[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.
____________________