerful argument for the assistance to the Haitian refugees. I 
believe that her argument is one that should be considered by this 
House. But, as she knows, there are people, people who have 
responsibility for the authorization of immigration legislation that 
have very strong views on the other side, and we just could not carry 
it in this bill. If it is as important as it is, and the administration 
agrees, and the Senate leadership agrees, and the House leadership 
agrees, it should be included in the omnibus bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
(Mrs. Johnson).
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, on July 16 I felt 
tremendous pride in this Congress when Republicans and Democrats came 
together and passed an important family planning provision that would 
have extended contraceptive coverage to more than a million women 
enrolled in Federal health plans. The debate was heated, but it was 
honest and driven by the merits of the issue. Now, three months later, 
that same provision is no longer in this bill. No one is more 
disappointed than I.
  I am particularly disappointed by the fact that it was the victim of 
an incredible partisanship. The Democrats simply decided contraceptive 
coverage was expendable, and I rarely make this kind of claim, but 
honestly that is the truth. It was expendable, it was less important 
than a provision that will have no effect for 4 years.
  The Haitian solution was less important than the FEC problem that can 
be fixed in the next 4 years. The child care improvements were less 
important than the FEC provisions that will not have effect for 4 
years. We should have been able to pass that bill on the floor that had 
those provisions in it. If my colleagues did not like the FEC 
provisions, and I know they did not and we know there is a pressing 
need for FEC reform, then we would have had time to work together and 
address those issues. But since there was no willingness to recognize 
the three major provisions we agreed on, 3 of 4, there was no choice 
for people like me but to support the bill before us.
  Mr. Speaker, my responsibility is to keep the government open. My 
responsibility is to fund the United States Treasury Department that I 
think does very important things for the people of

[[Page H9928]]

this Nation. I am proud that in this bill is $103 million to improve 
IRS customer service. This Congress, the House and Senate, spent 2 
years thinking through reform of the IRS, changing the law, and I am 
proud that the committee of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and 
with the cooperation of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) have 
got the money in this bill so that we can do what we told the people we 
were going to do and improve customer service at the IRS. Twenty-seven 
million dollars for restructuring and taxpayer clinics so people can 
have some timely help in understanding what their responsibilities are 
and how to pay their taxes in an honorable way on time.
  Also in this bill is $3.2 million. It is a small amount of money but 
so important to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. 
This is also a lot of money for drug interdiction and other drug 
prevention programs.
  This is a good bill. The tragedy is that everybody agrees that the 
subcommittee did an excellent job on funding this function of 
government, and we have caused ourselves enormous problems by 
legislating on an appropriation bill.
  We have caused ourselves increasingly serious problems over the years 
by legislating more and more provisions on appropriations bills. While 
we know this is illegal under our rules, this time we did have some 
very serious debates about some of those riders, and some of them 
included from the Senate side, like the Haitian provisions, did solve 
very, very important problems for families who are stranded here in 
America. It just pains me that we were not big enough to move this bill 
through with those three provisions on it and come back next year to 
better address FEC problems. the D's could have gotten some solid 
agreement from us to come back and let us look on the FEC. Let us agree 
to make a real conscious effort to reform it. That was not done; I 
regret it. My responsibility was to fund the IRS and the other agencies 
funded in this bill, and I am proud to support it.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, I tell the gentlewoman for whom I have a great deal of 
respect, the FEC provision is effective January 1, 1999. She firing Mr. 
Noble as of January 1, 1999, less than 90 days from today.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I would simply say to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) that that speech simply will not wash. If 
you really believe that contraceptive coverage should be provided in 
this bill, there is only one way to get it: turn the bill down, and 
bring a bill back which contains it. The majority party was told by 
people on this side of the aisle that all they had to do to get 200 
votes on our side of the aisle for the bill is to drop the amendment on 
the Federal Elections Commission that threatens to corrupt the entire 
election process. That is still the best way to cover or to get the 
contraceptive coverage that she says that she wants.
  So they can give all the excuses they want about how it is necessary 
to fund the IRS. Nobody seriously believes the IRS is not going to be 
funded. It will be funded no matter what happens to this bill. Quit 
kidding people.

                              {time}  1900

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey).
  (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the 
Treasury-Postal Appropriations conference report because it strips out 
the contraceptive prescription coverage, strips out language that both 
the House and the other body passed, Mr. Speaker, language that was 
passed.
  It seems like, in this Congress, the appropriations process 
immediately signals the beginning of hunting season on a woman's 
reproductive rights. Figure it out. Unwanted pregnancy and abortion 
rates drop when women have access to preventative reproductive health 
care, the health care they need.
  I ask Members, look at your female staff, those women who work so 
hard to serve your districts. Look at them and tell them that you do 
not care about their reproductive health and their choices. Then look 
at the millions of Federal employees who, day in and day out, serve the 
people of this country. Go ahead. Tell them that you want to deny them 
the rights made accessible to other women but not to them.
  Voluntary family planning services give our women and their families 
new choices and new hope. These services increase child survival and 
save motherhood. Prohibiting Federal workers from using their health 
care coverage for prescription contraceptive coverage discriminates 
against women, women that work for the Federal Government. This is a 
disgrace. Government workers should not be treated so poorly.
  The democratic process deserves more respect. The appropriations 
process should not signal to women in this Nation that their rights are 
at risk. Vote against this conference.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I just want to make it 
clear that I do not consider it partisan to require that the chief 
counsel of the FEC have bipartisan support, that there be bipartisan 
confidence in his work.
  Almost every board and commission requires a majority vote for 
anything, and certainly for hiring a major staffer. The only thing that 
goes into effect January 1 is the change that a majority has to 
support, has to have confidence in their chief of staff. I consider 
this a bipartisan improvement.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her comment; but in point of 
fact, we are all confident that there are not three votes to do 
anything for Mr. Noble on the Republican side; and, therefore, as of 
January 1, 1999, less than 90 days, he would be terminated by 
legislation. I think that is unprecedented.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman not 
think that is incredible? Does the gentleman think that is healthy? 
Does it give the gentleman any insight into why this organization has 
been so ineffective in the last couple of years?
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time from the gentlewoman, I 
will tell the gentlewoman, no, I do not think it is incredible because 
Mr. Noble went after GOPAC, and he went after the Christian Coalition. 
I will tell the gentlewoman that it is our strong conviction on this 
side that is why this issue has been raised this year, I will tell my 
friend.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
(Mrs. Capps).
  (Mrs. CAPPS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of a motion to recommit 
with great disappointment that the Lowey provision was removed from the 
bill.
  It is outrageous to me that we would prevent Federal employees from 
access to basic health care which includes contraceptive coverage as 
was stated. These are our colleagues who work in our offices. These are 
the women and the families they represent who work in Federal agencies 
across this country.
  Before coming to Congress, I spent 20 years as a school nurse and led 
a program for pregnant teenagers and teenage mothers. Many of these 
young parents were married and wanted to stay in school.
  This experience convinced me that access to contraceptives is such a 
key part of our goal to reduce unintended pregnancies and, in turn, 
reduce the number of abortions in this country.
  When we provide women and people with access to contraceptives, we 
empower them to make their own critical decisions about their own lives 
and the lives of their families.
  Contraception is first and foremost a health issue. Close to half of 
all the pregnancies in the United States are unintended. Unwanted 
pregnancies often carry the risk of poor prenatal care and the risk of 
unwanted and disadvantaged children.
  Improved access to contraception is a simple cost-effective way to 
keep

[[Page H9929]]

women healthy, to protect their families, and ensure that the children 
who are brought into this world have the support they need to thrive. 
Federal employees should be allowed access to a basic part of health 
coverage and should not be treated as second-class citizens.
  Again, I am sorely disappointed that this provision so vital for 
women's health was stripped by our leadership.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Denver, Colorado (Ms. DeGette).
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, last time I checked, it was 1998. But, 
frankly, as far as I am concerned today, it might as well be 1918 when 
Margaret Sanger went to prison for smuggling diaphragms to women.
  This is a very sad day for American women. A proposal to provide 
birth control, birth control, not abortion, a proposal which passed 
both the House and Senate has now fallen to the demands of the 
Christian Coalition and the radical right.
  Denying access to contraception for Federal employees is just a small 
step in the systemic efforts by the radical right to eradicate, not 
just a woman's right to abortion, but a woman's right to birth control, 
to reproductive health.
  First, it is denying insurance coverage for contraception, then it is 
outlawing FDA approval of contraception, then criminalizing 
grandparents for taking teens across State lines for abortion. On and 
on and on are attempts to both reverse Roe versus Wade and then remove 
a woman's right to reproductive choice.
  I think that we need to tell the tens of thousands of Federal 
employees in this country and their families that this Congress will 
stop playing God and do what the American people have elected us to do. 
We have no business in America's bedrooms. We cannot force natural 
family planning, the method by which my parents had 5 children in 6\1/
2\ years.
  We have got to have sensible birth control which will reduce abortion 
in this country and will give American women a choice over when they 
have planned pregnancies.
  I urge this body to vote ``yes'' on the motion to recommit, put this 
important language for our employees and all Federal employees back in 
the bill. At that point, it is an excellent bill, and we should all 
support it.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just point out to the gentlewoman from Colorado 
(Ms. DeGette), if this was such an important provision, where was she 
Thursday night? She was not here to vote for it. She voted against it. 
She did not think it was important on Thursday when we had the bill up 
here.
  Mr. Speaker, I would ask how much time remains on both sides.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gutknecht). The gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Kolbe) has 10 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Hoyer) has 13 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from New 
York (Mrs. Lowey), who was the sponsor of the provision in question on 
contraception.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member of the committee 
for yielding to me. I want to say again to our distinguished chairman, 
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), and to the ranking member, the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) that I feel very sad tonight that I 
cannot enthusiastically support this bill.
  I know how hard the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) worked on the 
bill and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) worked on the bill. 
There are a lot of Federal workers out there who depend upon the 
provisions of this bill.
  I have heard from my colleagues this evening that we had to just 
remove all of the controversial provisions in the bill because 
otherwise the bill could not get through. I just want to make it clear 
to my friends on both sides of the aisle that I strongly disagree with 
that point of view.
  There is a big difference between disagreeing on a provision and 
taking a provision out of the bill that was voted on democratically, 
with a small ``d,'' by the majority of this House, by a voice vote in 
the Senate that was in the conference report.
  There is a big difference between taking that provision out, having 
the leadership of this House making a decision to take that provision 
out, and to remove other provisions that many of us felt were clearly 
political and were not supported by both the House and Senate. So I 
wanted to make that point, number one.
  Secondly, as a woman, sometimes you get an opportunity to do 
something that really helps the majority of women in this country. I 
want to urge my colleagues and alert my colleagues to a poll, and not 
that polls means anything in this House, but a poll that is being 
released tomorrow saying 78 percent of women in this country support 
contraceptive coverage.
  I know my good friend the gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. Northup) 
has said that any woman can choose a plan that has a contraceptive. We 
know, and I have 2 daughters and daughters-in-law, that some 
contraceptives are good for some people; others are good for others.
  In fact, I would like to say to my good friend, the gentlewoman from 
Kentucky, is it not sad that a woman in 1998 should have to choose a 
plan just because it has the kind of contraceptive that is best for 
her.
  What we are saying is that there are five established methods of 
contraception. The plan should cover them if, in fact, they cover 
prescription drugs. That is what the American people want. That is what 
the women of America want. If some people feel one of those 
contraceptives is an abortifacient, it is your right. Just do not use 
it.
  I do not agree with everything that is in every plan, but the Budget 
Office has made it very clear that covering this would be an incidental 
cost. It does not mean anything.
  So I just want to say in closing, we try to operate in a small ``d'' 
democratic way in this House of Representatives in this Congress of the 
United States, and I am still proud to be a part of the Congress of the 
United States.
  But I have to tell my colleagues, to find a way to take out a 
provision that was democratically voted in both the House and the 
Senate I think is an outrage. I think it is an insult to American women 
when 80 percent of the plans do not cover all forms of contraception 
that have been approved.
  I have to tell my colleagues, all but one covers sterilization. We 
have just seen that it is okay for the military to include $50 million 
for Viagra. This is patently unfair.
  I would hope that everybody would vote for the motion to recommit so 
we can correct the error and put this contraceptive provision back in. 
That is what the American people want. That is what American women 
want. I thank again my chair and my ranking member.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for 
yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the motion to recommit. The 
language that would be offered, I believe by either the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) or by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), 
would force most health care providers in the Federal Employees Health 
Benefits Program to provide chemicals and devices that result in early 
abortions.
  What is largely unknown and largely misunderstood is the fact that 
some devices and some chemicals that advertise as contraceptives also 
have the effect of preventing implantation of a newly created human 
being.
  For example, the copper IUD, when inserted up to 7 days after 
intercourse, after intercourse, acts in a way that does not prevent 
fertilization, but it acts in a way to prevent implantation. That is 
advertised as emergency contraception.
  If a conscientious objector who is not basing his or her objection on 
religious beliefs or plan would like to not provide this, they would 
not have that opportunity because it is a mandate. That is what we are 
talking about.
  All of these things are permissible under current administrative 
policy and current law. All of these things are permissible, including 
early abortions through these chemicals. What is not the case, they are 
not mandated.

[[Page H9930]]

  This is all about a mandate saying to a plan, you either tow the line 
and offer copper IUDs 7 days after intercourse, or you lose your 
ability to be in this program; and that is where the mandate ought to 
be rejected. Keep it permissible, not mandatory. Vote ``no'' on the 
motion.

                              {time}  1915

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New 
York (Mrs. Lowey).
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I just want to respond to my good friend 
from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and to my colleagues. I just want to make 
it very clear that there are 5 established methods of contraception 
that have been approved by the FDA, number 1.
  Second, 78 percent of the American people believe that we should work 
hard to reduce unintended pregnancies, to reduce the number of 
abortions, and most people in this country, men and women, do believe 
that the way to do that is with family planning, is with contraception.
  Now, we can debate on this floor when life begins, but remember, if a 
plan offers the 5 methods of established contraception, that does not 
mean everyone has to choose that. Everyone has the opportunity to make 
a decision based on their religious beliefs, and in fact, we have 
exempted the 5 religiously-based health plans so that they do not have 
to offer contraception. I think we have been very fair in drafting this 
provision. It was passed in a bipartisan way. Let us vote for the 
motion to recommit and support it.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Kentucky (Mrs. Northup).
  Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, often when I go before groups at home they 
ask me what sort of training I had or what seemed to help me be a 
Member of Congress. I tell them that it was growing up in a family of 
11 children, because when one grows up in a family of 11 children, one 
does not always get one's way.
  In fact, it often seems like one never gets their way, and one learns 
that one gives up all the time. One gives up their choice on what 
television show to watch, one does not get to choose when one goes to 
the pool, where one goes, what one eats for breakfast. The fact is that 
when one is one of 11 children, one learns to compromise all the time 
to get to an end that is very important.
  So in the conference committee we had very strong feelings. Most of 
us compromised. Three of the provisions that were controversial I 
agreed with. I do not believe that we should add more mandates on our 
Federal employees' health plans that will have the effect of driving up 
their costs. But I agree, because it was very important to a group on 
the Democratic side particularly, but on both sides, that we include 
that.
  The fact is that in the end the minority party decided not to support 
the rule and not to support the conference committee because one thing 
was more important than anything, and that is that the general council 
have bipartisan support to stay in place.
  So the rule went down. So now we are back with all of the 
controversial provisions stripped.
  I understand that it is very important to the gentlewoman from New 
York (Mrs. Lowey). She has dedicated day after day to this mandate on 
health insurance. So she is going to stand up and offer a rule to 
recommit, I understand, for her provision. It sort of ignores, to the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek) and to me, the fact that the 
Haitian provision was very important, and that in this recommit rule, 
what we are saying is what I want is more important than anything else, 
and so I am going to recommit the bill to get the one provision that 
trumps everything else.
  That is the sort of lesson one learns when one is in a family of 11 
that one cannot do.
  To directly address this, I just want to say that not one Federal 
employee has contacted me asking me to mandate every form of birth 
control in every plan. They like what they have. They like their 
choices, and they have confidence that they can choose the plan that is 
best for them.
  Now, if we want to go back to a state where we have to tell Federal 
employees, we know what is better, you may not want a higher priced 
plan, but we know what is better for you and we are going to mandate 
it. They will come back and tell us that CBO said there is no 
additional cost, and the truth is, there is no additional cost for the 
Federal Government.
  First of all, CBO has now said that maybe they did not score it 
correctly. But let me point out that in some ways, Federal employees 
are like many employees of small businesses. The employer says, I am 
going to pay this much every month for your policy, and you are going 
to pay the balance. And so if right now they do not need contraceptive 
coverage, and maybe what they need is the most affordable plan, 
something that they can choose, and in fact, we know Federal employees 
are moving to cheaper plans, that tends to be their criteria, what we 
are saying is that we do not care that is your criteria, we know 
better.
  Mr. Speaker, I have not had one Federal employee that wants me to 
change and mandate, add mandates.
  So what we are doing is deciding here that maybe something we want 
them to have is not even something that they want. There are women in 
the private sector that would love to have options on their insurance, 
but they do not exist in the Federal system.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New 
York (Mrs. Lowey).
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to quickly respond to my 
colleague from Kentucky.
  Number one, the association that represents the Federal employees 
does support this provision. They are on record.
  Second, my colleague accused me of being selfish. I strongly endorse 
the provision of the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek), and I would 
hope that it would be in the bill. The reason the contraceptive 
provision is the motion to recommit is that provision did pass the 
House and the Senate; it was in the conference, and so it really is 
quite undemocratic to take it out.
  Last, I just want to say that I just have one brother. I have 3 
children, and maybe I did not have to share everything with 11, but I 
have learned that democracy should work in this body, as a Member who 
has been here for 10 years, and I still think, in closing, it is 
outrageous that a provision that passed the Senate and the House and 
the conference should be taken out.
  We could have a longer debate about what should and should not be in 
a health benefit plan, but this has been supported by the association 
that represents these employees.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time and I thank him for his leadership on this issue 
and so many other important issues before this House.
  I rise in opposition to this bill, because while it restores some of 
the necessary powers to the Federal Elections Commission, it takes 
power away from women. It discriminates against women by denying them 
access to the full range of contraception services.
  We are wasting no time in handing out over $50 million worth of 
Viagra to service members through the Pentagon this year, but we are 
denying women access to contraception. It is discriminatory and it is 
wrong.
  Some of my Republican colleagues have accused us of wanting things 
both ways. Well, they are absolutely right, because restoring power to 
the Federal Elections Commission as well as giving women proper access 
to contraception, these are the right things to do.
  Mr. Speaker, as we all know, this language, the contraception 
language has already been approved by the majority in both Houses. It 
passed this House twice. We should play by the rules. It has been 
approved by the House, approved by the Senate, and we have a great deal 
of additional work we need to do. We should not be undoing what this 
Congress has already passed, and I urge a ``no'' vote against this 
conference report.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would advise that the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining; the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

[[Page H9931]]

  I rise today opposed to this report and opposed to the way the 
Republican leadership has run roughshod over the will of the majority 
of the House, the majority of the Senate, and the American people.
  We have discussed this issue many times before. The full House voted 
twice, the Senate voted once in support of contraceptive coverage for 
Federal employees. This is basic health care for women, health care 
that will help to reduce the number of abortions.
  But to satisfy their right wing, for political reasons, the 
Republican leadership is once again extending the arm of government 
into the doctor's office. They claim to know better than doctors. It 
has been said many times before, but let me say it once again. This 
provision will not require plans to cover any form of abortion, 
including RU486.
  We all know that the law forbids Federal health plans from covering 
any form of abortion. What was intended here was to ensure that women 
have access to the health care that they need and that they deserve. It 
enables couples to reduce the need for abortion.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak about the motion that we will make, 
because there will be no time for debate when the motion to recommit is 
made.
  As has been referenced earlier in this debate, there will be a motion 
to recommit. I regret that the gentlewoman from Connecticut is not on 
the floor, because the motion to recommit will be limited to one single 
issue, and it will be an issue that has enjoyed the majority support of 
the Members of this House, including approximately 51 Republicans, as 
well as 178 Democrats. It is a measure that has been supported in a 
bipartisan fashion, that is overwhelmingly supported in this Nation, 
and that is to commit to providing for women the family planning 
options of their choice that they can use most effectively.
  Mr. Speaker, I would hope that every Member who voted for the Lowey 
amendment and who voted in opposition to the Smith amendment to 
undercut the Lowey amendment would vote for the motion to recommit, 
which will recommit the bill to conference, with instructions to add 
back the provision that passed this House.
  Now, I want to make it clear that that position was the position 
shared by the chairman; shared by the ranking member, myself; shared by 
the chairman of the Senate conference committee; shared by the ranking 
member of the conference committee; supported by the Senate in a 5-to-2 
vote by their conference.
  Mr. Speaker, this should not be a controversial issue. I do not mean 
by that that there are not people who feel strongly in opposition to 
the suggestion of the full array of contraceptives being available to 
women. I understand that opposition. But it is to say that there is a 
clear majority in both Houses for this provision. One cannot say that 
about any other of these provisions. It is the only provision that 
fills that bill.
  Furthermore, let me perhaps put a caveat to that.

                              {time}  1930

  The FEC measure may enjoy the majority support in both Houses, but 
Republicans only, so there is not bipartisan support for that. We make 
a distinction on that basis. Yes, we felt strongly about it.
  I would hope that Members of this House, realizing that this is a 
good bill that should pass, and will pass in some form within the next 
72 hours, I believe, I hope, and I will work towards that objective, 
but it is also a bill that could and should carry this provision, 
supported by the overwhelming majority of the Congress, the Senate, the 
House, and the conference committee.
  Why should it pass? Because it is an important provision, as the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) and so many others have stated, 
to provide for full health services for women in America.
  I would suggest to my friends that if the men of America felt as 
strongly about a provision, the chances of us dropping it would be 
zero. Let me repeat that. If the men of America felt as strongly about 
a provision, the chances of us dropping it would be zero.
  I would hope that when we come to the floor, that we vote for the 
motion to recommit. I would then hope my chairman would take us into 
conference immediately, and because I know that the Senator from 
Colorado, the chairman of the Senate conference, and the ranking 
member, the gentleman from Wisconsin, support this provision, and I 
know the chairman supports this provision, and obviously I support this 
provision, that we report this bill back immediately, and I will agree 
to a unanimous consent request for a limited debate, 5 minutes a side, 
and that this bill would then pass.
  I want to tell the chairman that I would strongly support the Haitian 
provision as well. I am not sure that will go. I have talked to the 
administration, and believe that will be a very significant issue in 
the omnibus bill. But I would hope that the motion to recommit would be 
approved by this House, and the will of this House would be carried out 
in this bill.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit, and I 
urge my colleagues to vote against that, when we come to that vote. I 
urge them to vote for the passage of the conference report.
  Let me say that I support very strongly providing contraceptive 
coverage for women. My record on these issues has been very clear since 
I have come to this body, and I have taken more than my fair amount of 
heat at home from some of my more conservative members of my party on 
this issue, but I strongly support it because I think it is the right 
thing to do. I favor expanding the coverage. I believe that women who 
work for the Federal Government should have more options than they do 
now.
  But I want to make it clear that without this provision that passed 
the House of Representatives, a very controversial provision, and it 
was, if Members will recall, a very tough fight when we had it, but it 
passed the House of Representatives, by eliminating this we are not 
eliminating contraceptive coverage for any woman who works for the 
Federal Government.
  We are not providing any denial of coverage. We are not putting any 
limitation on what kinds of contraceptive coverage any Federal health 
plan can provide. That is a determination that the health plan can 
make. That is a determination that any person who signs up can make, as 
to whether they want to be in that plan.
  We are retaining the status quo. We are where we are with the law 
today. Those on this side of the aisle and the minority side of the 
aisle would argue that it is not enough. I would agree. I think we 
should have an expansion. I think there should be more coverage.
  There are those over here who would want to ban any contraceptive 
coverage in a Federal health plan. We have neither position. Neither 
position has been able to work its will here. So we have a law today 
that allows coverage, but it does not mandate it. Eighty-four percent 
of the Federal plans do provide for some kind of coverage. Forty 
percent of them provide for all of the contraceptive coverage. There is 
virtually no woman working for the Federal Government that does not 
have access to a plan that has some kind of coverage.
  So I would prefer the position that has been articulated by those 
over there, but we could not get it out. My colleagues on that side of 
the aisle would not support it last Thursday when we had this vote up. 
It was not important enough to them then. Tonight it is important to 
them, so they want us to defeat this and recommit this, but it was not 
important enough to them last week.
  I have a responsibility, as the chairman of this subcommittee, and 
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) has been there himself, to get 
this bill to the floor, to get this conference report done, to make 
sure that 163,000 Federal employees that are supported by this bill 
continue to work if we somehow do not have an omnibus bill on Friday; 
that they will continue to work; that they will continue to do the work 
of collecting the taxes for the Federal government, of doing the work 
of the IRS of processing tax returns; that they will continue to do the 
work of Customs, of checking the borders, of interdicting drugs from 
coming into this country; that they will continue to

[[Page H9932]]

do the work of the Secret Service, that provides protection for the 
president and fights against counterfeiters; that they will continue to 
provide the money for the Drug-Free Communities Act, so that we will be 
able to continue the work of the drug war through the Media program; 
that we will continue to be able to do all of these programs.
  But Mr. Speaker, if we recommit this bill tonight, it is dead. We do 
not have contraceptive coverage. We do not have the good things that 
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) spoke about earlier in this 
bill. There is no way we can get that out of the conference committee. 
My colleague knows that. We have gone over this. We have talked about 
it. We cannot get it out, so we simply cannot pass the legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues in the strongest possible terms to 
reject the motion to recommit. Let us move forward with the bill that 
is a good bill for the agencies that it funds, a bill that does not 
have extraneous legislative provisions on it.
  Defeat the motion to recommit, pass the conference report tonight, 
and keep the Treasury-Postal agencies in business.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to 
the rule. The Lowey provision within the Treasury-Postal Appropriations 
bill was passed in both chambers of Congress--twice in the House--and 
was included in the final conference report. To strip this language now 
flies in the face of the legislative process.
  The vast majority of Federal Employee Health Benefit (FEHB) plans do 
not cover the full range of prescription contraceptives which prevent 
unintended pregnancies and 10 percent of the FEHB plans do not even 
cover any of the five major contraceptives.
  The Lowey provision in the Treasury-Postal Appropriations bill simply 
requires that FEHB plans cover prescription contraception, just as they 
cover other prescriptions. The FEHB program serves as a model for the 
nation's private health insurance plans. The FEHB program must cover 
these basic and essential prescription drugs that can decrease the need 
and likelihood of abortions in this country. We owe this not only to 
the millions of women who make more than half this population, but to 
their families who are trying to be responsible parents.
  Eighty-one percent of FEHB plans do not even cover the five leading 
reversible methods of contraception. Due to various medical conditions, 
many women do not even have the option of using certain forms of 
contraception. Women deserve a full and fair choice when it comes to 
their personal health needs.
  Currently, women of reproductive age spend 68% more in out-of-pocket 
health costs than men. We need to narrow the gender gap in insurance 
coverage--not widen the disparities between those who have and those 
who have not, and further expand the chasm that has hurt far too many 
women and families throughout the country already.
  The Lowey provision is a critical, basic necessity that has a 
``negligible'' cost according to the Congressional Budget Office. I 
urge my colleagues to recognize and respect the legislative process.
  And we must vote ``no'' because the Republicans have also stripped 
the language providing Haitian refugees the chance to establish legal 
permanent residence in the United States. This Haitian language would 
enable an estimated 40,000 Haitians, including about 11,000 paroled 
into the United States after the military coup in 1991 by the Bush 
Administration, to adjust to permanent residence status. These Haitians 
deserve the asylum that has been provided to their Nicaraguan and Cuban 
counterparts.
  Again, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this destructive and 
unjudicious rule.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, this conference report is a shocking 
disappointment for two reasons: First of all it unjustly strips away 
well-deserved rights from a small group of Haitians in the United 
States. The Senate bill included relief for 40,000 Haitians who had 
arrived in the United States by the end of 1995 by granting them the 
right to apply for legal permanent residency. These Haitians were 
paroled in upon the invitation of the attorney general. Due to 
bipartisan, bicameral support the House receded to the other body.
  Now a small minority here in Congress wants to kill this issue. This 
is totally unacceptable.
  Second of all, this conference report deletes the Lowey language 
which requires that Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) plans 
cover prescription contraception, just as they cover other kinds of 
prescriptions. The Lowey Amendment was approved by the full 
Appropriations Committee, twice by the House, once by the Senate 
unanimously by voice vote, and was included in the conference report.
  The problem is that the vast majority of FEHB plans fail to cover the 
full range of prescription contraceptives which prevent unintended 
pregnancy and reduce the need for abortion. In fact, 81% of FEHB plans 
do not cover all five leading reversible methods of contraception and 
10% have no coverage of contraceptives at all. Women of reproductive 
age spend 68% more in out-of-pocket health costs than men and much of 
this is due to the cost of contraception--we need to narrow this gender 
gap in insurance coverage. The federal government needs to provide a 
model for private health plans by providing this very basic health 
benefit for women insured by FEHB plans.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this conference report.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the conference report.
  The previous question was ordered.


                Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Hoyer

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gutknecht). Is the gentleman opposed to 
the conference report?
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, in its present form I am.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Hoyer moves to recommit the conference report on the 
     bill H.R. 4104 to the committee of conference with 
     instructions to the managers on the part of the House to 
     insist on section 624 of H.R. 4104 dealing with contraceptive 
     prescription coverage under the Federal Employees Health 
     Benefit Plan.

  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.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, further proceedings on 
this motion will be postponed.
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________