[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 95 (Thursday, July 20, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H6654-H6663]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TREASURY AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Herger). Pursuant to House Resolution
560 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration
of the bill, H.R. 4871.
{time} 1657
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 4871) 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, 2001, and for other purposes, with Mr. Dreier in the
chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole House rose earlier
today, the amendment by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn) had been
withdrawn and title IV was open for amendment at any point.
Pursuant to the order of the House of today, no further amendment to
the bill shall be in order except pro forma amendments offered by the
chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations or their
designees for the purpose of debate, and the following additional
amendments, which may be offered only by the Member designated in the
order of the House or a designee, or the Member who caused it to be
printed or a designee, shall be considered read, shall be debatable for
the time specified, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and
an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be
subject to a demand for a division of the question:
The following additional amendment, which shall be debatable for 30
minutes:
(1) Ms. DeLauro, regarding health services.
(2) The following additional amendments, which shall be debatable for
20 minutes:
Mr. Moran of Kansas, regarding sales to any foreign country;
Mr. Rangel, regarding Cuba;
Mr. Coburn, regarding section 640;
Mr. Davis of Virginia, regarding Federal election contracts; and
The amendment printed in the Congressional Record and numbered 14.
{time} 1700
(3) The following additional amendments, which shall be debatable for
10 minutes:
The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), regarding Buy America Act;
the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), regarding Inspector General
reports; the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) regarding day-care
centers; and the amendments printed in
[[Page H6655]]
the Congressional Record and numbered 1, 4, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, and 15.
Are there further amendments to title IV?
If not, the Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS
This Act
Sec. 501. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current
fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
Sec. 502. The expenditure of any appropriation under this
Act for any consulting service through procurement contract,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3109, shall be limited to those
contracts where such expenditures are a matter of public
record and available for public inspection, except where
otherwise provided under existing law, or under existing
Executive order issued pursuant to existing law.
Sec. 503. None of the funds made available by this Act
shall be available for any activity or for paying the salary
of any Government employee where funding an activity or
paying a salary to a Government employee would result in a
decision, determination, rule, regulation, or policy that
would prohibit the enforcement of section 307 of the Tariff
Act of 1930.
Sec. 504. None of the funds made available by this Act
shall be available in fiscal year 2001 for the purpose of
transferring control over the Federal Law Enforcement
Training Center located at Glynco, Georgia, and Artesia, New
Mexico, out of the Department of the Treasury.
Sec. 505. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall be available to pay the salary for any person
filling a position, other than a temporary position, formerly
held by an employee who has left to enter the Armed Forces of
the United States and has satisfactorily completed his period
of active military or naval service, and has within 90 days
after his release from such service or from hospitalization
continuing after discharge for a period of not more than 1
year, made application for restoration to his former position
and has been certified by the Office of Personnel Management
as still qualified to perform the duties of his former
position and has not been restored thereto.
Sec. 506. No funds appropriated pursuant to this Act may be
expended by an entity unless the entity agrees that in
expending the assistance the entity will comply with sections
2 through 4 of the Buy American Act (41 U.S.C. 10a-10c).
Sec. 507. (a) Purchase of American-Made Equipment and
Products.--In the case of any equipment or products that may
be authorized to be purchased with financial assistance
provided under this Act, it is the sense of the Congress that
entities receiving such assistance should, in expending the
assistance, purchase only American-made equipment and
products.
(b) Notice to Recipients of Assistance.--In providing
financial assistance under this Act, the Secretary of the
Treasury shall provide to each recipient of the assistance a
notice describing the statement made in subsection (a) by the
Congress.
Sec. 508. If it has been finally determined by a court or
Federal agency that any person intentionally affixed a label
bearing a ``Made in America'' inscription, or any inscription
with the same meaning, to any product sold in or shipped to
the United States that is not made in the United States, such
person shall be ineligible to receive any contract or
subcontract made with funds provided pursuant to this Act,
pursuant to the debarment, suspension, and ineligibility
procedures described in sections 9.400 through 9.409 of title
48, Code of Federal Regulations.
Sec. 509. No funds appropriated by this Act shall be
available to pay for an abortion, or the administrative
expenses in connection with any health plan under the Federal
employees health benefit program which provides any benefits
or coverage for abortions.
Sec. 510. The provision of section 509 shall not apply
where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus
were carried to term, or the pregnancy is the result of an
act of rape or incest.
Sec. 511. Except as otherwise specifically provided by law,
not to exceed 50 percent of unobligated balances remaining
available at the end of fiscal year 2001 from appropriations
made available for salaries and expenses for fiscal year 2001
in this Act, shall remain available through September 30,
2002, for each such account for the purposes authorized:
Provided, That a request shall be submitted to the Committees
on Appropriations for approval prior to the expenditure of
such funds: Provided further, That these requests shall be
made in compliance with reprogramming guidelines.
Sec. 512. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used by the Executive Office of the President to request
from the Federal Bureau of Investigation any official
background investigation report on any individual, except
when--
(1) such individual has given his or her express written
consent for such request not more than 6 months prior to the
date of such request and during the same presidential
administration; or
(2) such request is required due to extraordinary
circumstances involving national security.
Sec. 513. The cost accounting standards promulgated under
section 26 of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act
(Public Law 93-400; 41 U.S.C. 422) shall not apply with
respect to a contract under the Federal Employees Health
Benefits Program established under chapter 89 of title 5,
United States Code.
Sec. 514. (a) In General.--As soon as practicable after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Archivist of the
United States shall transfer to the Gerald R. Ford
Foundation, as trustee, all right, title, and interest of the
United States in and to the approximately 2.3 acres of land
located within Grand Rapids, Michigan, and further described
in subsection (b), such grant to be in trust, with the
beneficiary being the National Archives and Records
Administration, for the purpose of supporting the facilities
and programs of the Gerald R. Ford Museum in Grand Rapids,
Michigan, and the Gerald R. Ford Library in Ann Arbor,
Michigan, in accordance with a trust agreement to be agreed
upon by the Archivist and the Gerald R. Ford Foundation.
(b) Land Description.--The land to be transferred pursuant
to subsection (a) is described as follows:
The following premises in the City of Grand Rapids, County
of Kent, State of Michigan, described as:
That part of Block 2, Converse Plat, and that part of Block 2 of J.W.
Converse Replatted Addition, and that part of Government
Lot 1 of Section 25, T7N, R12W, City of Grand Rapids,
Kent County, Michigan, described as: BEGINNING at the NE
corner of Lot 1 of Block 2 of Converse Plat; thence East
245.0 feet along the South line of Bridge Street; thence
South 230.0 feet along a line which is parallel with and
170 feet East from the East line of Front Avenue as
originally platted; thence West 207.5 feet parallel with
the South line of Bridge Street; thence South along the
centerline of vacated Front Avenue 109 feet more or less
to the extended centerline of vacated Douglas Street;
thence West along the centerline of vacated Douglas
Street 237.5 feet more or less to the East line of
Scribner Avenue; thence North along the East line of
Scribner Avenue 327 feet more or less to a point which is
7.0 feet South from the NW corner of Lot 8 of Block 2 of
Converse Plat; thence Easterly 200 feet more or less to
the place of beginning, also described as:
Parcel A--Lots 9 & 10, Block 2 of Converse Plat, being the subdivision
of Government Lots 1 & 2, Section 25, T7N, R12W; also
Lots 11-24, Block 2 of J.W. Converse Replatted Addition;
also part of N \1/2\ of Section 25, T7N, R12W commencing
at SE corner Lot 24, Block 2 of J.W. Converse Replatted
Addition, thence N to NE corner of Lot 9 of Converse
Plat, thence E 16 feet, thence S to SW corner of Lot 23
of J.W. Converse Replatted Addition, thence W 16 feet to
beginning.
Parcel B--Part of Section 25, T7N, R12W, commencing on S line of Bridge
Street 50 feet E of E line of Front Avenue, thence S
107.85 feet, thence 77 feet, thence N to a point on S
line of said street which is 80 feet E of beginning,
thence W to beginning.
Parcel C--Part of Section 25, T7N, R12W, commencing at SE corner Bridge
Street & Front Avenue, thence E 50 feet, thence S 107.85
feet to alley, thence W 50 feet to E line Front Avenue,
thence N 106.81 feet to beginning.
Parcel D--Part of Government Lot 1, Section 25, T7N, R12W, commencing
at a point on S line of Bridge Street (66' wide) 170 feet
E of E line of Front Avenue (75' wide), thence S 230 feet
parallel with Front Avenue, thence W 170 feet parallel
with Bridge Street to E line of Front Avenue, thence N
along said line to a point 106.81 feet S of intersection
of said line with extension of N & S line of Bridge
Street, thence E 127 feet, thence northerly to a point on
S line of Bridge Street 130 feet E of E line of Front
Avenue, thence E along S line of Bridge Street to
beginning.
Parcel E--Lots 1 through 8 of Block 2 of Converse Plat, being the
subdivision of Government Lots 1 and 2, Section 25, T7N,
R12W.
[[Page H6656]]
Also part of N \1/2\ of Section 25, T7N, R12W, commencing at NW corner
of Lot 9, Block 2 of J.W. Converse Replatted Addition;
thence N 15 feet to SW corner of Lot 8; thence E 200 feet
to SE corner Lot 1; thence S 15 feet to NE corner of Lot
10; thence W 200 feet to beginning.
Together with any portion of vacated streets and alleys that have
become part of the above property.
(c) Terms and Conditions.--
(1) Compensation.--The land transferred pursuant to
subsection (a) shall be transferred without compensation to
the United States.
(2) Appointment of successor trustee.--In the event that
the Gerald R. Ford Foundation for any reason is unable or
unwilling to continue to serve as trustee, the Archivist of
the United States is authorized to appoint a successor
trustee.
(3) Reversionary interest.--If the Archivist of the United
States determines that the Gerald R. Ford Foundation (or a
successor trustee appointed under paragraph (2)) has breached
its fiduciary duty under the trust agreement entered into
pursuant to this section, the land transferred pursuant to
subsection (a) shall revert to the United States under the
administrative jurisdiction of the Archivist.
Sec. 515. (a) In General.--The Director of the Office of
Management and Budget shall, by not later than September 30,
2001, and with public and Federal agency involvement, issue
guidelines under sections 3504(d)(1) and 3516 of title 44,
United States Code, that provide policy and procedural
guidance to Federal agencies for ensuring and maximizing the
quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information
(including statistical information) disseminated by Federal
agencies in fulfillment of the purposes and provisions of
chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code, commonly referred
to as the Paperwork Reduction Act.
(b) Content of Guidelines.--The guidelines under subsection
(a) shall--
(1) apply to the sharing by Federal agencies of, and access
to, information disseminated by Federal agencies; and
(2) require that each Federal agency to which the
guidelines apply--
(A) issue guidelines ensuring and maximizing the quality,
objectivity, utility, and integrity of information (including
statistical information) disseminated by the agency, by not
later than 1 year after the date of issuance of the
guidelines under subsection (a);
(B) establish administrative mechanisms allowing affected
persons to seek and obtain correction of information
maintained and disseminated by the agency that does not
comply with the guidelines issued under subsection (a); and
(C) report periodically to the Director--
(i) the number and nature of complaints received by the
agency regarding the accuracy of information disseminated by
the agency; and
(ii) how such complaints were handled by the agency.
Sec. 516. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to implement a preference for the acquisition of a
firearm or ammunition based on whether the manufacturer or
vendor of the firearm or ammunition is a party to an
agreement with a department, agency, or instrumentality of
the United States regarding codes of conduct, operating
practices, or product design specifically related to the
business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in firearms
or ammunition under chapter 44 of title 18, United States
Code.
Sec. 517. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available in this Act may be used to allow the placement in
interstate or foreign commerce of diamonds that have been
mined in the Republic of Sierra Leone, the Republic of
Liberia, Burkina Faso, the Republic of Cote d'Ivoire, the
Democratic Republic of the Congo, or the Republic of Angola,
except for diamonds the country of origin of which has been
certified as the Republic of Sierra Leone by government
officials of that country who are recognized by the General
Assembly of the United Nations.
Sec. 518. None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall
be used to propose or issue rules, regulations, decrees, or
orders for the purpose of implementation, or in preparation
for implementation, of the Kyoto Protocol, which was adopted
on December 11, 1997, in Kyoto, Japan, at the Third
Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change, which has not been submitted to
the Senate for advice and consent to ratification pursuant to
article II, section 2, clause 2, of the United States
Constitution, and which has not entered into force pursuant
to article 25 of the Protocol: Provided, That the limitation
established in this section shall not apply to any activity
otherwise authorized by law.
Sec. 519. Within available funds, the Department of the
Treasury and the General Services Administration are urged to
use ethanol, biodiesel, and other alternative fuels to the
maximum extent practicable in meeting their fuel needs.
Sec. 520. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to pay the salary of any officer or employee of the
Office of Management and Budget who makes apportionments
under subchapter II of chapter 15 of title 31, United States
Code, that prevent the expenditure or obligation by December
31, 2000, of at least 75 percent of the appropriations made
for fiscal year 2001 to carry out the Agricultural Trade
Development and Assistance Act of 1954 (7 U.S.C. 1691 et
seq.), the Food for Progress Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1736o),
and section 416(b) of the Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C.
1431(b)).
Mr. KOLBE (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that the remainder of title V be considered as read, printed in the
Record and open to amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Arizona?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any points of order to title V?
Point of Order
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
provision entitled Sec. 517 in title V of the bill on Treasury Postal
Appropriations on the grounds that it violates clause 2(b) of rule XXI
of the Rules of the House.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak on the point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) is recognized on
the point of order.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) has taken
the leadership on this issue with regard to Sierra Leone. We visited
Sierra Leone in the month of December.
This picture is of a young girl that we saw who had her arms cut off
because of conflict diamonds. In Sierra Leone, the rebels have taken
over the areas and are pursuing the war. And this picture is another
young little girl with her arms cut off. They are pursuing the war by
the sale of what they call conflict or blood diamonds.
On behalf of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), we offered an
amendment, which was adopted unanimously by Republicans and Democrats
in the subcommittee and not challenged in the full committee, to
prohibit the importation of diamonds coming from certain countries,
Sierra Leone and Liberia, where Charles Taylor in Liberia is doing
terrible things, and Burkina Faso and other countries.
In the Congo, in the last 22 months, 1.6 to 1.7 million people have
died. Thirty-five percent of these killed are under the age of 5.
So this amendment is here in order to stop conflict diamonds.
On this floor several weeks ago, this Congress voted not to send the
money for U.S. peacekeeping. No one wants to send American soldiers. So
there can be U.N. peacekeepers, at the minimum, which ought to prohibit
the importation of what is called conflict or blood diamonds.
This is also in the best interests of the people of Sierra Leone but
also the diamond merchants. Because if it ever gets out that every time
a young woman or young man purchases a diamond, and 65 percent of the
diamonds in the world are sold in our country, the American people do
not want to buy blood diamonds, then I think the diamond market may
very well be in trouble.
So, for this reason, we offer the amendment to stop this issue.
Keep in mind, too, the life expectancy in Sierra Leone is 25.6 years.
So I wanted to be heard. And I know my colleague, the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Hall), wants to be heard on this issue and the distinguished
chairman of the Subcommittee on African Affairs (Mr. Royce), who has
been so good on this issue and has really focused on it, wants to be
heard.
I do want to say that I understand the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Crane) will be making an announcement that he is going to hold a
hearing. I personally want to thank him for his willingness to do this,
which will help us after the August break to focus on the issue. So I
want to personally thank the gentleman very much for his willingness to
do this.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr.
Dreier) for his help on this issue. I appreciate it very much. I also
appreciate the help of the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) on
this issue. He has provided great leadership.
Mr. Chairman, while I understand that the distinguished chairman is
raising a point of order on this section because of jurisdiction
claims, I wish that this section could remain in this bill because of
the immediacy of the problem in Africa.
[[Page H6657]]
Millions of people have died in Africa because of the bloodshed
surrounding conflict diamonds. Rebel groups and military forces in
Sierra Leone, Angola, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo have
committed horrible atrocities to gain control of and to profit from
diamonds and diamond mines. At least $10 billion in diamonds have been
smuggled from these countries over the past decade.
In the Congo, some 1.7 million people have died because of the fight
to control Congo's natural resources. In Angola, the rebel movement
UNITA pays for more weapons and kills more people because of its
trafficking and control of Angola's diamonds. In Sierra Leone, an
estimated 75,000 people have died because of the rebels' vicious
campaign to control the country's diamonds.
Mr. Hall and I visited Sierra Leone and met and talked with hundreds
of people who had their arms, legs, hands cut off by Sierra Leonian
rebels--all to scare and intimidate the local population so the rebels
could gain control of Sierra Leone's diamond producing region.
Many of the countries surrounding Sierra Leone have few to zero
diamond mines. Yet countries such as Liberia, Burkina Faso, Togo, and
the Ivory Coast have exported millions of carats of diamonds--Sierra
Leone's diamonds--billions of dollars in value--to the diamond cutting
centers in Antwerp, Israel, India, Holland, and New York.
Liberia and its president, Charles Taylor, supplied tons of weapons
to the rebels in exchange for diamonds. Similar arms for weapons
exchanges between governments and diamond stealing rebel groups has
occurred in the case of Angola, the Congo, and other countries already
named surrounding Sierra Leone.
This point of order would strike out of this bill language which
prevents illicit conflict diamonds from entering the flow of U.S.
commerce. This language would go a long way toward stunting the
revenue--conflict diamonds--of many rebel groups in Africa. This
language would save thousands and thousands of lives.
Because the Clinton Administration has been a complete failure on
this issue, it is important for this House to speak out and take action
and this language is a good start in that direction. The Administration
has even gone out of its way to buddy up to the rebels in Sierra Leone
and to Liberia's President, Charles Taylor. People have died as a
result of this inexcusable negligence.
Because this problem is immediate, because the war and death fueled
by the trafficking of conflict diamonds rage on unabated, this is a
global crisis. Because the Administration has failed to address this
issue, it is up to Congress to lead and that is why this language is so
important.
I understand the reality of the legislative process though, and that
this section of the bill is not protected.
I am grateful that Chairman Crane has agreed to work with me and Mr.
Hall on this issue and I look forward to the hearings his subcommittee
will hold, hopefully as soon as we get back from August recess. I am
hopeful that with Mr. Crane's help, we can quickly draft legislation to
prevent conflict diamonds from entering the U.S. and to help the people
of Africa suffering at the hands of these rebel forces.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman form Ohio (Mr. Hall) is recognized on the
point of order.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from
California (Mr. Dreier) for his not only recognizing me but for his
work on this particular section of the bill concerning diamonds.
I just support everything that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf)
has said. He and I are partners on this issue and so many issues. We
have traveled together often.
The last time we were together in Africa was in Sierra Leone. The
reason why this is germane and relative to us in America, people might
ask, What does this have to do with us? Well, we buy 65 to 70 percent
of all the diamonds in the world; and a good percentage of those, at
least somewhere between 5 and 10 percent of them, are what we call
illicit diamonds, conflict diamonds, blood diamonds. They come out of
areas like Sierra Leone and the Congo, Angola, Liberia, Burkina Faso,
Guinea.
What happens is that these diamond areas are seized by rebels. For
example, in Sierra Leone, a rag-tag group of young people, 400 rebel
soldiers, increased their whole lot, their whole army to about 25 to
26,000 overnight because they seized the diamonds mines.
What they do is they not only seize the diamond mines, they use the
diamonds to trade for guns, pretty sophisticated guns, and buy drugs.
And at the same time, they bring a lot of young soldiers into the rebel
army, and they inflict cuts on their arms and on their heads and they
put these drugs into them to the point where they go in and they commit
all the atrocities.
The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and I visited amputee camps.
We visited refugee camps where children's arms were cut off. They play
this hideous game that when they go into a village they not only rape
most of the women there, but they say to most of the villagers, stick
your hand in this bag and pull out a piece of paper. If the piece of
paper says ``hand,'' your hand gets chopped off. If the piece of paper
says ``foot,'' they chop it off with a hatchet. If the piece of paper
says ``ear'' or ``nose,'' they cut it off.
We have seen this over and over again. This is not just something
that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and I are talking about.
This has been proven over and over and over again by many human rights
groups, by the U.N.
There are a lot of boycotts on diamonds from Sierra Leone to Angola
to these countries that we have mentioned.
I reluctantly agree to allow this and not offer in the Committee on
Rules an amendment to protect this particular section because I
understand in talking to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) that
he is going to have a hearing; and, hopefully, we can get some
justification, we can stop this hideous kind of killings that are going
on in the world.
The reason why it is relevant to us is that we buy most of the
diamonds in the world, and in some cases our people need to know that
diamonds are not a girl's best friend. Sometimes they cause death,
maiming, killing, all kinds of atrocities.
So with that, we are hopeful we can get some action this year. We are
hopeful that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) and the Committee
on Ways and Means will do something about this.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) is recognized
on the point of order.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, these Sierra Leone diamonds that we are
talking about and the conflict that is raging there are only a small
part of Africa's production. However, the American public increasingly
associates the devastation and the mayhem occurring in Sierra Leone
with the sale of legitimately produced diamonds.
That makes it very difficult for other countries in Africa, like
Botswana and Namibia and South Africa, to use the proceeds from the
sale of their diamonds in order to produce an education for their
population, clean water and health care.
I think the United States Congress must help ensure that the
legitimate diamond industries in these countries are not adversely
affected by the justifiable outrage over the anarchy and atrocities
linked with conflict diamonds. And it was the message that the
Subcommittee on African Affairs received from the African government
and human rights groups at our hearing on May 9 on this issue.
Now we have a special responsibility because Americans purchase more
than 60 percent of these diamonds. I think my colleagues have heard the
testimony from my colleagues about the mayhem that is occurring today
in Sierra Leone. We must do all we can to bring an end to the tragic
conflict in diamonds coming out of Sierra Leone and coming out of
Liberia. Because, frankly, the proceeds from the sale of those diamonds
are being used in order to arm the Revolutionary United Front, the RUF,
which has decapitated or struck the limbs off some 20,000 women and
children to date.
If my colleagues go into Freetown, they will see countless numbers of
maimed children on the streets as a result of this campaign of terror.
And if we ask how did Fodoy Sankoh receive the financing to do this, it
is from the sale of these conflict diamonds, it is from the fact that
these diamonds have also gone over the border into Liberia where his
ally, Charles Taylor, has also used them in order to obtain the funds
for this activity.
I think we must applaud the recent efforts of the international
diamond industry to prevent rebel groups from using illicitly obtained
diamonds to finance senseless wars. It has instituted
[[Page H6658]]
new controls that will make it more difficult for conflict diamonds to
be sold. But vigilance is necessary to prevent unscrupulous dealers
from avoiding these new, tougher regulations.
I just want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and thank
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) for their efforts. I would hope that
more Members of this body would join them in their efforts to ensure
the vigilance of these regulations and to ensure that we can try to
impose an embargo on Liberia and on Sierra Leone in order to prevent
this senseless war from continuing.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, clause 2(b) of rule XXI states that no
provision changing existing law shall be reported in any general
appropriation bill.
However, this provision would prevent the use of appropriated funds
to allow the placement of diamonds from certain countries into foreign
or domestic commerce.
Specifically, the provision imposes a new administrative burden on
the U.S. Customs Service not authorized under existing law by requiring
Customs to enforce a new certification requirement which would be based
on the place of mining of the diamonds.
Under current law, no certification at all is required. In addition,
Customs never examines the place of mining but makes origin
determination based on cutting and polishing. This certification
requirement places an extensive burden on Customs both in terms of
procedural documentation requirements and substantive origin
determination.
It clearly violates clause 2(b) of rule XXI, which prohibits
legislating on an appropriations bill.
However, I would like to assure the gentlemen that have spoken this
evening that I agree that the diamond trade in Africa is of grave
concern to me. I plan to hold a hearing in the subcommittee of the
Committee on Ways and Means in September to examine this issue. I hope
to work with the gentlemen, as well as the administration, to find a
viable means to deal with this issue.
I do not support the use of trade sanctions, but recent action by the
United Nations affirming the use of multilateral trade sanctions makes
this an issue well worth considering.
In the meantime, however, I must insist on my point of order, and I
urge the Chair to sustain the point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of
order?
The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) makes a point of order that
the provision beginning on line 62, line 17, and ending on page 63,
line 2, changes existing law in violation of clause 2(b) of rule XXI.
The provision limits funds in the bill for the placement in
interstate or foreign commerce of diamonds that have been mined in
certain countries with an exception for those diamonds where the
country of origin has been certified as the Republic of Sierra Leone by
specified international officials.
Clause 2(b) of rule XXI provides that a provision changing existing
law may not be reported in a general appropriation bill. The provision
imposes new duties on executive officials by requiring the Customs
Service to investigate and certify the country of origin of a diamond
with regard to its place of mining. The Chair is not aware that there
are currently any country of origin requirements in law with relation
to the mining of diamonds.
As such, the provision changes existing law in violation clause 2(b)
of rule XXI. Accordingly, the point of order is sustained and the
provision is stricken.
Amendment Offered by Ms. DeLauro
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Ms. DeLauro:
Strike section 509.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) and a Member opposed each
will control 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
{time} 1715
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer a simple amendment to strike language
in this bill that unfairly penalizes the hard-working people of the
Federal Government. This language prohibits health plans that
participate in the Federal employees health benefits program from
covering abortion. By doing so, it denies access to complete
reproductive health services to nearly 1.2 million women of
childbearing age who depend on this health benefits program for their
medical care.
Every employee in the country has the option to choose a health care
plan that covers the full range of reproductive health services,
including abortion. Every employee, that is, except Federal employees.
Since November 1995, Federal employees have been unable to choose a
health care plan which includes coverage of this legal medical
procedure.
Let me make one point very clear. This amendment does not provide
government or taxpayer subsidies for abortion. The health care benefit,
like the salary, belongs to the employee. The employee is then free to
choose from a wide range of health plans that best meet their needs and
then purchase that health plan with their own money. Again, with their
own money.
This amendment does not mandate that any plan provide coverage for
abortion against its objection. It simply allows Federal employees to
have the option to purchase for themselves or their families a plan
that suits their individual needs. An individual who does not want that
coverage would have the choice, again the choice, not to purchase such
a health plan.
Unfortunately, under current law and language included in this bill,
Federal employees are left with no choice if tragedy strikes. I have
heard the stories of Federal employees who are faced with a crisis
pregnancy. This decision to end the pregnancy was the hardest decision
of their lives. When they believed that their health insurance
companies would pay for this health procedure and later found out
Congress had restricted this coverage, they were harassed by creditors
and forced into a financial battle over one of the most personal and
emotional decisions that they will ever have to make.
Mr. Chairman, abortion is a legal medical procedure. That is right.
No matter how many times we come to this floor and debate this issue,
it remains a constitutionally protected legal medical procedure. The
court just reaffirmed that a few weeks ago. Our opponents can try to
chip away access to this right for young women, poor women, imprisoned
women, women in the military, and in this case women who work for the
Federal Government. They can write legislation that limits every nuance
of this procedure and the issues surrounding it. But they have not won.
Abortion is still a legal choice for women.
Singling out abortion for exclusion from health care plans that cover
other reproductive health care is harmful to women's health. The AMA
has said that funding restrictions such as this one that delay or deter
women from seeking early abortions make it more likely that women will
continue a potentially health-threatening pregnancy to term. This is
all the more true because the bill provides no exception for coverage
of abortions when a woman's health or future fertility is at stake.
I urge my colleagues to give our public servants the right to choose
the health care that is best for them. I ask them to support this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment and claim the 15 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Pitts).
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the DeLauro
amendment. This amendment has been offered and defeated for the last 5
years, but our pro-choice colleagues are at it again. In effect, it
would force taxpayers to fund abortion. The pro-life language which
this would strike prevents taxpayer funds from paying for abortions in
Federal employee health benefit plans except when the life of the
mother is in danger or in cases of rape and incest.
[[Page H6659]]
In 1998, the Federal Government contributed on the average 72 percent
of the money toward the purchase of health insurance for its employees.
Because taxpayers are the employers of Federal workers, employers
determine the benefits employees get. And a large majority of taxpayers
do not want their tax dollars to be used to pay for abortion.
Mr. Chairman, should taxpayers be forced to underwrite the cost of
abortions for Federal employees regardless of their income? According
to a New York Times/CBS News poll, only 23 percent of those polled said
that national health care plans should cover abortions, while 72
percent said those costs should be paid for directly by the women who
have them.
When an ABC News/Washington Post poll asked Americans if they agree
or disagree with the statement, ``The Federal Government should pay for
an abortion for any women who wants it and cannot afford to pay it,''
69 percent disagreed.
The Center for Gender Equality has reported that 53 percent of women
favor banning abortion except for rape, incest and life of the mother
exceptions. The pro-life language in the bill that the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) seeks to gut includes these exceptions.
Obviously, if 53 percent of women favor banning abortion aside from
these exceptions, then they would not want their tax dollars paying for
abortion on demand as this amendment intends.
In a Gallup poll from May of last year, 71 percent of Americans
supported some or total restrictions on abortion.
For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to vote ``no''
on the DeLauro amendment.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Lowey).
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support my colleague's motion,
because I believe that the approximately 1.2 million women of
reproductive age who rely on FEHBP for their medical care should have
the option of choosing a health plan which includes coverage for
abortion.
I want to stress that women should have the option. In 1995, Federal
employees had many options. Of the then 345 FEHBP plans, just about
half, 178, covered abortion. If women wanted to participate in a plan
that covered abortions, they could. If they found abortion
objectionable, then they could opt for a plan that did not cover
abortion. The choice was theirs, not mine, not yours, not this
institution's.
That is why, although many of us are tired of constantly battling
about this issue, I continue to speak about this because I believe that
our approach should be to make terminating a pregnancy less necessary.
If we agree, pro-choice, pro-life, that our goal should be less
abortion, then our focus must be on what we can do to further that
goal.
I am very pleased that this bill contains provisions that guarantee
contraceptive equity for Federal employee families. We can do more to
increase access to contraception and work harder to educate people
about responsibility. That will help us make the difficult choice of
abortion less necessary.
Making abortion inaccessible in my judgment is not the answer.
Contraceptive methods may fail, pregnancies may go unexpectedly and
tragically wrong. No matter how good the contraceptive technology and
how much education we do, some women will need abortions and that
should be their decision, not ours. Abortion must remain safe and
legal. I oppose excluding abortion, among the most commonly surgeries
for women, from health care coverage. I support allowing Federal
employees to have the option of abortion coverage with their own money,
their earned income, in these plans.
I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting the DeLauro motion to
strike and let us work for a day when abortion is truly rare.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, just a few minutes ago on this House floor
we heard about the sad plight of some children in Africa. We deal with
many cases of child abuse and persecution and the violence against
children. Many of us believe that human life begins at conception. In
fact, most Americans do. When you look at the brutality of the abortion
procedure, whether it is burning the skin off the babies, whether it is
cutting them up, whether it is blowing them to pieces as they bring
them out, or the partial-birth abortion where they kill them with a
blunt instrument when all but the head is out, it is a brutal
procedure.
But this is not a debate over whether abortion is legal because
whether I like it or not, abortion is legal. This is a question over
whether people like me and other Americans in Indiana and other States
around the country have to be forced to pay for the killing of what we
believe is innocent, defenseless little children.
The earliest speaker here, the distinguished gentlewoman from
Connecticut, said that these were plans paid for by Federal employees.
She neglected a teensy-weensy little fact, and, that is, our health
care plans, including mine, are 28 percent roughly, depending on which
plan you choose, paid by you and 72 percent by everybody else. This is
whether or not we have to be forced to pay for other people's choices.
The Supreme Court has been clear. We do not have to pay for someone's
abortion. They have a right to choose abortion, but they do not have a
right to have me violate my beliefs, the majority of the people of
Indiana who share that belief and other parts of the country who share
that belief have to pay for a procedure that they find offensive.
Now, the truth is, many Americans are on the fence here. They find
abortion abhorrent, but they believe other people should be allowed to
choose. But it is clear, the majority of Americans do not want what
they believe is the blood on their hands, and I do not believe that we
should be forced to pay for other people's abortion by subsidizing as
we do in Congress 75 percent of the procedure.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds. This amendment
does not provide government or taxpayer subsidies for abortion. The
health care benefit, like the salary, belongs to the employee. The
employee is free to choose from a health care plan that best meets
their needs.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman for yielding
me this time and also for her commitment and her consistent work in
support of the rights of all women.
I rise in strong support today of the DeLauro amendment that strikes
the prohibition of abortion coverage within the Federal Employees
Health benefits Plans. Approximately 1.2 million women of reproductive
age rely on the Federal employees health benefits program. Denying them
access to health services is denying them the right to lead healthy
lives as they so choose. Restricting this fundamental right is
discriminating against women in the public sector. We are currently
denying these women access to a legal health service.
The DeLauro amendment would allow government employees to choose a
health care plan that would cover the full range of reproductive
services, including abortion. It is wrong to impose personal ideology
on compensation benefits to millions of women. This provision would not
result in government subsidized abortions. Instead, it would allow
women in the public sector the same fundamental reproductive health
services as women in the private sector.
Why should a woman be denied access to care simply because she
chooses to work for the Federal Government? This is so unfair and it is
wrong. The current prohibition has made it more difficult and more
dangerous for women working in the Government to exercise their
constitutional guarantee of freedom of choice. We must begin to take
the politics out of providing health care for Federal employees.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Let me just say in answer to the previous speaker, opposition to
abortion funding has nothing whatsoever to do with politics. Such
charge is insulting today, we seek, to the maximum extent possible, to
safeguard human rights for unborn children who cannot defend
themselves.
[[Page H6660]]
Let me also say that every time we deal with pro-life text including
language that proscribes funding for abortion, the issue, we are told
is never about abortion. When we deal with the D.C. approps bill, it is
about home rule. When we deal with the Hyde amendment on the health and
human services appropriations bill, it's rich versus poor, rather that
subsidizing the extermination of poor children by abortion. Our
opponents on the issue always try to muddy the water suggesting that
the debate is about something other than abortion. And today we're told
it is a matter of Federal employees benefit packages. Sorry--that
argument just doesn't cut it. Abortion is not a health benefit--it's
the killing of a baby. Regrettably, the gentlewoman is offering an
amendment today that would strike current law, that is to say, law that
has been in effect this year, last year, every year except 2 years
since I first successfully offered this back in the early 1980s.
{time} 1730
So let me emphasize my hope that Members will reject this misguided,
anti child amendment.
Mr. Chairman, with violence so commonplace nowadays, with our
sensibilities accosted and numbed almost every day of the week by yet
another outrageous act of violence at home or abroad or both, perhaps
it is any wonder why we, as a society, continue to live in denial, for
some it is very deep denial, about the inherent violence of abortion.
Abortion, Mr. Chairman, is not some benign act designed to cure or to
mitigate a disease. I will never forget, I read a paper some years ago
by Dr. Cates from the Center for Disease Control Abortion Surveillance
Unit, and it was entitled ``Pregnancy, the second most prevalent
sexually transmitted disease.''
Mr. Chairman, that is sick. A pregnancy, a maturing, living unborn
child is not a disease. He or she is not a wart or a cancerous tumor or
something that should be excised. Every one of us once were unborn
children.
We should look at birth as an event that happens to each and every
one of us, it is not the beginning of life. Unborn children when they
are sufficiently mature and developed move on to a new address. Life is
a continuum; birth is not the beginning but an event along the way.
But here is the CDC abortion surveillance authority demanding of
everyone's early months calling pregnancy a sexually transmitted
disease. I think that is as Orwellian and downright stupid as it gets.
Abortion, Mr. Chairman, is the antithesis of compassion and of
nurturing. Abortion methods are acts of violence imposed on innocent
boys and girls for whom the womb should be a place of refuge, hope,
sanctuary--not an execution site.
Abortionists kill their human prey by either injecting poisons into
their bodies directly or by putting high concentrated salt water into
the amniotic fluid to snuff out the child's life.
High concentrated salt solutions injected into the baby's amniotic
sac is barbaric--child abuse. The baby breathes in the caustic salty
liquid, dies a slow, excruciatingly painful death. It usually take
about 2 hours to kill the baby. The mother then goes into delivery and
gives birth to a dead and very badly scalded body as a result of the
corrosive effects of the salt.
These are commonplace abortions, and it would be paid for if the
DeLauro amendment is approved.
Let me also remind Members that the most common method of child
killing is dismemberment. A few minutes ago my good friend and
colleague the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) showed us this
picture, of a 2-year-old victim of the revolutionary united front the
RUF, who had her arm sheared off by thugs. This was a horrible deed by
the RUF in Sierra Leone.
Abortionists do the same to children in the womb every day in
America. Amazingly, there are a few lucky ones who survive. Not so long
ago The New York Post featured this picture of Ana Rosa Rodriguez,
almost 2 years old, with her arm sliced off. Although the abortionist
tried hard he did not kill her, she survived. She is one of those
fortunate ones who somehow evaded the abortionist's deadly scalpel. She
is a survivor, sans an arm.
Of course, all of us are aware of what happens in a partial birth
abortion, which is child abuse in the light of day. Yet, such brutality
too could be paid for if the DeLauro amendment is successful.
Mr. Chairman, since 1973, over 40 million children have been
slaughtered mostly by dismemberment or chemical poisoning in America.
That is the equivalent, Mr. Chairman, to the entire populations of 22
States in America combined from Connecticut to Maine to New Hampshire
to Oregon. If we want to look at the bigger more populus States 40
million abortions is the equivalent of the entire populations of
Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and New Jersey combined. Such staggering
loss of children's lives should sound alarm bells--not foster denial or
acquiescence. Clearly abortion has been sanitized. The cover up of
abortion take the prize for ``most euphemisms.'' It has been marketed
with great skill, cleverness, and deceit by the abortion lobby. The
result 40 million dead children in America. 40 million kids, Mr.
Chairman, who have had every hope and dream, every aspiration, every
possibility of living obliterated by abortion. Their mothers too have
been very much wounded by abortion.
I have been working in the pro-life movement for 28 years. I work
with crisis pregnancy centers. There has been an increase in healing
outreaches, Project Rachel reaches out to women in distress, who have
had abortions, who are in great need of healing and reconcilliation.
Many of those women are the walking wounded. Abortion hurt them
physically, emotionally and psychologically.
Since 1973, Mr. Chairman, 40 million kids killed by abortion will
never know the thrill of a sunset, the simple joys of life, like eating
and drinking or sleeping in on a Saturday morning, a snow day. They
will never have that. They have been terminated. They will never know
the joy of playing sports, soccer or baseball. They will never know
what it is like to date or marry or raise kids or to give of oneself
for others. They will never know the power of prayer, or power of faith
in God to usher in his will on earth, as it is in heaven.
All of this and more has been denied these kids because of abortion.
The so-called right to choose robs children of their birthright and a
lifetime of meaning and challenges have been snuffed out as a result of
abortion.
Mr. Chairman, the other day in Middlesex County, New Jersey, I
attended a crisis pregnancy dinner. Two of the ladies got up to the
microphone and thanked the director of that center who helped them
avert abortion through love and genuine concern. Both women were going
in to get abortions. But both of them had the child instead. They gave
very strong and compelling comments on what it was like to be reached
out to and to love. What I found to be unexpected was that just a few
moments later, two young teenage girls stepped up to the microphone.
They too thanked the director of that crisis pregnancy center and their
moms who had just spoken, because their lives had been saved from
certain death.
They were articulate. Both had dreams and hopes, all because they
were alive. Abortion Mr. Chairman takes the life of a child. There are
alternatives--crisis pregnancy centers, adoption--so let us help you.
If we subsidize abortion and facilitate abortion girls like those two
potential victims are less likely to survive and are more likely to be
aborted.
I do believe, Mr. Chairman, that some day, researchers, sociologists
and historians and others will marvel how the best and the brightest of
our day, many of those in positions of power in government, our
judiciary, the media, the medical profession, and academia, could have
embraced the killing of 40 million children and demanded that it not
only be sanctioned, and regarded as a woman's right, but paid for by
the U.S. taxpayer. Just as we look at the pro-slavery crowd of
yesteryear, and say ``how could they'' they too will be aghast at our
moral obtuseness and callousness.
With the bill before us today, at least we can take a stand against
funding the killing of unborn babies. The underlying language that the
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) would strike continues, as I
said at the outset, current law that proscribes the Federal employees
[[Page H6661]]
health benefits program from subsidizing most abortions.
I respect each Member on the other side of this issue but find it
extremely disappointing and vexing that you fail to understand the
terrible wrong you do to children and their mothers.
Vote no on DeLauro.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the remaining time on
both sides?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) has 7\3/
4\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) has
1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick).
(Ms. KILPATRICK asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I rise to, first of all, thank the
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) for yielding the time to me,
and also for offering the amendment.
We in this House of Representatives, as well as Federal employees
across this country, enjoy the rights of deciding a benefit given to
them, along with their salary, that belongs to them to choose the
health plan that suits them and their children.
I believe that we ought to allow these wonderful Federal women
employees that right, a right to a procedure that is legal, a right to
a procedure that everywhere else, except in Federal employees status
cannot be selected, because this Congress, I might add, will not allow
it.
I am wondering why this provision is not, as we hear so many times
using authorizing on an appropriations bill, someone should rule it out
of order. I believe this section 509 is authorizing on an
appropriations bill and should stand on its own in proper legislation
and in the proper committee of jurisdiction.
Why are we now taking a procedure that is legal for thousands of
women, heads of households, I am a mother, I have never had to use
abortion, praise the Lord, but some people may find in their lifetime
they have to make that decision.
God has blessed women to bear children, and women ought to be allowed
with their God and their husband or significant other to make that
decision. I praise and applaud the woman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro)
for offering the amendment. This amendment discriminates against women
Federal employees. Who are we, 435 of the finest citizens in the most
powerful government, to decide what God has decided that a woman must
or must not do with her body? I think it is appalling.
I think section 509 is authorizing on an appropriations bill and
ought to be ruled out of order.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that
both sides have an additional 5 minutes each, 10 minutes equally
divided.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New Jersey?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Each side will be granted an additional 5 minutes.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New
Jersey for yielding me the time, and I rise in very strong opposition
to this amendment.
The gentlewoman offered this amendment last year and it was defeated
by a vote of 188 to 230. The provision that the gentlewoman is offering
seeks to strike language that has been included in this legislation for
years.
The funding restriction in the bill addresses the same core issue as
the Hyde amendment, should the Federal Government be in the business of
funding abortions? Should taxpayers be forced to underwrite the cost of
abortions for Federal employees?
This debate is not one involving the legality of abortion. It is
about using taxpayer dollars for abortions.
The point is that the vast majority of Americans feel very strongly
that taxpayer dollars should not be used to fund abortions in the
United States of America.
Some people may try to claim that this is just another medical
procedure. We all know that this is not just another medical procedure.
It is a very unique procedure where one of the participants in the
procedure ends up dead.
I have been a practicing internist for 20 years, and I would argue
that the unborn baby in the womb is not a potential life. It meets all
of the medical criteria for a life. The criteria that I used as a
practicing physician to determine whether somebody is alive or dead, a
beating heart, active brain waves; indeed, using modern ultrasound
technology today, we can show as early as just a few weeks of life
activity on the part of the developing fetus, moving arms and moving
legs.
The Supreme Court, the Court that created legalized abortion in
America, has actually ruled on this issue upholding the Hyde amendment
language. The Court said, abortion is inherently different from other
medical procedures because no other procedure involves the purposeful
termination of a potential life. They used the word potential there, I
say it is a life.
Mr. Chairman, I reject this amendment and I would encourage all of my
colleagues to vote against it.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Maryland (Mrs. Morella)
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut
(Ms. DeLauro) for yielding the time to me, but also for introducing
this amendment, because I rise in strong support of it. It would simply
prevent discrimination against Federal employees in their health care
coverage.
It was 5 years ago when Congress voted to deny Federal employees
abortion coverage that was already provided to most of the country's
workforce through their private health insurance plans. This
discriminatory decision was another attempt to diminish the benefits of
Federal employees and their right to choose an insurance plan that best
meets their health care needs.
I heard the term that this is being funded by the Federal Government.
It is not. The government simply contributes to the premiums of Federal
employees in order to allow them to purchase health insurance; this
contribution is part of the employee benefit package, just like an
employee's salary or retirement benefits.
Currently, if we look at the private sector, approximately two-thirds
of private fee-for-service health insurance plans and 70 percent of
HMOs provide abortion coverage.
When this ban was reinstated 5 years ago, 178 of the FEHBP plans out
of 345 offered abortion coverages. Women could choose, they could
decide whether to participate in a plan with or without this coverage.
Thus, the employee could make that decision.
Quite frankly, it is insulting to our Federal employees that they are
being told that part of their compensation package is not under their
control.
Mr. Chairman, approximately 1.2 million women of reproductive age
rely on FEHBP for their health coverage. What we are doing, unless we
adopt this amendment, is denying 1.2 million women for making their own
right to choose a health care plan.
{time} 1745
I urge my colleagues to support the DeLauro amendment and ensure that
Federal employees are once again provided their legal right to choose.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
(Mr. COBURN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to offend anybody in this
body, but I think we ought to really characterize what this debate is
about, and that is whether or not we are going to use taxpayer dollars
to allow a woman to kill her unborn baby. I mean, we can say that is
not a politically correct statement; but that is what abortion is, is
an unborn human being, a child, is being killed. Now, we can say, no,
that is not it; it has no standing, but the fact is the Supreme Court
recognizes that death in this country only occurs when there is an
absence of brain waves and heartbeat.
At 19 days post-conception, infants, children in their mother's womb,
meet that.
[[Page H6662]]
The other contention that I think we ought to talk about, very
frankly, is whether or not killing an unborn child is health care. Who
is that health care for, and should we ask the taxpayers of this
country to subsidize the taking of unborn life? The fact is the vast
majority of Americans today do not believe that abortion is the right
thing to do, by far. It is growing every day as they see the truth
about abortion.
The fact is that we do not consider the rights of the unborn child,
except if the child is injured unintentionally in a car wreck or
injured in some other way. Then it has standing. But if it has standing
at those times, we are going to say the rest of the time it has no
standing. Mark my words, our country will change this.
We can all disagree about whether or not this is a right or a wrong
thing to do, but the fact that we should not subsidize it and the fact
that the American people, by a large majority, do not want us
subsidizing it, speaks very plainly to the fact that they know what the
truth is: abortion is not health care. Abortion is taking the life of
an unborn human being that is unique, has never been here before, never
been created before, is totally unique, has the attributes of life, a
beating heart, active brain waves.
We can deny that because it is convenient to rationalize our moral
choice for an inadvertent sexual activity. This amendment would pretend
that rape, incest and the life of the woman does not exist. They are
excepted in this. So the fact is we are protecting the true health of
the woman in recognizing the right under our constitution of this
unborn child.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Mrs. Meek).
(Mrs. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks.)
Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, the
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, the gentlemen from whom we have heard tonight have
every right to support their ideologies against abortion. That is their
right. It is their personal ideology, and I cannot disapprove of their
personal ideology; but I only ask them one thing. It is not their right
to impose their personal beliefs to the Congress or to this country. If
I had my way, there would be a lot of my personal beliefs that I would
be able to impose on this Congress, but the Constitution of this
country does not give me that right. It does not give any man in this
country the right to choose a woman's right to choose. It is her right;
and if she does not follow her religious and moral constraints, she has
to pay for it. I do not have to pay for hers, but as an elected
official I cannot say this because I agree or disagree with someone
then they do not have a right to choose.
No matter how poignant the stories or the anecdotal information we
have heard here tonight, it does not give anyone the right to choose. I
support the DeLauro amendment. I believe in justice and fairness to
women, as well as to men.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say that I have the
utmost respect for the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek), but the
statement she just made ignores one person's rights, and that is the
rights of the unborn. Read our Declaration of Independence. Read our
Constitution. Regardless of what the law is, in the scheme of the long-
term measure of us as a society, it is going to be said that we did the
wrong thing.
Legally, we have the right to abortion in this country. We are not
disputing that. That is the law. I would just state that the fact is
the judgment in history on our society is not going to be whether or
not we recognize the woman's right to choose. It is going to be whether
we recognize the innocent's right to life.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey).
(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, there are about 1.2 million women of
reproductive age who depend on the Federal Employees Health Benefits
Program for their health care, and our congressional staff makes up a
large number of those women. So I ask Members to look at their female
staff who work so hard for all of us, who serve our districts and ask
how they can stand not to provide these young women with reproductive
health services, health services that would allow their health plans to
cover abortion services. How could they not allow them to be covered
even if their health or future fertility were at stake?
As Members of Congress, we have an obligation to offer women in
public service a full range of reproductive health options, including
abortion services. I want all of us to vote for the DeLauro amendment
to allow Federal plans to offer health services to cover abortions.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time
remains on both sides.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) has 45
seconds remaining. The gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) has 6
minutes remaining.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 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. Chairman, I rise to support the DeLauro amendment to
strike the provision which bans Federal health plans from offering
abortion coverage. Approximately two-thirds of private fee-for-service
plans and 70 percent of HMOs provide abortion coverage.
Until 1995, the Federal Government in its employee benefit plans
likewise provided this coverage, but we have allowed the anti-choice
forces in this House to substitute their judgment and their morality
and their opinions to impose those opinions and judgments on the women
in the workforce of the United States. This is shameful and unjust.
We should not allow the ideological bias of some Members to decide
what more than a million employees of the Federal Government can do
with their own compensation.
By specifying what they can do with their own compensation, we are
seriously intruding into their privacy and their control over their own
salaries and benefits.
Mr. Chairman, a moment ago it was alluded to the fact or to the
assertion that what will be remembered in the future is what we do with
respect to the lives of innocents. Well, the fact is there is a
difference of opinion as to when life begins, and we say that a woman
must have the ability to make her own moral choices and not have the
Government make that choice. The Supreme Court says that, too; but we
are misusing the power of this House to say we cannot impose our will
on the women of America in terms of whether they choose to have an
abortion. We cannot substitute our judgments for theirs, but we can
substitute our judgment for those who happen to work for the Federal
Government because we can make sure that their insurance will not cover
it. That is wrong. They have the right to make their own moral
judgments. Every woman must make a moral judgment for herself and we
should not substitute the judgments of the Members of this House for
theirs. That is an arrogant form of moral imperialism, and we should
not do it.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Maloney).
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I join my colleague, the
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), and congratulate her for
her leadership and support of a woman's right to choose and rise in
strong support of her amendment.
This is the 151 vote on choice since the beginning of the 104th
Congress; and once again, this Congress is attempting to deny women
access to legal health services.
Mr. Chairman, it was only 5 years ago that I and millions of other
women employed in Federal service received a notice in the mail that
our health insurance coverage by law would no longer cover abortion. It
was one small notice in the mail but one giant step backward for a
woman's right to choose.
[[Page H6663]]
This amendment would simply give health care providers of Federal
employees the option of providing a full range of reproductive health
services, including abortion. This restriction is another attempt by
anti-choice forces on the other side of the aisle to make abortion less
accessible to women. Not only does it discriminate against women in
public service, but it endangers their health. It is wrong and unfair,
and that notice took us backward. We need to correct it with this
amendment and take women forward once again.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the ranking member of the committee.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut
(Ms. DeLauro) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, this has been called an amendment on choice or life. I
have argued this amendment repeatedly and have lost. This amendment is,
I think, about whose money is it.
Now, I have propounded this argument before, and it has been rejected
by the majority of this House. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Pitts) said, and numerous other speakers have said about our money,
that it is the taxpayers' money, the Federal Government's money. Now, a
Federal employee is in a unique position in that 100 percent of their
compensation package, salary, health benefits and retirement, are paid
by the taxpayer. If one adopts the premise of the opponents of this
amendment, then the Federal employee ought to be in the position of
being told how to spend 100 percent of their money. That is the logical
conclusion one must draw from the arguments being made today.
The Federal employee goes to work and is told we are going to pay X
number of dollars, we are going to get health benefits and there is
going to be a retirement system. That is their compensation package.
We take the position, apparently, that with respect to part of it, we
are going to tell them how to spend it. We do not tell any other
employees in the Nation how they can spend their package. We do not do
it. So all of this is turned into a device to the same argument that
deeply divides our Nation.
{time} 1800
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, we take this debate and convert it into a
debate over an issue that deeply divides this Nation and is an
excruciatingly difficult issue. That is unfortunate, because in my
opinion, this ought not to be a difficult issue. Because it is about
whether or not Federal employees are equal to all other employees in
terms of spending their money. It is not the taxpayers' money; they
earned it, and the taxpayer converted it to the Federal employee in
return for the services they perform for the Federal Government. It is
the Federal employees' money.
Now, yes, part of that compensation is, we pay 72 percent of the
benefits, but they choose the policy, and they have a wide variety of
policies, because we have an excellent program as part of their
compensation package.
So, Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to try to look at what the
substance of this does. I tell my friend, and good friend from New
Jersey, the issue that he argues passionately about I respect him for.
It is not, however, the issue raised by this amendment, I would suggest
to him.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of the
time to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, very briefly, I think my position on this
matter of choice is fairly well known. I have long supported a woman's
right to choose. I find myself in a somewhat different position today
here, as the chairman of the subcommittee.
What we have attempted to do as a subcommittee is to cut through this
Gordian's knot by taking the position that this House has spoken about
fairly clearly in the last couple of years. On the one hand, we do have
the prohibition, which the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro)
seeks to strike, that prevents health benefits for Federal employees
from including any kind of abortion service. On the other hand, we do
also have the provision in there which was debated and fought over this
last year which allows for contraceptive services to be offered for
those who have Federal employment health benefits.
While this is a difficult position and one that I may not completely
support myself, I do believe the position of the committee and the
position of the House is in this legislation and should be supported.
For that reason, I oppose the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Arizona has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 560, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms.
DeLauro) will be postponed.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Pease) having assumed the chair, Mr. Dreier, Chairman of the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4871) 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, 2001, and for other
purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.
____________________