Amendment Text: H.Amdt.722 — 108th Congress (2003-2004)

There is one version of the amendment.

Shown Here:
Amendment as Offered (09/08/2004)

This Amendment appears on page H6833 in the following article from the Congressional Record.



[Pages H6772-H6859]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 754 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 5006.

                              {time}  1152


                     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 consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 5006) making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health 
and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies for the fiscal 
year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes, with Mr. 
LaTourette in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula).
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to offer today the fiscal year 2005 
appropriations bill for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human 
Services, Education and related agencies. By taking into consideration 
the priorities of the President and the Members, all the Members of 
this House, we have produced a bill that meets the needs of all 
Americans. This bill affects the lives, in one way or another, of every 
American.
  We are appreciative of the efforts of the leaders of the House and 
the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Young), to provide a workable allocation for this bill. I 
am pleased to say that this bill was unanimously approved on a 
bipartisan basis in both the subcommittee and the full committee. I 
would also like to acknowledge the hard work, dedication, and expertise 
of my subcommittee staff, as well as the minority staff, in putting 
together this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill is about hope. It gives hope to every child 
seeking a good education, it gives hope to everyone searching for a 
good or better job than they have, and it gives hope to the ill seeking 
a cure.
  This bill provides $142.5 billion--that is $500 for every person in 
the United States of America--a 2.2 percent increase over fiscal year 
2004, for over 500 different discretionary programs. It is responsible, 
it is fair, and it is balanced.
  Let me first talk about education. I would like to discuss what this 
bill provides for education. Education is essential to the preservation 
of democracy, and an investment in education is an investment in human 
capital and an investment in the future of this great Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, Federal education spending has more than doubled since 
fiscal year 1996, from $23 billion to nearly $60 billion today. We have 
focused spending in this bill in the key areas that most directly 
improve our children's education.
  First and foremost, I believe that no child will be left behind if he 
or she has a quality and dedicated teacher. Almost every teacher in our 
Nation's classrooms today is there for one reason: They love children 
and want to help them reach their full potential, and that should be 
their goal.
  We applaud their hard work and dedication, and we support them in 
this bill by providing funding to encourage people to enter the field 
of teaching and to strengthen and maximize the skills of those already 
in the classroom.
  I would urge young people that are thinking about a career to give 
consideration to being in a classroom, where they can touch the lives 
of children. Often when I speak to large groups out in the district, I 
say, how many of you had a teacher that has made a difference in your 
life? Almost every hand in the room goes up.
  This bill also supports teachers and students by increasing funding 
for Title I by $1 billion. Title I provides the additional resources to 
low-income schools to help principals, teachers and students close 
education achievement gaps. At the school level, Title I helps provide 
additional staff, ongoing training and the latest research, computer 
equipment, books or new curricula offerings that, coupled with strong 
accountability efforts, helps disadvantaged children meet the same high 
standards as their more advantaged peers.
  In addition to the funding increases in Title I, this bill also 
increases funding for scientifically based reading programs so that all 
children can read well by the end of the third grade. In 3 short years, 
funding for reading programs has tripled to over $1.3 billion, tripled, 
and importantly so. Reading is the key. This investment will assist 
parents, teachers and school districts in meeting the reading 
challenges of our children.
  Mr. Chairman, many of my colleagues speak with me about the financial 
demands of special education on

[[Page H6773]]

their local school districts. We also hear from parents about the need 
to support adequate special education funding to ensure their special-
needs children receive a quality and equal education opportunity.
  In this bill, funding for special education totals over $11 billion, 
a nearly 380 percent increase since fiscal year 1996, and $1 billion 
more than last year.
  Title III programs are designed to strengthen institutions of higher 
education that serve a high percentage of minority students and 
students from low-income backgrounds. I want to point out that in 
fiscal year 2005, funding to Title III programs is at $519 million, and 
this, combined with the funding for Howard University and other 
historically black colleges and universities financing programs, our 
commitment to minority serving institutions exceeds $975 million.

                              {time}  1200

  The sharp rise in college costs continues to be a barrier to many 
students. Pell grants help ensure access to postsecondary education for 
low and middle-income undergraduate students by providing grants that 
help meet college education needs. The bill continues to support a 
maximum Pell grant level of $4,050, while also including $12.9 billion 
for Pell grants, an increase of $823 million over last year.
  Health and Human Services.
  If you have good health, you have hope; and if you have hope, you 
have everything. Health care is a critical part of our Nation's 
economic development. To assist in protecting the health of all 
Americans, and to provide essential human services, the bill provides 
the Department of Health and Human Services over $62 billion for fiscal 
year 2005.
  Mr. Chairman, similar to the Department of Education, we have more 
than doubled the funding for HHS since fiscal year 1996: $28.9 billion 
in fiscal year 1996 to $62.2 billion for fiscal year 2005. I think that 
is a tremendous increase under the circumstances, but will meet real 
needs.
  At the forefront of new progress in medicine, the National Institutes 
of Health supports and conducts medical research to understand how the 
human body works and to gain insight into countless diseases and 
disorders. As a result of our commitment to NIH, our citizens are 
living longer and better lives. Life expectancy at birth was only 47 
years in 1900. By 2000, it was almost 77 years, and my colleagues heard 
me say earlier that Dr. Zerhouni testified that every 5 years, life 
expectancy goes up a year.
  In every state across the country, the NIH supports research at 
hospitals, universities, and medical schools. The 5-year doubling of 
the NIH budget completed in fiscal year 2003 has picked up the pace of 
discovery and heightened public expectations. We now expect NIH to 
carefully examine its portfolio and continue to be a good steward of 
the public's investment. Funding for NIH has increased by over $700 
million, bringing its total budget to $28.5 billion. In that regard I 
might say that we looked at all the programs and said, is this 
producing results so that we could use the money as good stewards and 
as wisely as possible for the 280 million Americans.
  All of the information and advances we have gained from NIH, however, 
will be useless if they do not make their way to health care providers 
and individuals, those most responsible for their own health. Thus, the 
work of the Centers for Disease Control and prevention is critical to 
protecting the health and safety of people at home and abroad.
  Recognizing the tremendous challenges faced by CDC, we have provided 
over $915 million for the prevention and control of chronic diseases 
such as diabetes, cancer, heart disease, arthritis and tobacco use, and 
$640 million for immunizations. CDC's total allocation for fiscal year 
2005 includes nearly $4.5 billion.
  Mr. Chairman, health centers operating at the community level provide 
regular access to high-quality, family-oriented, comprehensive primary 
and preventive health care, regardless of ability to pay, and improves 
the health status of underserved populations living in inner city and 
rural areas. These funds provided in our bill, $1.8 billion, an 
increase of $218 million over last year, are expected to serve 14.8 
million patients in fiscal year 2005--83 percent more than in fiscal 
year 1996. These are important to a lot of people. They are important 
to emergency rooms, because it gives people a place to go as an 
alternative.
  Children's hospitals across the Nation are the training grounds for 
our pediatricians and pediatric specialists. Many of these hospitals 
are regional and national referral centers for very sick children, 
often serving as the only source of care for many critical pediatric 
services. The bill provides over $303 million to train these important 
caregivers who care for America's youngest population, its children.
  The Ryan White AIDS Drug Assistance Program funding is increased by 
over $35 million, bringing its total to over $800 million. The increase 
in funding assists those infected with the virus and receiving vital 
medication through the drug assistance program. Overall, the Ryan White 
AIDS programs are funded at more than $2 billion.
  The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is the Federal agency 
responsible for overseeing Medicare, Medicaid, and the State Children's 
Health Insurance Program. CMS is the largest purchaser of health care 
in the world and second only to Social Security in the level of Federal 
spending. And while the mandatory funding for CMS programs comes 
through the Committee on Ways and Means, this bill provides the costs 
for their administrative functions. Funding for CMS is at $2.7 billion, 
an increase of more than $100 million. That is important, because it 
will speed up processing of claims for people in Medicare, Medicaid, 
and so on.
  Infant mortality rates in certain segments of our population are at 
least 1\1/2\ times the national average. We have provided over $97 
million for the Healthy Start Program, which uses community-designed 
and evidence-supported strategies aimed at reducing infant mortality.

  Our commitment to a child's well-being does not rest with Healthy 
Start. We have provided nearly $6.9 billion for Head Start, a program 
designed primarily for preschoolers from low-income families.
  The Adoption Incentive Program has been successful in contributing to 
substantial increases in adoptions in recent years. Between fiscal year 
1998 and fiscal year 2002, a total of 236,000 children were adopted. 
Think what that means. They got a home. They got a family, Mr. 
Chairman. 236,000! While the overall number of children being adopted 
has grown dramatically, some children needing permanent homes remain 
less likely to be adopted. This bill provides $32 million for the 
Adoption Incentives Program so that States may continue their efforts 
to increase the number of children adopted by caring families.
  Additional support for the President's initiatives in this bill 
include: $55 million for the Compassion Capital Fund, which helps 
faith-based and community organizations increase their effectiveness 
and enhance their ability to provide social services to those most in 
need. Mr. Chairman, $129 million for violent crime reduction programs; 
$110 million for abstinence education, an increase of nearly $35 
million over the fiscal year 2004 level.
  The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program ensures that low-income 
households are not without heating or cooling and provides protection 
to our most vulnerable populations: the elderly, households with small 
children, and persons with disabilities. The funds are distributed to 
the States through a formula grant program, and we have provided $2 
billion for fiscal year 2005, an increase of $110 million over the 
fiscal year 2004 level. In addition, $227 million is included for the 
weatherization program.
  Mr. Chairman, our society is judged not only by the care we provide 
to our young, but also by how we treat the elderly. This bill provides 
over $1.4 billion to the Administration on Aging to enhance health 
care, nutrition, and social supports to seniors and their family 
caregivers.
  In the labor area.
  We ought to support the aspirations of people: good health, security, 
meaningful work, creative and intellectual pursuits. The Department of 
Labor plays a key role in many important worker-training and protection 
programs. Therefore, we have restored

[[Page H6774]]

funding to core job training and employment assistance programs.
  A number of communities continue to experience plant closings and 
other layoffs, and we understand the need to support dislocated worker-
training programs that can assist workers to return to gainful 
employment. In this bill, we restore funding for dislocated worker-
assistance programs to nearly $1.5 billion, $25 million over fiscal 
year 2004, and an increase of over $96 million above the budget 
request.
  This bill includes $19 million for a Homeless Veterans Reintegration 
program to operate employment programs that reach out to homeless 
veterans and help them become employed.
  Worker-protection programs, including OSHA and MSHA, are funded at 
$462 million and $276 million, respectively.
  The Social Security Administration receives its mandatory allocation 
through the Committee on Ways and Means; this bill provides the funding 
for their administrative costs. Effective administration of this agency 
ensures efficient services to recipients. We have included $485 
million, an increase in the funding for the Social Security 
Administration to improve delivery of benefits and expedite the 
processing of disability claims. I am sure all of my colleagues have 
experienced this, where people very much need the funding and to get 
their disability claims taken care of, and we recognize that; and we 
have added money so that we can speed up the process.
  Mr. Chairman, much more could be said about this bill which touches 
every American at some point in life. We are mindful of the fiscal 
limitations of our bill and have tried to use the allocation to fund 
our highest priorities.
  The French philosopher de Touqueville came to America in the 1800s 
and wanted to see what makes this country different, and he observed, 
``America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, 
America will cease to be great.''
  This bill is about the goodness of America. This bill is a perfect 
example of how the taxpayers of this country are providing funds to 
help others. It is a perfect example of caring for each other, and I 
think that is very much a part of the goodness of America. As I stated 
earlier, this bill is about hope. Someone once said, ``Hope deferred 
makes the heart sick, but a desire fulfilled is a tree of life.'' We 
give hope to people who want better education. We give hope to people 
who want better health, and we give hope to those who are seeking 
retraining in order to get a job. This is very important in what this 
bill does for the people of this Nation. I think the people desire a 
good education, they desire meaningful jobs, and they desire good 
health.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill does its best, within the constraints of what 
we had available, to meet the American people's needs. It is 
responsible, it is fair, and it is balanced. I ask my colleagues to 
support it.
  Mr. Chairman, at this time I will submit a detailed table of the bill 
into the Record.

[[Page H6775]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE04.001



[[Page H6776]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE04.002



[[Page H6777]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE04.003



[[Page H6778]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE04.004



[[Page H6779]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE04.005



[[Page H6780]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE04.006



[[Page H6781]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE04.007



[[Page H6782]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE04.008



[[Page H6783]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE04.009



[[Page H6784]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE04.010



[[Page H6785]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE04.011



[[Page H6786]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE04.012



[[Page H6787]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE04.013



[[Page H6788]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE04.014



[[Page H6789]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE04.015



[[Page H6790]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE04.016



[[Page H6791]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE04.017



[[Page H6792]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE04.018



[[Page H6793]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE04.019



[[Page H6794]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE04.020



[[Page H6795]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE04.021



[[Page H6796]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE04.022



[[Page H6797]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE04.023



[[Page H6798]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE04.024



[[Page H6799]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE04.025



[[Page H6800]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE04.026



[[Page H6801]]

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  I will include at this point in the debate the supplemental views 
that I and my Democratic colleagues wrote on this bill which lay out 
our concerns about this bill's shortcomings. I think they will be 
sufficient to explain why so many of us have such grave misgivings 
about this bill.

 MINORITY VIEWS OF THE HONORABLE DAVID OBEY, STENY HOYER, NITA LOWEY, 
 ROSA DeLAURO, JESSE JACKSON, JR., PATRICK KENNEDY, AND LUCILLE ROYBAL-
                                 ALLARD

       While this bill is a modest improvement over the 
     President's budget request, it fails to meet America's needs 
     in education, health care, medical research, and human 
     services. The bill's inadequacies, however, are not the fault 
     of the Committee or Chairman Regula. This bill's shortcomings 
     are the direct and foreseeable result of the Majority's 
     reckless FY 2005 budget resolution which, as with each of the 
     budgets the Majority produced over the past three years, 
     abandons fiscal discipline, mortgages our nation's future, 
     and makes impossible critical investments that benefit all 
     Americans. It is the product of the skewed priorities of the 
     Majority, who value super-sized tax cuts for our wealthiest 
     and most privileged citizens over honoring our commitments 
     and protecting our most vulnerable citizens.
       Even when provided with an opportunity to change course, 
     the Majority held rigidly to its failed budget blueprint. 
     Earlier this year, the Majority rejected a Democratic 
     alternative to the FY 2005 budget that was fiscally 
     responsible and allowed a greater investment in education, 
     health care, and many other critical priorities. Then, on 
     June 24, the Majority defeated a Democratic resolution to 
     revise the budget resolution that would have made a greater 
     investment in education, training, and health by modestly 
     scaling back tax cuts for those with annual incomes of $1 
     million or more.
       Given the Majority Party's misguided budgetary choices, 
     shortfalls in appropriations are inevitable. In fact, the 
     Labor-HHS-Education Subcommittee received a relatively good 
     share of an inadequate total, allowing an increase of about 
     $3 billion above the current year. That increase was largely 
     allocated to a few areas: providing $1 billion increases for 
     two high-priority education programs, keeping up with rising 
     costs in the Pell Grant program, partially covering increased 
     research costs at NIH, and funding the administrative 
     expenses of the Social Security Administration.
       After doing these things, the subcommittee had more than 
     exhausted the additional funds it was allocated above the FY 
     2004 level. Consequently, other priorities in the bill had to 
     be cut.


                 education--not at the top of the class

       Next year, K-12 and higher education enrollments will again 
     reach record levels. Nearly 55 million students will attend 
     the nation's elementary and secondary schools--4 million more 
     students than in 1995. Full-time college enrollment will 
     reach 16.7 million students--14 percent more than a decade 
     ago.
       At the same time that schools are serving more students, 
     the stakes are raised higher by the mandates of the No Child 
     Left Behind Act (NCLB). During the 2005 school year, schools 
     must actually test each student in grades 3-8 in reading and 
     math or face federal sanctions. Student achievement must 
     improve. And, every teacher of a core academic subject must 
     become ``highly qualified.''
       Against the backdrop of record school enrollments, 
     unprecedented Federal education accountability requirements, 
     and rising demand for college assistance, the Committee bill 
     fails to match these growing demands with sufficient 
     resources. The bill provides a $2.0 billion (3.6 percent) 
     increase over FY 2004 for the Department of Education's 
     discretionary programs, continuing a downward slide in new 
     discretionary education investments under the Bush 
     Administration.
     No Child Left Behind
       While all 50 states and 15,500 school districts are 
     striving to address NCLB's worthy goals, money remains short 
     in many schools. Nonetheless, the Committee bill actually 
     cuts NCLB funding $120 million below the Administration's 
     request, while providing only $328 million (1.3 percent) more 
     than FY 2004. In total, the bill provides $9.5 billion less 
     than the funding promised in NCLB.
       Fully funding Title 1--which serves low-income children in 
     schools with the greatest educational challenges--is the 
     centerpiece of federal education reform efforts. Title 1 
     grants to school districts receive a $1 billion (8.1 percent) 
     increase in the Committee bill, the same amount as the 
     President's request. Despite this needed increase, Title 1 
     appropriations in FY 2005 would still fall $7.2 billion short 
     of the NCLB funding promise--accounting for most of the total 
     $9.5 billion NCLB shortfall in the Committee bill.
       A key concept in NCLB is that students who are falling 
     behind are able to receive tutoring and a broad array of 
     enrichment services in school and community-based after 
     school centers. Yet the Committee bill freezes funding for 
     21st Century Community Learning Centers at $999 million--only 
     half of the $2.0 billion authorized by NCLB. At the $2.0 
     billion level, an additional 1.3 million children could be 
     served in such communities as Davenport, Iowa, Columbus, 
     Ohio, Greenville, South Carolina, and Salt Lake City, Utah, 
     all of which are struggling to keep existing after school 
     centers open to serve children in working families.
       The Committee bill freezes funding at last year's levels 
     for several programs that are important to the success of 
     NCLB. For example, English language learning assistance for 
     more than 5 million children who must learn to read and speak 
     English is frozen at $681 million, the second year in a row--
     even while these children must meet the same rigorous 
     academic standards as all other children. About 6,500 rural 
     school districts will see their Rural Educational Achievement 
     Program grants level funded at $168 million, in the 
     aggregate; despite the difficulty they face in recruiting and 
     retaining teachers. In addition, investments in school 
     violence prevention, substance abuse prevention and school 
     safety activities are frozen at $595 million, nearly 10 
     percent less than the safe and drug-free schools funding 
     level three years ago.
       The Committee bill makes only modest investments in a few 
     areas. For example, it provides a $63 million net increase 
     for teacher training in math and science instruction (after 
     accounting for an offsetting reduction in NSF support). It 
     provides 1,300 school districts located on or near military 
     bases and other federal facilities a $21 million (1.7 
     percent) increase under the Impact Aid program. Further, it 
     rejects the Administration's proposal to cut vocational and 
     career education by $316 million and, instead, provides an 
     increase to offset inflation.
       These modest increases, however, are offset by deep 
     reductions in other education initiatives, including the 
     outright elimination of 22 programs. For example, the 
     Committee bill wipes out the Title VI education block grant, 
     although the Administration proposed to continue its flexible 
     funding of nearly $300 million to help the nation's school 
     districts pay for locally identified needs, such as up-to-
     date instructional materials, counseling services, and 
     parental involvement activities. Moreover, arts education, 
     teacher training to improve American history instruction, 
     drop out prevention, K-12 foreign language assistance, and 
     community technology centers to bridge the digital divide in 
     low-income communities--all priority activities reauthorized 
     in NCLB--are terminated. Because of budget constraints, the 
     bill even denies over $100 million in education initiatives 
     requested by the President.
     Special Education
       President Bush's Commission on Excellence in Special 
     Education concluded, ``children with disabilities remain 
     those most at risk of being left behind.'' The Committee bill 
     makes progress in fulfilling federal commitments in special 
     education by providing a $1 billion (9.9 percent) increase 
     over FY 2004 for IDEA Part B State Grants, the same amount as 
     the President's request. Under the Committee bill, the 
     federal contribution toward special education costs incurred 
     by the nation's schools will increase from 18.7 percent in FY 
     2004 to 19.8 percent in FY 2005. Nonetheless, the Committee 
     bill falls $2.5 billion short of the $13.6 billion promised 
     last year by the Majority party when it passed H.R. 1350, the 
     IDEA reauthorization bill.
     College Assistance
       In today's increasingly technological society, a college 
     education is essential for a good-paying job. For low- and 
     moderate-income families, however, the task of sending a 
     child to college--which has never been easy--is now a 
     daunting challenge, given an average 26 percent tuition 
     increase in the last two years at 4-year public colleges and 
     universities.
       The Committee bill, however, makes little progress in 
     making college more affordable for disadvantaged students. 
     The bill freezes the maximum Pell Grant for low-income 
     college students at $4,050 for the second year in a row, 
     freezes College Work Study assistance, and cuts Perkins Loans 
     by $99 million below last year's level.
       College students will receive help with dramatically rising 
     tuition bills only through a $24 million (3.1 percent) 
     increase for Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants 
     (SEOGs), and a restoration of the $66 million LEAP grants for 
     state need-based student financial assistance programs, which 
     the Administration sought to eliminate.


                investing less in america's labor force

       For the Department of Labor's employment and training 
     assistance programs for unemployed Americans, the Committee 
     bill invests $236 million less than the Administration's 
     request and $40 million less than last year, despite a loss 
     of 1.8 million private sector jobs since President Bush took 
     office.
       While the Committee bill provides a $25 million (1.7 
     percent) increase over FY 2004 to assist dislocated workers 
     affected by mass layoffs, it denies 80 percent of the 
     Administration's $250 million request for the Community 
     College technical training initiative and eliminates the $90 
     million prisoner re-entry initiative due to budget 
     constraints. The bill shaves the Administration's proposed 
     2.8 percent increase for salaries and other operating costs 
     for Job Corps, the highly successful initiative that helps 
     hard-core disadvantaged and unemployed youth, to a 1.8 
     percent increase over FY 2004.

[[Page H6802]]

       Unemployment remains unacceptably high with 8.0 million 
     Americans out of work; however, the Committee bill actually 
     cuts assistance for individuals seeking jobs through the 
     Employment Service, a building block for the nation's one-
     stop employment services delivery system. State Employment 
     Service funding is cut to $696 million, a 10 percent 
     reduction below FY 2004 and the lowest level in more than 10 
     years. The Committee bill also rescinds $100 million in prior 
     funding, as requested by the Administration, for the H-1B 
     training grants that help train Americans in high-skill, 
     high-wage jobs and reduce the nation's reliance on foreign 
     workers.
       Further, funding to promote international labor standards 
     and combat abusive child labor will be eviscerated with a 68 
     percent cut in the Committee bill, which adds only $5 million 
     to the Administration's request. The $35.5 million provided 
     in the bill includes only $16 million for child labor 
     projects compared with the $82 million allocated in FY 2004.


       falling short of the promise of a safe and healthy nation

       For the health-related programs of the Department of HHS, 
     the Committee's bill falls short of what is needed to 
     maintain the health care safety net, protect the public 
     health, and advance medical research.
       The measure does substantially increase funding for 
     Community Health Centers, expand a Global Disease Detection 
     initiative at CDC, and provide modest increases for AIDS drug 
     assistance and chronic disease prevention programs. In some 
     respects it is an improvement over the President's budget--it 
     rejects the Administration's proposal to cut bio-terrorism 
     preparedness assistance to health departments and hospitals, 
     and reduces the President's proposed cuts in rural health and 
     health professions programs.
       However, a number of health programs are still cut below 
     the current-year level by the Committee bill. Examples 
     include the Healthy Communities Access Program, several rural 
     health programs, some health professions training programs 
     (especially those related to primary care and public health), 
     and block grants for public health services. A large number 
     of other programs have their funding frozen, often for the 
     second or third year in a row. These freezes, while health 
     care costs and the number of people needing assistance are 
     continuing to increase, mean real erosion in the health care 
     safety net and public health protection.
       
 The Committee bill terminates the Healthy 
     Communities Access Program (HCAP), which makes grants to 
     local consortia of hospitals, health centers, and other 
     providers to build better integrated systems of care for the 
     uninsured. This means that roughly 70 communities will lose 
     their existing three-year grants and about 35 new grants will 
     not be made.
       
 Rural Health Outreach Grants--which support 
     primary health care, dental health, mental health, and 
     telemedicine projects--are cut by 24 percent. Grants to 
     improve small rural hospitals are cut in half, funding to 
     help rural communities acquire the defibrillators that can 
     save the lives of heart attack victims are cut by more than 
     half, and a small new program to help improve emergency 
     medical services in rural areas is eliminated.
       
 Apart from grants to Health Centers, the bill 
     continues to slow erosion of most other health care programs. 
     The Maternal and Child Health Block Grant is funded slightly 
     below its level of three years earlier, with no increase for 
     rising health care costs, population or anything else. These 
     grants help support prenatal care and health and dental 
     services for low-income children, and assist children with 
     disabilities and other special health care needs. The 
     National Health Service Corps--which helps bring doctors and 
     dentists into under-served areas--receives a bit less than in 
     FY 2003. The Ryan White AIDS Care programs (other than drug 
     assistance) is also slightly under its FY 2003 level (while 
     the number of AIDS patients has been rising by about 7 
     percent per year), and the Title X family planning program is 
     just 1.8 percent above FY 2003.
       
 Support for training in primary care medicine and 
     dentisty--which is targeted to increasing the number of 
     doctors and dentists in rural and other underserved areas--is 
     cut 22 percent below the current year by the bill. Support 
     for training in public health and preventive medicine is cut 
     24 percent, despite the difficulties that public health 
     departments are having recruiting and retaining qualified 
     professionals.
       
 The Committee bill does include a small, $5 
     million (3.5 percent) increase for nurse education and 
     training programs. While a step in the right direction, it 
     pales in comparison to the national commitment envisioned 
     under the Nurse Reinvestment Act, which was aimed at stemming 
     the looming nursing shortage.
       
 CDC's childhood immunization program receives a 
     small but welcome $11 million increase in the Committee bill. 
     However, the bill's FY 2005 level is just 3.4 percent above 
     FY 2002 while the cost to immunize a child with all 
     recommended vaccines will have increased 18.5 percent.
       
 Also in CDC, although the bill roughly doubles an 
     important Global Disease Detection initiative, funding for 
     ongoing domestic activities to control and respond to 
     infectious diseases like West Nile Virus, SARS and the flu 
     are increased by just 1.1 percent.
       
 The Committee bill makes a 17.5 percent cut in 
     basic support to state and local health departments through 
     the Preventive Health and Health Services Block Grant. This 
     funding is used for a range of priorities, from health 
     screening to immunization to control of chronic diseases like 
     diabetes and asthma to basic epidemiological investigations 
     and public health laboratory operations.
       For the National Institutes of Health, the Committee bill 
     is identical to the Administration's budget request. It 
     provides an increase of 2.6 percent--which is the smallest in 
     19 years and significantly less than the 3.5 percent needed 
     to cover estimated inflation in biomedical research costs. 
     Although the Administration says that its budget (and hence 
     the Committee bill) would produce a small increase in the 
     number of new and re-competing research project grants--
     reversing a decrease that is occurring in FY 2004--it 
     achieves that result only by assuming unusually tight limits 
     on the average size of research grants, including cuts to 
     ongoing research projects below previously committed levels. 
     If grant amounts were instead allowed to increase at normal 
     rates, the number of new grants would decrease for the second 
     year in a row. Many Members have been circulating letters to 
     the Committee urging additional funding to accelerate 
     research into diseases like Parkinson's or Alzheimer's or 
     cancer. Many of the Members of Congress who have signed such 
     letters in fact voted for the Republican budget resolution 
     which has made it impossible for the committee to provide 
     funding levels requested in such letters. At the funding 
     level in the Committee bill, such increases simply are not 
     possible.


               helping america's most vulnerable citizens

       For the human services side of the Department of HHS, the 
     Committee bill includes increases for Low-Income Home Energy 
     Assistance (LIHEAP), Refugee Assistance, Head Start, 
     Abstinence-only Sex Education, and some programs of the 
     Administration on Aging. It also rejects most (but not all) 
     of the cut in the Community Services Block Grant proposed by 
     the President. On the whole, however, the bill's human 
     services appropriations fall short of what is needed.
       For LIHEAP, the Committee added $111 million above FY 2004, 
     as proposed by the President. However, this barely does more 
     than reverse a decrease that occurred last year. Sharply 
     higher energy prices combined with cold winters have 
     increased the need for LIHEAP. These same conditions have 
     also led to growing need for the Energy Department's 
     Weatherization Assistance Program (which was recently 
     transferred to the Labor-HHS bill). However, the bill 
     includes no increase at all for Weatherization, rejecting the 
     $64 million addition proposed by the President.
       The Child Care Block Grant has its funding essentially 
     frozen for the third year in a row under the Committee's 
     bill, meaning a real reduction in help for working families. 
     Appropriations for Head Start are $45 million less than the 
     amount proposed by the President. Overall funding for the 
     Administration on Aging is up by 2.2 percent. However, this 
     follows two years of even smaller increases, leaving the FY 
     2005 figure just 4.0 percent above its level three years 
     earlier.

                       The Democratic Alternative

       The demands of the war on terrorism, the conflict in Iraq, 
     homeland security needs, and a sluggish economy require a 
     pragmatic and responsible approach to America's budget. Yet, 
     even with all these competing needs and challenges, this 
     bill's shortcomings were not fated.
       The budget alternatives that Democrats offered earlier this 
     year--including the package of budget resolution revisions 
     that the House considered on June 24--would have allowed this 
     Committee to make a greater investment in education, health 
     care, medical research, and other pressing needs. Our budget 
     alternatives were also fiscally responsible; they would have 
     provided for these national needs and reduced the deficit by 
     modestly reducing tax cuts for those with annual incomes 
     above $1 million.
       When this bill was considered by subcommittee and by the 
     full Appropriations Committee, amendments were offered 
     mirroring the Labor-HHS-Education portion of the Democratic 
     budget proposal. These amendments would have added $7.4 
     billion to the bill, paid for by 30 percent reduction in the 
     2005 tax cuts for people with incomes over $1 million. 
     Instead of tax cuts averaging about $127,000, this top-income 
     group would have their tax cuts reduced to an average of 
     $89,000. Regrettably, these amendments were defeated on party 
     line votes. Had they been adopted, we could:
       
 Invest $1.5 billion more in Title I instruction to 
     help an additional 500,000 low-income and minority children 
     in the poorest communities succeed in school;
       
 Invest $200 million more in after school centers 
     so that an additional 267,000 children, who are responsible 
     for taking care of themselves after school each day, have a 
     safe and nurturing place to go after school;
       
 Invest $1.2 billion more to subsidize the high 
     costs of educating 6.9 million children with disabilities;
       
 Provide a $450 increase in the maximum Pell Grant 
     for students with the greatest financial need, and begin to 
     restore its purchasing power for more than 5 million low-
     income students;
       
 Assist an additional 51,000 teachers improve their 
     instructional skills to become highly qualified under NCLB; 
     and

[[Page H6803]]

       
 Ensure that 2,500 low-performing schools receive 
     the assistance they were promised to implement effective, 
     comprehensive reforms to raise their academic performance.
       In the area of workforce training, the Democratic amendment 
     would have provided an additional $200 million to support 
     training and job placement services for more jobless 
     Americans. And, it would have fully restored funding to 
     combat child labor and promote workers' rights around the 
     world, which in turn would have helped workers here at home.
       On the health and human services side, the Democratic 
     amendment would have allowed us to provide more help to the 
     45 million people without health care, maintain momentum in 
     biomedical research, and restore some of the lost purchasing 
     power in key human services programs. For example, the 
     amendment would do the following:
       
 Maintain the Healthy Communities Access Program, 
     rather than terminating it as under the Committee bill, and 
     add some funds to make up for lost ground in programs like 
     the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant, Family Planning, 
     and Community Mental Health Block Grant.
       
 Avoid any cuts in health professions training 
     programs, add $20 million to the National Health Service 
     Corps to get more doctors and dentists into underserved rural 
     and inner city areas, and add $35 million to Nurse 
     Reinvestment Act programs to help stem the nursing shortage 
     by providing more scholarships for nursing students and more 
     support for nursing schools.
       
 Eliminate the proposed cuts in rural health 
     programs, and add an additional $19 million to better support 
     rural health clinics, hospitals and emergency services.
       
 Provide $50 million to help meet some of the most 
     urgent unmet needs for dental care, through grants for rural 
     dental clinics, scholarships and student loan repayment 
     arrangements for dentists who locate in underserved areas, 
     and grants and low-interest loans to help dentists who agree 
     to participate in Medicaid establish and expand practices in 
     areas with dental shortages.
       
 Add $500 million to the budget of the National 
     Institutes of Health--enough to provide a full inflation 
     adjustment, renew all ongoing research grants, and restore 
     the number of new grants to the FY 2003 level. This would 
     help maintain momentum in research to find better treatments 
     for diseases like cancer, Parkinson's disease, and 
     Alzheimer's.
       
 Provide $50 million more for child immunization, 
     to help catch up with rising vaccine costs, and also add $50 
     million to other infectious disease control efforts at CDC 
     (including those aimed at HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and 
     sexually transmitted diseases).
       
 Add $200 million to the Low-Income Home Energy 
     Assistance Program to help keep up with rising needs. Between 
     the 2002 and 2004 winter heating seasons, average home 
     heating costs rose 50 percent for natural gas users and 54 
     percent for users of fuel oil. As energy prices rise and the 
     economy remains weak, the number of households seeking 
     assistance is rising, but the program still serves only about 
     14 percent of the eligible population.
       Provide an additional $70 million for senior citizens' 
     programs of the Administration on Aging, including Meals on 
     Wheels and other nutrition programs.
       Budgets are as much about America's values are they are 
     about dollars and cents. By prioritizing massive tax cuts for 
     the wealthiest among us, House Republicans have once again 
     rejected traditional American values of shared sacrifice in 
     difficult times and equal opportunity for all Americans. The 
     Majority's priorities will mean less opportunity through 
     education and job training, decreased access to health care 
     in rural and other underserved areas, and a nation that is 
     less caring toward its most vulnerable children, families, 
     and senior citizens.
       The decisions that have led to this unhappy situation have, 
     in fact, already been made by the Republican majority members 
     who have voted for the Republican budget resolution and 
     against our efforts to modify it. This bill is the inevitable 
     unhappy result of those decisions. The only way to achieve a 
     more favorable final outcome is for this bill to move to 
     conference with the Senate and be greatly altered to produce 
     a more responsible result.

     David Obey.
     Steny Hoyer.
     Nita Lowey.
     Rosa L. DeLauro.
     Jesse L. Jackson, Jr.
     Patrick J. Kennedy.
     Lucille Roybal-Allard.

[[Page H6804]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE04.028
     


[[Page H6805]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE04.029
     


[[Page H6806]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE04.030
     


[[Page H6807]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE04.031
     


[[Page H6808]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE04.032
     


[[Page H6809]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE04.033
     


[[Page H6810]]

  Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Lowey), a member of the subcommittee.

                              {time}  1215

  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the fiscal year 2005 
Labor-HHS bill, and I first want to express my appreciation to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) and the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Ranking Member Obey). They are men of principle, great fairness and 
determination. It is a pleasure serving with them.
  I also want to take a moment to convey my admiration for the 
gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young). After years of leading the 
Committee on Appropriations in a fair, bipartisan manner, my good 
friend is leaving the chairmanship at the end of the year, and while I 
look forward to continuing to work with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Young) in the future, I want him to know how much his leadership will 
be missed.
  I also want to thank the staff on both sides of the aisle who 
continue to be so very helpful.
  My colleagues, the programs funded in the Labor-HHS bill are 
critical, as we heard discussed by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Regula). We provide the children of working parents with safe places to 
go after school. We lead the world in biomedical research. We recruit 
young professionals into nursing, a profession with a looming shortage 
that will affect all Americans who seek health services.
  We allocate resources to State and local health departments, as well 
as hospitals, so they are equipped to respond to a mass incident, for 
which most are only modestly better prepared than they were on 
September 11.
  We prevent our most vulnerable from having to choose between food and 
heat. We help put kids through college, a pinnacle of the American 
dream.
  These activities benefit every member of our society. However, 
because of the limited allocation provided by the Committee on the 
Budget, many important needs will remain underfunded.
  For example, last year Congress did not fulfill its obligation to 
fully fund the Title I program which serves the poorest children in 
America, and because of that, more than half our Nation's school 
districts from Kansas to Minnesota, North Dakota to Pennsylvania, 
Missouri to Yonkers, New York, in my district, received less Title I 
from one year to the next. We can expect similar funding cuts for 
schools across the country in fiscal year 2005 because the bill falls 
$7.2 billion short on the amount authorized under the No Child Left 
Behind Act.
  Despite a 26 percent tuition increase in the last 2 years, the bill 
freezes the maximum Pell grant for low-income college students for the 
second year in a row and cuts Perkins loans by $99 million below last 
year's level.
  Even though every school administrator and teacher I talked to pleads 
for additional special education funding to meet the growing demands, 
the bill falls $2.5 billion below the Republican promise made last year 
in the IDEA reauthorization bill.
  At a time when our Nation is desperate for additional nurses and 
schools of nursing cannot accommodate the increased number of 
applicants, an additional $5 million for nurse education and training 
will help only a fraction of the 18,000 candidates denied admission 
last year because there are not enough instructors to teach them.
  Earlier this year this administration circulated a memorandum 
indicating that the 2006 spending cuts outlined in this year's budget 
will be implemented. That means huge reductions in spending on health, 
education, and labor are just around the corner.
  Mr. Chairman, in closing, I also want to express my continued concern 
with the Weldon refusal clause provision. For over 30 years, there have 
been Federal laws that allow doctors, nurses and hospitals to refuse to 
provide abortion services because of their religious beliefs, as it 
should be. However, just as the law protects religious or moral 
objections, it protects the rights of patients, ensuring that women 
have access to accurate and complete medical information when making 
decisions about their own health. The Weldon provision would unravel 
these protections, gutting the patient protections included in the 
Title X family planning program, which require that all legal options 
are presented to a woman. It is my hope that this provision will be 
stripped from the final Labor-HHS spending bill.
  Mr. Speaker, although I did discuss some significant flaws, I will 
support final passage, and I have said many times that I am truly 
honored to be a member of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human 
Services, Education and Related Agencies. I believe that we have tried 
to work as a team and make the most of the inadequate allocation 
provided to us by the leadership.
  I also continue to hope that through floor consideration today, 
Senate consideration and during conference we will continue to work 
together as a team to make additional improvements to the bill.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Wicker), a very valued member of our subcommittee.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, as usual, the next 2 days of debate on the 
Labor-HHS education bill will be instructive.
  First, the basics. We will authorize in this bill spending of $142 
billion plus for health, for education and for the American workers of 
this country in three major departments. This amounts to $3 billion 
more than we spent last year, Mr. Chairman, an increase in the 
discretionary spending in these 3 areas of 2.4 percent. At the same 
time, we are keeping it within the subcommittee allocation and the 
limits of the budget resolution, and I think the chairman is to be 
commended for that.
  I have enormous respect for the leadership of this subcommittee on 
both sides of the aisle, certainly for the chairman, but also for my 
friend on the Democratic side who just spoke and for the ranking 
minority member.
  What we will hear today amounts to sincerely held views and what it 
really comes down to, in the long run, is a difference in philosophy.
  I have been on this subcommittee for 10 years now, the 10 years that 
the Republicans have been in the majority in this Congress. And each 
year when this bill comes up, the majority puts forward a bill that 
spends an amount of money over and above the last year, and our friends 
on the Democratic side of the aisle object to the bill based on the 
fact that they would like to spend more money and tax more.
  When they object to the bill, Mr. Chairman, they will often say that 
it is not really the fault of the leadership of this committee, not the 
fault of the chairman of the full committee or the subcommittee; that 
it is the underlying budget we adopted earlier which is at fault. What 
they really mean when they say this is that they wish a budget had been 
adopted so that taxes could be higher and that Federal spending could 
be higher, and indeed, that is the basic difference in philosophy on 
the two sides of the aisle.
  Beginning in 2001, when we realized we were coming into a recession, 
and then certainly after 9/11 and the tragedy and the cost of that 
event, this majority on the Republican side decided to reduce the tax 
burden on Americans, reduce the tax burden on families with children, 
reduce the tax burden on married couples by eliminating the marriage 
penalty, reduce the tax burden on lower income workers and on every 
American who pays income tax, and, yes, to reduce taxes on the job 
creators.
  What has that gotten us during this time? What it has gotten us, 
according to Chairman Greenspan's testimony before the Committee on the 
Budget just this morning? Chairman Greenspan said, We are in a period 
of moderate to excellent economic growth and the shallowest recession 
in postwar history.
  I would submit that this is the program we need, and is why we have 
adopted the budget and why we should adopt the bill today.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, of all the appropriations bill this body 
considers every year, it is the Labor-HHS and Education appropriations 
bill that best represents our Nation's investment in the future. 
Education, health care, medical research, job training, these are the 
things that bind us as a

[[Page H6811]]

society and play formative roles in determining the course of this 
country.
  So the choices that we make in this bill can help to expand 
opportunity for generations to come, making Americans live longer, 
healthier, more productive lives. That is the power of this bill.
  At a time when so many families are faced with the rising costs of 
health care and college tuitions, a sluggish economy and falling wages, 
this bill has the opportunity to strengthen the economic, health and 
retirement security for every citizen in this country for generations 
to come.
  Unfortunately, this bill provides $9.5 billion less than the funding 
promised in the No Child Left Behind Act, and most of the shortfall is 
in Title I, which serves low-income children and schools with the 
greatest educational challenges. With an average 26 percent tuition 
increase in the last 2 years at 4-year public colleges and 
universities, this bill misses a real opportunity to impact families' 
lives. It freezes the Pell grant and college work study assistance 
program and cuts the Perkins loan program.
  With a hesitant economic recovery that is creating too few jobs, jobs 
that generally pay $9,000 less than the ones lost, we should be giving 
our 8 million unemployed workers the tools that they need to retrain 
for this new and changing economy. Instead, this bill invests $236 
million less than the administration's own request for employment and 
training assistance programs, including a devastating cut of $88 
million to the Employment Service, almost 10 percent, the building 
block for the Nation's one-stop employment centers.
  The shortfalls continue with appropriations for the Departments of 
Health and Human Services in the area of the National Institutes of 
Health. A few years ago, we were actually making good on the commitment 
to double that budget, but now we are barely keeping up with inflation. 
What that means is medical researchers, racing for lifesaving cures to 
diseases like cancer, Alzheimer's, diabetes, find themselves having to 
cut corners so that they can complete their research. NIH's ability to 
continue its support for clinical trials will be endangered.
  I was someone who was diagnosed with the deadliest of all 
gynecological cancers, ovarian, more than 18 years ago. I know 
firsthand how this research can save lives. It changed and it saved my 
life. That is the power of the NIH.
  I have said it before. For all their virtues, tax cuts do not save 
lives. Now, with our Nation at war, our economy failing millions of 
families, we are seeing the price all Americans have paid for these tax 
cuts. Child care funding is back to where it was 3 years ago. Home 
energy assistance is budgeted where we were 2 years ago, and Head 
Start, which can only serve half the eligible children, is cut in real 
dollar terms. Tax cuts are quite literally mortgaging the future we 
pass on to our children and our children's children.
  No appropriations bill touches the American family like this. I 
believe we have a moral responsibility to do better for the people of 
this country with this bill than we are.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, for the moment, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my ranking 
member, also the chairman of the committee, for bringing this bill up 
today.
  I rise to highlight an important program that this bill fails to 
fund. The Congress has supported and funded the Community Access 
Program since its inception in 2000. The CAP program, the Community 
Access Program, has provided communities with much-needed grant funding 
to provide both preventive and primary care to their uninsured 
populations.
  In communities like mine in Houston, and literally hundreds across 
the country, we utilize this funding to put together the necessary 
consortium or groups to help solve our health care access problems. 
For-profit, nonprofit and public health agencies coordinate services 
using CAP funds.
  Unfortunately, this bill completely eliminates the CAP program at a 
time when the level of uninsured individuals in this country has 
reached 44 million and is growing. Now is not the time to cut off 
access to this important primary and preventive health care service in 
our communities.
  Without this health care access, our uninsured constituents tend to 
seek health care from our hospital emergency rooms, where costs are 
skyrocketing and beds are scarce.
  This is truly a case where an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of 
cure.
  I thank the committee for its work to increase funding for community 
health centers, which received $218 million over the President's 
request, and that is great.
  While the Community Health Center and Community Access Programs share 
similar missions, the Community Access Program really helps coordinate 
the services, whereas community healthcare centers are really important 
to a growing number in our community and even need more.
  I urge our colleagues on the Committee on Appropriations to restore 
funding for the CAP program.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I simply want to say that I agree with the remarks of 
the gentleman from Texas, and I hope the committee will listen to what 
he said.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

                              {time}  1230

  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time and for his very good and hard work on this bill. I thank the 
chairman of the committee, as well, for working against tremendous 
odds.
  There was a previous question that focused on the Obey amendment that 
could not be offered. I will call it the millionaires amendment that 
would have helped restore some balance in paying for programs which the 
American people place particular priority on. I just want to use one of 
those programs to vivify my concern, and the concern, of course, comes 
because, unlike the Obey amendment, we are growing the deficit. The 
deficit is like a child you do not see grow, and then one day you say, 
oh, my, how you have grown. By that time, of course, the deficit could 
bring down our economy. So it is important to do what the Obey 
amendment would have done.
  What the committee has done is to barely save, and I have come to 
thank you for saving the so-called VERB program, a program that deals 
with the most serious public health problem in the United States today, 
obesity and overweight. All this Congress has done for this problem is 
the so-called cheeseburger bill, the absurdity of suing somebody 
because you are too fat. But we are leaving people to their own 
devices.
  The experts say that by 2005 obesity and overweight will have 
overtaken smoking as the leading cause of death. At least for our 
children, you have left in the bill, instead of allowing the 
administration to kill the so-called VERB bill, and all VERB stands for 
is action. There has been a 42 percent increase in obesity among 
children in the last 25 years. It takes $85 million to keep this 
program going. You have put $65 million in this rigorously evaluated 
program that is only now in year 3 of its 5-year period.
  But the rigorous evaluation shows an increase in physical activity of 
at least 35 percent among children. So I thank you for saving this 
program and hope that adults will be saved sometime in the future.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, this Labor, Health and Education bill is supposed to be 
that portion of the budget which invests in our children, which opens 
the door of opportunity for young people, which opens the door to the 
doctor's office or to the hospital for people who live life on its 
underside and do not have access to regular health care. It is supposed 
to protect the interests of workers. This bill falls far short on all 
fronts.
  This bill does nothing to help workers, to protect workers against 
the efforts of employers to chisel on overtime pay. It falls billions 
of dollars behind the No Child Left Behind legislation in terms of 
meeting our obligations to support the education of our

[[Page H6812]]

children. It brings to a screeching halt the healthy expansion of 
after-school programs. It does, in so many ways, fall short of where we 
ought to be; and it does that because the majority, as I said earlier, 
has made a decision that its top legislative priority is ever more and 
always to provide very large tax cuts to people who are already very 
well off.
  I really believe that there is no way to fix this bill, because this 
bill is the result of two past decisions. It is the result, as the 
gentleman from Ohio has said, it is the result of the Republican 
majority's passing a budget resolution which provides inadequate room 
for education, health, and worker-protection programs. It is also the 
result of the second vote which occurred on this House floor just a few 
weeks ago on a resolution that I offered to try to amend that budget 
resolution so that it would be a somewhat more progressive product that 
we could be proud of.
  At this point, the only way that you could help this bill is to move 
it on to the Senate in the hopes that the Senate will provide better 
numbers so that in conference we can provide more resources for 
education, health care, and worker-protection bills that are so crucial 
to the welfare of this country's population.
  I would say, Mr. Chairman, that there is only one way in the long 
term that we can fix this problem, and that is to put a different 
person in the White House and a different majority in the House of 
Representatives and the Senate. Because what is really at stake in this 
election, in my view, as someone said on the other side of the aisle, 
what is really at stake is whether or not this country is going to 
continue to build a social safety net for the middle class, for the 
broad working class of this country, or whether we are going to say, in 
effect, ``Sorry, but everybody is going to be on their own. You are 
going to rely on the luck of the draw. If life treats you happily, you 
will come out as one of life's winners; and if life does not treat you 
so happily, sorry, but you are on your own. We have no obligation to 
help in any significant way.''
  This bill does a number of things for people, but it does not do 
nearly enough to meet the rising challenges that we have. And I regret 
very much that we are in that position, but there is not much we in the 
minority can do to change it except to make clear what is happening. So 
I urge Members to remember that as we go through the bill this 
afternoon.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to remind my colleagues that in what is a relatively short period of 9 
years, the total of this bill has gone from $65 billion to $143 
billion. That is a dramatic increase, and I think it recognizes the 
commitment on the part of Members on both sides that these are 
important issues that we are addressing in this bill. But I think it 
also reflects the fact that we have a caring approach.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Weldon), a very valued member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time, and I rise to congratulate the chairman. We have 
a difficult budget year this year; and he has managed to cobble 
together, I would have to say almost like a skilled surgeon, I may be 
the doctor on the committee, but he handled this with the dexterity of 
a skilled surgeon, balancing the critical issues of education, health, 
and research against the budget realities.
  Mr. Chairman, we are coming out of a recession. And to the gentleman 
of Wisconsin, I would simply say it is really unclear to me if we had 
not cut taxes that we would have more money in this bill. I think if we 
had not cut taxes, the economy would be in a worse slump and that we 
indeed would have less revenue, not more revenue.
  Conflicting priorities are always a challenge for the Congress. The 
gentleman from Ohio has achieved the right balance. I know it is not a 
perfect bill, but I think this is our best shot at getting this bill 
moving.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute, and I would simply 
say to the gentleman the issue is not whether we should have cut taxes. 
Obviously, any time the economy is underperforming, it is perfectly 
legitimate to cut taxes over the short term. FDR invented that, and I 
am fully subscribed to that Keynesian approach to economics.
  What I do not subscribe to is the idea that in the context of cutting 
taxes we have to give people who make $1 million a year a $127,000 tax 
cut. I think we could very well limit the size of that tax cut. That is 
the only tax cut that we have objected to and tried to change in order 
to finance this bill.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I know the gentleman from 
Wisconsin and I have discussed this issue in the past. The reason I 
think that was the right economic priority is because most of those 
people, at least in my congressional district, are small businessmen 
and women; and they take most of those funds and pump them back into 
their businesses, creating jobs. Most of the job growth has been in the 
small business sector, and I think it was the right thing to do.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 additional minute, and I 
would simply say in response that a very small portion of the people 
who would be affected by our amendment are small businessmen. Very 
small portion. The fact is that this House has to make a choice. Do we 
think it is essential to provide a $120,000 tax cut to people making 
over $1 million a year; or do we think that we ought to use some of 
that money to provide better opportunity for education, better health 
care for 45 million people that do not have it, and some additional 
protection for our workers in what is becoming every day a more and 
more brutal world market?
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York 
(Mrs. McCarthy).
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman 
from Wisconsin yielding me this time, and I rise in support of the 
Labor-HHS bill today. While I feel the bill falls short in many areas, 
particularly in education, I will support the final bill. However, I 
would also like to rise today and speak to an issue that has great 
personal meaning to me and has been ignored by our House leadership.
  While my amendments reauthorizing the assault weapons ban have been 
found nongermane, I will still be speaking to it, because so few 
opportunities remain to do anything about it before it expires on 
Monday.
  One week from today, I will be able to purchase an assault weapon 
from any number of Web sites and from our local gun stores, which means 
our gangs and our police officers, and I just came back from a press 
conference with the police chiefs and the rank-and-file officers, and, 
unfortunately, many victims, all calling on our President to make some 
calls over here to the House so that we can bring the bill up for a 
vote.
  A poll released this weekend by the National Annenberg Election 
Survey says two-thirds of Americans support keeping the assault weapons 
bill in place. And, in fact, 57 percent of gun owners support the ban, 
putting to rest the notion the ban is somewhat a threat to our second 
amendment.
  Not one sportsman has missed a day in any hunting season due to the 
ban on assault weapons. President Bush says he supports the ban, but so 
far he has been doing the talk, but he has given us no action on it. 
The ball is in the President's court. He needs to pick up the phone and 
put renewing the ban on to the House floor. Only President Bush can 
stay the assault weapons ban execution.
  Almost every law enforcement agency in the country supports renewing 
the ban. That is all the evidence I need to be convinced the ban is 
working. The most immediate challenge relating to the ban expiring is 
our police departments, who are saying they are not ready for this to 
expire. It is basically our police officers who are out there 
protecting us against terrorists and gangs, who protect our lives every 
day on the front lines that will be facing these assault weapons when 
they come back on the streets.
  Since assault-style weapons do not need to be aimed, are designed to 
be moved back and forth in a sweeping

[[Page H6813]]

fashion in order to rain bullets on an area instead of a specific 
target, gang violence will become more reckless, with many more 
innocent bystanders caught in crossfires.
  Police departments will have to re-outfit their squad cars, purchase 
new bulletproof vests, and make other expensive preparations for the 
ban's expiration.
  Many currently banned weapons have multiple-capacity clips, holding 
up to 30 rounds of ammunition. Many State laws, including my State of 
New York, limit our hunters to six rounds in a clip. Deer are given a 
better chance of surviving than our police officers.
  With the Bush budget intent on slashing grants to local police 
departments and its reluctance to push for extending the ban, the 
administration is depriving our police officers of the support that we 
need.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) has 5\1/2\ minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 9\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Granger), a great member of our subcommittee.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill. It 
has some very important programs in it. Specifically, one that I have 
been involved in is the provision of a $2 billion increase from fiscal 
year 2004 for the Department of Education to continue support for 
effective reading programs and better technology in the classroom.
  Mr. Chairman, I have been to the schools in my district that have 
used this technology, and as a former teacher I can tell you that it 
strengthens what a teacher is able to do, particularly with students 
with problems. The other thing it provides that is very important, I 
think, is the VERB program. The VERB program came to my district this 
summer and addresses the serious health dilemma facing our young 
people, and that is the rise of obesity.

                              {time}  1245

  It is a very successful program which encourages children to be more 
physically active. They sent a truck out to Six Flags Over Texas, and I 
met the children there. They were able to pick out the verb that they 
wanted to use that was fun, whether it was basketball, dancing, 
skateboarding, running. They put excitement in exercise, and that is 
how VERB is working, and that is how VERB has contributed to a 34 
percent rise in free time of physical activity of 9 and 10 years old in 
a target area. I approve this, and I certainly appreciate the work on 
the bill.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman of the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce and a great colleague from Ohio.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, let me congratulate the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Regula), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), and the 
other members of the Committee on Appropriations for a job well done on 
what is a very large bill and a very difficult bill.
  There has been much said today about education, and the good news is 
No Child Left Behind is working and working very well. As we see the 
preliminary results coming in from around the country, we are seeing 
increased test scores in both reading and math, especially for our most 
disadvantaged children. If we look at where the Federal education 
dollars go, by and large, they are aimed at those very children, those 
disadvantaged children who need that extra help to have a chance at a 
good education.
  But while the news is good from No Child Left Behind and test scores 
are going up, there has been this chorus of criticism from some of my 
colleagues about the fact that it is underfunded and we are not 
spending enough. It is easy to stand here in the well of the House and 
talk about how the glass is half empty, but I am here to suggest it is 
almost full.
  If we look at this bill, there is a $2 billion increase in overall 
education funding in this bill, bringing the total amount for education 
spending to the Department to $57.7 billion. Now that means in 
President Bush's first term in office, in just 4 years, the Department 
of Education's overall funding will have increased by $15.5 billion. If 
we look back over the 9.5 years Republicans have been in control of 
Congress, we see education funding has skyrocketed by some $23 billion. 
That is an increase of more than 150 percent under the Republican 
Congress. Much of this increase in spending can be attributed to those 
programs in No Child Left Behind.
  The most significant program the Federal Government operates to help 
disadvantaged children under No Child Left Behind is title I. Again 
this year we see another $1 billion increase in Title I, about 8 
percent over last year's level. If we look at what has happened over 
the 4 years that the President has been in office, we will see these 
massive increases. But we can go back all of the way to the 10 years 
Republicans have been in Congress, and see that we have increased 
spending for Title I for disadvantaged children by some 96 percent. And 
the funding increases in just the first 2 years of President Bush's 
term in office far outstrip the 8 years of the previous administration. 
Title I increases are continuing. That is our commitment to helping the 
disadvantaged students in our society get the kind of education they 
all deserve.
  Then we have special education. When Republicans took control of 
Congress in 1994, we were spending $2.3 billion a year to help special 
ed students around the country. This is 20 years after a Supreme Court 
case and Congress passing the Individuals with Disabilities in 
Education Act but never really funding it. Over the last 10 years, we 
have increased funding from $2.3 billion to this year $11.1 billion. 
That is a 378 percent increase in help for those students with special 
needs.
  I believe that the money we are spending to help our special-needs 
students and our disadvantaged students is money well spent because if 
we really truly believe no child should be left behind, the Federal 
Government has to do its share.
  I am here to say that I believe the Federal Government is doing its 
share. We have had our increases over the last 4 years, we have kept 
our commitments to our Nation's students. I would ask all of my 
colleagues today to stand up and support these numbers and support our 
bill.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to say that I react to the 
gentleman's numbers with a touch of humor because the argument he makes 
is similar to the child who kills his parents and then throws himself 
on the mercy of the court because he is an orphan. The fact is if you 
look at the historical record over the last 10 years, if the House 
Republican majority had had its way, we would have appropriated about 
$20 billion less for education over the last 10 years than the Congress 
wound up appropriating. The House Republicans had to be led kicking and 
screaming into supporting the increases which he now tries to claim 
credit for.
  I would point out this is the same Republican majority which tried 10 
years ago to abolish the Department of Education and tried to make 
savage cuts in education 3 years in a row before they finally got 
religion.
  I would also point out that in President Bush's first year, it was 
the Democrats who led the effort to add $4 billion to the President's 
education budget, and I am happy to say we finally persuaded the 
Republican majority to agree with our request.
  If the House Republicans had had their way, $3.4 billion less would 
have been spent on education of the poorest children in America than 
was actually appropriated, and 1 million low-income children would have 
been eliminated from the Title I program; $3.1 billion less would have 
been spent on the education of children with disabilities than was 
actually appropriated if the House Republican majority had its way; 
$524 million less would have been spent on safe and nurturing places 
for children in the after-school hours than was actually appropriated 
if the House Republican majority had its way; and the maximum Pell 
grant would have been smaller in 5 of the last 10 years than the level 
actually approved, again if the House Republican majority had its way.
  So I guess I am willing to accept the fact that the Republicans now 
want to borrow the money that we succeeded in

[[Page H6814]]

putting into the education budget and borrow it so they can make on 
their own competing claims the education budget. I do not much care as 
long as we've got the money.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to find every opportunity 
possible to support more resources in this bill for education, health 
care, and worker protection.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished minority whip.
  (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member for 
yielding me this time.
  I start by reiterating the observation that the ranking member, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), has made. It is very nice to get 
up and say with a chart, this is what we have spent. Those figures are 
undoubtedly accurate. What is not accurate, as the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) so correctly pointed out, was that those were not 
the figures that the Republican House budget proposed in years past. In 
point of fact, when they talk about the 10-year period of time, the 
fight almost every year between the Clinton administration and the 
Republican House and sometimes Senate was that we had not put in 
sufficient funds to meet our obligations as it relates to education, 
Title I and other educational objectives. Invariably, the President got 
his way. So, yes, the figures are higher, but they are not higher 
because the Republican Committee on the Budget proposed them as such.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill, in my opinion, fails to meet the crucial 
priorities that the citizens of this great Nation expect and deserve in 
education, in health care, in medical research, and in many other 
areas, including the promotion of the quality and safety of work in 
America.
  But as I have said before, this is not the fault, and I reiterate, 
not the fault of the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Regula). The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) neither sits on the 
Budget Committee, nor, in my opinion, was he very enthusiastic about 
the Committee on the Budget's product. And it is certainly not the 
fault of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young). As a matter of fact, 
earlier this year the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) made the 
correct observation that the budget was not real, and the numbers 
projected in the budget were insufficient to meet the obligations of 
the Committee on Appropriations to provide for the needs of the 
American people. That was the chairman of our committee speaking.
  Instead, this bill's deficiencies have been caused by the Republican 
majority's irresponsible and unrealistic budget resolution for fiscal 
year 2005. This is not an unusual budget resolution. It is a political 
document, not a fiscal document. It was made for the purposes of making 
political points, not for investing in our people. It abandons fiscal 
discipline and makes crucial investments in the American people 
virtually impossible.
  One would think that, because the Republicans have been in charge and 
they have proposed not spending appropriate funds even though they say 
they are going to, that we would have saved a lot of dollars. But in 
point of fact, as the whole country knows, we have been going deeply 
into debt over the last 40 months. In fact, the President's acceptance 
speech in New York says he wants fiscal restraint, but he has led this 
country, along with the Republican majority in this House and this 
Senate, from a $5.6 trillion surplus to a $3 trillion to $4 trillion 
deficit in 40 months. That is almost a $10 trillion turnaround from 
fiscal responsibility to fiscal irresponsibility in less than 4 years.
  Despite the rhetoric coming from the other side of the aisle, the 
inescapable fact is that this bill underfunds the bipartisan No Child 
Left Behind Act by at least $9.5 billion this year. That is in the 
authorization bill, they imposed a mandate on the States. I supported 
that bill. We want accountability, we want performance, we want quality 
education for every one of our children. We said we are going to 
require you to do certain things, States, but we are going to give you 
resources to help you accomplish those objectives. We are $9.5 billion 
short in that promise, and $25 billion short over the last 3 years, 
short from what the President, in signing the authorization bill, said 
we were going to do.
  Unfortunately, we are falling behind in other areas as well. At a 
time when this Congress and this administration proudly tout the 
doubling of National Institutes of Health just a few years ago, NIH 
today only gets the President's request level. This represents the 
smallest increase in NIH funding in 19 years. As all of our citizens 
know, NIH is charged with the responsibility of finding a cure for 
cancer, making heart disease less fatal, finding a cure for diabetes, 
seeing if we can find how to prevent Alzheimer's disease, and 
responding to the AIDS crisis in this country and around the world.

                              {time}  1300

  We are short-funding those critical efforts that afflict and threaten 
our people. Moreover, it is simply not enough to keep up with the 
medical inflation and will force NIH to lose momentum on the scientific 
progress they gained from the doubling that Republicans and Democrats 
all so proudly talked about.
  In addition, Head Start, a program that Ronald Reagan said was a 
success, George Bush I said it was a success, and Bill Clinton clearly 
said it was a success, is cut by $45 million below the President's 
request. Thousands of children will have no seat in Head Start, 
notwithstanding the fact that we think it works. Ryan White HIV/AIDS 
programs are largely frozen. The maximum Pell grant is frozen. And the 
Department of Labor is slated for an overall cut of $98 million.
  My friends, this bill is insufficient. It may well be better than a 
continuing resolution, but it is insufficient to meet our obligations 
and responsibilities. How sad it is that we pass the people's bill with 
insufficient resources to meet the people's needs.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. One 
comment I would like to make, we are talking about a lot of programs 
here and an effort to improve education, but the bottom line is that 
the real work is done in the classroom. I just want to pay tribute to 
the teachers of America. I think we are so fortunate to have the 
dedicated people that are in the classroom. I have met many of them, as 
have you. As I said earlier, when I ask at a meeting, how many of you 
had a teacher that impacted your life, every hand in the room goes up.
  So what our job is, with programs, provide support for those people 
that are out there and are dedicating their efforts and their lives to 
young people of this Nation, and we should say a big thank you to all 
of them.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I join my colleagues today in 
opposition to H.R. 5006, the LHHS appropriation bill. We know that 
Congress has many priorities to consider during this fiscal year. And 
we implore Congress to make eliminating health and healthcare 
disparities top priorities. This HHS bill, unfortunately, does not 
contain such investment in the health and welfare of Americans nor does 
it demonstrate unwavering commitment to well-being of our citizens, 
including those most in need. With this bill, it is clear that the 
Republicans do not see America's greatest asset is its people, and 
refuse to invest in making its people as strong and healthy as 
possible.
  Let me say at the outset, Mr. Chairman, that this great country of 
ours ranks at the bottom of all of the industrialized countries of the 
world with regard to the quality of our health care system, we are not 
where we should be given our resources in infant mortality, HIV/AIDS, 
immunization, substance abuse and many of the major diseases. In most 
cases the reason is because more than one third of our population 
remains outside of the healthcare mainstream.
  Today almost 45 million Americans are uninsured, of which 50 percent 
are minorities: 18 percent of the total elderly population has no 
coverage at all; 1 out of 6 Americans does not have health insurance; 
more than 100,000 people lose their health insurance every day; and an 
astounding 23 percent of African Americans have no insurance at all.
  Our health care system in this country is currently in peril. It is 
falling short on promise and contributing to the disabling illness and 
premature death of the people it is supposed to serve. The picture is 
the worst for African Americans who for almost every illness are 
impacted most severely and disproportionately--in some cases more than 
all other minorities combined. Every day in this country

[[Page H6815]]

there are at least 200 African American deaths, which could have been 
prevented. Today we know that must of it happens because even when we 
have access to care, the medical evaluations and treatments that are 
made available to everyone else are denied to us--not only in the 
private sector but in the public system as well.
  What I am here to try to do today is to leave you with one indelible 
message: that there are gross inequities in healthcare which cause 
hundreds of preventable deaths in the African American community every 
day and which tear at families, drain the lifeblood of our communities, 
and breed an escalating and reverberating cycle of despair which this 
subcommittee has the power to end this today if it has the will to do 
so.
  The choice if it can be considered that, is either to write off human 
beings--our brothers and sisters--who make up this segment of our 
population, or to make the requisite investment in fixing an 
inadequate, discriminating, dysfunctional health care system.
  The current strongly held-to ``cost-containment'' paradigm, while it 
sounds good on the surface, has obviously not worked. We now have 
double digit increases in premiums in an industry that was to rein in 
its costs. What it did instead was create a multi-tiered system of 
care, both within managed care and without. Those at the lowest rungs 
of the system got sicker, the sicker, i.e. more costly, were and still 
are being dropped, and those who were the sickest were and remain 
locked out entirely. So not only are health care costs continuing to 
escalate, the overall health picture in this country is worse than 
ever.
  What we now have is a system, which continues the failed paradigm in 
which African Americans and other people of color who because they have 
long been denied access to quality health care, now experience the very 
worst health status. Not doing what is needed to change this is to 
threaten the health of not just African Americans and other people of 
color but every other person in this country, especially at a time when 
we live under the cloud of possible bioterrorism.
  Controlling the cost of health care, which can only be done in the 
long term, will never be achieved without a major investment in 
prevention, and leveling the health care playing field for all 
Americans through fully funding a health care system that provides 
equal access to quality, comprehensive health care to everyone legally 
in this country, regardless of color, ethnicity or language.
  The funding requests I am outlining today are the bare minimum to 
ensure that our children have the opportunity for good health, that 
there are health care professionals who can bridge the race, ethnicity 
and language gaps to bring wellness within reach of our now sick and 
dying communities, that states and communities will receive the help to 
fill the gaps and repair the deficiencies of access and services, and 
which will enable the affected communities themselves to take ownership 
of the problems as well as the solutions to their increasing healthcare 
crisis--a crisis that threatens the health and security of all 
Americans. Yet this bill fails to even meet this baseline obligation.
  If we have learned nothing in the last 10 years, we should have 
learned that cost containment strategies in our unequal system of care 
can never bring down healthcare costs. We can only ensure that quality 
health care will be within the reach of future generations if we make a 
major investment in prevention and increasing access to care now.
  On March 20, 2002, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) released a 
landmark report entitled: Unequal Treatment: Confronting Racial and 
Ethnic Disparities in Health Care which was requested by Congressman 
Jackson. Among other key findings, the report documented that 
minorities in the United States receive fewer life-prolonging cardiac 
medications and surgeries, are less likely to receive dialysis and 
kidney transplants, and are less likely to receive adequate treatment 
for pain. Its first and most telling finding states that ``racial and 
ethnic disparities in healthcare exist and, because they are associated 
with worse outcomes in many cases, are unacceptable.''

  And so I urge the committee to give serious and favorable 
consideration to our funding requests. Because of time limitations, let 
me focus on just a few areas contained in the request:
  Sixty-six million dollars for the Office of Minority Health, OS, 
DHHS.
  As the Department of Health and Human Services' (DHHS) lead office 
for improving the health status of racial and ethnic minorities, the 
Office of Minority Health (OMH) conducts and supports health promotion 
and disease prevention programs and activities designed to help reduce 
the high rates of death and disease in communities of color. OMH also 
serves as one of the focal points for the Department's initiative to 
eliminate health disparities. By increasing funding to $20.9 million, 
this office will be able to expand OMH's elimination of health programs 
in prevention, research, education and outreach, capacity building, and 
the development of community infrastructure. The increased funding is 
also needed to fund the State Partnership Initiative Grant Program; 
Cultural and Linguistic Best Practices Studies; State Health Data 
Management; Community Programs to Improve Minority Health Grants; 
Center for Linguistic and Cultural Competence in Health Care; 
Eliminating Obstacles to Participating in Government Programs; 
Technical Assistance to Community Health Program; and Community-Based 
Organization Partnership Prevention Centers.
  Two hundred twenty-five million dollars for the National Center for 
Minority Health and Health Disparities (NCMHD), NIH.
  Funding is needed to develop and implement programs necessary to 
further address minority health and health disparities and to help 
improve the infrastructure associated with this research and outreach. 
In addition, the loan repayment payment must be expanded to include 
master degree graduates from schools of public health and public health 
programs to ensure that efforts to build and disseminate research-based 
health information are intensified. As required, the Center is 
currently developing a strategic plan to guide the Center's efforts. To 
be effective, the plan must include and reflect the direct input of the 
NIH institutes and centers; consumer advocacy groups; the public; 
researchers; professional and scientific organizations; behavioral and 
public health organizations; health care providers; academic 
institutions; and industry. The resulting plan is needed to serve as a 
fundamental blueprint for the Center's activities, as well as a vehicle 
for helping to ensure a coordinated and effective response to minority 
health and health disparities.
  One hundred twenty million dollars for the Racial and Ethnic 
Approaches to Community Health (REACH), National Center for Chronic 
Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, CDC.
  The REACH program is a cornerstone CDC initiative aimed at helping to 
eliminate disparities in health status experienced by ethnic minority 
populations in cardiovascular disease, immunizations, breast and 
cervical cancer screening and management, diabetes, HIV/AIDS and infant 
mortality. The increase is needed to fund additional Phase I planning 
grants, Phase II implementation and evaluation grants, expand and 
enhance technical assistance and training, and apply lessons learned. 
REACH received 211 applications in its first year, but it only had 
enough funding to make 31 awards, leaving a very large number of 
meritorious projects unfunded. REACH must have the resources necessary 
to capitalize on the strengths that national/multi-geographical 
minority organizations can provide the initiative.
  Three hundred million dollars for the Agency for Healthcare Research 
and Quality (AHRQ).
  At a hearing before the Criminal Justice Subcommittee of the 
Government Reform Committee on May 21, 2002, AHRQ Acting Director Dr. 
Carolyn Clancy described the initiatives undertaken by her agency to 
attack health disparities. One of the most important of these is the 
EXCEED program, which funds Centers of Excellence to eliminate health 
disparities in nine cities throughout the country. These include 
efforts to address diabetes care for Native Americans, health 
disparities in cancer among rural African American adults, and 
premature birth in ethnically diverse communities in Harlem, New York. 
According to Dr. Clancy, ``EXCEED encouraged the formation of new 
research relationships as well as building on existing partnerships 
between researchers, professional organizations, and community-based 
organizations instrumental in helping to influence change in local 
communities.''
  The EXCEED program exemplifies the type of initiative recommended by 
the IOM report, which urged ``further research to identify sources of 
racial and ethnic disparities and assess promising intervention 
strategies'' (Recommendation 8-1). Yet the Administration's 2003 budget 
would curtail these efforts. In the budget, total AHRQ funding falls 
from $300 million in 2002 to $251 million in 2003. About $192 million 
of the AHRQ budget is protected from the cutbacks, meaning that $49 
million must be trimmed from the remaining $108 million of spending, a 
46 percent cut. The EXCEED program and other research grants to study 
and reduce health disparities fall into this vulnerable $108 million.
  Increase of $14 million for the U.S. DHHS Office of Civil Rights 
(OCR) and a reworking of authorization language to tie it to disparity 
work U.S. DHHS Office of Civil Rights to enforce civil rights laws.
  Enforcement of regulation and statute is a basic component of a 
comprehensive strategy to address racial and ethnic disparities in 
healthcare, but it has been relegated to low-priority status. The U.S. 
DHHS Office of Civil Rights (OCR) is charged with enforcing several 
relevant federal statutes and regulations that prohibit discrimination 
in healthcare (principally Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act),

[[Page H6816]]

but the agency suffers from insufficient resources to investigate 
complaints of possible violations, and has long abandoned proactive, 
investigative strategies.
  Despite an increasing number of complaints in recent years, funding 
for OCR remained constant in actual dollars from fiscal year 1981 to 
fiscal year 2003, resulting in a 60 percent decline in funding after 
adjusting for inflation. The decrease has severely and negatively 
affected OCR's ability to conduct civil rights enforcement strategies, 
such as on-site complaint investigations, compliance reviews, and local 
community outreach and education. Providing a substantial increasing in 
funding for the Office of Civil Rights is necessary for OCR to resume 
the practice of periodic, proactive investigation, both to collect data 
on the extent of civil rights violations and to provide a deterrent to 
would-be lawbreakers.

  Increased funding for Initiatives for Health Professions Training: 
(1) $40 million for the Health Careers Opportunity Program ($5.2 
million increase); (2) $40 million Minority Centers of Excellence ($7.4 
million increase); (3) $52 million for Scholarships for Disadvantaged 
Students ($5.8 million increase); and (4) $3 million for Faculty Loan 
Repayment and Faculty Fellowships ($1.67 million increase).
  Diversity in the health professions offers numerous benefits, 
including ``increasing the proportion of under represented U.S. racial 
and ethnic minorities among health professionals''. (IOM Report). Such 
efforts were supported by HHS in the past, but now are threatened with 
extinction.
  The spring 1999 issue of the HHS Office of Minority Health's 
newsletter Closing the Gaps focused on the theme of ``Putting the Right 
People in the Right Places.'' The newsletter highlighted the startling 
under representation of ethnic and minority groups within the health 
professions and stressed the important role of three programs: (1) the 
Health Careers Opportunity Program, which trains more than 6,000 high 
school and undergraduate students each year and is associated with 
acceptance rates to health professional schools that are 20 percent 
higher than the national average; (2) the Minority Faculty Fellowships 
Program, which addresses the problem that ``just four percent of 
faculty at U.S. health profession schools are minorities''; and (3) the 
Centers of Excellence Program, which works with Historically Black 
Colleges and Universities and Hispanic Serving Health Professions 
Schools to ``recruit and retrain minority faculty and students, carry 
out research specific to racial and ethnic minorities, provide 
culturally appropriate clinical education, and develop curricula and 
information resources that respond to the needs of minorities.''
  Unfortunately, the very same programs highlighted by HHS in 1999 as 
successful have disappeared from the President's 2004 budget. In fact, 
all of these programs received zero funding or are scheduled for 
elimination.
  To insure that no one is denied necessary health care because of 
race, ethnicity or language, they must have the tools to do their job. 
Bringing equity into our healthcare system demands a funding increase 
for this office.
  Fifty million dollars for Territorial Hospitals and Health 
Departments.
  Mr. Chairman, years of Medicaid caps have and continue to create a 
crisis in the healthcare systems in the offshore territories. To 
address and resolve this, last year I requested that the sum of $50 
million be made available to the secretary for territorial hospitals 
and health departments to close some of their critical health care gaps 
and repair infrastructure deficiencies. I repeat this request again for 
this year's appropriation.
  Because of the Medicaid cap, and a match that is not indexed for 
average income level, both which are Congressionally set, we are unable 
to cover individuals at 100 percent of poverty--for the Virgin Islands 
it is closer to 30 percent below that income level. Under the cap, 
spending per recipient is at best one-fifth of the national average.
  Our hospitals are struggling, because the cap prevents them from 
collecting full payments for the services they provide, and they are 
also unable to collect Disproportionate Share payments, despite the 
fact that about 60 percent of their inpatients are below the poverty 
level. About one-third of these qualify for Medicaid, which as I 
indicated before, never fully reimburses them. The rest of their 
patients have no coverage whatsoever.
  Long-term care is limited, and thus unavailable to persons and their 
families who need it, not because the rooms are not there, but because 
we do not have enough Medicaid dollars to pay for them, even though the 
federal funds are matched 2 to 1 by local dollars--far above our 
requirement. While many states are covering women and their minor 
children well above the 100 percent of poverty, we cannot even come 
close.
  Along with my fellow representatives from Guam, American Samoa and 
Puerto Rico, I have introduced bills to both remove the Medicaid Cap 
as well as, for the first time, provide for the creation of a 
Disproportionate Share payment to our hospitals.

  Our final request, Mr. Chairman, once again deals with the Minority 
HIV/AIDS Initiative. We are here today once again to request funding 
for the full amount of our request for the MAHI in the amount of $610 
million. While our review of the current programs demonstrates the need 
for increased funding, in light of our other requests which all have 
the potential to impact this epidemic to some degree, and the budgetary 
constraints of our government we are requesting a need-based increase 
over our 2002 request of $70 million. We strongly believe that the $610 
million request is absolutely necessary if we are to have any success 
whatsoever in stemming the tide of this epidemic which continues to 
ravage our communities.
  Once again, the purpose of the special and targeted funding is to 
provide technical assistance and to increase the capacity of our own 
communities to administer programs aimed at prevention and treatment, 
and to bolster or build the infrastructure needed to make all life 
saving measures accessible.
  The Minority HIV/AIDS request is not meant to be the total funding 
for communities of color but should be utilized in such a way to better 
enable our communities, that are hard to reach and out of the 
mainstream, to access the $8 billion plus that is available for HIV and 
AIDS.
  It is also important to point out that as serious an issue as it is, 
HIV and AIDS is just one symptom of all that is wrong in our 
communities, many of which come under the purview of this subcommittee. 
This funding will not only be successful in the fight against long term 
HIV and AIDS but also in all other areas, if in the long term the 
underpinnings of our communities are also strengthened.
  There is a critical part of the Minority HIV/AIDS initiative request, 
which does not involve money. It is one of language.
  Mr. Chairman, the intent of the MAHI is to ensure that its funds, 
which are only a small part of overall HIV/AIDS funding, are used to 
build capacity within African American and other communities of color 
which are the ones now being disproportionately impacted. The current 
of the language initiative has not maintained that focus. We are 
therefore requesting that the original FY 1999 language be restored or 
be mirrored, in your 2005 bill, with the following change which I 
believe meets the concerns of the Department with regard to 
discrimination, while empowering our communities which is the only way 
we can effectively control this and the other diseases which create the 
disparities.
  The cost in dollars today will be significant, but the cost in lives 
and to our economy in the future are risks that we must not take.
  There is no question that health disparities are deeply rooted in our 
medical system and in our culture. Eliminating them is going to take a 
lot more than one leadership summit or one media campaign. It will take 
a long-term commitment. It will take a long-term investment.
  Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. once said, ``Of all the forms of 
inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and 
inhumane.'' We have a moral obligation to end injustice in health care 
and health disparities among Americans. I urge my colleagues to support 
this request.
  On behalf of the Congressional Black Caucus, I urge a ``no'' vote on 
the rule and the underlying bill.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, a number of my colleagues 
have stood up today to speak out against various parts of the Labor, 
Health and Human Services and Education appropriations bill. I 
recognize that through our positions as legislators, we have the 
ability to create programs and new initiatives that can benefit our 
constituents and our country. It is within the scope of our job to 
debate which programs deserve particular funding. Appropriations bills 
are Congress' vehicle of funding the public, not for creating 
limitations and barriers for their basic rights afforded by the 
constitution.
  Within this appropriation bill is a provision that effectively 
prohibits a federal agency or program, or State or local government, 
from enforcing any abortion-related laws or regulations as they apply 
to health care entities. ``Healthcare entity'' is defined to include 
individual physicians or other health care professionals, hospitals, 
provider-sponsored organizations, HMOs, insurance plans, or ``any kind 
of health care facility, organization, or plan.'' This ``refusal 
clause'' permits a broad range of individuals and institutions--
including hospitals, hospital employees, health care providers, 
employers, and insurers--to refuse to provide, pay, counsel or even 
issue referrals for medical treatment based on their moral or religious 
views.
  Refusal clauses affect a broad range of reproductive services, 
including: information and referrals for family planning, genetic 
counseling, infertility treatment, rape treatment, sterilization, STD 
and HIV testing and treatment and abortion.
  Doctors and health care providers have a duty to ensure that women 
receive accurate

[[Page H6817]]

information and appropriate care. Failure to provide this care--even 
for religious, political or ideological reasons--jeopardizes women's 
health and violates bedrock principles of medical ethics.


                        obey overtime amendment

  I would like to join many of my Democratic colleagues in supporting 
Mr. Obey's amendment to restore overtime protection to the millions of 
workers who will otherwise lose it if the Bush administration 
regulation that went into effect on August 23 is allowed to remain in 
effect.
  Workers who are likely to see their pay cut include 2.3 million 
``team'' leaders; almost 2 million low-level supervisors; hundreds of 
thousands of loan officers and other financial service employees; more 
than 1 million employees who lack college or graduate degrees or who 
may not be considered ``artistic'' professionals; 90,000 computer 
employees, funeral directors and embalmers; and more than 30,000 
nursery school and Head Start teachers across the country.
  Those families that lose overtime protection will find they will have 
to work longer hours for significantly less money. Overtime accounted 
for approximately a quarter of the income, more than $8,000 a year, for 
families who earned overtime in 2000. As the pool of workers who are 
exempt from overtime is expanded, those workers who are not directly 
affected by the regulation will lose income as their opportunity to be 
able to work overtime is diminished.
  The Bush administration has justified the regulation on the basis of 
a proposed clarification of the rules and limitation on litigation; 
however, virtually every observer of the regulation has acknowledged 
that the regulations will incorporate vague new terms, that provisions 
of the regulation are confusing and conflicting, and that the 
regulation will engender substantial litigation for years to come.
  I will offer two amendments to this legislation that would address 
the horrific effects of hepatitis C and lupus--the silent killer.
  The purpose of the Jackson-Lee amendment relating to hepatitis C is 
to increase the research activities at the Centers for Disease Control 
for patients who are particularly at risk for the disease or resistant 
to conventional treatments--African-Americans, children and 
adolescents, renal dialysis patients, HIV/HCV positive patients, and 
patients with hemophilia. Because hepatitis C is a communicable 
disease, I believe this is an important step in getting this public 
health issue under control.
  Back in June of this year, I joined the ``Hepatitis C Movement for 
Awareness'' to call for a more aggressive, and better informed, 
national approach to the hepatitis C epidemic in the United States. 
Hepatitis C infects 300 million people worldwide, including over 5.8 
million Americans. Only 20 percent of those infected know they are 
infected, and scientists are still unsure how the virus is spread, or 
who is most likely to be infected. This deadly epidemic cannot be 
ignored any longer. We need action. I commend the Hepatitis C Movement 
for Awareness for its tenacity and energy in galvanizing in Washington 
to make its case for change.
  The second of my amendments relates to addressing the silent killer, 
lupus. The purpose of this amendment is twofold. First the amendment 
transfers $1,500,000 to the account of NIH's National Center on 
Minority Health to increase educational programs on Lupus for health 
care providers and for the general public. I believe that this will 
help to facilitate the diagnosis of lupus today--particularly among 
susceptible populations. Second, I am proposing to transfer $2,500,000 
to the Centers for Disease Control to expand the operation of the 
National Lupus Patient Registry. There are presently four pilot 
registry programs operating in Michigan and in Georgia. These pilot 
programs have been a good start, but additional data is needed to 
distinguish between environmental and other factors that cause Lupus.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the two Jackson-Lee 
amendments. I hope that the deficiencies that relate to the treatment 
of hepatitis C and lupus can be addressed in conference.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to urge my colleague to oppose 
the previous question on H.R. 5006, the FY 2005 Labor-HHS-Education 
Appropriations bill in order that we could get an opportunity to debate 
an amendment by Ranking Member Obey which the majority on the Rules 
Committee refused to make in order. The Obey amendment would add $7.4 
billion to the GOP bill, paid for by reducing the average tax cut for 
millionaires in FY 2005 from $127,000 to $89,000.
  As a physician and the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus' 
Health Braintrust, I am particularly supportive of the amendment's 
proposed to add additional funds for health care. The amendment would 
increase health care and funding by $1.1 billion, including providing 
$500 million for critical investments in medical research at NIH; 
providing $333 million for maintaining access to health care, including 
restoring the Community Acess Program for the Uninsured, eliminated by 
the Republican bill, increasing funding for rural health, and 
increasing funding for the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant and 
Healthy Start; and providing $100 million for childhood immunization 
and infectious disease programs.
  Conversely, the majority bill shortchanges health care programs in 
some critical ways. It cuts rural health care activities by 21 percent 
from FY 2004. It cuts helath care professions trading by 8 percent. It 
cuts public and preventative health activities by 18 percent. And it 
only provides a piddling 4.6 percent increase in HIV/AIDS programs for 
the second year in a row.
  My colleagues the majority bill clearly demonstrates that their 
rhetoric about supporting the middle class and families are not 
reflected in the legislation they propose. Democrats on the other hand 
have consistently fought on behalf of programs that would strengthen 
the middle class and families.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question and support the 
Obey substitute.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker an important and necessary provision is included in the 
bill that is intended to protect health care entities from 
discrimination because they choose not to provide abortion services.
  The amendment, adopted during full committee consideration, is 
intended to protect the decisions of physicians, nurses, clinics, 
hospitals, medical centers, and even health insurance providers from 
being forced by the government to provide, refer or pay for abortions.
  This is reasonable federal policy and one that was overwhelmingly 
approved by this very body by a vote of 229-189.
  The policy simply states that health care entities should not be 
forced to provide elective abortion--a practice to which a majority of 
health care providers object and which they will not perform as a 
matter of conscience.
  But while 45 States and the Federal Government protect the right of 
health care provider to decline involvement in abortion, abortion 
advocates are working to abolish these legal protections.
  Abortion advocates have launched a campaign to force hospitals and 
other health care entities to provide, refer, and pay for abortions.
  They argue that the term ``health care entity'' only covers 
individuals and not institutions. They have also argued that because an 
entity receives Federal funds they are required to provide abortions. 
By twisting the law they have successfully used the courts and State 
and local governments to violate the objections to abortions of health 
care entities and providers.
  This is why we need to strengthen Federal protections against 
discrimination based on objections to abortion.
  The right of conscience is fundamental to our American freedoms. We 
should guarantee this freedom by protecting all health care providers 
from being required to perform, refer, or pay for elective abortions.
  I urge my colleagues to support the language in the bill and support 
its passage.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to show my support for the 
Community Services Block Grant, CSBG. CSBG funds the anti-poverty 
community action agencies and family self-sufficiency efforts of a 
nationwide network of 1,100 community agencies. These organizations 
create, coordinate, and deliver comprehensive programs and services to 
as many as 27 percent of all people living in poverty in the United 
States.
  Total Action Against Poverty is a community action agency whose 
service area includes Virginia's Sixth Congressional District, which I 
represent. This agency offers more than 31 programs in housing, 
education, employment, training, rehabilitation, community development, 
neighborhood organization, child care, and family development.
  The Community Services Block Grant provides flexible funding that 
enables community action agencies to pursue comprehensive, innovative 
approaches to help low-income Americans achieve self-sufficiency.
  The demand for community action agencies' services among impoverished 
individuals and families has not abated and, in fact, continues to 
grow.
  Demand for core emergency CAA services, including food banks, 
clothing, emergency shelter, and utility assistance, continues to 
increase dramatically.
  One of Total Action Against Poverty's programs offers a diverse array 
of education and training programs for low-income, unemployed, and 
underemployed adults residing in the Roanoke Valley Alleghany Regional 
Planning District. The centerpiece of this initiative is the Center for 
Employment Training, CET, which provides individualized training 
tailored to enhance competitiveness in the local workforce. Local 
businesses help develop training and curricula, and facilitate the 
hiring of CET graduates.

[[Page H6818]]

  I support the work and the difference that this agency, one of many 
like it across the U.S., is doing to make a difference in my district. 
I encourage my colleagues to support the Community Service Block Grant 
in the Labor-HHS bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord 
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has 
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those 
amendments will be considered read.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 5006

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     That the following sums are appropriated, out of any money in 
     the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the Departments 
     of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and 
     related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2005, and for other purposes, namely:

                      TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

                 Employment and Training Administration

                    Training and Employment Services


                         (Including rescission)

       For necessary expenses of the Workforce Investment Act of 
     1998, including the purchase and hire of passenger motor 
     vehicles, the construction, alteration, and repair of 
     buildings and other facilities, and the purchase of real 
     property for training centers as authorized by such Act, 
     $2,649,728,000 plus reimbursements; of which $1,642,442,000 
     is available for obligation for the period July 1, 2005, 
     through June 30, 2006, except that amounts determined by the 
     Secretary of Labor to be necessary pursuant to sections 
     173(a)(4)(A) and 174(c) of such Act shall be available from 
     October 1, 2004, until expended; of which $1,000,965,000 is 
     available for obligation for the period April 1, 2005, 
     through June 30, 2006, to carry out chapter 4 of such Act; 
     and of which $6,321,000 is available for the period July 1, 
     2005, through June 30, 2008, for necessary expenses of 
     construction, rehabilitation, and acquisition of Job Corps 
     centers: Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, of the funds provided herein under section 137(c) of 
     such Act, $301,227,000 shall be for activities described in 
     section 132(a)(2)(A) of such Act, and $1,178,192,000 shall be 
     for activities described in section 132(a)(2)(B) of such Act: 
     Provided further, That $8,000,000 shall be for carrying out 
     section 172 of such Act: Provided further, That, 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law or related 
     regulation, $76,874,000 shall be for carrying out section 167 
     of such Act, including $71,787,000 for formula grants, 
     $4,583,000 for migrant and seasonal housing (of which not 
     less than 70 percent shall be for permanent housing), and 
     $504,000 for other discretionary purposes: Provided further, 
     That notwithstanding the transfer limitation under section 
     133(b)(4) of such Act, up to 30 percent of such funds may be 
     transferred by a local board if approved by the Governor: 
     Provided further, That funds provided to carry out section 
     171(d) of such Act may be used for demonstration projects 
     that provide assistance to new entrants in the workforce and 
     incumbent workers: Provided further, That no funds from any 
     other appropriation shall be used to provide meal services at 
     or for Job Corps centers.
       For necessary expenses of the Workforce Investment Act of 
     1998, including the purchase and hire of passenger motor 
     vehicles, the construction, alteration, and repair of 
     buildings and other facilities, and the purchase of real 
     property for training centers as authorized by such Act; 
     $2,463,000,000 plus reimbursements, of which $2,363,000,000 
     is available for obligation for the period October 1, 2005, 
     through June 30, 2006, and of which $100,000,000 is available 
     for the period October 1, 2005, through June 30, 2008, for 
     necessary expenses of construction, rehabilitation, and 
     acquisition of Job Corps centers.
       Of the unobligated funds contained in the H-1 B 
     Nonimmigrant Petitioner Account that are available to the 
     Secretary of Labor pursuant to section 286(s)(2) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1356(s)(2)), 
     $100,000,000 are rescinded.


            community service employment for older americans

       To carry out title V of the Older Americans Act of 1965, as 
     amended, $440,200,000.

              Federal Unemployment Benefits and Allowances

       For payments during the current fiscal year of trade 
     adjustment benefit payments and allowances under part I and 
     section 246; and for training, allowances for job search and 
     relocation, and related State administrative expenses under 
     part II of chapter 2, title II of the Trade Act of 1974 
     (including the benefits and services described under sections 
     123(c)(2) and 151 (b) and (c) of the Trade Adjustment 
     Assistance Reform Act of 2002, Public Law 107-210), 
     $1,057,300,000, together with such amounts as may be 
     necessary to be charged to the subsequent appropriation for 
     payments for any period subsequent to September 15 of the 
     current year.

     State Unemployment Insurance and Employment Service Operations

       For authorized administrative expenses, $141,934,000, 
     together with not to exceed $3,440,914,000 (including not to 
     exceed $1,228,000 which may be used for amortization payments 
     to States which had independent retirement plans in their 
     State employment service agencies prior to 1980), which may 
     be expended from the Employment Security Administration 
     Account in the Unemployment Trust Fund including the cost of 
     administering section 51 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986, as amended, section 7(d) of the Wagner-Peyser Act, as 
     amended, the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, the Immigration 
     Act of 1990, and the Immigration and Nationality Act, as 
     amended, and of which the sums available in the allocation 
     for activities authorized by title III of the Social Security 
     Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 502-504), and the sums available 
     in the allocation for necessary administrative expenses for 
     carrying out 5 U.S.C. 8501-8523, shall be available for 
     obligation by the States through December 31, 2005, except 
     that funds used for automation acquisitions shall be 
     available for obligation by the States through September 30, 
     2007; of which $141,934,000, together with not to exceed 
     $672,700,000 of the amount which may be expended from said 
     trust fund, shall be available for obligation for the period 
     July 1, 2005, through June 30, 2006, to fund activities under 
     the Act of June 6, 1933, as amended, including the cost of 
     penalty mail authorized under 39 U.S.C. 3202(a)(1)(E) made 
     available to States in lieu of allotments for such purpose: 
     Provided, That to the extent that the Average Weekly Insured 
     Unemployment (AWIU) for fiscal year 2005 is projected by the 
     Department of Labor to exceed 3,327,000, an additional 
     $28,600,000 shall be available for obligation for every 
     100,000 increase in the AWIU level (including a pro rata 
     amount for any increment less than 100,000) from the 
     Employment Security Administration Account of the 
     Unemployment Trust Fund: Provided further, That funds 
     appropriated in this Act which are used to establish a 
     national one-stop career center system, or which are used to 
     support the national activities of the Federal-State 
     unemployment insurance or immigration programs, may be 
     obligated in contracts, grants or agreements with non-State 
     entities: Provided further, That funds appropriated under 
     this Act for activities authorized under the Wagner-Peyser 
     Act, as amended, and title III of the Social Security Act, 
     may be used by the States to fund integrated Employment 
     Service and Unemployment Insurance automation efforts, 
     notwithstanding cost allocation principles prescribed under 
     Office of Management and Budget Circular A-87.

        Advances to the Unemployment Trust Fund and Other Funds

       For repayable advances to the Unemployment Trust Fund as 
     authorized by sections 905(d) and 1203 of the Social Security 
     Act, as amended, and to the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund 
     as authorized by section 9501(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1954, as amended; and for nonrepayable advances to 
     the Unemployment Trust Fund as authorized by section 8509 of 
     title 5, United States Code, and to the ``Federal 
     unemployment benefits and allowances'' account, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2006, $517,000,000.
       In addition, for making repayable advances to the Black 
     Lung Disability Trust Fund in the current fiscal year after 
     September 15, 2005, for costs incurred by the Black Lung 
     Disability Trust Fund in the current fiscal year, such sums 
     as may be necessary.

                         Program Administration

       For expenses of administering employment and training 
     programs, $111,375,000, together with not to exceed 
     $57,479,000 which may be expended from the Employment 
     Security Administration Account in the Unemployment Trust 
     Fund.

               Employee Benefits Security Administration


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses for the Employee Benefits Security 
     Administration, $132,345,000.

                  Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation


               Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation Fund

       The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation is authorized to 
     make such expenditures, including financial assistance 
     authorized by section 104 of Public Law 96-364, within limits 
     of funds and borrowing authority available to such 
     Corporation, and in accord with law, and to make such 
     contracts and commitments without regard to fiscal year 
     limitations as provided by section 104 of the Government 
     Corporation Control Act, as amended (31 U.S.C. 9104), as may 
     be necessary in carrying out the program, including 
     associated administrative expenses, through September 30, 
     2005, for such Corporation: Provided, That none of the funds 
     available to the Corporation for fiscal year 2005 shall be 
     available for obligations for administrative expenses in 
     excess of $266,330,000: Provided further, That obligations in 
     excess of such amount may be incurred after approval by the 
     Office of Management and Budget and the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House and Senate.

                  Employment Standards Administration


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses for the Employment Standards 
     Administration, including

[[Page H6819]]

     reimbursement to State, Federal, and local agencies and their 
     employees for inspection services rendered, $400,797,000, 
     together with $2,021,000 which may be expended from the 
     Special Fund in accordance with sections 39(c), 44(d) and 
     44(j) of the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act: 
     Provided, That $1,250,000 shall be for the development of an 
     alternative system for the electronic submission of reports 
     required to be filed under the Labor-Management Reporting and 
     Disclosure Act of 1959, as amended, and for a computer 
     database of the information for each submission by whatever 
     means, that is indexed and easily searchable by the public 
     via the Internet: Provided further, That the Secretary of 
     Labor is authorized to accept, retain, and spend, until 
     expended, in the name of the Department of Labor, all sums of 
     money ordered to be paid to the Secretary of Labor, in 
     accordance with the terms of the Consent Judgment in Civil 
     Action No. 91-0027 of the United States District Court for 
     the District of the Northern Mariana Islands (May 21, 1992): 
     Provided further, That the Secretary of Labor is authorized 
     to establish and, in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3302, collect 
     and deposit in the Treasury fees for processing applications 
     and issuing certificates under sections 11(d) and 14 of the 
     Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended (29 U.S.C. 
     211(d) and 214) and for processing applications and issuing 
     registrations under title I of the Migrant and Seasonal 
     Agricultural Worker Protection Act (29 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.).

                            Special Benefits


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the payment of compensation, benefits, and expenses 
     (except administrative expenses) accruing during the current 
     or any prior fiscal year authorized by title 5, chapter 81 of 
     the United States Code; continuation of benefits as provided 
     for under the heading ``Civilian War Benefits'' in the 
     Federal Security Agency Appropriation Act, 1947; the 
     Employees' Compensation Commission Appropriation Act, 1944; 
     sections 4(c) and 5(f) of the War Claims Act of 1948 (50 
     U.S.C. App. 2012); and 50 percent of the additional 
     compensation and benefits required by section 10(h) of the 
     Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, as amended, 
     $233,000,000, together with such amounts as may be necessary 
     to be charged to the subsequent year appropriation for the 
     payment of compensation and other benefits for any period 
     subsequent to August 15 of the current year: Provided, That 
     amounts appropriated may be used under section 8104 of title 
     5, United States Code, by the Secretary of Labor to reimburse 
     an employer, who is not the employer at the time of injury, 
     for portions of the salary of a reemployed, disabled 
     beneficiary: Provided further, That balances of 
     reimbursements unobligated on September 30, 2004, shall 
     remain available until expended for the payment of 
     compensation, benefits, and expenses: Provided further, That 
     in addition there shall be transferred to this appropriation 
     from the Postal Service and from any other corporation or 
     instrumentality required under section 8147(c) of title 5, 
     United States Code, to pay an amount for its fair share of 
     the cost of administration, such sums as the Secretary 
     determines to be the cost of administration for employees of 
     such fair share entities through September 30, 2005: Provided 
     further, That of those funds transferred to this account from 
     the fair share entities to pay the cost of administration of 
     the Federal Employees' Compensation Act, $39,668,000 shall be 
     made available to the Secretary as follows:
       (1) for enhancement and maintenance of automated data 
     processing systems and telecommunications systems, 
     $12,351,000;
       (2) for automated workload processing operations, including 
     document imaging, centralized mail intake and medical bill 
     processing, $14,221,000;
       (3) for periodic roll management and medical review, 
     $13,096,000; and
       (4) the remaining funds shall be paid into the Treasury as 
     miscellaneous receipts:

     Provided further, That the Secretary may require that any 
     person filing a notice of injury or a claim for benefits 
     under chapter 81 of title 5, United States Code, or 33 U.S.C. 
     901 et seq., provide as part of such notice and claim, such 
     identifying information (including Social Security account 
     number) as such regulations may prescribe.

               Special Benefits for Disabled Coal Miners

       For carrying out title IV of the Federal Mine Safety and 
     Health Act of 1977, as amended by Public Law 107-275, (the 
     ``Act''), $276,000,000, to remain available until expended.
       For making after July 31 of the current fiscal year, 
     benefit payments to individuals under title IV of the Act, 
     for costs incurred in the current fiscal year, such amounts 
     as may be necessary.
       For making benefit payments under title IV for the first 
     quarter of fiscal year 2006, $81,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended.


    administrative expenses, energy employees occupational illness 
                           compensation fund

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses to administer the Energy Employees 
     Occupational Illness Compensation Act, $40,821,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That the Secretary of 
     Labor is authorized to transfer to any executive agency with 
     authority under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness 
     Compensation Act, including within the Department of Labor, 
     such sums as may be necessary in fiscal year 2005 to carry 
     out those authorities: Provided further, That the Secretary 
     may require that any person filing a claim for benefits under 
     the Act provide as part of such claim, such identifying 
     information (including Social Security account number) as may 
     be prescribed.

                    Black Lung Disability Trust Fund


                     (including transfer of funds)

       In fiscal year 2005 and thereafter, such sums as may be 
     necessary from the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund, to 
     remain available until expended, for payment of all benefits 
     authorized by section 9501(d)(1), (2), (4), and (7) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended; and interest on 
     advances, as authorized by section 9501(c)(2) of that Act. In 
     addition, the following amounts shall be available from the 
     Fund for fiscal year 2005 for expenses of operation and 
     administration of the Black Lung Benefits program, as 
     authorized by section 9501(d)(5): $32,646,000 for transfer to 
     the Employment Standards Administration, ``Salaries and 
     Expenses''; $23,705,000 for transfer to Departmental 
     Management, ``Salaries and Expenses''; $342,000 for transfer 
     to Departmental Management, ``Office of Inspector General''; 
     and $356,000 for payments into miscellaneous receipts for the 
     expenses of the Department of the Treasury.

             Occupational Safety and Health Administration


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses for the Occupational Safety and 
     Health Administration, $461,599,000, including not to exceed 
     $91,747,000 which shall be the maximum amount available for 
     grants to States under section 23(g) of the Occupational 
     Safety and Health Act (the ``Act''), which grants shall be no 
     less than 50 percent of the costs of State occupational 
     safety and health programs required to be incurred under 
     plans approved by the Secretary under section 18 of the Act; 
     and, in addition, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, the 
     Occupational Safety and Health Administration may retain up 
     to $750,000 per fiscal year of training institute course 
     tuition fees, otherwise authorized by law to be collected, 
     and may utilize such sums for occupational safety and health 
     training and education grants: Provided, That, 
     notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, the Secretary of Labor is 
     authorized, during the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, 
     to collect and retain fees for services provided to 
     Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratories, and may utilize 
     such sums, in accordance with the provisions of 29 U.S.C. 9a, 
     to administer national and international laboratory 
     recognition programs that ensure the safety of equipment and 
     products used by workers in the workplace: Provided further, 
     That none of the funds appropriated under this paragraph 
     shall be obligated or expended to prescribe, issue, 
     administer, or enforce any standard, rule, regulation, or 
     order under the Act which is applicable to any person who is 
     engaged in a farming operation which does not maintain a 
     temporary labor camp and employs 10 or fewer employees: 
     Provided further, That no funds appropriated under this 
     paragraph shall be obligated or expended to administer or 
     enforce any standard, rule, regulation, or order under the 
     Act with respect to any employer of 10 or fewer employees who 
     is included within a category having a Days Away, Restricted, 
     or Transferred (DART) occupational injury and illness rate, 
     at the most precise industrial classification code for which 
     such data are published, less than the national average rate 
     as such rates are most recently published by the Secretary, 
     acting through the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in accordance 
     with section 24 of that Act (29 U.S.C. 673), except--
       (1) to provide, as authorized by such Act, consultation, 
     technical assistance, educational and training services, and 
     to conduct surveys and studies;
       (2) to conduct an inspection or investigation in response 
     to an employee complaint, to issue a citation for violations 
     found during such inspection, and to assess a penalty for 
     violations which are not corrected within a reasonable 
     abatement period and for any willful violations found;
       (3) to take any action authorized by such Act with respect 
     to imminent dangers;
       (4) to take any action authorized by such Act with respect 
     to health hazards;
       (5) to take any action authorized by such Act with respect 
     to a report of an employment accident which is fatal to one 
     or more employees or which results in hospitalization of two 
     or more employees, and to take any action pursuant to such 
     investigation authorized by such Act; and
       (6) to take any action authorized by such Act with respect 
     to complaints of discrimination against employees for 
     exercising rights under such Act:

     Provided further, That the foregoing proviso shall not apply 
     to any person who is engaged in a farming operation which 
     does not maintain a temporary labor camp and employs 10 or 
     fewer employees: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     appropriated under this paragraph shall be obligated or 
     expended to administer or enforce the provisions of 29 CFR 
     1910.134(f)(2) (General Industry Respiratory Protection 
     Standard) to the extent that such provisions require the 
     annual fit testing (after the initial fit testing) of 
     respirators for occupational exposure to tuberculosis.

[[Page H6820]]

            Amendment Offered by Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut

  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut:

     Amendment to Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education 
                 Appropriations Bill, 2005, as Reported

                 Offered by Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut

       In title I, in the item relating to Occupational Health and 
     Safety Administration, after the aggregate dollar amount 
     insert the following: ``(reduced by $25,000,000)''.
       In title II, in the item relating to Office of the 
     Secretary, after the aggregate dollar amount insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $25,000,000)''.
       In title II, in the item relating to Office of the 
     Secretary, after the fourth dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $25,000,000)''.

  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support 
of my amendment to accelerate the adoption of health information 
technology and to improve health care quality for all Americans, 
significantly reduce preventable medical errors, and rein in rising 
health care costs. My amendment would add $25 million to the Department 
of Health and Human Services to advance health information technology. 
This meets the Secretary's budget request to fund State, regional or 
local grants to develop health systems that coordinate with each other. 
This funding will also help unleash our creativity through grants to 
foster innovative information technologies that improve health care.
  Mr. Chairman, this President and this Secretary of Health and Human 
Services, Tommy Thompson, have provided remarkable, aggressive, and 
visionary leadership to bring America's health care system into the 
21st century, to improve the quality of care available to all 
Americans, and to dramatically reduce administrative costs, medical 
errors, duplicate testing, duplicate record keeping, and address all 
those aspects of our health care system that have already been 
identified by the Institute of Medicine as being the source of poor-
quality care and an enormous health care cost.
  At this moment, with health care costs rising at an extraordinary 
rate, pressing premiums up for everyone, including our seniors under 
part B, we must push forward to develop interoperable electronic health 
records, e-prescribing and all those other applications of modern 
information technology to our health sector. It is indeed bizarre that 
other sectors of the economy, manufacturing, banking, many other 
sectors, are far ahead of the health care sector in integrating, 
absorbing, using and exploiting information technology to both improve 
the quality of operations in those sectors and the quality of the 
product as an outcome. Information technology will dramatically improve 
the quality of health care available to all Americans and holds out the 
promise of reducing costs tremendously.
  For example, health information technology will reduce medical errors 
which account for 44,000 to 98,000 deaths annually, more than motor 
vehicle accidents, breast cancer, or AIDS. It will reduce known medical 
errors that cost $30 billion to $35 billion annually. Health IT will 
save $5.4 billion a year annually that is spent on unnecessary services 
because tests or second opinions cannot be located. It will also 
eliminate costly defensive medical practices which account for as much 
as $108 billion in unnecessary health care costs each year. Health IT 
will allow physicians to detect negative drug interactions which result 
in 7,000 deaths each year.
  My friends in this body, we must do everything we possibly can to 
back Secretary Thompson and this President in moving health information 
technology into our health care sector as rapidly as possible. These 
innovative grants, the work that they are doing to establish standards, 
the pressure they are putting on the private sector to develop 
interoperable technologies is all exactly what needs to happen; and it 
is my hope that we will be able to accomplish the goal of this 
amendment, to provide the full $50 million that the new office, of 
which Dr. Brailer is now the head as the national coordinator of 
information technology, that their full budget allocation request can 
be fulfilled.
  I have talked with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) about this. 
Rather than pursuing this amendment further, I am going to withdraw it. 
But I did want to stress how important it is that we back this office 
with its full dollar amount. I hope that in the course of the 
development of this bill, that that goal will be fulfilled.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I commend 
the gentlewoman for what she is trying to do here. My concern is that 
if we diminish OSHA's impact, we will have more people going into the 
hospital. Part of the objective of OSHA is to have safety in the 
workplace and get fewer people in. I think her desire to improve the 
quality programs that are embodied in the amendment here, we will be 
sensitive to this in conference. We have no idea what the other body's 
bill is going to look like and where the emphasis is going to be. I 
appreciate the fact that the gentlewoman will withdraw her amendment, 
but we will keep this very much in mind.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. I thank the chairman very much for his 
comments.
  Mr. Chairman, I also want to say both to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Regula) and also to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) that you 
have brought forward for this body a very fine, balanced bill in a 
difficult era. The money that you have put into critical health care 
activities that the Federal Government funds, like the children's 
hospitals and also into public education as well as job training and a 
number of other areas is really a tribute to the kind of thoughtful 
leadership that this body is capable of.
  I do withdraw my amendment, recognizing the importance and value of 
OSHA, and I appreciate your willingness to look at this critical 
function as you move this bill toward its final conclusion.
  Mr. REGULA. I thank the gentlewoman for her contribution.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                 Mine Safety and Health Administration


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses for the Mine Safety and Health 
     Administration, $275,567,000, including purchase and bestowal 
     of certificates and trophies in connection with mine rescue 
     and first-aid work, and the hire of passenger motor vehicles; 
     in addition, not to exceed $750,000 may be collected by the 
     National Mine Health and Safety Academy for room, board, 
     tuition, and the sale of training materials, otherwise 
     authorized by law to be collected, to be available for mine 
     safety and health education and training activities, 
     notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302; and, in addition, the Mine 
     Safety and Health Administration may retain up to $1,000,000 
     from fees collected for the approval and certification of 
     equipment, materials, and explosives for use in mines, and 
     may utilize such sums for such activities; the Secretary is 
     authorized to accept lands, buildings, equipment, and other 
     contributions from public and private sources and to 
     prosecute projects in cooperation with other agencies, 
     Federal, State, or private; the Mine Safety and Health 
     Administration is authorized to promote health and safety 
     education and training in the mining community through 
     cooperative programs with States, industry, and safety 
     associations; and any funds available to the department may 
     be used, with the approval of the Secretary, to provide for 
     the costs of mine rescue and survival operations in the event 
     of a major disaster.

                       Bureau of Labor Statistics


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses for the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 
     including advances or reimbursements to State, Federal, and 
     local agencies and their employees for services rendered, 
     $455,045,000, together with not to exceed $78,473,000, which 
     may be expended from the Employment Security Administration 
     Account in the Unemployment Trust Fund.

                 Office of Disability Employment Policy


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses for the Office of Disability 
     Employment Policy to provide leadership, develop policy and 
     initiatives, and award grants furthering the objective of 
     eliminating barriers to the training and employment of people 
     with disabilities, $47,555,000.

                        Departmental Management


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses for Departmental Management, 
     including the hire of three sedans, and including the 
     management or operation, through contracts, grants or other 
     arrangements of Departmental activities conducted by or 
     through the Bureau of International Labor Affairs, including 
     bilateral

[[Page H6821]]

     and multilateral technical assistance and other international 
     labor activities, $264,653,000, of which, $7,000,000 to 
     remain available until September 30, 2006, is for Frances 
     Perkins Building Security enhancements, and $30,000,000 is 
     for the acquisition of Departmental information technology, 
     architecture, infrastructure, equipment, software, and 
     related needs, which will be allocated by the Department's 
     Chief Information Officer in accordance with the Department's 
     capital investment management process to assure a sound 
     investment strategy, together with not to exceed $314,000, 
     which may be expended from the Employment Security 
     Administration Account in the Unemployment Trust Fund: 
     Provided, That no funds made available by this Act may be 
     used by the Solicitor of Labor to participate in a review in 
     any United States court of appeals of any decision made by 
     the Benefits Review Board under section 21 of the Longshore 
     and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 921) where 
     such participation is precluded by the decision of the United 
     States Supreme Court in Director, Office of Workers' 
     Compensation Programs v. Newport News Shipbuilding, 115 S. 
     Ct. 1278 (1995), notwithstanding any provisions to the 
     contrary contained in Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of 
     Appellate Procedure: Provided further, That no funds made 
     available by this Act may be used by the Secretary of Labor 
     to review a decision under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' 
     Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 901 et seq.) that has been 
     appealed and that has been pending before the Benefits Review 
     Board for more than 12 months: Provided further, That any 
     such decision pending a review by the Benefits Review Board 
     for more than 1 year shall be considered affirmed by the 
     Benefits Review Board on the 1-year anniversary of the filing 
     of the appeal, and shall be considered the final order of the 
     Board for purposes of obtaining a review in the United States 
     courts of appeals: Provided further, That these provisions 
     shall not be applicable to the review or appeal of any 
     decision issued under the Black Lung Benefits Act (30 U.S.C. 
     901 et seq.).


                    veterans employment and training

        Not to exceed $194,098,000 may be derived from the 
     Employment Security Administration Account in the 
     Unemployment Trust Fund to carry out the provisions of 38 
     U.S.C. 4100-4110A, 4212, 4214, and 4321-4327, and Public Law 
     103-353, and which shall be available for obligation by the 
     States through December 31, 2005, of which $2,000,000 is for 
     the National Veterans' Employment and Training Services 
     Institute. To carry out the Homeless Veterans Reintegration 
     Programs (38 U.S.C. 2021) and the Veterans Workforce 
     Investment Programs (29 U.S.C. 2913), $26,550,000 of which 
     $7,550,000 shall be available for obligation for the period 
     July 1, 2005, through June 30, 2006.

                              {time}  1315


               Amendment Offered by Ms. Hooley of Oregon

  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Hooley of Oregon:
       In title I, in the item relating to ``Departmental 
     Management--veterans employment and training'', after the 
     aggregate dollar amount, insert the following: ``(increased 
     by $5,000,000)''.

       In title II, in the item relating to ``Office of the 
     Secretary--general departmental management'', after the 
     aggregate dollar amount, insert the following: ``(reduced by 
     $5,000,000)''.

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentlewoman has a good 
amendment here. We are prepared to accept this, and I think in light of 
all the circumstances, the need for veterans' employment and training 
is growing, and, therefore, I think this is a very positive amendment, 
and we would be willing to accept it at this point.
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for 
accepting the amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, we also would be happy to accept it on this 
side of the aisle. It is a good amendment.
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, just very briefly, this is so our 
Guard and Reserves can go back to the job they left when they went 
overseas. The men and women of our Armed Forces fought for their 
country. They should not have to fight for their jobs when they return 
home, and I thank them for accepting the amendment.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hooley 
amendment.
  All of us are incredibly grateful to the men and women of our armed 
forces, including members of the National Guard and Reserves. Thousands 
of our Guard members and Reserves have been activated, taking them away 
not only from their families, but from their jobs, as well.
  The Hooley amendment provides $5 million to the Department of Labor 
Veteran's Employment and Training Program, specifically for a 
nationwide campaign to educate America's employers about the Uniformed 
Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA).
  USERRA spells out the responsibilities of employers of members of the 
National Guard and Reserve, and it explains the employment rights of 
those members. However, many employees and employers do not know about 
USERRA.
  Mr. Chairman, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has estimated that 70 
percent of military reservists called to active-duty work in small or 
medium-size companies.
  In response, I introduced H.R. 4477 with the bipartisan support of 
U.S. Representative Jeb Bradley. H.R. 4477 is a simple, straightforward 
bill, and it complements the Hooley amendment. My bill seeks to promote 
understanding between employees and employers when it comes to their 
rights and obligations under USERRA. H.R. 4477 would require the 
Department of Labor to produce a poster--similar to the Family and 
Medical Leave poster--for employers to post at work sites.
  Mr. Chairman, many employers across the country either do not know 
about USERRA, or they are only vaguely aware of it. By not complying 
with USERRA, employers put themselves at risk of facing Department of 
Labor investigations. By educating employers and employees before 
potential violations, we can protect employers from costly litigation, 
potential fines, and public embarrassment.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4477 would not create additional paper work or 
burden employers with difficult Department of Labor requirements. In 
fact, H.R. 4477 is an effort to educate employers and keep them from 
unknowingly breaking existing law.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend U.S. Representative Hooley for bringing her 
amendment to the floor today. By educating employers and employees 
about USERRA, we can assist them in working out any potential conflicts 
before employees are activated. I urge adoption of the Hooley 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).
  The agreement was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to this paragraph of the 
bill?
  If not, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                      Office of Inspector General

       For salaries and expenses of the Office of Inspector 
     General in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector 
     General Act of 1978, as amended, $64,029,000, together with 
     not to exceed $5,561,000, which may be expended from the 
     Employment Security Administration Account in the 
     Unemployment Trust Fund.

                          Working Capital Fund

       For the acquisition of a new core accounting system for the 
     Department of Labor, including hardware and software 
     infrastructure and the costs associated with implementation 
     thereof, $10,000,000.

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 101. None of the funds appropriated in this title for 
     the Job Corps shall be used to pay the compensation of an 
     individual, either as direct costs or any proration as an 
     indirect cost, at a rate in excess of Executive Level II.


                          (transfer of funds)

       Sec. 102. Not to exceed 1 percent of any discretionary 
     funds (pursuant to the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended) which are appropriated for 
     the current fiscal year for the Department of Labor in this 
     Act may be transferred between appropriations, but no such 
     appropriation shall be increased by more than 3 percent by 
     any such transfer: Provided, That the Appropriations 
     Committees of both Houses of Congress are notified at least 
     15 days in advance of any transfer.
       Sec. 103. Not later than 30 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretry of Labor shall issue a 
     monthly transit subsidy of not less than the amount each of 
     its employees of the National Capital Region is eligible to 
     receive, not to exceed a maximum of $100, as directed by 
     Executive Order 13150.
       This title may be cited as the ``Department of Labor 
     Appropriations Act, 2005''.

           TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

              Health Resources and Services Administration

                     Health Resources and Services

       For carrying out titles II, III, IV, VII, VIII, X, XII, 
     XIX, and XXVI of the Public Health Service Act, section 
     427(a) of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act, title 
     V and sections 1128E, 711 and 1820 of the Social Security 
     Act, the Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986, as 
     amended, the Native Hawaiian Health Care Act of 1988, as 
     amended, the Cardiac Arrest Survival Act of 2000, and the 
     Poison Control Center Enhancement and Awareness Act, 
     $6,305,333,000, of which $32,500,000 from general revenues, 
     notwithstanding section 1820(j) of the Social Security Act, 
     shall be available for carrying out

[[Page H6822]]

     the Medicare rural hospital flexibility grants program under 
     section 1820 of such Act: Provided, That of the funds made 
     available under this heading, $250,000 shall be available 
     until expended for facilities renovations at the Gillis W. 
     Long Hansen's Disease Center: Provided further, That in 
     addition to fees authorized by section 427(b) of the Health 
     Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986, fees shall be collected 
     for the full disclosure of information under the Act 
     sufficient to recover the full costs of operating the 
     National Practitioner Data Bank, and shall remain available 
     until expended to carry out that Act: Provided further, That 
     fees collected for the full disclosure of information under 
     the ``Health Care Fraud and Abuse Data Collection Program'', 
     authorized by section 1128E(d)(2) of the Social Security Act, 
     shall be sufficient to recover the full costs of operating 
     the program, and shall remain available until expended to 
     carry out that Act: Provided further, That no more than 
     $45,000,000 to remain available until expended is available 
     for carrying out the provisions of Public Law 104-73: 
     Provided further, That of the funds made available under this 
     heading, $278,283,000 shall be for the program under title X 
     of the Public Health Service Act to provide for voluntary 
     family planning projects: Provided further, That amounts 
     provided to said projects under such title shall not be 
     expended for abortions, that all pregnancy counseling shall 
     be nondirective, and that such amounts shall not be expended 
     for any activity (including the publication or distribution 
     of literature) that in any way tends to promote public 
     support or opposition to any legislative proposal or 
     candidate for public office: Provided further, That 
     $803,872,000 shall be for State AIDS Drug Assistance Programs 
     authorized by section 2616 of the Public Health Service Act: 
     Provided further, That in addition to amounts provided 
     herein, $25,000,000 shall be available from amounts available 
     under section 241 of the Public Health Service Act to carry 
     out Parts A, B, C, and D of title XXVI of the Public Health 
     Service Act to fund section 2691 Special Projects of National 
     Significance: Provided further, That notwithstanding section 
     502(a)(1) of the Social Security Act, not to exceed 
     $119,158,000 is available for carrying out special projects 
     of regional and national significance pursuant to section 
     501(a)(2) of such Act.


                Amendment Offered by Mr. Green of Texas

  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Green of Texas:
       In title II, in the item relating to ``Health Resources and 
     Services Administration--Health Resources and Services'', 
     insert after the first undesignated paragraph the following 
     undesignated paragraph:
       In addition, for carrying out section 340 of the Public 
     Health Service Act (relating to the healthy communities 
     access program), $104,000,000.

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment that would 
restore the much-needed funding for the Community Access Program, and, 
believe me, I appreciate what the chairman and the ranking member on 
the subcommittee and the full committee did with the resources that we 
have. I know there are more demand resources, but to actually zero out 
the Community Access Program I think is something that this House and 
this Congress should not do.
  With more than 44 million Americans currently living without health 
insurance, there is no doubt that too many Americans are going without 
necessary preventative health care. This lack of access to care comes 
at an extremely high cost both in human and budgetary terms. Nearly 40 
percent of uninsured adults skip a recommended medical test or 
treatment. And 20 percent indicate that they have needed but have not 
received care for a serious health problem in the past year.
  Without access to primary health care, the uninsured end up in our 
emergency rooms where treatment is extremely expensive and taxpayers 
are footing the bill; either that or the shareholders in our for-profit 
corporations.
  This is where the Community Access Program, or the CAP program, comes 
in. This successful program was created 4 years ago to help local 
agencies coordinate preventative and primary health care for uninsured 
individuals in their communities. CAP allows coordinating efforts 
between the for-profit hospitals, the nonprofit, and the public health 
providers and literally everyone in the community to serve the people 
more efficiently. The program facilitates a community-based approach to 
preventative health care and allows the community to tailor its program 
specifically to the needs of its uninsured population.
  The CAP program has been instrumental in providing health care to the 
uninsured in my hometown in Houston. Gateway to Care, the community 
access collaborative in Harris County, Texas, has used CAP funding to 
expand primary health care services by steering uninsured individuals 
to the county's existing services, which the uninsured rarely take 
advantage of. From CAP funds, Gateway has developed a nurse triage 
service that individuals can utilize 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. So 
instead of someone showing up in the emergency room, they actually have 
a phone number to call, and maybe it is just a sinus infection and they 
can direct them to the closest clinic in their area instead of showing 
up at whether it is our for-profit or our public hospitals or our 
nonprofits. Instead of calling 911 and having an ambulance come to get 
them, these individuals can speak with a qualified nurse who can help 
them determine the type of care they require.
  Gateway has utilized this funding to increase the enrollment in the 
State's CHIP program and to develop a streamlined eligibility system 
among the four major safety net providers in our county. Gateway's 
achievements have helped thousands of Houstonians access necessary 
health care services.
  And yet Gateway is not alone in its successful use of this CAP 
funding. The program has funded more than 150 health care 
collaboratives in 42 States; so it is clear that CAP has touched most 
of us in this Chamber. CAP collaboratives are serving the uninsured 
across America from Jacksonville, Florida, to Portland, Maine, from 
Anchorage, Alaska, to Los Angeles, California. They serve small areas 
like Concord, North Carolina, and urban areas like Houston.
  Mr. Chairman, I will include for the Record a list of the American 
cities that have benefited from this successful program.

       Birmingham, AL, Montgomery, AL, Sylacauga, AL, Anchorage, 
     AK, Sitka, AK, Augusta, AR, Helena, AR, Ratcliff, AR, Bisbee, 
     AZ, Navajo, AZ, Prescott, AZ, Tuscon, AZ, Bakersfield, CA, El 
     Centro, CA, Eureka, CA, Lompoc, CA, Los Angeles, CA, 
     Martinez, CA, Orange, CA, Salinas, CA, San Francisco, CA, San 
     Leandro, CA, San Mateo, CA, Stockton, CA, Vallejo, CA, 
     Colorado Springs, CO, Denver, CO, Greeley, CO, Derby, CO, New 
     Haven, CT, Middletown, CT, Dover, DE, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, 
     Jacksonville, FL, Kissimmee, FL, Miami, FL, Orlando, FL, St. 
     Augustine, FL, Tallahassee, FL, Tampa, FL, Atlanta, GA, 
     Augusta, GA, Macon, GA, Des Moines, IA, Couer D'Alene, ID, 
     Carlinville, IL, Chicago, IL, Rockford, IL, Springfield, IL.
       Indianapolis, IN, South Bend, IN, Tribune, KS, Wichita, KS, 
     Ashland, KY, Louisville, KY, Lexington, KY, Franklin, LA, New 
     Orleans, LA, Boston, MA, Cambridge, MA, Springfield, MA, 
     Yarmouthport, MA, Lavale, MD, Rockville, MD, Portland, ME, 
     Detroit, MI, Grand Blanc, MI, Kalamazoo, MI, Lansing, MI, 
     Marquette, MI, Muskegon, MI, Saginaw, MI, Ypsilanti, MI, 
     Alexandria, MN, Mankato, MN, Minneapolis, MN, St. Cloud, MN, 
     Kansas City, MO, Kirksville, MO, Jackson, MS, Clarksdale, MS, 
     Billings, MT, Asheville, NC, Concord, NC, Durham, NC, 
     Greensboro, NC, Pinehurst, NC, Raleigh, NC, Washington, NC, 
     Bismarck, ND, Chadron, NE, Columbus, NE, Omaha, NE, Concord, 
     NH, Albuquerque, NM, El Rito, NM, Santa Fe, NM, Amherst, NY.
       Binghamton, NY, Brooklyn, NY, New York, NY, Queens, NY, 
     Tarrytown, NY, Warrensburg, NY, Cincinnati, OH, Columbus, OH, 
     Dayton, OH, Tulsa, OK, Cave Junction, OR, Portland, OR, 
     Blossburg, PA, Norristown, PA, Philadelphia, PA, Pittsburgh, 
     PA, Scranton, PA, Cranston, RI, Columbia, SC, Greenville, SC, 
     Orangeburg, SC, Chattanooga, TN, Memphis, TN, Talbott, TN, 
     Nashville, TN, Austin, TX, Corpus Cristi, TX, Dallas, TX, El 
     Paso, TX, Galveston, TX, Houston, TX, Uvalde, TX, Salt Lake 
     City, UT, Arrington, VA, Danville, VA, Falls Church, VA, 
     Richmond, VA, Winchester, VA, Olympia, WA, Seattle, WA, 
     Spokane, WA, Wenatchee, WA, Milwaukee, WI, Huntington, WV, 
     Martinsburg, WV, Charleston, WV, Hinton, WV.

  As much success as these communities have achieved with CAP funding, 
the bill unfortunately eliminates that program. Last year the program 
received $104 million appropriation; yet the administration transferred 
$20 million of that, or roughly 20 percent of the total funding, to a 
pediatric AIDS initiative. No one wants to deny the pediatric AIDS 
patients the care they need, but this situation demonstrates the 
problem we have with this bill. We are forced to rob one very worthy 
program to pay for another necessary program, and in the end the health 
of our community suffers.
  My amendment would restore the $104 million for CAP, restoring 
funding for the program to the fiscal year 2004 enacted levels.

[[Page H6823]]

  Because of the host of worthy health care programs in this bill, we 
do not have an offset, and I would like to withdraw the amendment.
  I appreciate the chairman's courtesy in allowing me to talk about the 
amendment, but I want my colleagues to understand the tremendous 
strides this program has made in providing primary health care to those 
44 million Americans currently living without insurance. The program is 
worthy of our support, and it is my hope that funding will be restored 
in conference.
  Again, to the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) and the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), I appreciate their allowing me the time, and 
I thank them for the funds for the community health centers, but we 
still need the dollars to coordinate these community health centers.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me simply say the gentleman is absolutely 
right. This is a program that was begun by Secretary Shalala, who 
recognized that it is not enough to provide money to health centers if 
we do not also provide a thoughtful way to coordinate programs and 
services. This is what makes some of these efforts workable, and I 
think it is a disgrace that at a time when we have seen the number of 
uninsured increase from 40 to 45 million people, that we are 
eliminating a program that is crucial to providing service in more than 
20 communities around the country.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw 
the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I appreciate the fact that the gentleman is withdrawing the amendment 
because there is not an offset, but I want to commend him for his 
thoughts on this issue because it is important. These centers are very 
important, and it is a classic example of what confronted us in the 
subcommittee, and that is, there is so much in the way of good things 
that need to be done, and we had to make priority judgments. We will 
keep this in mind as we go to conference, but I certainly think the 
need is out there.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his 
comments.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  I am sorry that my colleague has withdrawn the amendment, and I hope 
they are going to be able to work this out further down the road.
  But with that I also want to bring up what health care costs are 
because of assault weapons. Unfortunately, I have not been allowed to 
bring up the bill for a vote on assault weapons, but I just want to 
give the Members some health care costs.
  Death and injuries caused by firearms cost the U.S. about $100 
billion a year. If we keep assault weapons off the streets, we can 
bring that down and use the money for our community centers in those 
areas that need it. This includes hospitalization, other medical care 
costs, rehabilitation, and lost productivity.
  I hope that we can, before this week is over, bring up the assault 
weapons bill so that we can have the bill and reduce health care costs 
in this country.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there other amendments to this paragraph of the 
bill?
  If not, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

           Health Education Assistance Loans Program Account

       Such sums as may be necessary to carry out the purpose of 
     the program, as authorized by title VII of the Public Health 
     Service Act, as amended. For administrative expenses to carry 
     out the guaranteed loan program, including section 709 of the 
     Public Health Service Act, $3,270,000.

             Vaccine Injury Compensation Program Trust Fund

       For payments from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program 
     Trust Fund, such sums as may be necessary for claims 
     associated with vaccine-related injury or death with respect 
     to vaccines administered after September 30, 1988, pursuant 
     to subtitle 2 of title XXI of the Public Health Service Act, 
     to remain available until expended: Provided, That for 
     necessary administrative expenses, not to exceed $3,176,000 
     shall be available from the Trust Fund to the Secretary of 
     Health and Human Services.

               Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

                Disease Control, Research, and Training

       To carry out titles II, III, VII, XI, XV, XVII, XIX, XXI, 
     and XXVI of the Public Health Service Act, sections 101, 102, 
     103, 201, 202, 203, 301, and 501 of the Federal Mine Safety 
     and Health Act of 1977, sections 20, 21, and 22 of the 
     Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, title IV of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act, and section 501 of the 
     Refugee Education Assistance Act of 1980; including purchase 
     and insurance of official motor vehicles in foreign 
     countries; and purchase, hire, maintenance, and operation of 
     aircraft, $4,228,778,000, of which $81,500,000 shall remain 
     available until expended for equipment, and construction and 
     renovation of facilities, and of which $142,808,000 for 
     international HIV/AIDS shall remain available until September 
     30, 2006. In addition, such sums as may be derived from 
     authorized user fees, which shall be credited to this 
     account: Provided, That in addition to amounts provided 
     herein, the following amounts shall be available from amounts 
     available under section 241 of the Public Health Service Act:
       (1) $14,000,000 to carry out the National Immunization 
     Surveys;
       (2) $149,600,000 to carry out the National Center for 
     Health Statistics surveys;
       (3) $28,600,000 to carry out information systems standards 
     development and architecture and applications-based research 
     used at local public health levels;
       (4) $15,000,000 to carry out Public Health Research; and
       (5) $41,900,000 to carry out Research Tools and Approaches 
     activities within the National Occupational Research Agenda:

     Provided further, That none of the funds made available for 
     injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease 
     Control and Prevention may be used, in whole or in part, to 
     advocate or promote gun control: Provided further, That the 
     Director may redirect the total amount made available under 
     authority of Public Law 101-502, section 3, dated November 3, 
     1990, to activities the Director may so designate: Provided 
     further, That the Congress is to be notified promptly of any 
     such transfer: Provided further, That not to exceed 
     $12,500,000 may be available for making grants under section 
     1509 of the Public Health Service Act to not more than 15 
     States, tribes, or tribal organizations: Provided further, 
     That without regard to existing statute, funds appropriated 
     may be used to proceed, at the discretion of the Centers for 
     Disease Control and Prevention, with property acquisition, 
     including a long-term ground lease for construction on non-
     Federal land, to support the construction of a replacement 
     laboratory in the Fort Collins, Colorado area: Provided 
     further, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, a 
     single contract or related contracts for development and 
     construction of facilities may be employed which collectively 
     include the full scope of the project: Provided further, That 
     the solicitation and contract shall contain the clause 
     ``availability of funds'' found at 48 CFR 52.232-18.


          Amendment No. 4 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 4 offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
       In title II, in the item relating to ``Centers for Disease 
     Control and Prevention-Disease Control, Research, and 
     Training'', in paragraph (2) of the first proviso, insert 
     after the dollar amount (relating to the National Center for 
     Health Statistics surveys) the following: ``(increased by 
     $2,500,000)''.

       In title II, in the item relating to ``National Center on 
     Minority Health and Health Disparities'', insert after the 
     dollar amount the following: ``(increased by $1,500,000)''.

       In title II, in the item relating to ``Children and 
     Families Services Programs'', insert ``(decreased by 
     $4,000,000)'' after the aggregate dollar amount and insert 
     ``(decreased by $4,000,000)'' after the dollar amount in the 
     tenth proviso (relating to competitive grants to provide 
     abstinence education).

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me, because this is a 
very important debate, again add my appreciation to the members of the 
Committee on Appropriations, the chairman and ranking of the full 
committee, and, of course, the ranking and subcommittee chairman of 
this Labor-HHS.
  I hope that the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) will rise 
to support this amendment and share her thoughts as well on another 
deadly health issue, and that is the use of guns and the resulting 
injuries and deaths that come about through that. I do add

[[Page H6824]]

my voice in this very short time for having the reauthorization of the 
assault weapons ban. I remember studying this issue in Houston, and I 
found that for an injured child, costs were at that time, some maybe 5 
to 10 years ago, $60,000 per their care. I imagine it has quadrupled at 
this point. So I hope that we will move in that direction.
  I, too, raise an issue that I hope my colleagues will join me 
enthusiastically, and I also will acknowledge the hard work of a former 
colleague, Congresswoman Carrie Meek of Florida, who at most times when 
we came to the floor dealing with the appropriations, Labor-HHS, the 
Members can be assured she was speaking about the deadly disease of 
lupus.
  Today I am proposing two amendments to the Labor-HHS-Education 
appropriations bill to further research and outreach on lupus, and I 
urge the Members to support these amendments. Lupus is a chronic, 
disabling, and potentially fatal condition in which the immune system 
attacks the body's own organs and tissues. Lupus strikes primarily 
women, and it is twice as common among people of color. Currently it is 
estimated that 1.5 million to 2 million Americans have lupus. There is 
no cure for lupus. No new drugs have been approved to treat the disease 
in nearly 40 years, and no medically validated measure to diagnose and 
track the disease's progression and how it exists.
  I, too, am concerned about the National Institutes of Health and the 
more opportunities for research, and I hope in conference we can alter 
the configuration so that many researchers in labs around the country 
and professors will not be denied their opportunity to find the cure 
for lupus. That is why I am adding this small of amount of dollars that 
is budget-neutral as evidenced and indicated by CBO.
  Early diagnosis and treatment of lupus are essential to minimizing 
life-threatening complications. Lack of understanding of lupus combined 
with the disease's complexity leads to significant underdiagnosis. And 
I might say that it strikes young women in a potentially hardship 
manner. I remember a young woman that I knew in my church, had two 
beautiful young children and a beautiful husband, was taken in the 
prime of her life not knowing that she had lupus, and it was too late 
in order to provide her with the treatment that she needed, and 
certainly there was no cure at the time.

                              {time}  1330

  Symptoms of the disease may resemble the flu or other less severe 
instances. In some instances, the patient's apparent symptoms may seem 
to subside, leading up to a false sense of security. Some surveys 
indicate that some lupus patients may suffer for 4 years or more and 
visit 3 or more different physicians before obtaining a diagnosis. I 
know this personally, because I had a member of my family who I had to 
take to doctors trying to find out whether it was or whether it was 
not. And you can be assured in our frustration, but also our great 
concern and our fear, that we were overcome by the fact that it was 
really a diagnosis that was hard to pinpoint. The delay in obtaining 
treatment can be devastating, because time is lost while irreversible 
organ damage may appear.
  The purpose of these amendments is twofold. First, the amendment 
transfers $1.5 million to the account of the NIH's National Center for 
Minority Health to increase educational programs on lupus for health 
care providers and for the general public.
  Let me assure you that we have yet addressed in this House the 
disparities in health care as it relates to minorities. We have yet to 
pass the equity to health care bill that has been promulgated or 
written by the Hispanic Caucus, the African American Caucus and the 
Asian Pacific Caucus and others. I believe that this will help to 
facilitate the diagnosis of lupus today, particularly among susceptible 
populations.
  Second, I am proposing to transfer $2.5 million to the Centers for 
Disease Control to expand the operation of the National Lupus Patient 
Registry. There are presently four pilot registry programs in Michigan 
and in Georgia. These pilot programs have been a good start, but 
additional data is needed to distinguish between environmental and 
other factors that cause lupus.
  Let me say to my colleagues, no one knows when their neighbor, their 
friend, their constituent may be diagnosed. There is one strong point 
about this disease: It is not easily diagnosed, and many people live 
with it for a very long period of time. Mr. Chairman, that is why we do 
not know how many people really have lupus. I would ask my colleagues 
to join me in this effort and support this amendment, very, very well 
balanced, and, might I say, not violating CBO. I ask for support of 
this amendment.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, there are a couple of things that I would point out in 
opposition to this. Number one, we are already recognizing the need for 
health statistics. In this bill, we have increased the amount for this 
purpose by $21,960,000. This is an increase of almost 20 percent over 
last year.
  Secondly, at NIH we have increased the amount for monthly health and 
health disparities reports by $5.3 million.
  So it is not the case that we have ignored the subject. I think we 
have tried to deal within the constraints of what we have available, 
and to take the money out of the other program, I think, would be just 
a mistake at this point. Therefore, I would be in opposition to the 
amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I must also reluctantly oppose the amendment, because I 
think it has an unintended effect. The amendment, as I read it, would 
actually result in a small across-the-board reduction in funding for 
virtually all public health agency programs, including the National 
Institutes of Health. I do not think that is what we want to do.
  Secondly, I would point out the gentlewoman has made quite clear in 
her remarks that she is attempting to add funding for a specific 
disease. In all of the years this subcommittee has funded the National 
Institutes of Health, it has never dictated to the National Institutes 
exactly how much money they should spend on any specific disease, and I 
do not think we ought to start now.
  So I reluctantly would have to oppose the amendment and say that what 
we really need is an overall increase in funding for NIH so that we can 
attack lupus and dozens of other diseases that are causing great pain 
and suffering to people around the world.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Jackson-Lee amendment. This 
amendment would increase funds for the National Center for Health 
Statistics surveys and for the National Center For Minority Health and 
Health Disparities.
  The cost of health care for minorities is completely 
disproportionate. Nowhere is this truer than when it comes to the cost 
of gun violence. Although African Americans and Hispanics make up only 
12.1 and 12.5 percent of the U.S. population respectively, these groups 
suffered 37 percent of all firearm deaths in 2000.
  In 2000, homicide with firearms took the lives of 5,699 African 
Americans. In 2000, homicide with firearms took the lives of 1,958 
Hispanics.
  In 2000, the death rate for firearm injuries was two times higher for 
the African American population than the Caucasian population. In 2000, 
firearms homicide was the leading cause of death for African Americans 
age 15 to 34.
  The assault weapons ban expires September 13, and we are not allowed 
to bring it up on the floor. This is something that could go into our 
communities, save lives and keep down health costs.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. McCARTHY of New York. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished 
gentlewoman.
  Mr. Chairman, let me carefully say this adds more money to the NIH. 
We respectfully add the fact that it is not necessarily a specific 
designation for a specific disease. But might I say that because of the 
discrepancies in access to health care for minorities and access to 
health care in respect to those who are being treated for lupus and the 
definitive impact on minorities as it relates to minority women as it 
relates

[[Page H6825]]

to lupus, I would offer to say that this is an amendment that has 
vibrancy and is necessary without in any way undermining or penalizing 
NIH.
  I might also say that I have from the CBO that this is clearly 
budget-neutral and does not have an impact on the outlays.
  So this is an amendment that is viable for my colleagues to support. 
I ask for all of my colleagues to look seriously at the opportunity for 
NIH to make its own determination on a very vital disease, a disease 
that is necessarily in need of both a cure and research.
  I would also offer to say to my colleagues that when we speak about 
lupus, it is like a silent killer, because you can have it without 
knowing. You can have it without being diagnosed. Therefore, it is 
extremely important to be able to provide these additional resources.
  I ask my colleagues to provide support for this amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. McCARTHY of New York. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to say I am sure it is not the 
intention of the gentlewoman from Texas to fund this amendment by 
providing for an actual reduction in NIH, but the way she has drawn the 
amendment, it has that effect. I understand that is not her intention, 
but that is the effect of the amendment as written.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-
Lee) will be postponed.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, as we discuss the fine work that our doctors and 
scientists are performing with the help of Federal assistance, I want 
to make sure that my colleagues are aware of the limitations on 
critical research that are currently in place. These restrictions, the 
current regulations that guide the National Institutes of Health, are 
stifling progress into curing chronic conditions and diseases that 
affect up to 100 million Americans, a number that dramatically 
increases when you consider their families and loved ones. 
Unfortunately, rather than overturning these limitations, the committee 
report to today's Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education 
appropriations bill instead reaffirms them.
  For 3 years, the tremendously promising field of human embryonic stem 
cell research has been restricted to work on stem cell lines developed 
before August 9, 2001. Despite the limitations of this policy, our 
Nation's scientists have made tremendous progress. They have already 
shown that they can direct the development of human embryonic stem 
cells into insulin-producing cells that might help cure juvenile 
diabetes. This type of research holds promise of new therapies, even 
cures, for countless conditions and diseases such as diabetes, 
Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, ALS, heart disease, spinal cord injury and 
cancer.
  Mr. Chairman, our scientists are maximizing the resources made 
available to them under the current policy, but we can do better. We 
must make it possible for researchers to engage in the responsible 
pursuit of human pluripotent stem cell research.
  Earlier this summer, I was proud to join the gentleman from Delaware 
(Mr. Castle) and the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) in 
introducing legislation that would achieve this goal by directing NIH 
to fund stem cell research only if those cells had been derived from 
excess human embryos created through the in vitro fertilization process 
for fertility treatment, embryos which otherwise would have been 
discarded. All tissue donations would be voluntary, accompanied by 
informed consent and without compensation.
  Under these principles, research could flourish. The Federal 
Government would maintain reasonable and ethical oversight and the 
promise of cures, and in some cases the promise of life itself would be 
extended and restored to millions of Americans.
  Unfortunately, our current policies place limits on the hopes and 
dreams of these millions of Americans. Scientists are reporting that it 
is increasingly difficult to attract new scientists to this area of 
research because of concerns that funding restrictions will keep this 
research from being successful. Foreign countries, most notably Great 
Britain, have been far more supportive of stem cell research.
  Mr. Chairman, we face the real danger that without Federal funding, 
the Nation's top academic researchers at universities, medical schools 
and teaching hospitals cannot join in the search for cures, which means 
much slower progress.
  Mr. Chairman, we owe it to our constituents to ensure that this 
research takes place ethically and with the full support of the Federal 
Government and as soon as possible. For far too many Americans, there 
is no time to waste.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not totally disagree with my colleague but just a 
little bit that just spoke, because there are limited directions of 
stem cell research that I think that we could all support, whether you 
are prolife, prochoice, which is not an issue in this case.
  Dr. Larry Goldstein from the University of San Diego, California, my 
daughter interned with him, and he does genetic research.
  I would like to remind my colleagues, first of all, that it was 
President George W. Bush that supported stem cell research in a certain 
line, that turned out to be tainted.
  There are some folks and some doctors that would actually clone 
people for body parts. I do not think most Americans support that, and 
I do not support cloning. But there is an area in which I think we can 
all come together.
  Dr. Goldstein told me that quite often a woman invests her embryos 
because she is going to go through chemo or radiation treatments, and 
maybe she wants in-vitro fertilization at a later date. But they do not 
save those embryos for 1,000 years. They discard them. They throw them 
away, because they can't save them. They are thrown down the toilet.
  In that case, why can we not use those stem cells to further 
research? They are not going to become life. They are going to be 
discarded, they are going to be thrown away.
  I think that if you sat in the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and 
Human Services, Education and Related Agencies of the Committee on 
Appropriations during hearings where they have children with unique 
diseases, I had one little girl 8 years old, and she said, 
``Congressman, you are the only person that can save my life.''
  If we can come together and work in this particular area, I do not 
support cloning, but if they are going to be discarded, why can we not 
use those to enhance; save life?

                              {time}  1345

  I have asked the President, along with Mrs. Reagan and Mary Tyler 
Moore and others, to work in this direction.
  There is a third area which Dr. Goldstein pointed out, that there are 
some stem cells that are so diseased it would be unethical to implant 
them. Doctors and researchers want to use those stem cells to be able 
to eliminate those diseases in children, and that is another area in 
which we can come together. Unfortunately, many of my colleagues, in my 
opinion, want to go too far. But I think we can all get around it and 
embrace an area in which the stem cells are going to be thrown away, 
they are going to be discarded, and we are this close, I say to my 
colleagues, to getting rid of diabetes. Let us come together on the 
issue.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to say that I absolutely agree with the 
gentleman who just spoke, and I congratulate him for the comments that 
he made. Everyone who has looked with any care whatsoever at this issue 
understands that there are massive ethical considerations surrounding 
this question. We need to try to work our way through those ethical 
considerations in a way that will bring people together on some very 
fundamental questions, rather

[[Page H6826]]

than pulling them apart. I think the gentleman has pointed to one way 
that can be done.
  I would caution those in this society who think that we can somehow 
stop science from engaging in the kind of research just discussed by 
the gentleman from California, I would caution those who feel that we 
can stop that kind of research. We cannot. That kind of research will 
go forward. The only question is whether it will go forward in the 
United States or whether it will be somewhere else, and whether or not 
it will go forward under the auspices of the National Institutes of 
Health with all of the ethical considerations that they try to bring to 
bear on this issue, or whether it will be conducted by scientific teams 
that are not quite so careful about the ethical considerations 
involved.
  I think that the gentleman from California has pointed out how we 
could move people forward on this issue in a way which is not 
destructive of anyone's ethical values. We need to start recognizing 
that we are dealing with real situations, real human beings; and 
humanity is not going to allow politicians to get in the way of 
attacking some of the medical problems that have been discussed by the 
gentleman from Rhode Island or by the gentleman from California; and I 
congratulate both of them for raising the issue this afternoon.


             Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
       Page 26, line 18, insert after the aggregate dollar amount 
     the following: ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.
       Page 46, line 4, insert after the aggregate dollar amount 
     the following: ``(decreased by $1,000,000)''.
       Page 48, line 2, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(decreased by $1,000,000)''.

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
amendment. We do not have a copy.
  The CHAIRMAN. Will the gentlewoman submit the amendment to the desk? 
We do not seem to have a copy of it either.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved by the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me again join the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) on the desire to attack 
another health issue and that is of course to see the ban on assault 
weapons reauthorized.
  I rise to offer an amendment on another and very fast-growing 
epidemic in our country called hepatitis C. Mr. Chairman, I have an 
amendment that relates to this very grave matter as it is being 
distributed to my colleagues.
  Our Nation is facing an epidemic of hepatitis C virus, or HCV 
infection. HCV is the most common blood-borne infection in the United 
States. Although many of them do not know it, nearly 4 million 
Americans are currently infected, and 35,000 new infections occur each 
year.
  I have been told about this because of the sizable population of 
hepatitis C-infected veterans that I have come across. And I want to 
thank Ed Wendt, a constituent of mine who has raised the question of 
what we are doing and how we are doing it and how we can do better by 
those who are infected and the many, many veterans who are infected by 
this disease.
  This insidious virus takes thousands of lives annually, primarily 
through cirrhosis and liver cancer. HCV costs millions of dollars in 
health care and lost wages each year, but it receives inadequate 
attention from the public, the medical field, and the Federal 
Government.
  Hepatitis is an inflammation of the liver. Inflammation of the liver 
with swelling, tenderness, and sometimes permanent damage can be caused 
by infection with various viruses or by substances such as chemicals, 
drugs, and alcohol. Current concern over viral hepatitis stems from the 
serious long-term health consequences for long-term sufferers.
  Hepatitis C virus is one of six known types of the hepatitis viruses. 
The C virus has emerged as a cause of chronic liver disease, both in 
the United States and worldwide. It is of concern because of its 
potential for serious long-term health consequences. It resorts, or 
causes, if you will, the need for liver transplants as evidenced by my 
constituent who has suffered long and had a difficult health history. 
Its pattern of infection among young, hard-to-reach risk groups and the 
current lack of vaccine or curative therapy impacts or increases the 
number of deaths.
  Some studies indicate that minority populations in the U.S. are 
disproportionately affected by hepatitis C virus, and some reports have 
shown that African Americans do not respond to the current treatment of 
chronic HCV infection with the same efficacy as whites. This is why I 
started out this debate by saying it is time now for us to pass the 
equity in health care and disparities in health care in America. But 
this amendment, as did the lupus amendment, attempts in some small way 
to address this divide.
  HCV is a particular problem for patients coinfected with HIV. 
According to Dr. Raymond Chung, M.D., director of the Center for Liver 
Disorders at Massachusetts General Hospital, ``About 25 percent of 
those with HIV are coinfected with HCV, largely because these viruses 
share modes of transmission.'' Treatment of patients coinfected with 
HCV and HIV is particularly challenging, because many of the retroviral 
treatments traditionally used in HIV therapies are toxic to the liver. 
Better information about HCV will help develop treatments that are 
effective for HIV and compatible with HCV. That is all I am asking for 
in this very simple and minimal amendment of asking for $1 million.
  The purpose of this amendment is to increase the research 
opportunities and to be able to provide patients who are at risk for 
some control studies: African Americans, children, and adolescents, 
renal dialysis patients, HIV- and HCV-positive patients, and patients 
with hemophilia. Because hepatitis C is a communicable disease, I 
believe this is an important step in getting this public issue under 
control.
  Back in June, I joined the Hepatitis C Movement for Awareness to call 
for more aggressive and better informed national approach to the 
hepatitis C epidemic in the United States. Hepatitis C infects 300 
million people worldwide, including over 5.8 million Americans. We must 
do something more. And only 20 percent of those infected know they are 
infected, and scientists are still unsure how the virus is spread or 
who is most likely to be infected. This deadly epidemic cannot be 
ignored any longer. We need action, and I ask my colleagues to support 
this amendment.
  The grass-roots movement of this organization is made up of veterans, 
victims of hepatitis C, and other health care advocates; and they came 
to Washington to simply ask the question, can we get help. They are 
seeking our help, working with the Veterans Administration, which I 
must say I applaud for looking at this issue more closely. This is not 
an issue for one person or two persons, it is for millions of people, 
and those who go infected who do not know they are infected.
  I want to congratulate those who worked on this effort, including Ed 
Wendt and the whole hepatitis C movement, because they do it not for 
themselves. They do it for those who come after them. They ask that we 
have a wake-up call so that we can stop the tragedy of the hepatitis C 
epidemic.
  Now it is time that we wake up together and move forward on an 
amendment that will simply help us move in that direction. I urge my 
colleagues to join me in supporting this important amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk that relates to a very 
grave matter with respect to the status of minority health. Our nation 
is facing an epidemic of Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) infection. HCV is the 
most common blood-borne infection in the United States. Although many 
of them do not know it, nearly four million Americans are currently 
infected, and 35,000 new infections occur each year. This insidious 
virus takes thousands of lives annually--primarily through cirrhosis 
and liver cancer. HCV costs millions of dollars in healthcare and lost 
wages each year, but it receives inadequate attention from the public, 
the medical field, and the federal government.
  Hepatitis is an inflammation of the liver. Inflammation of the liver, 
with swelling, tenderness, and sometimes permanent damage, can be 
caused by infection with various viruses or

[[Page H6827]]

by substances such as chemicals, drugs, and alcohol. Current concern 
over viral hepatitis stems from the serious long-term health 
consequences for long term sufferers.
  Hepatitis C virus is one of six known types of the hepatitis virus. 
Hepatitis C has emerged as a major cause of chronic liver disease both 
in the United States and worldwide. It is of concern because of its 
potential for serious long-term health consequences, its pattern of 
infection among young, hard-to-reach risk groups, and the current lack 
of a vaccine or curative therapy.
  Some studies indicate that minority populations in the U.S. are 
disproportionately affected by the hepatitis C virus (HCV), and some 
reports have shown that African-Americans do not respond to treatment 
of chronic HCV infection with the same efficacy as whites.
  HCV is a particular problem for patients co-infected with HIV. 
According to Dr. Raymond Chung, MD, director of the Center for Liver 
Disorders at Massachusetts General Hospital, ``About 25 percent of 
those with HIV are co-infected with HCV, largely because these viruses 
share modes of transmission.'' Treatment of patients co-infected with 
HCV and HIV is particularly challenging because many of the retroviral 
treatments traditionally used in HIV therapies are toxic to the liver. 
Better information about HCV will help to develop treatments that are 
effective for HIV and compatible with HCV.
  The purpose of this amendment is to increase the Hepatitis C research 
activities at the Center for Disease Control for patients who are 
particularly at risk for the disease or resistant to conventional 
treatments--African-Americans, children and adolescents, renal dialysis 
patients, HIV/HCV positive patients, and patients with hemophilia. 
Because Hepatitis C is a communicable disease, I believe this is an 
important step in getting this public health issue under control.

  Back in June of this year, I joined the ``Hepatitis C Movement for 
Awareness'' to call for a more aggressive, and better informed, 
national approach to the Hepatitis C epidemic in the United States. 
Hepatitis C infects 300 million people worldwide, including over 5.8 
million Americans. Only 20% of those infected know they are infected, 
and scientists are still unsure how the virus is spread, or who is most 
likely to be infected. This deadly epidemic cannot be ignored any 
longer. We need action. I commend the Hepatitis C Movement for 
Awareness for its tenacity and energy in galvanizing in Washington to 
make its case for change.
  The grassroots movement made up of Veterans, victims of Hepatitis C, 
and other healthcare advocates, came to Washington to tell policymakers 
about the pressing need for a viable national Hepatitis C policy. They 
feared that the present policies are based on worn out assumptions, and 
untested hypotheses. I agreed that more information was needed to help 
lawmakers craft appropriate strategies for mitigation of the rampant 
disease. I have been pressing the GAO for a comprehensive study of the 
past and present Hepatitis epidemic in the United States. We have to 
know where we stand, where mistakes have been made, and how we can do 
better. This epidemic is devastating our Veterans and our minority 
communities.
  The Hepatitis C Movement for Awareness graciously presented me with 
an award for progress made toward the GAO report. I appreciated 
receiving this award. But, what I appreciated more was at the 
friendship and cooperation of my constituents Ed Wendt, Tricia Lupole, 
and the whole Hepatitis C Movement for Awareness. Years ago, the gave 
me a wake-up call on the tragedy of the Hep C epidemic. Now it is time 
to wake up Washington, and the nation by pursuing this amendment.
  I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this important 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Ohio wish to make his point of 
order?
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order, and I move to 
strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment, if I understand it correctly, takes $1 
million out of abstinence and puts it into CDC without any clarity as 
to how it would be used in CDC. We have over $4 billion in CDC already. 
I do not think that adding another $1 million would be significant in 
their total budget; and in abstinence, it is important that we kept 
that as tight as possible. Again, it is a rearranging of priorities, 
and for that reason I object to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin continue to reserve 
his point of order?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation, and I move to 
strike the requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that I would appreciate it if 
Members have amendments to offer that they at least provide each side 
of the committee with a copy of the amendment. I think it is a 
disservice to the House when amendments are sprung on the committee and 
we have no opportunity to review them. If we are shown them ahead of 
time, we can help Members draft them correctly so that they are in 
order.
  So it seems to me it is in the interests of both people who offer 
these amendments and it is in the interests of the House for Members 
who are planning to offer amendments to provide us copies. It would 
seem to me a simple matter of common courtesy.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the Jackson-Lee amendment on hepatitis C. I 
spent over 30 years as a nurse before I came to Congress; and, 
unfortunately, hepatitis C a number of times, when it is diagnosed, it 
is far too late for so many of the patients. Unfortunately, the signs 
do not show up until the disease is very advanced, and because we are 
in a global world now and it is becoming a communicable disease, it is 
spreading more rapidly. Much more research needs to be done to see how 
we can stop this.
  But I know one of the ways that we can have more money so we have the 
money for research is to try and stop the amount of money that is being 
spent every single year because of gun violence. And with the assault 
weapons ban expiring on September 13, we are going to see more violence 
on our streets; we are going to see more of these patients in our 
trauma hospitals, which is going to drive up the cost of health care 
all the way around. That is a shame. That is preventable. We need, 
certainly, the administration to back the police around this country 
and to back the health care providers around this country who all want 
to see the ban put in place.

                              {time}  1400

  If we do that, we can keep down health care costs because of the gun 
violence and have money go into research for hepatitis C and for so 
many other issues that all of us here care about.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished 
gentlewoman for yielding.
  I ask my colleagues to simply help us. It is simply asking $1 million 
for the hepatitis C, and I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. 
McCarthy) for her information.
  This bill, with all the hard work of the appropriators, and I really 
appreciate them, was sprung on Members on Labor Day weekend. My 
apologies for the amendment being at the leg counsel, and it is 
supposed to be at the desk. It is now there, but I really ask my 
colleagues to look at the need. I also know my staff gave the amendment 
to both managers of the bill.
  We are talking about 300 million worldwide, close to 10 million 
around the country, veterans, children and others infected with 
hepatitis C. The more we can do, the better off we are.
  I believe this is a well-grounded amendment that should warrant the 
support of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and I would ask 
my colleagues to support this.
  As I indicated, CBO has indicated this is revenue-neutral, has no 
impact with respect to the issues at hand, and I would simply ask that 
this amendment be supported.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out, we do have $22.5 
million in the bill now for hepatitis C funding, and we recognize the 
importance of that, and we have done all that we could within the 
budget constraints, and there is a sizable amount there.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me just quickly say, I 
respect what the gentleman has done. One of the problems we have is we 
are suffering because we have such a great percentage of our dollars 
going to the

[[Page H6828]]

tax cut. I think we can do more. Certainly what we have is what the 
gentleman has been able to do, but I believe this disease is so deadly 
that adding additional funds is a priority and should be a priority 
when we talk about health care and also inequity in health care, and I 
thank the distinguished gentleman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the Jackson-
Lee amendment?
  If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-
Lee) will be postponed.
  Are there further amendments to this paragraph of the bill?
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder 
of the bill through page 42, line 7 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 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the bill from page 28, line 16 through page 42, line 7 is 
as follows:

                     National Institutes of Health

                       National Cancer Institute

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to cancer, $4,870,025,000, of 
     which up to $8,000,000 may be used for facilities repairs and 
     improvements at the NCI-Frederick Federally Funded Research 
     and Development Center in Frederick Maryland.

               National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to cardiovascular, lung, and 
     blood diseases, and blood and blood products, $2,963,953,000.

         National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to dental disease, 
     $394,080,000.

    National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to diabetes and digestive and 
     kidney disease, $1,726,196,000.

        National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to neurological disorders and 
     stroke, $1,545,623,000.

         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to allergy and infectious 
     diseases, $4,440,007,000: Provided, That $100,000,000 may be 
     made available to International Assistance Programs, ``Global 
     Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, Malaria, and Tuberculosis'', to 
     remain available until expended: Provided further, That up to 
     $150,000,000 shall be for extramural facilities construction 
     grants to enhance the Nation's capability to do research on 
     biological and other agents.

             National Institute of General Medical Sciences

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to general medical sciences, 
     $1,959,810,000.

        National Institute of Child Health and Human Development

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to child health and human 
     development, $1,280,915,000.

                         National Eye Institute

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to eye diseases and visual 
     disorders, $671,578,000.

          National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences

       For carrying out sections 301 and 311 and title IV of the 
     Public Health Service Act with respect to environmental 
     health sciences, $650,027,000.

                      National Institute on Aging

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to aging, $1,055,666,000.

 National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to arthritis and 
     musculoskeletal and skin diseases, $515,378,000.

    National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to deafness and other 
     communication disorders, $393,507,000.

                 National Institute of Nursing Research

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to nursing research, 
     $139,198,000.

           National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to alcohol abuse and 
     alcoholism, $441,911,000.

                    National Institute on Drug Abuse

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to drug abuse, 
     $1,012,760,000: Provided, That in addition to amounts 
     provided herein, $6,300,000 shall be available from amounts 
     under section 241 of the Act to carry out national surveys on 
     drug abuse and related analysis.

                  National Institute of Mental Health

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to mental health, 
     $1,420,609,000.

                National Human Genome Research Institute

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to human genome research, 
     $492,670,000.

      National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to biomedical imaging and 
     bioengineering research, $297,647,000.

                 National Center for Research Resources

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to research resources and 
     general research support grants, $1,094,141,000: Provided, 
     That none of these funds shall be used to pay recipients of 
     the general research support grants program any amount for 
     indirect expenses in connection with such grants.

       National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to complementary and 
     alternative medicine, $121,116,000.

       National Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to minority health and health 
     disparities research, $196,780,000.

                  John E. Fogarty International Center

       For carrying out the activities at the John E. Fogarty 
     International Center, $67,182,000.

                      National Library of Medicine

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to health information 
     communications, $316,947,000, of which $4,000,000 shall be 
     available until expended for improvement of information 
     systems: Provided, That in fiscal year 2005, the Library may 
     enter into personal services contracts for the provision of 
     services in facilities owned, operated, or constructed under 
     the jurisdiction of the National Institutes of Health: 
     Provided further, That in addition to amounts provided 
     herein, $8,200,000 shall be available from amounts under 
     section 241 of the Act to carry out National Information 
     Center on Health Services Research and Health Care Technology 
     and related health services.

                         Office of the Director


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For carrying out the responsibilities of the Office of the 
     Director, National Institutes of Health, $359,645,000, of 
     which up to $7,500,000 shall be used to carry out section 217 
     of this Act: Provided, That funding shall be available for 
     the purchase of not to exceed 29 passenger motor vehicles for 
     replacement only: Provided further, That the Director may 
     direct up to 1 percent of the total amount made available in 
     this or any other Act to all National Institutes of Health 
     appropriations to activities the Director may so designate: 
     Provided further, That no such appropriation shall be 
     decreased by more than 1 percent by any such transfers and 
     that the Congress is promptly notified of the transfer: 
     Provided further, That the National Institutes of Health is 
     authorized to collect third party payments for the cost of 
     clinical services that are incurred in National Institutes of 
     Health research facilities and that such payments shall be 
     credited to the National Institutes of Health Management 
     Fund: Provided further, That all funds credited to the 
     National Institutes of Health Management Fund shall remain 
     available for 1 fiscal year after the fiscal year in which 
     they are deposited: Provided further, That a uniform 
     percentage of the amounts appropriated in this Act to each 
     Institute and Center, as determined by the Director and 
     totaling not more than $176,800,000, may be utilized for the 
     National Institutes of Health Roadmap Initiative: Provided 
     further, That amounts utilized under the preceding proviso 
     shall be in addition to amounts made available for the 
     Roadmap Initiative from the Director's Discretionary Fund: 
     Provided further, That up to $500,000 shall be available to 
     carry out section 499 of the Public Health Service Act.


                        buildings and facilities

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the study of, construction of, renovation of, and 
     acquisition of equipment for, facilities of or used by the 
     National Institutes

[[Page H6829]]

     of Health, including the acquisition of real property, 
     $99,500,000, to remain available until expended.

       Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

               Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services

       For carrying out titles V and XIX of the Public Health 
     Service Act with respect to substance abuse and mental health 
     services, the Protection and Advocacy for Mentally Ill 
     Individuals Act, and section 301 of the Public Health Service 
     Act with respect to program management, $3,270,360,000: 
     Provided, That in addition to amounts provided herein, the 
     following amounts shall be available from amounts available 
     under section 241 of the Public Health Service Act:
       (1) $79,200,000 to carry out subpart II of title XIX of the 
     Public Health Service Act to fund section 1935(b) technical 
     assistance, national data, data collection and evaluation 
     activities, and further that the total available under this 
     Act for section 1935(b) activities shall not exceed 5 percent 
     of the amounts appropriated for subpart II of title XIX;
       (2) $21,803,000 to carry out subpart I of part B of title 
     XIX of the Public Health Services Act to fund section 1920(b) 
     technical assistance, national data, data collection and 
     evaluation activities, and further that the total available 
     under this Act for section 1920(b) activities shall not 
     exceed 5 percent of the amounts appropriated for subpart I of 
     part B of title XIX;
       (3) $16,000,000 to carry out national surveys on drug 
     abuse; and
       (4) $4,300,000 for substance abuse treatment programs.

               Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

                    Healthcare Research and Quality

       For carrying out titles III and IX of the Public Health 
     Service Act, and part A of title XI of the Social Security 
     Act, amounts received from Freedom of Information Act fees, 
     reimbursable and interagency agreements, and the sale of data 
     shall be credited to this appropriation and shall remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That the amount made 
     available pursuant to section 927(c) of the Public Health 
     Service Act shall not exceed $303,695,000.

               Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services

                     Grants to States for Medicaid

       For carrying out, except as otherwise provided, titles XI 
     and XIX of the Social Security Act, $119,124,488,000, to 
     remain available until expended.
       For making, after May 31, 2005, payments to States under 
     title XIX of the Social Security Act for the last quarter of 
     fiscal year 2005 for unanticipated costs, incurred for the 
     current fiscal year, such sums as may be necessary.
       For making payments to States or in the case of section 
     1928 on behalf of States under title XIX of the Social 
     Security Act for the first quarter of fiscal year 2006, 
     $58,517,290,000, to remain available until expended.
       Payment under title XIX may be made for any quarter with 
     respect to a State plan or plan amendment in effect during 
     such quarter, if submitted in or prior to such quarter and 
     approved in that or any subsequent quarter.

                  Payments to Health Care Trust Funds

       For payment to the Federal Hospital Insurance and the 
     Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds, as 
     provided under section 1844, 1860D-16 and 1860D-31 of the 
     Social Security Act, sections 103(c) and 111(d) of the Social 
     Security Amendments of 1965, section 278(d) of Public Law 97-
     248, and for administrative expenses incurred pursuant to 
     section 201(g) of the Social Security Act, $114,608,900,000. 
     To ensure prompt payments of Medicare prescription drug 
     benefits as provided under section 1860D-16 of the Social 
     Security Act, $5,216,900,000, to become available on October 
     1, 2005, for fiscal year 2006.

                           Program Management

       For carrying out, except as otherwise provided, titles XI, 
     XVIII, XIX, and XXI of the Social Security Act, titles XIII 
     and XXVII of the Public Health Service Act, and the Clinical 
     Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988, not to exceed 
     $2,746,253,000, to be transferred from the Federal Hospital 
     Insurance and the Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance 
     Trust Funds, as authorized by section 201(g) of the Social 
     Security Act; together with all funds collected in accordance 
     with section 353 of the Public Health Service Act and section 
     1857(e)(2) of the Social Security Act, and such sums as may 
     be collected from authorized user fees and the sale of data, 
     which shall remain available until expended: Provided, That 
     all funds derived in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 9701 from 
     organizations established under title XIII of the Public 
     Health Service Act shall be credited to and available for 
     carrying out the purposes of this appropriation: Provided 
     further, That $24,400,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2006, is for contract costs for CMS's Systems 
     Revitalization Plan: Provided further, That $78,300,000, to 
     remain available until September 30, 2006, is for contract 
     costs for the Healthcare Integrated General Ledger Accounting 
     System: Provided further, That not less than $129,000,000 
     shall be for processing Medicare appeals, of which 
     $50,000,000 shall be transferred to the Social Security 
     Administration for processing Medicare appeals: Provided 
     further, That the Secretary of Health and Human Services is 
     directed to collect fees in fiscal year 2005 from 
     Medicare+Choice organizations pursuant to section 1857(e)(2) 
     of the Social Security Act and from eligible organizations 
     with risk-sharing contracts under section 1876 of that Act 
     pursuant to section 1876(k)(4)(D) of that Act: Provided 
     further, That the aggregate amount under this heading is 
     hereby reduced by $9,000,000, such reduction shall be 
     allocated among the programs and activities under this 
     heading (including programs and activities for which amounts 
     are specified under this heading) in such manner as the 
     Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 
     determines to be appropriate.

      Health Maintenance Organization Loan and Loan Guarantee Fund

       For carrying out subsections (d) and (e) of section 1308 of 
     the Public Health Service Act, any amounts received by the 
     Secretary in connection with loans and loan guarantees under 
     title XIII of the Public Health Service Act, to be available 
     without fiscal year limitation for the payment of outstanding 
     obligations. During fiscal year 2005, no commitments for 
     direct loans or loan guarantees shall be made.

                Administration for Children and Families

  Payments to States for Child Support Enforcement and Family Support 
                                Programs

       For making payments to States or other non-Federal entities 
     under titles I, IV-D, X, XI, XIV, and XVI of the Social 
     Security Act and the Act of July 5, 1960 (24 U.S.C. ch. 9), 
     $2,873,802,000, to remain available until expended; and for 
     such purposes for the first quarter of fiscal year 2006, 
     $1,200,000,000, to remain available until expended.
       For making payments to each State for carrying out the 
     program of Aid to Families with Dependent Children under 
     title IV-A of the Social Security Act before the effective 
     date of the program of Temporary Assistance to Needy Families 
     (TANF) with respect to such State, such sums as may be 
     necessary: Provided, That the sum of the amounts available to 
     a State with respect to expenditures under such title IV-A in 
     fiscal year 1997 under this appropriation and under such 
     title IV-A as amended by the Personal Responsibility and Work 
     Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 shall not exceed the 
     limitations under section 116(b) of such Act.
       For making, after May 31 of the current fiscal year, 
     payments to States or other non-Federal entities under titles 
     I, IV-D, X, XI, XIV, and XVI of the Social Security Act and 
     the Act of July 5, 1960 (24 U.S.C. ch. 9), for the last 3 
     months of the current fiscal year for unanticipated costs, 
     incurred for the current fiscal year, such sums as may be 
     necessary.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to this section of the bill? If 
not, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                   Low-Income Home Energy Assistance


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For carrying out low-income home energy assistance 
     activities, $2,227,000,000: Provided, That of the total 
     amount provided under this heading, $1,900,000,000 shall be 
     for the low-income home energy assistance program under title 
     XXVI of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (42 
     U.S.C. 8621 et seq.): Provided further, That of the total 
     amount provided under this heading, $100,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended, shall be for the low-income home 
     energy assistance program under title XXVI of the Omnibus 
     Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (42 U.S.C. 8621 et seq.) 
     for the unanticipated home energy assistance needs of one or 
     more States, as authorized by section 2604(e) of such Act, 
     and notwithstanding the designation requirement of section 
     2602(e) of such Act: Provided further, That of the total 
     amount provided under this heading, $227,000,000 is hereby 
     transferred to the Department of Energy for the 
     weatherization assistance program under part A of title IV of 
     the Energy Conservation and Production Act (42 U.S.C. 6861 et 
     seq.), and shall remain available until expended.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Sanders

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Sanders:
       Page 42, line 11, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $22,000,000)''.
       Page 42, line 12, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $11,000,000)''.
       Page 42, line 25, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $11,000,000)''.
       Page 50, line 12, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $26,000,000)''.

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by thanking the gentleman 
from Ohio (Chairman Regula) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Ranking 
Member Obey) for their very, very hard work on this important bill.
  Mr. Chairman, as I think every American from Vermont to California 
knows, in a couple of weeks as winter approaches, people are going to 
have a very, very rude surprise when they take a look at their home 
heating bills. I do not have to tell anybody here or anybody in America 
that the cost of home heating fuels are skyrocketing

[[Page H6830]]

out of control, and I do not have to tell anybody here that millions 
and millions and millions of Americans are going to find it 
increasingly difficult to pay these outrageously high costs in order to 
keep warm this winter.
  Mr. Chairman, according to the Energy Information Administration, the 
price of heating oil, natural gas and propane are expected to 
skyrocket. They are going to go off the wall.
  The amendment that I am offering today would provide relief to 
hundreds of thousands of families by increasing funding for the highly 
successful and widely supported Low Income Home Energy Assistance 
Program, the LIHEAP program, as well as the Weatherization Assistance 
Program, by $22 million. This increase, I should point out to my 
friends, would still be $42 million below the President's request. The 
amendment would be offset by a $26 million reduction in departmental 
management at the Department of Health and Human Services, which would 
still provide, with that reduction, level funding for this program.
  This amendment has tripartisan support and is being cosponsored by my 
colleagues, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons), the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy), the gentleman from New 
Hampshire (Mr. Bradley), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), 
and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan). It also enjoys the 
very strong support of the National Community Action Foundation.
  Mr. Chairman, from California to Vermont, every American knows that 
energy costs are only going to go up this winter. Here is what the 
Energy Information Administration is predicting: Compared to the 
winters of 1998 to 2000, the price of natural gas will be 55 percent 
higher; the price of heating oil will be 45 percent higher; and the 
price of propane will be 41 percent higher.
  LIHEAP is the primary program that provides assistance to help lower-
income families pay their energy bills, and there has been no time when 
more people are going to need LIHEAP assistance than now. We are facing 
a crisis, and if we do not act, large numbers of Americans could well 
go cold this winter.
  Mr. Chairman, in this country no American family should go without 
heat this winter. Not one senior citizen should choose between heating 
their homes and paying for the prescription drugs that they need.
  Mr. Chairman, LIHEAP and weatherization enjoy broad bipartisan 
support in Congress. Last March, more than 70 Members of both the House 
and Senate, including 20 Republicans, cosigned letters calling for $3 
billion in funding for LIHEAP. Even if this amendment were signed into 
law, LIHEAP would still be more than $500 million short of that mark.
  Similar amendments that I have offered in the past to increase 
funding for weatherization have been very successful because I think 
they have strong tripartisan support, understanding that it is absurd 
that people lose their heat through faulty windows or roofs, and that 
it makes sense economically and environmentally to substantially 
increase weatherization.
  Mr. Chairman, for those of us concerned about protecting the 
financial well-being of lower-income Americans and for those of us 
concerned about the environment, this is a very important amendment. It 
will make more homes throughout this country energy-efficient through 
proper insulation. This is good for low-income people, it is good for 
the government, it is good for our environment.
  The weatherization program also creates good-paying jobs, increases 
property values, and decreases U.S. energy use by the equivalent of 
some 15 million barrels of oil every year.
  Under this program, 105,000 homes will be weatherized this year, but 
much more can and must be done, and while 4.8 million families received 
LIHEAP assistance this year, over 25 million eligible families did not 
receive any help due to lack of funding from the Federal Government.
  Mr. Chairman, we can do better than that, we must do better than 
that, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this important 
amendment.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  I rise in support of the Sanders-Simmons-McCarthy amendment and am 
honored to be a cosponsor.
  This vital amendment would increase funding for the Low Income Energy 
Assistance Program and Weatherization Assistance Program by $26 
million.
  Recent predictions indicate that this winter may be one of the 
harshest in many years in the Northeast, and the Energy Information 
Administration is predicting the price of heating oil, natural gas and 
propane will skyrocket. By the way, those prices have already 
skyrocketed.
  LIHEAP provides the needed warmth for our most vulnerable 
communities, the poor, the elderly and the disabled. These 
disadvantaged communities are also, unfortunately, the most affected by 
gun violence.
  When we have seen over the last several months that unemployment has 
gone up in certain areas of our country, our seniors are facing higher 
medical costs, higher prescription drug costs, now a 17 percent 
increase on their Medicare. Adding any little bit, amount, as far as 
increases on heating is going to be a problem for them.
  As my colleague from Vermont has said, there is no one in this 
country that should be cold, but also another thing that happens, 
unfortunately, in this poorest of the poor communities is the gun 
violence we see on a daily basis. I could speak about that in my own 
district of Long Island. I know they say the suburban areas do not have 
gun violence. Well, unfortunately, after September 13 we are probably 
going to start seeing an increase of that because we are not allowed to 
bring up the assault weapons bill here on the House floor.
  It is a shame that our seniors and our most vulnerable, who are our 
children and the poor that live in the communities, will be facing 
these guns again. It is a shame that our police officers who patrol 
these areas will also be facing these problems again.
  I am sorry that we are not allowed to bring up the assault weapons 
bill that will expire on September 13. I hope that the leadership will 
change its mind.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that we recognized in our bill the 
importance of LIHEAP. We did increase it by $111 million over last 
year. The total provided in the bill is now $1.9 billion, a lot of 
money, and that is the formula grants that go right out to the States. 
In addition, there is $100 million for the contingent emergency fund, 
and lastly, in the weatherization assistance grant, which came to us 
from the Subcommittee on the Interior and Related Agencies, we are 
funded at $227 million.
  None of us know exactly what the needs will be in the coming winter. 
It could be severe, it could be mild; and if it is a mild winter, I 
think this is more than adequate. If it is a severe winter, we may want 
to do a supplemental appropriation.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for his support for 
these programs over the years, and I am not going to argue with him 
about the value of these programs because I know he appreciates the 
value of the programs.
  But what my friend cannot deny is that the cost of heating fuels are 
skyrocketing. There is no debate about that, and the problem is that if 
we simply increase weatherization and LIHEAP by a little bit, it is not 
going to keep up with 30, 40, 50 percent increases in home heating 
fuel.
  I think my friend would recognize, and none of us can predict the 
weather, but even with an average winter, the fact that heating fuels 
are soaring will mean that fewer dollars will be available to people, 
or we are going to have to cut back on the number of people that 
utilize the programs.
  All I am doing, this is not a multibillion-dollar increase, and I 
know my friend's heart is in the right place on this issue. It is a 
relatively modest increase of $22 million. I would appreciate support 
for it.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, it seems easy to take 
this out of the administrative

[[Page H6831]]

budget of the Secretary of Health and Human Services, but let me point 
out that he has a great challenge in oversight to manage that 
Department effectively, and that is part of his administrative budget.
  Within that budget, he has to administer the Centers for Disease 
Control, the National Institutes of Health, the FDA, HRSA, SAMHSA, the 
Indian Health Services, CMS, the children and families programs, the 
older americans programs and the health care quality. Now, that is 
quite a range of services that he has to manage effectively if they are 
going to serve the public well, and we are faced with some priority 
choices here.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, if my friend would further yield, I 
understand that, and it is like I would not be unhappy if the gentleman 
took care of that in conference. I know it is a tough judgment.
  I simply would like the Members to stand up for folks who might go 
cold this winter. That is the point that I want to make. I am not going 
to get in a great argument with my colleague here. And perhaps he can 
adjust that in conference.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, well, if the gentleman would be willing to 
withdraw, we certainly would keep it in mind in conference, because I 
understand. I come from a State where it gets reasonably cold in the 
winter, too.

                              {time}  1415

  I understand what the gentleman is saying about fuel costs. We do not 
know, I see gasoline is like a yo-yo. One day it is $1.89 out my way, 
and the next day it is $1.69. But the problem for the Secretary of HHS 
to manage all these agencies, what we have tried to do is put in a 
reasonable amount for his needs.
  Now, in conference, maybe we can address this, and we would certainly 
keep it in mind if the gentleman would consider withdrawing it.
  Mr. SANDERS. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Chairman, I 
think it is best to give the Members an opportunity to express their 
will on this, but I thank the gentleman very, very much.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Vermont for bringing forth 
this very, very important amendment. Tens of millions of families in 
America are in for bad news this winter when they get their heating 
bills in the mail. According to the Energy Information Administration, 
the prices of heating oil and natural gas are expected to skyrocket. 
The EIA predicts that compared to the winter of just 4 years ago, the 
price of natural gas will be 55 percent higher and the price of heating 
oil will be 45 percent higher this winter.
  Now, these increased costs could not come at a worse time. According 
to our Census Bureau, since 2001, when President Bush took office, the 
number of people living in poverty has increased by 4.3 million, and 
the median family income has dropped by over $1,500. The median family 
is the exact mid-point among our roughly 100 million American families, 
and all families with income below that median family's income have 
lost income. Families are already struggling to pay high and rising 
gasoline and health care costs.
  So the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, the LIHEAP program, 
is the primary program that provides assistance to help lower-income 
families pay their energy bills. There has been no time when more 
people are going to need LIHEAP assistance than now. This amendment 
would provide modest, but important, relief to thousands of these 
families by increasing funding for the LIHEAP and Weatherization 
Assistance Program by about $22 million. The increase proposed by this 
amendment would still leave that LIHEAP account $42 million below the 
President's request.
  Mr. Chairman, not one family should go without heat this winter, and 
not one senior citizen should have to choose between heating their home 
and purchasing their prescription drugs. I urge my colleagues to vote 
``yes'' on this important amendment when it comes up later.
  Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment of the gentleman 
from Vermont, and thank also the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Regula), for his support of LIHEAP funding, both in this budget and in 
the past. However, given the recent run-up in the cost of all kinds of 
petroleum products, gasoline, to say nothing of natural gas and the 
price of oil, this is a very important issue for all of us in the 
Northeast and in the cold-weather States.
  Before I became a Member of Congress, I served in the New Hampshire 
legislature, and I chaired the committee that dealt with all of the 
energy issues, so I know firsthand how important LIHEAP funding on a 
Federal basis is for all of the cold-weather States. We have seen over 
the last several years the price of natural gas increase by over 50 
percent, the price of oil by 45 percent, propane by 40 percent; and it 
is going to cost, Mr. Chairman, over $1,000 to heat an average home 
this winter with natural gas, oil, and propane. So this modest amount 
of money, $22 million, which would come out of overhead and 
administration, is very important to my region of the country, and I 
ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this amendment to 
increase funding for the highly successful Low Income Home Energy 
Assistance Program (LIHEAP) and Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) 
by $22 million. This modest increase in funding would still be $42 
million below the President's request, but it could help thousands of 
low-income Americans, the elderly and disabled stay warm this winter. 
This increased investment for our Nation's most vulnerable population 
would be offset by a $26 million reduction in Departmental Management 
at the Department of Health and Human Services which would still 
provide level funding for this program.
  The Energy Information Administration is predicting that the price of 
heating oil, natural gas and propane will skyrocket this winter. 
Compared to average heating costs from 1998 to 2000, consumers are 
expected to pay 55 percent more for natural gas; 45 percent more for 
heating oil; and 41 percent more for propane. Heating a home with 
natural gas will cost an average of $1,049 this winter; heating with 
fuel oil will cost $1,094; and, heating with propane will cost $1,361.
  This increased cost in energy couldn't come at a worse time. Since 
2001, the number of people living in poverty has increased by 4.3 
million, and the average family income has dropped by over $1,500. 
LIHEAP and WAP are needed now more than ever to make sure that on the 
richest country on earth, our constituents don't have to make the 
unacceptable choice between heating their homes and feeding their 
families.
  Last March, more than 70 Members of both the House and Senate, 
including 20 Republicans, co-signed letters in support of $3 billion in 
funding for LIHEAP. Even if this amendment was signed into law, LIHEAP 
would still be more than $500 million short of this mark.
  Simply put, Weatherization and LIHEAP work. WAP has allowed low-
income families to save more than $200 a year in heating costs. These 
modest savings can be used for other important family needs such as 
food, clothing, housing and other basic necessities of life. And, 
LIHEAP is a vital safety net for our Nation's low-income families which 
reduces the percentage of their income spent on residential energy 
costs. Unaffordable home energy can result in: homelessness; health and 
safety problems, such as malnutrition, hypothermia and heat stroke; 
and, lack of educational attainment for children. LIHEAP protects 
public health and safety by keeping families warm in the winter and 
cool in the summer.
  For all of these reasons I support this amendment.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this important 
amendment, which I am pleased to join in cosponsoring.
  This amendment would provide a modest boost to the funding levels for 
these two programs--$11 million more for LIHEAP and $11 million more 
for Weatherization. This additional funding is desperately needed, but 
it would still leave many needs unmet. LIHEAP alone needs $1 billion 
above the $1.9 billion level in this bill to simply maintain the 
purchasing power it enjoyed in 1982. Meanwhile, we are seeing greatly 
increased volatility in oil and natural gas markets which threaten 
consumers with higher home heating prices this winter. The Department 
of Energy reports that consumers are expected to pay 55 percent more 
for natural gas; 45 percent more for heating oil; and 41 percent more 
for propane than they did in the years between 1998 and 2000. As a 
result, heating a home with natural gas will cost an average of $1,049 
this winter; heating with fuel oil will cost $1,094; and, heating with 
propane will cost $1,361.
  According to the Census Bureau, nearly 36 million Americans--
including almost 13 million

[[Page H6832]]

children--now live in poverty. That is an increase of over a million 
people in the last year alone. Faced with a growing number of families 
in poverty, the Republican leadership has brought to the floor an 
appropriations bill that does little to help those Americans who have 
fallen below the poverty line. It seems the Republican leadership would 
rather protect President Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans 
than lend a helping hand to the poorest Americans.
  For the low income families and seniors of Massachusetts and the rest 
of New England, winter--and increased utility bills--will be here too 
soon. Many families and seniors will once again be faced with the 
difficult decision between heating and eating.
  Two crucial programs that help low-income families and seniors deal 
with the high cost of heating their homes in the winter are the Low 
Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) and the Weatherization 
Assistance Program. This appropriations bill's funding levels for these 
two crucial programs are inadequate to meet the current and growing 
needs of low-income Americans.
  There is bipartisan support from legislators representing warm and 
cold climates to raise LIHEAP's funding to $3 billion, but this 
appropriations bill is nowhere near that level of funding. I urge my 
colleagues to pass this amendment today as a first step to meeting 
LIHEAP needs in the very near future. We owe the low-income families 
that rely on this program no less.
  I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the Sanders 
amendment?
  If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) 
will be postponed.
  Are there further amendments to this paragraph of the bill?
  If not, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                     Refugee and Entrant Assistance

       For necessary expenses for refugee and entrant assistance 
     activities and for costs associated with the care and 
     placement of unaccompanied alien children authorized by title 
     IV of the Immigration and Nationality Act and section 501 of 
     the Refugee Education Assistance Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-
     422), for carrying out section 462 of the Homeland Security 
     Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-296), and for carrying out the 
     Torture Victims Relief Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-179), 
     $491,336,000, of which up to $10,000,000 shall be available 
     to carry out the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2003 
     (Public Law 108-193): Provided, That funds appropriated under 
     this heading pursuant to section 414(a) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act and section 462 of the Homeland Security 
     Act of 2002 for fiscal year 2005 shall be available for the 
     costs of assistance provided and other activities to remain 
     available through September 30, 2007.

   Payments to States for the Child Care and Development Block Grant

       For carrying out sections 658A through 658R of the Omnibus 
     Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (The Child Care and 
     Development Block Grant Act of 1990), $2,099,729,000 shall be 
     used to supplement, not supplant state general revenue funds 
     for child care assistance for low-income families: Provided, 
     That $19,120,000 shall be available for child care resource 
     and referral and school-aged child care activities, of which 
     $1,000,000 shall be for the Child Care Aware toll free 
     hotline: Provided further, That, in addition to the amounts 
     required to be reserved by the States under section 658G, 
     $272,672,000 shall be reserved by the States for activities 
     authorized under section 658G, of which $100,000,000 shall be 
     for activities that improve the quality of infant and toddler 
     care: Provided further, That $9,864,000 shall be for use by 
     the Secretary for child care research, demonstration, and 
     evaluation activities.

                      Social Services Block Grant

       For making grants to States pursuant to section 2002 of the 
     Social Security Act, $1,700,000,000: Provided, That 
     notwithstanding subparagraph (B) of section 404(d)(2) of such 
     Act, the applicable percent specified under such subparagraph 
     for a State to carry out State programs pursuant to title XX 
     of such Act shall be 4.5 percent.

                Children and Families Services Programs

       For carrying out, except as otherwise provided, the Runaway 
     and Homeless Youth Act, the Developmental Disabilities 
     Assistance and Bill of Rights Act, the Head Start Act, the 
     Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, sections 310 and 
     316 of the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act, as 
     amended, the Native American Programs Act of 1974, title II 
     of Public Law 95-266 (adoption opportunities), the Adoption 
     and Safe Families Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-89), sections 
     1201 and 1211 of the Children's Health Act of 2000, the 
     Abandoned Infants Assistance Act of 1988, sections 261 and 
     291 of the Help America Vote Act of 2002, part B(1) of title 
     IV and sections 413, 429A, 1110, and 1115 of the Social 
     Security Act, and sections 40155, 40211, and 40241 of Public 
     Law 103-322; for making payments under the Community Services 
     Block Grant Act, sections 439(h), 473A, and 477(i) of the 
     Social Security Act, and title IV of Public Law 105-285, and 
     for necessary administrative expenses to carry out said Acts 
     and titles I, IV, V, X, XI, XIV, XVI, and XX of the Social 
     Security Act, the Act of July 5, 1960 (24 U.S.C. ch. 9), the 
     Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981, title IV of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act, section 501 of the Refugee 
     Education Assistance Act of 1980, sections 40155, 40211, and 
     40241 of Public Law 103-322, and section 126 and titles IV 
     and V of Public Law 100-485, $8,985,663,000, of which 
     $32,103,000, to remain available until September 30, 2006, 
     shall be for grants to States for adoption incentive 
     payments, as authorized by section 473A of title IV of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 670-679) and may be made for 
     adoptions completed before September 30, 2005: Provided 
     further, That $6,898,580,000 shall be for making payments 
     under the Head Start Act, of which $1,400,000,000 shall 
     become available October 1, 2005, and remain available 
     through September 30, 2006: Provided further, That 
     $710,088,000 shall be for making payments under the Community 
     Services Block Grant Act: Provided further, That not less 
     than $7,184,000 shall be for section 680(3)(B) of the 
     Community Services Block Grant Act, as amended: Provided 
     further, That in addition to amounts provided herein, 
     $5,982,000 shall be available from amounts available under 
     section 241 of the Public Health Service Act to carry out the 
     provisions of section 1110 of the Social Security Act: 
     Provided further, That to the extent Community Services Block 
     Grant funds are distributed as grant funds by a State to an 
     eligible entity as provided under the Act, and have not been 
     expended by such entity, they shall remain with such entity 
     for carryover into the next fiscal year for expenditure by 
     such entity consistent with program purposes: Provided 
     further, That the Secretary shall establish procedures 
     regarding the disposition of intangible property which 
     permits grant funds, or intangible assets acquired with funds 
     authorized under section 680 of the Community Services Block 
     Grant Act, as amended, to become the sole property of such 
     grantees after a period of not more than 12 years after the 
     end of the grant for purposes and uses consistent with the 
     original grant: Provided further, That funds appropriated for 
     section 680(a)(2) of the Community Services Block Grant Act, 
     as amended, shall be available for financing construction and 
     rehabilitation and loans or investments in private business 
     enterprises owned by community development corporations: 
     Provided further, That $55,000,000 is for a compassion 
     capital fund to provide grants to charitable organizations to 
     emulate model social service programs and to encourage 
     research on the best practices of social service 
     organizations: Provided further, That $15,000,000 shall be 
     for activities authorized by the Help America Vote Act of 
     2002, of which $10,000,000 shall be for payments to States to 
     promote access for voters with disabilities, and of which 
     $5,000,000 shall be for payments to States for protection and 
     advocacy systems for voters with disabilities: Provided 
     further, That $105,046,000 is only for making competitive 
     grants to provide abstinence education (as defined by section 
     510(b)(2) of the Social Security Act) to adolescents, and for 
     Federal costs of administering the grant: Provided further, 
     That grants under the immediately preceding proviso shall be 
     made only to public and private entities which agree that, 
     with respect to an adolescent to whom the entities provide 
     abstinence education under such grant, the entities will not 
     provide to that adolescent any other education regarding 
     sexual conduct, except that, in the case of an entity 
     expressly required by law to provide health information or 
     services the adolescent shall not be precluded from seeking 
     health information or services from the entity in a different 
     setting than the setting in which abstinence education was 
     provided: Provided further, That within amounts provided 
     herein for abstinence education for adolescents, up to 
     $10,000,000 may be available for a national abstinence 
     education campaign: Provided further, That in addition to 
     amounts provided herein for abstinence education for 
     adolescents, $4,500,000 shall be available from amounts 
     available under section 241 of the Public Health Services Act 
     to carry out evaluations (including longitudinal evaluations) 
     of adolescent pregnancy prevention approaches: Provided 
     further, That $2,000,000 shall be for improving the Public 
     Assistance Reporting Information System, including grants to 
     States to support data collection for a study of the system's 
     effectiveness.

                   Promoting Safe and Stable Families

       For carrying out section 436 of the Social Security Act, 
     $305,000,000 and for section 437, $105,000,000.

       Payments to States for Foster Care and Adoption Assistance

       For making payments to States or other non-Federal entities 
     under title IV-E of the Social Security Act, $5,037,900,000.
       For making payments to States or other non-Federal entities 
     under title IV-E of the Act, for the first quarter of fiscal 
     year 2006, $1,767,200,000.

[[Page H6833]]

       For making, after May 31 of the current fiscal year, 
     payments to States or other non-Federal entities under 
     section 474 of title IV-E, for the last 3 months of the 
     current fiscal year for unanticipated costs, incurred for the 
     current fiscal year, such sums as may be necessary.

  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for the 
purpose of engaging in a colloquy with the chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, the committee report on the Labor-HHS bill includes 
language that encourages the National Institutes of Health to adopt a 
policy that would make available to the public without charge the 
scientific journal articles that report the results of research that 
has been supported with NIH funding. As you know, Mr. Chairman, I have 
been very concerned for a number of years that the public is not always 
able to access the results of that research, federally funded research, 
unless they had a university library nearby or could pay often very 
large subscription fees of the journals, costs that are beyond most 
families' budgets.
  The NIH, in response to language in the bill, has acted quickly to 
respond to our guidance. It posted the draft policy last Friday, 
September 3. Dr. Zerhouni, the Director of NIH, took care to seek 
comment from the various stakeholders involved in the issue, seeking 
comment from publishers, for-profit and nonprofit groups, from 
scientists, and from advocates for curing different diseases; and he 
has held three public meetings. Dr. Zerhouni heard some powerful 
stories from patients and family members who were struggling to learn 
as much as they could about treatment for serious diseases that affect 
them and their loved ones and had previously been unable to access some 
of the key information that could help them.
  Dr. Zerhouni has produced a draft proposal from NIH that carefully 
balances the interests of these groups; and, most importantly, Mr. 
Chairman, it moves NIH in the direction of making more research 
available to the people who financed it, namely, the American 
taxpayers.
  Mr. Chairman, I see the action by the NIH to date as being consistent 
with the language in our bill, and I would appreciate the chairman's 
thoughts on this.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ISTOOK. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I have been very pleased to see that NIH 
has responded so quickly and thoughtfully to the House report language. 
I think it is a very simple proposition: NIH, or the taxpayer, pays for 
the research, even pays for the journals, and should be able to share 
the results with the taxpaying public. Our investment in research is 
not well served by a process that limits taxpayer access instead of 
expanding it, and I should add public access.
  I encourage NIH to move expeditiously to finalize its proposal after 
considering the comments it receives on its policy. The public deserves 
nothing less.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman 
for his comments.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                        Administration on Aging

                        Aging Services Programs

       For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided, the 
     Older Americans Act of 1965, as amended, and section 398 of 
     the Public Health Service Act, $1,403,479,000, of which 
     $5,500,000 shall be available for activities regarding 
     medication management, screening, and education to prevent 
     incorrect medication and adverse drug reactions; and of which 
     $4,558,000 shall remain available until September 30, 2007, 
     for the White House Conference on Aging.

                        Office of the Secretary

                    General Departmental Management

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided, for general 
     departmental management, including hire of six sedans, and 
     for carrying out titles III, XVII, XX, and XXI of the Public 
     Health Service Act, and the United States-Mexico Border 
     Health Commission Act, $380,298,000, together with $5,851,000 
     to be transferred and expended as authorized by section 
     201(g)(1) of the Social Security Act from the Hospital 
     Insurance Trust Fund and the Supplemental Medical Insurance 
     Trust Fund: Provided, That of the funds made available under 
     this heading for carrying out title XX of the Public Health 
     Service Act, $13,120,000 shall be for activities specified 
     under section 2003(b)(2), all of which shall be for 
     prevention service demonstration grants under section 
     510(b)(2) of title V of the Social Security Act, as amended, 
     without application of the limitation of section 2010(c) of 
     said title XX: Provided further, That of this amount, 
     $25,000,000 shall be for advancing health care information 
     technology nationally, including demonstration project 
     grants; $52,838,000 shall be for minority AIDS prevention and 
     treatment activities; $14,847,000 shall be for an Information 
     Technology Security and Innovation Fund for Department-wide 
     activities involving cybersecurity, information technology 
     security, and related innovation projects; and $5,000,000 
     shall be to assist Afghanistan in the development of maternal 
     and child health clinics, consistent with section 
     103(a)(4)(H) of the Afghanistan Freedom Support Act of 2002.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Stupak

  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on this, and we 
do not have a copy of the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. If the gentleman could provide us with a copy, we will 
distribute it to everybody.
  Is there objection to the gentleman from Michigan offering his 
amendment at this point?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Stupak:
       Page 49, line 25, insert ``(increased by $10,000,000)'' 
     after the 1st dollar amount.
       Page 50, line 3, insert ``; of which $160,414,000 shall be 
     available to carry out the Nutrition Services Incentive 
     Program;'' after ``reactions;''.
       Page 50, line 12, insert ``(reduced by $10,000,000)'' after 
     the dollar amount.

  Mr. STUPAK (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to increase 
funding for seniors' meals programs by $10 million. The Meals on Wheels 
program is a critical lifeline to our Nation's seniors who are most in 
need of our assistance.
  The bill includes $730 million for senior nutrition programs, $16 
million more than last year, or a 2.2 percent increase. I wish to thank 
the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), and the ranking 
member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), for including these 
additional funds and recognizing the importance of these programs to 
our seniors. I am offering this amendment because, despite the increase 
in the bill, the funding falls far too short.
  I am sure that all of us have met and spoken with seniors in our 
districts. I am sure that the seniors have told my colleagues how much 
they depend on senior meals assistance and the Meals on Wheels program, 
or the meals they receive at the senior centers. I am sure that if 
Members, like I have done in the past, would go out and actually 
deliver senior meals to the homes of homebound seniors, they would 
realize how important not just these prepared meals are but also the 
social interaction these homebound seniors have with members of the 
public.
  I have heard from the area agencies on aging in my district that they 
are cutting meals they are offering. In Michigan, we have had to cut 
back significantly weekend meals, evening meals, and even the senior 
lunch meals. The challenges faced by our Meals on Wheels program is 
compounded by the fiscal problems of the States that have not been able 
to increase their contributions, despite their acknowledgment that the 
need for these programs continues to grow.
  This amendment would simply increase funding for the Nutrition 
Services Incentives Program by $10 million to $160 million. The House 
approved a similar amendment of mine back in 2001. Unfortunately, that 
amendment back in the 2001 appropriation bill to increase funding for 
the program to $160 million was dropped in conference. That was 4 years 
ago, and funding for senior meals programs has stayed basically flat 
until this year.
  Mr. Chairman, we need to make this investment now. Nationally, 4.6 
million Meals on Wheels meals were cut last year, and a number of 
congregate meals were cut by 2.9 million, for a total of 7.5 million 
meals that had to

[[Page H6834]]

be cut last year because of lack of funding. These decreases in funding 
ignore the 25 percent increase in the number of Americans who are 
expected to be eligible for the Older Americans Act programs in the 
next 5 years.

                              {time}  1430

  It is critical that we include the highest level of funding possible 
for senior nutrition programs. I understand and I appreciate the work 
of the committee and what they have done to increase funding. I 
appreciate the fact that both the ranking member and the chairman have 
indicated that, if possible, they will try to increase funding in the 
conference report.
  Mr. Chairman, I will ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment 
with the understanding that we will continue to work to increase 
funding in the future. This program is critically important to our 
seniors. While I appreciate the appropriators' work, I think we need to 
continue to highlight the concerns that we have for the lack of funds 
for the Senior Meal Program.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, when I hear my colleagues from both sides of the aisle 
offering all of these amendments obviously to help our constituents 
from all over the country, and I thank my chairman and the ranking 
member for working so hard to bring us everything we need. I think more 
of us as Members should sit here instead of trying to watch this on 
television. I know that we are working very hard to keep the people of 
the United States comfortable, to make sure they have heat and do 
research to keep them healthy, and yet we have a program in place that 
is going to expire on September 13, which is the assault weapons bill. 
Yet we are not allowed to bring it up on the floor to talk about it. 
That is a shame. This is something that is working, does not cost any 
money, and yet as Members of Congress we are not allowed to bring the 
bill up for a vote, and the American people want it.
  I thank the committee and subcommittee chairmen for doing the hard 
work they are doing, but I wish we could debate the assault weapons 
ban. The police officers on the street want to keep this ban in place. 
The health care professionals want to keep this ban in place. Every 
help organization wants to keep this ban in place. All of the different 
organizations which represent children want to keep the ban in place. I 
do not understand why we do not bring that issue to the floor for a 
vote. I hope by Monday, September 13, the White House will heed our 
call. I hope that the Speaker of the House will heed our call and 
answer to the American people.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                      Office of Inspector General

       For expenses necessary for the Office of Inspector General, 
     including the hire of passenger motor vehicles for 
     investigations, in carrying out the provisions of the 
     Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, $40,323,000: 
     Provided, That of such amount, necessary sums are available 
     for providing protective services to the Secretary and 
     investigating non-payment of child support cases for which 
     non-payment is a Federal offense under 18 U.S.C. 228.


                        office for civil rights

       For expenses necessary for the Office for Civil Rights, 
     $32,043,000, together with not to exceed $3,314,000 to be 
     transferred and expended as authorized by section 201(g)(1) 
     of the Social Security Act from the Hospital Insurance Trust 
     Fund and the Supplemental Medical Insurance Trust Fund.


                            policy research

       For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided, 
     research studies under section 1110 of the Social Security 
     Act and title III of the Public Health Service Act, 
     $20,750,000, which shall be available from amounts available 
     under section 241 of the Public Health Service Act to carry 
     out national health or human services research and evaluation 
     activities: Provided, That the expenditure of any funds 
     available under section 241 of the Public Health Service Act 
     is subject to the requirements of section 206 of this Act.

     Retirement Pay and Medical Benefits for Commissioned Officers

       For retirement pay and medical benefits of Public Health 
     Service Commissioned Officers as authorized by law, for 
     payments under the Retired Serviceman's Family Protection 
     Plan and Survivor Benefit Plan, for medical care of 
     dependents and retired personnel under the Dependents' 
     Medical Care Act (10 U.S.C. ch. 55 and 56), and for payments 
     pursuant to section 229(b) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 429(b)), such amounts as may be required during the 
     current fiscal year. The following are definitions for the 
     medical benefits of the Public Health Service Commissioned 
     Officers that apply to 10 U.S.C. chapter 56, section 1116(c). 
     The source of funds for the monthly accrual payments into the 
     Department of Defense Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Care 
     Fund shall be the Retirement Pay and Medical Benefits for 
     Commissioned Officers account. For purposes of this Act, the 
     term ``pay of members'' shall be construed to be synonymous 
     with retirement payments to United States Public Health 
     Service officers who are retired for age, disability, or 
     length of service; payments to survivors of deceased 
     officers; medical care to active duty and retired members and 
     dependents and beneficiaries; and for payments to the Social 
     Security Administration for military service credits; all of 
     which payments are provided for by the Retirement Pay and 
     Medical Benefits for Commissioned Officers account.


            public health and social services emergency fund

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For expenses necessary to support activities related to 
     countering potential biological, disease, nuclear, 
     radiological, and chemical threats to civilian populations, 
     $1,842,247,000: Provided, That this amount is distributed as 
     follows: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 
     $1,187,760,000; Office of the Secretary, $64,438,000; 
     National Institutes of Health, $47,400,000; and Health 
     Resources and Services Administration, $542,649,000: Provided 
     further, That employees of the Centers for Disease Control 
     and Prevention or the Public Health Service, both civilian 
     and Commissioned Officers, detailed to States, 
     municipalities, or other organizations under authority of 
     section 214 of the Public Health Service Act for purposes 
     related to homeland security, shall be treated as non-Federal 
     employees for reporting purposes only and shall not be 
     included within any personnel ceiling applicable to the 
     Agency, Service, or the Department of Health and Human 
     Services during the period of detail or assignment.
       In addition, $450,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended, for the Strategic National Stockpile: Provided, 
     That subject to 31 U.S.C. 1531, there shall be transferred to 
     the Secretary of Health and Human Services the functions, 
     assets, unexpended balances (including those from 
     appropriations authorized under section 121(3) of Public Law 
     107-188 and prior authorities); and liabilities of the 
     Strategic National Stockpile, including the functions of the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security relating thereto: Provided 
     further, That the stockpile shall be deployed as deemed 
     appropriate by the Secretary, or when requested by the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security.
       In addition, for activities to ensure a year-round 
     influenza vaccine production capacity and the development and 
     implementation of rapidly expandable influenza vaccine 
     production technologies, $60,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended.

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 201. Funds appropriated in this title shall be 
     available for not to exceed $50,000 for official reception 
     and representation expenses when specifically approved by the 
     Secretary.
       Sec. 202. The Secretary shall make available through 
     assignment not more than 60 employees of the Public Health 
     Service to assist in child survival activities and to work in 
     AIDS programs through and with funds provided by the Agency 
     for International Development, the United Nations 
     International Children's Emergency Fund or the World Health 
     Organization.
       Sec. 203. None of the funds appropriated under this Act may 
     be used to implement section 399F(b) of the Public Health 
     Service Act or section 1503 of the National Institutes of 
     Health Revitalization Act of 1993, Public Law 103-43.
       Sec. 204. None of the funds appropriated in this Act for 
     the National Institutes of Health, the Agency for Healthcare 
     Research and Quality, and the Substance Abuse and Mental 
     Health Services Administration shall be used to pay the 
     salary of an individual, through a grant or other extramural 
     mechanism, at a rate in excess of Executive Level I.
       Sec. 205. None of the funds appropriated in this title for 
     Head Start shall be used to pay the compensation of an 
     individual, either as direct costs or any proration as an 
     indirect cost, at a rate in excess of Executive Level II.
       Sec. 206. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be 
     expended pursuant to section 241 of the Public Health Service 
     Act, except for funds specifically provided for in this Act, 
     or for other taps and assessments made by any office located 
     in the Department of Health and Human Services, prior to the 
     Secretary's preparation and submission of a report to the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the Senate and of the House 
     detailing the planned uses of such funds.
       Sec. 207. Notwithstanding section 241(a) of the Public 
     Health Service Act, such portion as the Secretary shall 
     determine, but not more than 2.3 percent, of any amounts 
     appropriated for programs authorized under said Act shall be 
     made available for the evaluation (directly, or by grants or 
     contracts) of

[[Page H6835]]

     the implementation and effectiveness of such programs.


                          (transfer of funds)

       Sec. 208. Not to exceed 1 percent of any discretionary 
     funds (pursuant to the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended) which are appropriated for 
     the current fiscal year for the Department of Health and 
     Human Services in this Act may be transferred between 
     appropriations, but no such appropriation shall be increased 
     by more than 3 percent by any such transfer: Provided, That 
     an appropriation may be increased by up to an additional 2 
     percent subject to approval by the House and Senate 
     Committees on Appropriations: Provided further, That the 
     Appropriations Committees of both Houses of Congress are 
     notified at least 15 days in advance of any transfer.
       Sec. 209. The Director of the National Institutes of 
     Health, jointly with the Director of the Office of AIDS 
     Research, may transfer up to 3 percent among institutes and 
     centers from the total amounts identified by these two 
     Directors as funding for research pertaining to the human 
     immunodeficiency virus: Provided, That the Congress is 
     promptly notified of the transfer.
       Sec. 210. Of the amounts made available in this Act for the 
     National Institutes of Health, the amount for research 
     related to the human immunodeficiency virus, as jointly 
     determined by the Director of the National Institutes of 
     Health and the Director of the Office of AIDS Research, shall 
     be made available to the ``Office of AIDS Research'' account. 
     The Director of the Office of AIDS Research shall transfer 
     from such account amounts necessary to carry out section 
     2353(d)(3) of the Public Health Service Act.
       Sec. 211. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be 
     made available to any entity under title X of the Public 
     Health Service Act unless the applicant for the award 
     certifies to the Secretary that it encourages family 
     participation in the decision of minors to seek family 
     planning services and that it provides counseling to minors 
     on how to resist attempts to coerce minors into engaging in 
     sexual activities.
       Sec. 212. None of the funds appropriated by this Act 
     (including funds appropriated to any trust fund) may be used 
     to carry out the Medicare+Choice program if the Secretary 
     denies participation in such program to an otherwise eligible 
     entity (including a Provider Sponsored Organization) because 
     the entity informs the Secretary that it will not provide, 
     pay for, provide coverage of, or provide referrals for 
     abortions: Provided, That the Secretary shall make 
     appropriate prospective adjustments to the capitation payment 
     to such an entity (based on an actuarially sound estimate of 
     the expected costs of providing the service to such entity's 
     enrollees): Provided further, That nothing in this section 
     shall be construed to change the Medicare program's coverage 
     for such services and a Medicare+Choice organization 
     described in this section shall be responsible for informing 
     enrollees where to obtain information about all Medicare 
     covered services.
       Sec. 213. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no 
     provider of services under title X of the Public Health 
     Service Act shall be exempt from any State law requiring 
     notification or the reporting of child abuse, child 
     molestation, sexual abuse, rape, or incest.
       Sec. 214. (a) Except as provided by subsection (e) none of 
     the funds appropriated by this Act may be used to withhold 
     substance abuse funding from a State pursuant to section 1926 
     of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300x-26) if such 
     State certifies to the Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     by May 1, 2005 that the State will commit additional State 
     funds, in accordance with subsection (b), to ensure 
     compliance with State laws prohibiting the sale of tobacco 
     products to individuals under 18 years of age.
       (b) The amount of funds to be committed by a State under 
     subsection (a) shall be equal to 1 percent of such State's 
     substance abuse block grant allocation for each percentage 
     point by which the State misses the retailer compliance rate 
     goal established by the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services under section 1926 of such Act.
       (c) The State is to maintain State expenditures in fiscal 
     year 2005 for tobacco prevention programs and for compliance 
     activities at a level that is not less than the level of such 
     expenditures maintained by the State for fiscal year 2004, 
     and adding to that level the additional funds for tobacco 
     compliance activities required under subsection (a). The 
     State is to submit a report to the Secretary on all fiscal 
     year 2004 State expenditures and all fiscal year 2005 
     obligations for tobacco prevention and compliance activities 
     by program activity by July 31, 2005.
       (d) The Secretary shall exercise discretion in enforcing 
     the timing of the State obligation of the additional funds 
     required by the certification described in subsection (a) as 
     late as July 31, 2005.
       (e) None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be used 
     to withhold substance abuse funding pursuant to section 1926 
     from a territory that receives less than $1,000,000.
       Sec. 215. In order for the Centers for Disease Control and 
     Prevention to carry out international health activities, 
     including HIV/AIDS and other infectious disease, chronic and 
     environmental disease, and other health activities abroad 
     during fiscal year 2005, the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services--
       (1) may exercise authority equivalent to that available to 
     the Secretary of State in section 2(c) of the State 
     Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 (22 U.S.C. 2669(c)). 
     The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall consult with 
     the Secretary of State and relevant Chief of Mission to 
     ensure that the authority provided in this section is 
     exercised in a manner consistent with section 207 of the 
     Foreign Service Act of 1980 (22 U.S.C. 3927) and other 
     applicable statutes administered by the Department of State, 
     and
       (2) is authorized to provide such funds by advance or 
     reimbursement to the Secretary of State as may be necessary 
     to pay the costs of acquisition, lease, alteration, 
     renovation, and management of facilities outside of the 
     United States for the use of the Department of Health and 
     Human Services. The Department of State shall cooperate fully 
     with the Secretary of Health and Human Services to ensure 
     that the Department of Health and Human Services has secure, 
     safe, functional facilities that comply with applicable 
     regulation governing location, setback, and other facilities 
     requirements and serve the purposes established by this Act. 
     The Secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of State, through grant or 
     cooperative agreement, to make available to public or 
     nonprofit private institutions or agencies in participating 
     foreign countries, funds to acquire, lease, alter, or 
     renovate facilities in those countries as necessary to 
     conduct programs of assistance for international health 
     activities, including activities relating to HIV/AIDS and 
     other infectious diseases, chronic and environmental 
     diseases, and other health activities abroad.
       Sec. 216. The Division of Federal Occupational Health may 
     utilize personal services contracting to employ professional 
     management/administrative and occupational health 
     professionals.
       Sec. 217. (a) Authority.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the Director of the National Institutes of 
     Health may use funds available under section 402(i) of the 
     Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 282(i)) to enter into 
     transactions (other than contracts, cooperative agreements, 
     or grants) to carry out research in support of the NIH 
     Roadmap Initiative of the Director.
       (b) Peer Review.--In entering into transactions under 
     subsection (a), the Director of the National Institutes of 
     Health may utilize such peer review procedures (including 
     consultation with appropriate scientific experts) as the 
     Director determines to be appropriate to obtain assessments 
     of scientific and technical merit. Such procedures shall 
     apply to such transactions in lieu of the peer review and 
     advisory council review procedures that would otherwise be 
     required under sections 301(a)(3), 405(b)(1)(B), 405(b)(2), 
     406(a)(3)(A), 492, and 494 of the Public Health Service Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 241, 284(b)(1)(B), 284(b)(2), 284a(a)(3)(A), 289a, 
     and 289c).
       Sec. 218. The unobligated balance of the funds appropriated 
     by section 1897(g) of the Social Security Act, as added by 
     section 1016 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, 
     and Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-173), is 
     rescinded.

  Mr. REGULA (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the remainder of the bill through page 63, line 13, 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 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to the portion of the bill now 
open?
  If not, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 219. (a) CMS Program Management Account.--The amount 
     otherwise provided by this Act for ``Centers for Medicare and 
     Medicaid Services--Program Management'' is hereby reduced by 
     $155,000,000.
       (b) Medicare Claims Processing Fee.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding section 1842(c)(4) of the 
     Social Security Act, each claim submitted by an individual or 
     entity furnishing items or services for which payment may be 
     made under part A or part B of title XVIII of such Act is 
     subject to a processing fee of $5.00 if the claim--
       (A) duplicates, in whole or in part, another claim 
     submitted by the same individual or entity; or
       (B) is a claim that cannot be processed and must be 
     returned by the medicare claims processing contractor 
     involved to the individual or entity for completion or 
     correction.
       (2) Deduction and transfer.--The Secretary of Health and 
     Human Services shall deduct any fees assessed pursuant to 
     paragraph (1) against an individual or entity from amounts 
     otherwise payable from a trust fund under such title to such 
     individual or entity, and shall transfer the amount so 
     deducted from such trust fund to the Program Management 
     account of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
       (3) Availability.--Fees collected under this subsection 
     shall remain available until expended.
       (4) Waiver authority.--The Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services may provide for waiver of fees for claims described 
     in paragraph (2) in cases of such compelling circumstances as 
     the Secretary may determine.

[[Page H6836]]

       (5) Exclusion of fees in allowable costs.--An entity may 
     not include a fee assessed pursuant to this subsection as an 
     allowable item on a cost report under the Social Security 
     Act.
       (6) Effective date.--This subsection shall apply to claims 
     referred to in paragraph (1) submitted on or after a date, 
     specified by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, that 
     is not later than 3 months after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, reluctantly, quite frankly, I raise this 
point of order, but it is necessary to do so.
  My point of order is against section 219(b) of the bill on the 
grounds that this provision violates clause 2(b) of House rule XXI 
because it is legislation included in a general appropriations bill. 
The rule, as I understand it, does not protect against that.
  My point of order is this proposes to change existing law and 
constitutes legislating in an appropriations bill and violates clause 
2(b) of rule XXI.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, reluctantly we concede the point of order, 
but I would point out this is part of the President's request. It is a 
management tool to let the user pay for a service being provided by the 
government. But the gentleman is correct, it does violate the right of 
the authorizers to deal with this subject, and it is not a proper part 
of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded and sustained. The 
provision is stricken from the bill.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 220. The amount appropriated in this Act for ``Centers 
     for Disease Control and Prevention--Disease Control Research 
     and Training'' is hereby reduced by $15,000,000, to be 
     derived from the amounts made available for administrative 
     and related information technology expenses: Provided, That 
     the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and 
     Prevention shall determine the allocation of the reduction 
     among Agency activities, and shall submit to the Committees 
     on Appropriations a report specifying the proposed 
     allocation.
       Sec. 221. Limitation on Use of Funds; Study.
       (a) Limitation on Funds.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, none of the funds appropriated by this Act 
     or any other Act may be expended by the Secretary of Health 
     and Human Services or by a medicare fiscal intermediary or 
     administrative contractor--
       (1) to apply the criteria (commonly known as the ``75 
     percent rule'') that are used to determine whether a hospital 
     or unit of a hospital is an inpatient rehabilitation facility 
     (as defined in Department of Health and Human Services, 
     Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, ``Medicare 
     Program; Final Rule; Changes to the Criteria for Being 
     Classified as an Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility'', 69 
     Federal Register 25751 et seq. (May 7, 2004), and any 
     accompanying CMS Manual System Transmittals (including, but 
     not limited to, Transmittal 221 and any change request 
     pursuant to such rule) for purposes of the medicare program;
       (2) to compile facility data pertaining to compliance with 
     such 75 percent rule or enforce such rule; or
       (3) to utilize or apply any existing or new local medical 
     review policy, local coverage determination, or national 
     coverage determination with respect to medical necessity 
     standards for inpatient rehabilitation facilities under the 
     medicare program;

     until the date that is 9 months after the date on which the 
     report required by subsection (b)(3) is transmitted to the 
     Secretary and the Congress.
       (b) Study and Report.--(1) The Secretary of Health and 
     Human Services shall contract with the Institute of Medicine 
     of the National Academy of Sciences to study and make 
     recommendations (and submit a report under paragraph (3)) 
     on--
       (A) a clinical consensus on how to modernize the medicare 
     criteria used to distinguish an inpatient rehabilitation 
     facility from an acute care hospital and other providers of 
     intensive medical rehabilitation; and
       (B) the appropriate medical necessity criteria for 
     determining clinical appropriateness of inpatient 
     rehabilitation facility admissions, with due consideration 
     being given to chapter 1, section 110 of the Medicare Benefit 
     Policy Manual, the current capabilities of treatments and 
     modalities performed by acute and post-acute providers, and 
     the combined medical and functional needs of patients.
       (2) Under such contract the Institute shall use a panel 
     that includes a multi-disciplinary group of expert 
     researchers and clinicians in the field of medical 
     rehabilitation.
       (3) Under such contract the Institute shall submit a report 
     to the Secretary and the Congress on the study and 
     recommendations described in paragraph (1) not later than 
     October 1, 2005.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. LoBiondo

  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. LoBiondo:
       In title II, amend section 221 (page 65, line 19, through 
     page 68, line 2) to read as follows:
       Sec. 221. (a) Notwithstanding section 412.23(b)(2) of title 
     42 of the Code of Federal Regulations, none of the funds 
     appropriated by this Act may be expended by the Secretary of 
     Health and Human Services to treat a hospital or unit of a 
     hospital that was certified by the Secretary as an inpatient 
     rehabilitation facility on or before June 30, 2004, as a 
     subsection (d) hospital (as defined in section 1886(d)(1)(B) 
     of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(1)(B))) 
     until, not later than 60 days after the date on which the 
     report under subsection (b) is issued, the Secretary, taking 
     into account the recommendations in such report--
       (1) determines that the classification criteria of 
     hospitals and units of hospitals as inpatient rehabilitation 
     facilities under such section 412.23(b)(2) are not 
     inconsistent with such recommendations; or
       (2) promulgates a regulation providing for revised criteria 
     under such section 412.23(b)(2), which regulation shall be 
     effective and final immediately on an interim basis as of the 
     date of publication of the regulation.
       (b) The study referred to in subsection (a) is a study by 
     the Comptroller General of the United States directed in the 
     statement of managers accompanying the conference report on 
     the bill H.R. 1 of the 108th Congress regarding clinically 
     appropriate standards for defining inpatient rehabilitation 
     services under such section 412.23(b)(2).
       (c) The aggregate amount appropriated under title II for 
     ``Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services--Program 
     Management'' is hereby reduced by $3,500,000.

  Mr. LoBIONDO (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
LoBiondo-Lowey-Wamp amendment. The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. 
Lowey) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) have joined together 
in trying to bring this to the attention of our colleagues.
  Before I discuss the amendment, however, I would like to thank the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Regula) for their support on this critical issue. I would also like to 
thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and his staff for 
their willingness to work with me and my colleagues on this issue, and 
to help in crafting an amendment which will help rehab patients across 
the country.
  The LoBiondo-Lowey-Wamp amendment would halt the Centers for Medicare 
and Medicaid Services, CMS, on the implementation of the so-called 75 
percent rule until a study is completed on the issue. As many know, 
rehabilitation hospitals provide essential care to patients recovering 
from conditions such as a stroke, hip replacement or cardiopulmonary 
disease. This policy, commonly known as the 75 percent rule, sets 
limits on which patients would be eligible for care at these 
facilities.
  Under the current rule which went into effect on July 1, fewer 
Americans will have access to rehab care. This is wrong. Fewer patients 
needing treatment for conditions such as arthritis and joint 
replacement will qualify for this care, an important element in the 
overall recovery process. It is simply wrong not to do something about 
this. In addition, access to rehab care for patients recovering from 
cancer, cardiac conditions, transplant and pulmonary conditions is also 
threatened.
  This amendment is by no means the first attempt to deal with the 
issue. Over the past year, the majority of Members of Congress not 
once, but twice has called on CMS to withhold implementation of the 75 
percent rule until a thorough independent assessment by medical experts 
is completed. A similar directive was included in both the Medicare 
Modernization Act passed last November and the fiscal year 2004 omnibus 
appropriations bill. Yet despite the will of Congress, CMS finalized 
the 75 percent rule in April and implemented it on July 1 without 
either commissioning a study in advance or making significant, much-
needed updates.

[[Page H6837]]

  Our amendment seeks to ensure that Congress' intent is carried out 
and that patients across America continue to have access to the rehab 
care they need. It will ensure that experts in the field of 
rehabilitative care study the issue and make recommendations that will 
produce a rule for rehab hospitals that reflects the advances medicine 
has made in the area of rehabilitative care.
  I would like all of my colleagues to think what it would be like for 
them if they had to go to one of their constituents who needed rehab 
care, and they were denied access to the rehab hospital in their 
district; or worse yet, that rehab hospital had to close. What would my 
colleagues think if they had a family member, someone in their family, 
that was denied rehabilitative care, very good care, because of a 
stupid rule that we were not able to fix? People across America who 
need these services will not accept that Congress stood back and did 
nothing when there is something we can do.
  I thank all Members in this Chamber who have supported our efforts to 
change the 75 percent rule, and I urge Members to cast a yes vote for 
the LoBiondo-Lowey-Wamp amendment.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LoBIONDO. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, with the understanding that this has been 
cleared with the Committee on Ways and Means, we are prepared to accept 
this amendment.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  First of all, I would like to thank our distinguished chairman 
because he has worked with us and understands the importance of this 
very critical issue in so many Members' districts across the country. I 
rise in strong support of the amendment, and I am appreciative for all 
of us who have been working together. Just a few words on it, and again 
I thank our chairman.
  Last year CMS decided to change and reinstate the patient 
rehabilitation facilities 75 percent rule, a rule which was enforced 
inconsistently and intermittently until it was fully suspended in 2002 
because rehabilitation care had evolved so far beyond the original 
rule's scope.
  In an effort to ensure that the rule would be updated appropriately, 
Congress asked CMS to commission an independent study on the status of 
rehabilitative care and use the findings to rewrite the rule. As my 
colleagues know, we had more than 300 Members of Congress supporting 
this request and the inclusion of similar directives in the fiscal year 
2004 omnibus spending bill and the Prescription Drug Act.
  CMS issued the final 75 percent rule without the benefit of a study, 
leaving the list of qualifying conditions practically the same as those 
imposed two decades ago. Considering the impact of these rehabilitation 
policies on the health and well-being of our constituents, we could not 
stand by and let our call for a study go unfulfilled. So again with the 
support of the Committee on Ways and Means chairman, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thomas), and the ranking member, the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Rangel), the LoBiondo-Lowey-Wamp amendment will ensure that 
an independent study of the issue is conducted and the findings used to 
rewrite the 75 percent rule.
  I am very appreciative, Mr. Chairman, of both committees, and 
particularly the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula). We have worked 
together in a bipartisan way to bring this amendment to the floor, and 
I want to thank the staff of the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Thomas), Joel White and Deb Williams, for carefully working out the 
details of this amendment late last night and early this morning. I am 
delighted we have been able to work this out.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief, just to add that this is one of 
those rare opportunities for the Appropriations Committee and the Ways 
and Means Committee to meet at the water's edge. Sometimes we put 
limitation amendments on appropriations bills and they strike those 
through a point of order, which they have the right to do here. Yet 
they chose to agree with us and say that this GAO study needs to be 
completed and all the science needs to be brought to bear before this 
rule is actually implemented.
  Let me just say that one of the greatest areas of innovation in our 
health care delivery system in this country is inpatient rehabilitation 
hospitals where virtually every family in America has had somebody 
benefit from one of those hospitals, and they are wowed at what we are 
doing. It is a very fluid area of health care. It is changing every 
month because of new technologies and new procedures. Yet some of these 
rules are antiquated in these 13 categories. They need to be changed 
based on what is happening in health care, not a bean counter at OMB 
saying, we only have this much money or we want to reduce this much 
money, therefore, this is what you are going to be reimbursed for.
  In our health care delivery system, we need to reimburse wherever the 
innovation is, wherever the patient is, wherever the need is, wherever 
the cure is; and that is what this does is allow science to prevail and 
not some arbitrary limitation that is set down the street by any 
administration or any government bureaucrat.
  That is, frankly, where the Congress is doing its job to weigh in, 
because we are sensitive to these things; and, frankly, sometimes the 
Appropriations Committee can be very helpful by using the power of the 
money flow and the appropriations process to say, wait a second, stop 
the trains, we are going in the wrong direction.
  This is a win-win. Congratulations to all and thanks especially to 
Ways and Means for letting us live to fight another day on behalf of 
patients and inpatient rehabilitation hospitals across the country. I 
thank the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) and the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo). It is always a pleasure to work with them.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman for accepting this 
amendment. It is extremely important for someone that has spent so much 
time in a rehab unit taking care of patients, even to the point of 
taking care of my son going back a number of years ago.
  Medical technology and the science of taking care of those that never 
had a chance to learn how to walk again or possibly feed themselves 
again is now possible. It is mainly because of rehab. I know a lot of 
people think that they used to lay around the hospital after a hip 
operation. Today you have a hip operation, and you go to a rehab unit. 
It actually saves money, mainly because the patient is getting the 
rehab that they need so they can get up and walk and have a quality-of-
life issue. On the other end of it, unfortunately going back not that 
many years ago, even for a simple hip operation, especially with the 
elderly, they ended up getting pneumonia and unfortunately needed more 
long-term care.
  With that being said, the majority of our rehab hospitals and rehab 
units in an awful lot of our larger cities are filled, unfortunately, 
with patients because of gun violence in this country. On September 13, 
we are going to see the assault weapons bill expire unless this 
Congress, the Speaker of the House, the President of the United States 
get involved and allow us to debate this. We can save billions of 
dollars just on health care costs if we can bring down gun violence. We 
have seen a 60 percent drop since the assault weapons bill was passed 
on the use of those guns on our officers in our communities.
  Large capacity clips, we are going to have them back out on the 
streets again. These are the large capacity clips that we see our men 
and women using that are serving this country so well over in the war 
in Iraq. We saw yesterday in the paper where someone with a gun had a 
large capacity clip that had 50 rounds. This is what we are going to go 
back to unless we stop by September 13, on Monday, to be able to renew 
the ban on assault weapons, to protect our communities, protect our 
police officers and to a very, very large extent, make more room in the 
emergency rooms, make more room in the trauma centers, make more room 
in the rehab units, because today because

[[Page H6838]]

of medical technology, thank goodness, people like my son are surviving 
these horrific wounds. A lot of our police officers are surviving their 
horrific wounds. But unfortunately the rehab, the expense to get those 
victims back on their feet certainly is extremely expensive.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 222. None of the funds appropriated in this title may 
     be used to impede the exchange of information between the 
     Office of the Actuary of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 
     Services and Congress, including its members, committees, and 
     staff.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Allen

  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Allen:
       At the end of title II (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. For research on outcomes of health care items and 
     services (including the comparative clinical effectiveness of 
     prescription drugs), as authorized by section 1013 of the 
     Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization 
     Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-173), $50,000,000.

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on this 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio reserves a point of order.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, when Americans turn on their televisions 
today, they are inundated by television advertisements promoting 
particular prescription drugs. Doctors are overwhelmed by detailers 
from the pharmaceutical industry coming to praise the virtues of the 
particular drugs that are manufactured by the people who employ them. 
But what patients and physicians in this country really need is quality 
information, evidence-based information about the comparative 
effectiveness of different drugs that are advertised to treat the same 
illness or condition.
  The Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act 
provides for research on outcomes of health care items and services, 
including the comparative clinical effectiveness of prescription drugs. 
Today I am pleased to join my colleague from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson) in 
offering an amendment to fund that provision in the new Medicare law.
  Section 1013 of the new Medicare law authorizes $50 million in fiscal 
year 2004 for the Agency For Health Care Research and Quality to 
conduct outcomes research on prescription drugs and other treatments. 
Unfortunately, the President's fiscal year 2005 budget contained no 
funding for this initiative. Currently, there really is a dearth of 
evidence-based information available to assist practitioners in 
choosing the most appropriate medication for their patients.
  The $50 million we seek would fund new research and literature 
surveys to improve scientific evidence about the comparative 
effectiveness and safety of prescription drugs and other treatments. 
Additionally, funds would be used to communicate the results of this 
research to health care practitioners, health care purchasers and 
consumers. All we are asking is for better information to be available 
to doctors and patients. And if we can make that better information, 
independent research not funded by the pharmaceutical industry, if we 
make that information available, we will have better health care 
quality in this country; and we will have lower prices as well. It is 
very important that we ensure that our prescription drug spending is 
not based on the latest television or glossy magazine advertisement, 
but on science-based and tested information.
  Physicians and their patients need access to credible, unbiased, 
evidence-based data on the comparative effectiveness of prescription 
drugs so they can make informed decisions about their purchases. As the 
cost of health care continues to rise, obtaining the greatest health 
care value is essential. More objective research will improve the 
quality of care and help to reduce costs.
  This spring, Members from both sides of the aisle joined me in 
sending a letter to the chairman and ranking member urging $75 million 
for this provision. In addition, the Senate approved an amendment in 
support of $75 million for prescription drug comparative effectiveness 
studies, indicating the high level of bipartisan support for this 
initiative.
  I do hope that the chairman agrees that this provision, which has 
been authorized, is a worthy initiative. I look forward to working with 
him and the committee to provide some funding in conference and to 
encourage the administration to add money for this purpose in next 
year's budget.
  Though I would urge support for this amendment, I do intend to 
withdraw the amendment, but first I would like to give an opportunity 
to my friend from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson) to speak on it.
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Allen-Emerson 
comparative effectiveness research amendment. As my colleague said, as 
the costs of health care continue to rise, we really do need to make 
sure that our Nation's health care providers have every possible tool 
at hand so that they can understand the best, most efficient level of 
quality care to give their patients.
  We obviously in Congress have recognized that need because we 
authorized $75 million in funding for the Agency For Health Care 
Research and Quality to conduct comparative effectiveness and health 
care outcomes research. This information would be made available to 
providers and consumers alike and allow physicians and their patients 
to make more informed and personalized decisions on each individual 
patient's plan of care.
  More importantly, comparative effectiveness research will provide 
evidence-based research to help improve the efficiency of our health 
care system. Currently, very little objective evidence-based 
information is available to help physicians choose the most appropriate 
prescription medications for each patient. Without such information 
available, many patients may be prescribed a more expensive brand-name 
medication when a less costly generic medication may have the same 
clinical effectiveness. Funding further comparative effectiveness 
research efforts will provide American health care consumers with 
impartial research-based evidence of the value of different 
prescription medications and, moreover, will help drive down the costs 
of health care in the United States.
  Mr. Chairman, I also want to mention, in this time when we are all 
very concerned with the number of uninsureds around the country, with 
the increasing inflation in the health care delivery system, with small 
businesses and large businesses experiencing incredibly difficult 
increases in their costs, this is a measure that has been endorsed by 
many large and small employer groups, namely, the AARP, the AFL-CIO, 
Caterpillar Tractor Company, Eastman Kodak, Kaiser Permanente, Verizon 
Communications, General Motors, United Health Care, the Coalition For 
Health Services Research. I could go on and on. But the bottom line is 
anything that we can do effectively to lower the costs of delivering 
health care in this country is something that the Congress should do.
  I urge adoption of this amendment.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Listening to my two colleagues, I appreciate this amendment they have 
put forward. Obviously, with the medical technology that we have today 
and with the medicines that are out there, I sometimes sit when I am 
watching the TV shows and I am watching them advertise all of these 
particular drugs, I hope everybody also listens to see what the side 
effects are going to be. They better listen carefully, because some of 
these side effects are very serious.
  There are many drugs on the market that are over 10 to 15 years old 
that work just as well. People have to realize that. Unfortunately, 
even our doctors now, they are given information, thinking, wow, if 
this can help my patient. Let us hope that is what they are thinking. 
But we have to reevaluate this whole thing. It used to be you went to 
your doctor, the doctor knew which particular drug would work for you 
for whatever ailment you had, and you took it. Now we see TV, the 
doctors tell me, they want this drug, they want this drug, they want 
this drug.

[[Page H6839]]

Aspirin still works very, very well. Ibuprofen when I was working, 
gosh, a long time ago, that was a prescription drug. It is now over the 
counter. But there are still many prescription drugs that work just as 
well. Obviously, sometimes they are not going to work for the patient. 
That is when we should try a new drug. The research and development and 
the research that is needed to see what these actual new drugs do, I 
think, is extremely important.
  With that being said, also, September 13, the assault weapons bill is 
going to expire. The reason I bring it up towards the health care 
section is mainly because how much health care money is expended on, 
unfortunately, these horrific wounds that we see. We also know with a 
lot of these types of assault weapons, there are head injuries. People 
do not realize when you have a head injury, a lot of times these 
patients have to be on an awful lot of different drugs that might even 
put the patient to the point of where they think they might be 
schizophrenic. It does fit and tie in with these bills.
  The important thing is the assault weapons bill costs absolutely no 
money. We can renew it. It does not cost anybody anything except saving 
lives, saving health care costs; and I hope that the President of the 
United States will ask the Speaker of the House to allow this bill to 
come up on the floor for a vote.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Maine?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I appreciate the fact that the gentleman is withdrawing the 
amendment. I think it has been a good discussion about what is a 
continuing problem. We have recognized it to some extent by putting 12 
million plus or minus in AHRQ to do this very thing, and it is 
something we should keep in mind in the future. But the problem here is 
there is no offset for the $50 million. I think the intention is good, 
but this has been a tough bill to make all the dollars fit.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Maine.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his comments.


              Amendment Offered by Mr. Udall of New Mexico

  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Udall of New Mexico:
       At the end of title II, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following section:
       Sec. _. Of the amount made available in this title for the 
     account ``Office of the Secretary--General Departmental 
     Management'', $23,000,000 is transferred and made available 
     as an additional amount under the account ``Centers for 
     Disease Control and Prevention--Disease Control, Research, 
     and Training''.

  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an 
amendment to increase funding in the fiscal year 2005 Labor-HHS 
appropriations bill before us for the CDC's Preventative Health Care 
Block Grant. This important grant is one of the few grants that allows 
States the flexibility to address their own unique health care 
challenges in exciting and innovative ways.
  Unfortunately, H.R. 5006 cuts the amount of funding for the 
Preventative Block Grant by $23 million from the fiscal 2004 amount of 
$133 million to $110 million for fiscal year 2005. The funding provided 
in the legislation is also $23 million below the administration's 
request for fiscal year 2005.
  My amendment would restore the funding to last year's level. It would 
offset the increase in the Preventative Health Care Block Grant by 
reducing the level of the Department of Health and Human Services 
departmental management by the same amount.
  Mr. Chairman, this block grant has allowed State health departments 
to address a wide variety of public health issues, including 
cardiovascular disease, diabetes, physical activity, suicide 
prevention, just to name a few. States have documented that investment 
of block grant dollars has resulted in improved health care outcomes 
and in some significant cost savings.
  I strongly believe that the Preventative Health Care Block Grant is 
exactly the type of program we should be supporting. The national 
investment in prevention is currently estimated to be less than 5 
percent of the annual health care costs despite strong evidence that 
prevention can be cost effective and helps people enhance the quality 
of their lives.
  In addition, this block grant is excellent public policy because it 
provides States with great flexibility in addressing the public health 
care needs their populations face.
  Mr. Chairman, I am a strong supporter of health care promotion 
programs that have the potential to improve health, improve the quality 
of life, reduce health care costs, and boost productivity. I believe it 
is time for America to increase its investment in health care 
prevention strategies. It is a fact that adaptable lifestyle factors, 
such as smoking, sedentary lifestyle, poor nutrition, unmanaged stress, 
and obesity, account for approximately half the premature deaths in the 
United States. Moreover, spending on chronic diseases related to 
lifestyle and other preventable diseases accounts for an estimated 70 
percent of total health care spending. With the pending retirement of 
the baby boom generation, the financial burden of these preventable 
diseases will further threaten the solvency of the Medicare program.
  It is my hope that with a greater focus on prevention, we will be 
able to greatly reduce the number of individuals who suffer from all 
types of ailments, including diabetes, cancer, heart disease, and 
strokes just to name a few areas where preventative health care can 
make the difference. The CDC's Preventative Health Care Block Grant 
goes a long way towards achieving this goal.
  One of the other key components of the block grant is that it is the 
primary source of flexible funding that provides States the latitude to 
fund any of 265 national health care objectives available in the 
Nation's Healthy People 2010 Health Improvement Plan.
  Mr. Chairman, I know the chairman and ranking member of the Labor, 
Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies Subcommittee 
did the best they possibly could in stretching the dollar as far as 
they could in this bill, and for that I applaud them. However, a cut of 
this magnitude, nearly 18 percent, will force State and local health 
departments to eliminate or severely reduce some very important public 
health activities.
  I look forward to working with the chairman and ranking member to 
restore funding to this account in some way.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Mexico?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  I thank my colleague for bringing up this very important issue, 
preventative medicine and the research that needs to go into it. Any of 
us that have ever been in the health care field know preventative care 
and having the best techniques is the best thing that we can all offer 
anyone. There are so many things that we can do today to prevent, 
unfortunately, diseases that certainly could cost us as people and 
human beings in quality of life and, of course, the health care system 
millions and billions of dollars every single year.
  With that being said, preventative care is what we should be looking 
at--how are we going to stop gun violence in this country. The first 
step that we can take is making sure the assault weapons ban is renewed 
by September 13. That alone will save so much money every single year. 
Our police officers, our children, and even those that live in the 
poorest communities where some of these health care communities are 
being closed down because of a lack of funds, people do not realize on 
the mental end the stress of living in these communities, what it 
costs.
  I am hoping that we in time will have enough money to run the 
programs that we need; but to be honest, we can save money by cutting 
down on gun violence. We can save emotional stress

[[Page H6840]]

by cutting down on gun violence. We certainly can protect our police 
officers in this country by making sure the assault weapons ban comes 
up for a vote, passes here in the House. It has already been passed in 
the Senate, and the President said he would sign the bill if it gets on 
his desk.


                   Amendment Offered by Ms. Bordallo

  Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Bordallo:
       At the end of title II (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. For ``Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services--
     Grants to States for Medicaid'' $8,000,000 to be used for an 
     increase in the amount available under section 1108 of the 
     Social Security Act for fiscal year 2005 of $2,500,000 for 
     Guam, $2,500,000 for the Virgin Islands, $2,000,000 for 
     American Samoa, and $1,000,000 for the Northern Mariana 
     Islands, and the amount otherwise provided by this title for 
     ``John E. Fogarty International Center'' is hereby reduced by 
     $8,000,000.

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully request that the House 
adopt the Bordallo-Christensen-Faleomavaega amendment to the fiscal 
year 2005 Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services 
appropriations bill.
  For years, Mr. Chairman, citizens of the United States territories 
have experienced numerous disparities with respect to health care 
access and quality. While many of the reasons for such disparities must 
be resolved at the local level, there are several Federal programs 
whose administration in the territories contribute to these observed 
disparities. The most notable and glaring deficiency are Medicaid 
funding ceilings to the U.S. territories as mandated by section 1108 of 
the Social Security Act.
  In Guam, Medicaid and the SCHIP combined cover only about 25 percent 
of all estimated costs eligible for Medicaid-matching grants. Similar 
Federal funding shortages have been experienced in all U.S. territories 
as a result of section 1108 funding caps. U.S. territories were hit 
particularly hard by the previous recession where unemployment caused 
territorial governments to cover the spiraling uninsured health care 
costs despite shrinking revenues.
  The amendment would provide a temporary boost in Medicaid funding to 
Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of 
the Northern Mariana Islands in order to assist those governments in 
meeting critical shortages in public health funding. This amendment is 
offset by reducing by 8 million funding for the John E. Fogarty 
International Center.
  Mr. Chairman, while I support the mission of the John E. Fogarty 
International Center, I feel that it is important to concentrate on 
providing adequate health care to citizens in the U.S. territories 
before investing further in international health care research. Funding 
for the John E. Fogarty International Center would be reduced to just 
under fiscal year 2003 levels, at which time the center had experienced 
consecutive years of double-digit percentage funding increases.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment has bipartisan support based on the 
hearing that we had chaired by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentlewoman's amendment that 
we have sponsored together with the gentlewoman from the Virgin 
Islands.
  Mr. Chairman, in fiscal year 2003 American Samoa's Medicaid program 
cost $12.2 million. If American Samoa were treated like a State, the 
Federal Government would have been responsible for $6.1 million or half 
the cost; but the American Samoa government would have been responsible 
for the other half also, about $6.1 million. As it is, a Federal 
ceiling is in place, unfortunately. So for fiscal year 2003, the 
Federal ceiling for American Samoa was $3.7 million. The Federal 
Government only paid out $3.7 million, and we had to meet the rest of 
the obligation of the total cost of $12.2 million.
  The bottom line, Mr. Chairman, is there is definitely a need for this 
additional appropriations for our Medicaid needs, and I ask my 
colleagues to please support this proposed amendment.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to join my colleagues 
Madeleine Bordallo and Eni Faleomavaega in strong support of our 
amendment to provide some additional relief to our constituents in the 
form of additional health care dollars. It remains a national shame in 
my view, that because of where they live, my low-income and indigent 
constituents, as well as those of my colleagues, are not able to 
receive the same level of Medicaid assistance because of a punitive 
cap.
  My colleagues, while the national per capita expenditure for Medicaid 
is $3862, the expenditure for the Virgin Islands is only $436. The 
total cost of Medicaid in the Virgin Islands is about $15 million per 
year but the Federal government only covers about $6 million of that 
amount. According to the Virgin Islands Medicaid Director, the 18,000 
Medicaid recipients she serves receive an absolute ``bare bones'' 
service.
  Mr. Chairman, a report 3 years ago entitled the Access Improvement 
Project of the Virgin Islands, revealed that great disparities exist 
for eligible children in the Virgin Islands compared to the continental 
United States. The report shows that while the Nation as a whole spends 
an average of $76 for EPSDT screening per Medicaid eligible child, the 
U.S. Virgin Islands only spent $1.20. Additionally, the total Medicaid 
expenditures per child also shows an astonishing disparity.
  In the age group 15 to 20, national Medicaid expenditures were 
approximately 599 percent more than what is being spent in the Virgin 
Islands. We also received a 50 percent match, despite a State like 
Mississippi where the average income is $1,500 higher than ours. They 
receive 80 percent match. And the Virgin Islands Medicaid program 
cannot provide wheelchairs, hearing aids or prosthetic devices, and 
only provides physical and occupational therapy to a limited degree 
because of the limited funding.
  Mr. Chairman, this modest amendment which we are offering today, 
would provide a one time 25 percent increase in Medicaid payments to 
the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa so that our most 
vulnerable constituents could receive better health care services which 
they otherwise would have to do without because of our already 
overburdened local governments.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment because it provides an appropriation for an unauthorized 
program and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The pertinent part 
of clause 2 of rule XXI is as follows: An appropriation may not be in 
order as an amendment for an expenditure not previously authorized by 
law.
  Mr. Chairman, the authorization for this program has not been signed 
into law, and therefore it violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. 
Faleomavaega) wish to be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I kindly respect the decision the 
Chairman has made concerning his opinion that has been expressed 
concerning the proposed amendment. We realize there is no 
authorization. But I thought that this was part of the appropriations 
process, that we have made in the past precedents where appropriations 
have been made without any authorization. But again I have to respect 
my good chairman's decision on this and sincerely hope that maybe down 
the line we will be able to work something out to give due assistance 
to the insular areas on this very important issue.

                              {time}  1515

  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule. The proponent of an item 
of appropriation carries a burden of persuasion on the question whether 
it is supported by an authorization in law.
  Having reviewed the amendment, the underlying law, and entertained 
argument on the point of order, the Chair is unable to conclude that 
the item of appropriation in question is authorized in law. The 
amendment proposes appropriations above the levels currently authorized 
in law.
  The Chair is therefore constrained to sustain the point of order 
under clause 2(a) of rule XXI.
  Are there further amendments to this paragraph of the bill?
  If not, the Clerk will read.

[[Page H6841]]

  The Clerk read as follows:

       This title may be cited as the ``Department of Health and 
     Human Services Appropriations Act, 2005''.

                   TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

                    Education for the Disadvantaged

       For carrying out title I of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (``ESEA'') and section 418A of the 
     Higher Education Act of 1965, $15,535,735,000, of which 
     $7,849,390,000 shall become available on July 1, 2005, and 
     shall remain available through September 30, 2006, and of 
     which $7,383,301,000 shall become available on October 1, 
     2005, and shall remain available through September 30, 2006, 
     for academic year 2005-2006: Provided, That $7,037,592,000 
     shall be available for basic grants under section 1124: 
     Provided further, That up to $3,500,000 of these funds shall 
     be available to the Secretary of Education on October 1, 
     2004, to obtain annually updated educational-agency-level 
     census poverty data from the Bureau of the Census: Provided 
     further, That $1,365,031,000 shall be available for 
     concentration grants under section 1124A: Provided further, 
     That $2,469,843,000 shall be available for targeted grants 
     under section 1125: Provided further, That $2,469,843,000 
     shall be available for education finance incentive grants 
     under section 1125A: Provided further, That $80,000,000 shall 
     be available for comprehensive school reform grants under 
     part F of the ESEA.

                               Impact Aid

       For carrying out programs of financial assistance to 
     federally affected schools authorized by title VIII of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, 
     $1,250,893,000, of which $1,083,687,000 shall be for basic 
     support payments under section 8003(b), $50,369,000 shall be 
     for payments for children with disabilities under section 
     8003(d), $45,936,000 shall be for construction under section 
     8007 and shall remain available through September 30, 2006, 
     $63,000,000 shall be for Federal property payments under 
     section 8002, and $7,901,000, to remain available until 
     expended, shall be for facilities maintenance under section 
     8008: Provided, That for purposes of computing the amount of 
     a payment for an eligible local educational agency under 
     section 8003(a) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     (20 U.S.C. 7703(a)) for school year 2004-2005, children 
     enrolled in a school of such agency that would otherwise be 
     eligible for payment under section 8003(a)(1)(B) of such Act, 
     but due to the deployment of both parents or legal guardians, 
     or a parent or legal guardian having sole custody of such 
     children, or due to the death of a military parent or legal 
     guardian while on active duty (so long as such children 
     reside on Federal property as described in section 
     8003(a)(1)(B)), are no longer eligible under such section, 
     shall be considered as eligible students under such section, 
     provided such students remain in average daily attendance at 
     a school in the same local educational agency they attended 
     prior to their change in eligibility status.

                      School Improvement Programs

       For carrying out school improvement activities authorized 
     by titles II, part B of title IV, subpart 6 of part D of 
     title V, parts A and B of title VI, and parts B and C of 
     title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965 (``ESEA''); the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act; 
     section 203 of the Educational Technical Assistance Act of 
     2002; the Civil Rights Act of 1964; and section 
     105(f)(1)(B)(iii) of the Compact of Free Association 
     Amendments Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-188), $5,641,401,000, 
     of which $4,031,016,000 shall become available on July 1, 
     2005, and remain available through September 30, 2006, and of 
     which $1,435,000,000 shall become available on October 1, 
     2005, and shall remain available through September 30, 2006, 
     for academic year 2005-2006: Provided, That $410,000,000 
     shall be for subpart 1 of part A of title VI of the ESEA: 
     Provided further, That $68,394,000 shall be available to 
     carry out part D of title V of the ESEA and section 203 of 
     the Educational Technical Assistance Act of 2002: Provided 
     further, That $12,230,000 shall be available to carry out the 
     Supplemental Education Grants program for the Federated 
     States of Micronesia, and $6,100,000 shall be available to 
     carry out the Supplemental Education Grants program for the 
     Republic of the Marshall Islands: Provided further, That up 
     to five percent of these amounts may be reserved by the 
     Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of the 
     Marshall Islands to administer the Supplemental Education 
     Grants programs and to obtain technical assistance, oversight 
     and consultancy services in the administration of these 
     grants and to reimburse the U.S. Departments of Labor, Health 
     and Human Services, and Education for such services: Provided 
     further, That the amount made available in the Department of 
     Education Appropriations Act, 2004, under the heading School 
     Improvement Programs and including any funds transferred by 
     the Secretary of Education pursuant to section 304 of that 
     Act for state assessment grants authorized under section 6111 
     of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, shall 
     not be less than $390,000,000: Provided further, That, 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, including any 
     across-the-board reduction that would otherwise apply, the 
     funds made available for fiscal year 2005 under the heading 
     School Improvement Programs for state assessment grants under 
     section 6111 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965 shall not be less than $400,000,000.


                   Amendment Offered by Mrs. Maloney

  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mrs. Maloney:
       In the item relating to ``School Improvement Programs'', 
     insert before the period at the end the following:

     : Provided, That, of the funds made available under this 
     heading, $3,000,000 is for carrying out subpart 21 of part D 
     of title V of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965 (commonly referred to as the Women's Educational Equity 
     Act of 2001; 20 U.S.C. 7283 et seq.)

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) reserves a point 
of order against the amendment.
  The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, we are calling this the Patsy Mink 
amendment, as the first legislation was written and passed by our 
distinguished colleague and friend that founded the Women's Educational 
Equity Act. This would restore the $3 million for this program that was 
taken out in the mark before us, and this has no offset because the 
money would come out of the school improvement program that has well 
over $50 million in it.
  This is certainly needed. Some people on the other side of the aisle 
have said that we no longer need the Women's Educational Equity Act, 
but the figures that came out last week from the Census Bureau showed 
that the pay gap widened between men and women in 2003, and that 
women's pay slumped for the first time since 1999, falling to 75.5 
cents to the male dollar.
  I will include for the Record the census report that shows the gap 
between men and women growing, and specifically the fact that women's 
pay has slumped for the first time since 1999.
  I would like to take this opportunity to thank very much Patsy Mink 
for her hard work and leadership in authoring WEEA. It has made a 
difference in the lives of millions of girls and women for 30 years by 
training teachers to treat boys and girls fairly in the classroom, 
teaching about reducing sexual harassment, and encouraging girls to 
study math and science among many other things. WEEA ensures that girls 
and women will succeed in school, plain and simple.
  Unfortunately, in this tight budget year, WEEA was zeroed out in this 
bill. Mr. Chairman, I can assure you that cutting the $3 million to 
girls' education is totally unfair and will not help in any way to 
balance the budget.
  Women have made great strides over the past 30 years, but these 
strides have not happened by themselves. It is programs like WEEA that 
provide the training, the materials and the support for our young girls 
in the educational system, but we still have a tremendous long way to 
go before we reach a point when WEEA will no longer be needed.
  In 2003, male students scored higher on average than female students 
in mathematics. Girls represent only 17 percent of the computer science 
AP test takers. Women are roughly 20 percent of IT professionals. Women 
receive less than 28 percent of the computer science bachelor's 
degrees, down from a high of 37 percent in 1984. Women make up just 9 
percent of engineering-related bachelor degrees. These statistics are 
unacceptable, but would be worse without WEEA.
  As the educational needs of our society change and grow, as math and 
technology continue to become prominent skills of our everyday lives, 
gender equity in our education system is more important than ever. 
Girls must catch up with boys when it comes to math and technology, and 
WEEA can help.
  This amendment, the Patsy Mink Women's Educational Equity Act, will 
support our daughters, our sisters, our friends. Vote yes on the 
Maloney-Woolsey-Sanchez amendment.
  I also would like to cite a report that came out recently, the 
Dingell-Maloney report, that showed that there was a consistent gap 
between the earnings between men and women for the past 20 years, a 
consistent 40 percent gap. After making up for time for pregnancy or 
taking care of sick parents, there is still a 20 percent unexplained 
gap between men and women's pay. This translates into pensions.

[[Page H6842]]

  I would consider a vote against this amendment a vote against women, 
a vote against equity and opportunity for women in the workforce. It 
begins in the classroom. This program is as needed today as when Patsy 
Mink first wrote it. So I call upon my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to vote for their daughters, their sisters and their friends, and 
to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I will place in the Record the Dingell-Maloney report 
that shows the persistent 20 percent gap, which can only be explained 
as discrimination.
  I want to thank very much my colleague, the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey) for her excellent leadership and help on this 
issue through many Congresses, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey) for his fine help.

                     GAO Pay Gap Report Highlights

                 (Briefing by Reps. Maloney & Dingell)

       The General Accounting Office (GAO) examined 18 years of 
     data on over 9,300 Americans for an earnings study 
     commissioned by Representatives Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) and 
     John Dingell (D-MI). The new study is a follow-up to the more 
     narrowly-focused 2002 GAO report on the earnings gap between 
     female and male managers.
       Results of the GAO study show: The pay gap is real. Women 
     working full-time today are paid an average of 80 cents for 
     every dollar that men are paid, even when accounting for 
     demographic and work-related factors such as occupation, 
     industry, race, marital status and job tenure. This 20 
     percent earnings gap cannot be explained due to differences 
     in work patterns or histories.
       Differing work patterns lead to an even larger earnings gap 
     between men and women--suggesting that working women are 
     penalized for their dual role as wage earners and those who 
     disproportionately care for home and family obligations. The 
     GAO study confirms that women in the workforce are less 
     likely to work a full-time schedule and are more likely to 
     leave the labor force for longer periods of time than men, 
     suppressing women's earnings even further. And, men with 
     children are paid about 2 percent more than men without 
     children, whereas women with children are paid about 2.5 
     percent less than women without children.
       The pay gap has persisted for past two decades. The GAO 
     study confirms that the earnings gap between women and men 
     has been consistent from 1983-2000, despite a sense of 
     continued progress toward gender equality in the workplace.
       The GAO also reviewed other studies and interviewed 
     employers and earnings experts to round out their analysis, 
     leading to troubling questions about the persistent pay gap: 
     Why do workplaces still maintain the same policies, practices 
     and structures that existed when most of their workers did 
     not have obligations to care for children and family life? 
     Why do industries and professions dominated by women pay 
     disproportionately less than male-dominated industries? How 
     much does the pay gap between men and women cost families?
       In response to the GAO findings, Representatives Maloney 
     and Dingell seek to establish a new Center for the Study of 
     Women and Workplace Policy at a public university that would 
     serve as a nationwide resource for employers, women and 
     families. The Center would follow up on the GAO study, 
     collaborate with businesses and women's organizations on 
     solutions to the earnings gap, and publish yearly guides on 
     best practices for employers and family friendly workplaces 
     for women.

           [From the Feminist Daily News Wire, Sept. 2, 2004]

      Wage Gap Increases Between Women and Men, US Census Reports

       Figures released by the US Census Bureau last week show 
     that the pay gap between women and men widened in 2003. 
     Women's pay slumped for the first time since 1999, with women 
     earning only 75.5 cents to every dollar men earn. The Census 
     Bureau stated that this marks the first ``statistically 
     significant'' decline in women's pay since 1995, 
     AccountingWEB.com reports, with real median earnings of women 
     over the age of 15 fell 0.6 percent to $30,724. The Institute 
     for Women's Policy Research has stated that the 1.4 percent 
     decrease in the gender wage ratio is the largest backslide 
     since 1991.
       Though over forty years have passed since the Equal Pay Act 
     was signed in 1963, at which point women earned 59 cents to 
     the dollar men earned, progress to attain its goals has been 
     slow. With more families becoming dependent on women as 
     breadwinners, and with approximately half of women entering 
     retirement alone, the wage gap is a crucial issue that 
     affects the health and well-being of women and their 
     families. The poverty rate for women and girls increased to 
     13.7 percent from 13.3 percent in 2002, increasing for the 
     third straight year, reports Women's eNews. In addition, the 
     uninsured rate rose more sharply for women at four percent, 
     with the rate for men only rising one percent.
       The Asheville Citizen-Times reports that the typical prime-
     age working woman earned $273,592 over the 15 year period 
     between 1983 and 1998, compared with $722,693 for the typical 
     prime-age working man. In addition to the wage gap, this 
     discrepancy occurs because women work more part-time jobs and 
     take more time out of the workforce to raise children. 
     However, the Asheville Citizen-Times reports that in October 
     2003 the General Accounting Office released a report titled 
     ``Women's Earnings'' that examined 18 years of data. The 
     report found a 20 percent earnings gap between men and women 
     that could not be explained, even after accounting for 
     factors such as occupation, industry, marital status, and job 
     tenure.

  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment, because we 
need to continue to give women the boost they must have yet to succeed 
in this global economy that we are living in.
  Our late colleague, Patsy Mink, authored the Women's Educational 
Equity Act, which we call WEEA. WEEA and other equity provisions have 
been doing a very, very good job. But, do you know what? That good job 
has made this program vulnerable, because it appears that their success 
could be an excuse to eliminate this good program.
  It is hard to believe that the Members of this Congress think that 
gender equity provisions can be eliminated today because more women are 
enrolled in college, are graduating from college, or because boys, of 
all things, have reading scores that are not as good as girls. That is 
a very shortsighted view.
  Women are still underrepresented in math and science and in 
engineering-related fields, fields that actually pay higher salaries 
and oftentimes require overseas hiring to fill the positions.
  Many girls and women shy away from any sort of science or technology 
activity, despite the importance of these areas in modern society. We 
need to fix that, because research has shown that interest in math and 
science begins to wane in early adolescence.
  We want to make sure that girls keep all their options open. They do 
not have to be scientists, they do not have to be mathematicians, they 
do not have to be engineers, but when they are ready to go to college, 
they have to have the option, just like the guys do.
  The National Bureau of Economic Research reports that students who do 
well in math outearn their nonmathematical counterparts even if they do 
not go on to college. Within 6 years of graduating high school in 1980, 
young men with strong basic math skills were earning 53 cents more per 
hour than those with average math skills. The difference between women 
with stronger math skills and men with average math skills was even 
more significant, with women earning 74 cents more per hour.
  It is clear that increased comprehension in math and science benefits 
women. The Women's Educational Equity Act program is critical to 
helping promote equal education opportunities for girls and women by 
providing funds and assistance to educational agencies. That is why our 
amendment would protect this successful program by leveling out funding 
for WEEA at $3 million. We would be taking funds from the Fund for the 
Improvement of Education, or FIE. These funds fund individual Member 
projects. I can tell you that every single Member in this body will 
better serve their constituents if they are serving the women in their 
school districts.
  If our schools do not continue to receive this support, females and 
minorities will continue to dominate the low-wage jobs, while America's 
high-wage, high-tech jobs go to foreign undergraduates and foreign 
graduates. Women will continue to have fewer economic opportunities 
than men and less access to the careers that will support them and 
their families. Without these opportunities, this country will be 
deprived of the highly-educated, highly-skilled workforce we need in 
the United States to compete in the global economy.
  Gender equity in education is not a women's thing. All Americans, men 
and women alike, have a stake in making sure that all students gain the 
skill and self-confidence they need in elementary and secondary school 
to become productive, self-supporting adults.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support our amendment, to 
protect this important program from becoming yet another unnecessary 
casualty of a very shortsighted budget.

[[Page H6843]]

  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Ohio continue to reserve his 
point of order?
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  I rise in support of the Maloney-Woolsey-Sanchez amendment. This 
amendment would provide funds for the Patsy Mink Women's Educational 
Equity Act program. This is an important program promoted and named 
after our dearly missed colleague Patsy Mink, who I served with on the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce.
  It is designed to promote gender equality in providing counseling and 
guidance, physical education and the development of the classroom 
materials.
  A lot of people in Title IX kind of made fun of us women, and yet 
when you look at the women in the Olympics, these programs work. So we 
have to make sure that we keep them going.
  I understand that I am lucky. I work in Congress. With that being 
said, I get equal pay. But an awful lot of my colleagues that are my 
friends that are working on the outside world doing the hard work right 
next to their male colleagues, they do not get the same pay. So women 
are disadvantaged in many parts of our society, and equal education 
offers them the opportunity to grow.
  Our women also are living, unfortunately, sometimes in a violent 
society, especially those in the low-income areas. Think about all the 
women that right now possibly will be losing their husbands either from 
the war in Iraq or even from September 11, where we need to and we 
still continue the trend of educating them so they can educate 
themselves and have a job. But the majority of firearm homicides are 
the result of intimate partner violence.
  With that being said, on September 13 the assault weapons bill will 
expire in this country. We know it has saved lives. We know that 
basically it has certainly put women at less risk, especially those 
that are in low-income areas and their children.
  I do not understand why we cannot bring up the bill for a vote. I do 
not understand why. The President of the United States has said that he 
would sign the bill if it got onto his desk.

                              {time}  1530

  Well, we are the ones here who are holding it up. He is going to sign 
the bill. That is a good sign. So I think that we should move forward 
between today and Monday afternoon and be able to get this vote done so 
we can continue something that works. A program like this works. We 
have seen equal education getting better and better. Why are we even 
looking at a program to either cut it back or to see it expire when a 
program works?
  Police chiefs from all over the country were here today. The rank-
and-file were here today. Unfortunately, victims were here today too. I 
mentioned them many times today. We can cut down on health care costs; 
we can cut down on those who are in rehab hospitals, some who never 
leave. We can cut down on the amount of people who are unfortunately 
injured because of large-capacity clips and assault weapons. The bottom 
line is, why did we have an assault weapons ban in the beginning? 
Because too many of our police officers were being mowed down. We are 
putting that risk right back on the streets again. We are putting that 
risk to our police officers today, when things are actually even worse 
than they were 10 years ago.
  This is when we should be renewing this ban. This is when we should 
be making sure our police officers who are protecting us because 
terrorists are in this country. This is what we should be doing. The 
American people care about this issue. They count on us, we in 
Congress, our leaders, our President, to take a lead on this. And we 
are letting them down, unless somebody has a change of heart. Do not 
think this is going to go away, because it is not. It will not, 
unfortunately, because one day we will be standing here and people will 
be saying, why did we not do something about it, and that is going to 
be, unfortunately, when we have a tragedy in our school or our police 
officers are mowed down, and people say, why did you not do something.
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in 
strong support of the Maloney/Woolsey/Sanchez amendment to restore 
Women's Educational Equity Act, or WEEA, funding in the Labor HHS bill.
  I am standing here again, as I did in 1999 with my late colleague 
Patsy Mink, to urge Congress to provide $3 million in funding for this 
vitally important program.
  WEEA was established in 1974 to promote educational equity for girls 
and women, including those who suffer multiple discrimination based on 
gender, race, ethnicity, national origin, disability, or age. The 
program was also established to urge compliance with Title IX which 
prohibits sex discrimination in federally funded education programs and 
activities.
  In the last 29 years, WEEA has funded more than 700 projects 
throughout the United States. And, unlike a number of programs this 
Congress has funded, the results speak for themselves.
  Girls and women in this country are doing better. For the first time, 
women's educational achievement equals or surpasses that of men. Women 
are also more likely to graduate, more likely to engage in school 
activities, and less likely to engage in high risk activities.
  However, as women advance through their educational careers, they 
become increasingly less likely to enroll in advanced placement 
courses, especially those in math and sciences.
  According to 2000 figures, only 18 percent of engineering degrees are 
awarded to women, and only 10.6 percent of employed engineers are 
female. As a representative from Orange County--one of the largest 
aerospace and defense industrial bases in the country--I know this is a 
problem. Time and time again, my aerospace and defense contractors tell 
me that they simply can't find enough people to hire, especially enough 
women, and that they are having to turn to foreign students to meeting 
hiring needs.
  It doesn't have to be this way. Programs such as WEEA will help fill 
those programs with our women.
  And because of the lack of role models in these fields, classroom 
textbooks and other educational materials do not sufficiently reflect 
the experiences, achievements, or concerns of women and, in most cases, 
are not written by women.
  Studies show that women teachers, especially in the K-8 grades, often 
feel uncomfortable or underqualified to teach math and science. Studies 
also show that many of our young women perceive math and science as 
``unfeminine.'' Why is this? Is there something hidden in the 
curriculum? Is it in the way that we teach? What makes women believe 
they are best suited for other fields? WEEA programs are searching to 
find the answers to these questions.
  Three million dollars is a small amount of money to expend on a 
program with tremendous payoffs. Support WEEA. Vote for the Maloney/
Woolsey/Sanchez amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I will not take the full 5 minutes. There was an 
amendment brought to the floor just a few minutes ago by the 
gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo), the gentlewoman from the Virgin 
Islands (Mrs. Christensen), and the gentleman from Guam (Mr. 
Faleomavaega) regarding Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, 
and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands; and it was 
regarding section 1108 of the Social Security Act, which places a 
funding ceiling on all Medicaid funding to U.S. territories.
  In Guam, Medicaid and CHIP combined cover only about 25 percent of 
all estimated costs eligible for Medicaid matching grants.
  The reason I came to the floor is because we had a hearing on this 
not long ago and the hearing was as a result of my going to Guam and 
Saipan and the Marianas to talk to them about health care problems. My 
Subcommittee on Wellness and Human Rights was looking into the problems 
they are facing over there regarding health care. They have an absolute 
epidemic of type 2 diabetes. They do not have enough equipment over 
there to take care of the population. People are literally dying 
because they cannot be taken care of as far as their dialysis is 
concerned. They are running those machines 24 hours a day, Mr. 
Chairman. Mr. Chairman, they are running those dialysis machines in the 
Northern Marianas and Guam and Saipan 24 hours a day. The people cannot 
get health care.
  The Speaker of the House of Representatives in Guam had heart 
trouble. They had to fly him all the way

[[Page H6844]]

from Guam to Honolulu to get health care. Otherwise, he would have 
died. That is the Speaker of the House over there.
  I know that there was a point of order raised against this, and I 
understand that we cannot legislate on an appropriations bill. But I 
would just like to say to the chairman, this is not a political thing. 
This is not a Democrat or Republican thing. The people of that area of 
the world, American citizens are dying because they cannot get adequate 
health care, and the economy has been hit very hard over there in that 
region of the world, and they cannot reach the matching grant 
requirement which is much lower than in the 48 States that we have 
right here.
  So I would just like to say to my good friend, the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Regula), and the Committee on Appropriations and all of the 
members of the Committee on Appropriations, something has to be done 
about the problem in Guam, Saipan, and the Northern Marianas and 
American Samoa, because those people over there simply are not getting 
health care. It is not a question of quality of health care; they are 
not getting health care. They do not have enough dialysis machines, 
they do not have enough equipment to take care of people with heart 
trouble and, as I said before, they are having to go all the way to 
Hawaii, 4, 5, 6, 7 hours on a plane to have their lives saved.
  So I just wanted to bring this to the attention of my colleagues on 
the Committee on Appropriations, and I will bring it to the attention 
of the authorizing committee as well; I know it is important to do 
that. But I am sorry I was not on the floor to discuss this when it 
came up. I know it would not have done any good, because it is subject 
to a point of order. But this is something that they are suffering from 
over there.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will 
now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were 
postponed in the following order: amendment No. 4 offered by Ms. 
Jackson-Lee of Texas; an amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas; 
and an amendment offered by Mr. Sanders of Vermont.
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


          Amendment No. 4 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on amendment No. 4 offered by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-
Lee) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 15-minute vote followed by two 5-minute 
votes.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 112, 
noes 305, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 425]

                               AYES--112

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carson (IN)
     Case
     Clay
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Evans
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gephardt
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Honda
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Rangel
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Tanner
     Thompson (MS)
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--305

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (OK)
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Farr
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Hill
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley (OR)
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Ballenger
     Cannon
     Dicks
     Dooley (CA)
     Dunn
     Engel
     Flake
     Grijalva
     Jones (OH)
     Mollohan
     Nethercutt
     Ryan (OH)
     Schrock
     Smith (WA)
     Tauzin
     Young (AK)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Walden of Oregon) (during the vote). 
Members are advised there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1606

  Messrs. FRELINGHUYSEN, SHIMKUS, BISHOP of Georgia, HOYER, CARSON of 
Oklahoma, CLYBURN, THORNBERRY, LAMPSON, TIBERI, BUYER, ETHERIDGE, 
SPRATT, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, 
Messrs. MILLER of North Carolina, BACA, STRICKLAND, GONZALEZ, KUCINICH, 
GEORGE MILLER of California, OBERSTAR, OLVER, LANGEVIN and REYES 
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. LYNCH changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

[[Page H6845]]

             Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Walden of Oregon). The pending business 
is the demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) on which further proceedings 
were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 156, 
noes 261, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 426]

                               AYES--156

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Case
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Emanuel
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kleczka
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Wilson (NM)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--261

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carson (OK)
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Hill
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley (OR)
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Lipinski
       

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Akin
     Ballenger
     Cannon
     Dicks
     Dooley (CA)
     Dunn
     Engel
     Flake
     Grijalva
     Mollohan
     Nethercutt
     Ryan (OH)
     Schrock
     Tauzin
     Young (AK)


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (during the vote). Members are reminded 
there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1615

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Sanders

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 305, 
noes 114, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 427]

                               AYES--305

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Butterfield
     Camp
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Foley
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayworth
     Herseth
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kline
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George

[[Page H6846]]


     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Wilson (NM)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--114

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barton (TX)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Cantor
     Carter
     Case
     Cole
     Collins
     Cox
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Everett
     Feeney
     Forbes
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Harris
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Keller
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (VA)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pearce
     Pence
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Ballenger
     Bilirakis
     Cannon
     Dicks
     Dooley (CA)
     Engel
     Flake
     Grijalva
     Mollohan
     Nethercutt
     Ryan (OH)
     Schrock
     Tauzin
     Young (AK)


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised 2 minutes remain 
in this vote.

                              {time}  1624

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, on September 7th and 8th, 2004, I was 
delayed in returning from my district due to official business and I 
missed rollcall vote Nos. 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427.
  If I had been here I would have voted in favor of rollcall vote No. 
422, to name the Harvey and Bernice Jones Post Office Building, and 
rollcall vote No. 423 to name the General William Carey Lee Post Office 
Building.
  I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 424, the Previous 
Question regarding the Rule for the Labor Health and Human Services and 
Education Appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2005.
  I would have voted in favor of rollcall vote No. 425, Ms. Jackson-
Lee's amendment to increase funding in the CDC and NIH for Lupus. I 
would have voted in favor of rollcall vote No. 426, Ms. Jackson-Lee's 
amendment to increase funding in the CDC for Hepatitis C.
  I would have voted in favor of rollcall vote No. 427, Mr. Sander's 
amendment to increase funding for the low-income home energy assistance 
program and the weatherization assistance program by $22,000,000.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder 
of the bill through page 95, line 21, 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 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the remainder of the bill through page 95, line 21, is as 
follows:

                            Indian Education

       For expenses necessary to carry out, to the extent not 
     otherwise provided, title VII, part A of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965, $120,856,000.

                       Innovation and Improvement

       For carrying out activities authorized by part G of title 
     I, subpart 5 of part A and parts C and D of title II, parts 
     B, C, and D of title V, and section 1504 of the Elementary 
     and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (``ESEA''), $669,936,000: 
     Provided, That $18,391,000 shall be available to carry out 
     section 2151(c) of the ESEA, of which not less than 
     $10,000,000 shall be provided to the National Board for 
     Professional Teaching Standards, not less than $7,000,000 
     shall be provided to the American Board for the Certification 
     of Teacher Excellence, and up to $1,391,000 may be reserved 
     by the Secretary to conduct an evaluation of activities 
     authorized by such section: Provided further, That 
     $50,000,000 shall be for subpart 2 of part B of title V: 
     Provided further, That $100,000,000 shall be available to 
     carry out part D of title V of the ESEA.

                 Safe Schools and Citizenship Education

       For carrying out activities authorized by subpart 3 of part 
     C of title II, part A of title IV, and subparts 2, 3 and 10 
     of part D of title V of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (``ESEA''), $801,369,000, of which 
     $440,908,000 shall become available on July 1, 2005 and 
     remain available through September 30, 2006: Provided, That 
     $440,908,000 shall be available for subpart 1 of part A of 
     title IV and $203,472,000 shall be available for subpart 2 of 
     part A of title IV: Provided further, That $128,347,000 shall 
     be available to carry out part D of title V of the ESEA: 
     Provided further, That of the funds available to carry out 
     subpart 3 of part C of title II, up to $11,852,000 may be 
     used to carry out section 2345.

                      English Language Acquisition

       For carrying out part A of title III of the ESEA, 
     $681,215,000, of which $595,715,000 shall become available on 
     July 1, 2005, and shall remain available through September 
     30, 2006: Provided, That funds reserved under section 
     3111(c)(1)(D) of the ESEA that are not used in accordance 
     with section 3111(c)(2) may be added to the funds that are 
     available July 1, 2005, through September 30, 2006, for State 
     allotments under section 3111(c)(3).

                           Special Education

       For carrying out parts B, C, and D of the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Education Act, $12,176,101,000, of which 
     $6,560,447,000 shall become available for obligation on July 
     1, 2005, and shall remain available through September 30, 
     2006, and of which $5,413,000,000 shall become available on 
     October 1, 2005, and shall remain available through September 
     30, 2006, for academic year 2005-2006: Provided, That 
     $11,400,000 shall be for Recording for the Blind and 
     Dyslexic, Inc. to support the development, production, and 
     circulation of recorded educational materials: Provided 
     further, That the amount for section 611(c) of the Act shall 
     be equal to the amount available for that section during 
     fiscal year 2004, increased by the amount of inflation as 
     specified in section 611(f)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act.

            Rehabilitation Services and Disability Research

       For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided, the 
     Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Assistive Technology Act of 
     1998 (``the AT Act''), and the Helen Keller National Center 
     Act, $3,054,587,000, of which $15,000,000 shall be for grants 
     to States under title III of the AT Act: Provided, That the 
     Federal share of such grants shall not exceed 75 percent, and 
     the requirements in sections 301(c)(2) and section 302 of the 
     AT Act shall not apply to such grants.

           Special Institutions for Persons With Disabilities


                 american printing house for the blind

       For carrying out the Act of March 3, 1879, as amended (20 
     U.S.C. 101 et seq.), $17,000,000.


               NATIONAL TECHNICAL INSTITUTE FOR THE DEAF

       For the National Technical Institute for the Deaf under 
     titles I and II of the Education of the Deaf Act of 1986 (20 
     U.S.C. 4301 et seq.), $55,790,000, of which $1,685,000 shall 
     be for construction and shall remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That from the total amount available, the 
     Institute may at its discretion use funds for the endowment 
     program as authorized under section 207.


                          GALLAUDET UNIVERSITY

       For the Kendall Demonstration Elementary School, the Model 
     Secondary School for the Deaf, and the partial support of 
     Gallaudet University under titles I and II of the Education 
     of the Deaf Act of 1986 (20 U.S.C. 4301 et seq.), 
     $104,000,000: Provided, That from the total amount available, 
     the University may at its discretion use funds for the 
     endowment program as authorized under section 207.

                     Vocational and Adult Education

       For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided, the 
     Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act of 
     1998, the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act, and 
     subpart 4 of part D of title V of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 (``ESEA''), $2,025,456,000, 
     of which $1,234,456,000 shall become available on July 1, 
     2005, and shall remain available through September 30, 2006, 
     and of which $791,000,000 shall become available on October 
     1, 2005, and shall remain available through September 30, 
     2006: Provided, That of the amount provided for Adult 
     Education State Grants, $69,135,000 shall be made available 
     for integrated English literacy and civics education services 
     to immigrants and other limited

[[Page H6847]]

     English proficient populations: Provided further, That of the 
     amount reserved for integrated English literacy and civics 
     education, notwithstanding section 211 of the Adult Education 
     and Family Literacy Act, 65 percent shall be allocated to 
     States based on a State's absolute need as determined by 
     calculating each State's share of a 10-year average of the 
     Immigration and Naturalization Service data for immigrants 
     admitted for legal permanent residence for the 10 most recent 
     years, and 35 percent allocated to States that experienced 
     growth as measured by the average of the 3 most recent years 
     for which Immigration and Naturalization Service data for 
     immigrants admitted for legal permanent residence are 
     available, except that no State shall be allocated an amount 
     less than $60,000: Provided further, That of the amounts made 
     available for the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act, 
     $9,169,000 shall be for national leadership activities under 
     section 243 and $6,692,000 shall be for the National 
     Institute for Literacy under section 242: Provided further, 
     That $101,698,000 shall be available to support the 
     activities authorized under subpart 4 of part D of title V of 
     the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, of which 
     up to 5 percent shall become available October 1, 2004, and 
     shall remain available through September 30, 2006, for 
     evaluation, technical assistance, school networking, peer 
     review of applications, and program outreach activities, and 
     of which not less than 95 percent shall become available on 
     July 1, 2005, and remain available through September 30, 
     2006, for grants to local educational agencies: Provided 
     further, That funds made available to local education 
     agencies under this subpart shall be used only for activities 
     related to establishing smaller learning communities in high 
     schools.

                      Student Financial Assistance

       For carrying out subparts 1, 3 and 4 of part A, part C and 
     part E of title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as 
     amended, $14,755,794,000, which shall remain available 
     through September 30, 2006.
       The maximum Pell Grant for which a student shall be 
     eligible during award year 2005-2006 shall be $4,050.

                       Student Aid Administration

       For Federal administrative expenses (in addition to funds 
     made available under section 458), to carry out part D of 
     title I, and subparts 1, 3, and 4 of part A, and parts B, C, 
     D and E of title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as 
     amended, $120,247,000.

                            Higher Education

       For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided, 
     section 121 and titles II, III, IV, V, VI, and VII of the 
     Higher Education Act of 1965 (``HEA''), as amended, section 
     1543 of the Higher Education Amendments of 1992, the Mutual 
     Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961, and section 
     117 of the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education 
     Act, $1,976,056,000, of which $1,500,000 for interest 
     subsidies authorized by section 121 of the HEA shall remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That $9,876,000, to 
     remain available through September 30, 2006, shall be 
     available to fund fellowships for academic year 2006-2007 
     under part A, subpart 1 of title VII of said Act, under the 
     terms and conditions of part A, subpart 1: Provided further, 
     That $988,000 is for data collection and evaluation 
     activities for programs under the HEA, including such 
     activities needed to comply with the Government Performance 
     and Results Act of 1993: Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds made 
     available in this Act to carry out title VI of the HEA and 
     section 102(b)(6) of the Mutual Educational and Cultural 
     Exchange Act of 1961 may be used to support visits and study 
     in foreign countries by individuals who are participating in 
     advanced foreign language training and international studies 
     in areas that are vital to United States national security 
     and who plan to apply their language skills and knowledge of 
     these countries in the fields of government, the professions, 
     or international development: Provided further, That up to 
     one percent of the funds referred to in the preceding proviso 
     may be used for program evaluation, national outreach, and 
     information dissemination activities.

                           Howard University

       For partial support of Howard University (20 U.S.C. 121 et 
     seq.), $243,893,000, of which not less than $3,552,000 shall 
     be for a matching endowment grant pursuant to the Howard 
     University Endowment Act (Public Law 98-480) and shall remain 
     available until expended.

         College Housing and Academic Facilities Loans Program

       For Federal administrative expenses authorized under 
     section 121 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, $578,000 to 
     carry out activities related to existing facility loans 
     entered into under the Higher Education Act of 1965.

  Historically Black College and University Capital Financing Program 
                                Account

       The aggregate principal amount of outstanding bonds insured 
     pursuant to section 344 of title III, part D of the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965, shall not exceed $357,000,000, and the 
     cost, as defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974, of such bonds shall not exceed zero.
       For administrative expenses to carry out the Historically 
     Black College and University Capital Financing Program 
     entered into pursuant to title III, part D of the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965, as amended, $212,000.

                    Institute of Education Sciences

       For carrying out activities authorized by Public Law 107-
     279 and section 672 of the Individuals with Disabilities 
     Education Act, $526,804,000: Provided, That, of the amount 
     appropriated, $195,518,000 shall be available for obligation 
     through September 30, 2006.

                        Departmental Management

                         Program Administration

       For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided, the 
     Department of Education Organization Act, including rental of 
     conference rooms in the District of Columbia and hire of 
     three passenger motor vehicles, $421,055,000.

                        OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS

       For expenses necessary for the Office for Civil Rights, as 
     authorized by section 203 of the Department of Education 
     Organization Act, $90,248,000.

                    OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

       For expenses necessary for the Office of the Inspector 
     General, as authorized by section 212 of the Department of 
     Education Organization Act, $47,790,000.

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 301. No funds appropriated in this Act may be used for 
     the transportation of students or teachers (or for the 
     purchase of equipment for such transportation) in order to 
     overcome racial imbalance in any school or school system, or 
     for the transportation of students or teachers (or for the 
     purchase of equipment for such transportation) in order to 
     carry out a plan of racial desegregation of any school or 
     school system.
       Sec. 302. None of the funds contained in this Act shall be 
     used to require, directly or indirectly, the transportation 
     of any student to a school other than the school which is 
     nearest the student's home, except for a student requiring 
     special education, to the school offering such special 
     education, in order to comply with title VI of the Civil 
     Rights Act of 1964. For the purpose of this section an 
     indirect requirement of transportation of students includes 
     the transportation of students to carry out a plan involving 
     the reorganization of the grade structure of schools, the 
     pairing of schools, or the clustering of schools, or any 
     combination of grade restructuring, pairing or clustering. 
     The prohibition described in this section does not include 
     the establishment of magnet schools.
       Sec. 303. No funds appropriated under this Act may be used 
     to prevent the implementation of programs of voluntary prayer 
     and meditation in the public schools.


                          (transfer of funds)

       Sec. 304. Not to exceed 1 percent of any discretionary 
     funds (pursuant to the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended) which are appropriated for 
     the Department of Education in this Act may be transferred 
     between appropriations, but no such appropriation shall be 
     increased by more than 3 percent by any such transfer: 
     Provided, That the Appropriations Committees of both Houses 
     of Congress are notified at least 15 days in advance of any 
     transfer.
       Sec. 305. Section 8002(m) of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7702(m)) is amended by 
     striking ``5 years'' each place it appears and inserting ``7 
     years''.
       Sec. 306. None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall 
     be available to the Secretary of Education--
       (1) to enforce any change or clarification of Department of 
     Education policy with respect to the Federal Family Education 
     Loan Program Consolidation loans for borrowers with both FFEL 
     and non-FFEL loans, as provided for in a dear colleague 
     letter of the Secretary's dated April 29, 2004; or
       (2) to issue letters regarding loan verification 
     certificates to providers of Federal Family Education Loan 
     requesting information regarding William D. Ford Direct 
     Student Loans, including Direct Stafford, PLUS, and 
     Consolidation Loans, that state either of the following:
       (A) We cannot approve the certification form (s). The 
     borrower has Direct Loans.
       (B) We cannot approve the certification form (s). The 
     borrower has a Direct Consolidation Loan and has no other 
     loans.
       This title may be cited as the ``Department of Education 
     Appropriations Act, 2005''.

                       TITLE IV--RELATED AGENCIES

                      Armed Forces Retirement Home

       For expenses necessary for the Armed Forces Retirement Home 
     to operate and maintain the Armed Forces Retirement Home--
     Washington and the Armed Forces Retirement Home--Gulfport, to 
     be paid from funds available in the Armed Forces Retirement 
     Home Trust Fund, $61,195,000, of which $4,000,000 shall 
     remain available until expended for construction and 
     renovation of the physical plants at the Armed Forces 
     Retirement Home--Washington and the Armed Forces Retirement 
     Home--Gulfport.

 Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled

       For expenses necessary of the Committee for Purchase From 
     People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled established by 
     Public Law 92-28, $4,672,000.

             Corporation for National and Community Service

        Domestic Volunteer Service Programs, Operating Expenses

       For expenses necessary for the Corporation for National and 
     Community Service to

[[Page H6848]]

     carry out the provisions of the Domestic Volunteer Service 
     Act of 1973, as amended, $353,197,000: Provided, That none of 
     the funds made available to the Corporation for National and 
     Community Service in this Act for activities authorized by 
     section 122 of part C of title I and part E of title II of 
     the Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 1973 shall be used to 
     provide stipends or other monetary incentives to volunteers 
     or volunteer leaders whose incomes exceed 125 percent of the 
     national poverty level.

                  Corporation for Public Broadcasting

       For payment to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, as 
     authorized by the Communications Act of 1934, an amount which 
     shall be available within limitations specified by that Act, 
     for the fiscal year 2007, $400,000,000: Provided, That no 
     funds made available to the Corporation for Public 
     Broadcasting by this Act shall be used to pay for receptions, 
     parties, or similar forms of entertainment for Government 
     officials or employees: Provided further, That none of the 
     funds contained in this paragraph shall be available or used 
     to aid or support any program or activity from which any 
     person is excluded, or is denied benefits, or is 
     discriminated against, on the basis of race, color, national 
     origin, religion, or sex.
       Of the amounts made available to the Corporation for Public 
     Broadcasting for fiscal year 2005 by Public Law 108-7, up to 
     $20,000,000 is available for grants associated with the 
     transition of public broadcasting to digital broadcasting, 
     including costs related to transmission equipment and program 
     production, development, and distribution, to be awarded as 
     determinded by the Corporation in consultation with public 
     radio and television licensees or permittees, or their 
     designated representatives; and up to $60,000,000 is 
     available pursuant to section 396(k)(10) of the 
     Communications Act of 1934, as amended, for replacement and 
     upgrade of the public television interconnection system: 
     Provided, That section 396(k)(3) shall apply only to amounts 
     remaining after allocations made herein.

               Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For expenses necessary for the Federal Mediation and 
     Conciliation Service to carry out the functions vested in it 
     by the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947 (29 U.S.C. 171-
     180, 182-183), including hire of passenger motor vehicles; 
     for expenses necessary for the Labor-Management Cooperation 
     Act of 1978 (29 U.S.C. 175a); and for expenses necessary for 
     the Service to carry out the functions vested in it by the 
     Civil Service Reform Act, Public Law 95-454 (5 U.S.C. ch. 
     71), $43,964,000, including $1,500,000, to remain available 
     through September 30, 2006, for activities authorized by the 
     Labor-Management Cooperation Act of 1978 (29 U.S.C. 175a): 
     Provided, That notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, fees charged, 
     up to full-cost recovery, for special training activities and 
     other conflict resolution services and technical assistance, 
     including those provided to foreign governments and 
     international organizations, and for arbitration services 
     shall be credited to and merged with this account, and shall 
     remain available until expended: Provided further, That fees 
     for arbitration services shall be available only for 
     education, training, and professional development of the 
     agency workforce: Provided further, That the Director of the 
     Service is authorized to accept and use on behalf of the 
     United States gifts of services and real, personal, or other 
     property in the aid of any projects or functions within the 
     Director's jurisdiction.

            Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For expenses necessary for the Federal Mine Safety and 
     Health Review Commission (30 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), $7,813,000.

                Institute of Museum and Library Services

       For carrying out the Museum and Library Services Act of 
     1996, $261,743,000, to remain available until expended.

                  Medicare Payment Advisory Commission


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For expenses necessary to carry out section 1805 of the 
     Social Security Act, $9,905,000, to be transferred to this 
     appropriation from the Federal Hospital Insurance and the 
     Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds.

        National Commission on Libraries and Information Science


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses for the National Commission on 
     Libraries and Information Science, established by the Act of 
     July 20, 1970 (Public Law 91-345, as amended), $1,000,000.

                     National Council on Disability


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For expenses necessary for the National Council on 
     Disability as authorized by title IV of the Rehabilitation 
     Act of 1973, as amended, $2,873,000.

                     National Labor Relations Board


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For expenses necessary for the National Labor Relations 
     Board to carry out the functions vested in it by the Labor-
     Management Relations Act, 1947, as amended (29 U.S.C. 141-
     167), and other laws, $248,785,000: Provided, That no part of 
     this appropriation shall be available to organize or assist 
     in organizing agricultural laborers or used in connection 
     with investigations, hearings, directives, or orders 
     concerning bargaining units composed of agricultural laborers 
     as referred to in section 2(3) of the Act of July 5, 1935 (29 
     U.S.C. 152), and as amended by the Labor-Management Relations 
     Act, 1947, as amended, and as defined in section 3(f) of the 
     Act of June 25, 1938 (29 U.S.C. 203), and including in said 
     definition employees engaged in the maintenance and operation 
     of ditches, canals, reservoirs, and waterways when maintained 
     or operated on a mutual, nonprofit basis and at least 95 
     percent of the water stored or supplied thereby is used for 
     farming purposes.

                        National Mediation Board


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the 
     Railway Labor Act, as amended (45 U.S.C. 151-188), including 
     emergency boards appointed by the President, $11,635,000.

            Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For expenses necessary for the Occupational Safety and 
     Health Review Commission (29 U.S.C. 661), $10,516,000.

                       Railroad Retirement Board


                     dual benefits payments account

       For payment to the Dual Benefits Payments Account, 
     authorized under section 15(d) of the Railroad Retirement Act 
     of 1974, $108,000,000, which shall include amounts becoming 
     available in fiscal year 2005 pursuant to section 
     224(c)(1)(B) of Public Law 98-76; and in addition, an amount, 
     not to exceed 2 percent of the amount provided herein, shall 
     be available proportional to the amount by which the product 
     of recipients and the average benefit received exceeds 
     $108,000,000: Provided, That the total amount provided herein 
     shall be credited in 12 approximately equal amounts on the 
     first day of each month in the fiscal year.

          Federal Payments to the Railroad Retirement Accounts

       For payment to the accounts established in the Treasury for 
     the payment of benefits under the Railroad Retirement Act for 
     interest earned on unnegotiated checks, $150,000, to remain 
     available through September 30, 2006, which shall be the 
     maximum amount available for payment pursuant to section 417 
     of Public Law 98-76.

                      Limitation On Administration

       For necessary expenses for the Railroad Retirement Board 
     for administration of the Railroad Retirement Act and the 
     Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act, $102,202,000, to be 
     derived in such amounts as determined by the Board from the 
     railroad retirement accounts and from moneys credited to the 
     railroad unemployment insurance administration fund.

             Limitation on the Office of Inspector General

       For expenses necessary for the Office of Inspector General 
     for audit, investigatory and review activities, as authorized 
     by the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, not more 
     than $6,561,000, to be derived from the railroad retirement 
     accounts and railroad unemployment insurance account: 
     Provided, That none of the funds made available in any other 
     paragraph of this Act may be transferred to the Office; used 
     to carry out any such transfer; used to provide any office 
     space, equipment, office supplies, communications facilities 
     or services, maintenance services, or administrative services 
     for the Office; used to pay any salary, benefit, or award for 
     any personnel of the Office; used to pay any other operating 
     expense of the Office; or used to reimburse the Office for 
     any service provided, or expense incurred, by the Office.

                     Social Security Administration

                Payments to Social Security Trust Funds

       For payment to the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance 
     and the Federal Disability Insurance trust funds, as provided 
     under sections 201(m), 228(g), and 1131(b)(2) of the Social 
     Security Act, $20,454,000.


                  supplemental security income program

       For carrying out titles XI and XVI of the Social Security 
     Act, section 401 of Public Law 92-603, section 212 of Public 
     Law 93-66, as amended, and section 405 of Public Law 95-216, 
     including payment to the Social Security trust funds for 
     administrative expenses incurred pursuant to section 
     201(g)(1) of the Social Security Act, $28,578,829,000, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That any portion 
     of the funds provided to a State in the current fiscal year 
     and not obligated by the State during that year shall be 
     returned to the Treasury.
       For making, after June 15 of the current fiscal year, 
     benefit payments to individuals under title XVI of the Social 
     Security Act, for unanticipated costs incurred for the 
     current fiscal year, such sums as may be necessary.
       For making benefit payments under title XVI of the Social 
     Security Act for the first quarter of fiscal year 2006, 
     $10,930,000,000, to remain available until expended.


                 limitation on administrative expenses

       For necessary expenses, including the hire of two passenger 
     motor vehicles, and not to exceed $15,000 for official 
     reception and representation expenses, not more than 
     $8,674,100,000 may be expended, as authorized

[[Page H6849]]

     by section 201(g)(1) of the Social Security Act, from any one 
     or all of the trust funds referred to therein: Provided, That 
     not less than $2,000,000 shall be for the Social Security 
     Advisory Board: Provided further, That unobligated balances 
     of funds provided under this paragraph at the end of fiscal 
     year 2005 not needed for fiscal year 2005 shall remain 
     available until expended to invest in the Social Security 
     Administration information technology and telecommunications 
     hardware and software infrastructure, including related 
     equipment and non-payroll administrative expenses associated 
     solely with this information technology and 
     telecommunications infrastructure: Provided further, That 
     reimbursement to the trust funds under this heading for 
     expenditures for official time for employees of the Social 
     Security Administration pursuant to section 7131 of title 5, 
     United States Code, and for facilities or support services 
     for labor organizations pursuant to policies, regulations, or 
     procedures referred to in section 7135(b) of such title shall 
     be made by the Secretary of the Treasury, with interest, from 
     amounts in the general fund not otherwise appropriated, as 
     soon as possible after such expenditures are made.
       In addition, $124,000,000 to be derived from administration 
     fees in excess of $5.00 per supplementary payment collected 
     pursuant to section 1616(d) of the Social Security Act or 
     section 212(b)(3) of Public Law 93-66, which shall remain 
     available until expended. To the extent that the amounts 
     collected pursuant to such section 1616(d) or 212(b)(3) in 
     fiscal year 2005 exceed $124,000,000, the amounts shall be 
     available in fiscal year 2006 only to the extent provided in 
     advance in appropriations Acts.
       From funds previously appropriated for Federal-State 
     partnerships, any unobligated balances at the end of fiscal 
     year 2004 shall be transferred to the Supplemental Security 
     Income Program and remain available until expended to promote 
     Medicare buy-in programs targeted to elderly and disabled 
     individuals under titles XVIII and XIX of the Social Security 
     Act.


                      office of inspector general

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For expenses necessary for the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act 
     of 1978, as amended, $25,748,000, together with not to exceed 
     $65,359,000, to be transferred and expended as authorized by 
     section 201(g)(1) of the Social Security Act from the Federal 
     Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal 
     Disability Insurance Trust Fund.
       In addition, an amount not to exceed 3 percent of the total 
     provided in this appropriation may be transferred from the 
     ``Limitation on Administrative Expenses'', Social Security 
     Administration, to be merged with this account, to be 
     available for the time and purposes for which this account is 
     available: Provided, That notice of such transfers shall be 
     transmitted promptly to the Committees on Appropriations of 
     the House and Senate.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Shadegg

  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Shadegg:
       At the end of title III of the bill, insert after the last 
     section (preceding the short title) the following:
       Sec. _. For ``School Improvement Programs'' for innovative 
     programs, as authorized by part A of title V of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     7201 et seq.), and the amount otherwise provided by this Act 
     for ``Education for the Disadvantaged'' is hereby reduced by, 
     $20,000,000.

  Mr. SHADEGG (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Arizona?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment offered by myself and 
the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave), and we believe it is 
extremely important at this particular time in our Nation's history.
  Mr. Chairman, the base bill we have before us omits any funding for 
title V, part A education block grants, and that program has previously 
been funded at the level of $296 million. That program is one of the 
few places where educators in America have flexibility to spend money 
as they see fit. Indeed, these title V block grants are critical, and 
they give local educators the flexibility and the funds to address 
local needs. They are used to reduce class size, buy computers, provide 
teacher training, and they are used to support remedial reading 
efforts.
  It is the flexibility of these grants that are so important at a time 
when the no child left behind bill is being funded across our Nation, 
and some people say there is not sufficient funding. Many local 
educators have spoken up and said this program needs to be funded.
  Indeed, in a letter from the American Association of School 
Administrators, which represents more than 14,000 school administrators 
and local education leaders across the country, in a letter dated just 
yesterday, they said, ``At a time when every dollar flowing from the 
Federal Government to local districts has a specific purpose, only this 
funding stream,'' the title V education block grant, ``allows districts 
the flexibility to use the dollars to meet the unique needs of the 
local school district.'' The letter went on to say every district 
benefits from funding under this block grant; therefore, every district 
would be affected by its elimination, and they reiterate these dollars 
are helping local school districts implement No Child Left Behind.
  I believe there is no opposition to the addition of the funding which 
this amendment offers. What there is is a debate about the source of 
that funding. The amendment takes $20 million from the Even Start 
Program and puts it into this title V education block program. We chose 
that because it was the only source we could find. We would note that 
Even Start is already funded at $247 million, and that is a sufficient 
amount to continue the programs already funded. I urge my colleagues to 
support the amendment.


   Amendment Offered by Mr. Obey to Amendment Offered by Mr. Shadegg

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Obey to amendment offered by Mr. 
     Shadegg:
       Strike the provisions of the amendment reducing funds for 
     Education for the Disadvantaged.
       Insert the following language into the amendment:
       ``At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert 
     the following new section:
       `Sec.  . In the case of taxpayers with adjusted gross 
     income in excess of $1,000,000, for the tax year beginning in 
     2005 the amount of tax reduction resulting from enactment of 
     the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 
     and the Jobs Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 
     shall be reduced by $125 for each such taxpayer.' ''

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the proposed 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio reserves a point of order on 
the amendment to the amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I certainly have no objection to the 
gentleman's efforts to provide funding for the block grant program. I 
think we ought to do that, but I offer this amendment to illustrate 
that the budget resolution adopted by the majority has put this 
committee in a position where each time a Member of either the majority 
or minority party tries to save a deserving program, they are forced to 
gouge another deserving program in order to pay for it.

                              {time}  1630

  Yet at the same time, that same budget resolution made it possible 
for the government to provide every person in this country who makes $1 
million or more a year with a $127,000 tax cut this year. What this 
amendment points out is that if we simply reduce that $127,000 tax cut 
for millionaires by $125, so they would be stuck with a whole $125 less 
than $127,000, if we did that, we would not have to cut into the Even 
Start program.
  I am not the sponsor of the Even Start program. The sponsor of the 
Even Start program was a former Republican Member of this House who was 
a Republican chairman of the Education and Labor Committee, Bill 
Goodling. I do not think we ought to be going after that program in 
order to do what the gentleman wants to do. So I am offering this 
amendment simply to illustrate that there are other ways to deal with 
this problem that are much more socially just and economically 
sensible.
  I do not see why we ought to be cutting into funding which helps 
families of disadvantaged children learn to read and write. I do not 
see why we should be cutting into that program in order to fund the 
other block grant program. But this is the kind of robbing-Peter-to-
pay-Paul situation that we have been backed into by the majority and by 
the White House.
  Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment in the hopes that the majority 
will not strike it on a point of order, because I think this is a much 
more civilized way to deal with what the gentleman is trying to do.

[[Page H6850]]

                             Point of Order

  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Ohio insist on his point of 
order?
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, we will have to insist on our point of 
order because obviously this is legislating on an appropriations, to 
add the language that the gentleman from Wisconsin is proposing. It 
violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part that 
an amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if 
it changes existing law. Obviously, this amendment proposes a change in 
existing law by prescribing changes in tax liabilities; and, therefore, 
we insist on our point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin wish to be heard on 
the point of order?
  Mr. OBEY. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman seeks to strike this amendment on a point 
of order. I would point out that the purpose of the Budget Act is to 
force Congress to make choices, to choose between priorities in the 
process of putting together a comprehensive budget. What the majority 
has done by the way it has used budget resolutions and the process of 
reconciliation is, instead, to fragment the budget process so that the 
Congress never gets to deal with the trade-offs between revenues and 
expenditures. That, I think, is a fundamental corruption of the 
original intention of the Budget Act.
  I wish that the majority party had not determined to walk down this 
road, but they have; and under the approach that they have established 
in the House, I must concede the point of order, but it is too bad 
because it means that we are going to be gouging one good Republican 
program in order to pay for one good national program.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded and sustained and the 
amendment to the Shadegg amendment is not in order.
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to offer this amendment today with the 
gentleman from Arizona to restore much-needed funding for the title V 
block grant program. These funds allow local educators the flexibility 
to address local needs, whether it is school safety, remedial reading, 
dropout prevention, professional development or support for charter 
schools.
  This innovative education program is the most flexible program 
contained within the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. It is the 
only formula program that allows recipients to use the funds to benefit 
any and all student populations in any and all schools. In 2001-2002, 
23 percent of the money provided to Colorado through this block grant 
was used for literacy programs, and 11 percent was used for library 
materials. Other States have used the money for computers and teachers. 
Many States are now using the money to meet the academic requirements 
of No Child Left Behind.
  I am extremely supportive of giving our local educators flexibility 
with their funding so they can make decisions that truly benefit 
students. These innovative education funds can be used for anything to 
improve academic achievement. I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment and restore these funds.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I rise in support of this amendment. I think it is a fairness issue 
because we want to give all the children in the schools of the United 
States an opportunity. What this does, and unfortunately we had to drop 
it from the original bill, it was $296 million last year and down to 
zero, in an effort to beef up a lot of programs that are very important 
to Members.
  But I think in fairness this is a very modest amendment that is being 
proposed by the gentleman from Arizona. It is $20 million. It gives the 
schools that are taking responsibility, the parochial schools, some of 
the private schools, some of the schools that are in another venue, and 
it is a modest amount to say to them, we understand and we care about 
what happens in your school, too. We care about the students in your 
school, that they get an equal shot or at least some help, a 
recognition of the importance of that.
  The Even Start program will still have a lot of money left. It is not 
as if we are putting it way behind. In light of all that, I strongly 
support the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Arizona is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the subcommittee 
for his support of this amendment; and to my friend from the opposite 
side of the aisle, I want to make it clear to him, we did propose a 
much more modest amendment, only $20 million. Our original goal had 
been to restore the entire $296 million. I would hope that in 
negotiations with the other body you would find, as I know the chairman 
will look to find, funds to put into this block grant program. I 
understand and sympathize with the remarks he made in his effort. 
Hopefully, as this bill moves forward and he will be in the conference 
and I will not, you can restore these funds even above the $20 million 
level here. Our effort was to be sure there was a line item in the bill 
as it leaves the House for you to work with as you go to the Members of 
the other body on this issue.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                      TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 501. The Secretaries of Labor, Health and Human 
     Services, and Education are authorized to transfer unexpended 
     balances of prior appropriations to accounts corresponding to 
     current appropriations provided in this Act: Provided, That 
     such transferred balances are used for the same purpose, and 
     for the same periods of time, for which they were originally 
     appropriated.
       Sec. 502. 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. 503. (a) No part of any appropriation contained in 
     this Act shall be used, other than for normal and recognized 
     executive-legislative relationships, for publicity or 
     propaganda purposes, for the preparation, distribution, or 
     use of any kit, pamphlet, booklet, publication, radio, 
     television, or video presentation designed to support or 
     defeat legislation pending before the Congress or any State 
     legislature, except in presentation to the Congress or any 
     State legislature itself.
       (b) No part of any appropriation contained in this Act 
     shall be used to pay the salary or expenses of any grant or 
     contract recipient, or agent acting for such recipient, 
     related to any activity designed to influence legislation or 
     appropriations pending before the Congress or any State 
     legislature.
       Sec. 504. The Secretaries of Labor and Education are 
     authorized to make available not to exceed $28,000 and 
     $20,000, respectively, from funds available for salaries and 
     expenses under titles I and III, respectively, for official 
     reception and representation expenses; the Director of the 
     Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service is authorized to 
     make available for official reception and representation 
     expenses not to exceed $5,000 from the funds available for 
     ``Salaries and expenses, Federal Mediation and Conciliation 
     Service''; and the Chairman of the National Mediation Board 
     is authorized to make available for official reception and 
     representation expenses not to exceed $5,000 from funds 
     available for ``Salaries and expenses, National Mediation 
     Board''.
       Sec. 505. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
     no funds appropriated under this Act shall be used to carry 
     out any program of distributing sterile needles or syringes 
     for the hypodermic injection of any illegal drug.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order 
against section 506. This provision violates clause 2(b) of House rule 
XXI. It proposes to change existing law and, therefore, constitutes 
legislation on an appropriation bill in violation of House rules.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, we recognize the validity of the 
gentleman's point and we certainly, in light of the circumstances, 
concede that the point of order is valid.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded and sustained and that 
provision is stricken from the bill.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 507. When issuing statements, press releases, requests 
     for proposals, bid solicitations and other documents 
     describing projects or programs funded in whole or in

[[Page H6851]]

     part with Federal money, all grantees receiving Federal funds 
     included in this Act, including but not limited to State and 
     local governments and recipients of Federal research grants, 
     shall clearly state--
       (1) the percentage of the total costs of the program or 
     project which will be financed with Federal money;
       (2) the dollar amount of Federal funds for the project or 
     program; and
       (3) percentage and dollar amount of the total costs of the 
     project or program that will be financed by non-governmental 
     sources.
       Sec. 508. (a) None of the funds appropriated under this 
     Act, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds 
     are appropriated under this Act, shall be expended for any 
     abortion.
       (b) None of the funds appropriated under this Act, and none 
     of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are 
     appropriated under this Act, shall be expended for health 
     benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion.
       (c) The term ``health benefits coverage'' means the package 
     of services covered by a managed care provider or 
     organization pursuant to a contract or other arrangement.
       Sec. 509. (a) The limitations established in the preceding 
     section shall not apply to an abortion--
       (1) if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or 
     incest; or
       (2) in the case where a woman suffers from a physical 
     disorder, physical injury, or physical illness, including a 
     life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from 
     the pregnancy itself, that would, as certified by a 
     physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an 
     abortion is performed.
       (b) Nothing in the preceding section shall be construed as 
     prohibiting the expenditure by a State, locality, entity, or 
     private person of State, local, or private funds (other than 
     a State's or locality's contribution of Medicaid matching 
     funds).
       (c) Nothing in the preceding section shall be construed as 
     restricting the ability of any managed care provider from 
     offering abortion coverage or the ability of a State or 
     locality to contract separately with such a provider for such 
     coverage with State funds (other than a State's or locality's 
     contribution of Medicaid matching funds).
       (d)(1) None of the funds made available in this Act may be 
     made available to a Federal agency or program, or to a State 
     or local government, if such agency, program, or government 
     subjects any institutional or individual health care entity 
     to discrimination on the basis that the health care entity 
     does not provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for 
     abortions.
       (2) In this subsection, the term ``health care entity'' 
     includes an individual physician or other health care 
     professional, a hospital, a provider-sponsored organization, 
     a health maintenance organization, a health insurance plan, 
     or any other kind of health care facility, organization, or 
     plan.
       Sec. 510. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act 
     may be used for--
       (1) the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research 
     purposes; or
       (2) research in which a human embryo or embryos are 
     destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of 
     injury or death greater than that allowed for research on 
     fetuses in utero under 45 CFR 46.208(a)(2) and section 498(b) 
     of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 289g(b)).
       (b) For purposes of this section, the term ``human embryo 
     or embryos'' includes any organism, not protected as a human 
     subject under 45 CFR 46 as of the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, that is derived by fertilization, parthenogenesis, 
     cloning, or any other means from one or more human gametes or 
     human diploid cells.
       Sec. 511. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act 
     may be used for any activity that promotes the legalization 
     of any drug or other substance included in schedule I of the 
     schedules of controlled substances established by section 202 
     of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812).
       (b) The limitation in subsection (a) shall not apply when 
     there is significant medical evidence of a therapeutic 
     advantage to the use of such drug or other substance or that 
     federally sponsored clinical trials are being conducted to 
     determine therapeutic advantage.
       Sec. 512. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be obligated or expended to enter into or renew a contract 
     with an entity if--
       (1) such entity is otherwise a contractor with the United 
     States and is subject to the requirement in section 4212(d) 
     of title 38, United States Code, regarding submission of an 
     annual report to the Secretary of Labor concerning employment 
     of certain veterans; and
       (2) such entity has not submitted a report as required by 
     that section for the most recent year for which such 
     requirement was applicable to such entity.
       Sec. 513. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to promulgate or adopt any final standard under 
     section 1173(b) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320d-
     2(b)) providing for, or providing for the assignment of, a 
     unique health identifier for an individual (except in an 
     individual's capacity as an employer or a health care 
     provider), until legislation is enacted specifically 
     approving the standard.
       Sec. 514. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be transferred to any department, agency, or instrumentality 
     of the United States Government, except pursuant to a 
     transfer made by, or transfer authority provided in, this Act 
     or any other appropriation Act.
       Sec. 515. None of the funds made available by this Act to 
     carry out the Library Services and Technology Act may be made 
     available to any library covered by paragraph (1) of section 
     224(f) of such Act (20 U.S.C. 9134(f)), as amended by the 
     Children's Internet Protections Act, unless such library has 
     made the certifications required by paragraph (4) of such 
     section.
       Sec. 516. None of the funds made available by this Act to 
     carry out part D of title II of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 may be made available to any elementary 
     or secondary school covered by paragraph (1) of section 
     2441(a) of such Act (20 U.S.C. 6777(a)), as amended by the 
     Children's Internet Protections Act and the No Child Left 
     Behind Act, unless the local educational agency with 
     responsibility for such covered school has made the 
     certifications required by paragraph (2) of such section.
       Sec. 517. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be 
     used to enter into an arrangement under section 7(b)(4) of 
     the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 (45 U.S.C. 231f(b)(4)) 
     with a nongovernmental financial institution to serve as 
     disbursing agent for benefits payable under the Railroad 
     Retirement Act of 1974.
       Sec. 518. (a) None of the funds provided under this Act, or 
     provided under previous appropriations Acts to the agencies 
     funded by this Act that remain available for obligation or 
     expenditure in fiscal year 2005, or provided from any 
     accounts in the Treasury of the United States derived by the 
     collection of fees available to the agencies funded by this 
     Act, shall be available for obligation or expenditure through 
     a reprogramming of funds that--
       (1) creates new programs;
       (2) eliminates a program, project, or activity;
       (3) increases funds or personnel by any means for any 
     project or activity for which funds have been denied or 
     restricted;
       (4) relocates an office or employees;
       (5) reorganizes or renames offices;
       (6) reorganizes programs or activities; or
       (7) contracts out or privatizes any functions or activities 
     presently performed by Federal employees; unless the 
     Appropriations Committees of both Houses of Congress are 
     notified 15 days in advance of such reprogramming of funds.
       (b) None of the funds provided under this Act, or provided 
     under previous appropriations Acts to the agencies funded by 
     this Act that remain available for obligation or expenditure 
     in fiscal year 2005, or provided from any accounts in the 
     Treasury of the United States derived by the collection of 
     fees available to the agencies funded by this Act, shall be 
     available for obligation or expenditure through a 
     reprogramming of funds in excess of $500,000 or 10 percent, 
     whichever is less, that--
       (1) augments existing programs, projects (including 
     construction projects), or activities;
       (2) reduces by 10 percent funding for any existing program, 
     project, or activity, or numbers of personnel by 10 percent 
     as approved by Congress; or
       (3) results from any general savings from a reduction in 
     personnel which would result in a change in existing 
     programs, activities, or projects as approved by Congress; 
     unless the Appropriations Committees of both Houses of 
     Congress are notified 15 days in advance of such 
     reprogramming of funds.


             Amendment Offered by Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia

  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following:
       Sec. __. (a) Paragraph (2) of section 1122(c) of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     6332(c)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``If sufficient funds'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(A) Concentration grants.--If sufficient funds''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) Targeted grants.--Notwithstanding the inability of a 
     local educational agency to meet the minimum eligibility 
     criteria described in section 1125(a)(1) for a fiscal year, 
     if sufficient funds are appropriated, the amount made 
     available to the agency under section 1125 for that year 
     shall be--
       ``(i) if the agency met such minimum eligibility criteria 
     and received a grant under section 1125 for the preceding 
     fiscal year, not less than 67 percent of the amount of such 
     grant; or
       ``(ii) if the agency met such minimum eligibility criteria 
     and received a grant under section 1125 for the second 
     preceding fiscal year (but not the preceding fiscal year), 
     not less than 34 percent of the amount of such grant.
       ``(C) Education finance incentive grants.--Notwithstanding 
     the inability of a local educational agency to meet the 
     minimum eligibility criteria described in section 1125A(c) 
     for a fiscal year, if sufficient funds are appropriated, the 
     amount made available to the agency under section 1125A for 
     that year shall be--
       ``(i) if the agency met such minimum eligibility criteria 
     and received a grant under

[[Page H6852]]

     section 1125A for the preceding fiscal year, not less than 67 
     percent of the amount of such grant; or
       ``(ii) if the agency met such minimum eligibility criteria 
     and received a grant under section 1125A for the second 
     preceding fiscal year (but not the preceding fiscal year), 
     not less than 34 percent of the amount of such grant.''.
       (b) The amendments made by this section apply only with 
     respect to funds appropriated for fiscal year 2005 or any 
     subsequent fiscal year.

  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio reserves a point of order.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I also reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin reserves a point of order.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, first let me state I realize 
this amendment is subject to a point of order so I will withdraw the 
amendment, but I want to take the opportunity to raise an important 
issue that is of great importance to the Fairfax County school 
districts which I represent.
  Mr. Chairman, No Child Left Behind requires the Department of 
Education to use the most up-to-date poverty data from the Census 
Bureau when determining eligibility for title I grants. The intent 
behind this requirement is sensible. We want title I funds going where 
they are most needed.
  That said, two of the four available title I grant programs, Targeted 
Grants and Education Finance Incentive Grants, have a 5 percent cutoff 
for eligibility. If a school district falls below this level, they lose 
all funding through these grants. There are no hold-harmless provisions 
for a drop in poverty rates.
  In the case of Fairfax County, our most recent poverty figures fell 
about 1 percent to 4.94 percent. While this figure represents a small 
number of students, 106 students to be exact, it has equated to a 26 
percent reduction in title I funds.

                              {time}  1645

  We lose almost $3\1/2\ million for losing 106 students. That is about 
$33,000 a student. My concern is not just that my local school district 
has lost $3.3 million for the coming school year, it is that a school 
district like Fairfax County can hover at around the 5 percent level 
year after year, and this makes it impossible to plan effectively since 
it is unclear from one year to the next whether these funds will be 
available.
  Our amendment would implement hold harmless provisions for targeted 
and EFIG grants. The first year the school district fell below the 5 
percent level, it would still be eligible for two-thirds of the amount 
they received the previous year. The second year it would be eligible 
for one-third. The third year it would lose eligibility.
  In my estimation such a stair-step system would better reflect a true 
change in the demographics of a given school district and allow better 
planning from year to year. As I said, this equates to almost $33,000 a 
student for a loss of 106 students.
  I will withdraw the amendment, but hope that the members on the 
authorizing committee and appropriation committees will work with us in 
the future to try to look at such a stepped approach, which I think 
makes for better planning.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this 
amendment which will help to correct an ``unfair penalty'' relating to 
Title I funding for some of our nation's most deserving schools.
  There are four different grant categories which deliver Title I funds 
to school districts: Basic Grants, Targeted Grants, Education Finance 
Incentive Grants (EFIG), and Concentration Grants. The Department of 
Education maintains a 5 percent poverty level ``cliff'' for Education 
Finance Incentive Grants and targeted grants.
  This means that if a school district's poverty line falls below five 
percent, they lose a significant portion of their Title I funds.
  The Davis-Moran amendment would provide a phase out of funds over 
several years, for example, if the school district falls below the 5 
percent requirement, they would only lose 33 percent the following 
fiscal year. After the second consecutive year, they would lose 66 
percent. After the third year, they would lose all funding. If a school 
district's poverty data rose above the 5 percent minimum level, it 
would be fully eligible to receive education finance incentive grants 
and targeted grants.
  As a representative of one of the largest public school systems in 
the country, Fairfax County, I am deeply troubled that they are set to 
lose over $3 million in Title I funds because their poverty level is 
4.96 percent, slightly below the 5 percent floor required for most 
Title I grants.
  This loss of Title I funds is going to have a devastating impact on 
several school districts and comes at a particularly critical time. 
School districts are facing the public choice and supplemental services 
sanctions mandated by No Child Left Behind, and these same school 
districts are going to be forced to redirect Title I funds out of the 
very classrooms where they are needed the most.
  No Child Left Behind stipulates that the Department of Education must 
use the most-up-to-date poverty data from the Census Bureau in 
determining a school district's eligibility to receive Title I funds.
  Because of this, the Department of Education is using data from 
census year 2000 for their calculations of poverty rates. Unfortunately 
it is 2004 and we do not have the same economy that we had 4 years ago.
  In Fairfax County alone, the student population eligible for the free 
and reduced-price lunch program has increased by 18 percent since FY 
2000. This data more clearly reflects the need of the Fairfax County 
school system to receive Title I funds than old census data.
  Because Title I funds are allocated on the basis of poverty and not 
the basis of free and reduced price lunch eligibility, this school 
system stands to see their Title I funds decreased by 26 percent, the 
largest dollar decrease of any school division in the country.
  This poverty threshold calculation actually under emphasizes 
significant pockets of poverty in otherwise relatively wealthy school 
districts. The Fairfax County Public School System is a perfect example 
of a school district which includes the wealthy areas of Great Falls 
and McLean but also the traditionally underserved areas of the Route 1 
Corridor and Baileys Crossroads, where a majority of students on free 
and reduced lunch reside.
  This calculation is not fair to those students in the poor sections 
of a wealthy county, and does not accurately portray the needs of them, 
their teachers and their schools.
  I urge all my colleagues to adopt the Davis-Moran amendment and make 
the Title I funding formula more equitable in order to ensure that no 
child is left behind.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
withdraw the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Virginia?
  There was no objection.


          Amendment Offered by Mr. George Miller of California

  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. George Miller of California:
       At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be 
     used by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation to enforce 
     section 4010(c) of the Employee Retirement Income Security 
     Act of 1974.

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an 
amendment to better protect the pension benefits of millions of 
Americans. Workers' retirement security has been taking it on the chin 
for the last 4 years. First, tens of thousands of workers and retirees 
lost their retirement savings after the Enron and WorldCom debacles. 
Then the Bush administration tried to restart the cash balance 
conversions and cut the pensions of millions of older workers. Under 
that proposal millions of older workers would have seen their pension 
benefits cut up to in half, and they would have had no way to return 
and repair the amount of money that they were planning to retire on. 
And now we find out that thousands of pension plans are, in fact, 
underfunded, and many are considering the termination and the dumping 
of billions of dollars of liability on the Pension Benefit Guaranty 
Corporation, the agency that ensures the workers of this country's 
pensions.
  The Pension Benefits Guaranty Corporation has gone from a $7 billion 
surplus to a $10 billion deficit in just 2

[[Page H6853]]

years. The GAO has it on its watch list of high-risk agencies. And a 
handful of airlines, including United, Delta, and US Air, may soon dump 
more liabilities on the Pension Benefits Guaranty Corporation that 
reach as high as $30 billion.
  One of the worst parts of this is that the workers have no idea that 
their pension funds are underfunded and at risk, that their employer 
could default on their pension promises. Let me say that again. That 
while these plans are underfunded, and while they are at risk, the 
workers are not informed of that information. Pension law requires 
underfunded pension plans to report their underfunding to the 
government, but not to the workers.
  My amendment is simple. I prohibit the Pension Benefit Guaranty 
Corporation from enforcing the part of the law that prohibits them from 
disclosing to workers and to retirees the funding status of their 
pension plan. After all, this is their money. This is money that they 
have contributed to those pension plans. It is money that they are 
planning on for their retirement. It is money that they are planning on 
for their future, and it is money that they cannot replace if they are 
an older worker. They ought to have this information.
  Most interesting is the fact that the Pension Benefit Guaranty 
Corporation wants to make this information public. The Bush 
administration has said that they support making it public. But this 
provision in the law prevents them from doing this.
  There is no reason why the government should know the status of 
company pension plans, but the workers should not. Workers are losing 
more and more each day under the administration's proposals on pension. 
Their jobs are being outsourced overseas. Their wages are falling. They 
have no protection of an adequate minimum wage. They are either losing 
their health care benefits or paying more in copays and deductibles and 
more of their wages on skyrocketing health insurance premiums, and they 
are losing their retirement security.
  We have got to be able to provide them this information. This is very 
analogous to the workers at the Enron Corporation. The corporation knew 
that their 401(K) plans were in serious jeopardy. The corporation 
officers were unloading the stock because they knew they could not 
continue that criminal enterprise that they were engaged in in ripping 
off the energy consumers of this Nation. They unloaded. They got out. 
They took care of their golden parachutes. But the workers lost their 
401(K) plans.
  In this Congress we listened to the testimony of these workers as 
they talked about their entire retirement being destroyed, workers who 
were 60 years old, 65 years old, who had worked 10 and 15 and 20 years, 
who were planning to retire, no way to replace those savings. And now 
we see, and now we see, that there are hundreds of corporations that 
are underfunding; in fact, over 1,000 corporations that are underfunded 
according to the law in their pension plans, but this information is 
disclosed only to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation and not to 
this.
  Why am I here with this amendment on the floor? Because I have 
requested the chairman of the committee to ask to make this information 
public, and he has refused to do so. If he would do that, the law 
provides that it would be made available to the Members of Congress. At 
least we could start to see some of this information. But that will not 
be done.
  The fact of the matter is this, and it is very simple: The workers in 
these corporations paid into these pensions. The corporations 
contributed to these pensions. The workers gave up other benefits to 
get these pensions. That money belongs to the workers. The workers 
ought to have the information.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California (Mr. George 
Miller) has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. George Miller of California was allowed to 
proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, it is just a matter of 
decency. We see now major reforms going on in the administration of 
mutual funds and how their relationships are on behalf of workers, the 
disclosures of fees, the disclosures of their transactions, time days, 
one scandal after another, with people cheating the owners of the money 
out of their funds. Now we see the machinations of corporations as they 
try to cover up the potential liability or the potential failure or the 
loss of these pensions of the workers. Transparency is the watchword of 
the day. The workers of America, of corporations that are in danger of 
unloading these pensions and getting rid of these pensions, the workers 
of this country are entitled to that information.
  I would hope that this House would support this in the name of the 
transparency, in support of the position of the Bush administration, in 
support of the position of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 
that this information should be made available, and I would urge an aye 
vote.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I rise in strong support of the amendment by the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller). I think most Americans, Mr. Chairman, 
would be shocked to know that information about their pension which 
they own is not available to them at the same time it is available to a 
government agency.
  When the President speaks about Social Security, he is fond of 
talking about trying to create accounts which are private property of 
citizens so that we can know what is ours. Pensions are already private 
property of citizens. When one contributes to a pension fund, or their 
employer contributes on their behalf to their fund, they own it. But 
under the present law, one of the more remarkable laws that we have on 
the books, if the pension fund that one's employer sponsors is in 
trouble, if it looks like it is going to be unable to pay benefits 
because its costs are exceeding its revenue, and it looks like the fund 
might crash so that the Federal Government, under the jurisdiction of 
the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, will have to step in and make 
the pension fund whole, the law says that one's pension fund has to 
tell the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation that it is in trouble, 
and it has to disclose the nature of that trouble. So this government 
agency gets this information about one's pension fund being in trouble 
and their check being in jeopardy. Believe it or not, there is a 
statute that says once this government agency has this information that 
a person's pension is in trouble, it cannot tell him.
  We do not understand that. We think if someone works for a company, 
and is counting on their pension being delivered, and has contributed 
to that pension, and has had the employer contribute to that pension, 
and the pension is in jeopardy so much that the trustees of the fund 
have to report that trouble to a government agency, we think that the 
citizens, the pensioners themselves, have a right to know.
  That is what the gentleman from California's (Mr. George Miller) 
amendment does. It prohibits the administration, prohibits the 
executive branch, from enforcing this secrecy law. One's pension should 
not be held secret from them if they are an employee or a citizen or a 
future pensioner. That is what this says.
  It is my understanding that, as the gentleman from California (Mr. 
George Miller) said, in fact, the administration supports this change, 
wants this information to be made public.
  I do not believe this is a partisan issue. I think that responsible 
Members on both sides of the aisle would understand that if their 
pension is in trouble, they ought to have a right to know it, not later 
after the pension fund has failed and they do not get their check, not 
after it is too late to do something about it, as was in the case of 
the Enron and WorldCom employees, but now, as soon as it is timely, so 
they can do something about it.
  So if the Members believe, as I think people on both sides of the 
aisle do, that someone's pension is their property, and if they 
believe, as I think people on both sides of the aisle do, that they 
have the right to know about the dynamics and phenomena happening about 
one's own property, and if they believe that some government agency has 
the right to know what is going on with their pension and they should, 
too, if they believe those things, then they ought to vote for the 
gentleman from California's (Mr. George Miller) amendment. It is an

[[Page H6854]]

idea that is supported, to my understanding, by the administration. I 
hope it would be supported by both sides of the aisle here. I would 
urge a ``yes'' vote.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve a point of order.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I appreciate the concerns of my colleagues on the other side, but I 
rise today in opposition to their amendment. And while they make it 
sound simple as it would normally be the case, there is nothing at all 
simple about the amendment that is being offered.
  The 4010 information that is required to be submitted to the Pension 
Benefit Guaranty Corporation would be for any defined benefit pension 
plan that has a negative balance actuarially of at least $50 million, 
and these could be public companies, they could be private companies. 
And the information that has to be supplied to the Pension Benefit 
Guaranty Corporation is not just information about where the pension 
fund is. It also includes all types of detailed information about the 
finances of the company itself.

                              {time}  1700

  For private companies who may be in this position, this is very 
sensitive information.
  The reason we have not dealt with the issue as yet is we have been 
working on a long-term fix for the defined benefit pension plans. As we 
get into those conversations, we have had a number of hearings over the 
past couple of years, we passed the Pension Equity Funding Act earlier 
this year, signed by the President, to fix the most immediate problems.
  But as the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the author 
of the amendment, well knows, we have had a number of hearings last 
year and this year about the long-term problems facing defined benefit 
pension plans, a traditional pension plan, and what we hope to do is to 
have a bill next year that would revise all of the funding rules to 
make it easier for companies to comply with the rules and, most 
importantly, to ensure that companies are funding their pension plans.
  As part of this overall bill, I think there may be a way to address 
the concerns raised by the gentleman from California (Mr. George 
Miller) in terms of who the companies are or the extent of their 
pension issue, without disclosing all of the sensitive financial data 
that must be submitted to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
  So I would urge my colleagues to vote no on the Miller amendment, and 
my colleagues should know that a commitment is on my part to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and to all of my 
colleagues that we will address that portion that is not nearly as 
sensitive on the financial data as we deal with the broader overhaul of 
our defined pension benefit laws and regulations.
  I would urge my colleagues to vote no.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman 
yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman 
for yielding, and I thank the comments of my chairman, the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), on this situation. But I must say I continue 
to disagree with the gentleman, and I disagree on two grounds.
  First and foremost, we have made several requests to him to ask the 
PBGC, and we have specifically have asked, the Democrats on the 
committee have asked the PBGC for this information. They will not make 
it available to the committee, much less the public. They will not make 
it available to the committee because the chairman of the committee 
must make that request to them.
  So when you talk about us going into long-term pension reform, Mr. 
Chairman, at a minimum we ought to have this information about the 
magnitude of the problem and the variations among the various 
corporations and the industries that are involved in this, if we are 
going to, in fact, deal with some kind of long-term and necessary fix, 
that I hope we will, and I thank you for holding those hearings. We 
need that information as members of the committee at a minimum.
  But, furthermore, this information was available up until 1994. Then 
the Clinton administration cut a deal on the financing of GATT, and 
this information, the corporations prevailed on them to make this 
secret in exchange for a premium increase to pay for GATT. Who got left 
out? Who was not at the table? The American worker. So all of a sudden 
they did not get the information anymore.
  The point and the magnitude and the necessity for this amendment, let 
me just point out that according to Standard & Poor, 290 of the 362 
companies in the Standard & Poor's 500 that offer defined benefit plans 
are underfunded by $165 billion in 2003.
  The point is this, that this is a huge, looming problem. You know the 
people who just went through bankruptcy at U.S. Air and thought they 
had cured their problem? Well, when United said, we think we might 
offload our pension onto the public taxpayers, all of a sudden the 
people at U.S. Air are in trouble again.
  We think these people ought to have that information, so they, when 
they are negotiating, because if United does this, it is a likelihood 
that U.S. Air does it, and if U.S. Air does it, it is a likelihood that 
Delta will do it.
  Well, that is a catastrophe for the PBGC and for those workers. There 
is something about transparency. We insisted in other financial 
arrangements where individuals have their money in the hands of third 
parties, and in this case we ought to do it for corporations.
  So I appreciate, and I have said to the chairman very often, that he 
has given attention to this problem. We hope to have a long-term 
solution. But this is fundamental to the rights of workers at this most 
perilous time with respect to the security of their pensions.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. If I understand this correctly, the corporation would 
have to disclose information under the requirements of this section 
that would go beyond the pension part of their liability.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would 
yield further, I appreciate that argument, but in reviewing the case, 
the Bush administration said they support the disclosure under this 
provision of the law, and the PBGC supports that. I do not think these 
two entities are interested in destroying these corporations. The fact 
of the matter is this information was made available for many years.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
from California, and I fully agree with his statement.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, all day today we have been hearing so many different 
issues coming up onto the floor that are concerning so many people, and 
I thank the ranking member, and I thank the chairman, and I thank the 
ranking minority ranking member on the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce for bringing these issues up.
  I am here because I am not allowed to bring up the assault weapons 
bill onto the floor. With that, I will continue for the rest of the 
evening and all day tomorrow and all day Monday to talk about how we 
need to get the President involved to be able to make some phone calls 
to the Speaker of the House. I know that he supposedly is going to be 
meeting with all the police officers and chiefs that we met this 
morning to try and convince them that this is what the American people 
want, this is what our police officers want.
  It comes down to a safety issue. There are so many things that we 
have to handle here, and we actually, in my opinion, have wasted an 
awful lot of time this year. We have done more politicking than we have 
done actual work, and that is too bad, because the only one that 
suffers is the American people.
  If the assault weapons ban is not renewed, the American people in the 
end will suffer, our children will suffer, our communities will suffer, 
our health care system will suffer.

[[Page H6855]]

  This is a bill that is already in place. They say enforce the law. 
Well, let us continue enforcing the law. Let us make sure the assault 
weapons bill stays in place. It saves lives. It does not cost us a 
penny.
  I just heard that one of the large gun manufacturers, with every 
assault weapons gun that they buy, they will get a free large-capacity 
clip. Is that not terrific? It is much easier to mow down our own 
citizens.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by our 
colleague and join in offering the amendment by our colleague from 
California (Mr. George Miller). This amendment follows very closely 
legislation that the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and 
I introduced last year to address this problem.
  There are at the moment that we gather here in Congress, I suppose, 
tens of millions of Americans who are out working, trying to ensure 
that their families have a better future. As they do their work and 
they look forward to payday to get their paycheck, one of the things 
they also consider are whatever benefits that they get with their work. 
For many workers, particularly those that move in their forties and 
fifties to begin to think about what retirement lies ahead, they have a 
particular concern with the retirement plan for their company and 
whether it will, in fact, allow them to retire in dignity and enjoy the 
fruits of their labor after they have provided for their family and 
community, to be able to enjoy a decent, dignified retirement.
  In recent years, American employees, American workers, have had good 
reason to be fearful that that very significant benefit of retirement 
that they have worked for, with some companies perhaps for 20 or 30 
years, will not be there when they need it in full amount.
  First there were the employees of Enron. Thousands of them, through 
no fault of their own, lost their retirement. Then the same thing 
happened at WorldCom. Thousands of people who had worked for that 
company almost since its origin losing their retirement future, the 
hope of a dignified retirement, many of them having to go back into the 
workforce.
  Really, when you look back over the activities of this Congress since 
the Enron debacle, as far as preventing another debacle for employees 
at Enron and their retirement futures, or WorldCom, this Congress has 
done next to nothing to prevent other employees from suffering the same 
fate.
  As the years have gone by and Congress has been inactive, our economy 
has struggled, and we have begun to see more major companies, 
particularly in the airline industry, begin to raise questions as to 
whether they were going to put their pension plan into bankruptcy, 
whether they were going to stop making pension payments.
  This amendment does not solve all those problems. It is a very modest 
amendment. It simply expresses confidence in the employees, that they 
deserve to know the same information that their employer is filing with 
the government bureaucracy.
  As my colleague from California just pointed out, were it not for the 
fine print in legislation that was approved in 1994, we would have the 
right to know this information. This amendment is based on the 
principle that if the employee has the information, they can choose to 
go to another employer who has a fully funded pension plan, or they can 
turn to their employer and ask, why not? Why am I being given a false 
promise of a secure retirement, when, in fact, this plan is not funded 
at a sufficient level to assure that all workers who work here and 
retire will be able to enjoy their retirement with dignity?
  Of course, there is another public policy consideration here, and 
that is that there is a government agency, the Pension Benefit Guaranty 
Corporation, that is responsible for ensuring and protecting against 
those plans that fail. From all of the recent reports about the status 
of that corporation, we face the potential of something that will make 
the savings and loan bailout of a few decades back look modest in 
comparison to the dangers of major pension funds, one after another, 
going under and placing a burden on this corporation.
  The Bush administration came out in support of the very kind of 
amendment that is being offered here today. As usual, once some special 
interest began to question the wisdom of this provision, they fell 
moot. But their recommendation is a matter of public policy; it is 
clear, and it is out there.
  The Government Accountability Office, the Pension Benefit Guaranty 
Corporation itself, all of these have recommended that this information 
that they get be made available to the employee so that the employee 
will be empowered.
  This amendment is based on the principle that the workers that are 
out there deserve the right to know, they deserve the right to be 
empowered about their pension future, and I can see no good reason not 
to provide that information.
  The suggestion by the chairman of the committee that he has a long-
term plan to deal with this is great, but it is a little too long for 
the term of those who are concerned about their retirement safety and, 
one after another, pension plans failing.
  I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) insist on his 
point of order?
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I do. But we recognize that since it is a 
limitation amendment, that it would not be in order. On that basis, I 
withdraw it.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman withdraws his reservation.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. George 
Miller) will be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Stearns

  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Stearns:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be 
     expended by the Secretary of Health and Human Services to 
     carry out the modification of coverage policy number 35-26 of 
     the Medicare Coverage Issues Manual R125CM announced by the 
     Secretary on July 15, 2004, in the press release entitled 
     ``HHS ANNOUNCES REVISED MEDICARE OBESITY COVERAGE POLICY-
     Policy Opens Doors to Coverage based on Evidence'' until the 
     date on which the Secretary submits to Congress a report 
     containing the Secretary's estimate of the increased costs to 
     the medicare program by reason of such modification of 
     coverage policy.

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) reserves a point 
of order against the amendment.
  The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) is recognized for 5 minutes 
in support of his amendment.
  (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment. Obviously 
the chairman has reserved a point of order. He might want to listen to 
my arguments. Perhaps persuasiveness of what I have to say will change 
his mind.
  All of us know that on July 15, 2004, the Secretary of Health and 
Human Services announced that Medicare would allow for the coverage of 
antiobesity treatments and interventions by Medicare.

                              {time}  1715

  He said this would go on as long as scientific and medical evidence 
demonstrates their effectiveness in improving the health of 
beneficiaries on Medicare.
  Now, the question I have, and part of my amendment here is, we do not 
know what this means. Does this mean that it is going to have an 
immediate impact on Medicare's coverage? Does this mean there are new 
benefits? We just do not know. Because the Secretary is saying, let us 
just take a look at this treatment or at that treatment, evaluate it on 
the basis of improving the health of individuals.
  So my amendment is basically saying, okay, Mr. Secretary, if you want

[[Page H6856]]

to go ahead and look at the coverage of somebody who is overweight, 
give them treatments or intervention and use taxpayers' good, hard-
earned dollars to do so and you want to do it on the basis of 
scientific and medical evidence, what is it going to cost?
  So I would urge the chairman to put this in the mix, maybe perhaps in 
conference or something, because we all know that Medicare is 
increasing, in light of obesity contributions, which is in the billions 
of dollars to Medicare, the Nation's health care costs, this just may 
be the thing that increases it dramatically. Part B premiums are rising 
at 17 percent. We have heard Senator Kerry talk about that on the 
campaign trail. So what is the cost of this new benefit that we are 
speculating might occur after we prove the scientific and medical 
evidence to use it?
  I think that, besides information about health outcomes, information 
about the possible consequences and obesity policy changes in future 
premiums would be useful and also should be part of this debate.
  Now, all of us in this Chamber and throughout America believe in 
preventive health treatments, and for Medicare, we accept that. 
Medicare beneficiaries are now offered ``Welcome to Medicare'' 
physicals and screening for diabetes and heart disease. But, obviously, 
these new benefits are passed along in premiums to beneficiaries, and 
we should also talk about that.
  Now, I remind my colleagues that on August 27, Federal Reserve 
Chairman Greenspan was speaking about Social Security and Medicare 
entitlements, and he warned his audience at that point, he said, ``If 
we have promised more than our economy has the ability to deliver to 
retirees, as I fear we have, we must recalibrate our public programs so 
that pending retirees have time to adjust.''
  Let us think about what we promise and what we decide as a Nation to 
cover and, more importantly, what is the price tag for these new 
benefits for the beneficiaries.
  With 64 percent of the American population that is overweight, a 
substantial number of beneficiaries may likely qualify for this new 
coverage, and that will increase the cost. Moreover, with the 
declaration of obesity as a disease, we tread into public funding and 
issues involving sheer behavior. Now, science certainly points to 
biological contributions to obesity, for example, genetics or 
uncontrolled metabolism. But still, there are undoubtedly behavioral 
choices involving what we eat and whether we exercise. These are a 
matter of personal preference and choice, and I think it is dangerous 
to say that, just because Medicare is a public program, it can insert 
itself into private decisions.
  Recently, in an article in Reason Magazine on ``The War on Fat,'' 
they write that the argument based on taxpayer-funded health insurance 
proves too much. It gives the government an open-ended license to tax, 
regulate, or ban any behavior that might lead to disease or injury. If 
diet is a political issue, what is not? The same logic suggests that 
government should take an interest in how much we sleep or whether we 
floss regularly.
  So I submit, Mr. Chairman, that we should find the cost of this new 
benefit to Medicare and, obviously, trial lawyers also may use the 
policy change as another weapon in their arsenal.
  So, Mr. Chairman, in light of your distinguished leadership here and 
you are saying that it is out of order, I am willing to withdraw this 
amendment. I recognize that this is perhaps not the appropriate place, 
but I urge the chairman and his colleagues on the conference committee 
to consider defining the cost before we allow this new benefit to 
continue.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand what the gentleman is getting at. I think 
it is a very difficult definition as to what obesity would be because 
there are so many factors, but what we might consider and will look at 
in the conference would be some language just asking the Secretary to 
give us some idea of what kind of costs are going to be involved in 
implementing a program of this type, without putting a huge burden on 
the Secretary to implement or to go ahead with the program.
  So I think the gentleman from Florida has served a useful purpose of 
causing us to focus on what could be a significant challenge 
prospectively.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his leadership 
and consideration on this; and I think perhaps that is a compromise, to 
ask the Secretary how much it will cost to implement this, based upon 
this sort of general understanding of what he is going to do. So I 
thank the chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  There was no objection.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Hefley

  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Hefley:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. Total appropriations made in this Act (other than 
     appropriations required to be made by a provision of law) are 
     hereby reduced by $1,425,000,000.

  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that 
would cut discretionary spending in this appropriations bill by $1.4 
billion, an amount equal to 1 percent of the $142.5 billion 
discretionary spending price tag. As many of my colleagues know, I have 
offered a similar amendment on many of the appropriations bills.
  Let me begin by saying, however, that I recognize the difficult job 
the committee has had in putting together this bill. It is complex, it 
is big, it is a lot of money, it is important, and there are many, many 
good things in this; and I commend the chairman and the ranking member, 
particularly, for their effort in this, to produce a bill with as many 
good things in it as there are.
  However, the fact remains that the Federal budget for fiscal year 
2005 is going to be too large. Until we can make a dent in the 
outrageous level of the Federal deficit, we must be even more diligent 
in reining in spending. I do not think it is too much to ask to trim 
the budget for this spending bill by a mere 1 percent and prove to the 
American public that we want to make a priority of balancing the 
Federal budget.
  I also want to point out that this amendment is structured so that 
the administration would maintain the ability to determine which 
accounts should be cut or scaled back in order to achieve this 
rescission, rather than cutting all programs across the board. My 
intent is not to single out all programs for reduction, but I am 
confident that we can eliminate some of the waste and abuse and find a 
way to trim 1 percent of the total spending.
  Thus, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment and reduce the 
amount of discretionary spending in this bill by 1 cent on the dollar.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman's concern, and it is a 
worthy objective, but we have tried already to cut back. When we know 
that we are bringing out a bill of this magnitude that affects the 
lives of 280 million Americans in terms of their education, in terms of 
their health resources, in terms of the ability to find new employment 
opportunities, we have already pushed that as hard as we can; and we 
are under the cost of living. It is only a 2.2 percent increase over 
last year.
  I think we have worked very hard to meet the needs of the American 
people in a very responsible way. While it seems like 1 percent is not 
a lot, it is $1.4 billion. And do we start taking it out of programs 
for special needs children, do we take it out of the title I, or do we 
take it out of health research? We realize the difficulty of applying 
something like this across the board.
  Reluctantly, I oppose the amendment because I think we have already 
made a real effort to make this bill as financially responsible as 
possible, given the challenges of meeting the needs of the people of 
this Nation.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.

[[Page H6857]]

                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, this 15-minute vote 
on the Hefley amendment will be followed by one 5-minute vote, as 
ordered on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
George Miller).
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 79, 
noes 333, not voting 21, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 428]

                                AYES--79

     Akin
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Brady (TX)
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Collins
     Cox
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Duncan
     Everett
     Feeney
     Flake
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Graves
     Gutknecht
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hooley (OR)
     Hostettler
     Jenkins
     Jones (NC)
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     McCotter
     McInnis
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Norwood
     Otter
     Paul
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)

                               NOES--333

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burns
     Burr
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chandler
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cole
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Herseth
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tauscher
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Ballenger
     Bono
     Cannon
     Crane
     Cummings
     Engel
     Gephardt
     Goss
     Istook
     Millender-McDonald
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Portman
     Ryan (OH)
     Schrock
     Smith (MI)
     Tauzin
     Watson
     Young (AK)


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised that 2 minutes 
remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1752

  Messrs. RUSH, BRADY of Pennsylvania, FRANK of Massachusetts, Ms. 
SCHAKOWSKY, and Messrs. OWENS, LYNCH and ISRAEL changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. SULLIVAN, OTTER, MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida, and WHITFIELD 
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 428 I was 
detained by my constituents and was unable to get to the floor in time 
for voting. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''


          Amendment Offered by Mr. George Miller of California

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. George 
Miller) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 268, 
noes 148, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 429]

                               AYES--268

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burr
     Butterfield
     Camp
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Herseth
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)

[[Page H6858]]


     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wilson (NM)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--148

     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Cantor
     Carter
     Chocola
     Cole
     Collins
     Cox
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Everett
     Feeney
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Keller
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Weldon (FL)
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Ballenger
     Bono
     Cannon
     Crane
     Engel
     Gephardt
     Goss
     Hunter
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Nussle
     Ryan (OH)
     Schrock
     Tauzin
     Young (AK)


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining in this 
vote.

                              {time}  1805

  Messrs. TAYLOR of North Carolina, ADERHOLT, SHUSTER, SWEENEY, WAMP, 
Ms. HART and Mr. WALSH changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, there are now more than 8 million people out of work in 
this country; 3 million have been out of work for so long they have 
exhausted their unemployment compensation benefits. We have more than 
1.5 million fewer private sector jobs than we had 4 years ago, and the 
administration's response to that has been to impose new regulations 
allowing employers to chisel workers on overtime protection, despite 
the fact that cost of living has risen twice as much this year as last 
year, despite the fact that gas prices, college tuition, and health 
care costs are going through the roof.
  I had planned at this point to offer an amendment with the gentleman 
from California (Mr. George Miller) which would block most of the 
sections of that new rule with one exception: We would have allowed the 
changes to go forward that improve the situation for workers that make 
between $8,000 and $23,000 a year. But now I have been told that if I 
intend to offer that amendment tonight, the majority will shut down the 
House for the evening.
  The record will show that the minority on every single appropriation 
bill has cooperated procedurally with the majority, even when we have 
not agreed with the content of those bills, in the interest of comity 
in the hopes that somehow we could reach compromise and accommodation 
as we move through the process.
  In spite of that cooperation, the majority by the end of this fiscal 
year will only be able to show that they have passed 1 and possibly 2 
of the 13 appropriation bills. I want it made clear that the reason for 
that miserable record is because of the rigidity of the majority and 
because of their refusal to work with the minority or even other 
members of the majority in the other body. This is part of a long 
pattern of procedural abuse.
  On prescription drugs, the majority held the vote open for 3 hours 
when they did not get the result they wanted. On the PATRIOT Act, the 
Sanders amendment was held open for 40 minutes until enough arms could 
be broken on the majority side. On vouchers on the D.C. bill, the roll 
was held open for 50 minutes until the majority could achieve a 
different result. On campaign finance, the House was kept at bay for 2 
hours before the majority moved ahead.
  I would simply make this point, Mr. Chairman. The majority is busy 
trying to bring the nicer points of democracy to Iraq. It would be nice 
if they would recognize those same niceties here at home.
  I want to make one further point. People are asking me, why are you 
cooperating procedurally on bringing the Labor, Health, Education bill 
to the floor when you are so opposed to its contents? Well, there are 
two reasons. First of all, because we believe on the minority side that 
these issues ought to be debated even if we do not win. Secondly, very 
frankly, I want the record to show in the end that even though the 
minority has given the majority every single procedural cooperation 
that we could, that the majority has still not been able to perform 
because of its own rigidity and because they refuse to work with 
anybody, because they refuse to compromise with anybody.
  It is outrageous after we have been asked for so long to bring this 
bill to the floor, they now want to pull the bill so they have another 
chance to twist arms overnight.
  Do you really want to put workers in so much of a corner that you 
will not even allow us to have a vote on this overtime provision? We 
already won this vote once in the House, we won it once in the Senate, 
and yet the majority leadership arbitrarily stripped it out of the bill 
last year. Now you are trying to play the same game this time. I hope 
that every majority Member who intends to vote for this amendment 
tomorrow, if the House comes back into session on this bill, I hope you 
will stick with your conscience overnight and not cave in to pressure 
by tomorrow morning.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Regula).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 216, 
noes 195, not voting 23, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 430]

                               AYES--216

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cox
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastert

[[Page H6859]]


     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Northup
     Nunes
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--195

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--23

     Ballenger
     Bono
     Cannon
     Clyburn
     Crane
     Engel
     Gephardt
     Goss
     Hinojosa
     Kleczka
     McGovern
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Paul
     Ryan (OH)
     Schrock
     Strickland
     Tauzin
     Young (AK)


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised that 2 minutes 
remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1829

  So the motion was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Simpson) having assumed the chair, Mr. LaTourette, 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. 5006) 
making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human 
Services, and Education, and related agencies for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________