[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.

                          ____________________