[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 140 (Thursday, October 8, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H10126-H10129]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FURTHER PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4274, DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR,
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999
Mr. DREIER, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a privileged
report (Rept. No. 105-798) on the resolution (H. Res. 584) further
providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4274) making
appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services,
and Education, and related agencies, for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 1999, and for other purposes, which was referred to the
House Calendar and ordered printed.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 584 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 584
Resolved, That during consideration of the bill (H.R. 4274)
making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health
and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies, for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 1999, and for other
purposes, in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union pursuant to House Resolution 564--
(1) general debate shall not exceed one hour; and
(2) amendments numbered 2 and 3 in House Report 105-762
shall be in order before consideration of any other
amendment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier)
is recognized for one hour.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to my friend from Fairport, the gentlewoman from
New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I
may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded
will be for purposes of debate only.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks, and include extraneous material.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for further consideration
of the bill H.R. 4274, the Departments of Labor, Health and Human
Services and Education appropriations bill for 1999, pursuant to H.
Res. 564.
The bill will afford 60 minutes of general debate divided equally
between the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee
on Appropriations.
This rule makes in order, before consideration of any other
amendments, the amendments numbered 2 and 3 that were printed in the
report of the Committee on Rules that accompanied H. Res. 564.
Mr. Speaker, the House last week passed a rule to provide for
consideration of this appropriations bill, the single largest
appropriations bill that comes before the Congress. The health care,
medical research, education and job training programs provided for in
the bill touch the lives of tens of millions of American families. For
that reason alone, the bill deserves consideration on the floor of the
People's House.
Mr. Speaker, we all know that this bill is immersed in highly charged
social issues and is very controversial. Some may be uncomfortable with
those debates but they are a fact of life when Federal Government
programs impose on areas of daily life which for so long were outside
the purview of Washington, D.C.
When that happens, deep and often emotional questions about values
will be raised. We can expect nothing less. I applaud the work of my
friend from Wilmette, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), for
tackling the challenges put before his committee in as commendable a
fashion as possible. His bill deserves a fair hearing on the House
floor.
[[Page H10127]]
{time} 1615
This rule, that was already approved by the House, along with this
modification, will allow us to engage in what will certainly be a
spirited debate that is worth having. I urge Members on both sides of
the aisle to recognize that fact and support this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Dreier), for yielding me the customary half-hour, and I
yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, this rule is unprecedented. The House has
already passed an open rule for the consideration of the Labor-HHS and
Education bills. The second rule we are being asked to approve tonight
is a rule that will block any real consideration of that bill.
Instead, this rule's extraordinary procedure is designed to give a
single special interest group a vote that it wishes to use in a voter
scorecard before the election. Once we take that vote, the
appropriations bill will be pulled from the floor.
Subverting the House's legislative process for this cynical political
ploy typifies the majority's actions this entire session. The do-
nothing majority continues to put its own special interest politics
before the public good. We have seen bill after bill manipulated for
partisan purposes, forcing Members to take votes for purely partisan
political reasons. We knew these bills would never be enacted into law,
but each provided a sound bite for some special agenda.
In the meantime, this majority has failed in its most basic
responsibility. For the first time since the Congressional Budget Act
was passed 24 years ago, Congress has not passed a budget resolution.
The law requires action on a concurrent budget resolution by April 15.
That is many months ago. Six months later, the majority has still
failed to pass a resolution.
Today, 8 days into the new fiscal year, only one of the thirteen
appropriations bills has been signed into law, and only three other
appropriations bills have even been sent to the President. On October
8, with nine appropriations bills still in the legislative process, and
with only 2 remaining scheduled legislative days, the House is being
asked to again ignore its statutory responsibilities.
Today, we are not taking up the Labor-HHS-Education bill in order to
move the process to a conclusion. A rump ``conference committee'' has
been working on this bill for several days and this version is no
longer the basis for further action. This new rule is designed solely
to force a House vote on two contentious legislative amendments that
amend a portion of the bill containing legislative language that does
not even belong in the bill.
The rule would enable the House to proceed directly to a vote on a
controversial provision in the second title of the bill, directly
leaping over the Labor Department provisions and ignoring a number of
important issues and amendments that deserve a full and fair debate in
this chamber. Instead, the House would debate immediately an amendment
offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) and a
substitute to be offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook)
regarding parental consent for title X contraceptives distributed to
minors.
Now, why is it so vital the House single out those two particular
controversial amendments? There is only one reason. The majority has
promised its far-right allies this vote to provide campaign fodder for
the November election.
This is hardly a new issue. The House has voted on parental consent
issues many times, most recently on last year's Labor-HHS-Education
appropriations bill. Our positions are all clear on this matter. Yet
the majority is kowtowing once again to another element, handing them a
politically attractive vote a mere 25 days before the election.
Mr. Speaker, I have been proud to support Labor-HHS appropriations
bills in the past, and I have enormous respect for its chairman, the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), who is one of the finest persons
I have served with in the House of Representatives. Nevertheless, this
rule will not provide for real consideration of this most important
bill.
This rule represents the most egregious example yet of the majority
using its powers for partisan gain. I urge my colleagues to reject this
ruse. This institution should be better than this procedural farce.
With the Nation's business to do, we should not be pandering to a
single interest group. Please vote against this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
simply respond to the words of my friend from Fairport, and what I
would say is that we have already considered this rule. We had a vote
that took place on the rule. This is simply making what is really a
minor modification to ensure that amendments numbered 2 and 3 are going
to be considered under the constraints that were included in the rule
that did pass the House.
There are many Members who have indicated that they want to have a
full and fair debate on those issues, which I admit are controversial.
Frankly, we have the responsibility of dealing with tough public policy
questions, and they are among them.
And so with that, I would say that we can continue to hear charges of
the do-nothing Congress and all of this sort of stuff that was used
back in 1948; we can hear all sorts of name-calling, which we heard
earlier during the debate, but I would just underscore again that this
rule passed the House earlier this week. We have considered this issue.
We have a couple of amendments that many of our Members want to have
brought to the forefront, and I think that those Members have a right
to be heard.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley).
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear colleague and friend, the
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).
Mr. Speaker, today I am standing here on behalf of the thousands upon
thousands of Americans who rely on the LIHEAP program to help heat
their homes in the winter and cool them in the summer. As we celebrate
an end to the budget deficit for the first time in years, these people
are still wondering how they will keep their children warm this winter,
and that, Mr. Speaker, is just plain wrong.
It is wrong to force people to choose between putting food on the
table and heating their homes when the temperature outside is below
zero. And it is not only limited to the cold climate, Mr. Speaker.
During the heat wave that swept through the south this summer, over
$100 million in LIHEAP funds were released to help the most vulnerable
people suffering from those high temperatures.
Given how important this program is, given that it saves so many
lives, and given the benefits that stretch from Maine to Mississippi, I
am very disappointed that the Committee on Appropriations has decided
to eliminate this program entirely.
Mr. Speaker, the people who this program helps are not the well-off
people. Two-thirds of the people that this program is aimed at make
less than $8,000 a year. And during periods of extreme cold or extreme
heat they have to choose between paying their utility bills and paying
their grocery bills.
Let me give my colleagues an example. I have here a letter from a
retired veteran who lives in South Boston. He is a veteran of the
Korean War. And he explained in this letter that he gets by on about
$100 a week. I would just like to read part of this letter. It says:
Joe, why would anyone want to cut this heating program? It
really helps us veterans in the winter. Sometimes you can't
afford to heat your room and eat at the same time. What's the
matter with the politicians when they want to destroy us
veterans and the elderly?
Mr. Speaker, to tell the truth, I do not know how to answer this
letter, and I suspect many of my colleagues feel the same way when they
get similar letters.
Mr. Speaker, because the LIHEAP program has always received
bipartisan
[[Page H10128]]
support, my Republican colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jack
Quinn), and I have sent a letter to the chairman of the Committee on
Appropriations asking for full funding of LIHEAP. This letter was
signed by over 200 Members of the House, Democrats and Republicans
alike, in a true bipartisan movement. And until this appropriations
bill contains funding for the LIHEAP program, I urge those 200 Members
to join me in opposing this rule.
With the budget finally in the black, with prosperity affecting
millions upon millions of Americans, now is not the time to forget
about the elderly. Now is not the time to forget about the poor.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I
have the highest regard for my friend from South Boston, and I would
say to him, as we consider debate on this rule, which again is simply a
modification of the rule that already passed the House, I think it is
important to note that the LIHEAP program is something that I
understand has actually had an increase in funding in the manager's
amendment; and the next thing would be in order under this rule,
following consideration of amendments numbered 2 and 3, would, in fact,
be the manager's amendment, which would include that increase.
I do not want to get into a big debate on the LIHEAP program itself,
but I will say that if we look at the program that was put into place
in the mid 1970s, at the height of the energy crisis, it was done so,
in large part, to deal with that very serious need that was out there.
Today, taking inflation into consideration, it is very clear that the
cost of energy is substantially lower than it was even in those days in
the 1970s. And the LIHEAP program was established, in large part, to
provide reimbursement to the States, many of which had very, very
serious deficit problems themselves at that point, and now most States
are, in fact, running a surplus.
So I would say that I think my friend raises some very interesting
questions about the LIHEAP program, and I would argue that those could,
in fact, be considered following the consideration of this rule when
they move ahead with the Labor-HHS appropriations bill. And, again, the
manager's amendment would, in fact, be the next thing in order.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley).
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman saying that this matter is
dealt with in the manager's amendment in this rule?
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MOAKLEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman that it is my
understanding that the manager's amendment, that would be next to be
considered after passage of this rule, after we consider the amendments
numbered 2 and 3, the manager's amendment would be in order. And it is
my understanding there is, in fact, an increase in funding for the
LIHEAP funding. Am I wrong?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MOAKLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, there is not an increase in the
LIHEAP program in the manager's amendment. There is an increase from
zero. But the program level last year was over a billion dollars. So it
is an 85 percent reduction. Thanks for small favors.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, If the gentleman will continue to yield. I
was correct, then, an increase from zero. There is, in fact, an
increase in that.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I would just tell the
gentleman that that increase still represents about a half a billion
dollar decrease.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this astonishing
rule. The Labor-HHS bill has often been described by both Democrats and
Republicans as the people's bill. It reflects our priorities as a
Nation, the health, the education and employment of our children and
our families.
What, then, does this rule reveal as Republican priorities? Will we
debate full funding for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program,
which helps poor seniors and families with children heat their homes
without sacrificing prescriptions or food? No, we are not going to do
that.
Will we debate the elimination of the summer jobs program, which
provides summer employment for nearly half a million teens who would
otherwise be employed in this country? No, we are not going to do that.
Will we debate the $2 billion shortfall in education funding in this
bill? The need for modern schools, so that our children can learn the
skills that they need to get the good jobs of the 21st century? The
need to reduce class size, train more teachers, ensure that every child
gets the attention and the discipline that he or she needs in order to
be able to learn? No, we are not going to do that.
Will we debate funding for child care, to ensure that children have
safe places to learn while their parents are at work? Will we debate
after-school care, to keep kids off our streets and out of trouble in
the hours after school ends and before mom and dad get home? No, we are
not going to debate that.
What, then, will we debate? What is the Republican right wing's
highest priority? Legislation requiring parental consent for birth
control, which will violate State laws, frighten teens away from
receiving the counseling and screening for sexually transmitted
diseases that they need to stay healthy, and increase teenage pregnancy
and abortions.
Certainly, this is an important issue. I believe teens should talk to
their parents before making these decisions. But it is not more
important than all of the priorities represented in this bill.
{time} 1630
I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, yielding myself such time as I may consume,
I would just again tell my colleagues that this is fascinating to
continue the debate that we had earlier on a virtually identical rule.
We look forward to addressing all of these questions, if we can
proceed. I would reserve the balance of my time in hopes that we could
move ahead, have a vote on the rule and then move ahead with the work
on the appropriations bill so that LIHEAP and everything else can be
debated.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak
against this rule. Members heard the arguments on LIHEAP and they have
heard the arguments on the elimination of summer jobs. But I also want
to point out one other area, and that is the President's education
initiatives that have been eliminated by $2 billion. We sit here and
talk about tax breaks and we have passed a bill to remove the cap to
increase persons coming in, immigrants, for jobs because we do not have
them prepared, but yet we are gutting the part of this budget that
would prepare our young people for the future. We have gutted Goals
2000 which brings our parents much more involved into the education
planning for our students. The technology literacy challenge fund has
been eliminated, the Eisenhower professional development grants being
eliminated, title I grants and safe and drug-free schools.
We have heard arguments all year long about the increase of drug
usage of our students. Yet we are eliminating those dollars that can
help eliminate the drug use to educate and treat young people who have
gotten involved in drugs.
I do not understand the logic of why we are making tax breaks and
immigration more of a priority than preparing our own young people for
the future. It does not make sense. I ask my colleagues to vote against
this rule.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a simple question. What in
God's name are we doing bringing up this bill
[[Page H10129]]
at this point? The authority for the government to remain open expires
in one day. We still have seven major appropriation bills, funding more
than half the government, that have still not been acted upon. And if
they are not, a whole lot of government will not be operating two days
from now. Yet we are about to debate a bill which is going nowhere.
Now, we have been trying to get together to resolve the remaining
differences on the seven major appropriation bills that have still to
be disposed of so that we can finish our work, keep the government open
and go home. We have some rather major problems. If anybody has noticed
what has been happening today and yesterday with the stock market and
NASDAQ, you have a huge collapse on your hands. And it is probably
going to get a lot worse. We are trying to figure out how to reach
agreement on things as controversial as the IMF. We have been trying to
get to a meeting since 10 o'clock this morning between the principal
conferees on the labor-health-education budget, and we have a wide
variety of other disputes that are preventing us from finishing our
work.
I would point out that while the press seems to be under the
impression that there are only five or six items that still are in
dispute, we have over 300 open issues that are still highly
controversial that must be resolved before tomorrow night. Yet we are
being asked now to begin debate on a bill which we know is going
nowhere.
This bill is so extreme that the Republican majority in the Senate
has shoved it aside and produced an entirely different bill. We have
yet to finish action on the Labor-Health bill, the Transportation bill,
the State-Justice-Commerce bill, the Foreign Operations bill, the
District of Columbia bill, the Ag bill is being vetoed so we have to
deal with that one again. We have the Interior bill that still is not
passed. Yet what is happening? This Congress is being tied up on bill
after bill on one issue, sex. On the Treasury-Post Office bill, that
bill has been hung up and still remains at issue because of resistance
to insurance coverage on contraception on the part of some members of
the majority party. The Agriculture bill was held up for many weeks
because of a strong feeling on the part of some members of the majority
party that the FDA ought to impose a ban on another birth control
device. The State-Justice-Commerce bill is being held up on an issue
relating to abortions in prison. The Foreign Operations bill, which is
our basic foreign policy document in the appropriations area, is being
held up because you have a small group of persons in the majority party
who insist that if they do not get their way on the international
family planning issue, the entire bill will be held hostage. And now we
are asked to bring this bill up and debate the issue of family planning
services once again. That issue is being brought up not to resolve
anything on the House floor but to resolve a difference within the
Republican Caucus between a group that calls themselves moderates and a
group that calls themselves conservatives.
I just want to say, sometime, sometime it would be nice if this
Congress stops being bogged down on this issue, if we could quit
debating bills that are not going anywhere so that we can get in the
rooms and work out the differences on bills that are going somewhere
and must go somewhere so that we can finish our work on time. This
debate does nothing but satisfy political problems within the majority
party caucus on a bill that is going nowhere.
____________________