Congressional Record, Volume 147 Issue 136 (Thursday, October 11, 2001)

[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 136 (Thursday, October 11, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H6569-H6677]
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, 2002

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Pursuant to the order of the House of today and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for consideration of the bill, H.R. 3061.

{time} 1326

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. 3061) making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health
and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 2002, and for other purposes, with Mr.
Combest in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the bill
is considered as having been read the first time.
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. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to thank the Members
of the Subcommittee and of the Full Committee for their help in getting
this bill to the floor. I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Obey) for working with us on a bipartisan basis.
This is a far-reaching bill that touches the lives of every American,
and I think we have had a spirit of bipartisanship in both the
subcommittee and the full committee, with the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) in their roles
as chairman and ranking minority members of the full committee.
I also want to thank the staff of both committees. They have worked
closely together to ensure that we have a good bill that does the
greatest amount of good for the American people. And I want to say a
special thanks to the associate staff of the members of our
subcommittee. They have been very helpful in letting us know and
letting the staff of our committee know what was important to their
members, so that we have tried to incorporate in this bill things that
are very positive in every way.
I have said early on that the Bible says there are two great
commandments, the first is to love your Lord and the second is to love
your neighbor. This committee is the ``love your neighbor committee,''
because there is not a life in America that is not touched by what we
do.
We could spend a lot of time, but we do not have a lot of time, so I
do want to highlight some of the important things in this bill that are
very essential, very important to the American people.
The fiscal year 2002 Labor, Health and Human Services appropriation
bill totals $123.371 billion. And I might say here that Chairman Young
and Ranking Member Obey worked closely with OMB in arriving at the
number we needed to do this bill in the best possible fashion.
Also I want to say at the outset it is my understanding that the
Office of Management and Budget will have a letter to us supporting
what is in this bill, That is, the Administration.

{time} 1330

It is the result of 2 months of subcommittee hearings in which we
heard testimony from three Cabinet Secretaries, numerous agency heads,
as well as 180 public witnesses. The bill provide

[[Page H6570]]

$14 billion for the Department of Labor, which includes a $75 million
increase for the very popular Job Corp program, $53 million for
discretionary programs at the Department of Health and Human Services,
including $393 million for bioterrorism protections.
And I might mention at this point that we added $100 million over
what we had originally planned on as a result of the events just 30
days ago. So we have a very substantial sum to give the Centers for
Disease Control in Atlanta to respond to bioterrorism concerns.
We have an increase of $22.8 million for biomedical research
activities at the National Institutes of Health. And, finally, the bill
provides increases for the Department of Education, totaling $4.7
billion above the President's request, and I might say it is in
conformance with H.R. 1, which passed this House by a very sizable
majority.
Mr. Chairman, many in this Chamber as well as the general public have
been awaiting the movement of this bill over the past months. The
primary reason for its delay over the summer has been our interest in
seeing the Committee on Education and the Workforce complete their work
in authorizing comprehensive reform for our elementary and secondary
education program, the President's number one domestic priority.
Although the conference on this legislation is not yet complete, we
have taken the format of the House passed version of H.R. 1 in crafting
this bill. As many of you are aware, the bill received an increase in
its allocation to address the priorities of education reform $4.2
billion of the $4.7 billion increase in the original allocation is
devoted to three areas of education funding: Title I funding for the
disadvantaged, Special Education and Pell Grants. And I am pleased that
we could increase Pell Grants because this helps those students who do
not have the necessary resources to get an opportunity to get education
beyond high school.
Education programs for the disadvantaged based upon H.R. 1, the No
Child Left Behind Act, are funded at $10.5 billion. While this funding
level is a significant increase over last year, I want to highlight a
major difference in the program over previous years. Under this bill
and its underlying authorization, schools are now being held
accountable to children and their parents for achieving success in
reading and math. Gone are the days when Federal dollars flow to States
and local education and counties with no accountability. The
disadvantaged children of this country will no longer be permitted to
be pushed along from grade to grade with little hope for their futures.
As a former teacher and principal myself, I recognize the vital role
of a good teacher in ensuring the success of a student. I appreciate
the work of the authorizers in recognizing this as well in title II of
H.R. 1. We have provided $3.175 billion in this bill for teacher
quality programs. These programs include both training for teachers
just entering the field and continuing education for those already
teaching.
In addition, we have provided $50 million for the Transition to
Teaching/Troops to Teachers Program. I would especially highlight the
Troops to Teachers Program, to which our First Lady Laura Bush is
devoting a great deal of her time. This program will assist retiring
members of our military by facilitating the necessary steps for teacher
certification, enabling them to move into the field of teaching for
their second careers. They bring to this field a vast amount of
experience, both in working with people as well as experience and in
many locations around the world. Our dedicated service men and women
often have extensive knowledge and expertise in science and math, the
very subjects that so many of our children are struggling with in the
school experience.
Further, these military personnel have attained a level of maturity
and organization that would be of great benefit to our schools today. I
personally am very enthused about this program and its potential for
our Nation's leaders, and I am grateful to our First Lady for her
leadership in attempting to make it a success.
Next, we know how important the early years of learning are to
promoting reading readiness. To assist our Nation's youngest children
in obtaining these vital tools for reading, we are funding two new
programs in the President's budget request, Reading First State Grants
and Early Reading First. These programs are intended to enable children
to derive the necessary tools for success in reading, including
phonemic awareness, alphabetic knowledge and vocabulary. I know from my
own experience as an elementary principal that you have to read
before you can go into science, math and the other disciplines. Reading
becomes fundamental.

Consistent with H.R. 1, our bill eliminates 35 programs in the
Department of Education, consolidating and streamlining them and
granting maximum flexibility to States and local education agencies to
use funds to best meet the needs of their students. Again, we will put
the money where it helps children and not so much in administrative
costs.
Many Members have expressed their concerns about the level of Federal
funding for Special Education. The fiscal year 2002 bill provides $7.7
billion for grants to the States for Special Education. This level is
the highest ever for Special Education. As I mentioned earlier, the
House and Senate education committees have not yet completed their
conference on H.R. 1 and the issue of how special education is funded
in the future has been an issue for the conference.
The Senate version of the bill included a provision to take funding
for special ed out of discretionary spending and instead provide for it
through mandatory spending. I want to emphasize that the proposal is
the wrong way to approach this type of funding. We need to have
oversight to make sure these programs are reaching the students that we
want, and that the money is used wisely and carefully.
We are aware of numerous problems with the program, and only when the
funding remains on budget is it accountable to the people through
annual review of the Congress through the appropriations process.
Mr. Chairman, I commend the Secretary of Education for his
announcement this past week of a special commission to examine the
special education program and make recommendations for improving it. It
is through this process that we can improve the program and more
effectively fund the many needs of our Nation's children in need of
special education services.
Finally, we all recognize the importance of higher education in
meeting the needs of our 21st century global economy. Higher education
expenses continue to increase at a higher level than inflation,
presenting a major barrier for low-income students.
I am pleased to report that the bill includes an increase in funding
for the Pell Grant programs which would bring the maximum grant level
to $4,000, the highest in history.
The tragic events of September 11 have changed the lives of us all.
While we are now focusing on terrorism around the world, we must make
every effort to protect our citizens at home. Through several accounts
within the Department of Health and Human Services, we are working to
prepare our public health agencies to respond to bioterrorism threats.
We have provided a total of $393 million to address these needs.
Here at home the health and well-being of our citizens, not just in
the area of bioterrorism, but otherwise, must remain a priority for us
all.
The bill provides an increase of $22.8 million for biomedical
research activities at the National Institutes of Health. This increase
is the same programmatic increase requested by the President.
During the course of our public witness hearings over 7 full days, a
majority of our witnesses testified about diseases afflicting either
themselves or a loved one. They appeared before our subcommittee
seeking hope, hope for successful treatment and cures for these
diseases. Our members have been touched by this testimony, and we are
committed to providing funding so that the best and brightest
researchers in our Nation, and I might say the most dedicated, may work
to achieve the hope of so many of our citizens. Whether it is hope for
my young constituent in North Canton, Ohio, who suffers from juvenile
diabetes, or an older constituent in my district who in his middle
years has received the devastating

[[Page H6571]]

diagnosis of Parkinson's disease, funds for research are the hope we
can provide.
The countless scientific breakthroughs and studies we have already
funded have given us a great deal of knowledge in how to prevent
disease and illness. It is incumbent upon us to share this knowledge to
improve the health of the Nation. Through the good work of the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention, we are getting the messages of
prevention out.
In total, the bill provides $4 billion directly to the Centers for
Disease Control. Its work includes efforts to prevent chronic diseases
such as diabetes, heart disease and stroke by promoting healthy
lifestyles.
Through the work of CDC's epidemic officers, we can bring important
assistance and assurances to communities when disease outbreaks occur,
as they did in my district this past spring. Students at a high school
in my district contracted meningitis, a severe illness with potentially
life-threatening consequences. The Centers for Disease Control,
together with the Department of Health, worked to bring the outbreak
under control and prevent its spread. The presence of CDC brought
a sense of security to the community.

Our Nation's community health centers, funded through the Health
Resources and Services Administration, represent an important health
care option for the underserved. A funding priority for the President,
we are providing $1.3 billion for these centers, which is an increase
of $150 million over last year's bill and $26 million over the
President's request. These take the place in many areas of emergency
rooms and provide a much better source of health care on an easy-to-
get-to basis.
This bill supports our country's comprehensive effort to aggressively
combat HIV/AIDS, an epidemic claiming 40,000 new victims each year. It
provides $112 million for the Ryan White AIDS programs, which enable
individuals to access needed medical care and support services. The
bill provides $844 million for programs at the CDC which fund research,
surveillance, as well as State and local efforts to prevent the spread
of this disease. It continues to support the groundbreaking research
funded by NIH that could lead to improved treatments and, hopefully, a
cure one day.
Through all these programs, this bill continues to support the
Minority AIDS Initiative, which seeks to address the disproportionate
impact of HIV/AIDS among racial and ethnic minorities.
We have included a total of $40 million for abstinence only education
programs. This amount is $10 million over the President's budget
request and $20 million over last year.
The training of pediatricians and pediatric specialists is an
important priority. I am pleased to report that the bill funds
Children's Graduate Medical Education at the full authorization level
of $285 million.
Following the President's lead, this bill commits substantial
resources to deal with our Nation's substance abuse program. It
provides over $2 billion, an increase of $121 million from the previous
fiscal year. Some of these funds will support the development of new
prevention and treatment models and improve the delivery of services to
the homeless population. Over $1.7 billion will be allocated for State
substance abuse block grants, which support alcohol and drug abuse
prevention, treatment and rehabilitation services.
The bill represents security in so many ways for so many people,
including funding for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program at
$2 billion, the highest level ever.
In addressing the President's Faith-Based Initiative, I am pleased to
report that we have funded two programs in the budget request: The Safe
and Stable Families Program at $70 million and the Compassion Capital
Fund at $30 million for a total of $100 million.
The bill funds the Head Start Program at $6.4 billion, allowing for a
continuation of the same level of services. It is a $276 million
increase, and we are urging through report language that Head Start put
more emphasis on education programs in their areas.
This bill supports a number of efforts to improve the health and
quality of life of older Americans. It provides a $10 million increase
for programs designed to enhance the training of health professionals
in geriatrics, so they can better understand and respond to the health
needs of our aging population, and a number of other things that are
important to seniors, foster grandparents and so on.
The Department of Labor will receive a total of $14 billion in this
bill to address growing needs in Workforce Investment Act job training
as a result of our slowing economy. We provide $105 million over fiscal
year 2001.

{time} 1345

One compelling public witness who appeared before our committee
addressed funding for Job Corps. This gentleman, now an employee of
Roto Rooter in Cincinnati, told us of how his training at a Job Corps
center and the job he now holds as a result has changed his life. He
now has hope for his future when before he had none. I think we forget
when we do these bills how they really touch the lives of people, and
he was such a classic example of how important this program was to his
future and what a great difference it has made.
Independent agencies. We gave the Social Security Administration
additional funds so that when people need help in understanding their
Social Security situation, there will be enough staff to take care of
them.
We worked with the Institute of Museum and Library Services, again an
important agency for the people of America. Libraries in communities
across this Nation are windows of opportunity for so many young and
elderly people alike.
The bill before you is a balanced, bipartisan bill. Through the
numerous programs I have just described and the many I have not had
time to mention, the bill provides security and hope for our citizens
in greatest need.
I say to my colleagues, I ask for your support of passage of this
bill. It is a good bill. It is a fair bill. It tries in a balanced way
to address the multiplicity of needs, and it does show that we are a
good neighbor, that this Nation cares about the quality of life for all
its citizens.

[[Page H6572]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.001

[[Page H6573]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.002

[[Page H6574]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.003

[[Page H6575]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.004

[[Page H6576]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.005

[[Page H6577]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.006

[[Page H6578]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.007

[[Page H6579]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.008

[[Page H6580]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.009

[[Page H6581]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.010

[[Page H6582]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.011

[[Page H6583]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.012

[[Page H6584]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.013

[[Page H6585]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.014

[[Page H6586]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.015

[[Page H6587]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.016

[[Page H6588]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.017

[[Page H6589]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.018

[[Page H6590]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.019

[[Page H6591]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.020

[[Page H6592]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.021

[[Page H6593]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.022

[[Page H6594]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.023

[[Page H6595]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.024

[[Page H6596]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.025

[[Page H6597]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.026

[[Page H6598]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.027

[[Page H6599]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.028

[[Page H6600]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.029

[[Page H6601]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.030

[[Page H6602]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.031

[[Page H6603]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.032

[[Page H6604]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.033

[[Page H6605]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.034

[[Page H6606]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.035

[[Page H6607]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.036

[[Page H6608]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.037

[[Page H6609]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.038

[[Page H6610]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.039

[[Page H6611]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.040

[[Page H6612]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.041

[[Page H6613]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.042

[[Page H6614]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.043

[[Page H6615]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.044

[[Page H6616]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.045

[[Page H6617]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.046

[[Page H6618]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.047

[[Page H6619]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.048

[[Page H6620]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.049

[[Page H6621]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.050

[[Page H6622]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.051

[[Page H6623]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.052

[[Page H6624]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.053

[[Page H6625]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.054

[[Page H6626]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.055

[[Page H6627]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.056

[[Page H6628]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.057

[[Page H6629]]

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 11 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, Jim Dyer, Craig Higgins, Carol Murphy, Meg Synder,
Susan Firth, Nicole Wheeler, Francine Mack-Salvador, Lori Rowley, David
Reich, Cheryl Smith, Linda Pagelson, Lin Liu, David Pomerantz, Scott
Lilly, Bob Bonner, Melody Clark, Christina Hamilton, Norm Suchar, Dayle
Lewis, Scott Boule, Kristin Holman, Charles Dujon, Matt Braunstein,
Chris Kukla and the associate staff on the majority side: What do all
of those names have in common? They are the people who really put
together this bill. Every Member of the House will have an opportunity
to vote on this bill, and I think we can do that proudly, because I
think it is a good bill. But the people who worked just as hard and, in
fact, probably harder and the people who worked out many of the
compromises that were needed to produce a bill which is truly a
bipartisan bill were the people whom I just named. I want to express my
appreciation to each and every one of them, because without them, we
would not be able to deliver what we are delivering to the American
people here today.
In my view, Mr. Chairman, this bill ought to be named the Family
Opportunity and Health Security Act of 2001, because this bill, more
than any other bill that we deal with, provides opportunity for average
working families to share in the goodness that this society provides.
And it also provides for the improvement of the health of every single
American and, in fact, probably every single person in the world who is
within the reach of any kind of civilized medicine. I think we ought to
be very proud of that.
This is the second bipartisan bill that we have had on labor, health
and education and social services in the last 7 years, and I hope that
it is going to be the first of a long series of bipartisan bills in the
future. This bill is the place that you go to measure congressional
commitment to equal opportunity in education, to worker protection,
worker fairness at the bargaining table. It is the place you go to see
what our society will do to help those who are unlucky enough to be
without health care or who have special problems in the health care
area and need special help. It is the place where virtually every
family goes to obtain advances in medical care. And it is the place
where many people in this society go who live life on the underside to
find some help and some relief from the pain and pressure of their
daily problems. And I would say it is also the place where we go if we
want to have some measure of the determination that is being applied,
the human ingenuity that is being applied, in order to unlock the
scientific mysteries of disease and its treatment and to protect public
health. And each and every Member of this House can be proud to vote
for this bill.
The bill is $12 billion over last year and I make an apology for
absolutely not one dollar. I wish it had been more, because the
families in this country who are serviced by this bill need more help
than this bill will provide. The bill is $7 billion above the
President, and I am pleased about that.
In the area of education, for the past 5 years this Congress has
produced an education bill which provides about a 13 percent increase
on average. The President's budget this year initially recommended that
that increase be cut to 5.8 percent. This bill provides a 17 percent
increase in funding for education. There is no more important long-term
investment that we can make than that one.
In the area of education, special education, Mr. Chairman, is the
third largest item in this bill. It is funded at $375 million above the
President's recommendation. We have $7.7 billion in the bill. In 2
years we will have increased the Federal share of the cost of providing
special education by 50 percent, and I hope we can increase it by 50
percent again in the next 2 years.
Title I is the main program that we use to try to provide extra
educational help to the children who need it most, disadvantaged
children who are at risk of dropping out and never making it, either in
school or in society. This bill provides $10.5 billion, $1.4 billion
over the President's request, $1.7 billion over last year. This is the
largest increase in that program in the history of the program.
Pell Grants. That is the main program by which we assist average
working-class families in this country to send their kids to college.
It is a real door-opener to higher education opportunity. We provide in
this bill a $4,000 maximum grant for those who qualify, $150 over the
President's request, $250 over last year. Every dollar is well spent
and will be well received by the American people.
The block grant for teacher training and class size reduction, $1
billion over last year and $575 million over the budget recommendation.
After-school centers, $154 million above the request. That program is
in demand more than almost any I know in this bill, because as
families' life-styles have changed, so have their needs to see to it
that their children at all times will be in healthy, wholesome places.
There is no more treacherous time for children from the age of 12 to 15
than the after-school hours. That is when most of the juvenile crime is
committed in this country and that is when we need the most supervision
of kids, and this program, I hope, will be an ever-expanding program to
help provide that supervision.
In the area of health care, we are $1.3 billion above the President,
$3.4 billion above last year. Community health centers, we are $26
million above the President. That has also been a high priority item
for the President himself. For Healthy Start, we are $102 million in
this bill, $12 million again above the budget request.
Centers for Disease Control, crucial in these times when we are
concerned about public health, when we see the anthrax concerns in
Florida, we are $265 million above last year, $430 million above the
President's request. For bioterrorism, we have a 28 percent increase
above last year and the President's budget and in a follow-on
appropriation bill we will have substantially more money than we have
in this bill for that same item.
Mental health, $68 million above the President. There ought to be
more. We have serious problems that are not being met in that area.

Human services. The Low-Income Heating Assistance Program that helps
keep low-income senior citizens warm in the wintertime so they do not
have to choose between heating and eating, $300 million above the
President's request. I wish it could be more. Head Start, $276 million
above last year.
In the area of the Labor Department, all of the personnel cuts in
OSHA and Mine Safety have been eliminated. And we have added what I
consider to be all too modest increases in other worker protection
accounts. The international labor program that helps defend our workers
and our country from the production of goods and services by slave
labor and child labor abroad, we have restored fully the cuts that were
recommended in the White House budget.
Title VI, foreign language studies. As I said in Committee, when the
Russians invaded Afghanistan a number of years ago, we did not have
enough language specialists to respond in the correct language. So our
information services responded in Farsi. That did not help anybody in
Afghanistan. They may have understood it in Iran, but they did not
understand it in Afghanistan. We missed the target a little bit. Since
then, what has happened in that area? Almost nothing. That is why we
have a 19 percent increase in this bill. As you know, we also had an
increase in another bill for the same item that passed this House last
week.
All in all, this bill is far from perfect. I think given the needs of
our society, we need more in education, in health care and in worker
protection, but this is a very good bill given the circumstances in
which we found ourselves in January. I very much appreciate the efforts
made by the majority to make this a bipartisan bill. I very much
appreciate the professionalism with which this bill has been approached
by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the distinguished subcommittee
chairman, and also the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Young). He and I have many, many political differences. We do not have
very many personal differences. We have disagreed many times but we
have dealt with each other, I think, in a straight-shooting way. And I
appreciate the fact that after some concern on this bill, we have
brought a bill to

[[Page H6630]]

this floor today under the rules of the House which treats everyone
fairly and respectfully. And I think because of that, we are going to
see a very large vote for this bill on both sides of the aisle.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the full committee.
Again I want to emphasize how much help he and the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) in his role as ranking on the full committee have
provided to us to make this bill the success that I think it is.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this very good
appropriations bill for our educational systems, for our health
systems, for our labor programs and all of the associated programs
represented by this bill. I want to add my compliments to Chairman
Regula. For years, Chairman Regula chaired the Subcommittee on the
Interior and did an outstanding job. This is his first time to chair
this very important subcommittee, and he and Ranking Member Obey have
presented a bill that I think we can all be very, very proud of. The
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey) have explained much of the detail of the bill and I am not going
to reiterate that.
I would like our Members to know that they might be a little
surprised to see the bipartisanship in this debate today, but it was
nearly 4 months ago that Chairman Regula, Ranking Member Obey and I sat
together and decided that we really ought to make this a good bill that
represents the needs of America rather than anyone's political agenda.
That is what we have done and that is what we present to you today.
This is the second largest appropriations bill of our 13 regular bills,
the first being national defense.

{time} 1400

Each one equally is important. National defense and the defense
appropriations provide what is needed to secure America; this bill
provides what is needed to secure the people of America in their
personal needs, their health needs, their educational needs. The
subcommittee has done a really great job in bringing this bill before
us.
I wanted to compliment the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).
I listened attentively to her comments earlier today. She discussed an
important issue. But I really appreciate and thank her for the
statesmanlike way that she addressed not only the issue, but the way
she addressed the legislative process. I think she is to be
complimented for the way she has handled herself on this particular
issue.
It was important today to get this bill completed. It is the next to
the last of the regular appropriations bills. The next one and the last
one will be National Defense.
Then we change direction and go to the conference reports. We plan
today to have the first conference report of a regular bill, the
Interior bill, on the floor; and we will move quickly to conferencing
all of the other bills that have been passed by both the House and the
Senate. And hopefully our Members can look forward to early dismissal
on the part of appropriations bills.
We will also be required to do another continuing resolution for
approximately 1 week, which hopefully again we will do that this
afternoon as well.
With that, I would just like to again compliment the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Regula) for an outstanding job, the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Obey) for an outstanding job, and all the members of the
subcommittee and the staff on both sides of the political aisle for
producing a good bill for Americans, one we can all be proud of.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me
time.
Mr. Chairman, I want to rise initially, as I said in full committee,
I have had the opportunity to serve on this subcommittee now for 18
years. It has been led by some extraordinary Americans on both sides of
the aisle. I started my service under Mr. Natcher. Bill Natcher of
Kentucky was a legend in this institution. During the course of his
service, he cast more consecutive votes than any person in history, a
compliment to his sense of responsibility and his extraordinary self
discipline. Succeeding him was Mr. Smith, and then the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), and then Mr. Porter. When the Republicans took
control in 1995, John Porter succeeded to the chairmanship, and he did
an extraordinary job in a bipartisan fashion.
This bill, however, was not always treated in a bipartisan fashion,
as we know, not, frankly, because of the appropriators or the chairman
of the Committee on Appropriations, but because of the extrinsic forces
that came on to the committee with reference to caps on spending that
were totally unrealistic and therefore led to either the bill being
considered in a partisan fashion or, in fact, 1 year not being
considered at all on the floor of the House and ultimately being
considered in an omnibus appropriations bill.
But this year, this is a real bill; and it is a good bill. It is not
a perfect bill. In fact, of course, we never pass perfect bills. But
this bill is unique. It is in so many ways the people's bill, because
it affects literally millions and millions, not only of Americans, but
people around the world, who benefit from the research at NIH and who
benefit from other facets of this legislation. But clearly the American
people are advantaged by this bill.
The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is absolutely correct when he
says there are insufficient resources in this bill. When you sit in
markup on both sides of the aisle, liberals, conservatives, East, West,
North and South, Members say there needs to be more in this program or
that program. I am going to speak about a couple of them briefly.
But this basically is a good bill; and I will support it, as the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is going to support it.
I want to again say, as I do almost every time I stand, because I
think it is important for the American public to know the kind of
leadership we have on critically important committees, the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Young) is the epitome of fairness, integrity and
bipartisanship. His view is on America's well-being, not on partisan
gain. Those of us who serve with him are advantaged by doing so. I
thank him for his leadership.
The good news for our subcommittee is that the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Regula) falls into the same category of a person focused on
America, on Americans, and the country's interests, not on partisan
interests. Therefore, this advantages this bill and our country.
Now, Mr. Chairman, let me mention a couple of issues, if I might,
that I am very concerned about. The National Immunization Program at
CDC receives a significant increase in this bill; and I thank the
chairman of the subcommittee for that, an increase of $47.5 million
over fiscal year 2001. But that is still only half the level that the
Institute of Medicine recommended in its report last year for State
operations and infrastructure and vaccine purchase.
As the recent report on anthrax in Florida has proven to us, the
threat of a biological attack on this Nation is a very real one. I just
got off the phone doing a tape for radio with reference to yesterday's
incident on a Metro train. As a result, we need to do all we can to
ensure that our public health system is able to respond in the event of
attack.
I will say more about this when we mark up in conference. I know that
there will be some emergency monies available for this objective as
well at CDC.
My understanding is the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Cleland, has
suggested as much as a half a billion dollars increase in CDC to
anticipate and deal with appropriate response in the event of a
biological or chemical threat to the health of a city, a region, or our
country.
Let me discuss one additional issue, Mr. Chairman, briefly; and that
is the Assistive Technology Act of 1989. I bring that up not because we
will add more money to this bill for that objective, but because I am
hoping in conference we can add some authorizing legislation. Obviously
it must be done with agreement of the authorizers, both in the House
and Senate. I understand that, and we are working with them.

[[Page H6631]]

But if we fail to do so, nine States are going to lose assistance to
make assistive technology available to those with disabilities so that
they can be more able to participate fully in our society, whether it
is jobs or in their home. I appreciate the chairman's concern about
this and that he is working with us; and I appreciate the assistance of
the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), with this
effort as well.
If we do not do something next year, nine States in 2002 will lose
dollars; and 14 States will lose dollars in 2003 if we do not take
action. I am hopeful we will do so, because this assistive technology
is extraordinarily important to those challenged with disabilities to
be fully incorporated into our society. That was the promise of the
Americans with Disabilities Act which President Bush signed on July 26,
1990; and it is an effort that we ought to make to ensure that that
promise is fully met.
Again, I thank the chairman of the full committee; and I thank the
chairman of the subcommittee and our ranking member for working so
diligently to make this bill within the resources available to us the
best it could possibly be.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Boehner), one of the pride and joys of Ohio, our chairman of
the Committee on Education and the Workforce, who has done an
outstanding job of providing reforms that will make sure that no child
is left behind.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, let me thank my colleague from Ohio for
yielding and begin by congratulating the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Regula) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Young), and others who have worked so diligently over the
last several months in putting together what truly is a bipartisan bill
that we have on the floor today. All of us who have been here for any
length of time know the difficulty this bill endures every year, and it
is a real tribute to the three of you and the others involved in
bringing this bill together.
Like the House-passed education reform bill that preceded it, the
bipartisan bill that we have on the floor today by our appropriations
colleagues represents a reasonable and necessary compromise between
Republicans and Democrats on education spending levels.
The gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) and the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) deserve great credit for their work, which follows
H.R. 1 closely and paves the way for reforms that will improve public
education for millions of American children. Like H.R. 1, it calls for
more funding to implement long overdue education reforms. Like H.R. 1,
it targets funding toward key programs, such as title I, to reflect the
Federal Government's original mission in education, and that is helping
those students who need the help the most.
It increases title I from the current $8.6 billion per year to $10.5
billion, a down payment on our shared goal of closing the achievement
gap between disadvantaged students and their peers.
It triples funding for reading programs to $900 million to implement
the President's Reading First initiative and helps schools implement
programs based on scientific research.
It increases funding for teachers program by $1 billion a year to
implement and make sure that States and schools can put the best-
qualified teachers in each of our classrooms.
It increases bilingual education from $460 million a year to $700
million a year.
It increases funding for Individuals With Disabilities Education Act
(Part B) by $1.4 billion over last year's number. We should all
recognize that the increases that we have given to IDEA over the last 6
years have more than doubled funding for students with disabilities;
and this increase that we have in this bill, I think, is a giant step
forward in meeting our long-term obligation.
The bill also increases Pell Grants by $1.7 billion over last year's
level and increases the maximum award granted to $4,000 per student. In
a time of a slow economy, this $4,000 in Pell Grants will help the
neediest of our high school graduates get the kind of education and
training they need.
These funding increases should be complemented by the enactment of
historic reforms that are at the core of the President's education
plan. The new accountability that we see in the President's package
will help us stem what has been going on in this town for a long time.
New increases without accountability will simply amount to business as
usual in Federal education policy, prolonging the status quo that
Republicans and Democrats have pledged to jointly bring to an end.
Thirty-five years of mediocrity have taught us that money alone will
not close the achievement gap between disadvantaged students and their
peers. The House-Senate Education conference will continue working to
ensure that these significant funding increases are targeted toward
children who need the most help, instead of toward new bureaucracy.
They must be used to strengthen existing programs, such as title I, so
that disadvantaged students are served, rather than to create new
unproven programs that really do not address the primary goal.
So I think we have a bill on the floor that mirrors H.R. 1. We expect
our conference to be completed in the next several weeks. That and the
completion of this bill, I think, will start us on a path where we can
make sure that no child in America is left behind.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), the ranking minority member on the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to start off by taking a moment
to personally thank the members of the Committee on Appropriations for
the inclusion of increased funding for Parkinson's disease research. We
are now on the verge of discovering a cure for Parkinson's. This strong
Federal commitment on both the Republican and Democratic side will
bring us closer to that end, and I appreciate all those Members helping
out.
I do come before the floor today also in the spirit of bipartisanship
that has been the rule of the day. In the wake of the cowardly and
horrific attacks on our Nation on September 11, partisan wrangling is
indeed frivolous.
To ensure that the business of this Nation moves on without delay, I
decided not to offer an amendment today that, though I think it is
crucial for the importance of the health of millions of Americans,
could potentially be controversial and slow down the legislative
process.
Had our Nation not been struck on that faithful day 1 month ago
today, I would have offered an amendment to expand stem cell research.
This amendment, which I would like to submit for the Record at this
time, takes a cautious measured approach to realizing the full
potential of promising research.
Mr. Chairman, I include the amendment I had proposed for the Record.

Amendment to H.R. 3061, as Reported Offered by Mr. Evans of Illinois

At the end of section 510, add the following:

(c) Human Embryonic Stem Cells.--
(1) Findings.--The Congress finds as follows:
(A) The President's decision to allow human embryonic stem
cell research to go forward on stem cell lines derived on or
before August 9, 2001, provides a crucial first step in
conducting basic research on stem cells.
(B) Basic research on human embryonic stem cells is
essential to determine how stem cells proliferate,
specialize, and differentiate.
(C) Human embryonic stem cell research holds promise for
cures and improved treatments for a wide array of diseases
and injuries, including Alzheimer's disease, cardiovascular
disease, diabetes, Parkinson's disease, and spinal cord
injuries.
(D) The National Academy of Sciences and leading biomedical
researchers agree that therapies for use by humans will not
result from stem cell lines derived from human embryos on or
before August 9, 2001, which have been grown with the use of
animal products that pose health risks to humans.
(E) The President's policy must be revised if the Nation is
to realize human applications of stem cell research.
(F) Given the promise of human embryonic stem cell
research, the Congress should act expeditiously to consider
Federal funding for this important research. If the Congress
fails to address this issue expeditiously, the National
Institutes of Health must be allowed to expand Federal
funding of human embryonic stem cell research beyond research
on stem cell lines derived on or before August 9, 2001.
(2) In general.--Not later than August 9, 2003, the
Director of the National Institutes of Health shall issue
guidelines to authorize funding for research using stem cells
that

[[Page H6632]]

were derived from human embryos after August 9, 2001, if the
applicant provides assurances satisfactory to the Director of
the following:
(A) Date of derivation.--The research cannot be conducted
effectively using one or more stem cells that were derived
from a human embryo on or before August 9, 2001.
(B) Conditions of derivation.--Any human embryonic stem
cell to be used in the research may be derived from an embryo
only if that embryo has been donated from an in-vitro
fertilization clinic in compliance with the following:
(i) The human embryonic stem cell is not derived from the
embryo using Federal funds.
(ii) The embryo from which the stem cell is derived is
created for the purpose of fertility treatment and is in
excess of the clinical need of the individuals seeking the
treatment.
(iii) Before being asked to consider donating the embryo
for research purposes, the embryo's progenitors determine
that the embryo is in excess of their clinical need for
fertility treatment.
(iv) Before being asked to consider donating the embryo for
research purposes, the embryo's progenitors are given the
option of donating the embryo to an infertile couple for
adoption.
(v) The embryo is donated with the informed, written
consent of the embryo's progenitors (including a statement
that the embryo is being donated for research purposes).
(vi) The decision of the embryo's progenitors to donate the
embryo is made free of any influence by any researcher or
investigator proposing to derive or use human embryonic stem
cells in research.
(vii) Any compensation paid for the human embryonic stem
cell does not exceed the reasonable costs of transportation,
processing, preservation, quality control, and storage of the
cell.
(3) Earlier stem cell lines.--This subsection does not
impose any restriction on funding for research using stem
cells that were derived from human embryos on or before
August 9, 2001.
(4) Application.--Paragraph 2(A) shall not apply after
August 8, 2005.
(5) Effective date.--The guidelines issued under paragraph
(2) shall take effect on August 9, 2003.

{time} 1415

I believe the majority of my colleagues will find this compromise a
prudent approach to this sensitive issue.
The amendment acknowledges the President's policy as a good starting
place and allows research to go forward only under this policy in the
near future. The science is in its infancy and the President's policy
may be ultimately sufficient to conduct the most basic stem cell
research that will be the foundation of science for the years to come.
But this policy will not suffice for the long term. Leading
researchers and the National Academy of Sciences agree that it will not
result in human therapies. This amendment would give Congress plenty of
time to thoughtfully consider the issue of federal funding for
embryonic stem cell research. However, if we fail to act in the next
two years, NIH would be directed to incrementally expend embryonic stem
cell research over a period of several years.
While I will not offer this compromise amendment today, I wanted to
take this opportunity to remind members how critical this issue is to
the millions of Americans who stand to benefit from this exciting new
research. I hope that I can count on my colleagues' support when we
revisit this issue next year.
I would also like to take a minute to personally thank the members of
the Appropriations Committee for the inclusion of increasing funding
for Parkinson's Disease research. We are on the verge of discovering a
cure for Parkinson's Disease. This strong federal commitment will bring
us closer to that end.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood), a member of the subcommittee who is very
constructive in his work and offers many useful suggestions.
Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time. I rise in strong support of H.R. 3061.
Mr. Chairman, it has been a real pleasure for me to serve on the
Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education of the
Committee on Appropriations, which has produced this good bill that
touches the lives of all Americans. The bill, which deserves our high
praise and strong support, is the bipartisan product of the altruistic
spirit and genuine compassion of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula),
the chairman of the subcommittee. As the chairman has often said, this
clearly is the ``love thy neighbor'' bill.
It is fitting that we come together today, 1 month after the
dastardly attacks on our Nation, to provide America with the resources
that we need to defend against the threat of bioterrorism and to aid
working Americans who have lost their jobs.
I am also glad that we have been able to fulfill the President's
Reading First initiative. It is with education that we prepare for the
future, and education begins with reading.
I am particularly gratified that the bill provides a $1.4 billion
increase in special education. My 20 years on the public school board
in Tunkhannock, Pennsylvania, has shown me how much more difficult
local spending decisions made by school boards were made by IDEA
mandates without adequate Federal funding. So I am glad that we
addressed that.
Yesterday, the National Center for Health Statistics reported that
America's life expectancy rose again last year. That report is a credit
to the effort of Congress to support biomedical research and to improve
treatments and cures for illnesses which afflict the American family.
With this bill, we continue that effort.
Although it is a very modest program, only $5.3 billion, the Rural
Community Assistance Program and the Office of Community Services Rural
Facilities is very vital. RCAP helps rural communities to apply for
assistance and to improve their infrastructure to sustain safe,
affordable water.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
(Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, while the terrorists on September 11 may
have succeeded in bringing down our World Trade Towers and temporarily
scarring the Pentagon, they only strengthened our resolve to get better
prepared for bioterrorism and better educate our children.
I want to commend in the strongest terms possible our chairman, the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Regula), and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for their strong
leadership with this bipartisan bill. It is certainly a step forward in
better preparing our country educationally and better preparing our
country against terrorism.
On title I, a program to help educate our most vulnerable and needy
poor children, we have a 20 percent, $1.7 billion increase to attach
new reforms and testing to remediate and tutor these children. In Pell
grants, this is a first-time Pell grant hit up to $4,000 for students
going to college; and that is 57,000 more students who will be eligible
to go to college. We also have a program called Transition to Teaching,
working on our quality teaching in this country, which is the real key
to success for all children.
I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for their help there.
Head Start programs have a $276 million increase, about a 4 percent
increase keeping up with inflation. It will help early Head Start
significantly more, with more children, for 0 to 3. I hope we will
continue to do more for Head Start in conference.
Finally, on bioterrorism, we have a $301 million increase for
stockpiling vaccines and for Federal, State, and local responses to
help better prepare our forces for a bioterrorist attack. I would
encourage this committee in the strongest terms that this is a first
step. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) and I have
bipartisan legislation for a $1.4 billion increase to better prepare
this country on bioterrorism. I hope we will take those steps later on,
maybe in the supplemental bill.
Mr. Chairman, again, I applaud the leadership for this bill.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Keller).
Mr. KELLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak in favor of the Pell grant
increase in the Labor-HHS-Education appropriation bill.
Started in 1972, the purpose of the Pell grant program is to
financially assist students from low-income families who would not be
able to attend college

[[Page H6633]]

because of the financial burden it would place on the student and his
family. For example, my mom was a single parent who raised three
children on the modest salary of a secretary. We lived in a one-bedroom
home growing up. I personally would not have been able to go to college
if it was not for the Pell grant program. In fact, one in five college
students today benefit from Pell grants.
This year we will invest $10.5 billion in Pell grants, the largest
investment in our country's history. College students will now be able
to receive up to $4,000 a year, or $16,000 over a 4-year college
career. This will fully cover the cost of tuition, fees and books at
the University of Central Florida in Orlando. Now, all children, rich
or poor, will have the opportunity to go to college.
This investment will also help generate up to $85 billion a year in
additional tax revenues because students earning a bachelor's degree
make 75 percent more money on average than those with only a high
school diploma. I want to personally commend and thank the chairman of
the subcommittee, the chairman of the full committee, and the ranking
member of the subcommittee for their historic leadership in providing
this high-level Pell grant funding. They are truly friends to our
millions of college students who depend on this aid to go to college.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Pell grants and ``yes''
on the Labor-HHS appropriation bill.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy
in allowing me to speak in support of this bill.
I join my colleagues in saluting the committee for the progress for
education and health, especially for the IDEA special education grants.
I understand why it was difficult to deal with issues of school
modernization; but I am hopeful that before this Congress adjourns that
we are able to assess that critical need.
But I would like to address my particular attention to the issue of
public broadcasting. The committee has found a way to provide $365
million in advanced funding for the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting. I think we have all been made aware, just in the course
of this last month in our quest for information and news in the wake of
September 11, what a critical role public broadcasting plays. A number
of the Members of this Chamber looked last week again at some of the
critical research videos that have been advanced that really provide
broad public understanding of the events in the Middle East.
But of critical importance to public broadcasting is the Federal
mandate that all TV stations expand from traditional analogue to modern
digital transmission by May 2003. This is a powerful new tool for
public broadcasting, but without Federal assistance for digital
conversion, many areas of the country could lose their public broadcast
signals. One-third of the 347 member stations in the system are
considered at risk.
I appreciate the language in this bill providing for an additional
$25 million for digitalization; however, this appropriation must be
specifically authorized in subsequent legislation. I urge my colleagues
to remain aware of this issue and authorize the appropriation in the
future. We cannot afford to lose the connection that public broadcast
provides between its groundbreaking educational, entertainment, and
cultural productions in our communities everywhere. The committee has
done its job, and I hope that Congress will follow through.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), also a member of the
subcommittee.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the
fiscal year 2002 Labor, Health and Human Services and Education
appropriation bill. It is really a privilege for me to serve on this
committee; and I personally want to thank our chairman, the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Regula), and our ranking member, the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). I know of their commitment to the issues that we
discuss in this committee; and I want to also thank the staff of the
committee, both majority and minority, who really have been a pleasure
to work with. Their cooperation has allowed us to consider what should
have been the least contentious bill in years, and I do hope that some
of the amendments that were in the planning will not be offered so that
we can all stand together in support of this really good bill that
serves people in this country, because I certainly do not want to be
here discussing some of these amendments. I would rather be working on
ways to provide for the defense of our citizens, of finding ways to
stimulate the economy.
This bill has provided for funding for so many programs that are
needed by the American people. The bill significantly increases funding
for the National Institutes of Health. We must continue to provide
robust funding for medical research so that we can find the cures for
disease.
The bill also provides a large increase for the 21st Century Learning
Centers After School Program. I remember when I first got on this
committee and we had $1 million in the program, and now we are up to $1
billion; and the lines are still long in every community of people who
want to provide funding for after-school programs, so I want to thank
again the chairman and the ranking member for their help in that area.
The program gives millions of children a place to go after school where
they can participate in meaningful activities.
I just want to mention one other thing. I do hope as this bill moves
through the process we can add some money for school modernization. It
has been an issue I have been working on for a very long time, and it
is so very important. I do hope we can invest in that critical area.
There are so many schools in terrible condition, and we should do
something to help local school districts fix this problem. This bill is
a very big step in the right direction.
Mr. Chairman, I support the bill; and I urge my colleagues to support
it as well.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Chairman, I am proud to join my good friend, the gentleman from
Illinois, (Mr. Evans) who spoke just briefly a few minutes ago in
addressing the important issue of stem cell research. The gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Evans) and I are deeply committed to pursuing ways
to reevaluate the August 9 cutoff date of the number of stem cell lines
that can be used for four simple reasons. First, research is needed.
Nearly one-half of the American population could benefit from stem cell
research.

{time} 1430

Two, in vitro fertilization. There are 400 in vitro fertilization
clinics throughout the country helping hundreds of thousands of couples
per year experience the joy of childbirth through in vitro
fertilization. This process necessarily creates more embryos that can
be used, so to relegate these potentially lifesaving cells to the trash
heap instead of NIH laboratories after the arbitrary deadline of August
9 is inconsistent and unfair to 135 million Americans.
Third, current stem cell supply. Since August 9 we have learned that
the 64 cell lines identified by NIH are not all robust and may not be
safe because many researchers have mixed human cells with mouse.
Finally, fourth, government oversight. Irrespective of the
President's guidelines, the private sector in the United States, as
well as the public and private sectors abroad, will continue to conduct
research on stem cells that fall outside the parameters established by
the Bush administration.
We cannot let America fall behind in this research, and cannot deny
our citizens the cures and treatments that may result from research
conducted on cells derived after August 9. We must provide strong
oversight to ensure that research is conducted by ethical means that do
not force us to wrestle with similar moral questions in the near
future.

[[Page H6634]]

Mr. Chairman, I thank the President for taking the first step, but I
respectfully implore my colleagues to take the next. I look forward to
working with Members in this endeavor.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi), the newly elected and soon-to-be whip of the
Democratic Party.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding time to
me, and for his excellent service in bringing this bill to the floor.
I want to commend, certainly, our new chairman of the committee, the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), and our big chairman, the chairman of
the full committee, for their extraordinary leadership. With all of
them working together, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Regula) put us in position today to vote for a bill that is worthy of
our support.
One of the challenges, Mr. Chairman, that has been of particular
prominence in the minds of all Americans since September 11 has been
the threat of bioterrorism. On the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence, where I serve as the ranking Democrat, we have studied
the threat posed by biological and chemical agents and our ability to
respond.
Great strides have been made in recent years, but we must strengthen
the ability of the public health infrastructure to detect and contain
an attack and treat its victims. This bill provides an increase of $60
million to improve surveillance and strengthen our medical response.
In addition, $20 million has been included for pilot projects to
explore the feasibility of developing a Nationwide Health Tracking
Network among all States to identify and track disease and related
environmental factors. The CDC will use this and increased funding for
its environmental health lab to rapidly assess human exposure to
environmental toxins.
I am pleased also that HIV care and treatment through Ryan White has
been increased by $112 million, and HIV prevention at the CDC has been
increased by $86 million.
For the fourth year in a row, we have provided dramatic increases in
biomedical research at the NIH. In addition to progress in the search
for better treatments and eventually a vaccine for AIDS, these
investments are yielding phenomenal progress in our understanding of
the human body and how we are affected by our environment.
Additional resources, thanks to our distinguished leadership, have
been provided for child care, breast and cervical cancer treatment,
drug treatment, bilingual education, worker safety, and many other
important areas.
This progress is promising, and I look forward to working with my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to address the unmet health,
education, and labor needs that remain.
I urge my colleagues to support the labor, health and human services,
and education bill.
Mr. Chairman, I comment Chairman Regula and Ranking Member Obey for
their leadership on the Labor-HHS-Education Subcommittee. This is a
difficult time for our Nation, and this can be a difficult bill to pass
because it addresses important needs that we all feel passionate
about--health care, education, and a strong work force. The
Appropriations Committee has risen to this challenge and I am proud of
the bipartisan bill that has been produced.
One challenge has been particularly prominent in the minds of all
Americans since the September 11th attacks is the threat of
bioterrorism. On the Intelligence Committee, where I serve as the
Ranking Democrat, we have studied the threat posed by biological and
chemical agents and our Nation's ability to respond. Great strides have
been made in recent years, but we must strengthen the ability of our
public health infrastructure to detect and contain an attack, and treat
its victims. This bill provides an increase of $60 million to improve
surveillance and strengthen our medical response.
In addition, $20 million has been included for pilot projects to
explore the feasibility of developing a Nationwide Health Tracking
Network among all States to identify and track disease and related
environmental factors. The CDC will use this and increased funding for
its environmental health lab to rapidly assess human exposure to
environmental toxins, including biological and chemical agents.
I am also pleased that HIV/AIDS care and treatment through the Ryan
White Care Act has been increased by $112 million, and HIV prevention
at the CDC has been increased by $86 million.
As new infections remain steady and treatment advances reduce the
number of AIDS deaths, more people than ever are living with HIV/AIDS
and in need of treatment regimens that are costly, complicated, &
lifelong.
For the fourth year in a row, we have provided dramatic increases in
biomedical research at the National Institutes of Health. In addition
to progress in the search for better treatments and, eventually, a
vaccine for AIDS, these investments are yielding phenomenal progress in
our understanding of the human body and how we are affected by our
environment.
Additional resources have also been provided for child care, breast
and cervical cancer screening, drug treatment, bilingual education,
worker safety, and many other important areas. This progress is
promising, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on both
sides of the aisle to address the unmet health, education, and labor
needs that remain. I urge my colleagues to support the Labor-Health and
Human Services-Education Appropriations bill.
These needs are especially critical for communities of color, where
the majority of new AIDS cases are occurring, and I am particularly
pleased that funding for the Minority HIV/AIDS Initiative is increased
by $37 million. Greater access to voluntary counseling & testing,
stronger linkages between prevention & treatment, improved access to
AIDS drugs, and a reduction in new HIV infections worldwide are vital,
and will require significantly more resources than we currently
provide.
We must continue to increase these resources, and commit ourselves to
ensuring that the third decade of the AIDS epidemic is the last decade
of the AIDS epidemic. The increases that are provided in this bill are
an important step forward.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) is
recognized for 1 minute.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, 1 month after September 11,
Americans continue to contemplate the vulnerability of human life. So I
think it is very fitting that we pass a bill today which does so much
to preserve and prolong human life.
The bill increases funding for medical research, and keeps within
reach the goal of doubling funding for NIH within 5 years. It includes
report language that reinforces Congress' commitment to fully fund the
NIH Parkinson's disease research agenda for fiscal year 2002. The bill
reaffirms the President's commitment to stem cell research. The plan is
far too limited, but it is a small step forward. I am pleased that it
includes a substantial increase for education, although the bill should
have funded the school repair and renovation program.
I applaud the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young), the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Regula), and the ranking member, the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), for forging this bill in a bipartisan spirit at a
very difficult time. They set an example for the appropriations process
this fall, and for American unity and resolve.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I have just two things. I would like to read from the
Administration letter. It says: ``The Administration appreciates that
the House has retained the current language provision concerning
Federal funding for needle exchange programs and the Hyde language
regarding the Federal funding of abortions.''
So I want to make clear that this is the same language as has been in
the past.
I also want to point out that we do have now the statement of
administration policy. It has been coordinated by OMB with all the
agencies, and it is a good statement supporting the provisions of this
bill. So it truly is a bipartisan bill. It has the support of the
leadership on the other side of the aisle and it has the support of our
leadership and the support of the White House.
I would urge when we get to the final vote, that all the Members of
this body support it. It is truly, as Mr. Natcher used to say, a
people's bill.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, my goal in Congress has been the
promotion of livable communities. A community that is safe, healthy and
economically secure must make the education of our children a priority.
The well-being of our families depends on the federal government
adequately funding health, education and worker protection programs.

[[Page H6635]]

Today's Labor-HHS Appropriations bill is a step in the right
direction. It triples the President's proposed rate of new educational
investment and significantly increases funding for health care and
worker protection programs.
The bill increases education funding by $7.0 billion over last year's
level, and $4.7 billion over the President's request. Over the last 5
years, the average annual rate of new educational investment has been
13%. The Bush budget proposed to cut this rate in half to only 5.5%,
but the bill passed today increases this to almost 17%--the highest in
a decade. Today's bill increases Title 1 funding, special education
funding and teacher training and class size reduction funding by over
$1 billion. These vital funds will help schools to hire up to 20,000
teachers to reduce class sizes and provide intensive, high quality and
sustained professional development to as many as 825,000 teachers.
I applaud the Appropriations committee for approving a bill that does
so much for health care in America. The bill increases health programs
in the Department of Health and Human Services by $3.4 billion, which
is a 10% increase above last year's level. We can all celebrate the
increase in funding for Head Start and bioterrorism preparedness.
The bill restores proposed enrollment cuts in Head Start with an
increase of $276 million over FY01 levels, preventing potential cuts of
as many as 2,500 children from current Head Start enrollment levels. We
must not neglect our children at this very important stage in their
development. Our communities will also feel the security of an
increased investment in the prevention of bioterrorism, a renewed
threat to our nation. It is important, now more than ever, that we are
prepared with the vaccines and drugs necessary to prevent exorbitant
injury and loss of life in the event of a bioterrorist attack.
I am particularly pleased that the bill will increased our commitment
to fighting HIV/AIDS, and helping the victims of this terrible disease.
The FY02 bill will increase Center for Disease Control AIDS prevention
and tracking funds by $53 million, and provide $112 million more than
the FY01 level for Ryan White grants.
I am also encouraged by several of the labor provisions included in
the bill. Funding for the Department of Labor is increased by 5%,
rather than cut by 3% as was proposed by the Administration, providing
growth in the major employment, training, and worker protection
programs. Some of those improvements include the bill's restoration of
the 180 employees that the White House budget proposed to cut from the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).
The bill increases Jobs Corps funding $75 million over last year,
reversing the President's proposal to flat fund the program. It also
restores funding to FY01 levels for the International Labor
Organization, reversing the President's proposal to cut $76 million our
of this program that works to prevent child and slave labor.
I am pleased that the committee provides $365 million in advance
funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. We all are aware
of the value of public broadcasting and that value is even more
apparent during our quest for information and news in the wake of the
September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
Of critical importance to Public Broadcasters is the Federal mandate
that all public TV stations expand from traditional analog to modern
digital transmission by May 2003. I appreciate the language in this
bill providing an additional $25 million for digitalization. Without
federal assistance for digital conversion, one-third of the 347 member
stations the Public Broadcasting System are considered at risk of
possibly losing their public television signal once the transition
period ends and analog transmission is no longer possible.
These are all important programs for advancing quality of life goals,
and supporting all of our citizens. I urge support for this bill.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bipartisan
agreement represented by H.R. 3061. The Labor, Health and Human
Services and Education appropriations bill.
I particularly want to applaud Chairman Regula and Ranking Member
Obey on the yeoman's job they have done to bring this bill to the
floor.
This bill provides significant increases for education above the
President's request, and restores and increases funding in many
critical health programs above the original request as well. Among
these, I am especially pleased that Healthy Start will receive a 13%
increase.
Our Minority HIV/AIDS initiative was not funded at its requested
level of $540 million. The committee however did provide an increase of
$37.3 million above last years funding, an increase of about 11%. For
that increase, which is reflected across the board in all of the
Departmental agencies, which have responsibility for HIV and AIDS, we
are grateful. While it is short of what we determined would be needed,
it has the potential to reach many infected and affected people within
communities of color and other hard to reach populations, who have been
disproportionately and devastatingly impacted by this disease.
What we still have major concerns about is the language, which does
not go far enough to ensure that this program funding will go to build
capacity in the most severely impacted communities of color.
We would ask that the leadership and those in the conference
committee continue to work with us to ensure that the intent and the
integrity of the Minority HIV/AIDS initiative--an initiative that would
not only begin to bring the epidemic that exists in our communities
under control, but also begin to repair and rebuild a now fragmented
healthcare infrastructure. In the long run, this small amount of
funding, with the appropriate targeting can greatly impact the health
status not only of those special populations we seek to reach but the
entire nation.
We look forward to addressing the language issue, as it will
determine how effective this funding will be.
In the meantime, we again thank the Committee and the Subcommittee
for their assistance and support.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the H.R. 3061, making
appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services,
and Education and a number of related agencies for the fiscal year
2002.
I want to commend Chairman Regula and Ranking Democrat Obey and the
Members of the Subcommittee on their fine, bipartisan work in crafting
this bill. While I do not agree with every provision of the bill--no
one does--I deeply appreciate the cooperation and restraint on both
sides of the aisle that have brought use to consideration of the bill
today.
This bill supports programs and services that are among the most
important to our constituents, both in ordinary times and in times of
crisis.
As we move forward from the dreadful attacks of September 11th, we
must continue to support our children's education, the health and well-
being of our people, and the ability of our workforce to thrive in the
economy of the 21st Century. At the same time, we must help those whose
lives have been disrupted in the aftermath of the attacks and
strengthen our long-neglected public health system to meet future
challenges, as the anthrax cases in Florida demonstrate.
The bill would provide $14 Billion for the Department of Labor,
including important increases in funding for the Job Corps, which has a
successful site in my district, and the Employment Standards
Administration (ESA) and Occupational Safety and Health Administration,
which protect workers from exploitation and injury.
The Department of Health and Human Services would receive $53 billion
in discretionary appropriations, including important initiatives in
countering bioterrorism, increases for biomedical research, disease
control and prevention, and health services. The $150 million increase
in funding for community health centers is particularly welcome. Also
receiving increases are the child care block grant, Head Start, and
other important social services programs, although I wish we could have
done more for LIHEAP.
The Education Department would receive $49 Billion, 17% above last
year. The President and Members on both sides of the aisle recognize
the crucial importance of reforming and funding better schools for our
children. In many ways, our future depends on this. The increase in the
Pell Grant to $4,000 is also to be applauded.
Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill. I might have put more money into
it and distributed the funds a bit differently, but I am pleased to
support it and urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3061, the
Fiscal Year 2001 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education
Appropriations bill. This legislation would provide $395 billion for
the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and
related agencies. I am especially pleased that this legislation would
provide a 16 percent increase for education funding and 12 percent
increase for biomedical research conducted through the National
Institutes of Health (NIH).
With regard to education, I am pleased that this bill would
dramatically increase funding for education programs by providing $7
billion over FY 2001 levels and $4.7 billion above the President's
request. Over the last five years, the average annual rate of new
educational investment has been 13 percent. This legislation would
increase the education investment to 17 percent--the highest in a
decade. While the bill does not include separate funding for the class-
size reduction initiative, I am pleased that the program was redirected
into teacher quality state grants. Under this legislation, these state
grants will receive a $1 billion increase to help schools reduce class
size and provide professional development for teachers

[[Page H6636]]

and other school employees. Additionally, the committee's inclusion of
$975 million for the President's Reading First initiation will enable
schools to bring proven, research-based reading programs to students in
the critical early learning years. The $1 billion increase for 21st
Century After School Centers will provide students with a quality after
school program. And for students continuing on to higher education, the
increase in the Pell Grant maximum grant to $4,000 will enable low-
income students to meet today's ever-increasing educational costs.
Additionally, the bill wisely rejects proposed enrollment cuts to Head
Start, preventing possible cuts for as many as 2,500 children from this
critically important program.
I am also pleased that the committee included a 50 percent increase
in the federal share of special education costs. Over a two-year
period, the funds will raise the federal share toward special education
costs to 18 percent from 12 percent. In 1975, Congress passed Public
Law 94-142, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA),
which committed the federal government to fund up to 40 percent of the
educational costs for children with disabilities. However, the federal
government's contribution has never exceeded 15 percent, a shortfall
that has caused financial hardships and difficult curriculum choices in
local school districts. According to the Department of Education,
educating a child with a disability costs an average of $15,000 each
year. However, the federal government only provides schools with an
average of just $833. While I believe the funding increase in this
legislation represents a step in the right direction, I believe we must
abide by our commitment to fund 40 percent of IDEA costs, and I am
hopeful that we will consider greater funding increases in the next
fiscal year.
While the overall bill is a good one, there are many important
programs that were level-funded or eliminated under this legislation.
To that end, I look forward to working with my colleagues to continue
funding for these programs at adequate levels, or in the case of school
modernization, to work for its reinstatement. In total, though, this
bill makes important investments in education, and will provide
America's children with the resources they need to succeed and be
productive members of our society.
As a Co-Chair of the Congressional Biomedical Research Caucus, I am
pleased that this legislation provides $22.9 billion for the National
Institutes of Health (NIH), an increase of 12 percent or $2.6 billion
more than last year's budget. This $22.9 billion NIH budget is our
fourth payment to double the NIH's budget over five years. I am
disappointed that this $22.9 billion does not provide the $3.4 billion
that we believe is necessary to maintain our goal of doubling the NIH's
budget over five years. Earlier this year, I organized a bipartisan
letter in support of this $3.4 billion increase for the NIH. I
understand that the Senate Labor, Health, and Human Services, and
Education Fiscal Year 2002 Appropriations bill includes a $3.4 billion
increase for the NIH. It is my hope that the conference committee will
adopt this higher NIH budget.
I am a strong supporter of maximizing federal funding for biomedical
research through the NIH. I believe that investing in biomedical
research is fiscally responsible. Today, only one in three meritorious,
peer-reviewed grants which have been judged to be scientifically
significant will be funded by the NIH. This higher budget will help
save lives and provide new treatments for such diseases as cancer,
heart disease, diabetes, Alzheimer's, and AIDS. Much of this NIH-
directed research will be conducted at the teaching hospitals at the
Texas Medical Center. In 2000, the Texas Medical Center received $289
million in grants from the NIH. I will continue to work to ensure the
highest level of funding for the NIH.
I am also pleased that this bill provides $393 million for countering
bioterrorism, including $100 more above last year's budget. In light of
the recent terrorism acts, I believe we all believe that this investing
in our national public health system is necessary and prudent. This
budget provides $301 million for the Public Health and Social Services
Emergency Fund which would support programs at the Office of Emergency
Preparedness. As the representative for the Texas Medical Center, which
was recently affected by devastating flooding by Tropical Storm
Allison, I can attest to the need for such funding. During this natural
disaster, the Office of Emergency Preparedness was one of the first
federal agencies to provide relief to our area and I applaud their
efforts to immediately act to help during disasters. This $393 million
budget will also provide $93 million in bioterrorism research at the
NIH.
In addition, I support the $4.1 billion budget for the Centers for
Disease Control, a $214 million increase or 6 percent increase above
last year's budget. The CDC is critically important to monitoring our
public health and fighting disease. Of this $4.1 billion CDC budget,
$1.1 billion will be provided to address HIV/AIDS programs and to
combat tuberculosis. This CDC budget also provided $599 million to
provide immunizations to low-income children. Immunizations have been
shown to save lives and reduce health care costs. Investing in our
children is a goal which we all share.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and vote for this
important health, education and labor funding measure.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support
for forward funding of the LIHEAP program. Due to the nature of winters
in Chicago and the east coast we can now implement safe guards for all
our citizens. As we approach the coming winter months, preparation by
forward funding can eliminate overwhelming burdens placed on low income
families. The city of Chicago alone, has seen tremendous fatality rates
due to excessively hot summers and extremely cold winters. The
Department of Justice estimates that home heating oil prices could be
30% higher this winter from the previous winter and that natural gas
prices could surge 40% higher. More than 150,000 of my constituents
lives at or below the poverty level and with these circumstances are
often faced with harsh and difficult decisions. Some of these citizens
are forced to choose between medicine and cool air in the summer and
between food and heath for their homes in the winter. According to the
Roundtable Report to the Public Utilities Committee of the House of
Representatives, the average winter bill for a typical family of four
is 5.9% of their annual income. A family of four living at 125% of
poverty pays between 20% to 37% of their annual income for winter
heating cost. The low income families cannot afford to pay these high
energy cost. Therefore, I am in strong support of Representative
Quinn's amendment for an advance in the LIHEAP funding. We already know
that many low income families will fall behind on their heating bills;
however, we can offer an alternative by the passage of this amendment.
I urge its consideration and passage.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, when my children were growing up and
before they had an understanding of the family budget, they would ask
for things that we were sometimes unable to provide. They were usually
extravagant things we simply could not afford. We didn't blame them for
asking--they were just kids--they didn't know better.
What is our excuse? Is there a Member of the body who can't
understanding the fiscal implications of declining Federal revenues
combined with the cost of financing of a war?
How many of us I wonder will file down here and dutifully cast our
vote for this bloated, extravagant, piece of profligate spending and
then go home to tell our constituents that we are appalled by the fact
that the Social Security surplus has been blown.
There is more than one kind of threat to the Nation--one stems from
foreign terrorists and another from the fiscal irresponsibility of
budget busting appropriations like this.
The 12.6 percent increase in this bill is unconscionable. I am not
saying that the hundreds of programs funded in this bill are not all
individually wonderful. They will surely bring about a totally literate
society while concurrently wiping out poverty in America as one would
be led to believe by listening to the rhetoric supporting it. What I am
saying is that they are not as important as providing for the common
defense. This after all is the thing for which we have sole and
paramount responsibility--it is not our main responsibility to be the
Nation's school board or health care provider.
And Mr. Chairman, I know it is hard to hear what I am going to say.
It was hard to tell it to our kids but here it goes--we can't afford
this bill. If we can't defeat it I hope the President will act as the
adult here and veto the bill.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member wishes to add his strong
support for H.R. 3061, the Labor, Health and Human Services and
Education Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2002. This Member would
like to commend the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], the
Chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human
Services and Education, and the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin
[Mr. Obey], the ranking member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee
on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education, for bringing this
important bill to the House Floor today.
In particular, this Member supports the additional $25,000,000
provided to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting for digitalization.
Public broadcasting has been issued a mandate to be on the air with a
digital signal by 2003. By FY 2004 all stations will bear the
additional costs of dual carriage of analog and digital signals.
Nebraska ETV Network has worked closely with this Member and has
informed me and shown evidence that they anticipate using the digital
signal to offer multicating and interactive video that will enable the
network to address even more needs of children and adult learners. The
State of Nebraska has already committed significant resources to
convert the nine-station Nebraska ETV Network to digital

[[Page H6637]]

technology. The funding plan approved by Nebraska's legislature and
governor to ensure the Network's compliance with the Federal mandate
assumed a commitment from the Federal Government to help close the DTV
funding gap. If we are to ensure that our local communities continue to
receive the rich educational, cultural and informational programs and
services offered by local public television stations, we must help
them.
On another issue, the Member would like to commend his colleagues for
their continued support of efforts to improve the delivery of health
services in rural areas. Specifically, H.R. 3061 provides $142 million
for the National Health Service Corps, which plays a critical role in
maintaining the health-care safety net by placing primary health-care
providers in our nation's most underserved rural and urban communities.
The measure also appropriates $1.319 billion for the Consolidated
Health Centers program--$150 million more than fiscal year 2001.
Community Health Centers (CHCs) provide primary and preventive care to
medically underserved and uninsured people, including 5.4 million rural
residents. Certainly, this Member commends this effort and encourages
the expansion community health center services to address the needs of
rural and underserved communities.
This Member is especially pleased that the appropriations bill
provides $35 million for the Medicare Rural Health Flexibility Program.
Nebraska has been on the forefront of converting rural hospitals to
critical access status. As of October 1, 2001, Nebraska has 53 Critical
Access Hospitals which is the most in the country.

Furthermore, H.R. 3061 appropriates $52 million to the Rural Health
Outreach and Network Development and Research Grant Program and $27.6
million to the Rural Telemedicine Grant program. These grants are
available to rural communities working to provide health care services
through new and creative strategies including telemedicine and trauma
care services.
Additionally, this Member would like to take this opportunity to
explain his ``nay'' vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Colorado [Mr. Schaffer], a vote taken with some reluctance but very
careful consideration. Within this Member's home state of Nebraska, the
number of children enrolled in special education programs has risen by
3,700 students from 1995-1999, a nine percent increase. This Member has
always supported fulfilling the commitment made by Congress made in
1975, which this Member notes was prior to his service in U.S. House,
to fund IDEA at 40 percent.
Currently, the Federal Government is funding an average of 12.6
percent of the per pupil expenditure for children with disabilities.
The other 27.4 percent of our unfilled promise is a burden that state
and local governments are having to include in their budgets. This
Member has said for many years now that the one significant way that
Congress can help decrease property taxes for his Nebraska constituents
as well as to meet their other programmatic, construction or enhanced
teacher salary priorities, is to keep the congressional promise to
provide 40 percent of the costs of special education.
Of course, it would be ideal to have the full 40 percent funding of
IDEA in the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education
Appropriations Act. However, the Schaffer amendment would have severely
cut appropriations for disadvantaged children through Title I,
vocational education and TRIO in order to offset the increase in IDEA
funding. The underlying bill (H.R. 3061) provides a $1.4 billion
increase for IDEA, which is $400 million above the President's request.
Furthermore, this Member notes that over the past two years, funding
for IDEA has been increased by $2.7 billion.
Mr. Chairman, in closing, this Member urges his colleagues to support
H.R. 3061.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in strong support of
H.R. 3061, the FY02 Labor, HHS and Education spending bill.
First, I want to thank Chairman Regula for his yeoman's work on this
legislation. Each year, the spending bill for the Departments of Labor,
HHS, and Education is among the most difficult to complete and this
year is no exception.
H.R. 3061 builds on investments in education which really began to
take off in FY96. At the time, K-12 funding totaled $11.2 billion.
Since then, K-12 funding has increased to $20 billion in FY01, and I am
pleased to say that this investment continues even today.
More important, H.R. 3061 reflects the bipartisan education
priorities that passed the House as part of the No Child Left Behind
Act, and it increases funding for programs, like IDEA and Title I,
which haven't always received sufficient funding in the past.
Since the enactment of IDEA, Congress has increased funding for State
grants under this act from $251.7 million in FY1997 to $6.34 billion in
FY2001, with the amount appropriated for State grants nearly tripling
in just the last six years.
Under the leadership of former Members Porter and Goodling, we have
increased funding by more than $4 billion--175% increase in the Federal
contribution.
This year we will add an additional $1.4 billion, increasing the
total to $7.7 billion. This is the highest level of Federal support
ever provided for children with disabilities, with the level of Federal
funding growing from 7 percent of the per pupil expenditure to 18
percent.
While this bill may not fully fund IDEA, I believe it takes a
significant and responsible step in the right direction. More
important, it gives the Education and the Workforce Committee the
flexibility it needs to successfully reauthorize the program next year.
H.R. 3061 also helps address the problem of overidentification of
special needs children in IDEA by fully funding the President's request
on the reading first and early reading first programs. This more than
triples our current investment in reading instruction.
We have seen tremendous increases in the number of students, and
African American students in particular, diagnosed with learning
disabilities and referred to special education. As former Chairman
Goodling used to say, we will never get to full funding until we
address this problem.
If we are able to identify and intervene with these children--as
proposed in reading first and early reading first--we take the first
step in reducing the number of students who cannot read, reduce special
education referrals, and pave the way to fully funding IDEA.
On Title I, AID to disadvantaged children, H.R. 3061 appropriates
$10.5 billion, an increase of $1.9 billion. This funding will support
the reforms in the No Child Left Behind Act, which will require
additional funds to turn around failing schools and ensure all students
are proficient in reading and math.
Also critical to the successful implementation of the No Child Left
Behind Act, the bill provides $400 million to help States develop and
implement the annual reading and math assessments for students in
grades 3-8. In so doing, H.R. 3061 puts a downpayment on our system of
accountability--the heart of our education reform package.
In conclusion, I want to again thank Chairman Regula and Chairman
Young for their excellent work on this legislation. They have managed
to produce a balanced bill that will help our country fundamentally
change the way we educate our children for the better.

K-12 FUNDING
[In billions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funding
Fiscal year level
-------------------------------------------------------------------\1\--

DEMOCRAT MAJORITY
1990.......................................................... 8.5
1991.......................................................... 9.7
1992.......................................................... 10.7
1993.......................................................... 10.7
1994.......................................................... 11.0
1995.......................................................... 11.3
Note.--Average year increase 6 percent.
Total spending, $61.9 billion.
32.9 percent overall increase 1990-1995.

REPUBLICAN MAJORITY
1996.......................................................... 11.2
1997.......................................................... 12.5
1998.......................................................... 13.4
1999.......................................................... 15.7
2000.......................................................... 16.6
2001.......................................................... 19.7
Note.--Average year increase 12.1 percent.
Total spending $89.1 billion.
75.9 percent overall increase 1996-2001.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes Goals 2000, School-to-Work, ESEA and VocEd.

The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the order of the House of today, 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 as read.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

H.R. 3061

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, 2002, and
for other purposes, namely:

TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I do have an amendment to offer. I had planned to offer
a

[[Page H6638]]

couple of amendments having to do with funding for IDEA, special
education.
But I have to say that within the constraints of the budget, the
distinguished subcommittee chairman, my friend, the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Regula), has done an extraordinary job in raising funding for this
critical program by $1.375 billion. I believe that is the greatest
increase that we have had from this body since I have been here.
It does not meet the objective of reaching 40 percent, or our
mandate, within a specified period of 5 or even 10 years, but it
recognizes, and certainly it is an extraordinarily commendable effort
on the part of this subcommittee, and expresses the intent of this
subcommittee chairman to meet this goal as quickly as possible.
We do have opportunities on the horizon. IDEA will be up for
reauthorization next year. It is my hope that we can combine the
process of reauthorization with an effort to set this Congress on a
path to meeting the 40 percent funding goal in a set period of time.
I thank the chairman for his hard work in this area.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BASS. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I want to add to that that the minority
also is extremely supportive of this increase, and there truly is
bipartisan support for the program.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

training and employment services

For necessary expenses of the Workforce Investment Act,
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 the Workforce Investment
Act; the Women in Apprenticeship and Nontraditional
Occupations Act; and the National Skill Standards Act of
1994; $3,485,147,000 plus reimbursements, of which
$2,110,707,000 is available for obligation for the period
July 1, 2002, through June 30, 2003; of which $1,353,065,000
is available for obligation for the period April 1, 2002,
through June 30, 2003; and of which $20,375,000 is available
for the period July 1, 2002, through June 30, 2005, for
necessary expenses of construction, rehabilitation, and
acquisition of Job Corps centers: Provided, That $3,500,000
shall be for carrying out the National Skills Standards Act
of 1994: 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,
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 the Workforce Investment
Act; $2,098,000,000 plus reimbursements, of which
$1,998,000,000 is available for obligation for the period
October 1, 2002, through June 30, 2003; and of which
$100,000,000 is available for the period October 1, 2002,
through June 30, 2005, for necessary expenses of
construction, rehabilitation, and acquisition of Job Corps
centers.

community service employment for older americans

To carry out title V of the Older Americans Act of 1965, as
amended, $440,200,000.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder
of title I 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 title I is as follows:

federal unemployment benefits and allowances

For payments during the current fiscal year of trade
adjustment benefit payments and allowances under part I; and
for training, allowances for job search and relocation, and
related State administrative expenses under part II,
subchapters B and D, chapter 2, title II of the Trade Act of
1974, as amended, $11,000,000, 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.
In addition, for such purposes, $404,650,000, to become
available only upon the enactment of authorizing legislation.

state unemployment insurance and employment service operations

For authorized administrative expenses, $163,452,000,
together with not to exceed $3,236,886,000 (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, 2002, except
that funds used for automation acquisitions shall be
available for obligation by the States through September 30,
2004; and of which $163,452,000, together with not to exceed
$773,283,000 of the amount which may be expended from said
trust fund, shall be available for obligation for the period
July 1, 2002, through June 30, 2003, 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 2002 is projected by the
Department of Labor to exceed 2,622,000, 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 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, 2003, $464,000,000.
In addition, for making repayable advances to the Black
Lung Disability Trust Fund in the current fiscal year after
September 15, 2002, 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, $113,356,000, including $5,934,000 to administer
welfare-to-work grants, together with not to exceed
$48,507,000, which may be expended from the Employment
Security Administration Account in the Unemployment Trust
Fund.

Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses for the Pension and Welfare Benefits
Administration, $109,866,000.

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 through September
30, 2002, for such Corporation: Provided, That not to exceed
$11,690,000 shall be available for administrative expenses of
the Corporation: Provided further, That expenses of such
Corporation in connection with the termination of pension
plans, for the acquisition, protection or management, and
investment of trust assets, and for benefits administration
services shall be considered as non-administrative expenses
for the purposes hereof, and excluded from the above
limitation.

Employment Standards Administration

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses for the Employment Standards
Administration, including reimbursement to State, Federal,
and local agencies and their employees for inspection
services rendered, $367,650,000, together with $1,981,000
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 $2,000,000
shall be for the development of an alternative system for the
electronic submission of reports as required to

[[Page H6639]]

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,
$121,000,000 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, 2001, 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, 2002: 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, $36,696,000 shall be
made available to the Secretary as follows: (1) for the
operation of and enhancement to the automated data processing
systems, including document imaging, and conversion to a
paperless office, $24,522,000; (2) for medical bill review
and periodic roll management, $11,474,000; (3) for
communications redesign, $700,000; 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.

Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program

For necessary expenses to administer the Energy Employees
Occupational Illness Compensation Act, $136,000,000, 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 2002 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)

For payments from the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund,
$1,036,115,000, of which $981,283,000 shall be available
until September 30, 2003, for payment of all benefits as
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, and
of which $31,558,000 shall be available for transfer to
Employment Standards Administration, Salaries and Expenses,
$22,590,000 for transfer to Departmental Management, Salaries
and Expenses, $328,000 for transfer to Departmental
Management, Office of Inspector General, and $356,000 for
payment into miscellaneous receipts for the expenses of the
Department of Treasury, for expenses of operation and
administration of the Black Lung Benefits program as
authorized by section 9501(d)(5) of that Act: Provided, That,
in addition, such amounts as may be necessary may be charged
to the subsequent year appropriation for the payment of
compensation, interest, or other benefits for any period
subsequent to August 15 of the current year.

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses for the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration, $435,307,000, including not to exceed
$88,694,000 which shall be the maximum amount available for
grants to States under section 23(g) of the Occupational
Safety and Health 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 Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970; 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, 2002, 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 Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970
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 Occupational Safety and Health
Act of 1970 with respect to any employer of 10 or fewer
employees who is included within a category having an
occupational injury lost workday case rate, at the most
precise Standard 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.

Mine Safety and Health Administration

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses for the Mine Safety and Health
Administration, $251,725,000, including purchase and bestowal
of certificates and trophies in connection with mine rescue
and first-aid work, and the hire of passenger motor vehicles;
including up to $1,000,000 for mine rescue and recovery
activities, which shall be available only to the extent that
fiscal year 2002 obligations for these activities exceed
$1,000,000; 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

[[Page H6640]]

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,
$397,696,000, together with not to exceed $69,132,000, which
may be expended from the Employment Security Administration
Account in the Unemployment Trust Fund; and $10,280,000,
which shall be available for obligation for the period of
July 1, 2002, through June 30, 2003, for Occupational
Employment Statistics.

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, $33,053,000, of which $2,640,000 shall be
for the President's Task Force on the Employment of Adults
with Disabilities.

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 bilateral and multilateral
foreign technical assistance, and $51,708,000 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; $383,568,000; together with not to
exceed $310,000, 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.).

assistant secretary for veterans employment and training

Not to exceed $186,903,000 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, 2002. To carry out the Stewart B.
McKinney Homeless Assistance Act and section 168 of the
Workforce Investment Act of 1998, $24,800,000, of which
$7,300,000 shall be available for obligation for the period
July 1, 2002, through June 30, 2003.

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, $52,182,000, together with
not to exceed $4,951,000, which may be expended from the
Employment Security Administration Account in the
Unemployment Trust Fund.

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.
This title may be cited as the ``Department of Labor
Appropriations Act, 2002''.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to title I?
Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the chairman of the subcommittee
in a colloquy.
I would ask the gentleman, in the bill language relating to H.R. 3621
he stated that the funding is provided for school improvement programs,
including the rural education program as ``redesignated and amended by
H.R. 1 as passed by the House of Representatives on May 23, 2001.''
Is it the committee's intent, Mr. Chairman, that the funding for the
rural education program follow the program structure and funding
distribution as outlined in H.R. 1, title I, part (G), regarding rural
schools?
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HILLEARY. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. REGULA. Yes, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct. The
committee's intention is to provide funding for programs included in
H.R. 1, the No Child Left Behind Act, as it was passed by the House
this spring.
Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for clearing up that
ambiguity.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there other amendments to title I?

Amendment Offered by Mr. Istook

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Istook:
Page 18, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $3,072,000)''.
Page 21, line 13, after the first dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $36,170,000) (increased by
$33,000,000)''.
Page 22, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $33,000,000)''.
Page 23, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $33,000,000)''.
Page 39, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $17,708,000)''.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, the effect of this amendment is to increase
by $33 million the amount appropriated for abstinence education, as has
been defined by this Congress in previous legislation.
Let me first state, Mr. Chairman, that I appreciate that the
gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) in this base bill has increased
the funding for abstinence education. My regret is that it is not to a
level that many of us consider satisfactory, but that should not remove
our appreciation for the fact that it has been increased.
We have had for many years, for decades, Mr. Chairman, Federal
funding for so-called family planning or safe sex programs, as they are
often called. But Mr. Chairman, that has not reversed the trend of
increase in teen births out of wedlock.
However, in recent years, Federal funding began in 1995 and private
funding began in the couple of years before that, and in recent years
we have seen a very different approach that has taken place; that is,
promoting abstinence as the surest and only way to prevent sexually-
transmitted diseases, or to prevent the out-of-wedlock births among
teenagers.
Indeed, President George W. Bush, when he was campaigning, made the
commitment to bring the level of Federal funding for abstinence
education to the same level as we are spending on the family planning
and safe sex programs. That is what this amendment does. By the $33
million increase, it brings parity.
What we mean by that is we follow the definition of this Congress to
say that we are talking about the funding for education that has as its
exclusive purpose teaching the social, psychological, and health gains
to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity, and teaching that
abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage is the expected
standard for all school-aged children, and the only certain way to
avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancies, to avoid sexually-transmitted
diseases, and to avoid other associated health problems.
Indeed, only with the advent of abstinence education have we seen in
the last couple of years a reversal of the long-standing and deplorable
trend in this country of increases in teenage unwed births.

[[Page H6641]]

{time} 1445

Earlier this year, for the first time, grants were made to applicants
by the Department of Health and Human Services, putting out the first
20 million in competitive grants for this purpose. They were
overwhelmed. It was the greatest tide of applications they have ever
seen for any program. Over 359 entities across the country seeking some
$165 million applied for a program that only had $20 million available
to it.
We need to increase the amount of money we are putting into
abstinence education for the benefit of our kids, for the benefit of
our Nation, which pays exorbitant costs with out-of-wedlock births and
supporting the social problems that come from them, and we need to
start reinforcing what we teach our children at home, what we teach our
children at church, but too often is undercut by the messages sent by
the Federal Government.
Rather than defunding the Federal Government's programs relating to
so-called safe sex, we are seeking parity. We are seeking equity which
was what the commitment was by President Bush; and indeed, since the
original budget was submitted by the Bush administration, the amount
that we made available for this bill has gone up by some $2 billion
which created the room to make this comparatively minor increase in
abstinence education funding.
The Office of Management and Budget has submitted, we have made it
available to the Members, their letter supporting this increase in
funding to abstinence education. Let us bring the account up from the
40 million it has in the bill to 73 million which will be the effect of
this amendment. It is money that we can easily afford to fund. It keeps
the commitment certainly of Mr. Bush, but more importantly than that,
it keeps in place the values that we teach our kids and says we want to
reinforce them and not to be undercutting them.
So, Mr. Chairman, I certainly move the adoption of this amendment
that brings parity in the funding of these accounts and within the
scope of a bill as large as this one is a comparatively minor
adjustment.

Point of Order

The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) insist on his
point of order?
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, yes, I do.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) proposes to amend portions of the bill not yet
read. The amendment may not be considered en bloc under clause 2(f) of
rule XXI because the amendment proposes to increase the level of budget
authority in the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other Members seeking to be heard on the
point of order?
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I wish to be heard.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, it is our understanding from the
parliamentarian that it is necessary that the amendment be offered at a
place in the bill where the first adjustment, the first offset is being
made which is the point at which we have offered it in this bill.
Furthermore, it is dollar for dollar the same as the amount that is
contained in those sections of the bill involving any sort of transfer.
I would ask the Chair to overrule the point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there other Members who wish to be heard on the
point of order? If not, the Chair will rule.
To be considered en bloc pursuant to clause 2(f) of rule XXI an
amendment must not propose to increase the levels of budget authority
or outlays in the bill. Because the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) proposes a net increase in the level of
budget authority or outlays in the bill as argued by the chairman of
the subcommittee on appropriations, it may not avail itself of clause
2(f) to address portions of the bill not yet read.
For that reason, the point of order is sustained.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, would the Chair yield for a parliamentary
inquiry?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, the inquiry is when the amounts are dollar
for dollar the same as within the bill, upon reliance upon what
documents can the Chair maintain that it is anything else than dollar
for dollar the same amounts. If the Chair is referring to some
extraneous document, I think we would like to be aware of that.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oklahoma has the burden of proof to
show that his amendment and budget authority and outlays is neutral.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I offer the fact that on the face of the
amendment, it is dollar for dollar the same. If there is anything that
says it is not the same, then this body is entitled to know, that we
might proceed in order and make sure that valid issues can be
undertaken.
The CHAIRMAN. Even if the gentleman's argument is correct, the
outlays and budget authority must be neutral. The committee is arguing
that, in fact, they are not. The Chair sustains the position of the
committee.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, nobody has given what they purport to be a
differing amount of budget authority or outlay.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has the burden of proof. If he has a CBO
score, the Chair would be happy to receive it.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, as a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, if the Chair is referring to any document
or source that purports that the BA is any different than the dollar
for dollar that is in here, my parliamentary inquiry is upon what does
the Chair rely?
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is relying on assertions of the Committee on
Appropriations. The burden of proof lies in the hands of the gentleman
from Oklahoma.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, when the Chair says relying upon
assertions, the only assertion that has been presented on the floor is
the raising of the point of order contesting whether that is the case
as opposed to a factual assertion that is the case. If the Chair is
relying upon a factual assertion made by the committee or anyone else,
that is what I seek to learn.
The CHAIRMAN. If the gentleman wishes to challenge the assertions of
the committee, he must have evidence from the CBO.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, the committee has not made an assertion.
The committee has posed a question to the Chair. The Chair has said it
has received an assertion but has not told us the source. It has not
said that assertion came on the floor in a document, through something
extraneous, through this regular order.
The CHAIRMAN. The assertion of the subcommittee is from the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the subcommittee chairman.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
Does that mean that any time that the presenter of a bill on the
floor raises a point of order asking the Chair whether something is in
order between budget authority and outlay, that the Chair will
automatically assume that the point of order is well taken? That seems
to be the position that has been asserted.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would restate that the gentleman has the
burden of proof. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) has the
burden of proof.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, so the burden of proof is not on the person
raising the point of order? Is not that a shift of the burden of proof?
The CHAIRMAN. In this particular case it is on the offerer of the
amendment.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. Does the burden rest
upon the person raising a point of order?
The CHAIRMAN. The offerer of any amendment always has the burden of
proof to show that; the burden of proof in showing that their amendment
would be in order.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, does that mean that any person contesting
any dollar amendment can always raise a point of order that it is not
the same within budget authority and that point of order will
automatically be sustained absent some outside authority?

[[Page H6642]]

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would state that if it is a factual
contention the offerer of the amendment must, in fact, provide the
burden of proof.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I have contended that these are the same
amounts, and you are saying that the factual assertion of a Member has
no standing because of an arbitrary action.
The CHAIRMAN. It is long-standing precedent of the House shown on
page 802 of the manual that the offerer of the amendment has the burden
of proof under clause 2 of rule XXI.
Mr. ISTOOK. So, therefore, there is no burden of proof resting upon
the person who raises a point of order under the Chair's ruling?
The CHAIRMAN. When there is a factual contention the burden of proof
is on the offerer of the amendment.
Mr. ISTOOK. I thank the Chairman. We will reoffer the amendment as
many times as are necessary to make sure that it is in order.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title I?
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Health Resources and Services Administration

health resources and services

For carrying out titles II, III, 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 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, $5,691,480,000, of
which $35,000,000 from general revenues, notwithstanding
section 1820(j) of the Social Security Act, shall be
available for carrying out 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 $15,000,000 is available for
carrying out the provisions of Public Law 104-73: Provided
further, That of the funds made available under this heading,
$264,170,000 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 $649,000,000 shall be
for State AIDS Drug Assistance Programs authorized by section
2616 of the Public Health Service Act: Provided further,
That, notwithstanding section 502(a)(1) of the Social
Security Act, not to exceed $116,145,000 is available for
carrying out special projects of regional and national
significance pursuant to section 501(a)(2) of such Act. For
special projects of regional and national significance under
section 501(a)(2) of the Social Security Act, $10,000,000:
Provided further, That such amount shall not be counted
toward compliance with the allocation required in section
502(a)(1) of such Act: Provided further, That such amount
shall be used only for making competitive grants to provide
abstinence education (as defined in section 510(b)(2) of such
Act) to adolescents and for evaluations (including
longitudinal evaluations) of activities under the grants and
for Federal costs of administering the grants: Provided
further, That grants 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 the
abstinence education was provided: Provided further, That the
funds expended for such evaluations may not exceed 3.5
percent of such amount.

health education assistance loans program

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, $3,792,000.

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 $2,992,000
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, 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 insurance
of official motor vehicles in foreign countries; and hire,
maintenance, and operation of aircraft, $4,077,060,000, of
which $175,000,000 shall remain available until expended for
equipment and construction and renovation of facilities, and
of which $137,527,000 for international HIV/AIDS shall remain
available until September 30, 2003, and 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, up to $93,964,000 shall be available
from amounts available under section 241 of the Public Health
Service Act to carry out the National Center for Health
Statistics surveys: 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 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
$10,000,000 may be available for making grants under section
1509 of the Public Health Service Act to not more than 15
States.

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, $4,146,291,000.

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, $2,547,675,000.

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,
$339,268,000.

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, $1,446,705,000.

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, $1,306,321,000.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I had an amendment that I am going to withdraw because
I appreciate the work done by the chairman and ranking member on this
issue. But I think when we talk about health care, it is important to
raise the point about an aspect of health care that is not getting the
attention that it needs, and that I would hope that in conference
committee the chairman and the ranking member could help us address it.
Mr. Chairman, that deals with the crisis in dental care in the United
States of America.
I am more than aware of the overall crisis in health care. I strongly
support a national health care program that would guarantee health care
to every man, woman, and child. I think that we need to make
fundamental changes in our health care system. But having said that, it
is imperative to talk about something that is very rarely talked about.
And that is all over the United States of America, we have children, we
have adults, we have senior citizens, who simply cannot gain access to
a dental office and get their teeth adequately dealt with.
I held a hearing in Montpelier, Vermont several months ago; and I was

[[Page H6643]]

stunned to learn in my own city of Burlington we have low-income
children who have teeth rotting in their mouths who cannot gain access
to a dental office.
There are many reasons for the dental crisis. Number one, we do not
have enough dentists in this country; and many of our dentists are
getting old and are retiring. And we are not bringing enough younger
people into the dental profession. Second of all, the kind of
reimbursement rates we have for dental care on the Medicaid are
inadequate. Thirdly, the dental clinics all over this country are not
giving adequate support to dentistry.

{time} 1500

So, Mr. Chairman, if I may ask the chairman of the committee, my
friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), if he could give me some
assurance that in conference committee we can pay more attention than
we have to the dental crisis which exists among low-income people in
this country.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I think the bill has been pretty sensitive
to research; but I believe what the gentleman is addressing is the
providing of dental care, and that really would, I think, be a Ways and
Means jurisdiction more so than our committee.
Mr. SANDERS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would respectfully
suggest to my friend that there are provisions in this bill which
provide grants through the Rural Outreach Grants Program, which include
dental programs, although primarily it is not dental. But I would hope
that at conference committee time an effort could be made to expand
funding or add funding to that in order to make sure that low-income
kids in this country do not continue to have teeth rotting in their
mouths.
Mr. REGULA. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I understand the
problem. I dealt with the Bureau of Indian Affairs for many years, and
they have probably as much in the way of dental problems as any group
in our society. So I am sympathetic to it. However, it is a matter of
where we get the resources to do that.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply respond by relating this
story. I announced the opening of a dental clinic in a four-county area
in my district last year. When I was at that clinic, one woman told me
that she had a son who was very, very sick. Her husband was also very,
very ill and could not work, so she was on Medicaid. She desperately
needed a dentist to take the braces off that child's teeth. She could
not find one, even though she had called over 30 dentists. As a result,
she held the kid down, while the father took the braces off with a pair
of pliers.
In my view, that should not happen to any American. I am for anything
anywhere that can increase dental care providers and services, and I
will do anything that is possibly within our reach to try to deal with
the problem. Unfortunately, as the gentleman says, most of what needs
to be done is within the Medicaid area, over which this committee does
not have jurisdiction.
Mr. SANDERS. Reclaiming my time once again, Mr. Chairman, I thank the
gentleman from Wisconsin for his comments.
I will withdraw my amendment, Mr. Chairman, with the hope that all of
us can focus on a major crisis that exists all over this country,
perhaps most clearly in rural America, and with the hope that we can
work together to begin effectively addressing this.
Mr. QUINN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I thank
the gentleman from Ohio for allowing me the opportunity to talk just
for a few minutes about the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program,
otherwise known as LIHEAP. I want to thank the subcommittee for the
$1.7 billion in regular and the $300 million in emergency
appropriations for LIHEAP in this bill. This is a generous increase
over the President's request, and I believe it will make a significant
difference in the lives of many poor people this winter.
The amendment I would have submitted, but which I will withdraw and
have withdrawn, would have made advance appropriations for $2 million
for LIHEAP for fiscal year 2003, guaranteeing the State LIHEAP
administrators a firm figure upon which to plan their advances for next
winter. Although there is language in the 2002 budget resolution
allowing advance appropriations for LIHEAP, the Committee on Rules this
past week did not grant a waiver and the amendment was ruled out of
order.
We all know that these LIHEAP funds are most efficiently used when
the State LIHEAP administrators know how much money they are going to
get before they open up their programs. Winter heating programs need to
be prepared for in August before the appropriations have been made. We
seem to fight this battle and have the discussion each year. Winter
heating seasons, particularly when the appropriations process has been
delayed beyond the beginning of the fiscal year, need to begin before
the funding generally arrives.
Mr. Chairman, advance appropriations would allow the LIHEAP
administrators to know prior to the beginning of the fiscal year what
resources they will have to work with. They could therefore plan for a
certain amount of money, determine how many applicants they will be
able to help, stretch each dollar to its maximum extent, and provide a
measure of reassurance for households who very well may have to choose
between heat and food.
This is of particular concern this year. I would like to remind my
colleagues that the LIHEAP cases were up 30 percent last winter, but
most States were only able to help about 15 percent of their
applicants. In the emergency appropriations bill passed this summer,
there was $300 million in LIHEAP funding. This money should have been
distributed immediately to help the families with children and the
elderly who were unable to pay for their heating bills from last
winter.
The Department of Health and Human Services has signed off on the
money; but because OMB has not released the funding, these people are
in even worse situation than they were this past summer. Still behind
in their bills, still cut off, some of them, from heat, gas, and
electricity, and winter is at our doorstep.
I would like to urge the House to press for the release of these
emergency LIHEAP funds by OMB immediately and also to allow advance
appropriations for this vital and important program next year.
I want to thank the chairman, on behalf of the Northeast-Midwest
coalition here in the House, made up of States in our region, Members
of both parties, for his attention to this matter.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. QUINN. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I would simply say there has been no
greater advocate for the LIHEAP program than my friend from New York,
and I appreciate his efforts and I appreciate his remarks. His
compliments were directed toward the chairman of the subcommittee; but
I think also it is fair to say that the ranking member and the chairman
have worked closely together, and I appreciate his acknowledgment of
the generosity of the bill as it is with regard to LIHEAP. I would
reiterate that the bill includes the highest funding level ever
provided for the LIHEAP program at $2 billion.
So I thank the gentleman for his efforts. I am sure he will persevere
in the particular idea which he had for us today.
Mr. QUINN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman
very much. We appreciate the cooperation we received from both sides of
the aisle in the subcommittee and the full committee.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word to engage in
a colloquy with my colleague from California.
Mr. Chairman, I had intended to offer an amendment designed to
correct an inequity in current law which penalizes students who attend
low-cost colleges. Since 1973, the Federal Pell Grant program has
helped nearly 80 million low- and middle-income students pay for
college. At just one community college

[[Page H6644]]

in my district, Glendale Community College, about 3,500 students
receive Pell grants each year. And while their tuition may be less than
$1,000 for an academic year, the full cost of attendance for a 9-month
academic year is estimated to be over $5,600; and that is for a student
living at home with parents or relatives.
Unfortunately, these students and others at community colleges in
California do not receive the full Pell grant award. At these colleges,
books can often surpass the cost of tuition; and add to that other
costs and fees of higher education, and there is an enormous burden on
the lowest-income students. The tuition sensitivity provision unfairly
penalizes these students in States like California, which have kept
tuition low by strong State support for higher education. These are the
poorest students at the least expensive schools.
My colleagues might be wondering why they have not heard of the
tuition-sensitivity provision. The answer is that right now this rule
only affects California students. However, as the Pell grant increases,
the tuition-sensitivity rule will limit financial aid to students in
other States, like Texas, North Carolina, Arkansas, Arizona, New
Mexico, and Oklahoma, just to name a few.
By repealing the tuition-sensitivity trigger, we assure fairness and
equity; we incentivize States to support higher education, not back
away from funding. I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from
California (Mr. McKeon), for all his work on this issue and his
willingness to work together in the reauthorization process. He has
done an extraordinary job for the students of California.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SCHIFF. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, my good friend and
neighbor from California, for yielding; and I appreciate the
opportunity to discuss this very important issue.
I want to assure my friend that I am very much aware of the Pell
grant tuition-sensitivity provisions in current law that limit the
ability of California's lowest-income community college students from
receiving the maximum Pell grant award. As the chairman of the
Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness, which has jurisdiction
over higher-education issues, I have long been a strong supporter of
addressing the tuition-sensitivity provision.
The tuition-sensitivity provision in the Higher Education Act
precludes students, as the gentleman said, from the lowest-cost
institutions, like those attending California community colleges, from
receiving their full Pell grant eligibility. This affects almost
180,000 students from the California community college system alone.
I want to assure my friend that he has my full commitment to work
diligently to find a solution to this problem. I am eager to work with
him and others as we move into the reauthorization of the Higher
Education Act in the next Congress to ensure that all students have
access to quality education.
Mr. SCHIFF. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague
for all his effort on behalf of the students in California and around
this country. I very much look forward to working with him. I also want
to thank the chairman and the ranking member for their consideration
today.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there other amendments to title II?
If not, the Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

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, $2,337,204,000: Provided, That the Director may
transfer up to $25,000,000 to International Assistance
Programs, ``Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, Malaria, and
Tuberculosis,'' to remain available until expended.

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,
$1,706,968,000.

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, $1,088,208,000.

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, $566,725,000.

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, $557,435,000.

national institute on aging

For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to aging, $873,186,000.

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, $440,144,000.

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, $334,161,000.

national institute of nursing research

For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to nursing research,
$116,773,000.

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, $379,026,000.

national institute on drug abuse

For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to drug abuse, $900,389,000.

national institute of mental health

For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to mental health,
$1,228,780,000.

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,
$423,454,000.

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, $39,896,000.

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, $966,541,000: 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: Provided
further, That $97,000,000 shall be for extramural facilities
construction grants, of which $5,000,000 shall be for
beginning construction of facilities for a Chimp Sanctuary
system as authorized in Public Law 106-551.

john e. fogarty international center

For carrying out the activities at the John E. Fogarty
International Center, $56,021,000.

national library of medicine

For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to health information
communications, $273,610,000, of which $4,000,000 shall be
available until expended for improvement of information
systems: Provided, That in fiscal year 2002, 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.

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, $99,288,000.

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, $157,204,000.

office of the director

(including transfer of funds)

For carrying out the responsibilities of the Office of the
Director, National Institutes of Health, $232,098,000, of
which $53,540,000 shall be for the Office of AIDS Research:
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 one fiscal year after the fiscal year in which they are
deposited.

[[Page H6645]]

buildings and facilities

(including transfer of funds)

For the study of, construction of, and acquisition of
equipment for, facilities of or used by the National
Institutes of Health, including the acquisition of real
property, $311,600,000, to remain available until expended,
of which $26,000,000 shall be for the John Edward Porter
Neuroscience Research Center: Provided, That notwithstanding
any other provision of law, single contracts or related
contracts, which collectively include the full scope of the
project, may be employed for the development and construction
of the first and second phases of the John Edward Porter
Neuroscience Research Center: Provided further, That the
solicitations and contracts shall contain the clause
``availability of funds'' found at 48 CFR 52.232-18: Provided
further, That the Director may transfer up to $75,000,000 to
International Assistance Programs, ``Global Fund to Fight
HIV/AIDS, Malaria, and Tuberculosis,'' 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 of 1986, and section 301 of the Public Health
Service Act with respect to program management,
$3,131,558,000.

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, $168,435,000; in addition, 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
926(b) of the Public Health Service Act shall not exceed
$137,810,000.

Health Care Financing Administration

grants to states for medicaid

For carrying out, except as otherwise provided, titles XI
and XIX of the Social Security Act, $106,821,882,000, to
remain available until expended.
For making, after May 31, 2002, payments to States under
title XIX of the Social Security Act for the last quarter of
fiscal year 2002 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 2003,
$46,601,937,000, 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 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, $81,924,200,000.

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
$2,361,158,000, 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 $18,200,000 appropriated under this heading for
the managed care system redesign shall remain available until
expended: Provided further, That the Secretary of Health and
Human Services is directed to collect fees in fiscal year
2002 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, for the current fiscal year, not more
than $680,000,000 may be made available under section
1817(k)(4) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395i(k)(4))
from the Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control Account of the
Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund to carry out the
Medicare Integrity Program under section 1893 of such Act.

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 2002, 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),
$2,447,800,000, to remain available until expended; and for
such purposes for the first quarter of fiscal year 2003,
$1,100,000,000, 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.

low income home energy assistance

For making payments under title XXVI of the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1981, $1,700,000,000.
For making payments under title XXVI of the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1981, $300,000,000: Provided, That
these funds are for the unanticipated home energy assistance
needs of one or more States, as authorized by section 2604(e)
of the Act and notwithstanding the designation requirement of
section 2602(e) of such Act: Provided further, That these
funds are hereby designated by Congress to be emergency
requirements pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985: Provided
further, That these funds shall be made available only after
submission to Congress of a formal budget request by the
President that includes designation of the entire amount of
the request as an emergency requirement as defined in the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.

refugee and entrant assistance

For making payments for refugee and entrant assistance
activities 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), $450,224,000:
Provided, That funds appropriated pursuant to section 414(a)
of the Immigration and Nationality Act for fiscal year 2002
shall be available for the costs of assistance provided and
other activities through September 30, 2004: Provided
further, That up to $10,000,000 is available to carry out the
Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000.
For carrying out section 5 of the Torture Victims Relief
Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-320), $10,000,000.

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), $2,199,987,000 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: 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 $10,000,000 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 10 percent.

children and families services programs

(including rescissions)

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, the Native American
Programs Act of 1974, title II of Public Law 95-266 (adoption
opportunities), the Adoption and

[[Page H6646]]

Safe Families Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-89), the Abandoned
Infants Assistance Act of 1988, 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, section 473A 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, 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,
section 5 of the Torture Victims Relief Act of 1998 (Public
Law 105-320), sections 40155, 40211, and 40241 of Public Law
103-322, and section 126 and titles IV and V of Public Law
100-485, $8,275,442,000, of which $43,000,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2003, 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 in
fiscal years 2000 and 2001; of which $620,000,000 shall be
for making payments under the Community Services Block Grant
Act; and of which $6,475,812,000 shall be for making payments
under the Head Start Act, of which $1,400,000,000 shall
become available October 1, 2002, and remain available
through September 30, 2003: Provided, 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.
Funds appropriated for fiscal year 2002 under section
429A(e), part B of title IV of the Social Security Act shall
be reduced by $6,000,000.
Funds appropriated for fiscal year 2002 under section
413(h)(1) of the Social Security Act shall be reduced by
$15,000,000.

promoting safe and stable families

For carrying out subpart 2 of part B of title IV of the
Social Security Act, $305,000,000. In addition, for such
purposes, $70,000,000 to carry out such subpart.

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, $4,885,600,000;
For making payments to States or other non-Federal entities
under title IV-E of the Social Security Act, for the first
quarter of fiscal year 2003, $1,754,000,000.

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, $1,144,832,000.

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, and XX of the Public
Health Service Act, and the United States-Mexico Border
Health Commission Act, $333,036,000, 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 this amount
$50,000,000 shall be available for minority AIDS prevention
and treatment activities; and $25,000,000 shall be available
for an Information Technology Security and Innovation Fund
for Department-wide activities involving cybersecurity,
information technology security, and related innovation
projects: Provided further, That no funds shall be obligated
for minority AIDS prevention and treatment activities until
the Department submits an operating plan to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations.

office of inspector general

For expenses necessary for the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act
of 1978, as amended, $35,786,000: 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. section 228: Provided further, That,
for the current fiscal year, not more than $130,000,000 may
be made available under section 1817(k)(3)(A) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395i(k)(3)(A)) from the Health Care
Fraud and Abuse Control Account of the Federal Hospital
Insurance Trust Fund for purposes of the activities of the
Office of Inspector General with respect to the Medicare and
Medicaid programs.

office for civil rights

For expenses necessary for the Office for Civil Rights,
$28,691,000, 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,
$2,500,000: Provided, That in addition to amounts provided
herein, funds from amounts available under section 241 of the
Public Health Service Act may be used to carry out national
health or human services research and evaluation activities:
Provided further, That the expenditure of any funds available
under section 241 of the Public Health Service Act are
subject to the requirements of section 205 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 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.

public health and social services emergency fund

For expenses necessary to support activities related to
countering potential biological, disease and chemical threats
to civilian populations, $300,619,000: Provided, That this
amount is distributed as follows: Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, $231,919,000, of which $52,000,000 shall
remain available until expended for the National
Pharmaceutical Stockpile; and Office of Emergency
Preparedness, $68,700,000.

GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 201. Funds appropriated in this title shall be
available for not to exceed $37,000 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 399L(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 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
II.
Sec. 205. 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.

(transfer of funds)

Sec. 206. 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 10 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. 207. 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,
centers, and divisions 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. 208. 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. 209. 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.

[[Page H6647]]

Sec. 210. 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. 211. 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. 212. (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, 2002 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 2002 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 2001,
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 2001 State expenditures and all fiscal year 2002
obligations for tobacco prevention and compliance activities
by program activity by July 31, 2002.
(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, 2002.
(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. 213. (a) In order for the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention to carry out international HIV/AIDS and other
infectious disease, chronic and environmental disease, and
other health activities abroad during fiscal year 2002, the
Secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized to--
(1) utilize the authorities contained in subsection 2(c) of
the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956, as
amended, subject to the limitations set forth in subsection
(b), and
(2) enter into reimbursable agreements with the Department
of State using any funds appropriated to the Department of
Health and Human Services, for the purposes for which the
funds were appropriated in accordance with authority granted
to the Secretary of Health and Human Services or under
authority governing the activities of the Department of
State.
(b) In exercising the authority set forth in subsection
(a)(1), the Secretary of Health and Human Services--
(1) shall not award contracts for performance of an
inherently governmental function; and
(2) shall follow otherwise applicable Federal procurement
laws and regulations to the maximum extent practicable.
Sec. 214. The Division of Federal Occupational Health may
utilize personal services contracting to employ professional
management/administrative and occupational health
professionals.
Sec. 215. Of the funds appropriated for the National
Institutes of Health for fiscal year 2002, $2,875,000,000
shall not be available for obligation until September 30,
2002.
This title may be cited as the ``Department of Health and
Human Services Appropriations Act, 2002''.

Mr. REGULA (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the remainder of title II 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.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Weldon of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Weldon of Florida:
At the end of title II, insert after the last section
(preceding the short title) the following section:
Sec. 2____. Of the amounts made available in this title
under the heading ``Health Resources and Services
Administration--health resources and services'', $60,000,000
of the amount made available for carrying out part A of title
XXVI of the Public Health Service Act is transferred and made
available under such heading for the State AIDS Drug
Assistance Programs authorized by section 2616 of such Act,
in addition to other amounts available under such heading for
such State AIDS Drug Assistance Programs.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) reserves a
point of order on the amendment.
The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, my amendment shifts $60 million
from title II of the Ryan White CARE Act to title I of the Ryan White
CARE Act.
What my amendment does is to recognize that fully funding of the AIDS
Drug Assistance Program, or ADAP, should receive highest priority. This
is a question of life-sustaining drugs versus programs and other
services for those with AIDS. One thing we do know, programs and
services are of little use if AIDS patients do not have access to life-
sustaining drugs.
We have all been visited by those who run the ADAP programs in our
States expressing concerns about the shortfall in funding for this
critical program. We know that last year hundreds of AIDS patients were
unable to access basic lifesaving medication not in Africa, but here in
the United States.
As I have shared on this floor before, as a practicing physician
prior to coming to Congress in 1995, I provided medical care to
hundreds of HIV/AIDS patients. I was one of only two physicians in my
community that took care of more than 400,000 people who provided care
for AIDS patients, and I know how critical access to life-sustaining
drugs can be.
After Medicaid, ADAP is the single most important Federal program for
Americans living with AIDS and HIV. ADAP is the component of title II
of the Ryan White CARE Act that provides AIDS medications to Americans
living with HIV that have no other source of medical coverage.
According to the National Organizations Responding to AIDS, or NORA,
the Federal-State partnership in title II ADAP has significantly
contributed to the decline in AIDS deaths since 1995. NORA, which is
comprised of 175 organizations concerned about AIDS, recommends that a
$124 million increase over last year's ADAP appropriation is necessary
to ensure that every American infected with AIDS is provided access to
life-saving AIDS medications.
The House appropriations bill funds about half of this shortfall.
The ADAP working group wrote: ``We will absolutely be in very serious
difficulties if this appropriation isn't raised.''

{time} 1515

Mr. Chairman, a lack of the needed $60 million above what is
currently in the House bill means more than 5,000 Americans with HIV,
on top of those already on the waiting list for ADAP, will not have
access to the important life-sustaining combination drug therapies.
Allowing Americans with HIV to stand on waiting lists for access to
HIV medications is simply not acceptable. Every State, territory,
congressional district, and individual living with HIV with no other
access to AIDS medication is dependent on ADAP. Women and those in
minority communities living with HIV-AIDS disproportionately rely on
ADAP for their AIDS medications.
My amendment closes the $60 million shortfall in ADAP. Unlike ADAP,
title I is limited and only serves 51 cities across the country. One of
those cities, San Francisco, receives twice the amount per AIDS case as
every other city in the country. While title I services provide support
for some AIDS patients, not all of these services have the same life-
saving impact as ADAP.
Also, while the majority of the programs funded through title I Large
Cities Program are worthwhile, many of them are not as critical as the
ADAP

[[Page H6648]]

program. Also of concern is the fact that the Senate recently asked the
HHS Inspector General to review some of the very questionable programs
that these funds are being used to support. I have received some of
these reports on these questionable programs, and I think any
reasonable person would conclude that ADAP should receive higher
priority.
It is clear to me that with the shift in funding, there is plenty of
room to accommodate important title I programs likes Primary Care,
while shifting $60 million to purchasing life-sustaining drugs. I urge
my colleagues to vote in support of my amendment. The failure to shift
this funding will leave 6,400 individuals, primarily women and
minorities, waiting in line for life-sustaining AIDS drugs.
Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) insist on
his point of order?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that this amendment is
really in the form of a limitation; and, therefore, it should be coming
at the end of the bill. I think I would be within my rights if I made a
point of order at this point. But out of courtesy to the gentleman and
in order to save time, I will withdraw the reservation.
The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is withdrawn.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, let me simply say that I oppose the amendment of the
gentleman from Florida for one very simple reason: it is very easy for
any individual Member to second guess what this Committee has done and
come to the floor and say we should have put $10 million here rather
than having put $10 million there. I have seen many a Member come to
the floor; and no matter how high we have had an individual account,
some have said to me, frankly, no matter what the committee puts in, I
will offer an amendment to add $10 million or $20 million because that
way they get their day in court.
Mr. Chairman, I suggest in this instance we should not do that. The
gentleman is trying to take $60 million out of an account that has
received a $15 million increase. He is trying to put the money into an
account that has received a $60 million increase. This account has
already been increased four times as much as the account that the
gentleman is trying to take money out of.
Secondly, the treatment grants that the gentleman seeks to cut in
fact under this amendment are being cut below last year's level. I do
not believe that we ought to do that. I would urge Members of the House
to respect the many hours of hearings that we have held on these
subjects. These are all judgment calls. I respect the gentleman's right
to offer the amendment, but I would urge that Members stick with the
committee.
There will be amendments today that I am very much in favor of
personally, but which I will oppose because we have an understanding
that we are going to try to resist all amendments from either side of
the aisle in order to keep the delicately balanced bipartisan bill,
which it is at this point; and I would not want to begin to unravel
that. Besides, substantively I believe the gentleman is in error in
seeking to make the reduction that he is in this account. I would urge
defeat of the amendment.
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 thank the gentleman for not
insisting on his point of order.
Mr. Chairman, I do not plan on asking for a recorded vote on this
amendment because I understand there is a very delicate balance here;
and I have another amendment that I will probably ask for a recorded
vote on. But I just raise the point to say that the accounts where I am
trying to move money out of, there is one particular account where I
think there has been a fair amount of money spent very unwisely; and
the account that I am trying to put this money into I think is a very
good use of the limited resources that we have. That is why I seek to
offer the amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate that. That
again illustrates what Will Rogers said when he said when two people
agree on everything, one of them is unnecessary.
The gentleman's opinion may very well be the sound one; ours may very
well be the sound one. But in this instance, this bill is the unanimous
product of the Committee; and I think we have made the best judgment
about where the money ought to go under the circumstances, and I would
urge that we not cut this program. This treatment program would be cut
below last year's level; and given the problem that we have with this
issue, I do not think that we ought to be doing that.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is not going to ask for a recorded vote,
but just to reiterate what he recognizes, too, this is a delicately
balanced bill. We tried to balance all of the priorities. This is a
good example of it.
The Ryan White program serves a lot of people. This amendment would
cut out services to about 11,000 people; and it does focus on the big
cities. I think what the gentleman is expressing concern for is right.
It is just that we do not have enough money to do everything that we
would like to do. I congratulate the gentleman for his concern and for
the other areas that he sees as underserved by ADAP.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this
amendment to take money from primary care services delivered by Title I
and move it to the drug purchasing ADAP program. Delivering drugs to
the people who need them requires the strong infrastructure established
under Title I. Without that infrastructure, we will have a bigger pool
of money with which to buy drugs, but fewer people able to take
advantage of these life-saving medications. The amendment will merely
provide a windfall to the pharmaceutical companies that manufacture
these drugs while hurting the people who need them.
The AIDS cocktail involves a complex daily drug regimen. To be
effective, drugs must be taken in a consistent manner following every
instruction exactly. Failure to do so can result in the medication
becoming ineffective in a person. In addition, these medications can
have severe side effects, including liver problems, dramatically
increased cholesterol, and diabetes. People taking these medications
need access to the primary care and support services provided by Title
I to ensure proper compliance and effective treatment for any side
effects.
Title I benefits the majority of people living with HIV in this
country. More than 75% of Americans with HIV reside in the 51 areas
that receive Title I funding. Without this funding, the public health
systems in these areas will face a major challenge that they are unable
to meet. The Ryan White CARE Act was created to prevent such a
situation. Also, the CARE Act was designed to provide comprehensive
medical services to people with HIV. This amendment will undermine that
goal by focusing on only one aspect of treatment.
AIDS medications have been remarkably successful and allowed people
to live much longer with a better quality of life. However, this
success also means that more people than ever are living with HIV and
AIDS in the US and require the services delivered through Title I of
the CARE Act. Many who are HIV-positive also have other pressing health
concerns, such as Hepatitis C, mental disorders and substance abuse
problems. To deal with these challenges, people rely on the overall
health infrastructure provided by Title I and cannot be helped by
merely receiving AIDS drugs.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the Weldon Amendment.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Weldon
amendment. This misguided amendment is the very essence of robbing
Peter to pay Paul. While I support the worthy goal of increasing the
appropriation for the Aids Drug Assistance Program, I cannot do so at
the expense of Title I of the Ryan White program.
No one can argue with Dr. Weldon that ADAP funding must be
significantly increased. ADAP is a vital program that is severely
underfunded. But his answer is truly perverse. He attacks the very
infrastructure needed to deliver these important services. If he
slashes funding for Title I, he will only make it harder for people
living with HIV and AIDS to receive the medication they need under
ADAP.
Let's look at what Title I does. Title I directs funding to the
metropolitan areas that are home to about 74 percent of all individuals
diagnosed with AIDS in the United States. The areas eligible for Title
I funding are magnets for individuals from all of the surrounding areas
who are in need of the critical primary care and supportive services
provided under

[[Page H6649]]

this program. Whether it's primary health care, dental care, substance
abuse treatment, legal services, transitional housing, transportation,
or nutritional care, Title I provides the bedrock safety net that
people living with HIV and AIDS depend on. The bottom line is that
people will die without these services.
If Dr. Weldon wants to increase funding for ADAP, as he should, the
answer is not to attack Title I. The answer is to increase the total
appropriation. Despite a request for flat funding from the President, I
am pleased that the committee provided for a modest increase in Ryan
White funding. However, the need is far greater still. Title I alone
would require a 30 million dollar increase just to keep pace with
inflation. With the modest 17 million dollar increase provided,
services will already have to be scaled back and needs will go unmet.
To further cut 60 million dollars from this program would be simply
devastating.
Indeed, ADAP is significantly underfunded, as well. But the success
of the ADAP program, which has kept thousands of people alive, makes
the need for Title I money all the greater. As people live longer, they
rely on the services provided by Title I. This amendment might
temporarily plug one hole, but it would create a much larger one
elsewhere. Vote against this dangerous amendment.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to
the amendment of the gentleman from Florida.
The gentleman's amendment proposes to take $60 million in funding
from Title I of the Ryan White CARE Act and transfer it to the AIDS
Drug Assistance Program.
While both of these are critical components of the Ryan White CARE
Act, we cannot support moving money from one critical program in the
CARE Act to another critical program. Our nation's response to the HIV/
AIDS crisis must be comprehensive and integrated. While the ADAP
program needs additional funds, these additional resources should not
come from money approved for other bipartisan-supported CARE Act
programs, such as Title I, which provides relief to metropolitan
areas--like New York and Chicago--that are disproportionately affected
by HIV/AIDS. Title I funds support comprehensive HIV health care and
treatment and essential services for low-income uninsured and
underserved persons living with HIV/AIDS.
Title I provides funds to the most impacted cities for the delivery
of critical medical and support service and medications. We cannot take
medical services away to provide the increase for ADAP. Funding for the
needed increase for ADAP must come from another source, not a medical
and support service delivery program.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).
The amendment was rejected.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike
the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to call attention to the need for an
additional $5 million for fiscal year 2002 to the Department of Labor's
International Bureau of Labor Affairs, also known as ILAB, for programs
that promote workplace-based HIV-AIDS education and prevention programs
and the well-being of children orphaned by HIV-AIDS in developing
countries.
More than 36 million people are living with HIV-AIDS worldwide, and
more than 10 million children in sub-Saharan Africa alone have lost
their parents to this disease. The number of AIDS orphans could climb
to more than 40 million by 2010. Mr. Chairman, 40 million orphans in
Africa is equal to the number of children east of the Mississippi River
in this country. This amount of money equates to less than 13 cents per
year per orphan to improve their lives and help make them productive
members of their society.
The global HIV-AIDS pandemic is an extremely serious issue that
demands our continued attention, and one way to address the crisis is
to promote workplace-based education and prevention programs. The ILAB
has undertaken an innovative program to address HIV-AIDS through the
workplace as part of its efforts to promote safer, healthier, and more
productive work environments.
ILAB has already launched a workplace pilot project in the Republic
of Malawi in southern Africa. Increased funding will enable ILAB to
expand workplace HIV-AIDS education and prevention programs into other
developing countries. It will also enable a joint initiative with the
Department of Labor's International Child Labor Program to develop
programs aimed at children affected by HIV-AIDS.
Mr. Chairman, this is a relatively simple transfer of dollars. The
funding for this program comes from the account that contains Job
Corps, which receives $75 million more than requested, more than double
for fiscal year 2002. This is more than Job Corps can reasonably manage
within 1 year, and so we are asking that $15 million be considered. It
is only a general funds transfer if it is considered in conference, but
it is very important that the intended destination is discussed during
floor statements today.
The Congressional Budget Office indicated that a $15 million decrease
and $5 million increase was the only way this would work with
management and Department outlays. We certainly know that there is a
serious and strategic need. This international HIV-AIDS workplace
education program has developed a strategic plan for workplace-based
HIV-AIDS education focusing on the following three components:
prevention education stressing behavioral responsibility, gender
issues, and concepts relating to care and support; workplace policy
development addressing issues of stigma and discrimination; and
capacity building activities for government, employers, and labor to
strengthen the response to this crisis.
In the year 2000, IHWEP launched a workplace education pilot project
in the Republic of Malawi, implemented by the nongovernmental
organization Project HOPE, which is based in Millwood, Virginia.
A task force cochaired by Senators Frist and Kerry have deemed the
issue of AIDS orphans a high priority. These young people are heads of
households now that they have no parents; and it provides them with
care, vocational training, as well as microfinance opportunities. It
aims to enable child-headed households to develop an income-generating
skill and reduce the likelihood that they will resort to working in
areas where their health and safety may be compromised.
Mr. Chairman, I would sincerely ask that the conference committee
consider this request. It is of grave need.
Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, today I rise to thank the gentleman from Florida
(Chairman Young) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Obey), for their leadership on this complex and difficult
appropriations bill; and particularly to express my appreciation for
the increase of $10 million to the State Survey and Certification
program funded under the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
The State Survey and Certification program provides States with money
to conduct inspections of facilities serving Medicare and Medicaid
beneficiaries, and fund the Nursing Home Oversight Improvement Program.
The need for adequate funding of these two programs has become
painfully clear when we are reminded that 5,283 nursing homes, one out
of three nursing homes, were cited for an abuse violation in the last 2
years.
At a time when the Department of Health and Human Services has
estimated almost half of all 65-year-olds will use a nursing home at
some point during their lives, this is unacceptable and immoral. Today
there are 1.5 million people who live in nursing homes, and this figure
is expected to rise to 6.6 million by the year 2050. Our loved ones
should not be made to fear inadequate care and abuse when entering a
nursing home for the first time.
Additional funding for this program is sorely needed. This additional
funding that we will agree to today will be distributed to the States
to cover survey and complaint visit workloads.
When the daughter of someone living in a nursing home notices that
her mother is not receiving adequate care, she should immediately call
her State Department of Health to report a complaint or evidence of
abuse. However, in my home State of Oklahoma, as in many other States,
these complaints are not investigated in a timely manner.

{time} 1530

The State Department of Health simply does not have adequate funding
to hire and train enough inspectors to investigate all of the
complaints submitted. And most family members are left without any
other possible recourse, unable to afford home health care or staying
home from work to care for their loved one themselves.

[[Page H6650]]

How, then, can we justify pouring Federal money into these facilities
as so much of our taxpayer dollars do flow into nursing homes when the
government cannot ensure the safety of the residents?
To ensure their safety, we must continue to increase funding to CMS's
State survey and certification program. An increase of only $10 million
for fiscal year 2002 is a good start but is certain not to address the
many needs that will expand in years to come.
Again, I thank the chairman and ranking member for their work on this
issue and for increasing funding to this important program by $10
million. Nevertheless, I ask that you continue to work for increased
funding of this vitally important program in the conference committee
and in future fiscal years. Knowing the commitment of both of these
gentlemen to this important issue, I know that they will work with me
to see that this is done.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to thank the gentleman for his
interest in this program. I know he has been most interested in seeing
that we appropriate as much money as possible for the inspection of
nursing homes and I appreciate his leadership on this issue.
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and engage
Chairman Regula in a colloquy.
Mr. Chairman, in H.R. 3061, the elementary school counseling program
is funded in this bill at $30 million, which is last year's
appropriations level. The counseling program is the only Federal
program designed to increase student access to qualified school-based
mental health professionals. It is a vital program and particularly
relevant and timely in the wake of the World Trade Center tragedies and
the increasing violence levels in our schools.
Mr. Chairman, experts tell us that the psychiatric consequences of
traumas of this kind, social traumas of this kind, may not show up for
weeks or months in the form of post-traumatic stress disorder or other
serious mental and emotional problems. I am particularly concerned
about the effects this will have on our children. As the gentleman may
well remember, the National Institute for Mental Health, following the
Oklahoma City bombing, did a great in-depth study and it demonstrated
that it took months, if not years, for the development of mental health
problems in children not directly affected by the traumatic event.
Mr. Chairman, I am concerned that our schools are not adequately
equipped to address the mental health needs of our students. Even
before September 11, our Nation was experiencing an urgent need for
school-based mental health services, and this is certainly evidenced by
problems such as bullying, aggressive behavior, substance abuse and
violence in the schools. We know that. We have all been familiar with
it.
I would like to particularly point out to the chairman and to our
colleagues here that back in January of this year, Dr. David Satcher,
the Surgeon General, released a report on youth violence which
identified mental health services as a necessary component of effective
programs to prevent youth violence.
Mr. Chairman, children spend a large percentage of their time in
school. Teachers and other professionals have the chance to identify
potential problems and get children the help they need. Mental health
programs in a school environment make good sense. With a small increase
in funding for school-based mental health services, we will see
dramatic, far-reaching effects.
To conclude, I would like to state to the chairman, clearly there are
many objective reasons to assert the need for increased funding.
Indeed, other programs in this bill have increased funding, including a
new mentoring program which is funded at the same level as the
counseling program. I would simply like to ask the chairman if he could
work in conference to increase funding for this program to ensure that
the mental health needs of our Nation's children are appropriately
addressed. Again, let me say, this is a cost-effective investment.
Providing mental health services now will avert far more significant
problems and far more costly problems in the future.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. ROUKEMA. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. REGULA. I thank the gentlewoman for her comments and assure her
that I will work in conference to increase funding for the elementary
school counseling program.
Mrs. ROUKEMA. I thank the chairman. I appreciate his attention and
this colloquy.
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to first associate myself with the remarks
of the gentlewoman from New Jersey whose leadership in the area of
mental health parity has been well known and whose work in this area is
something I applaud greatly.
It is also a great pleasure for me, Mr. Chairman, to rise in strong
support of this bipartisan bill. Before I get into the substance of
this legislation, I would like to commend both our chairman, Chairman
Regula, as well as our ranking member, our Democratic leader on this
committee, our ace-in-the-hole, David Obey, for the fantastic work that
he has done to make this a very open and inclusive process.
Also, Mr. Chairman, as a new member of the committee, I would like to
acknowledge the work of the staff who have managed to put a very
difficult piece of legislation into proper order. I especially want to
thank Cheryl Smith and David Reich and Christina Hamilton all for their
good work as well as to acknowledge my own staff member, Matt
Braunstein, for the great work he has done in offering his enthusiasm
and dedication to this effort.
On the issues, Mr. Chairman, I would like to be noted for speaking up
as the gentlewoman from New Jersey has just done in the area of mental
health. Right now, according to the World Health Organization, mental
illnesses are the second most disabling family of diseases in
industrialized nations, trailing only cardiovascular diseases.
According to the Surgeon General, more than 54 million Americans, about
20 percent, have a mental disorder in any given year, although fewer
than 8 million even seek treatment. This is obviously because of
insurance barriers as well as the overwhelming stigma that continues to
exist when it comes to diseases of the brain, which are somehow not
equated to diseases of the rest of the body for some strange reason.
Mr. Chairman, it is my opinion that the mental health and emotional
stability of our country represents the next big public health
challenge that we have as a Nation, especially in the wake of the
September 11 attack. It is for these reasons that I have been so
honored to work with our colleagues on this bill to see that we had a
$20 million increase in the mental health block grant. This is
especially important, because it is consistent with President Bush's
New Freedom Initiative as well as the Supreme Court's Olmsted decision
which talks about community-based services for those in need.
There is also, Mr. Chairman, an initiative which I cosponsored with
Ranking Member Obey to have a $5 million set-aside for the seniors
mental health initiative. Senior citizens are growing in this country
as a percentage of our overall population. Yet our country is not
prepared to meet the unique challenges of our senior citizen population
as it grows. As it was said, 20 percent of our population experiences
mental disorders and it is not surprising that much of this occurs
within our senior population, given the enormous depression that they
face with loss of loved ones and with loss of their own health. They
need the assistance and support to cope with these challenges, and I
hope this initiative will begin the way towards this problem.
Mr. Chairman, in addition to these initiatives in the area of mental
health, I want to acknowledge a few other areas in the bill that I
strongly support. Among them is the area of family literacy. Mr.
Chairman, we know with the 21st Century Learning Centers that we are
able to address the needs of as many as 8 million ``latchkey'' children
who are left alone unsupervised. The 21st Century Learning Centers give
them a place to go as

[[Page H6651]]

well as a place to grow, and that is why I am so pleased that we are
able to increase the funding for this program, thereby allowing school
districts like mine in Rhode Island, like Pawtucket, Providence and
Central Falls, to all be able to continue their after-school
programming.
In addition to family literacy, the Even Start program, which is also
about family literacy, is being well funded in this program. Even Start
is about making sure that parents are able to read and write, because
if the parent is able to read and write, their children have a much
better crack at being able to read and write themselves. That is why
adult literacy should really be viewed as family literacy, because when
you help the parents, you certainly help the children as well. That is
why I am so supportive of this committee's work to increase this
funding by $10 million.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I think that we did a great job increasing
funds for IDEA, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act,
particularly part C. This is the toddler's program. This is the area
where if we invest early, we gain a great deal of return for our
investment down the road.
For all these reasons, I support this important bill and ask that its
adoption be supported unanimously by this House of Representatives.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I had an amendment at the desk which I intend to
withdraw out of appreciation for the way in which Chairman Regula and
Ranking Member Obey have preserved the Porter initiative to combat
obesity and overweight in the American population.
Originally Mr. Porter, our former colleague, for the first time
placed $125 million in the 2001 budget for a program directed against
obesity and overweight in children. My amendment would have sought full
funding. I am very appreciative that the chairman and ranking member
have kept this initiative from being defunded by placing $85 million in
the 2002 budget.
This is a major legacy of our former colleague, John Porter. It is
something he worked on for some years and in his last year I worked
with him. This initiative marks the first time the Congress has given
more than token funding to the most serious, widespread health problem
in the United States today, and that is overweight and obesity. Fifty
percent of Americans are either overweight or are obese.
At the time that this matter was on the floor last year, Chairman
Porter engaged in a colloquy with me on this provision. In that
colloquy, to quote briefly from it, I asked the chairman if he would
agree that some of the $125 million in this Labor-HHS bill be spent on
the activities specified in the LIFE bill legislation. That was my
legislation, Mr. Chairman, Lifetime Improvement in Food and Exercise.
Chairman Porter answered: I support the LIFE bill and believe that
some of the $125 million in additional funding I have included in this
appropriation bill for the CDC should be directed toward the
initiatives of the LIFE legislation.
The major difference in the LIFE legislation is that it applies
beyond children to Americans of all ages. Americans of all ages, of all
races, of all backgrounds and educational groups are experiencing this
epidemic in obesity and overweight.
I am pleased that the funding for the education part of this
initiative has already begun. The LIFE bill would also promote training
by health professionals to recognize the signs of obesity and then to
recommend prevention activities and actual strategies so that people
engage in exercise and other activities designed to mitigate this
extraordinary problem we have in our country.
The importance of this initiative springs from the fact that it is
the major contributor to some of the most serious preventable diseases
in the American population, everything from high cholesterol and Type
II diabetes to arthritis and cancer. The fact that there has been a 100
percent increase in obesity among children in the last 15 years ought
to itself make us all pause. It means that these children are on their
way to death early unless somehow we can put our country on a different
path, a path where people get out and walk, a path where there is less
in fatty foods and caloric foods and more in the kind of ordinary,
everyday exercise that can mean the difference now between life and
death.
I am very appreciative but not very surprised that the Chair and the
ranking member of this committee would understand that to get this kind
of funding finally and then to have it evaporate in a single year would
have done a disservice to this very serious health problem. I am very
appreciative for what they have done. I would like to work with them in
future years so that we can, in fact, get this matter up to full
funding. That way we will see it save much in Medicare and Medicaid,
not to mention the health care bill of Americans in general.

{time} 1545

The CHAIRMAN. Are there additional amendments to title II?

Amendment Offered by Mr. Weldon of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Weldon of Florida:
At the end of title II, insert after the last section
(preceding the short title) the following section:
Sec. 2____. Of the amounts made available in this title
under the heading ``Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention--disease control, research, and training'',
$40,000,000 of the amount made available for communicable
disease activities (HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and sexually
transmitted diseases) is transferred and made available under
the heading ``Health Resources and Services Administration--
health resources and services'' for child-health activities
under title V of the Social Security Act (relating to the
Maternal and Child Health Services Block Grant), in addition
to other amounts available under such Health Resources
heading for such child-health activities.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, my amendment addresses the
silent epidemic that is hitting our Nation's children at an alarming
rate. Autism is the most prevalent developmental disorder in America. A
couple of decades ago, autism struck a few children out of every
10,000. Today it hits as many as 1 in 250. Over 500,000 Americans are
autistic.
My amendment increases funding for the Maternal and Child Health
Block Grant program by $40 million. This will provide States with
funding for early diagnosis and intervention for children with autism
and other developmental disorders. Early diagnosis and intervention is
critical in helping these children reach their greatest potential.
For point of reference, it is important to note that the number of
Americans suffering from autism is more than half the total number of
Americans living with HIV and AIDS. However, you would not know this
from looking at the budgets of CDC and NIH. Last year, the CDC spent
$12 per person for every person with autism. Conversely, CDC spent
about $800 per person for every person with HIV-AIDS.
Children are diagnosed with autism through no fault of their own, and
we spend almost nothing to figure out why they are autistic.
We have an opportunity to provide $40 million for autism early
intervention. My amendment shifts $40 million from CDC's HIV prevention
account to the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant. Even with the
adoption of my amendment, CDC's HIV prevention budget receives an $80
million increase.
I am concerned about some of the activities that are being funded by
the CDC. If the CDC can fund questionable activities, it says to me
there is too much money in that account. I believe that shifting $40
million of the $120 million increase to assist lower income families
would be a better use of these funds.
What type of questionable programs am I talking about? I ask Members
to weigh these activities against helping lower income parents with
their autistic children.
Some of the questionable programs receiving taxpayer assistance
include recently in St. Louis, Missouri, the mayor had to get $50,000
worth of offensive billboards pulled down. Why? Because they were too
offensive for the community. They were paid for with CDC's HIV
prevention funds.

[[Page H6652]]

On August 21, there was a workshop where people could come and learn
about sex techniques and share stories about their sexual experiences
and turn-ons. This was funded through the CDC with funds from Stop AIDS
Project, San Francisco.
On August 23, there was a GUYWATCH in San Francisco, a program for
homosexuals under the age of 25 where they can come and ``meet other
young guys.''
Also several television ad campaigns across the country funded with
Federal tax dollars have been pulled because they offended most
viewers. If people want to sponsor and attend such programs, that is
their business. However, if they want to use taxpayer dollars for it, I
think we need to look into it and weigh it against other priorities.
Most reasonable people would say we have other more important
priorities. Prior to coming to Congress in 1995, I treated hundreds of
AIDS patients. I was one of only two physicians in my community of more
than 400,000 who took care of these AIDS patients. I have been at the
bedside of dying AIDS patients. I have gotten up in the middle of the
night to provide medical care for them. I have compassion for them and
their needs.
I would not be offering this amendment if I did not feel the cause
required it. I believe that a $80 million increase rather than a $120
million increase should be more than enough for this program. I
encourage my colleagues to support the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin insist on his point
of order?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, as was the case with the gentleman's previous
amendment, I think it is drafted in such a way that it makes it clear
it is a limitation, and therefore ought to be offered at the end of the
bill. So I think the point of order would hold if I were to insist upon
it.
Again, I would simply at this point reserve my reservation and I move
to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me simply say to the gentleman, he has
talked to me about his concern about providing additional funding for
autism. I very much agree with that; and, as a matter of fact, I agree
with some of the comments he just made about some of the wasteful uses
of some of the funds in the program that he is discussing cutting.
About 4 years ago, I made a similar objection myself.
I would urge the gentleman to withdraw the amendment, with the
assurances that both the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and I and the
rest of the conferees will try in conference to gain additional
financial support for programs directed at autism, and a number of
others, for that matter.
I think the gentleman is correct in bringing it to our attention. I
hesitate to support the proposal as the gentleman is offering it,
because in addition to the limitations on the AIDS program that he is
talking about, we would also be reducing funding that would go for
dealing with diseases such as TB. That almost got out of the bottle a
few years ago. I do not want to see that happen again.
I would just urge the gentleman to respect the agreement that the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and I have to oppose all amendments,
no matter how meritorious we might find parts of them. We would both be
happy to work with the gentleman in conference to try to accomplish
what the gentleman is trying to accomplish.
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 thank the gentleman for his
comments and his willingness to work with me on this issue. His points,
I think, are very well taken.
I personally have been very grieved over the years that I have worked
here to see the tremendous amount of money that we spend on HIV and the
relatively minimal amount of money we spend on autism. Actually the
number of people with HIV and AIDS is about twice the number of autism,
but if you look at the people who are actually falling into the AIDS
category, it is about the same for both diseases. What is particularly
grievous is that many private insurance companies do not cover the care
that these kids need.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I agree that this is a concern. I had a
conversation with the sponsor of the amendment, and I understand the
need for this funding. We have a tough time balancing off all the
different problems that afflict us in terms of disease and research. I
do want to talk to the NIH folks and see if we could get a little more
urgency on the part of NIH in doing research. Of course, we will also,
in the conference, see if we cannot get some additional funding for
this program.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
withdraw my amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, my first order of business is to rise to support this
legislation and to acknowledge the chairman of this committee, the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young); and the ranking member of the full
committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey); and the
subcommittee chair, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula); as well the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking subcommittee member on
this legislation.
Allow me, Mr. Chairman, to first acknowledge that this is a
monumental piece of legislation, so I rise to emphasize the issues that
are important not only to Texas, but to my home community.
The increase in the education funding is of crucial concern in the
fact that I just attended this past week a high school that had 3,042
students in one school. We are in need of assisting the education of
our children, to create for them an opportunity, and I applaud the
increase of the education funding generally.
We as well face an increasing epidemic in HIV-AIDS, particularly
African-American and Hispanic women, the rising numbers, and the
increase in dollars in the Ryan White treatment dollars will help reach
in underserved communities as well as serve those who have been exposed
or who are subject to the AIDS epidemic.
We have had an energy explosion or a concern with our energy needs,
and the funding for LIHEAP is a very important addition.
Might I also say that I rise in support of the substance abuse and
mental health funding as well. The increase that this committee has
provided, along with the increased dollars for Medicare grants to
States, is very important to the State of Texas. Even as we speak,
there is a dispute in Texas as to whether public hospitals can be held
liable for serving the indigents, who happen to be immigrants who may
not be documented.
We know that our responsibility is to care for the ill. We want to
use Federal funds responsibly. Texas needs those dollars, and as well
we use our local funds to serve those who come to our doors who need
good health care. We know that there is no grounds to hold these public
hospitals liable, and we hope to resolve that matter very quickly.
I rise as well to indicate my concern with the issues of September
11, as so many of us have done, but to put particular emphasis on the
children.
Tomorrow, the Congressional Children's Caucus, that I chair and that
the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) co-chairs, will hold a
briefing on a very important issue; and that is the impact of September
11 on the children of those who died, a guardian, single parent, two
parents, that may have been lost.
I was intending to offer two amendments to indicate the importance of
focusing on the needs of those children. Right now we do not even have
an accounting of those children. We know that there are about 500
children of police and fire parents who were lost, 500 children being
impacted. We know that in one city in New Jersey, 25 dads were alleged
to have been lost.
I had intended to offer an amendment of $375 million to fund the
promoting

[[Page H6653]]

safe and stable families. The primary goal of promoting safe and stable
families is to prevent the unnecessary separation of children from
their families. We know that those children who lost parents cannot be
reunited with their parents, their birth parents, but Congress can
assist these children in obtaining appropriate living arrangements by
targeting critical adoption services.
My other amendment was to add $20 million in grants to the States for
adoption incentive programs to be able to help move those adoptions
along faster.
I had intended also to put into this legislation the language of H.
Con. Res. 228, a bipartisan sense of Congress bill supported by
Republicans and Democrats to move to the front of the line those
children who suffered the loss of a parent, a guardian, or two parents
in the September 11 tragedy.
I want to applaud the organizations today who appeared at the Lincoln
Memorial, child survival organizations, focusing on the loss and impact
1 month after this terrible impact of the children.

{time} 1600

Mr. Chairman, I would hope that this Congress, and certainly I know
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has been a great champion of
children and mental health needs, would support the idea of moving
these children up so that they could utilize the Federal benefits that
they might be eligible for and that this Congress would be sensitive to
the needs of the terrible loss of September 11 with children as our
concern.
I am not going to offer these amendments, because I would like to
work with the leaders of this particular bill and work with them
through the conference that the dollars that have been allotted, that
they will be certainly available for these children as they are made
eligible.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentlewoman is addressing what
is a serious problem. This is just one of the many fall-outs of
September 11. There will be more yet to come, and I think we need to be
sensitive to it. Probably as time flows along, the problems that the
gentlewoman is discussing will become even more evident. It is an
authorizing problem, as the gentlewoman realizes, and I am sure that
the gentlewoman's amendment will be before the authorizing committee
for a hearing. But we are well aware of it. Any portion that we deal
with here, we have tried to put adequate funding in.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I
would simply like to close, Mr. Chairman, by saying that there will be
an important briefing tomorrow where we will hear from parents who are
taking care of children who have lost one parent. I believe this bill
is a strong bill, but it is very important that we look at those needs
that impacted the children pursuant to the September 11 terrible
tragedy.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to reject the spirit that animates both this
rule and the larger debate we will hold here regarding Labor/HHS
appropriations. While I appreciate the image of bi-partisanship this
open rule suggests, the actions of the rules committee allowing the
Gentlelady from Pennsylvania to offer her controversial amendment casts
a shadow over that image.
For the leadership to allow this controversial school spending
provision as a ride to this spending package with full knowledge that
the parties had previously agreed to waive the layover on the bill is
the essence of divisiveness, and gives all too clear an indication as
to the divisive directions the Leadership wishes to drive this country.
The Chairman of the committee has been quoted as saying that the
structure for this rule ``goes back to agreements that were struck
several months ago.'' Mr. Chairman, I submit to you that this is
precisely the wrong reason to go forward in this fashion. These are new
times we live in, and we are faced with daunting struggles in the weeks
ahead. Bipartisanship does not connote a carte blanche for those in
authority to abuse their position. The work is supposed to invoke a
spirit of cooperation that ought to animate our proceedings, conduct,
and consciousness in this different time. This rule does not achieve
this lofty, yet attainable goal.
In pursuit of this goal I will offer two amendments to this bill. The
first calls for increased funding the Promoting Safe and Stable
Families program under subpart 2 of part B of Title IV of the Social
Security Act. The primary goals of Promoting Safe and Stable Families
are to prevent the unnecessary separation of children from their
families, and ensure permanency for children by reuniting them with
their parents, by adoption or by another permanent living arrangement.
The children who have lost their parents or guardian in the September
11, 2001 tragedies cannot be reunited with their birth parents, but the
Congress can assist these children in obtaining the appropriate living
arrangements by targeting critical adoption services. These children
are in need of foster care assistance, adoption assistance, medical,
nutritional and psychological care. These service are needed now.
Under this amendment, states could determine the specific needs of
children and families affected by these attacks, and use these funds to
address those needs expeditiously, within the broad parameters of the
existing program.
The second amendment increases by $20,000,000 the grants to the
States for adoption incentive payments as authorized by Section 473 A
of Title IV of the SSA (42 USC 670-679) and may be made for adoptions
completed in FY 2001 and 2002.
Unlike the rider to this appropriations bill, these amendments are
timely and promote both the immediate needs of children and families
affected by the tragedies of September 11 and the spirit of cooperation
our nation desperately needs.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3061, the Labor Health and
Human Services and Education Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2002.
On October 2, the President sent a letter to the Republican and
Democratic leaders of the House and Senate and the chairman and ranking
member of the House and Senate Appropriations committees in which he
stated that he supported the bipartisan agreement to set FY 2002
discretionary spending levels at $686 billion. Mr. Chairman, this is
the first time in several years that the Labor, Health and Human
Services and Education Appropriation bill reached a bipartisan
agreement in the committee and with the administration.
I want to applaud the Chairman and Ranking member for their hard work
on this bill.
The Labor Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations Act
for Fiscal Year 2002 will touch the lives of many American citizens
including our children. This legislation provides critical funding for
Fiscal Year 2002 for a host of programs that improve the lives. At a
time when our nation has been shaken through tragedy, this legislation
is yet another sign of our strength and resolve to go forward with the
American way of life.
Mr. Chairman, I want to point out some of the key provisions of this
bill, which I believe to be critical during these difficult times.
Mr. Chairman, the bill language calls for $375,000,000 to fund the
Promoting Safe and Stable Families program under subpart 2 of part B of
Title IV of the Social Security Act. The primary goals of Promoting
Safe and Stable Families are to prevent the unnecessary separation of
children from their families, and ensure permanency for children by
reuniting them with their parents, by adoption or by another permanent
living arrangement.
The children who have lost their parents or guardian in the September
11, 2001 tragedies cannot be reunited with their birth parents, but the
Congress can assist these children in obtaining the appropriate living
arrangements by targeting critical adoption services. These children
are in need of foster care assistance, adoption assistance, medical,
nutritional and psychological care. These services are needed now.
Congress should target additional funds towards addressing the
specific child welfare needs of children and families affected by the
September 11 attacks.
The types of services that are offered under the Promoting Safe and
Stable Families program are very broad. Those services include family
preservation, family support, family reunification, adoption promotion
and support. Further, states have wide discretion in the use of these
funds.
Therefore, states could determine the specific needs of children and
families affected by these attacks, and use these funds to address
those needs expeditiously, within the broad parameters of the existing
Promoting Safe and Stable Families program.
I encourage the adoption of report language in the bill that would
urge the head of each federal agency responsible to put the highest
possible priority on delivery, and to the maximum extent possible, to
do so within 60 days of the date of the determination of the death of
the child's parent or guardian.
Also, Mr. Chairman, this legislation provides additional funding for
the fight against HIV/AIDs in developing countries. During the August
recess, I lead a congressional delegation

[[Page H6654]]

to Guatemala and Honduras, along with the Global Health Council and
USAID. There, I visited health clinics and centers that are working to
reduce malnutrition and improve the health of children in their
communities. While I was impressed by the resourcefulness and
commitment of our friends and neighbors as they work to care for the
most vulnerable children, such progress will not continue without
continued support from the U.S. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that this
legislation allows the transfer up to $75,000,000 to International
Assistance programs through the ``Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDs,
Malaria, and Tuberculosis.'' Mr. Chairman, these funds are to remain
available until expended.
Mr. Chairman, this bill provides additional funding the Low Income
Home Energy Assistance program in the amount of $300,000,000. The funds
provided in this bill for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance program
are needed because of the increase in unemployed Americans. Low-income
households are having an increasingly difficult time paying their home
energy bills. Last year, Mr. Chairman, the number of households
receiving energy assistance increased by 30% from 3.9 million to almost
5 million. Twelve states reported increases of more than 40%.

Explanation of Report Language: Page 42 of the Bill Promoting Safe and
Stable Families

The bill language calls for $375,000,000 to fund the
Promoting Safe and Stable Families program under subpart 2 of
part B of Title IV of the Social Security Act. The primary
goals of Promoting Safe and Stable Families are to prevent
the unnecessary separation of children from their families,
and ensure permanency for children by reuniting them with
their parents, by adoption or by another permanent living
arrangement.
The children who have lost their parents or guardian in the
September 11, 2001 tragedies cannot be reunited with their
birth parents, but the Congress can assist these children in
obtaining the appropriate living arrangements by targeting
critical adoption services. These children are in need of
foster care assistance, adoption assistance, medical,
nutritional and psychological care. These services are needed
now.
Congress should target additional funds towards addressing
the specific child welfare needs of children and families
affected by the September 11 attacks.
The types of services that are offered under the Promoting
Safe and Stable Families program are very broad. Those
services include family preservation, family support, family
reunification, adoption promotion and support. Further,
states have wide discretion in the use of these funds.
Therefore, states could determine the specific needs of
children and families affected by these attacks, and use
these funds to address those needs expeditiously, within the
broad parameters of the existing Promoting Safe and Stable
Families program.
The report language in the bill should urge the head of
each federal agency responsible to put the highest possible
priority on delivery, and to the maximum extent possible, to
do so within 60 days of the date of the determination of the
death of the child's parent or guardian.

Explanation of the Amendment: #1

Explanation: this amendment increases by $20,000,000 the
grants to the States for adoption incentive payments as
authorized by Section 473A of Title IV of the SSA (42 U.S.C.
670-679) and may be made for adoptions completed in FY 2001
and 2002.
The offset is provided by reducing $20,000,000 from the
Community Services Block Grant Act.
The additional $20,000,000 is targeted to assist the states
with adoptions initiated after September 11, 2001 and where
the child lost a parent as a result of the attack on America.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there additional amendments to title II?
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

education for the disadvantaged

For carrying out title I of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965, as redesignated and amended by H.R. 1
of the 107th Congress, as passed by the House of
Representatives on May 23, 2001, and section 418A of the
Higher Education Act of 1965, $12,547,900,000, of which
$5,667,700,000 shall become available on July 1, 2002, and
shall remain available through September 30, 2003, and of
which $6,758,300,000 shall become available on October 1,
2002 and shall remain available through September 30, 2003,
for academic year 2002-2003: Provided, That $8,037,000,000
shall be available for basic grants under section 1124:
Provided further, That $1,684,000,000 shall be available for
concentration grants under section 1124A: Provided further,
That $779,000,000 shall be available for targeted grants
under section 1125.

impact aid

For carrying out programs of financial assistance to
federally affected schools authorized by title VI of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as
redesignated and amended by H.R. 1 of the 107th Congress, as
passed by the House of Representatives on May 23, 2001,
$1,130,500,000, of which $982,500,000 shall be for basic
support payments under section 8003(b), $50,000,000 shall be
for payments for children with disabilities under section
8003(d), $35,000,000 shall be for construction under section
8007, $55,000,000 shall be for Federal property payments
under section 8002, and $8,000,000, to remain available until
expended, shall be for facilities maintenance under section
8008.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Schaffer

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Schaffer:
In title III under the heading ``education for the
disadvantaged'', after the first dollar amount insert
``(reduced by $50,000,000)''.
In title III under the heading ``school improvement
programs'', after the first dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $410,000,000)''.
In title III under the heading ``bilingual and immigrant
education'', after the first dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $240,000,000)''.
In title III under the heading ``special education'', after
the first dollar amount insert ``(increased by
$1,100,500,000)''.
In title III under the heading ``vocational and adult
education'', after the first dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $154,000,000)''.
In title III under the heading ``higher education'', after
the first dollar amount insert ``(reduced by $183,000,000)''.
In title III under the heading ``education research,
statistics, and improvement'', after the first dollar amount
insert ``(reduced by $63,500,000)''.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order, because we have
not seen the amendment as yet.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, could we have a copy of the amendment?
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will distribute copies.
The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) is recognized for 5
minutes on his amendment.
Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I offer is one that
moves a little over $1 billion to the IDEA program, the Individuals
With Disabilities in Education Act. This is a provision that almost all
of us in the Congress, Mr. Chairman, have spoken about at one time or
another and have professed our support for increasing this line item to
eventual full funding.
Back in the 1970s when the IDEA statute was established by the
Congress, the statute called for 40 percent funding at the Federal
level, and that was a promise and a commitment that we made. Just over
6 years ago, that funding level was down as far as 12 percent, and this
Congress in recent years has tried to bump that percentage up. Today, I
believe we are around 13 or 14 percent.
This amendment would make a substantial jump in the right direction,
but still leave us woefully short of the 40 percent obligation that
this Congress has committed to and to which school districts around the
country are expecting us to provide funding.
Since we have not done that, Mr. Chairman, what occurs is the
mandates associated with the Individuals with Disabilities in Education
Act cause every school administrator in the country to effectively
steal funds from other important priorities within their budgets, to
steal funds from funds that might be used, for example, for teacher pay
raises, maybe for capital construction, for investments in technology,
for new computers, to reduce class sizes. A number of priorities that
might be identified by local administrators and local officials go
unrealized because of the expensive Federal mandates associated with
this law and the paltry percentage of Federal funding that is put
forward to meet those mandates. Again, far under, far below the 40
percent promised by this Congress.
On three separate occasions in recent years, this House passed
resolutions, sense of Congress resolutions expressing our support for
full funding of IDEA. While we continue to say and vote and speak
throughout the course of our campaigns, throughout the course of our
business here on the floor that we are in favor of full funding of
IDEA, we just do not seem to do it.
Well, this amendment is one that tests our sincerity. It is one that
shows the world that we are serious about the promises that we have
made and that in the end, schoolchildren matter more than the size and
the comfort of bureaucracies here in Washington, D.C. This amendment
moves $1.1 billion from seven or eight different line items in the
remainder of title III, and it does so in a way that still leaves in
more funds than even the administration has requested. In no case are
the funds taken from any line item in a way that will render them
underfunded according to the request made by the Government itself, by
the administration, by those who represent the bureaucracy of our
country.

[[Page H6655]]

This is an important undertaking, Mr. Chairman, once again, not only
because of the growing need for IDEA resources and funds and those
individuals who are directly affected by the programs, but, as I say,
because our failure to fully fund our obligation and our commitment
and, at the same time, leave the expensive mandates in place, causes
all children and all schools to suffer; and that is why I offer the
amendment. That is why I look forward to the broad-based bipartisan
support that I expect based on previous comment and testimony on the
amendment. I, on that basis, urge the adoption of the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) insist on his
point of order?
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this amendment to
increase IDEA funding by more than $1 billion. Year after year we pass
resolutions asserting Congress's commitment to fully fund the
Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act. Many of our fellow
colleagues join with me at this podium and assert our responsibility to
live up to our promise to our school districts. We declare that the
Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act is the highest priority
among Federal elementary and secondary education programs, the highest
priority. Yet year after year, we increase funding for other programs
that are less vital to our local school districts.
My home State of Kansas can expect to see about one-fourth of the
promised $69 million this year for IDEA mandates. Anyone who has spoken
with school officials in their district knows that this is inadequate.
While school districts are forced to rob Peter in order to pay Paul to
meet IDEA mandates at the expense of both children with and without
disabilities, Congress has increased funding for Department of
Education programs that I consider are not vital to our children's
education.
I do not know how many Members have toured special education
facilities. I have. I have toured Levy Special Education Center in
Wichita, Kansas, and seen the special education children. I have met
with special education teachers and listened to their frustration about
the lack of funding, combined with the burden of increased paperwork.
Twenty-five years ago with the passage of IDEA, the Federal
Government mandated that our local school systems educate all children,
even those with severe mental and physical disabilities. IDEA has
placed an extreme financial burden on our public schools which could be
partially alleviated by keeping our commitment to fully fund the 40
percent of the program, the 40 percent originally promised. To not do
so we are completely ignoring the needs of our local school districts.
I challenge my fellow colleagues to live up to our responsibility and
support the effort today to put more money in IDEA. I encourage my
colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. GOODE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula),
the chairman of the subcommittee, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey), the ranking member, for all that they have done for IDEA. They
have increased funding significantly in this bill, but more is needed.
So I am very happy to rise in support of the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer).
In the fifth district of Virginia, school superintendents and school
board members have addressed the issue of funding for special education
more than any other school issue. These additional funds would bring so
much more flexibility to jurisdictions in the fifth district of
Virginia and across the United States. I hope it will be the pleasure
of this body to support this amendment and to help IDEA funding get
closer to the 40 percent.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, reluctantly, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I
think that the IDEA program is an excellent one; and I know that the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman of the Committee on
Education and the Workforce, had this discussed when they did H.R. 1.
He said that we need to withhold until it is reauthorized. It will be
up for reauthorization next year. I think there will probably be
refinements made in the program that will enable it to even better
serve those who are in need.
I want to point out that the committee was very sensitive to this. We
increased the amount by $1.37 billion; it is a 22 percent increase over
last year. The total is $7.739 billion. We were, in fact, $375 million
over the President's request on the IDEA program.
So it is not a lack of sensitivity; and, of course, this tends to
free up money that goes into the regular school program. I think adding
money is not necessarily going to enhance the experience of the
children in the IDEA program; it simply would free up money for the
general school program that is now taken out of the regular school
budget.
I have to say that the offsets here, I believe, have a substantial
impact. It first takes money from the education for the disadvantaged,
and in the President's statement he points out that there is a real
need in this field as part of title I so that the students can profit
from the efforts that will be taken under title I.
Likewise, it takes out money from immigrant education; and, again, if
these individuals are going to be members of our society, they need an
ability to get education through our system. Otherwise, they will be on
the welfare rolls.
The school improvement programs, again, are something that are
affected by the offsets in this program, and I think the one that I am
concerned particularly about is vocational and adult education. We are
finding a lot of people are having to refine their job opportunities
because they are laid off from a factory; they are laid off from all
different types of things. It is almost a daily occurrence to read in
the newspaper where 5,000 are laid off by a major industry. These
people need the ability to get new skills to participate in our economy
in this Nation so that they can pay their mortgages, send their
children to school, to universities and colleges.
To take money out of vocational and adult education I think is a
misdirected priority at the moment, given what is happening in the
economy. We need to give people the opportunity to participate in the
economy, and the issues here that are being used to pay for this
additional funding, which will go to the schools' budgets and not
necessarily change the experience of any children in the IDEA program,
is not as high a priority in my judgment as providing for the education
for disadvantaged, as providing for vocational and adult education, and
higher education.

{time} 1615

We have increased the Pell Grants to help young people get a chance
to get a college education.
We are living in a far more sophisticated society than was true many
years ago. Therefore, people who want to participate effectively in our
economy need higher education; they need retraining, as offered by
vocational and adult education.
So I think, looking at the total sum of the priorities, that this is
a balanced bill. I hope that the Committee on Education and the
Workforce next year will take a look at this program in the
reauthorization process and make sure it is even more effective than it
is now in meeting the needs of the children that are part of the IDEA
program.
For this reason, I would urge the Members to reject this amendment.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
(Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. First of all, Mr. Chairman, I would like to
thank the chairman and the ranking member for all their work on this
fine piece of legislation. They have put in a lot of time and hours,
and they have listened to a lot of Members with respect to this very
complicated piece of legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I believe this is a wise amendment, and it is for this
reason: In 1975, Congress passed a very important piece of legislation.
That legislation is what we call special education, the Individuals
with Disabilities Act.

[[Page H6656]]

But at that time, that legislation said the Federal Government would
fund 40 percent of special education and the States would cover the
rest of it. Well, Mr. Chairman, that has not occurred. We are, at best,
funding 12 to 15 percent of special education, a Federal mandate on our
local schools which now, since those days, has become the largest
unfunded Federal mandate on our local school districts.
In the State of Wisconsin, from which I come and which I represent,
we have a revenue cap. What that means in States like Wisconsin and
other States across the country with the revenue cap, that means $1
that is used to chase an unfunded Federal mandate is $1 that is taken
away from every other resource allocation made by a local school
district. It is $1 taken away from all of these other programs.
It suffocates local control, it artificially props up property taxes,
and it disallows us from having the ability at home in our districts,
in our school districts, in our LEAs, from making the resource
decisions to cater our needs and problems per the problems of our
school districts.
So with that in mind, Mr. Chairman, I think it is very important that
this Congress works very, very hard to try and meet that unfunded
Federal mandate, because if we do so, our school districts can address
all of these issues. They can address bilingual education, they can
address all of the programs that are being used to pay for in this
amendment. It will be up to the school districts.
These programs are important programs. This amendment does keep the
funding of these programs at or above the President's request. So I
think it is a very reasonable and commonsense amendment.
I just think it is very important, Mr. Chairman, that we finally
recognize that Washington all too often penalizes our local decision-
making. It forces unfunded mandates on our schools, and in States
especially where we have revenue caps it basically makes a choice
between higher property taxes or not or between taking money out of
every other education program in a school district or putting it into
special education.
We should not have to force school districts into that kind of
decision-making. A vote for this amendment is a vote to elevate the
percentage of special education from Washington from 15 percent to 21
percent, basically even half of the mandate, not even far enough. But
it is a vote for local control, it is a vote for local resource
allocation.
With that, I thank the chairman and the ranking member for all of
their work on this. I just think it is important that we make a
statement on behalf of local control. This is a great way of doing so.
Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for
yielding to me.
I appreciate those last remarks. It is within that context that I
want to address some of the comments that the chairman made.
Mr. Chairman, without a doubt, we are moving $1.1 billion away from
programs that are funded over and above the request of our President.
Now, the characterization of these being cuts is one that I flatly
dispute, because these programs are still receiving increases over and
above what they are budgeted in the current fiscal year. In fact, we
are, in many of these programs, increasing still above what the
President had requested.
As to whether doing so causes some kind of harm or endangers
students, I just do not think our President would do that. I think our
President has suggested a funding level that is reasonable and just,
and took into full consideration the impact that his funding increases
would have on America's children.
The President did suggest on several occasions his support for moving
toward full funding of IDEA. Although our promise to the American
people, to America's schoolchildren, their teachers, their
administrators, was that we would fund this Federal mandate at 40
percent, my amendment increases the amount the committee has suggested
by $1 billion. That only gets us to 21 percent. We still have a long
way to go to maintain the promises that we have made. I hope we can do
that. But we are not hurting anyone in accomplishing the fulfillment of
our obligations.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the
requisite number of words.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out or reiterate,
since the President has been mentioned here, that we are $375 million
above the President's request for IDEA, and this represents a 22
percent increase in this fund. So it is not as if we were not sensitive
to the needs in IDEA.
But also, we were sensitive to the needs of the unemployed, of the
economically handicapped and disadvantaged, and immigrant education. So
it is a matter of balance here. We have tried to balance out all of
these things in allocating the resources in the bill. I hope that the
Members will support the bill and vote against this amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. OBEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin indicated that
he wanted to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and I for what
we have done in the bill. I think the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula)
and I would rather have less thanks and more support.
I have two things I would like to say, Mr. Chairman. First of all,
with respect to the duty that I think individual Members owe the
Committee, and vice versa. When the Committee produces a bill, there is
a report, a printed report. The bill is printed. The House has several
days' notice before the bill comes to the floor.
Yet, in contrast, I have seen at least four amendments offered today
on which the Committee has essentially been blindsided. Individual
Members keep amendments in their pockets until the last possible
moment. Then they bring them to the floor with no notice to the
Committee, so that we might work with them to fashion an amendment that
might be acceptable to both sides.
It just seems to me if committees are expected to exhibit certain
respect for individual Members, I think individual Members owe that
same respect to the Committee. I would urge Members to respond
accordingly.
Secondly, let me point out that this is one of those amendments that
I suspect no matter what we had put in this bill for IDEA, we would
have been told, oh, it is not enough. This Committee is one-upped every
time we turn around.
I want to read to the Members. People have suggested that the
Administration is in support of this amendment. That is most definitely
not true. I want to read a statement from the Secretary of Education:
``We believe that solutions to these challenges; namely, in IDEA,
should be addressed within the context of a thorough review of IDEA and
as part of a comprehensive package of reforms.'' In other words, they
do not think that we should be providing large amounts of money without
reforms to the program.
I want to point out what this amendment does. This amendment cuts
title I. We hear about how much IDEA is not reaching all the children
that it is supposed to reach. I recognize that. It would cost $17
billion to fully fund IDEA. It would cost $27 million to fully fund
title I, because title I is only reaching one-third of the children who
are eligible for service. Yet, this bill would cut that program to
finance a program which is already $375 million above the President.
I would point out that on IDEA, since 1996, this Committee has raised
the funding for that program from $2.3 billion to $7.7 billion. That is
not bad. That is not bad.
I would point out that only one-third of eligible kids in title I are
now served. Why do we not have an amendment on the floor raising that
to $27 billion? It seems to me it would be just as equitable.
I want to point out also that there are 8,200 schools in this country
who have low-income kids at least 35 percent of their enrollment, low-
income

[[Page H6657]]

kids who do not get a dime in title I money. If we are going to start
talking about inadequacies, we ought to raise that program, too.
I do not see why we ought to cut vocational education, why we ought
to cut title I, why we ought to cut bilingual education when we have
3.6 million kids in this country who need to understand how to read
English and speak English. I do not know why we should cut education
research when there is still so much debate in this country about how
children learn. It would be nice if all of us could get off our biases
and get into some facts. The way we do that is with additional
education research.
So I would say the amendment, in terms of what it wants to increase,
is fine. But the source of money for that increase I think is ill-
advised, to put it kindly. In my view, the Committee has struck a
reasonable balance. There are people in the Senate, there are people in
the Senate in my party who want to see IDEA increased far above this
level, and who also want to see title I fully funded over the next 4
years so we pay for 100 percent of eligibility.
Is anybody here willing to put that $27 billion on the table? This
Committee has tried to be responsible. We have held down the
gentleman's wish list on that side of the aisle and our wish list on
this side of the aisle.
I would much prefer that we be able to provide every dollar for IDEA
that is suggested in this amendment, but not at the expense of title I,
not at the expense of vocational education, not at the expense of
educational research, not at the expense of TRIO programs.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has
expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Obey was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would urge Members again to recognize that
we have hammered out over a 7-month period a bipartisan bill which does
not meet anybody's idea of what is pluperfect, but represents a
reasonable compromise between all of us. I urge Members to stick with
that judgment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
THE CHAIRMAN. An insufficient number has apparently arisen. . . .
Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order that a quorum is
not present.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will count for a quorum.
Evidently a quorum is not present.
Pursuant to the provisions of clause 6, rule XVIII, the Chair
announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of
time within which a vote by electronic device, if ordered, will be
taken on the pending question following the quorum call.
The call was taken by electronic device.
The following Members responded to their names:

[Roll No. 376]

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Allen
Andrews
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barrett
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Harman
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kerns
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kirk
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Largent
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins (OK)
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

{time} 1652

The CHAIRMAN. Four hundred twelve Members have recorded their
presence. A quorum is present, and the Committee will resume its
business.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair did not finally announce that a recorded vote
had been refused. Therefore, under the circumstances, the gentleman's
request is pending. The Chair will count for a recorded vote.
A sufficient number has arisen.
A recorded vote is ordered. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 76,
noes 349, not voting 5, as follows:

[Roll No. 377]

AYES--76

Akin
Armey
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Cannon
Cantor
Chabot
Cox
Culberson
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Doolittle
Flake
Forbes
Gibbons
Gilman
Goode
Graham
Graves
Green (WI)
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Harman
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Jones (NC)
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
Largent
Manzullo
McInnis
Miller, Gary
Myrick
Norwood
Paul
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Pombo
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rehberg
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Simmons
Souder
Stearns
Sununu

[[Page H6658]]

Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Toomey
Vitter
Weldon (FL)

NOES--349

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Castle
Chambliss
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cooksey
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Ford
Fossella
Frank
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hansen
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kirk
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Phelps
Pickering
Platts
Pomeroy
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrock
Scott
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thune
Thurman
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Visclosky
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins (OK)
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--5

Blunt
Kingston
Meeks (NY)
Miller (FL)
Velazquez

{time} 1701

Mr. HALL of Texas changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, this particular bill gives us an opportunity obviously
to talk about many important issues, and the issue of AIDS obviously is
very important. I want to bring to the attention of the House that
those of us who live in rural areas are beginning to see an increased
rise of AIDS in our areas, and the resources we have now allocated to
this horrific disease are skewed more to urban areas. I am not
proposing an amendment, I just want to bring to the committee's
attention that the Ryan White program, which is a very good resource,
is skewed to large populations.
Those of us who live in smaller communities, 50,000 and less, have
far more difficulty in being able to get those resources. I ask the
chairman if we could look for opportunities in the report language to
be more fair in the distribution of those resources.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. CLAYTON. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, we have recognized the problem; and we have
increased those programs, as the gentlewoman has probably noticed. It
has been a difficult issue to balance out all of the demands that
confront us in this bill. We have tried to be fair in beefing up that
program.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I am very appreciative of what the
gentleman has done. I am only saying as a rural-urban allocation, those
of us who live in rural communities do not benefit from the program in
the same way. I urge the gentleman to work with us during the
conference report language to correct some of that disparity.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman would continue to yield,
we are aware of that; and will work with the gentlewoman.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula),
the subcommittee chairman, and the gentleman from Florida (Chairman
Young) in support of the bill. I appreciate the funding for the
Community Access Program which was placed in the bill, the CAP program.
The Census Bureau estimates that for a second year running there has
been a decline in the number of uninsured Americans, with 39 million
Americans without health insurance. As the Census Bureau also reports,
the slowing economy, higher levels of unemployment, and the uncertain
future could cause significant growth in the number of uninsured
Americans.
The CAP program is used to support a variety of programs to improve
access for all levels of care, for the uninsured and the underinsured.
CAP helps fill the gaps in our health safety net by improving
infrastructure and communication among agencies to ensure that care is
continuous.
With better information, agencies can provide preventive, primary,
and emergency clinical health services in an integrated and coordinated
manner. Each community designs a program which best addresses the needs
of the uninsured and underinsured and the providers in their community.
For example, in Florida in Broward County, they use CAP funds to form
an informational health line and referral system to publicize health
care prevention and points of access for health care services. They
purchased new software so that various providers could improve
eligibility determinations for public services.
Chicago, Illinois, focused on a CAP grant which institutes disease
management best practices because of the county's disproportionately
high mortality rates from diabetes and cancer. The CAP program has
worked, and is able to reach more than 300,000 residents in Chicago.
Mr. Chairman, in its two short years in existence, this program is
very successful; 75 communities around the country have received these
funds. I thank the chairman of the full committee and the ranking
member, and also the subcommittee for including this provision in the
bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there additional amendments to title III?
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

school improvement programs

For carrying out school improvement activities authorized
by titles I-B, E and G, II, III-A, IV, V and VII-A of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as
redesignated and amended by H.R. 1 of the 107th Congress, as
passed by the House of Representatives on May 23, 2001; the
Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act; the Civil Rights
Act of 1964; section 10105, part B of title IX and part A of
title XIII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of

[[Page H6659]]

1965; and part B of title VIII of the Higher Education Act of
1965; $7,673,084,000, of which $2,178,750,000 shall become
available on July 1, 2002, and remain available through
September 30, 2003, and of which $1,960,000,000 shall become
available on October 1, 2002, and shall remain available
through September 30, 2003, for academic year 2002-2003.

indian education

For expenses necessary to carry out, to the extent not
otherwise provided, title III, part A of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965, as redesignated and amended
by H.R. 1 of the 107th Congress, as passed by the House of
Representatives on May 23, 2001, $123,235,000.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder
of the bill through title V be considered as read, printed in the
Record and open to amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Ohio?
There was no objection.
The text of the remainder of the bill through title V is as follows:

bilingual and immigrant education

For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided,
bilingual, foreign language and immigrant education
activities authorized by title III-A of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965, as redesignated and amended
by H.R. 1 of the 107th Congress, as passed by the House of
Representatives on May 23, 2001, $700,000,000.

special education

For carrying out the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act, $8,860,076,000, of which $3,516,885,000 shall
become available for obligation on July 1, 2002, and shall
remain available through September 30, 2003, and of which
$5,072,000,000 shall become available on October 1, 2002, and
shall remain available through September 30, 2003, for
academic year 2002-2003: Provided, That $9,500,000 shall be
for Recording for the Blind and Dyslexic to support the
development, production, and circulation of recorded
educational materials.

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, and the Helen Keller National Center Act,
$2,942,117,000, of which $60,000,000 shall remain available
through September 30, 2003: Provided, That the funds provided
for title I of the Assistive Technology Act of 1998 (``the AT
Act'') shall be allocated notwithstanding section 105(b)(1)
of the AT Act: Provided further, That each State shall be
provided $50,000 for activities under section 102 of the AT
Act: Provided further, That $40,000,000 shall be used to
support grants for up to three years to States under title
III of the AT Act, of which the Federal share shall not
exceed 75 percent in the first year, 50 percent in the second
year, and 25 percent in the third year, and that the
requirements in section 301(c)(2) and section 302 of that 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.), $13,000,000.

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.), $55,376,000, of which $5,376,000 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.),
$95,600,000: 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 and
the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act and title VIII-D
of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended,
$2,006,060,000, of which $1,191,310,000 shall become
available on July 1, 2002 and shall remain available through
September 30, 2003 and of which $808,750,000 shall become
available on October 1, 2002, and shall remain available
through September 30, 2003: Provided, That of the amount
provided for Adult Education State Grants, $70,000,000 shall
be made available for integrated English literacy and civics
education services to immigrants and other limited 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,
$9,500,000 shall be for national leadership activities under
section 243 and $6,560,000 shall be for the National
Institute for Literacy under section 242.

student financial assistance

For carrying out subparts 1, 3, and 4 of part A, section
428K, part C and part E of title IV of the Higher Education
Act of 1965, as amended, $12,410,100,000, which shall remain
available through September 30, 2003.
The maximum Pell Grant for which a student shall be
eligible during award year 2002-2003 shall be $4,000:
Provided, That notwithstanding section 401(g) of the Act, if
the Secretary determines, prior to publication of the payment
schedule for such award year, that the amount included within
this appropriation for Pell Grant awards in such award year,
and any funds available from the fiscal year 2001
appropriation for Pell Grant awards, are insufficient to
satisfy fully all such awards for which students are
eligible, as calculated under section 401(b) of the Act, the
amount paid for each such award shall be reduced by either a
fixed or variable percentage, or by a fixed dollar amount, as
determined in accordance with a schedule of reductions
established by the Secretary for this purpose.

federal family education loan program account

For Federal administrative expenses to carry out guaranteed
student loans authorized by title IV, part B, of the Higher
Education Act of 1965, as amended, $49,636,000.

higher education

For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided,
section 121 and titles II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, and VIII of
the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, section 1543 of
the Higher Education Amendments of 1992, and the Mutual
Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961;
$1,908,151,000, of which $5,000,000 for interest subsidies
authorized by section 121 of the Higher Education Act of
1965, shall remain available until expended: Provided, That
$10,000,000, to remain available through September 30, 2003,
shall be available to fund fellowships for academic year
2003-2004 under part A, subpart 1 of title VII of said Act,
under the terms and conditions of part A, subpart 1: Provided
further, That $1,000,000 is for data collection and
evaluation activities for programs under the Higher Education
Act of 1965, including such activities needed to comply with
the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993.

howard university

For partial support of Howard University (20 U.S.C. 121 et
seq.), $242,474,000, of which not less than $3,600,000 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, $762,000 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 total amount of 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, $208,000.

education research, statistics, and improvement

For carrying out activities authorized by the Educational
Research, Development, Dissemination, and Improvement Act of
1994, including part E; the National Education Statistics Act
of 1994, including sections 411 and 412; title II-B and C,
title IV-A and title VII-A of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965, as redesignated and amended by H.R. 1
of the 107th Congress, as passed by the House of
Representatives on May 23, 2001, $445,620,000: Provided, That
$77,500,000 of the funds provided for the national education
research institutes shall be allocated notwithstanding
section 912(m)(1)(B-F) and subparagraphs (B) and (C) of
section 931(c)(2) of Public Law 103-227.

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 two
passenger motor vehicles, $427,212,000.

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, $79,934,000.

[[Page H6660]]

office of inspector general

For expenses necessary for the Office of Inspector General,
as authorized by section 212 of the Department of Education
Organization Act, $38,720,000.

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.
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.
This title may be cited as the ``Department of Education
Appropriations Act, 2002''.

TITLE IV--RELATED AGENCIES

armed forces retirement home

For expenses necessary for the Armed Forces Retirement Home
to operate and maintain the United States Soldiers' and
Airmen's Home and the United States Naval Home, to be paid
from funds available in the Armed Forces Retirement Home
Trust Fund, $71,440,000, of which $9,812,000 shall remain
available until expended for construction and renovation of
the physical plants at the United States Soldiers' and
Airmen's Home and the United States Naval Home: Provided,
That, notwithstanding any other provision of law, a single
contract or related contracts for development and
construction, to include construction of a long-term care
facility at the United States Naval Home, 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 and 252.232-7007, Limitation of Government
Obligations.

Corporation for National and Community Service

domestic volunteer service programs, operating expenses

For expenses necessary for the Corporation for National and
Community Service to carry out the provisions of the Domestic
Volunteer Service Act of 1973, as amended, $324,450,000:
Provided, That none of the funds made available to the
Corporation for National and Community Service in this Act
for activities authorized by 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 2004, $365,000,000: 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: Provided further, That in addition
to the amounts provided above, $25,000,000, to remain
available until expended, shall be for digitalization,
pending enactment of authorizing legislation.

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), $39,482,000, including $1,500,000, to remain available
through September 30, 2003, 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.), $6,939,000.

Institute of Museum and Library Services

Office of Library Services: Grants and Administration

For carrying out subtitle B of the Museum and Library
Services Act, $168,078,000, of which $11,081,000 shall be for
projects authorized by section 262 of such Act,
notwithstanding section 221(a)(1)(B).

Medicare Payment Advisory Commission

salaries and expenses

For expenses necessary to carry out section 1805 of the
Social Security Act, $8,000,000, 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, $2,830,000.

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, $221,438,000: 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, $10,635,000.

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), $8,964,000.

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, $146,000,000, which shall include amounts becoming
available in fiscal year 2002 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
$146,000,000: 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, 2003, 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

[[Page H6661]]

Railroad Retirement Act and the Railroad Unemployment
Insurance Act, $97,700,000, 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 $6,042,000, 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), 217(g), 228(g), and 1131(b)(2) of the
Social Security Act, $434,400,000.

special benefits for disabled coal miners

For carrying out title IV of the Federal Mine Safety and
Health Act of 1977, $332,840,000, to remain available until
expended.
For making, after July 31 of the current fiscal year,
benefit payments to individuals under title IV of the Federal
Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, for costs incurred in the
current fiscal year, such amounts as may be necessary.
For making benefit payments under title IV of the Federal
Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 for the first quarter of
fiscal year 2003, $108,000,000, to remain available until
expended.

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, $21,270,412,000, 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.
In addition, $200,000,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2003, for payment to the Social Security trust
funds for administrative expenses for continuing disability
reviews as authorized by section 103 of Public Law 104-121
and section 10203 of Public Law 105-33. The term ``continuing
disability reviews'' means reviews and redeterminations as
defined under section 201(g)(1)(A) of the Social Security
Act, as amended.
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 2003,
$10,790,000,000, to remain available until expended.

limitation on administrative expenses

For necessary expenses, including the hire of two passenger
motor vehicles, and not to exceed $35,000 for official
reception and representation expenses, not more than
$7,035,000,000 may be expended, as authorized 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 $1,800,000 shall be for the Social Security Advisory
Board: Provided further, That unobligated balances at the end
of fiscal year 2002 not needed for fiscal year 2002 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.
From funds provided under the first paragraph, not less
than $200,000,000 shall be available for conducting
continuing disability reviews.
In addition to funding already available under this
heading, and subject to the same terms and conditions,
$433,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2003,
for continuing disability reviews as authorized by section
103 of Public Law 104-121 and section 10203 of Public Law
105-33. The term ``continuing disability reviews'' means
reviews and redeterminations as defined under section
201(g)(1)(A) of the Social Security Act, as amended.
In addition, $100,000,000 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 2002 exceed $100,000,000, the amounts shall be
available in fiscal year 2003 only to the extent provided in
advance in appropriations Acts.
From funds previously appropriated for this purpose, any
unobligated balances at the end of fiscal year 2001 shall be
available to continue Federal-State partnerships which will
evaluate means 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, $19,000,000, together with not to exceed
$56,000,000, 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.

United States Institute of Peace

operating expenses

For necessary expenses of the United States Institute of
Peace as authorized in the United States Institute of Peace
Act, $15,000,000.

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 $20,000 and
$15,000, 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 $2,500 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 $2,500 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.
Sec. 506. (a) It is the sense of the Congress that, to the
greatest extent practicable, all equipment and products
purchased with funds made available in this Act should be
American-made.
(b) In providing financial assistance to, or entering into
any contract with, any entity using funds made available in
this Act, the head of each Federal agency, to the greatest
extent practicable, shall provide to such entity a notice
describing the statement made in subsection (a) by the
Congress.
(c) If it has been finally determined by a court or Federal
agency that any person intentionally affixed a label bearing
a ``Made in America'' inscription, or any inscription

[[Page H6662]]

with the same meaning, to any product sold in or shipped to
the United States that is not made in the United States, the
person shall be ineligible to receive any contract or
subcontract made with funds made available in this Act,
pursuant to the debarment, suspension, and ineligibility
procedures described in sections 9.400 through 9.409 of title
48, Code of Federal Regulations.
Sec. 507. When issuing statements, press releases, requests
for proposals, bid solicitations and other documents
describing projects or programs funded in whole or in 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).
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.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to the open portion of the bill
through title V?
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

TITLE VI--EXTENSION OF MARK-TO-MARKET PROGRAM FOR MULTIFAMILY ASSISTED
HOUSING

SEC. 601. SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This title may be cited as the ``Mark-to-
Market Extension Act of 2001''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this
title is as follows:

TITLE VI--EXTENSION OF MARK-TO-MARKET PROGRAM FOR MULTIFAMILY ASSISTED
HOUSING

Sec. 601. Short title and table of contents.
Sec. 602. Purposes.
Sec. 603. Effective date.

Subtitle A--Multifamily Housing Mortgage and Assistance Restructuring
and Section 8 Contract Renewal

Sec. 611. Definitions.
Sec. 612. Mark-to-market program amendments.
Sec. 613. Consistency of rent levels under enhanced voucher assistance
and rent restructurings.
Sec. 614. Eligible inclusions for renewal rents of partially assisted
buildings.
Sec. 615. Eligibility of restructuring projects for miscellaneous
housing insurance.
Sec. 616. Technical corrections.

Subtitle B--Office of Multifamily Housing Assistance Restructuring

Sec. 621. Reauthorization of Office and extension of program.
Sec. 622. Appointment of Director.
Sec. 623. Vacancy in position of Director.
Sec. 624. Oversight by Federal Housing Commissioner.
Sec. 625. Limitation on subsequent employment.

Subtitle C--Miscellaneous Housing Program Amendments

Sec. 631. Extension of CDBG public services cap exception.
Sec. 632. Use of section 8 enhanced vouchers for prepayments.
Sec. 633. Prepayment and refinancing of loans for section 202
supportive housing.
Sec. 634. Technical correction.

SEC. 602. PURPOSES.

The purposes of this title are--
(1) to continue the progress of the Multifamily Assisted
Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997 (referred to in
this section as ``that Act'');
(2) to ensure that properties that undergo mortgage
restructurings pursuant to that Act are rehabilitated to a
standard that allows the properties to meet their long-term
affordability requirements;
(3) to ensure that, for properties that undergo mortgage
restructurings pursuant to that Act, reserves are set at
adequate levels to allow the properties to meet their long-
term affordability requirements;
(4) to ensure that properties that undergo mortgage
restructurings pursuant to that Act are operated efficiently,
and that operating expenses are sufficient to ensure the
long-term financial and physical integrity of the properties;
(5) to ensure that properties that undergo rent
restructurings have adequate resources to maintain the
properties in good condition;
(6) to ensure that the Office of Multifamily Housing
Assistance Restructuring of the Department of Housing and
Urban Development continues to focus on the portfolio of
properties eligible for restructuring under that Act;
(7) to ensure that the Department of Housing and Urban
Development carefully tracks the condition of those
properties on an ongoing basis;
(8) to ensure that tenant groups, nonprofit organizations,
and public entities continue to have the resources for
building the capacity of tenant organizations in furtherance
of the purposes of subtitle A of that Act; and
(9) to encourage the Office of Multifamily Housing
Assistance Restructuring to continue to provide participating
administrative entities, including public participating
administrative entities, with the flexibility to respond to
specific problems that individual cases may present, while
ensuring consistent outcomes around the country.

SEC. 603. EFFECTIVE DATE.

Except as provided in sections 616(a)(2), 633(b), and
634(b), this title and the amendments made by this title
shall take effect or are deemed to have taken effect, as
appropriate, on the earlier of--
(1) the date of the enactment of this title; or
(2) September 30, 2001.

Subtitle A--Multifamily Housing Mortgage and Assistance Restructuring
and Section 8 Contract Renewal

SEC. 611. DEFINITIONS.

Section 512 of the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and
Affordability Act of 1997 (42 U.S.C. 1437f note) is amended
by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(19) Office.--The term `Office' means the Office of
Multifamily Housing Assistance Restructuring established
under section 571.''.

SEC. 612. MARK-TO-MARKET PROGRAM AMENDMENTS.

(a) Funding for Tenant and Nonprofit Participation.--
Section 514(f)(3)(A) of the Multifamily Assisted Housing
Reform and Affordability Act of 1997 (42 U.S.C. 1437f note)
is amended--
(1) by striking ``Secretary may provide not more than
$10,000,000 annually in funding'' and inserting ``Secretary
shall make available not more than $10,000,000 annually in
funding, which amount shall be in addition

[[Page H6663]]

to any amounts made available under this subparagraph and
carried over from previous years,''; and
(2) by striking ``entities), and for tenant services,'' and
inserting ``entities), for tenant services, and for tenant
groups, nonprofit organizations, and public entities
described in section 517(a)(5),''.
(b) Exception Rents.--Section 514(g)(2)(A) of the
Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of
1997 (42 U.S.C. 1437f note) is amended by striking
``restructured mortgages in any fiscal year'' and inserting
``portfolio restructuring agreements''.
(c) Notice to Displaced Tenants.--Section 516(d) of the
Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of
1997 (42 U.S.C. 1437f note) is amended by striking ``Subject
to'' and inserting the following:
``(1) Notice to certain residents.--The Office shall notify
any tenant that is residing in a project or receiving
assistance under section 8 of the United States Housing Act
of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f) at the time of rejection under this
section, of such rejection, except that the Office may
delegate the responsibility to provide notice under this
paragraph to the participating administrative entity.
``(2) Assistance and moving expenses.--Subject to''.
(d) Restructuring Plans for Transfers of Prepayment
Projects.--The Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and
Affordability Act of 1997 (42 U.S.C. 1437f note) is amended--
(1) in section 524(e), by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(3) Mortgage restructuring and rental assistance
sufficiency plans.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the owner
of the project may request, and the Secretary may consider,
mortgage restructuring and rental assistance sufficiency
plans to facilitate sales or transfers of properties under
this subtitle, subject to an approved plan of action under
the Emergency Low Income Housing Preservation Act of 1987 (12
U.S.C. 1715l note) or the Low-Income Housing Preservation and
Resident Homeownership Act of 1990 (12 U.S.C. 4101 et seq.),
which plans shall result in a sale or transfer of those
properties.''; and
(2) in the last sentence of section 512(2), by inserting
``, but does include a project described in section
524(e)(3)'' after ``section 524(e)''.
(e) Addition of Significant Features.--Section 517 of the
Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of
1997 (42 U.S.C. 1437f note) is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (c) (except that the striking of
such subsection may not be construed to have any effect on
the provisions of law amended by such subsection, as such
subsection was in effect before the date of the enactment of
this Act);
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) in paragraph (7), by striking ``(7)'' and inserting
``(1)''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2) Addition of significant features.--
``(A) Authority.--An approved mortgage restructuring and
rental assistance sufficiency plan may require the
improvement of the project by the addition of significant
features that are not necessary for rehabilitation to the
standard provided under paragraph (1), such as air
conditioning, an elevator, and additional community space.
The Secretary shall establish guidelines regarding the
inclusion of requirements regarding such additional
significant features under such plans.
``(B) Funding.--Significant features added pursuant to an
approved mortgage restructuring and rental assistance
sufficiency plan may be paid from the funding sources
specified in the first sentence of paragraph (1)(A).
``(C) Limitation on owner contribution.--An owner of a
project may not be required to contribute from non-project
resources, toward the cost of any additional significant
features required pursuant to this paragraph, more than 25
percent of the amount of any assistance received for the
inclusion of such features.
``(D) Applicability.--This paragraph shall apply to all
eligible multifamily housing projects, except projects for
which the Secretary and the project owner executed a mortgage
restructuring and rental assistance sufficiency plan on or
before the date of the enactment of the Mark-to-Market
Extension Act of 2001.''; and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (6) of subsection (b) the
following:
``(c) Rehabilitation Needs and Addition of Significant
Features.--''.
(f) Look-Back Projects.--Section 512(2) of the Multifamily
Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997 (42
U.S.C. 1437f note) is amended by adding after the period at
the end of the last sentence the following: ``Notwithstanding
any other provision of this title, the Secretary may treat a
project as an eligible multifamily housing project for
purposes of this title if (I) the project is assisted
pursuant to a contract for project-based assistance under
section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 renewed
under section 524 of this Act, (II) the owner consents to
such treatment, and (III) the project met the requirements of
the first sentence of this paragraph for eligibility as an
eligible multifamily housing project before the initial
renewal of the contract under section 524.''.
(g) Second Mortgages.--Section 517(a) of the Multifamily
Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997 (42
U.S.C. 1437f note) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ``no more than the''
and inserting the following: ``not more than the greater of--
``(i) the full or partial payment of claim made under this
subtitle; or
``(ii) the''; and
(2) in paragraph (5), by inserting ``of the second
mortgage, assign the second mortgage to the acquiring
organization or agency,'' after ``terms''.
(h) Exemptions From Restructuring.--Section 514(h)(2) of
the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act
of 1997 (42 U.S.C. 1437f note) is amended by inserting before
the semicolon the following: ``, or refinanced pursuant to
section 811 of the American Homeownership and Economic
Opportunity Act of 2000 (12 U.S.C. 1701q note)''.

SEC. 613. CONSISTENCY OF RENT LEVELS UNDER ENHANCED VOUCHER
ASSISTANCE AND RENT RESTRUCTURINGS.

Subtitle A of the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and
Affordability Act of 1997 (42 U.S.C. 1437f note) is amended
by adding at the end the following new section:

``SEC. 525. CONSISTENCY OF RENT LEVELS UNDER ENHANCED VOUCHER
ASSISTANCE AND RENT RESTRUCTURINGS.

``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall examine the
standards and procedures for determining and establishing the
rent standards described under subsection (b). Pursuant to
such examination, the Secretary shall establish procedures
and guidelines that are designed to ensure that the amounts
determined by the various rent standards for the same
dwelling units are reasonably consistent and reflect rents
for comparable unassisted units in the same area as such
dwelling units.
``(b) Rent Standards.--The rent standards described in this
subsection are as follows:
``(1) Enhanced vouchers.--The payment standard for enhanced
voucher assistance under section 8(t) of the United States
Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f(t)).
``(2) Mark-to-market.--The rents derived from comparable
properties, for purposes of section 514(g) of this Act.
``(3) Contract renewal.--The comparable market rents for
the market area, for purposes of section 524(a)(4) of this
Act.''.

SEC. 614. ELIGIBLE INCLUSIONS FOR RENEWAL RENTS OF PARTIALLY
ASSISTED BUILDINGS.

Section 524(a)(4)(C) of the Multifamily Assisted Housing
Reform and Affordability Act of 1997 (42 U.S.C. 1437f note)
is amended by adding after the period at the end the
following: ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Secretary shall include in such budget-based cost increases
costs relating to the project as a whole (including costs
incurred with respect to units not covered by the contract
for assistance), but only (I) if inclusion of such costs is
requested by the owner or purchaser of the project, (II) if
inclusion of such costs will permit capital repairs to the
project or acquisition of the project by a nonprofit
organization, and (III) to the extent that inclusion of such
costs (or a portion thereof) complies with the requirement
under clause (ii).''.

SEC. 615. ELIGIBILITY OF RESTRUCTURING PROJECTS FOR
MISCELLANEOUS HOUSING INSURANCE.

Section 223(a)(7) of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C.
1715n(a)(7)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``under this Act: Provided, That the
principal'' and inserting the following: ``under this Act, or
an existing mortgage held by the Secretary that is subject to
a mortgage restructuring and rental assistance sufficiency
plan pursuant to the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and
Affordability Act of 1997 (42 U.S.C. 1437f note), provided
that--
``(A) the principal'';
(2) by striking ``except that (A)'' and inserting ``except
that (i)'';
(3) by striking ``(B)'' and inserting ``(ii)'';
(4) by striking ``(C)'' and inserting ``(iii)'';
(5) by striking ``(D)'' and inserting ``(iv)'';
(6) by striking ``: Provided further, That a mortgage'' and
inserting the following ``; and
``(B) a mortgage'';
(7) by striking ``or'' at the end; and
(8) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(C) a mortgage that is subject to a mortgage
restructuring and rental assistance sufficiency plan pursuant
to the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability
Act of 1997 (42 U.S.C. 1437f note) and is refinanced under
this paragraph may have a term of not more than 30 years;
or''.

SEC. 616. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS.

(a) Exemptions From Restructuring.--
(1) In general.--Section 514(h) of the Multifamily Assisted
Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997 (42 U.S.C. 1437f
note) is amended to read as if the amendment made by section
531(c) of Public Law 106-74 (113 Stat. 1116) were made to
``Section 514(h)(1)'' instead of ``Section 514(h)''.
(2) Retroactive effect.--The amendment made by paragraph
(1) of this subsection is deemed to have taken effect on the
date of the enactment of Public Law 106-74 (113 Stat. 1109).
(b) Other.--The Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and
Affordability Act of 1997 (42 U.S.C. 1437f note) is amended--
(1) in section 511(a)(12), by striking ``this Act'' and
inserting ``this title'';
(2) in section 513, by striking ``this Act'' each place
such term appears in subsections (a)(2)(I) and (b)(3) and
inserting ``this title'';
(3) in section 514(f)(3)(B), by inserting ``Housing'' after
``Multifamily'';
(4) in section 515(c)(1)(B), by inserting ``or'' after the
semicolon;

[[Page H6664]]

(5) in section 517(b)--
(A) in each of paragraphs (1) through (6), by capitalizing
the first letter of the first word that follows the paragraph
heading;
(B) in each of paragraphs (1) through (5), by striking the
semicolon at the end and inserting a period; and
(C) in paragraph (6), by striking ``; and'' at the end and
inserting a period;
(6) in section 520(b), by striking ``Banking and''; and
(7) in section 573(d)(2), by striking ``Banking and''.

Subtitle B--Office of Multifamily Housing Assistance Restructuring

SEC. 621. REAUTHORIZATION OF OFFICE AND EXTENSION OF PROGRAM.

Section 579 of the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and
Affordability Act of 1997 (42 U.S.C. 1437f note) is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following
new subsection:
``(a) Repeals.--
``(1) Mark-to-market program.--Subtitle A (except for
section 524) is repealed effective October 1, 2006.
``(2) OMHAR.--Subtitle D (except for this section) is
repealed effective October 1, 2004.'';
(2) in subsection (b), by striking ``October 1, 2001'' and
inserting ``October 1, 2006'';
(3) in subsection (c), by striking ``upon September 30,
2001'' and inserting ``at the end of September 30, 2004'';
and
(4) by striking subsection (d) and inserting the following
new subsection:
``(d) Transfer of Authority.--Effective upon the repeal of
subtitle D under subsection (a)(2) of this section, all
authority and responsibilities to administer the program
under subtitle A are transferred to the Secretary.''.

SEC. 622. APPOINTMENT OF DIRECTOR.

(a) In General.--Section 572 of the Multifamily Assisted
Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997 (42 U.S.C. 1437f
note) is amended by striking subsection (a) and inserting the
following new subsection:
``(a) Appointment.--The Office shall be under the
management of a Director, who shall be appointed by the
President from among individuals who are citizens of the
United States and have a demonstrated understanding of
financing and mortgage restructuring for affordable
multifamily housing.''.
(b) Applicability.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to the first Director of the Office of
Multifamily Housing Assistance Restructuring of the
Department of Housing and Urban Development appointed after
the date of the enactment of this Act, and any such Director
appointed thereafter.

SEC. 623. VACANCY IN POSITION OF DIRECTOR.

(a) In General.--Section 572 of the Multifamily Assisted
Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997 (42 U.S.C. 1437f
note) is amended by striking subsection (b) and inserting the
following new subsection:
``(b) Vacancy.--A vacancy in the position of Director shall
be filled by appointment in the manner provided under
subsection (a). The President shall make such an appointment
not later than 60 days after such position first becomes
vacant.''.
(b) Applicability.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to any vacancy in the position of Director of the
Office of Multifamily Housing Assistance Restructuring of the
Department of Housing and Urban Development which occurs or
exists after the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 624. OVERSIGHT BY FEDERAL HOUSING COMMISSIONER.

(a) In General.--Section 578 of the Multifamily Assisted
Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997 (42 U.S.C. 1437f
note) is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 578. OVERSIGHT BY FEDERAL HOUSING COMMISSIONER.

``All authority and responsibilities assigned under this
subtitle to the Secretary shall be carried out through the
Assistant Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban
Development who is the Federal Housing Commissioner.''.
(b) Report.--The second sentence of section 573(b) of the
Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of
1997 (42 U.S.C. 1437f note) is amended by striking
``Secretary'' and inserting ``Assistant Secretary of the
Department of Housing and Urban Development who is the
Federal Housing Commissioner''.

SEC. 625. LIMITATION ON SUBSEQUENT EMPLOYMENT.

Section 576 of the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and
Affordability Act of 1997 (42 U.S.C. 1437f note) is amended
by striking ``2-year period'' and inserting ``1-year
period''.

Subtitle C--Miscellaneous Housing Program Amendments

SEC. 631. EXTENSION OF CDBG PUBLIC SERVICES CAP EXCEPTION.

Section 105(a)(8) of the Housing and Community Development
Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5305(a)(8)) is amended by striking
``through 2001'' and inserting ``through 2003''.

SEC. 632. USE OF SECTION 8 ENHANCED VOUCHERS FOR PREPAYMENTS.

Section 8(t)(2) of the United States Housing Act of 1937
(42 U.S.C. 1437f(t)(2)) is amended by inserting after
``insurance contract for the mortgage for such housing
project'' the following: ``(including any such mortgage
prepayment during fiscal year 1996 or a fiscal year
thereafter or any insurance contract voluntary termination
during fiscal year 1996 or a fiscal year thereafter)''.

SEC. 633. PREPAYMENT AND REFINANCING OF LOANS FOR SECTION 202
SUPPORTIVE HOUSING.

(a) In General.--Section 811 of the American Homeownership
and Economic Opportunity Act of 2000 (12 U.S.C. 1701q note)
is amended by striking subsection (e).
(b) Effectiveness Upon Date of Enactment.--The amendment
made by subsection (a) of this section shall take effect upon
the date of the enactment of this Act and the provisions of
section 811 of the American Homeownership and Economic
Opportunity Act of 2000 (12 U.S.C. 1701q note), as amended by
subsection (a) of this section, shall apply as so amended
upon such date of enactment, notwithstanding--
(1) any authority of the Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development to issue regulations to implement or carry out
the amendments made by subsection (a) of this section or the
provisions of section 811 of the American Homeownership and
Economic Opportunity Act of 2000 (12 U.S.C. 1701q note); or
(2) any failure of the Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development to issue any such regulations authorized.

SEC. 634. TECHNICAL CORRECTION.

(a) In General.--Section 101(a) of Public Law 100-77 (42
U.S.C. 11301 note) is amended to read as if the amendment
made by section 1 of Public Law 106-400 (114 Stat. 1675) were
made to ``Section 101'' instead of ``Section 1''.
(b) Retroactive Effect.--The amendment made by subsection
(a) of this section is deemed to have taken effect
immediately after the enactment of Public Law 106-400 (114
Stat. 1675).

Mr. REGULA (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the remainder of the bill through page 102, line 2, 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.

Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Traficant

Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to offer
amendment No. 6 from the end of the bill at this point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Ohio?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Traficant:
Page ____, after line ____, insert the following new
section:
Sec. ____. No funds appropriated in this Act may be made
available to any person or entity that violates the Buy
American Act (41 U.S.C. 10a-10c).

Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a straight limitation.
None of the funds appropriated in the act may be made available to any
person or entity that has violated the Buy American Act.
Mr. Chairman, the House should pay attention to something that
concerns me, and the appropriators especially. A notice has been posted
that the windows of the Capitol will have installed a protective
covering because of the September 11 terrorist attack and the increased
focus on terrorism. The company that made the product that will be
installed on the Capitol windows is from Belgium.
One of the big contracts given for the rebuilding of the Pentagon is
to a French company; and I might remind Members when we had a problem
with Khadafi, France would not let us use their air space or their
airports. Our military has bought boots from China, and probably most
of the flags Members see waving throughout America as a symbol of
American patriotism were made in Chinese sweatshops.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment makes sense. But I believe the leaders of
the Committee on Appropriations should start looking at procurement. We
certainly do not have to be an isolationist Nation or protectionist
Nation; but on military procurement, especially, I think we should
almost demand American products in the end that someday we may face a
nation who we depend on for a product that may not be all that friendly
to us.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, we are prepared to accept this amendment on
our side.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the chairman, who
is my neighbor. The subcommittee has done a tremendous job.

[[Page H6665]]

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
The amendment was agreed to.

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 title V, insert after the last section
(preceding the short title) the following section:
Sec. 5____. Of the amounts otherwise made available in this
Act to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting for fiscal
year 2002, $12,000,000 is transferred and made available
under the account for the Public Health and Social Services
Emergency Fund as an additional amount to support activities
of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order.

{time} 1715

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment. Basically
it tries to help the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that
relates to biological disease and chemical threats to the civilian
population and it essentially takes about 3 percent from the Public
Broadcasting Corporation and moves it over to the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention.
Just this last week, our headline news has had two frightening what-
ifs, particularly in Florida. Three individuals have come in contact
with a manufactured form of anthrax. Of course, one person lost his
life. Americans, of course, felt this, as a collective body, sort of a
shiver upon hearing about this news. Early this week, we saw the case
in the D.C. Metro where somebody sprayed the crowd, unsuspecting crowd.
It turns out that about 35 people on the train, they had to evacuate.
This whole process of what could happen if anthrax is used in our
country in a large population is a great concern. And so I think the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention should have sufficient funds
to study this. I do not believe the CDC has had sufficient funds, and
so this is a very small amount, about 3 percent, from the Public
Broadcasting Corporation. We take from them and give to CDC,
particularly for biological disease and chemical threat prevention
studies. I think it is a modest amount.
Mr. Chairman, on this debate can I control the balance of my time?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman must use his time or yield it back.
Mr. STEARNS. Let me conclude by saying that perhaps all of you saw
recently in the newspaper that the FCC now has allowed the Corporation
for Public Broadcasting to advertise as a means of getting more
revenues to their budget. Surely if PBS is going to use tax dollars to
support itself, a small amount could be contributed to the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, because really public broadcasting has
now asked the FCC if we can start to advertise to get revenue, much
like private corporations. So the Public Broadcasting System is out
there doing the same thing that the private corporations are going to
do. The FCC is going to allow it, they are going to be able to
advertise to collect revenue, and these revenues will go to help
support the Public Broadcasting System, and I think this is good. I
think the Public Broadcasting System should have a certain amount of
revenues from advertising. However, I do not think they need to
continue to be on the public dole, that the government has to support
them with taxpayer-supported money.
So I think this is a small effort to say we need to help the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention and, more importantly, have them
take this money and use it to study things like the proliferation of
anthrax and to prepare this Nation for some of the pitfalls that might
occur because of that.
Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Stearns
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin insist on the point
of order?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that the point in the
bill at which this amendment would be in order has already been passed
and so clearly, under the House rules, the gentleman's amendment is not
in order at this time. However, as a courtesy to him and in an effort
to save time, I will not insist on the point of order. I would simply
move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman does not insist on the point of order and
is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is not what it appears to be.
It is a trojan horse amendment. We all are aware of the terrorism
problem that has befallen this country and the world. This amendment,
in essence, pretends to do something significant about it when, in
fact, what it does about it is something that is minuscule and not at
all long lasting. What this amendment really is is a subterranean
attack on public television all over America.
The public television stations of this country are required by an FCC
mandate to move to digital technology. This bill provides the money, at
least the Federal share of the money, to help them do that. What this
amendment would do is to cut in half the Federal money which is being
provided in order to enable those stations to fulfill that Federal
mandate. And what it does is it pretends that it is going to have a
significant impact on programs run by the Centers for Disease Control
by transferring $12 million to that agency.
In fact, this bill already contains $232 million for that agency, a
28 percent increase over last year, and by the time we have finished
with the antiterrorism supplemental, there will be probably at least
another $1 billion and maybe as much as $2 billion, not million but
billion, for the very same purpose that this amendment purports to add
money for this evening.
So I would suggest the real way, the real way, the effective way to
deal with the problem of terrorist attacks on this country in the form
of biological or chemical agents is to support the committee bill and
to support the follow-on supplemental which will be provided to this
House before the appropriation process is finished under the agreement
that we have reached with the White House.
I would urge, under those circumstances, that Members not be deceived
into thinking that this is a significant effort to deal with that
problem. It is minuscule compared to the funding that will be needed
and will be provided by Members on both sides of the aisle. And so I
would urge rejection of the amendment, unless, of course, you want to
insist on a Federal mandate without paying for it.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
I rise in opposition to this amendment because we have already added
$100 million to the CDC on bioterrorism. Their total account is almost
$400 million. In addition, the Secretary of Health and Human Services
has been assured that CDC will receive a portion of the money in the
$20 billion that we appropriated as a result of the events of September
11. So I think there is going to be a lot of money flowing to CDC for
bioterrorism. In addition, we beefed up the public health account.
Now, public broadcasting, and it is public broadcasting, I do not
always agree with what they do, but they have been required by FCC to
go to digital. And, of course, eventually the public, as they purchase
new television sets, will likewise be able to receive digital
programming which will, of course, improve the quality of the
broadcasting. While I may not be enthused about some of the things the
Corporation for Public Broadcasting does, I think it is our
responsibility since it is the FCC which is a Federal agency that has
made this order, and since it is public broadcasting, to support them
as this appropriation does.
If I thought there was a shortage in CDC, I would perhaps have a
different approach. But, again, we have enormously beefed up the CDC
money, plus the fact that they are going to get a very sizable sum from
the $20 billion that we have already put in for emergency funding for
national security.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me point out that the President will send
to this Congress tomorrow a request for $2 billion, not 12 million
dollars but $2 billion to combat disease-related potential attacks from
any source.
I would urge the House not to fall into the trap of using our concern
over the incident that happened a month ago to screw up every other
program that the government is engaged in. I

[[Page H6666]]

mean, that is essentially what would happen if this amendment is
adopted with respect to our obligation to help finance the mandate that
the Federal Government created with respect to digitalization.
If the Members want to support a real effort to help CDC prepare this
country, they will support that $2 billion request. They will not cut
in half what we are trying to do here for digitalization for public
television in order to create the appearance that we have done
something significant which, in fact, would be a thimbleful in an ocean
in terms of its impact.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, that is correct. I am
advised by our leadership, also, that there will be a $2 billion
request by the Administration in additional emergency funding for the
Centers for Disease Control to deal with bioterrorism, and that is a
lot of money. I do not believe we should cripple the ability of the
Corporation for Public Broadcasting to move into the 21st century in
their ability to transmit to the public effectively. Obviously the FCC
would not have made this requirement if it were not an important
element of their ability to serve the public.
I, therefore, oppose the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. STEARNS. 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 Florida (Mr. Stearns)
will be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Sanders

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Sanders:
At the end of title V, insert after the last section
(preceding the short title) the following section:
Sec. 5 . None of the funds made available in this Act for
the Department of Health and Human Services may be used to
grant an exclusive or partially exclusive license pursuant to
chapter 18 of title 35, United States Code, except in
accordance with section 209 of such title (relating to the
availability to the public of an invention and its benefits
on reasonable terms).

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio reserves a point of order.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment to lower
the cost of prescription drugs in this country. It is tripartisan and
is cosponsored by the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul)
and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
When I first introduced a version of this amendment in 1996, it
received 180 votes. Last year, however, it passed 313-109. There is a
lot of support for this amendment in this body. I offer it tonight
again in the hope that the Senate will agree favorably to it and begin
to lower the price of prescription drugs developed with the taxpayers'
money through the National Institutes of Health. This amendment is
supported by organizations representing millions of American citizens,
including Families USA, the Alliance for Retired Americans, the
National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, and Public
Citizen.
Mr. Chairman, over the years, the taxpayers of this country have
contributed billions of dollars to the National Institutes of Health
for research into new and important drugs, and that research money has
paid off. It has worked. Between 1955 and 1992, 92 percent of drugs
approved by the FDA to treat cancer were researched and developed by
the NIH. Today, many of the most widely used drugs in this country
dealing with a variety of illnesses were developed through NIH
research, and that is very good news for all of us.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield back the balance
of his time if we said that we would accept the amendment?
Mr. SANDERS. If the gentleman would let me finish my statement, I
have 2 more minutes. And he is going to accept it. I am happy to hear
that.

{time} 1730

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, what if we will not accept it if the
gentleman finishes his speech?
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I will read fast. It will be done in a
minute-and-a-half.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman and ranking member agreeing
to accept the amendment. But the point here is that the bad news, by
and large, is that those drugs that were developed at taxpayer expense
were given over to the pharmaceutical industry with no assurance that
American consumers would not be charged outrageously high prices. The
pharmaceutical companies constitute the most profitable industry in
America, yet while their profits sore, millions of Americans cannot
afford the prescription drugs they desperately need because of the high
prices they are forced to pay. That is bad. But what is even worse is
that many of these same drugs were developed with taxpayer dollars.
Imagine a situation where taxpayers contribute to develop a drug, and
then the person who paid taxes to develop that drug cannot afford to
buy it. That is an outrage.
There are many crises in terms of the high cost of prescription drugs
in this country. This amendment deals with one narrow aspect of that
problem. If taxpayers in America are going to contribute billions to
develop drugs, then when those drugs are marketed by the pharmaceutical
industry they must be sold at a reasonable price; and that is what this
amendment does.
I could list, but I will not, the many, many drugs that receive
Federal assistance that are now sold for outrageously high prices. It
is time for the United States Congress to stand up to represent the
taxpayers and consumers of this country and support this amendment.
Let me simply conclude by mentioning with gratitude that last year
over 300 Members of this House overwhelmingly supported this amendment.
I am very delighted and proud that the chairman and the ranking member
are prepared to accept it and that I hope that we can go on tonight.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I am pleased that the amendment will be approved because I am a
cosponsor of this amendment. I compliment the gentleman for bringing
this to the floor.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Paul) for his strong support.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there further discussion on the amendment?
Does the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) insist on his point of
order?
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, we withdraw our reservation and are
prepared to accept the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the bill?

Amendment Offered by Mr. Istook

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Istook:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:

TITLE VII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 701. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are
revised by increasing the amount made available in the second
sentence under the heading ``Health Resources and Services''
for special projects of regional and national significance
under section 501(a)(2) of the Social Security Act, reducing
the aggregate amount made available under the heading
``Disease Control, Research, and Training'', and reducing the
aggregate amount made available under the heading ``Payments
to States for the Child Care and Development Block Grant'',
by $33,000,000, $16,000,000, and $17,000,000, respectively.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, this deals with the matter that was offered

[[Page H6667]]

earlier during the debate on this bill to make available an additional
$33 million for Abstinence Education Grants.
The offset, of course, is different from what it was before. It is
now under the Disease Control, Research, and Training program, which,
among other things, provides funding for combatting sexually
transmitted diseases, as well as other diseases.
Mr. Chairman, this is in response to the great crisis that we have
had for decades regarding teen pregnancy, teen sexual activity, unwed
births, and the tremendous catastrophic effect that it has had on
America and on millions and millions of lives in America. For decades,
since the 1970s, Mr. Chairman, we have been funding so-called safe sex
programs, family planning programs, things using a euphemism for
telling kids it is okay to have sex, as long as you are careful about
it.
What has been the result during that time? Mr. Chairman, as Federal
funding for these programs went up, teenage pregnancies and unwed
births went up along with it. The more we sent a mixed message that
says it is okay to have sex out of wedlock, it is okay, kids, just be
safe about it, the more we undercut what Mom and Dad tell their kids,
the more we undercut what they are taught at church, the more we found
that we got more of the problem.
But only when first in private funding and then, in 1995, in Federal
funding, did we start funding the abstinence programs that taught kids
about waiting until marriage and upholding values, only then have we
started to see this number come down in teenage unwed births.
That is what this is about, Mr. Chairman. We started funding that in
1995 at the rate of $50 million a year, and then, in the last year, we
began adding to that at a rate of $70 million a year. To the chairman's
credit, the bill in front of us would bring that number to $90 million,
but it does not bring it to parity with what we have been spending to
promote so-called safe sex, family planning. ``It is okay to do it as
long as you try to be careful,'' and teenagers are not able to be
careful that way, Mr. Chairman.
This is bringing parity, as the President has proposed. As we have
the supportive letter from OMB to support that, this is bringing parity
to the funding, saying that we ought to be spending at least as much on
the message of abstinence as we are on the other message.
We defined what we meant by abstinence. Teaching that has as its
exclusive purpose the social, psychological, and health gains to be
realized by abstaining from sexual activity. Teaching that abstinence
from sexual activity for teens outside marriage is the expected
standard, and it is the only way to prevent unwanted pregnancy and the
only way to prevent sexually transmitted diseases that have exploded
along with the explosion of teen pregnancies.
Mr. Chairman, this is just saying let us have parity. This does not
attack the programs that we have been funding for years, but it does
say that it is about time that the average American, the typical
American, the normal values of everyday people in this country, receive
the same emphasis from their government as we have put on other things.
I ask Members to join me, Mr. Chairman, in supporting this amendment;
in supporting the $33 million which we calculated and the President
calculated would bring parity. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I have got to
tell you, it is probably still about $15 million short of that parity,
but I am not asking for a higher number.
We asked early on in this session for this amount, this $73 million
for the grants on top of the $50 million that goes to the States to do
this. And there is huge demand for it. When the first grants were
awarded this year under the grant program, only $20 million was
available. Applicants applied for seven times that amount. The
Department of Health and Human Services was overwhelmed with the number
of applications. They have never had such a response to a new program
as they had for this.
Mr. Chairman, we need to put this funding in place. We have the
hundreds of billions of dollars in this bill. We have the extra
billions that were added in just the last week or two. It is not asking
too much to say that we ought to be active in seeking the abstinence
education.
Mr. Chairman, I move adoption of the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman insist on his point of order?
Mr. OBEY. No, I do not, Mr. Chairman.
I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, the account that the gentleman is asking that
we increase has been increased in this bill by 100 percent. The account
that the gentleman would cut in order to finance the increase that he
is asking for is the account that funds infectious disease control
efforts at CDC; it is the account that funds the disease detectives who
are right now at this very moment searching for anthrax; it is the
account that funds breast and cervical screening; it is the account
that funds TB control; it is the account that funds sexually
transmitted diseases; and, in addition to that, the gentleman cuts the
Child Care Block Grant account.
Now, I would point out that with respect to the item that the
gentleman seeks to increase, he seeks to increase the funding that we
are providing for abstinence programs. I fully support those programs.
I voted for them in the past, and I have helped the gentleman get the
funding for them. I would point out that the increase that the
gentleman has gotten in this bill for those family planning programs is
twice as high as the increase that we have provided in this bill for
the traditional family planning programs.
So the gentleman has already gotten the better part of the deal. Now
he is asking us to fund yet another increase. And I have no problem
with that increase. I have no problem with it whatsoever. If the
gentleman wants to cut back some tax cuts in order to pay for it, or if
he wants to find some other reasonable accounts to cut, fine, I am all
for it. But I am not for funding a greater than 100 percent increase in
this account by reducing the other accounts before us.
I find it ironic that the previous amendment is trying to increase
the activities that the gentleman is trying to cut with this amendment.
This committee is being whipsawed. One minute we are being hit from the
northeast, and the next minute we are being hit from the southwest.
We are in the center with this bill. We have got a bipartisan
compromise, we have got reasonable increases for all of these programs,
and I would urge that in the interests of maintaining the balance in
this bill, that we oppose the gentleman's amendment.
If we can find some other way in conference to increase funding for
this in a balanced way, I have no sweats about that. But I am certainly
not interested in funding this increase at the expense of the decreases
that I have just described.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition because in part it takes money
from very important programs, Child Care Development Block Grants. We
are all concerned about child care. We have heard earlier today
statements about the impact of September 11 on children, and that is
just part of the needs that face this Nation.
Likewise, we have just had a discussion on the importance of the
Center for Disease Control for research and training, again a response
to the impact of events over the recent time.
I would want to point out that I do not quarrel with what the
gentleman's goals are, and I think this program should be increased,
and we recognize that. We went $10 million more than the President
requested in his budget. We went $20 million more than last year.
It is not that we are ignoring this program. It is not that we do not
think it has great potential. I talked to a lady in my district who is
working with this program, and she pointed out to me a number of
effective things that are being done in the schools. But I think it
needs to be developed incrementally.
I believe that the money that we have put in, working to improve the
program, will accomplish the goals; and I would hope that in the future
we will have more evidence, such as what

[[Page H6668]]

I have heard from one of my constituents, that will persuade us that we
should have another sizable increase in the future.
But obviously if we are $10 million over the President and $20
million over last year, we are recognizing the value of this program,
and when I have to balance this off against the Centers for Disease
Control and all the items that the gentleman from Wisconsin mentioned
that are part of the Child Care Development Block Grant, it just does
not balance out in terms of equities.
We have tried to have a balanced bill here. We have tried to
recognize all the different programs that are important. I think in
adding $10 million over the President, $20 million over last year's
budget, we are being fair in what is available for this program.
I would urge Members to vote against this amendment.

{time} 1745

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), my friend and colleague; but
I would begin my brief remarks on this bill by commending the chairman
and the ranking member for their very sincere commitment to abstinence
education and acknowledging the increases in the current bill, $20
million over last year, as the chairman said, and $10 million even over
the President's request.
But I, nevertheless, rise today in support of that noble, right,
pure, and true belief that we as a people should reconsider our
approach to family planning and to sex education and treatment in
America today. The truth is that we have a problem. Mr. Chairman, 3
million teenagers a year are catching sexually transmitted disease. The
United States has, Mr. Chairman, the highest teenage pregnancy rate of
all developed countries in the world, despite billions of dollars spent
over decades in traditional methods of birth control. Mr. Chairman, 1
million teenagers become pregnant each year, and one-third of those
pregnancies end tragically in abortion.
Not only do we have a problem, Mr. Chairman, but we have a solution.
Abstinence education, as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the
chairman of the subcommittee, just reflected passionately works. We
know that it works. From the district that I serve in Indiana, we have
seen church organizations and civic organizations come together to
promote abstinence as an alternative. Here in Washington, D.C. where 15
percent of girls become sexually active in the eighth grade, according
to statistics, there is a program known as the Best Friends Foundation,
which has reduced that number to 5 percent in real terms. In the
District of Columbia, 27 percent of girls age 15 to 19 become pregnant
each year, but among the Best Friends girls in that age range, only 2.5
percent have ever become pregnant. Abstinence, as the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) says and as the chairman and the ranking member
reflect, abstinence works and we ought to be making a serious and
concerted commitment.
Another example: in Rochester, New York, the Not Me Not Now program
achieved remarkable results over a 4-year period. First intercourse
incidents among 15-year-olds dropped from 47 percent to 32 percent, and
among 17-year-olds it dropped from 54 percent to 40 percent. Mr.
Chairman, these are real gains; these are real improvements. But we
have a real need, despite the outstanding work of the committee on this
important piece of legislation. I, along with the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), believe that we can and should do more; that, in
fact, by adding $33 million to the annual title V SPRANS Community
Abstinence Education program, we will do much to meet what is a real
need in America today.
The title V program received 359 applications last year in its first
year of operation in funding abstinence programs around America. That
was the largest number of applications for a single new grant program
that anyone at HHS can even remember. It would have required $165
million in authorization to fund all of the applicants. This modest
increase of $73 million still will not meet the need; but it will move
us closer to a new vision, a balanced vision when it comes to sex
education in America today.
So again, with great respect to the chairman and to the ranking
member for their commitment to abstinence education, which I
acknowledge today, Mr. Chairman, is real and is heartfelt and is
genuine; and with appreciation for the increased commitment to
abstinence education in this bill I, nevertheless, very respectfully
stand with the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) and others to say
that we can and should do more.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, abstinence education. With all due respect to the good
intentions of the author of the amendment, as far as this amendment and
the priority-setting that produced this amendment on the floor of
Congress today, I think the whole matter is a true embarrassment.
The Pentagon held a memorial service this morning. It had a memorial
service for the men and women that we lost on September 11. Their loved
ones were not killed because of inadequate abstinence education; they
were killed because of major security breaches in our airports, and it
is high time that this Congress do something about it. Across our
country, millions of Americans have honored the victims of September 11
with a moment of silence. Well, this House has acted with more than a
moment; it has had a month of silence and inaction on the security
issue that lies at the heart of this tragedy. We can talk about the
pros and cons of abstinence education all night long, and I guess some
would like to do that, but when are we going to talk about effective
measures to ensure abstinence for terrorism?
I think that it is long past time to stop wasting our time talking
about safe sex and start talking about safe flight. In the 30 days that
have now passed since four airplanes were hijacked and crashed, the
Congress has failed utterly to provide for airline security. This
inaction borders on indifference, and it is a disgrace. If four crashes
were not enough to make this body respond, what in the world will? Can
we not devote at least as much time to this issue that every family in
America is concerned about tonight as we devote to talking about
abstinence?
One week after this attack, and this is part of a series of problems;
it is not just this amendment, one week after this attack, what was
this House doing? We were debating a family court in the District of
Columbia. Two weeks after this attack, we were establishing National
Character Counts Week. Three weeks after this tragedy, we were
considering the farm bill and approving the Virgin River Dinosaur
Footprint Preserve. This week, we are looking at Fast Track trading
authority, more tax breaks for corporations, and abstinence.
When in the world is this Congress going to deal with what Americans
are really concerned about: Will my wife get home safe tonight? Can the
kids come home for Thanksgiving? Those are the issues that we ought to
be establishing as our priorities.
We will not decrease terrorism by hoping that terrorists abstain from
further attacks. We will not be able to trade our way into the hearts
of the Taliban, and we will not make our families safer by spending
millions of dollars on abstinence education instead of substituting
skilled Federal law enforcement on our airlines to search the bags and
be there when we go through the screening process instead of some
minimum-wage worker who could not get a job anywhere else. And of all
times, on a day when we are more and more concerned about Anthrax, to
fund this increased abstinence education by cutting the Centers for
Disease Control borders on insanity in terms of the priorities of this
Congress.
It has been 30 days, 30 days since September 11; and while most
Americans would have said, if asked, and if they had been here on the
floor of this Congress, do something about airline security, do
something about bioterrorism, and leave all of this other stuff alone.
This Congress is not doing it. This leadership will not permit us to
debate the issue of aviation safety and the needs on bioterrorism
tonight in this Congress because there is a hard-line idealogical
commitment that if we add one worker to the Federal workforce,

[[Page H6669]]

even if they are to screen our bags, even if they are to screen the
passengers, that that is somehow a bad thing.
Mr. Chairman, I think we need to put a stop to the old way of dealing
with these problems and the old ideologies and recognize that we have a
new world after September 11. It is time to reject those old ways. The
failure to discuss airline security results from those old ways that
some refused to abandon.
Mr. Chairman, at 4:28 this afternoon, another headline out: ``FBI
Issues Terrorist Strikes Warning,'' which says that either inside or
outside the United States, during the next several days, we may face
additional terrorist attacks. Whether they are through Anthrax or
through airlines, this Congress ought to be dealing with these security
issues are a top priority.
The fact that our National Guard, and now our border guards, are
being pulled off the border and put into the airports, the fact that
this is happening results from the inaction of this Congress. The
failure of this Congress to act, which caused one Member of the other
body, Senator McCain from Arizona, to say it last night, this in his
words ``a farce; and today is a continuation of that farce, resulting
from our failure to deal with this security priority tonight.
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, let me say that the last time I checked, the item
before this Congress at the moment was the Labor-HHS bill. I totally
and thoroughly disagree with the gentleman's characterization of the
activity of this Congress. Twenty-four hours a day, 7 days a week for
the last 30 days we have been working very hard to deal with the issues
that he says we are ignoring.
Back to the bill. I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Regula) and to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for their
consideration in increasing spending for a very crucial issue, which is
abstinence-until-marriage funding. I do not know of too many things
from a security standpoint that is any more important than the health
of our young people today. As we look at ways to increase the funding
which will improve health conditions for our young people, I appreciate
their concern, their approval of the funds; and I hope if this is not
the right place, I am sure that my colleagues will find the right place
to do this.
In North Carolina we have a law that we worked very, very hard in a
bipartisan fashion to pass; and that law says that we will have in our
health education curriculum that abstinence until marriage is the
expected standard of behavior. Young people, teenagers in particular,
are very, very bright. They respond to proper leadership and good
examples. If we tell them that this promiscuous behavior is going to
happen, they cannot make the right choices, and then offer them
contraceptives which have a 20 percent failure rate, we have not done
our duty. We have not protected our young people. But if we say to
them, abstinence until marriage is the healthy way to 100 percent
provide protection from sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted
pregnancies, then I say to my colleagues, we have done our job.
So I want to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) and the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey) for their attention to this matter. I commend the amendment, I
support it very strongly, and I would love to work with my colleagues
in any way to make sure we make this happen. By the way, the President
in a recent letter does support funding at the $73 million level.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Istook amendment.
The Labor-HHS bill contains many programs that are very important to
the American people. At this time of crisis and increased concern about
the public welfare, we have a greater obligation than ever before to
prioritize. The chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member
have made an extraordinary effort to bring this good, balanced bill to
the floor, and I thank them.
The Istook amendment, I believe, undermines the bipartisan commitment
we have made to move this bill without unnecessary conflicts. It would
increase funding for a single health education grant program by $33
million. Funding began 1 year ago at $20 million, and the chairman's
mark already increased a promised $30 million by an additional $10
million. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) wants to go from this
$40 million program, a 100 percent increase over last year, to $73
million. Not only would this increase eclipse that of any other program
in the bill, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) offsets the cost
of this excessive increase by cutting funds for the CDC, the Child Care
Development Block grant. His cuts in CDC would force the CDC to make
reductions in these areas: infectious diseases, chronic diseases, STDs,
breast and cervical cancer. Which should we choose?

{time} 1800

I will repeat it again, it means cuts in infectious diseases, chronic
diseases, STDs, breast and cervical cancer. This is outrageous and
irresponsible.
Equally disturbing, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) proposes
to cut the child care development block grant. These funds are
desperately needed to ensure that children receive quality child care,
especially low-income families.
I want to make this clear to my colleagues: I know how important this
program is to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook). In fact,
despite my strong reservations about the effectiveness of teaching
abstinence only until marriage, I have worked with my colleague, I have
worked with the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) in designing these
community-based grants, because I believe abstinence is an important
message for our youth. We have worked together.
However, with the tremendous needs, Mr. Chairman, as a result of
September 11, and I feel so privileged to serve on a committee that can
meet these needs, and we cannot even find enough money for CDC. I know
my good chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), would like to
do more. So now is not the time, in my judgment, to allocate a three-
fold increase, and that means 200 percent, to one health education
program.
Even if our Nation was not in the state of emergency, a drastic
increase in this program is premature because it has only been in place
1 year. As part of our agreement, and the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr.
Istook) and I had an agreement with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey) and our former chair, Mr. Porter, to include rigorous evaluation
in this program, an evaluation which would include a range of sexuality
programs, not just abstinence-only programs, has not even begun.
Finally, our funding needs for CDC bioterrorism, the public health
emergency fund, worker training, unemployment insurance, mental health
counseling, to name just a few, are just enormous. They are great.
While we each continue our interest and advocacy for particular
programs, seeking an increase of this magnitude I feel is inappropriate
at this time. So let us give this program some time before providing an
even larger funding increase, especially considering our budgetary
restraints.
I want to thank the Members again. I hope my colleagues will vote no
on this Istook amendment, and I want to appreciate the good work of our
Chair, the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula), for bringing us
together working on a bipartisan agreement.
I really feel that it is unfortunate that one of our members of the
subcommittee chooses to violate the agreement and ask for a 200
percent, 200 percent increase in this program, which has not been
evaluated. It will not be evaluated until 2005.
I would be delighted to work with my colleague to make sure that we
continue to look at this program very carefully.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to be associated with the comments and
remarks of my colleague, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey),
and really every Member that has risen in opposition to the Istook
amendment.

[[Page H6670]]

Mr. Chairman, since the September 11 attacks, the objectives of our
Nation have changed dramatically. We are focused on combatting
terrorism, enhancing intelligence, and upgrading our public health
system. Each of these efforts costs money and deserves additional
funding.
The Istook amendment would give $33 million, a three-fold increase,
to a narrowly-focused program that puts teens at risk and is rooted in
wishful thinking. Abstinence-only education works only when it is
combined with comprehensive sexuality education. Evidence shows that
comprehensive sexuality education helps delay sexual relations among
young people, and increases contraceptive use among those who become
sexually active.
Telling independent-minded teenagers what not to do and depriving
them of information they might use to decide is a recipe for unplanned
pregnancies and sexually-transmitted diseases.
Ninety-three percent of Americans support teaching sexuality
education. We should follow the numbers and reject the Istook
amendment.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DOOLITTLE. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I think it is very important that we give
credit where credit is due. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and
the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) earlier mentioned that they
have helped get this program off the ground. Despite this opposition to
this amendment, they deserve credit for that. I want to acknowledge
that publicly.
However, as the gentleman from Wisconsin said when someone else was
speaking earlier, I would rather have their support than their praise.
I would like to have the gentlewoman's support now, not just her praise
for getting the program under way but her support at this time, as
well.
I hear people argue, well, we really cannot afford this extra $33
million. Mr. Chairman, this is in a bill with discretionary spending,
not even counting the mandatory, discretionary spending of $123
billion, $11 billion more than last year, and $6.8 billion over the
President's request. It has a half-a-dozen accounts in it that are more
than $100 million over the President's request. It has over a dozen
accounts in it that are more than $100 million over last year's amount.
Then we are told, on one of the major problems of our time, with
teenage pregnancies and sexually-transmitted diseases, with 3 million
young Americans each year getting sexually-transmitted diseases, 3
million teens, we are told with all this money in the bill, it is a
good idea, but we really cannot afford it.
Give me a break. It is a question of where our priorities are. Do
Members want to fund the things that reinforce America's values? Do
Members want to fund the things that are having the first success in
three decades in combatting teenagers who are involved sexually, get
disease, get pregnant, drop out of school, turn to alcohol, turn to
drugs, do not get their education, cannot support themselves, go on
public assistance, raise kids in that environment? Is that what we
want?
Mr. Chairman, if we had more of these abstinence education programs,
we would not need all the other billions of dollars in this bill. Yet,
I hear people say, it is a good idea, but we really cannot afford it,
despite all the other billions of dollars in the bill. The real
question is getting our priorities straight.
We had $2 billion that was added to this piece of legislation in the
last week. Of course we can afford this.
The President's support? This is the letter dated September 24 from
his office, the Executive Office of the President, Office of Management
and Budget: ``The President remains strongly committed to funding
parity between abstinence education and teen contraception. With this
in mind, the administration would support efforts in Congress to
increase funding to $73 million for abstinence education activities
under the administration's title V special programs of regional and
national significance within the Health and Human Services
Department.''
That is what this amendment does. The President has talked to us
about getting parity. That is what this amendment is about. In a bill
with all these billions of dollars, we do not have $33 million to put
into this high priority; $33 million that prevents disease, that
prevents children being raised in poverty?
I heard someone say, well, we have not done enough evaluations on
these abstinence education programs. These family planning programs,
title X programs, we have had since 1971, for 30 years; they have never
been evaluated. We spend over $200 million a year on them. We have not
evaluated them. But we are told that is a reason for not promoting
abstinence education, when teen pregnancy rates have only started
coming down once these programs got under way.
It is time we put more support into them. I would like to have the
support, not just the verbal support but the support in votes, of
people that have indeed helped to get this program under way. It needs
a little bit of nurture and nourishment right now. The demand is huge
in the United States. They are overwhelmed with applicants for these
grants. They cannot fill that demand.
Let us save some kids. Let us help people not get into this cycle of
disease and poverty. Let us support this amendment. I move its
adoption, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that further debate
on the pending amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr.
Istook) and any amendments thereto be limited to 40 minutes, to be
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself, the
opponent. We could have less.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I would simply
ask if we could get an idea how many Members actually have a burning
desire to speak on this. Then we might be able to shrink it to less
than that, which I think everybody would appreciate.
Mr. REGULA. We have no further speakers on this side.
Mr. OBEY. There are three on this side. Would it be acceptable to
have 3 minutes apiece?
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, strike my original unanimous consent
request.
I ask unanimous consent that further debate on the pending amendment
offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) and any amendments
thereto be limited to 20 minutes, to be equally divided and controlled
by the proponent and myself, the opponent.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield my 10 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), who has worked a long, long
time on one of the issues involved in this amendment.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member and
the distinguished chairman of the committee for their work and for the
bipartisan bill that they have brought forward. Mr. Chairman, this is
never an easy bill for a ranking member and a chairman to work out, so
I salute them, and I recognize the work that has gone into this.
But I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook). Let me tell the Members why. The amendment
cuts the Centers for Disease Control. It is the account, not an account
but the account that funds the CDC's disease detectives who are right
now looking for anthrax in Florida.
It speaks to the dollars that are spent for controlling infectious
diseases: tuberculosis control, research into birth defects and
childhood disabilities, and asthma treatment and prevention.
Mr. Chairman, I want to zero in on another area of this budget, and
what this amendment would essentially cut and really hurt, and really
hurt. That is the issue of breast and cervical cancer screening.
In the last Congress, if there was one thing that I worked harder on
than anything else with my Democratic and Republican colleagues, it was
to come up with a bill that would take care of

[[Page H6671]]

those women that are underinsured or not insured at all, because when
the CDC screened for breast and cervical cancer, that was one part of
it, but the part that the Congress had never finished, had never done,
was the next chapter. That was that once there was detection, that we
would help them.
We cannot afford to have that effort go down the drain. Mr. Bliley
was the chairman of the committee. There were over 300 cosponsors to
that bill. It was a great bipartisan effort. Everyone embraced it. They
understood that we could in fact take the next step and make a
difference for women and their families in this country. I think it is
one of the great accomplishments of the last Congress.
This amendment hurts that. It does not have to be the case. The
gentleman's amendment is not bragging about how much the 100 percent
increase over last year is already taken care of in the bipartisan
bill, going from $20 million to $40 million.
Maybe that is not my top priority, what the gentleman is doing, but I
salute him for what he cares about. But do not do this at the cost of
the anthrax cases that we need to look into, breast and cervical cancer
screening, and the care of women that absolutely need it and depend
upon it.
There is tuberculosis control. These are all things that the American
people rise up and say, good job, Congress.
Vote against the amendment. It hurts. It is not necessary, and it is
wrong.

{time} 1815

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I simply want to point out, Mr. Chairman, that the account that is
the offset of this is an account that has received an increase of $1.1
billion. It has received an increase in excess of the President's
request. We are not sacrificing anything of value to make sure that we
provide for abstinence education and fund it accordingly.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Hostettler).
(Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this
amendment and wish to commend my colleague, the gentleman from Oklahoma
(Mr. Istook), for his constant support on this issue. This amendment
does not seek to address the constitutionality or morality questions
inherent in the abstinence education debate. Rather, this amendment
seeks to promote the health and safety of our children.
Each year, three million teens contract sexually transmitted
diseases; and nearly one million become pregnant. These statistics, Mr.
Chairman, are simply appalling. However, as appalling as these
statistics are, we must note that these rates have declined in recent
years. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
abstinence programs have played a role in the decline in teenage birth
rates, which have dropped by 22 percent since 1991. As the CDC states,
``Many initiatives have focused on the prevention of pregnancy through
abstinence and many teenagers have heard this message.''
Currently, the Federal Government spends more than $5 billion per
year on HIV/AIDS, STD, and unintended pregnancy prevention combined.
Most of these dollars go towards the provision of services such as
screening, pregnancy tests, free contraceptives and condoms and
referrals. About $15 million goes towards promoting ``safe sex''
messages and education.
Federally funded abstinence education programs receive only about $80
million per year, practically all of it promoting the fact that sexual
abstinence is the only method to be completely safe for preventing
unwanted pregnancies and diseases.
The need to support abstinence education is significant. More than
700 State and community-based abstinence education programs are funded
through title V. Much of this money is provided to volunteer
organizations that have annual budgets of less than $20,000. A small
grant of $2,500 or $5,000 means they can purchase some curriculum, some
videotapes, maybe a combination VCR/TV, and devote instructors to serve
and educate kids about how sex can wait and that many of the
consequences of early sexual activity are incurable and deadly.
Mr. Chairman, Federal abstinence education funding is making a
difference in my home State of Indiana. For example, the Peers
Educating Peers, or PEP program educates adolescents about sexual
health in nearly 20 Indiana counties serving more than 10,000
adolescents per year. PEP uses high school role models to educate
junior high school age students about refusal skills, open
communication, and responsible decision-making.
PEP has demonstrated its effectiveness as teen birth rates have
dropped an average of 43 percent in the five counties where the program
has been operating the longest.
Because of a SPRANS, or Special Projects of Regional and National
Significance grant, the PEP program will expand their successful
program to Evansville in my congressional district where the teen birth
rate is 40 births per thousand, the second highest birth rate in
Indiana.
This amendment, which would increase funding for abstinence
education, makes both common sense and public health sense. It makes
common sense because abstinence education works, and I have already
highlighted the success of programs like PEP in Indiana.
It makes public health sense because Federal abstinence education
funding goes towards prevention of sexual activity, just like public
health messages like ``wash your hands,'' ``do not smoke,'' or ``do not
drink and drive'' prevents communicable diseases, long-term disease,
accidents and death.
Finally, it puts the money where it is needed. The CDC reports that
about half of our children are sexually abstinent and about half of our
children have become sexually active. If those are the proportions,
according to CDC, then let Federal support reflect those proportions.
This amendment to increase abstinence funding is a good first step to
achieve a fair distribution of resources based on the needs of young
people.
As President Bush has stated, ``For children to realize their dreams,
they must learn the value of abstinence. We must send them the message
that of the many decisions they will make in their lives, choosing to
avoid early sex is one of the most important. We must stress that
abstinence is not just about saying no to sex; it is about saying yes
to a happier, healthier future.''
I urge my colleagues to support the proposed amendment and provide
increased funding for abstinence education.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes and 45 seconds to the
distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, this is, I am sure, a sincere amendment;
but it probably sets a record for ill timing. Because on the day where
I just walked out of the cloak room and I saw CNN running a headline
that the FBI is warning that we should be on the highest alert for
terrorist attacks, on a day when the country is extremely concerned
about our ability to deal with bioterrorism, we have a Member amendment
on the floor of the House to cut money out of the CDC people whose job
it is to find out if there is dangerous bacteria in our environment.
I cannot imagine a worse timed amendment, but I think there is a
bigger problem with what we are considering on the floor of the House
than just that. The fact of the matter is our House is on fire, and we
are dealing with all these ideological issues. We should be dealing
with the security of the United States of America now that we are 30
days past this tragedy.
Let me tell my colleagues why that is of concern. When my colleagues
and I get on a plane next Friday or tomorrow to go back to our
districts, did my colleagues know that almost all of the bags that go
into the belly of the airplane we get on will not be screened for
explosive devices? Over 90 percent of the bags that are going to be in
the luggage compartment of the plane we get on on Friday will not have
been screened for bombs.
Now, what are we doing about that problem today? Nothing, not a
single thing for a month after this terrorist attack. We have not done
a dang thing on this issue.
What have we done? We gave $15 billion to the airlines. Have we done
anything to require employees to walk

[[Page H6672]]

through magnetometers so they cannot carry bombs on to airplanes. We
have not done anything.
The fact of the matter is these ideological concerns are trumping the
security interest of the United States. We have got a bill to deal with
airline security so that the people who guard the magnetometers will
have some modicum of training, will get maybe a little more than
minimum wage.
Many people think they ought to be Federal employees. I think they
ought to be Federal employees like FBI, like Marshals, like fire
department. But these ideological concerns are keeping even a vote on
the floor of this House to do anything like that. I just hope that,
number one, this amendment will fail; and I hope that the leadership of
this House will bring to the floor of the House in quick order,
starting at about noon tomorrow, some security bills so this House can
vote on them because that ought to be the order of the day.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment does not take money out of
the accounts for bioterrorism. I rise in support of the Istook
amendment because I believe we should honor the President's pledge to
increase funding for abstinence education to a level equal for funding
for title X abortion counseling programs.
Mr. Chairman, over the past few decades, we have been subjected to
the propaganda of the safe sex and the abortion lobbies. They would
have us believe that more contraceptives are the answer to the problems
of sexually transmitted disease and teen pregnancy despite evidence to
the contrary. We need to start teaching our young people the truth. Sex
outside of marriage is risky business, and it has physical and
emotional consequences. There is no substitute for abstinence when it
comes to avoiding problems associated with premarital sex.
We need to stop lying to our Nation's youth and stop assuming that
promiscuity is an inherent part of adolescent life. Instead, through
absence education, programs which have proven to be successful, we need
to promote their health and safety. We need to encourage them to
exercise self-control. We need to teach them about the benefits of
saving sex until marriage. If we believe that children can exercise
self-control to avoid smoking, what about premarital sex?
Our Nation's children deserve more than free contraception and
abortion counseling. Our Nation's children deserve our love and our
commitment that we will help them seek the best future for themselves,
a future that is free of the emotional and the physical pitfalls that
accompany premarital sex.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Istook amendment to
increase the funding for abstinence programs.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney)
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me
time.
Mr. Chairman, I want to say to my colleague who is presenting this
motion that, in fact, he has already done well what he purports to
represent. He has increased the amount of his package well over what it
was last year. The base bill does that, and he can feel that he has had
an accomplishment there. But when we talk about priorities, and I
understand that is a priority of his, and as I said he has addressed
it, America's priority right now is security.
If you walk down any street, any main street in my district or anyone
else's district, people are talking about security. They want to make
sure that they are safe in their homes, safe in their neighborhoods,
their children are safe in their schools, that our water is safe, that
our transportation is safe.
They are also talking about security of their income. Thousands and
thousands of people have lost their employment as a result of what went
on September 11; and those are issues which should, in fact, be a
priority of this country.
We have done nothing about them since September 11. We had an
opportunity when we bailed out the airline industry, excessively in my
opinion, when they could only identify $2 billion worth of losses
occasioned by the activities of September 11, but got $5 billion. We
had an opportunity then to do something for people that became
unemployed, to make sure they had health care for their families, to
make sure they had an adequate income so they could sustain themselves
and their families and their communities. We had an opportunity then to
do something about security on our airlines, in particular, as well as
other places.
The CDC does need money so it can make sure we are safe from anthrax
and other problems like that. We need to know that the pilots are
secure in their cockpit and that our luggage is getting checked. We
need to know our water is safe and that we are being protected. These
are going to be costly matters.
When you talk about the American people's priorities, rather than be
debating on what we have been debating here, excessively over this
bill's base amounts, we would better spend our time addressing what
people want, a job or employment security or income security, a way to
know they will have health care coverage for their family in a time of
need, and a way to know that when they travel they will be safe.
Mr. Chairman, I suggest that that is what this Congress should have
been doing over the past several weeks. It is a disgrace that we have
not been doing it. We should get on to that business now. That is
America's priority.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) has 3\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 2
minutes remaining.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman from Wisconsin have the
right to close?
The CHAIRMAN. That is correct.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, we are here because we need to be here, because we are
trying to take care of the things that we are responsible to take care
of, not only the security of the United States of America but the
welfare of its people. That is why we have this bill on the floor. Yes,
we could spend all of our time talking about foreign affairs; but if we
did, we would not be trying to have normalcy. And, yes, it is normal
that we get on the floor of this House, we have debates, we have
disagreements, and we have bills such as the annual appropriation bill
for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education.
If we did not have that, then things such as the Centers for Disease
Control and public health programs would not have their funding and
where would the welfare of the Nation be?
Right now the congressional authorizations for these measures expires
unless we take action such as passing this bill. So of course we should
be here. We should be talking about the issues that are timeless and
timely, and this is among them.
We have, Mr. Chairman, according to the Centers for Disease Control
that is charged with, among other things, trying to stop the sexually
transmitted diseases which this amendment addresses. According to CDC
and the Institute of Medicine, 12 million new cases are reported each
year of sexually transmitted diseases, one-fourth of them among
teenagers.

{time} 1830

It is 89 percent of all reported diseases that constitute the top 10
in the whole U.S. of all diseases. Twenty-nine percent of those were
infected with chlamydia, which causes sterility. Young women often do
not find out until they reach their childbearing years they are not
able to have kids now because they got involved in teenage sex, they
got chlamydia, now they cannot have kids. Twenty-two percent had
herpes, 32 percent had HPV, human papilloma virus, which causes 80
percent of all genital cancers.
The Institute of Medicine concluded public awareness and knowledge
regarding STDs is dangerously low. It is unfocused. The
disproportionate impact on young people has not been measured.
That is what we are trying to get at, Mr. Chairman. We are trying to
make sure that kids get the message that ``safe sex'' does not stop
these sexually

[[Page H6673]]

transmitted diseases. They happen with or without use of
contraceptives, with or without use of condoms or other devices trying
to prevent pregnancy. The only sure message is to say, ``wait until you
are married.''
That is what abstinence education is about. It is the best course; it
is the safest course. And this Congress needs to get on course, not
giving it just minor funding within a huge bill, with huge increases in
so many other programs, with more than twice as much being spent to
promote these safe sex programs, as they are called, as to promote
abstinence.
Let us bring some equality into this. This amendment is what the Bush
administration says is what we need to bring parity. I think they may
have underestimated it. I think we probably need about $15 million more
for parity, but I am not arguing that point, Mr. Chairman. I am arguing
equal treatment, a level playing field, so that there is some
reinforcement from Washington, D.C. and from groups that we help to
fund to get the message out and reinforce what we teach our kids at
school: wait until marriage.
It is the best course and the safest course. I move adoption of the
amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Harman).
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak against the Istook
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, it is clear that the offsets to this amendment will
hurt our counterterrorism effort, something most of us, all of us, feel
passionately about. It is also unfortunate that an issue on which
everyone agrees, the need to prevent teen pregnancy, is presented in
this amendment in an ideological form that splits us and hurts
achieving the goal.
As a mother of two daughters and two sons, I know that abstinence-
only education does not work. What does work? One, basic accurate
information on the risks of teen pregnancy; two, education on types of
and proper use of contraception; and, three, the message that
abstinence is the only 100 percent effective way to prevent teen
pregnancy.
Preventing teen pregnancy still matters, even in the post-September
11 world, but this amendment is the wrong solution. Vote ``no.''
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, we have had some 14 amendments on this side of the
aisle that we have discouraged from offering today. I do not believe we
have offered a single one from this side of the aisle. I would urge
that we have the same response from all quarters of the House.
When, in fact, we measure accurately the amount of money in title I
which is aimed at teenagers, the resulting numbers will demonstrate
that we spend at least as much on abstinence directed to teenagers as
we provide in direct family planning services of the traditional
variety aimed at teenagers. The gentleman has already achieved parity,
and this bill gives him twice as large an increase in the programs he
is for as we have in the other traditional family planning programs.
Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment. Let us keep this
bill together and get out of here at a reasonable time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that,
I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook)
will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
Are there further amendments?

Amendment Offered by Mr. Istook

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Istook:
At the end of the bill (before the short title, insert the
following:)
Sec. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to implement, administer, or enforce Executive Order
13166.
(b) The limitation established in subsection (a) shall not
apply to an agency that is subject to Executive Order 12866
after it has complied with the requirements of such Executive
Order, which has been issued pursuant to law.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I might mention that I am certainly
amenable to any unanimous consent request to limit total debate time on
this measure.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment states that until the Office of
Management and Budget issues a cost-benefit analysis of a series of
Federal regulations, those regulations are to be held in abeyance. They
are what is commonly called ``limited English proficiency''
regulations.
What is all this about? It is about an executive order that was
issued last August and regulations that were issued pursuant to it
mandating that not only Federal agencies but also State and local
agencies, businesses, nonprofit groups, anybody who has received any
funds to administer or handle or be involved with a Federal program
must make all vital documents, it says, available in multiple
translations; basically into any language group involving 3,000 people
or more.
Mr. Chairman, there are over 200 language groups in the United States
involving 3,000 people or more. If we are required to translate
everything into each one of these languages, the average cost for
billions of pages is $40 a page per language. Multiply $40 per page by
over 200 languages, by billions of documents, and my colleagues can
begin to see the nature of this problem, the huge unfunded mandate that
this puts on businesses and on local governments. In fact, nine or 10
States officially have petitioned for these not to go into effect
because of the unfunded mandate.
After all, Mr. Chairman, there are some large language groups; and we
have plenty of efforts to try to accommodate them. This amendment does
not restrict anyone from trying to accommodate a language group or to
make something available in another language. It simply removes the
Federal mandate that we have to do so in this unlimited number of
languages. It lets common sense prevail instead. It follows what the
U.S. Supreme Court ruled just April of this year is the law of the
land: there is no right to force somebody to translate civil documents
or civil activities for you.
Now, if an individual is charged in a court proceeding, yes, they
will make sure they have a translation as a defendant. But we are not
talking about that. There is no right, constitutional or statutory.
Yet, usurping the powers of this Congress, of this body, this executive
order and the regulations issued under it are putting that burden on
people all over the country.
Imagine being called up for a violation of Federal law because you
did not provide a translation, for example, into western Farsi, with a
million people in the United States speaking it; or because you did not
provide a translation into Kabuverdianu, that has hundreds of thousands
of people that speak it. My colleagues can pick whatever language they
want, I am not going to pick on any of them, but with over 200
languages, to be told, well, if there are more than 3,000 people
affected, you have to translate all vital documents, anything that this
person might need, any documents made generally available to the
public.
Mr. Chairman, we have thousands of informational brochures, bits of
information, guidance that go to people constantly. How much are we
going to pay for this? We ought to wait until we have the cost-benefit
analysis from the Office of Management and Budget. That is their job.
They ought to be doing it. We should not go into this thing blind.
I realize there will be some people, Mr. Chairman, who talk about
constituents they have that are not proficient in English. I understand
that. But that does not mean that we go out and put this mandate out
there to try to solve the problem.
The American Medical Association has said these will cause doctors to
stop seeing Medicare patients and Medicaid patients because they cannot
afford the cost of paying for a translator. The regulations even say it
is not good enough if they have a family member come with them to the
doctor to do a

[[Page H6674]]

translation. Oh no, that is not permissible. The doctor has to go out
and hire a translator at hundreds of dollars an hour that costs more
than he is reimbursed, usually something about $30 or $40, more than he
is reimbursed for seeing the patient in the first place. That is why
the AMA, as well as so many States, wants us to pull back on this.
Let us make a common-sense test. Let us apply the law under an
earlier executive order that says OMB is going to do cost-benefit
analyses when we have legislation that is this far-reaching.
I move the adoption of the amendment, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that further debate
on the pending amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr.
Istook), and any amendments thereto, be limited to 20 minutes, to be
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself, the
opponent.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, could I ask
that the gentleman amend that to 12 minutes per side?
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I will agree to 24 minutes.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my
original request and to amend it so that further debate on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), and any
amendments thereto, be limited to 24 minutes, to be equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and myself, the opponent.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Ohio?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) and the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) each will control 12 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula).
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 12 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey) will control the time.
There was no objection.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi).
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time; and once again I want to take the opportunity to commend our new
chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), for his first Labor-HHS
bill on the floor; the ranking member of this subcommittee and the full
committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey); and the chairman of
the full committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), for their
great leadership in crafting this legislation and bringing it to the
floor.
I rise in defense of the committee position and in opposition to the
Istook amendment. Mr. Chairman, this guidance which is contain in the
bill does not create any new requirements or place any new mandates on
recipients of Federal funds. It simply clarifies the Department's long-
standing policy so that recipients have clear, concise, and
constructive information about their responsibilities under title IV.
This information helps grantees be sure that they are in compliance
with the law, as it has been in effect for over 30 years. This guidance
is intended to be flexible and recognizes that there are no one-size-
fits-all solutions. The guidance on limited English proficiency also
clarifies that recipients only have to undertake reasonable steps to
ensure meaningful access and that recipients are not required to take
steps that would incur unreasonable costs or burdens.

{time} 1845

This amendment ignores the positive impacts of limited English
proficiency. They ignore the Department of Justice's reasonable
direction. Many limited-English proficiency persons work in some of the
lowest paid jobs, are more subject to abusive employment situations,
and need more help with complicated government bureaucracies.
For example, a Cambodian refugee worked as a landscaper to support
his family of five children. After he was laid off, he made repeated
attempts to file an unemployment claim. He could not communicate with
his State agency, and often received contradictory information. For
most of the winter, he was without income and unemployment insurance
compensation.
The costs of providing assistance to persons who have limited English
speaking abilities does not have to be expensive. In California, the
limited-English speaking population is estimated to be over 3 million
people. Since 1973, we have had a State law with more specific
interpretation of translation requirements than title IV, which this
guidance addresses; and this law has not created a burdensome financial
strain on the State of California's Department of Social Services. That
department spends a total of $648,312 to staff an internal team of 13
employees to translate documents into Spanish, Chinese, Cambodian,
Russian and Vietnamese; and not that much more in outside contracts for
vendors for translation into other languages.
This is a very small cost for an $18 billion social service budget.
This guidance simply fulfills the goal that Secretary Chao expressed in
her welcoming ceremony remarks, making sure that no worker gets left
behind.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Istook
amendment and defend the committee's position.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Regula).
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise in opposition to this
amendment. The committee understands the concerns raised by the
amendment, but now is not the time to proceed with this amendment. I
understand that this executive order is under review by the
administration.
Furthermore, the committee report accompanying the bill recommends
that both Secretary Chao at the Department of Labor and Secretary
Thompson at the Department of Health and Human Services, quote,
``carefully review the guidance and revisit its implications, impacts
and consequences both practically and fiscally.''
I think we should give the administration time to address this in the
regular order and not adopt the amendment of the gentleman to shut off
funds. I might add that the administration will be able to address it
with a subsequent executive order once they have had time to review it.
I think out of courtesy we owe the administration time to review the
implications of this order. Therefore, I think the amendment would be
premature and should be rejected.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Regula), this amendment does give them time. It just says until they do
their job, the rest of the country should not be put under this
incredible burden.
Right now there are groups that are being pursued by HHS, pursued by
Federal agencies for supposed noncompliance with these regulations. We
ought to say you do not go after agencies pursuing these regulations
until we do that cost-benefit analysis. That is exactly what the
amendment does.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Doolittle).
(Mr. DOOLITTLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, Executive Order 13-166 issued by
President Clinton is unwise, illegal and unconstitutional; and I urge
the Bush administration to rescind it forthwith. We would be doing them
a favor to avoid all of their complex review by simply adopting the
Istook amendment.
We cannot possibly impose on counties and cities and local
jurisdictions, States, and indeed on the Federal agencies the policy
inherent in this executive order which on its face is unreasonable.
There are 6,800 languages in the world today, many of these present in
the United States. Even the U.N. only has six official languages; and
here in the absence of congressional action, we already have the
Federal agencies setting forth the requirements of this executive order
and beginning to implement them.

[[Page H6675]]

For example, regulations applying Executive Order 13-166 have already
been issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, the
Department of Transportation, the Department of the Treasury, the
Department of Justice, the Department of Labor, the Corporation for
National Community Service, General Services Administration, Consumer
Products Safety Commission, the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, the National Council on Disability, the National
Science Foundation, and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
Mr. Chairman, we need to bring this to a halt now. We can do
something reasonable. In the absence of this executive order, something
reasonable is already set in place. But requiring all of our States and
localities to struggle to spend money they do not have, to produce
materials in any language any person requests up to I suppose 6,800
languages, is unreasonable and outrageous on its face.
The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) is to be commended for this
amendment. We should have done this long ago, but I guess this is our
first opportunity since it has come up on this appropriations bill. I
urge Members to support his amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Gonzalez).
Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
The first thought that comes to my mind, are we debating the same
executive order? I have heard allegations and assertions made from the
other side that truly are misrepresentative.
What we are talking about with this executive order, and the whole
basis of the executive order was accountability and responsibility of
those who are providing services and receiving Federal dollars in
providing those services to make sure that they effectively deliver
those services. This is what it is all about.
The other thing, the other matter that really stands out is where
have we been. The census tells us much of what is going on in this
country. While individuals are perfecting their ability to speak
English, while we have these clustered groups of individuals from
different countries, they still require services in a language that
they would understand for their benefit. That is why we are providing
it.
Mr. Chairman, prior to this amendment we were arguing abstinence and
how we teach it, how we promote it. If my colleagues had their way,
they would basically be espousing abstinence in a language never
understood by the individual that Members seek to assist. This is what
is so crazy about this whole debate.
There are other matters I think which have been misrepresented. The
Sandoval case does not stand for the proposition that Americans do not
have a legal right to have everything in a particular language. It
simply states an individual citizen does not have a right to bring a
cause of action, but that the Federal Government does.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez) and I met with the members
and representatives of the American Medical Association who had certain
concerns. Once we discussed it and they understood the intent of the
executive order, it was something that was acceptable. It was something
that was doable.
We are making it impossible by scaring individuals out there that
they will never be able to comply with the intent of this executive
order. That is an unfair characterization.
The executive order and the implementing guidance that follow it
stress the importance of complying with title VI of the Civil Rights
Act without unduly burdening the fundamental mission of the agency.
That is the standard. This goes contrary to the whole motive behind it.
Do not stand in the way now with misrepresentations. Face the facts.
Face the reality of our society, and let us deliver those services in a
meaningful way.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, let me first mention, the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Gonzalez) may or may not have read the executive order and all of the
regulations that have been issued pursuant to it from a number of
agencies. I have read them, and they get frightening in their impact.
Rather than being a reasonable effort to try to communicate with
people that may be receiving Federal services, it puts an affirmative
burden on groups that participate in a Federal program, such as the
police department or county health center, whatever it may be. It puts
an affirmative burden on them to take all documents that they make
available to the public, as well as everything that may relate to an
individual, and translate it into what becomes an unlimited number of
languages. That is where the unlimited expense comes from.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Tancredo).
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, Executive Order 13-166 is essentially
another attempt to construct an even higher level of the Tower of
Babel. Not only is that executive order an unfunded mandate, it is
incredibly wrong-headed.
To encourage non-English speakers to stay outside the mainstream of
America and thereby indirectly condemn them to a life of impoverishment
is essentially despicable. As the population of non-English speakers
increases, so too will the pressure to divide this Nation along
language lines. It will also contribute to the increased balkanization
of the Nation. We do none of these folks a favor by encouraging their
exclusion from the majority society.
Mr. Chairman, I urge support of the Istook amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute 55 seconds to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez).
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, contrary to what is being said, if what
the gentleman was saying is accurate, I will be there for the
gentleman.
When the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez) and I met with the
medical association, we discovered what they were being told was not
practical and it was not correct.
We are not saying that we ought to consider those 200 languages. That
is not practicable. We are not saying if there is one person who is
Spanish speaking they ought to be responsive to them. That is not what
the law says. If Members look at the law, it is very specific. The law
says specifically that the size of the limited English proficient
population that is served needs to be considered. So allow the
administration that opportunity.
Secondly, it says the frequency of the visits in terms of the
hospitals. Most important, it also talks about the severity. If the
person has tuberculosis, cancer, and it is serious, there has to be a
real need to make sure that that person understands if it is a life-or-
death situation, so depending on the severity of the case and the
numbers of the population.
Mr. Chairman, I will again tell the gentleman that I will be with him
if they start forcing agencies to do it in the number of languages that
the gentleman says. That is not the intent. In addition, this is not
new. It is the 1964 civil rights legislation. What this does is allows
the Government, in this case the administration, an opportunity to
establish the guidelines that allow them to put it into effect. It is
nothing to get all bent out of shape over and to raise all of those
contrary items because that is not the case. If it is, I promise the
gentleman that I will be there for him in ensuring that the
administration does not do that.
In addition, let me state that it is going to be very important that
as we look at this, that we also consider the seriousness of the
situation. I had a case of a person who was told in English that they
were positive for AIDS, and that person understood positive as
everything being okay.

{time} 1900

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would like the gentleman to be aware that the guidelines issued by
the Department of Justice on the same day as this executive order, and
the executive order expressly incorporated the DOJ guidelines, I quote
from the DOJ's document they titled Commonly Asked Questions and
Answers Regarding Executive Order 13166:
``Programs that serve a few, or even one LEP person are still subject
to the title VI obligation.''
If there is even one person that speaks some language other than
English and wants things translated,

[[Page H6676]]

the Department of Justice says that one person is enough to invoke
this requirement. That is not common sense. That is not meeting a major
public demand. That is going way overboard, when they require this
multitude, these millions if not billions, of pages to be translated
into an unlimited number of languages.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute and 55 seconds to the
gentleman from Guam (Mr. Underwood).
Mr. UNDERWOOD. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, this issue has been posed as one where we are going to
subject the Federal Government and State and local governments and
everyone else to a multitude of languages. I think we heard the number
6,800, all the remaining languages in the world that have speakers
represented in this country.
I speak one of those very small languages. I think we number about
100,000 in the entire world, and about 50,000 inside the continental
United States and I can assure everyone that under these guidelines, I
have no ability to force anybody to produce documents in the Chamorro
language. This is simply about access and the protection of civil
rights. This is what this is all about.
We have lots of limited English proficient people in this country.
Instead of spending our time trying to deny them access to health care,
instead of putting forth more barriers to their exercise of their civil
rights, we ought to be contemplating how to facilitate that while they
are learning English, while they acquire the kind of English that is
necessary to survive in this society. This is not about a right to use
a certain language. This is about a time-honored, court-tested
provision emanating from the 1964 Civil Rights Act which says that when
national origin and the language that you use, if that can be used as a
way to impede your access to the resources of this country, then the
government is required to take a look at those processes in order to
allow you that access. This is what this is about. It is about access.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, it has taken a lot of time to review that executive
order and these regulations. I would submit, Mr. Chairman, that were
this actually something that had been part of the civil rights acts
adopted in the 1960s, it would not have taken until August of 2000 for
someone to notice and start saying, now we have this new requirement.
Because that is what happened, August 8 of 2000, when former President
Clinton issued the executive order, had the guidelines of the Justice
Department that were issued the same day incorporated into them, and
set in motion a whole series of midnight actions. Most of the Federal
agencies that adopted these did so on January 17, just before
Inauguration Day. That is an inherited problem for the current
administration and one they still have not come to grips with.
This simply says, do not put your multibillion-dollar unfunded
mandate burden on the rest of the country until you get the cost-
benefit study done on this. That is what you are supposed to do on
major new initiatives and that is what this was, a major new
initiative.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 55 seconds to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Honda).
(Mr. HONDA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, what I have is going to take a little bit
more than the time allotted. It is interesting in this country, in
America, we talk about diversity and understanding. We also talk about
inclusion rather than exclusion. This amendment is exclusionary. What
the executive order does from 1964, as the gentleman had explained, was
that this is fine-tuning, and people need direction.
As an administrator myself, when I take a law, an administrative
regulation, the right to be able to extend it even further is our
prerogative. That is probably what that department did when you read
that memo. That is all about service. That is about client service. We
in this office, we in our jobs, we understand client service and we
want to extend ourselves the best that we can.
The real point of this in terms of language is comprehension. If you
do not have comprehension, you are not going to be able to take
medicine properly. You are not going to be able to understand things
properly. As an educator, comprehensive input is key.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this
amendment for two reasons. First of all, in a former life, I was a
small businessperson who did contract work with the Federal Government.
The imposition of this on small business would just be devastating.
Secondly, and this is probably the best reason to support this
amendment. English is the language of commerce in our country. To
encourage people to not learn English does a great disservice to them.
That is exactly what this executive order does. It tells people, ``You
don't have to learn English, because we'll communicate with you in your
language.'' That just is not fair to them. If they are not conversant
in English, they are not using the language which is the language of
commerce in this country. As is so often the case when we try to help
people, we really hurt them. What this does to those who are not fluent
in English is really hurt them because we discourage them from learning
English.
This is a very good amendment and it is especially good for those for
whom English is not their primary language because they need to be
encouraged to learn English, not discouraged from learning English
because it is the language of commerce in this country. And the sooner
they learn it, the better they will do in this country. It is unfair of
us to discourage them from learning it.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) has 2\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 1\3/4\
minutes remaining and the right to close.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, when these regulations were issued, when the executive
order was issued and then regulations were issued by Federal agencies,
we heard from a number of States, Michigan, that asked, quote, the
policy should be held in abeyance until, at the very least, a cost-
benefit analysis is conducted and adequate additional funding is
provided.
New Jersey complained that they would have to be translating things
into at least nine different languages and wrote, ``It is respectfully
requested that the published Department of Labor policy be temporarily
suspended pending a cost-benefit analysis.''
That is the normal way of proceeding. That is not the way we are
proceeding. Right now, people are being placed at risk because they are
being told, ``You're not complying with this law.'' At the very time
that people are concerned about bringing America together, we are being
told that you have to translate what you do into a multitude of other
languages as a condition of being involved in any sort of Federal
program. That is not right. That is going to cause a huge amount of
resentment.
There was a columnist that wrote in the New York Times, just wait
until an Hispanic shopkeeper is told they have to translate what they
do into Farsi. This hits everyone, Mr. Chairman, no matter what may be
your primary language. But it is right that we need to ask people to
focus on what brings us together. We spend billions of dollars that are
supposed to be helping people to learn English. Are we not going to
reinforce that with a policy that says we are not going to put billions
of extra upon ourselves to translate things into you rather than
helping you to learn English? That is a much better policy.
It is great to be bilingual, trilingual, however many languages you
may be able to speak. But let us keep us unified. This is not the time
to balkanize America and to say, you have to spend billions of dollars,
private money and public money, translating everything you do into a
multitude of dozens or scores of different languages.
We need to support the amendment, Mr. Chairman. We need to bring
common sense into place. And until common sense is brought into place,
until we have a cost-benefit analysis and

[[Page H6677]]

they amend these proposals, we should not be imposing them upon the
country.
I move the adoption of the amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).
(Mr. HINOJOSA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Istook
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to oppose Mr. Istook's
amendment to impede the implementation of the Executive order to
``Improve Access to Services for Persons with Limited English
Proficiency.''
The Executive order is about fairness. Individuals with limited
English proficiency should not be blocked from accessing vital services
paid for by their, and their families', tax dollars.
The Executive order simply gives guidance on how the Federal
Government and Federal Government contractors can comply with existing
civil rights law that bars discrimination based on national origin.
Until this Executive order was issued, existing civil rights law to
protect limited English proficient persons went largely ignored.
The Executive order is reasonable, flexible, and accommodating to
small contractors and government agencies. It recognizes that only
critical services, directly affecting health and livelihoods, are
required to be translated. Implementing the Executive order makes
sense.
Imagine what would happen if someone with weak English skills who has
a communicable disease, like small pox or tuberculosis, is unable to
understand the advise of health professionals. A public health hazard
could ensue, harming many more people.
Mr. Chairman, I hope my colleagues will join me in opposing the
Istook amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute and 10 seconds to the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).
(Mr. Wu asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, we are all products of our own past, I suppose.
I came to this country not understanding a word of English and I am
still working on my limited English proficiency. But when I was in the
fourth grade, my dentist, Dr. Sadao, my doctor, Dr. Linnertz, would say
to me, ``David, let me tell you something and then you translate it for
your mother. And then your mother can tell you and then you can tell
me.''
To me, my mother spoke perfectly fine English and so did Dr. Linnertz
and so did Dr. Sadao. What we are really talking about are all those
people out there who do not have a little fourth-grade David to
translate for them. I want to ask the gentleman from Oklahoma who he
proposes to leave behind: My mother? Another little old lady from
somewhere else in the world?
I would like to read something into the Record: ``I believe that
every right implies a responsibility, every opportunity an obligation,
every possession a duty.'' Those are the words of John D. Rockefeller.
I tell children all the time, you have got to learn the king's English.
But if you are asking children to learn the king's English, for God
sakes you cannot leave their parents behind. You cannot leave their
grandparents behind.
I would like the folks on the other side of this argument to say, who
are you leaving behind? Who will you cut out of the ability to
participate in our self-governing democratic society?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
There is an executive order which the gentleman from Oklahoma does
not like. A Republican President, a Republican White House, is now
reviewing that executive order. Let us have the Congress get out of the
way and give him time to do it before we jump to conclusions.
As the gentleman has indicated, when you are in a doctor's office and
you need help, you do not have time for an English lesson.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Istook
amendment.
This abstinence-only amendment is a narrow and unrealistic approach
to addressing adolescent sexuality. We're not saying that our young
people should not be encouraged to abstain from sexual activity. We're
just saying they also need to be informed about how to protect
themselves from unintended pregnancy, HIV/AIDS, and other STDs.
The truth is, comprehensive sexuality education programs expose young
adults to important information that they will not learn from an
abstinence-only program.
To date, there is no real evidence that can defend the effectiveness
of abstinence-only programs. Without such evidence, we cannot justify
spending additional dollars on a program that's already well funded.
However, family planning and comprehensive sexuality education
programs have clearly shown their effectiveness and ability to help
curb teen pregnancy.
Let's protect our Nation's future by providing teens with the
educational tools they need to be responsible.
I urge my colleagues to vote against the Istook amendment.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the Istook amendment
calling for a $33 million increase in abstinence-only education.
First, everyone should understand one thing--this program is already
receiving a 100 percent increase in its funding over last year. That is
without the Istook amendment.
To put that in perspective--the President's number one priority
during his campaign (besides tax cuts) was education--and that receives
a 17 percent increase.
So, make no mistake about it, the Congress is already spending large
sums on the abstinence-only program, and we won't know the
effectiveness and results of the program until the congressionally
mandated report comes due in 2005.
What we do know is that publicly funded family planning has a
significant effect on teen pregnancy. Each year, family planning
services prevent an estimated 386,000 teenagers from becoming pregnant.
Title X funding plays a critical role in the lives of teens across
America--in preventing unwanted pregnancy and in providing needed
services to young people. Through title X teens receive gynecological
exams, screening for breast and cervical cancer, STD treatment, HIV
testing, contraceptive care, and counseling.
These services are desperately needed since we know that more than
750,000 teenagers become pregnant each year, and 80 percent of those
pregnancies are unintended. We know that nearly 4 million teenagers
acquire a sexually transmitted disease by age 24; and that an average
of two young people are infected with HIV every hour of every day.
It takes a comprehensive approach to address these problems and that
is why more than 120 national organizations support comprehensive sex
education including: American Academy of Pediatrics, American College
of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Medical Association,
American Public Health Association, National Education Association,
National Medical Association, National School Boards Association, and
Society for Adolescent Medicine.
Americans overwhelmingly support sex education--more than 8 in 10
Americans favor comprehensive sex education that includes information
about contraception.
I urge my colleagues to heed their call and to continue to push for
comprehensive education. This is not the time to increase funding even
more than we already have for an untested program that is so limited in
scope.
I urge my colleagues to reject the Istook amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that,
I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook)
will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Simpson) having assumed the chair, Mr. Combest, 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. 3061)
making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human
Services, and Education, and related agencies for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2002, and for other purposes, had come to no
resolution thereon.

____________________