[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 15704-15713]
[From the U.S. 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withdrawn and title IV was open for amendment at any point.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 the Congressional Record and 
numbered 1, 4, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, and 15.

[[Page 15705]]

  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.

[[Page 15706]]

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.
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.

[[Page 15707]]

  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.
  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

[[Page 15708]]

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 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

[[Page 15709]]

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.
  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

[[Page 15710]]

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.
  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 degrading 
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

[[Page 15711]]

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 
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. 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

[[Page 15712]]

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. 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.
  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. 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. 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. 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

[[Page 15713]]

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.
  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.




                          ____________________