[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 101 (Thursday, July 10, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H6565-H6581]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1545

  Or how about the almost $400 million that we have appropriated each 
of the 3 years to actually help the States implement the test, and the 
GAO came along and suggested a study on my behalf and others' that said 
that the almost $400 million we are appropriating annually is 
sufficient money for the States to develop and implement the test.
  What this really is is the first big step in the direction of making 
more excuses, more excuses why we cannot educate every child in 
America. We have been down this path before, and we have really been 
down the path the last 20 years. There have been all kinds of attempts 
at reforming our schools the last 20 years, and guess what happened? 
Somewhere along the way it got to be too tough. It got to be too 
difficult. ``Oh, do not hold us accountable.'' And what happened? We 
have backed away every single time in virtually every single State.
  The night that this bill was signed into law, I was over at Mount 
Vernon with the Secretary of Education, meeting with the 50 school 
chiefs from around the country who were charged with implementing this. 
I congratulated them on their service to education and the great 
commitment they were making to kids, and I talked about the heavy 
lifting that was going to be involved in implementing No Child Left 
Behind.
  I also told them that, for the first time, do not come and ask the 
Federal Government for waivers. In the 1994 act, which many of the 
things that we called for in No Child Left Behind were enacted in 1994, 
in January of 2001, when the Bush administration took office, exactly 
11 States were in compliance with the 1994 act.
  Right now we are at the most historic moment of the Federal 
involvement in education, because right now all 50 States and the 
District of Columbia and Puerto Rico are in compliance with the new 
law. They were all required to have their State accountability plans in 
place and submitted to the Department by January, and the Department 
was to have all of them approved. And the Department of Education here 
in Washington sat down with virtually every State to work through their 
accountability plan and to work to make sure that we were not 
unnecessarily upsetting what was already happening in the States. There 
was an agreement and a celebration at the White House several weeks ago 
to celebrate this accomplishment of having all of the States in 
compliance.
  Now, could we spend more money? Yes. Are the States in difficult 
times? Yes. But I want to ask all of you, are we going to blink again? 
We have blinked so many times over the course of the history of this 
country because it was too hard to educate all of our kids, and I, for 
one, and I think the President and I think my good friend on the other 
side of the aisle, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), 
and Ted Kennedy in the other body have locked arms to say we are not 
going to blink.
  We are not going to blink. The lives of poor kids in our country who 
get shuffled from one grade to the next will continue as they are if we 
blink. We all know what happens in our local schools. They move them 
from one grade to another, whether they learn anything or not. Kids 
graduate that cannot read their diploma. At some point in America, 
somebody has to stand up and say, enough is enough.
  I would suggest to you that we are spending an additional $2.2 
billion in this appropriation bill to fund elementary and secondary 
education programs. We are continuing to keep our commitment, and I 
would hope that my colleagues would stand up today and say, for the 
sake of these kids and the sake of poor kids in America, we are not 
going to blink again.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.


                announcement by the chairman pro tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The Chair 
would remind Members not to characterize the positions of Members of 
the Senate.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to respond.
  Mr. Chairman, wherever I go in the State of Maine, the school 
districts that are in my district and across the State, they are not 
looking just at the cost of developing the test, though it is pretty 
clear that they do not have the money to do that. They are not looking 
just at the cost of developing the test, they are looking at the cost 
of how to operate the test, and they are also faced with teacher 
quality mandates that are a real burden.
  The General Accounting Office has estimated that for fiscal year 
2004, that the administration requested $390 million, $182 million 
below State 2004 expenditures as estimated. What we are talking about 
here in different categories, and that is just one, is a failure of the 
Federal Government to meet the actual amount that our States and local 
municipalities will have to spend.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore), 
who has worked with me on this amendment and who has other legislation 
pending along these lines.
  Mr. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  More than 27 years ago Congress made a promise to our local school

[[Page H6566]]

boards and State school boards, and we said to the educators across our 
country, you take special needs children out of our hospitals and 
institutions and bring them into the public schools for education, and 
we, Congress, will pay 40 percent of the cost of educating those 
children.
  The States and locals did. Congress did not. An unfunded Federal 
mandate, a promise made, a promise broken, and we are doing it again 
now.
  I voted for the No Child Left Behind Act. I think it was the right 
thing to do. I want accountability in our schools, and I want to leave 
no child behind, and I want our schools to succeed. But when we place 
additional requirements on our schools without adequate funding, it is 
another unfunded Federal mandate, and we are short $6.15 billion this 
year.
  Our educators, I talked to all of our school superintendents in our 
districts. We have some of the best schools in the whole country in my 
district, but they said, unanimously, we can do the job of educating 
our children, but we cannot do it without the resources when additional 
requirements are put on us.
  That is what this is about. This is not about blinking. This is not 
about blinking. This is about educating our children and a promise made 
and a promise we are about to break again.
  As the gentleman from Maine said, 48 of the 50 States right now are 
in a precarious financial position. They do not have additional money 
for funding. In fact, the Kansas Legislature this year was struggling 
to find adequate money for education in our State. And now we are 
talking about another unfunded Federal mandate.
  It should not happen. If we do this, shame on us. If we do this, we 
are not taking care of the resources that we proclaim so often here are 
important to us, and those are our children. Our children are our 
future. We owe them the promise that we made to them and to our 
educators. They can do the job of educating children, if they have the 
resources.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Delaware (Mr. Castle), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Education 
Reform.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce for yielding me time, and I have a great 
deal of respect for the gentleman from Maine, but the basic underlying 
concept of this amendment is very dangerous.
  No Child Left Behind was a very difficult act to pass. Each of our 
States has worked extraordinarily hard in the last year and a half in 
order to comply with No Child Left Behind. The Secretary of Education 
has certified that each of the States is now ready to deal with this. 
In each of our States, tests have been prepared. For the most part, 
they are starting to be given. Assessments are being made, standards 
are being set, we are beginning to move up education.
  I can tell you my State, which is the State of Delaware, which has 
been doing this for quite a long time, even before this, our test 
scores are starting to move up rapidly, we believe, as a result of 
setting standards and assessments and having testing in place, and I 
think to suspend it would be a sad error.
  But there is another component to all of this. If you look back over 
the funding of education, and I give a tremendous amount of credit to 
the Chair of this appropriations subcommittee as well as the ranking 
member, who certainly played a major role in what we are doing in 
helping education funding, you will see that nothing has increased in 
spending the way education has in the last 6 years or so.
  From fiscal year 1996, we have doubled funding for education at the 
Federal Government level. Just this year, we are going to put into IDEA 
an extra $1 billion. This is important, because that basically frees up 
State and local dollars. That is money in which the amount is not 
necessarily the increase that is needed, but the Federal share of it is 
increasing dramatically because we have stepped forward to do that.
  We are putting $769 million more into Title I dealing with the same 
children who are so very important for No Child Left Behind. So we have 
funded education in a way it has never been funded before.
  For all these reasons, because No Child Left Behind should be left in 
place, it is an amendment that should be defeated.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cunningham), a former Member of the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I commend my colleagues from both sides 
of the aisle. Special education is a very critical and very difficult 
issue to deal with, both with the schools and the parent groups 
themselves.
  I would tell the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore) that Alan Bursin 
is the Superintendent of San Diego City Schools, and the number one 
issue and number one problem for him is the cottage organization of 
lawyers that have browbeaten the schools and take the money out of it.
  I capped lawyer fees in the D.C. committee. In one year we saved $12 
million. That is here in Washington, D.C. That is $12 million that went 
into special education, went to help teachers, went into buy 
technology, instead of going into lawyers' pockets. That is an area we 
can work together to enhance this.
  At no time have we ever financed or appropriated 40 percent of the 
total dollars. You know what it would cost. It is a political issue, 
but it is difficult. We went from 6 up to 18, almost 19 percent 
currently, and we need to put more in there.
  Another issue that we have in California, Governor Davis has taken 
our IDEA money and is spending the State money and using the Federal 
money to drive the engine. Instead of an enhanced program, it is lower. 
It is an area we can work strongly together in that I think all of us 
are dedicated toward, but it is difficult.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Maine for yielding 
me time.
  Mr. Chairman, when the majority in this House became the majority in 
this House, one of the first things that it brought to the floor was 
the idea of a Federal mandate-Federal pay rule and statute, and it 
passed with great enthusiasm from the other side of the aisle and from 
some of us on this side of the aisle.
  Several years later, the majority and the minority working together 
passed the No Child Left Behind Act. It contains many mandates on 
schools around our country. Three of the most important ones are these:
  Third-graders through eighth-graders in every school and every town 
in the country are going to be tested every year on various subjects. 
That is mandated.
  Another mandate is that by the 2005-2006 school year, every classroom 
must have a highly qualified teacher in that classroom teaching in 
field. Mandated.
  Another important mandate is that if a school fails to meet what is 
called adequate yearly progress, we are responsible for coming up with 
tutors and remedial programs, after-school programs, various tools to 
help those children learn. Mandated. Wise.
  Another important mandate is that paraprofessionals must have at 
least an associate's degree or the equivalent thereof by some date 
certain, which will require a significant investment in the training 
and education of paraprofessionals. Mandated.
  I support these standards and these improvements. I commend the 
majority and the President for writing them into the law. But the deal 
on No Child Left Behind was that if we are going to mandate these 
requirements, we would pay for them. The bill that is on the floor, by 
my count, is about $8 billion short of meeting those mandates.
  What does this mean?

                              {time}  1600

  It means higher local school taxes around this country. In my State, 
it means higher property taxes to meet these mandates, number one. 
Number two, it means cuts in other services, because school districts 
with finite resources that must test these children every year, that 
must train teachers, that must train paraprofessionals, that must meet 
these other mandates are

[[Page H6567]]

not going to have an endless well of tax dollars from which they can go 
back and raise this money. So they are going to cut other programs, 
whether it is the school band or the preschool program or guidance 
counselors or what have you. That was not the agreement on No Child 
Left Behind.
  The Allen amendment is very clear, and it is very wise. It says to 
this body, when you honor the agreement of No Child Left Behind, then 
the mandates will kick in. But if you dishonor that agreement, then 
they will not.
  Now, if this were 1995, I would think that proposal would come from 
the other side of the aisle, because we heard it ad nauseam on 
environmental regulations, on land use regulations, on all kinds of 
things. The gentleman's principle is exactly right. We ought to support 
his amendment.
  I would say to my federalist friends on the other side of the aisle, 
here is your chance to stand for the principles of local control and 
federalism.
  I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Moore) for a response to the preceding statements.
  Mr. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I want to respond just very briefly to the statement made by the 
gentleman from California. I am glad that we are up to 18 percent of 
the 40 percent that Congress promised 27 years ago for IDEA funding. I 
am glad we are up to 18 percent. That means we are 22 percent short; 22 
percent short 27 years later. That is shameful. And we are starting to 
do the same thing again here.
  I voted for the No Child Left Behind Act. I believe it can work and 
should work, if adequate resources are devoted. But if not, it is 
another unfunded Federal mandate. Shame on all of us if we do that this 
time.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I would say that a lot of us have 
fought for an increase in IDEA money, I say to the gentleman from 
Kansas. I would also say I have given my colleagues one way in which we 
can provide more money for IDEA. The largest group of teachers leaving 
education is in special education because they are spending so much 
time in paperwork, so much time in court, that they are leaving the 
profession. These are dedicated people. If we want to cap lawyer fees, 
then we can get up to four times the amount of money into special 
education.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of our time to the 
distinguished Democratic leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I thank him for his leadership and that of the gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Moore) for bringing this very important amendment to the 
floor.
  Because indeed, I say to my colleagues, this amendment presents this 
Chamber with a moment of truth, a moment of truth as to whether this 
Congress is honest about its commitment to education, whether or not it 
will honor its promise to America's children contained in the Leave No 
Child Behind Act, and whether it is honest about what our expectations 
are of those children.
  When the President signed the bill, he did so signing a bill that was 
bipartisan, bicameral in the support that it had; and people were quite 
excited about the prospect of the additional resources that would go to 
helping children to be accountable. Republicans talk about 
accountability, though, while failing to provide the resources 
necessary for children to meet the challenge.
  Mr. Chairman, I call to the attention of our colleagues this report 
that I and the staff of the Committee on Appropriations have put out, 
the Democrats on the Committee on Appropriations have put out called 
``GOP Funding Bill Shortchanges America's Children By Underfunding Key 
Education Priorities.'' I just want to read a few provisions in this, 
and it will point out the tremendous need for the Allen amendment 
today: ``The GOP bill shortchanges Title I,'' which is the subject of 
the Allen-Moore amendment. ``Title I is the primary Federal program 
that helps school districts enrolling low-income children meet the new 
accountability mandates of the No Child Left Behind Act. To help raise 
the academic performance of these students, Congress has agreed to 
phase in the Title I payments.'' For fiscal year 2004, that payment 
would have been $18.5 billion and, yet, the GOP funding bill provides 
$12.35 billion. ``As a result, under the GOP bill, America's children 
will lose $6.15 billion in Title I grants below the amount called for'' 
in the No Child Left Behind bill. Over $6 billion in that one title 
alone, depriving children, low-income children of the opportunity to be 
accountable.
  In addition, the bill also shortchanges children with disabilities. 
On April 30, the Republicans passed the IDEA reauthorization bill. It 
promised a $2.2 billion increase for IDEA grants in fiscal year 2004 to 
help local school districts educate children with disabilities. 
Everyone who has children with disabilities in their districts, and 
that would be all of us, knows the pressure on school districts to 
provide education and quality of access to children with disabilities. 
It is a very important priority for our country. Yet despite the 
rhetoric of the authorization bill of just April 30, the Republican 
IDEA bill, this bill, has less than half. Instead of $2.2 billion, it 
has a $1 billion increase for IDEA.
  We all have heard the value of after-school learning opportunities 
for children, and so the No Child Left Behind bill did as well; and it 
authorized $1.75 billion for 2004 for after-school centers which 
provide safe places between 3 p.m. and 6 p.m. where children receive 
academic help and enrichment activities. Yet the Republican bill falls 
$750 million short, nearly half of the funding provided in the No Child 
Left Behind bill in after-school program funding below the level.
  It goes on and on. In order to have quality education for our 
children, the No Child Left Behind bill authorized $3.3 billion for 
teacher-quality grants to the States which are used to provide high-
quality professional development to teachers. Yet the GOP bill freezes 
funding at $2.9 billion. As a result, teachers will lose $350 million 
in teacher-quality grants below the level called for in the No Child 
Left Behind Act.
  My colleagues get the picture. Over and over again, children, 
millions of children are being left behind.
  As we honor our men and women in uniform, I think it is important to 
note that the GOP bill on the floor today leaves military dependents 
behind. The Impact Aid program, as we all know, helps children of 
military personnel receive quality education. Yet the GOP bill, under 
the GOP bill, America's children will lose, children of our men and 
women in uniform, will lose $583 million in Impact Aid below the level 
authorized.
  The list goes on and on. One more, just for older children, is that 
Pell Grants for college students are frozen, even though State tuitions 
have increased significantly, making it more difficult for our children 
to get the higher education that we want them to have for their 
personal fulfillment and to help our economy grow.
  So these are just a few of the shortcomings in the education section 
of the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education bill. Others 
have spoken to the 2.5 percent lowest increase for the National 
Institutes of Health in many years. In fact, in terms of education, 
this bill provides the smallest percentage increase in education funds 
in 8 years.
  So here we have these vastly increased mandates, which we all 
applauded, some found controversial; but with the funding, we could 
help the children succeed. Instead of setting up children for success, 
however, this bill, the Republican bill, sets our children up for a 
fall. And that is a tragedy. That is a tragedy.
  So what the Allen-Moore amendment has set out to do is to put forth 
an amendment that goes only to title I in the bill; and it says, of the 
full funding, the $18.5 billion appropriated for title I in the bill, 
then the requirements would not be in place. None of the funds made 
available in this act may be used to enforce any requirement that a 
school be identified for improvement, corrective action, or 
restructuring under the bill. That is really only fair. It is 
unfortunate, but it is fair, because these children, these

[[Page H6568]]

teachers, these parents, these school districts cannot possibly measure 
up and be accountable without the money to match the mandate that we 
called for in the No Child Left Behind Act.
  The tragedy of it all is that this is not that much money compared to 
the tax breaks which are the priorities for the Republicans in this 
Congress. And sadly, there is not any tax break that the Republicans 
can come up with, no R&D tax credit at this time, which I fully 
support; but nothing that my colleagues can name in terms of tax cuts 
does more to grow the economy than the education of the American 
people. Early childhood education, K through 12, higher education, 
postgraduate education, lifetime learning for our workers. Nothing is 
more, to use their word, ``dynamic'' for the economy, brings more money 
into the economy, brings more money into the public Treasury than 
educating our children.
  But that is only a practical matter. Let us talk about their self-
fulfillment, the confidence that they have to go forward and to be 
leaders in our country. They are the future. They are worthy of the 
investment we should be making in them. But we cannot mandate 
accountability to our children and yet not put the money there to match 
the mandate.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from Maine (Mr. 
Allen), and I want to commend the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore) for 
this very brilliant amendment that they have brought to the floor to 
test the truth of where the Republicans stand on educating our 
children. Is it just rhetoric, or are we ready to put up the resources 
to match that rhetoric?
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``aye'' on the Allen-Moore amendment and 
to vote ``no'' on this very unfortunate legislation that is the base 
bill.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the time that we have 
remaining.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment that we have before us is not about 
providing additional resources for our schools; it is about providing 
excuses for those who do not want to be accountable for our children to 
learn. To call this a No Child Left Behind unfunded mandate strikes me 
as strange, because this year, this year we will spend $24.2 billion of 
taxpayer money to help needy students around the country. And what No 
Child Left Behind says is that if we are going to continue to invest 
these massive amounts of money to help needy students, we ought to 
expect some results. After all, do children not deserve to learn?
  As I said before, IDEA special ed funding has increased 300 percent 
over the last 7 years. Title I spending has increased 200 percent over 
the last 7 years. And if we look at the increases over the current 
fiscal year and the last 2 fiscal years, since President Bush took 
office, those increases in title I over the last 3 years were more than 
what we saw under 7 years of President Clinton's title I increases.
  So for people to suggest that we are not meeting our obligation to 
our local schools, I think is not being quite fair and honest with the 
facts.
  The fact is, since President Bush was elected, Congress has increased 
funding for elementary education, elementary and secondary education 
$13.2 billion. This is real money. So I would say to my colleagues, No 
Child Left Behind is the last really serious attempt that is ever going 
to be made to ensure that all kids get a chance at a decent education 
in America.

                              {time}  1615

  We have blinked. We have blinked. We have blinked. We have had 
excuses. We have had excuses, and we have had more excuses why we 
cannot educate all of our kids. And I just want to remind my colleagues 
of one point: It is not the child's fault whose parents they were born 
to or that they lost the lucky lottery of life in terms of what 
community they have grown up in. And I believe that we, as a society, 
owe them a chance at a decent education.
  We know all kids can learn. The problem is that today not all kids 
have the opportunity to learn, and No Child Left Behind makes that 
commitment, and the necessary resources are there to implement the law, 
and we should stand up for the kids and vote against this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The question 
is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maine (Mr. 
Allen) will be postponed.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

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

       Sec. ____. None of the funds provided under this Act shall 
     be used to promulgate or implement any regulation that 
     exempts from the requirements of section 7 of the Fair Labor 
     Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S. C. 207) any employee who is 
     not otherwise exempted pursuant to regulations under section 
     13 of such Act (20 U.S.C. 213) that were in effect as of July 
     11, 2003.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Points of order are reserved.
  Pursuant to the order of the House today, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and a Member opposed each will control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, we have agreed on the committee that we will each limit 
ourselves to 10 minutes in the interest of trying to get Members out of 
here.
  Mr. Chairman, the Department of Labor is planning to change the 
regulations for overtime workers. They would make 1.4 million workers 
earning less than $22,000 a year eligible for overtime pay. That is a 
much needed adjustment which we support, but if the administration gets 
its way, an estimated 8 million workers will become ineligible for 
overtime because of changes in the rules. These include many of our 
first responders, firefighters, law enforcement officers, emergency 
medical technicians who will no longer be eligible for overtime pay 
because the Bush administration is changing the definition of who is 
being covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act.
  This amendment would stop the administrations from making those 
unprecedented change to the Fair Labor Standards Act by revising the 
regulations. It would save overtime pay for millions of working 
families. I am offering the amendment on behalf of myself and the 
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 
15 minutes.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this proposal would eviscerate what the Secretary is 
trying to do. I think for the membership they should understand that 
the Secretary's rules would have given a million workers access to time 
and a half that do not now have it, and it would limit some of the 
white-collar type of workers to not getting the time and a half under 
the existing rules. And for this reason we think that the Secretary's 
rules that have been promulgated are fair because it does elevate the 
million people into an opportunity to make some extra money and get 
paid for time and a half if they have put it in. Whereas, the white-
collar workers understand that that is part of the condition of the 
job, that they may understand they have to work some extra time and not 
necessarily get time and a half.
  I think the rules would make management of the enterprise more 
effective and more efficient and would certainly be fair to everybody. 
Therefore, I think we should leave the Secretary's rules stand as is, 
rather than adopt this amendment in an attempt to second-guess what the 
Secretary is doing in putting these rules in place. I would urge a vote 
against the amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller).
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, earlier this year the 
Bush administration initiated a process that is going to take hundreds 
of

[[Page H6569]]

millions of dollars of hard-earned pay out of the pockets of American 
families. For years these men and women, among them first responders 
like firefighters, police, nurses, emergency workers, have long 
qualified for overtime pay when they worked more than 40 hours a week.
  For most of those men and women, that overtime pay is not spare 
change or for frivolous spending. It is essential family income 
necessary to pay the mortgage, to feed their children, to pay college 
education and to save for retirement. Overtime is not a luxury. It is a 
necessity for many American families, because tragically millions of 
our American families cannot survive economically on working only 40 
hours a week. In fact, many workers who earn overtime derive 25 percent 
of their annual income from the extra hours on the job.
  But what would the Bush administration do? The Bush administration 
wants to exclude employees from ever being eligible for overtime by 
playing with the definitions of eligibility. According to one study, 
that would take away the overtime from almost 8 million people who 
today are qualified. All our amendment does is say you cannot take it 
away from people who today are qualified. You can expand it, as the 
Secretary says she wants to do. You will work, but you will not get the 
overtime pay under this rule.
  Congress did not approve it. In fact, we have not even had a hearing 
on the overtime rule, not a minute's worth of debate. The Republicans 
say they dispute the findings of the Economic Policy Institute study. 
Well, let us have a hearing and talk about it before we penalize 
millions of American families.
  Now, this amendment we are debating allows us to have that review. 
The Obey-Miller amendment tells the Secretary not to issue any 
regulation that would deprive anyone of their existing overtime pay. 
This is an opportunity to show America where we stand. If you defend 
the right of people to continue to earn the wages that they have earned 
to avoid suffering precipitous loss in income for doing the exact same 
job they have been doing for years, then you will vote for this 
amendment.
  There is a reason they are trying to cut overtime pay through the 
bureaucratic administrative rule instead of coming to the Congress and 
changing it in the open light of public debate. That is because they do 
not want the debate. They do not want to defend what they are doing. 
Today you will have to defend what the Department is doing because the 
Department of Labor is threatening millions of dollars worth of income 
to working American families. It is not enough that this administration 
and this House have presided over the loss of 3 million private sector 
jobs since 2001. It is not enough that the administration and 
Republican leadership in this House have forced millions of working 
Americans to remain in poverty by refusing to consider, even consider, 
raising the minimum wage. Is it not enough that they have denied 
unemployment compensation for millions of people who could not find 
jobs because of the desperate state of the economy? Is it not enough 
that they deny working families a fair tax cut, including the child tax 
credit, while showering hundreds of billions of dollars on wealthy 
Americans?
  Now, let me ask you this: Is it really necessary now to assault even 
those people who still have a job today, who have a job, who are 
working overtime, who need the overtime pay, that they would come along 
now with this administrative rule to strip them, to strip them of that 
overtime pay when they work long hours at difficult jobs and time away 
from their family, and they do it at the request of their employer?
  This is not this abstract case. Janice Murphy, who is an equipment 
specialist for the Navy's ship systems engineering in Philadelphia, 29 
years of experience, but under this regulation, because she has all of 
that experience, she would be ruled as somebody having on-the-job 
training, learned professional, so she would not get overtime pay as 
she does today.
  Diane Flock, a nurse at Florida Medical Center in Ft. Lauderdale, 
talks about how she organizes the nurses at the Florida Medical Center 
because they would be denied overtime because they would be defined out 
of it. Now, she has been a nurse there for many years, but she has 
organized the other nurses, and she has petitioned the Congress to have 
a debate on this matter, and that is what we are doing.
  I would urge Members to support the Miller-Obey amendment.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Boehner).
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, we have known for years that the Fair 
Labor Standards Act regulations governing overtime are confusing and 
out of date. Moreover, millions of low-wage workers who should be 
earning overtime pay currently are not. Now, these regulations which 
have not been substantially changed in 54 years are complex, confusing, 
and make it next to impossible for workers to know whether they are 
entitled to overtime, for employers to know how to pay their employees, 
and for the Labor Department to enforce these workplace regulations. 
They simply do not meet the needs of today's 21st century workforce.
  The Department has undertaken an important effort to update these 
complex, decades-old regulations that define overtime exemptions for 
white-collar employees in the administrative, executive and 
professional employee classification. They should be commended for 
their efforts thus far.
  Let us be clear. The proposed DOL regulations will provide additional 
protections to low-income workers and ensure that they are entitled to 
overtime pay. It is unacceptable that today's outdated regulations 
require someone earning as little as $8,060 a year to qualify as a 
white-collar employee and, therefore, prevent them from receiving 
overtime pay. The proposed changes would raise that level from $8,060 
to $22,100 annually, and ensure that anyone earning less than $22,100 a 
year would automatically be entitled to overtime. Lower-income workers 
deserve these protections, and the DOL suggestions would help provide 
them.
  These regulations would guarantee overtime to an additional 1.3 
million low-wage workers, mostly women and minorities, and strengthen 
the protections for an additional 10.7 million workers. And for the 
first time in decades, 20 percent of the lowest-paid workers would be 
guaranteed to get overtime pay.
  Now, these are proposed regulations that are under review, and the 
Department has reviewed and received 80,000 comments about their 
proposal. Any efforts to highjack this process before the Department 
can consider and evaluate these comments, frankly, is very premature.
  Unfortunately, the amendment will only worsen the confusion of 
current wage and hour laws where employers, workers and even the 
Department of Labor simply cannot accurately determine which employees 
are exempt and which are not. The only winners under this amendment are 
the trial lawyers who have lined their pockets with their ``gotcha'' 
class action lawsuits.
  The biggest problem to the amendment might be that the Miller-Obey 
amendment creates a double standard for employees and leads to 
fundamental unfairness: Under the amendment, two workers who do the 
same job would be treated differently. The employee who gets hired 
yesterday gets paid one rate and for the same job. The worker who gets 
hired tomorrow gets classified under a different system. You cannot 
have two people working side by side being paid and treated differently 
under the law, and that is what would happen under the amendment that 
we have before us.
  Some have even attempted to paint these regulations as an attack on 
workers, falsely claiming that it will eliminate overtime pay, but 
nothing could be further from the truth. This in no way would affect 
the overtime rights of millions of Americans who do nonoffice emergency 
work.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to suggest to my colleagues that we should 
oppose this amendment.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Norwood).
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I just simply rise in very strong 
opposition to this amendment which basically prevents the Secretary of 
Labor from implementing regulations to update complex, and I do mean 
the word complex, and outdated, and I do mean the word outdated, wage 
and hour regulations

[[Page H6570]]

and provide additional protections to millions of this country's lower-
income workers.
  Numerous hearings have been held by my Subcommittee on Workforce 
Protections, and I mean numerous, and that has demonstrated over and 
over again the need for updates to the current regulations in order to 
meet the needs of today's workforce, not an 80-year-old workforce.

                              {time}  1630

  The regulations, if adopted, will guarantee overtime to an additional 
1.3 million low-wage workers, mostly women and minorities, and clarify 
existing overtime rights of 10.7 million workers. For the first time in 
decades, 20 percent of the lowest-paid workers in America would be 
guaranteed overtime pay. Now, if that is what my colleague calls 
playing with the definition of eligibility, I guess that is what we 
have done, because we, I think, have done the right thing for many 
Americans.
  I support these regulations. The Secretary should be commended on a 
job well done and for bringing an 80-year-old law into line with the 
realities of today's workforce.
  Some will try to say that we can have it both ways. Some will say 
that all we do by voting for the Obey-Miller amendment is to protect 
overtime for current workers, but still allow the Secretary to simplify 
and clarify these regulations. That is simply not true. It is just 
plain wrong.
  The Obey and Miller amendment will only worsen the confusion of 
current wage and hour laws by freezing in place today's complicated and 
outdated system of inconsistent wage and hour laws. It should come as 
no surprise that in the last several years class action overtime 
lawsuits have become the fastest-growing category of employment 
litigation. The only winners under this amendment are the trial lawyers 
who have lined their own pockets with the ``gotcha'' class action 
lawsuits.
  The Obey-Miller amendment does nothing to clarify the complicated and 
outdated rules governing overtime. In fact, I believe it makes the 
problem worse by creating two classes of employees, some who get 
overtime and some who do not, even if they are doing the same job for 
the same employer. Try explaining that to an employee or one of your 
constituents why she does not get overtime, but the employee hired the 
day before, doing the exact same job, does.
  Nothing in these regulations affect unions, period. Nothing in these 
regulations affect the overtime pay of nurses, period.
  Also, let me be clear, the proposed regulations do not make it easier 
to deny overtime to workers. I urge my colleagues to reject what I 
consider a distortion of misinformation, downright untruths, not, of 
course, by my distinguished colleagues who are bringing the amendment, 
but by others, that have been spread all over this town about these 
regulations.
  Vote against this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The Chair 
would remind Members that under the order of the House, the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Regula) has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 10 minutes remaining. Under the 10-minute 
agreement, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining and the right to close, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey) has 5 minutes remaining.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller).
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I would just say it is 
interesting, they talk about everything except this amendment. This 
amendment does nothing to prohibit the Secretary from expanding 
overtime to those who may not now be required, but what it does not do 
is it does not let the Secretary strip 8 million workers who currently 
get overtime of that overtime pay, including the half a million first 
responders that go out on Orange Alert.
  Under this regulation, many of them will lose overtime for those long 
hours that they spend guarding the national security of this country. 
That is what the regulations do. That is what this amendment prevents. 
It does not keep anybody from expanding into overtime.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, if my colleagues wanted to make life more 
difficult for single mothers, for women trying to work their way 
through school, for women trying their hardest to scrape by for 
themselves and for their children, they could hardly do worse than the 
Labor Department's proposed rule to effectively repeal the 40 hour 
workweek and end overtime pay.
  The rule is designed to give flexibility to companies, not to 
families, but flexibility to withhold rightfully earned pay from their 
employees by weakening the 1938 Fair Standards Labor Act, protections 
that safeguard our workers' rights today and make mandatory overtime a 
less attractive option for the employer.
  For 70 years, overtime pay has been time and a half. It has kept the 
workweek for millions of Americans from becoming unmanageably long. It 
allowed the employee some flexibility to make some extra cash, and for 
anyone who relies on cash overtime pay, it is the only way to put a 
roof over their family's heads, to buy groceries and pay their medical 
bills. Without overtime, countless Americans would be forced to take a 
second job to make up for the lost earnings. It would mean more time 
away from their families and higher child care costs.
  Supporters will tell my colleagues that in lieu of overtime pay, 
workers will be given compensatory time, but employers have the right 
to decide when or even if the worker gets the time to take his time.
  It paves the way for mandatory overtime. Working women will lose 
control of their schedule. Any mother with a child knows, in child 
care, if you work late, you need to make arrangements in advance or you 
pay higher fees for child care. Without proper protections for these 
women, they can be forced by their employer to work late for longer and 
for less on top of having to pay more for child care and for 
transportation.
  The administration has threatened to veto this bill should the Obey-
Miller amendment be adopted. That is a fight that they cannot win, and 
they cannot win it because this rule reduces the quality of life for 
millions of American families by making them work harder and longer for 
less money, and the American people are not going to stand for that.
  Support the Obey-Miller amendment.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Boehner).
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, let me remind everyone, this is to protect 
the rights of workers and to clarify a labor law that has not been 
changed in 54 years, and under the amendment offered by my good friend 
from California (Mr. George Miller), remember, we would create a double 
standard for employees. Those who do the same job, but if you were 
hired the day before this bill takes effect, you are grandfathered. If 
you are hired the day after, you are not grandfathered, and so you 
would have two employees sitting side by side in a cubicle doing the 
same identical work being treated differently under the law. I do not 
think that is what this Congress wants.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding me the 
time.
  Under this rule, a person who makes $25,000 a year and works in the 
shoe department of a retail store who spends most of her day selling 
shoes, who is asked to watch two other people who also sell shoes and 
keep records on them, but not have the right to fire them, not have the 
right to supervise them, that woman making $25,000 a year will not get 
time and a half if the employer says she has to work more than 40 hours 
a week. That is wrong.
  If my colleagues vote for the Obey-Miller amendment they stop that 
rule. The 40-hour workweek is a fundamental in this country, and we 
will not let you stop it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Crowley).

[[Page H6571]]

  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, right now the Bush administration is in 
the process of promulgating regulations that would strip overtime pay 
for many of America's first responders.
  Yes, after talking tough and continually stating that this White 
House and Republican Party supports America's first responders, the 
Bush administration and the Republicans are trying to pass into law 
regulations that will deprive millions of Americans, including police 
and firefighters who receive time and a half for that overtime work 
today, less money for their jobs protecting us.
  No one enters law enforcement or becomes a firefighter for the money, 
but this proposal by my colleagues would suggest so. As a Congressman 
from New York City whose district overlooks Manhattan, as someone who 
is the son of a police officer, the cousin of several firefighters, and 
whose spouse is a nurse, I know firsthand the needs of our first 
responders in protecting our country from terrorist attacks and keeping 
us safe.
  This bill continues this administration's and this Congress' past 
record of shortchanging cops and firefighters while pretending to stand 
with them. But do not listen to me or the Democrats or the Republicans 
or the White House. Ask your local first responders if they think they 
are overpaid and underworked. Did they ask for this bill? I do not 
think so.
  If you think they are, if you think your cops and your firefighters 
are lazy and overpaid, oppose the Obey-Miller amendment. I do not think 
they are. I will wholeheartedly support this amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have remaining under the 
reduced time for each side?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Under the agreement, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has \1/2\ minute remaining. The gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Regula) has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining time to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. George Miller).
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, let me just say, once 
again, the gentleman from Ohio tried to suggest that this is going to 
create two classes of people. This just protects everybody who gets 
overtime today gets overtime tomorrow.
  They say if you get hired tomorrow, well, let me tell you in the Bush 
economy, nobody is getting hired tomorrow. People are getting laid off 
tomorrow. Okay. They are not getting hired, so that is not an issue.
  Secondly, let me say for first responders, you are talking about 
people from homicide detectives, you are talking about EMT, the people 
we expect to respond to these sites, to firefighters. So many first 
responders wrote objecting to this amendment that the Department of 
Labor sent out a letter and said, that is not our intent. They said, 
then exempt us from the regulation. They said we will not do that. So 
it is not their intent to include them, but they will not take them out 
of it. You are talking about half a million first responders who will 
go out on Code Orange and will get no protection of overtime pay.
  Your party, your choice, your vote.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a 
unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. 
Blackburn).
  (Mrs. BLACKBURN asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I submit to the Record some information 
from the National Federation of Independent Business relating to a poll 
that they conducted and some thoughts and opinions from their members 
on this issue.

  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of what the Department 
of Labor is trying to do on Section 541 overtime regulations. There is 
a lot of confusion in the employer community right now on how to deal 
with employee overtime, in large part because these regulations were 
last revised in 1954.
  I would like to share with my colleagues some very important survey 
data that makes the point that employers are confused with overtime 
regulations. Last month the National Federation of Independent Business 
Research Foundation released fresh data from their National Economic 
Poll in which they asked 750 small businesses:

       ``How do you determine if a specific employee who works 
     more than 40 hours per week should receive overtime pay? Do 
     you . . .
       Follow common industry practice--19.3 percent.
       Classify each job by occupation and earnings (the legally 
     correct way)--5.9 percent.
       Make only hourly-wage employees eligible--18.9 percent.
       Make only low-paid employees eligible--0.3 percent.
       Make everyone but management employees eligible--8.1 
     percent.
       No employees work overtime--33.5 percent.
       Everyone who works overtime is eligible--11.2 percent.
       Didn't know--2.9 percent.

  Mr. Chairman, this survey sheds critical light on the views of small 
business owners--this proves that small business owners don't really 
know how to properly classify their employees for overtime purposes.
  It's time to simplify the regulations. It's time to vote ``no'' on 
the amendment and let the rulemaking process move forward.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.
  I would only say to my colleagues I think we need to reject this 
amendment. It is premature. These are proposed regulations. There is 
plenty of time for comment, and it is a recognition on the part of the 
Department of Labor that the 1 million low-paid workers today that have 
no opportunity to get time and a half will have that opportunity, and 
therefore, I would want this amendment rejected to give them that kind 
of a chance.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I 
make the point of order a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey) will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield 
to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson).
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise to ask the chairman to 
engage with me in a colloquy.
  I am pleased to have worked with the gentleman on the Committee on 
Appropriations, Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, 
Education and Related Agencies for the last number of years. I 
appreciate his support for and commitment to programs that benefit 
historically black health profession schools.
  I understand that this year there are significant challenges facing 
the subcommittee. However, I want to note two priorities that I am 
working to establish. The first is regarding the establishment of 
demonstration projects between community health centers and minority 
health professions schools for the purpose of health status disparities 
research and data collection, through the community access program.
  Community health centers have the potential to serve as valuable 
resources in biomedical and behavioral research aimed at reducing 
health status disparities among minority and medically underserved 
populations. Such demonstration projects were authorized in the Health 
Care Safety Net Amendments of 2002.
  The second is encouraging the National Center for Research Resources 
to give priority consideration to supporting extramural facilities 
construction projects at historically minority institutions which have 
developed a comprehensive plan to address the disproportionate impact 
of cancer in minority communities.
  I have been working with Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and 
Science in Los Angeles to ensure that resources are there to establish 
a center focused on care for minority cancer patients and research.
  Mr. Chairman, as we work towards the final passage of the fiscal year 
2004

[[Page H6572]]

Labor, Health and Human Services and Education bill, I ask that the 
gentleman work with me to ensure that we can support these two 
priorities.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I, too, am pleased to have worked with my 
colleague as a member of our Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human 
Services, Education and Related Agencies. The programs that support 
historically black health professions schools are essential in 
eliminating health status disparities among minorities and underserved 
populations.

                              {time}  1645

  I will be sure to keep these priorities in mind as we work to 
finalize the fiscal year 2004 Labor, Health and Human Services, and 
Education bill and will work with the gentleman to see how we can 
accommodate these priorities. I appreciate the gentleman notifying me 
of his concerns.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
Obey/Miller Amendment to save overtime pay for millions of hardworking 
Americans. I will vote for this amendment on behalf of my constituents 
and the millions of people who work so hard to earn overtime wages in 
order to provide for themselves and their families.
  During this Administration, we have witnessed months of tough 
economic times for American families. We have seen the unemployment 
rate climb ever higher. We have watched millions of American families 
slide into poverty. Currently, we see millions of children and seniors 
go without the basic health care and medicine they deserve. This 
Administration has led the country backward into financial pain rather 
than forward into prosperity. That does not seem to be bad enough for 
the Republicans so they have gone still further to take away overtime 
pay of those who need it most. The Obey/Miller amendment seeks to 
remedy that wrong, at least in part.
  Sadly, through draft regulations recently issued by the Labor 
Department, Republicans want to cut the overtime wages of as many as 8 
million Americans. It is vital to note that thousands of first 
responders will be hurt by those regulations. That includes emergency 
medical technicians, police, firefighters, nurses, and others. This is 
our opportunity to save overtime pay for millions of our constituents 
because the Obey/Miller amendment will prohibit the Department of Labor 
from using funds to enforce any regulation that would cut overtime pay.
  To be certain, overtime pay is not money that most families use to 
pay for extras such as luxury items or lavish vacations. Whatever they 
choose to use the money for, Mr. Chairman, it is certainly money that 
they have earned and deserve to receive in their paychecks. For many 
mothers and fathers, grandfathers and grandmothers, and other people 
who are responsible for the care of children, overtime pay is the money 
used to put food on the table and clothes on the backs of those 
children.
  In my district, many workers earn over 25% their annual income from 
their over time pay. In order to earn that pay, they spend many hours 
away from their homes and families. the Obey/Miller amendment will help 
to ensure that theirs is not simply a sacrifice that enriches their 
employers while doing nothing for themselves. It will help ensure that 
America's workers receive that to which they are entitled.
  I will vote in favor of the Obey/Miller amendment and I ask that my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle join me in doing so. We should 
show bipartisan support and pass this amendment.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Obey/Miller 
Amendment, which would protect millions of workers from losing their 
overtime pay.
  If the Bush Administration's proposed changes take effect, 79 percent 
of the workers in this country will lose their guaranteed right to 
overtime pay, 79% (8 out of every 10 workers). This is not just bad 
policy, it's piracy. It is a slap in the face to any effort for 
economic recovery. Mr. Speaker, how many CEO's do you know who would 
work without their pay?
  Under the Bush Administration's proposal, workers will be working the 
same long hours they now work--in fact, probably longer hours, without 
overtime compensation. That's why the Obey/Miller Amendment ensures 
that ``no'' public funds can be used to take away the overtime rights 
of workers.
  It is tough enough on families that are forced to spend long hours 
away from their families to earn a living, and commute long distances, 
now under this bill they won't even be compensated for their extra 
time. Join me in voting for this amendment to make certain that workers 
and families are not shortchanged by the Bush policies.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Obey-Miller 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, overtime pay, strict regulations on child labor, 
occupational safety standards, and employee training are the nuts and 
bolts of our Nation's labor laws.
  Yet, since day one, this administration has worked little by little, 
step by step, to unravel our gold standard protections.
  First, the Department of Labor passed on the opportunity to institute 
strong ergonomics standards and, instead, chose to implement weak 
guidelines--leaving many to continue working under egregious, unsafe 
conditions.
  The administration has repeatedly submitted budgets that have not 
provided Department of Labor programs with inflationary increases. In 
turn, many of our safety enforcement programs and worker protection 
efforts have been diminished.
  And now, the administration is attempting to strip precious dollars 
from those who are working the hardest, the longest, and in careers 
that are notoriously underpaid and often understaffed, including 
licensed practical nurses, EMTs, air traffic controllers, social 
workers, occupational therapists, physical therapists, health 
technicians, and paralegals.
  My colleagues, this proposal would have real consequences for the 
millions of hardworking Americans already working to send their 
children to college, the millions of Americans trying to buy a home, 
and the millions of Americans trying to save for retirement.
  In New York, everywhere I go, town supervisors, city mayors, and 
local leaders are discussing massive tax increases. All around the 
country, colleges, and universities are substantially raising tuitions. 
The reality is--Americans are already feeling squeezed. Let's not make 
it worse by sending them home with a blank check.
  Vote ``yes'' on the Obey-Miller amendment.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Obey/Miller 
Amendment.
  Since this Administration has taken office, over 3 million people 
have lost their jobs; the unemployment rate is at its highest levels in 
9 years. Yet to add insult to injury, the Administration is now 
proposing a regulation that would cut overtime wages to as many as 8 
million Americans.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Obey/Miller amendment which would 
prohibit the Department of Labor from using funds to carry out this 
appalling regulation. Too many Americans depend on overtime pay in 
order to make ends meet. We must not take it away from them.
  This Administration has no shame. They continue to push their ``Big 
Business/Special Interest'' agenda at the expense of the working 
Americans that make this country great. Perhaps this helps explain why 
this bill is lacking adequate funding for so many programs that 
Americans depend on.
  The Chairman and Ranking Member have worked to craft the best bill 
possible with the terrible cards they were dealt by the unfair and 
irresponsible Republican Budget Resolution. But the truth of the matter 
is, the President and the Republican leadership have decided that tax 
cuts for the few are more important than programs for the many.
  They decided that to provide an average of $88,000 in tax cuts for 
those earning $1 million or more is more important than increasing 
enrollment in Head Start, increasing Pell Grants, fighting the AIDS 
virus, funding medical research adequately or a host of other important 
programs.
  Time will not permit me to discuss all of the many problems with this 
bill, such as the inadequate funding for the NIH and for the Social 
Security Administration to process claims from retirees, so I'll just 
focus my comments on one problem: the immoral neglect of the Head Start 
program.
  Mr. Chairman, additional funding for Head Start should be a ``no-
brainer. There are few, if any, programs that have the success rate of 
Head Start. Government reports, early childhood experts, teachers and 
most important families all recognize the magnificent results Head 
Start has produced.
  There are many keys to the program's success; from the small child 
staff ratios, to the nutritious meals the children receive each day, or 
the doctor visits that each child is afforded. However, one of the most 
important factors in Head Start's success is the way that the child's 
parents are included in the educational process. We all know that 
parents are children's most important teachers and involving parents in 
their children's education is strongly related to children's 
achievement in school. Head Start capitalizes on that relationship.
  The only thing that is holding the Head Start program back today is 
the lack of funding. Today, only 60 percent of eligible students are 
able to enroll in Head Start; only 4 percent of eligible Early Head 
Start and 19 percent of the eligible Migrant and Seasonal Head Start of 
children are enrolled. This is much too low. Thousands of children are 
waiting on the sidelines, waiting to benefit from Head Start. We should 
make every effort to allow these children to enroll.

[[Page H6573]]

  Yet, look at how this bill treats Head Start. The President asked for 
an increase for Head Start of only $140 million. This bill provides a 
$148 million increase. Mr. Chairman, the $148 million increase is not 
even enough to keep pace with inflation. It certainly is not enough to 
sign up new children in the program. Nor, will this paltry increase 
enable Head Start to ensure that its teachers and volunteers are 
properly trained.
  Mr. Chairman, in today's economy, education is the key to success. 
The sooner that we get children excited about learning the better off 
they will be. Head Start has an exceptional track record of success in 
getting children excited about learning.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support Head Start. It works. 
We must provide the funding that it deserves and needs to extend its 
benefit to all eligible children. We can and must do better than this 
inadequate bill.
  I urge my colleagues, for the sake of our children, our families, our 
seniors, our working people, to vote yes on the Obey/Miller amendment 
to protect workers' overtime pay and then vote no on this bad bill.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
amendment offered by my colleagues, Mr. Obey and Mr. Miller, which will 
block the Department of Labor from pursuing its plan to overhaul our 
overtime pay laws--at the expense of 8 million workers. Under these 
draft regulations, millions of workers who receive time and a half for 
their overtime work today will be required to work longer hours for 
less money.
  The implications of this measure on working families that have long 
depended upon overtime work to make ends meet would be devastating. In 
fact, according to 2000 Census figures, workers who receive overtime 
pay report that it accounts for a quarter of their total take-home pay. 
Try telling these workers that enactment of these regulations wouldn't 
result in a pay cut!
  Under these regulations, mid-level office workers, lower-level 
supervisors, licensed practical nurses, EMTs, cooks, secretaries, 
dental hygienists, air traffic controllers, social workers, 
administrative support, engineering technicians, planners, and 
paralegals could all find themselves categorized as ``white collar'' 
employees. Now, does that sound right?
  With unemployment at its highest level in almost a decade and far too 
many of my constituents telling me that they live in fear that their 
jobs may be next, why, on earth, is the Department of Labor launching 
this new attack on America's workers?
  First proposed in March, the proposed regulations would reclassify 
millions of workers as ``managers,'' rendering them ineligible for 
overtime pay. During the comment period on the proposed rule change, 
one hundred Members of this body wrote to the Labor Department, urging 
that these proposed changes be dropped.
  In as much as the Labor Department intends to move forward with these 
rules, despite the public outcry and the strong congressional 
objections, it looks like this body is going to have to use its ``power 
of the purse'' and put an end to this ill-conceived effort.
  Mr. Chairman, the Department of Labor seems intent on picking up 
where the House Leadership left off. These rules are--quite simply--an 
insult to the working people of America.
  Mr. Chairman, after the de facto defeat of the so-called ``Family 
Flexibility Act'' last month, it appears that the Department of Labor 
now plans to strip our overtime rules, on its own, without 
congressional involvement.
  We have the opportunity today to tell the Department of Labor that 
this body will not stand for backdoor attempts at fundamentally 
undermining key labor laws. The economic security of far too many 
American families hangs in the balance.
  Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me and vote in 
favor of the Obey-Miller amendment.
  Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Obey/Miller 
amendment.
  It baffles me that at a time when our economy is reeling that the 
Bush Administration would want to weaken the protections of workers 
fortunate enough to still be employed. Over 9 million Americans are 
currently unemployed. Unemployment in my district, in East Los Angeles 
and the San Gabriel Valley, is almost 10% in some areas. Why then would 
we want to cut pay for those workers that have jobs?
  Under President Bush's proposal, millions of workers who now enjoy 
overtime protection would no longer qualify for overtime pay. The 
changes would impact police, firefighters, nurses, retail managers, and 
many others. It would impact many of my constituents, who have 
contacted me because they don't want a pay cut.
  Make no mistake about it. The proposed changes to our overtime 
regulations will mean a huge pay cut for these workers. It will mean 
longer hours with less pay.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose paycuts for American workers and 
support the Obey-Miller amendment.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Obey-
Miller Amendment.
  Congress must protect the economic security of the workingmen and 
women who keep our nation safe and prosperous.
  I've punched a time clock.
  I've worked in retail sales to help support my family.
  I know what it is like for families to rely on overtime to pay for 
their children's college fund or repairs on their homes.
  America's hard workingmen and women deserve our support.
  But this administration instead wants to deliberately cut the 
overtime pay of 8 million Americans.
  Under the Bush Administration's rules, working people, including 
police officers, firefighters, and nurses will lose overtime 
compensation--as much as 25 percent of their salaries.
  This cruel attack on working families demonstrates the true 
compassionate conservative values of this administration--tax cuts for 
the wealthy and salary cuts for working people.
  Today, Congress must protect the economic security of our working 
families.
  Support the Obey-Miller amendment today.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, it's been a very tough year for the 
American worker. Astonishingly, it appears the Administration is 
attempting to make things even tougher. Already, the Administration is 
presiding over the highest unemployment rate since April, 1994. Already 
the median unemployment duration of 12.3 weeks is the greatest length 
it has been since July of 1967. And already, 3.1 million private sector 
jobs have vanished since the recession began in March 2001.
  The Administration's three pronged response to this jobs crisis has 
been to allow millions of working Americans to remain in poverty by 
refusing to raise the minimum wage, to deny unemployment benefits to 
millions of Americans who have exhausted their benefits because of the 
severity of this recession, and to provide hundreds of billions of 
dollars in tax giveaways for the richest Americans.
  As if all of this was not enough, the Administration now seems intent 
on literally picking the pockets of workers. First we saw an attempt to 
give workers a pay cut by giving them comp time instead of overtime. 
The real meaning of comp time, of course, is unpaid time off--at the 
employer's discretion. Now through administrative action and without 
the input of elected representatives, the Administration seeks to enact 
the most significant change to overtime rules since the Fair Labor 
Standards Act was passed in 1938.
  The result of these changes is that least 8 million workers will no 
longer be eligible for overtime. Among the unlucky 8 million are 
paramedics, firefighters, air traffic controllers, social workers, and 
architects. In 2000 overtime pay accounted for about 25 percent of the 
income for these workers. Their families will not have much less money 
to pay the bills, while their employers will have a great incentive to 
make them work longer hours.
  The Obey-Miller amendment will stop the rollback of overtime pay. 
Obey-Miller will protect the wages of America's working people. Stop 
the legalized pick-pocketing of America's workers by the 
Administration's attack on overtime pay for overtime work. Vote for the 
Obey-Miller amendment.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Toomey

  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The Clerk will 
designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Toomey:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following section:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act for 
     the National Institutes of Health may be used to fund grant 
     number R01HD043689, R03HD039206, R01DA013896, or R01MH065871.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Points of order are reserved.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) and a Member opposed will each control 10 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).


            Modification to Amendment Offered by Mr. Toomey

  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
be modified in the form at the desk.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Modification to amendment offered by Mr. Toomey:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following section:

[[Page H6574]]

       Sec.  . None of the funds made available in this Act may be 
     used to fund grant number R01HD39789 at the National 
     Institutes of Health.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the modification 
offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       Amendment, as modified offered by Mr. Toomey:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following section:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act for 
     the National Institutes of Health may be used to fund grant 
     number R01HD043689 R03HD039206, R01DA013896, or R01MH065871.
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to fund grant number R01HD039789 at the National 
     Institutes of Health.

  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I think all of us in this Chamber have been faced with 
the painful visits in our offices from constituents who come to us with 
a heartrending story of a member of their family, often a child, who is 
suffering from a terrible and debilitating disease, perhaps a fatal 
disease, perhaps a disease for which there is no cure; and they come to 
us asking for some help, asking for resources to provide for the 
research that might find a cure. And nobody has heard more of these 
heartrending and compelling stories than the distinguished chairman of 
this committee. I know he has devoted enormous amounts of time and 
effort to making sure the resources are there to help to try to find 
cures where it is possible.
  I think we have all embraced the idea of significant increases in 
funding for NIH, I have, and I think that is a bipartisan agreement. 
And we are all proud that we have doubled funding for NIH over 5 years. 
But what this amendment is about is trying to find a little bit more 
hope for a few more families. My amendment does not cut a dime of 
funding for NIH. What it does do is it would require the NIH to 
reprogram the money that is going to a few grants which we think are 
just much less worthy of taxpayer funding than the kind of research the 
NIH is generally doing to cure these devastating diseases.
  Now, one of these is a research project that the gentleman from 
Indiana is going to discuss, but I want to mention the four that my 
amendment would specifically exclude and forbid further funding from. 
These are projects, grants that are under way now and have already been 
funded by the NIH in the past, and we would, with this amendment, shut 
off further funding for.
  One of them is a study on the sexual habits of older men. A second is 
a study on San Francisco's Asian prostitutes and masseuses. A third one 
is a study on mood arousal and sexual risk-taking. And let me just 
share with my colleagues a highly sanitized and abbreviated summary of 
their grant application. If I actually read the whole thing, I suspect 
I would be admonished for the language I would be using on the House 
floor, so I will read just a little summary.
  This is a proposal, which says: ``In a series of laboratory studies, 
mood and sexual arousal will be induced and then their individual and 
combined effects on sexual risk-taking will be examined.'' Those are 
not my words. Those are the words of the applicant for the grants.
  There is another study on American Indian transgender research. The 
proposal, which is based on the proposition that American Indian and 
Alaskan native lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and too-spirited 
individuals are a drastically understudied and underserved group.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues, who thinks this stuff up? And, 
worse, who decides to actually fund these sorts of things? Well, 
unfortunately, the NIH has done so. These are the exceptions, and not 
the rule. This is not a general criticism of the NIH. But the point is 
these are not applications that are worthy of taxpayer funds.
  And let me make the point that there is nobody here that I know of 
that is saying we should ban this sort of research. If they want to do 
this sort of research, we need to fund this privately and not with 
taxpayer dollars. I simply want to make the point that there are so 
many far more important, very real diseases that are affecting real 
people; and that is what this kind of money could be used for, would be 
used for.
  We leave it to the NIH to decide how to reprogram this. And as for 
those who suggest that we should not interfere with the process by 
which the NIH decides how to allocate their funds, let me strongly 
disagree. We have an affirmative obligation in this Congress, as the 
body that controls the pursestrings of the Federal Government, to 
supervise and provide oversight. And when a bureaucracy is making 
mistakes, we have an obligation to come here and correct that. That is 
all we are saying.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to 
this amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  These amendments have been picked out of a database that contains a 
single paragraph on each of 40,000 grants that NIH supports. Now, keep 
in mind that that represents a winnowing down from perhaps 120,000 
applications. How do they pick the one out of three that will be 
funded? The NIH has an elaborate two-tiered peer review process that is 
mandated by the Public Health Service Act. Outside review panels of 
distinguished scientists from universities nationwide gather to review 
each application, which can easily run on to several hundred pages.
  I think to pass judgment on these, you would have to read the several 
hundred pages to know what the ultimate goal is, rather than one 
paragraph. Then these recommendations are reviewed by advisory councils 
comprised of scientists and members of the public whose nominations are 
cleared through the Department.
  NIH only funds about 30 percent, as I mentioned; and we can be 
confident that they are very careful because there are so many good 
objectives in the form of requests. They go through these very, very 
carefully with top-flight people to ensure that there is a worthy 
objective to be achieved in doing the research in question.
  If Members are concerned about NIH funding in certain issue areas, I 
think they should urge the authorizing committees to review this as 
they consider the reauthorization of NIH, and that will be coming up. I 
know that the Committee on Energy and Commerce has been doing an 
extensive review of NIH actions across a number of areas in preparation 
for a reauthorization, and I would suggest to my colleagues this would 
be the appropriate place to bring up their objections to the process 
that is presently used by NIH because in the reauthorization action 
they can address what they feel might be a shortcoming.
  I strongly urge the Members to resist the temptation to select a few 
grants for defunding because they do not like the sound of them based 
on one paragraph out of what probably was a number of pages of 
information. It would set a dangerous precedent and put a chill on 
medical research if we start to micromanage individual NIH grants.
  This has worked well over the years. We have had enormous progress 
because of these grants in achieving medical knowledge and giving the 
public a better health care system. I do not think this body, this 
committee, wants to get into the process of reviewing 120,000 grants 
and trying to pick 40,000 out of that group for funding.
  I strongly urge the Members to reject this amendment; and I urge my 
colleagues to take this issue to the proper committee, the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce, and if they feel that NIH needs to have its 
processes reformed, then that is the place to do it.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Florida, the chairman of 
the full committee.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding to me; and in the interest of time, I am not going to repeat 
some of the arguments. The gentleman has made a very persuasive 
argument, and I associate myself with those remarks.
  The chairman is right on target, and I just think that this would be 
a mischievous amendment and hope that we can defeat the amendment.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H6575]]

  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Chocola), the cosponsor of this amendment.
  Mr. CHOCOLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I appreciate his remarks and would like to associate myself 
with his earlier remarks.
  With all due respect to the distinguished chairman and to the peer 
review process, I think this amendment is relatively simple. It lives 
up to our responsibility that we are really sent here to do, and that 
is to be a good steward of taxpayer dollars.
  Now, not only does the appropriations fund grants that the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) mentioned, it also funds a grant that 
studies human linkages with the panda reserve in China. Now, I do not 
think I am going out on a limb to say that no one in the Second 
Congressional District of Indiana is going to benefit from this study. 
I doubt I am taking too much of a risk to say no one in any 
congressional district in America is going to benefit from this study.
  Mr. Chairman, I come from a business background, and I am a new 
Member of Congress; but when someone in our company wanted to spend 
money, we had to take the ultimate responsibility. And although the 
peer review process is probably pretty good, there comes a time when 
you have to say no, when you have to say this money is not spent in the 
best interest of the American people.
  Since I do not know that we can identify people who benefit from this 
taxpayer money being spent on these grants, I do know, as the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania pointed out, the people in my district have juvenile 
diabetes, they have cancer, they have AIDS, they have horrible diseases 
like Crohn's, and that is what we should be spending NIH money on. We 
should be eradicating these horrible diseases that ruin families, ruin 
individual lives rather than grants that really benefit no one that we 
can identify.
  So I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to who closes in this 
process.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) has 
the right to close.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and with all deference to the distinguished chairmen who have 
spoken here, I think that we do need to speak out at this point.
  I have been concerned about this for a while. I sent a letter 
recently to NIH asking that they explain their decision to fund a study 
that is not covered here, it is another study, that paid women to watch 
pornography and to study arousal. The letter I received back was 
interesting. The NIH said, ``The research methods used in the grant 
were scientifically established and met ethical research standards.''
  Now, I do not doubt that at all; but that is not the standard that we 
ought to employ here. The standard we ought to employ here is, is this 
a proper use of taxpayer funds, and I think on that level it surely 
fails.
  I do not know how in the world, when we do not have enough money to 
fund things like the reaction of children to vaccines for childhood 
autism, that is one request that was actually denied because NIH came 
back and said we do not have sufficient money to do that, that is a 
serious disease affecting a lot of people. So we do not have enough 
money to do that; but then, in turn, we have enough money to fund a 
study to pay women to watch pornography. I think that is wrong.
  The chairman noted there is peer review. Certainly there is. Again, 
the question we need to have answered is not whether this is 
scientifically based or reviewed, but is it proper for the taxpayers to 
fund. I would suggest that there is a lot of funding available out 
there from people like Larry Flint or others, but we should not be 
asking the American taxpayer to fund this kind of thing.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly stand opposed to this 
amendment, but I understand why my colleagues want it. I do not think 
there is a thing in there I would support if asked to support, but I 
will say that I have hundreds of doctors and hospitals come to me every 
single day and ask me to direct NIH to do this or that. I personally 
believe that things and discoveries should be left up to NIH, that when 
something is close to helping, we should allow them to do that.
  But once we get into politicians, which we all are, directing what 
NIH does, it is not what you are trying to eliminate, it is the whole 
broad perspective of what we could do in the long run. In the past, 
many of the diseases were politicized, and funding was taken totally 
away from others, and I want to stay away from that. I think it is a 
bad precedent, not on the gentleman's issue, but on the precedent of 
directing NIH. I reluctantly oppose the amendment.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, years ago Senator Proxmire from my State used 
to have the Golden Fleece Awards. He was a good friend of mine. One 
year he made a whole lot of fun of a study on Polish pigs. They had a 
field day with it. Funny name, strange-sounding grant. Well, guess 
what? That study led to the development of a new blood pressure 
medicine which millions of people use today. The know-nothings in the 
Congress at that time would have eliminated that study. I do not think 
that would have been a good outcome.
  I have served on the subcommittee that deals with NIH for a long 
time, and the one thing I came to understand very quickly is that the 
day that we politicize NIH research, the day we decide which grants are 
going to be approved on the basis of a 10-minute horseback debate in 
the House of Representatives with 434 of the 435 Members in this place 
who do not even know what the grant is, that is the day we will ruin 
science research in this country. We have no business making political 
judgments about those kinds of issues.
  I would ask the following questions of the gentlemen who are offering 
this amendment: Can they tell me what score each of the grants received 
in the peer review process? Can they tell me who is on the peer review 
committee that takes a look at each of these in the study circles? Do 
you have objection to any of the persons who are on those study 
sections? I think the gentlemen have an obligation to answer those 
questions if they are going to bring something like this to the floor 
with no notice and no understanding of what these grants do.
  Now, I would say that I do not have any idea what these grants do. I 
can imagine, though, that perhaps this study on so-called sexual 
arousal, that perhaps it is one way of trying to determine how you 
prevent child molestation or rape. I can also imagine with respect to 
the longitudinal study on sexual behavior of old men, NIH says this: 
``Without a better understanding of age-related changes in men's sexual 
functions, physicians may assume that declines in function are normal 
when they actually reflect early symptoms of disease such as diabetes 
and heart disease.''
  With respect to the study that relates to intervention for drug-using 
women sex workers, let us say you do not have any sympathy at all for 
the sex workers or their partners. I am concerned about the innocent 
partners of those partners. What about the wives of persons who go to 
these sex workers and then wind up getting disease? I think we ought to 
know as much as possible how to prevent transmission of disease, and 
what role drug use has in that process.
  So without knowing anything about these, I return to my basic 
principle: We have NIH for a reason; we have peer review for a reason. 
I would rather trust the judgment of 10 doctors sitting around a table 
than I would 10 politicians sitting around a table when we decide how 
to allocate taxpayer money for those grants.
  The reason NIH is there is so none of us bring our political biases 
to the table, and that is the way it ought to remain.
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

[[Page H6576]]

  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself with the remarks 
of the distinguished chairman and dispute the comments of the gentleman 
from Indiana, and particularly the material he provided to his 
colleagues which said do not spend money for NIH panda research in 
China. In fact, the research has to do with population dynamics, the 
pressure on an ecosystem that supports the pandas, and the development 
of a population, including how those people can provide fuel and food 
for their children. It is a study of pandas; it is a study of human 
development.
  There is a fundamental nexus between environmental quality, human 
health, and population pressures that impacts the world profoundly. The 
gentleman fails to recognize that and deceives his colleagues with the 
title of his amendment.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Let me say, we can read the entire application, and the projects do 
not sound any more compelling or any more convincing. The point is this 
is about priorities. There are just so many devastating diseases that 
are killing people every day in this country. There are many where the 
NIH is responsible for tremendous progress being made on so many 
fronts. I think we have an obligation to do as much as we can for those 
priorities.
  Studying Asian prostitution in San Francisco massage parlors and the 
study of mood swings on sexual arousal does not strike me as deserving 
the same kind of priority as curing cancer in small children and so 
many other devastating diseases. That is what I think this is about.
  As for the peer review process, as a general matter I completely 
agree with the peer review process, but I do not think that absolves us 
completely of our obligation to have some oversight on these issues and 
decide whether or not in some cases this peer review process runs amok.
  That is what I think this debate is all about: Do we draw the line 
anywhere ever, or do we not. I think we do, I think we should on these 
specific grants, and I urge my colleagues to vote to adopt this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Rogers).
  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I rise reluctantly as well, but 
in peer review science, being in the middle of it is maybe not the 
place to effect change. Maybe we should set some parameters up front.
  One of the studies here sounds fairly innocent. Research on pandas 
and their relationship sounds a little funny on its face, but when we 
look at it, and I can say it no better than a representative from 
Michigan State University, and I just want to read this, ``Perhaps at 
no other time in human history have the issues been so crucial as 
pandemics whose roots are found in animals spread across the globe: 
SARS, AIDS and monkeypox, to name a few. Dr. Lou's work is exactly the 
research needed to understand and plan for tomorrow's health issues.''
  They are getting into understanding and study of how some of these 
diseases get transferred from animals to humans. I would argue that is 
very, very important work, and we ought to invest in it.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. We cannot start 
second-guessing and trying to review the work of NIH. They have very 
distinguished panelists, experts and scientists. They spend a lot of 
time on these. They have 120,000 applications. They do the best job 
they can, and they have been successful. I would urge my colleagues to 
go to the authorizing committee if they feel there should be some 
different procedures and bring that to their attention as they review 
these panel activities.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The question 
is on the amendment, as modified, offered by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment, as modified, offered by the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) will be postponed.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Obey:
       Add at the end, before the short title, the following new 
     title:

    TITLE VI--MEDICAID ADJUSTMENT FOR STATE MAINTAINING COVERAGE OF 
                   CHILDREN UNDER MEDICAID AND SCHIP

       Sec. 601. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     but subject to subsection (b), the Federal medical assistance 
     percentage under section 1905(b) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1396d(b)) of a State shall be increased by 1 
     percentage points for each quarter in fiscal year 2004 if the 
     standards and methodologies of the State for determining 
     eligibility for individuals under age 21 during that quarter 
     both under title XIX of such Act and under the State's child 
     health insurance plan under title XXI of such Act are no more 
     restrictive than those in effect in the State on July 1, 
     2001.
       (b) The increase in the Federal medical assistance 
     percentage shall not apply--
       (1) with respect to disproportionate share hospital 
     payments described in section 1923 of the Social Security 
     Act;
       (2) to the computation and application of the enhanced FMAP 
     (described in section 2105(b) of such Act); or
       (3) for any purposes other than payment to the State under 
     title XIX of such Act.
       (c) The increase in the Federal medical assistance 
     percentage under subsection (a) shall be in addition to the 
     increase provided under title IV of the Jobs and Growth Tax 
     Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-27).
       (d) In the case an increase is provided under subsection 
     (a) for Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, the Northern 
     Mariana Islands, or American Samoa for a calendar quarter in 
     a fiscal year, the amounts otherwise determined for such 
     territory under subsections (f) and (g) of section 1108 of 
     the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1308) and applicable to 
     such quarter shall each be increased by an amount equal to 
     \1/4\ of 1.9 percent of such amounts.
       Sec. 602. In the case of taxpayers with adjusted gross 
     income in excess of $1,000,000 for the tax year beginning in 
     2003, the amount of tax reduction resulting from enactment of 
     the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 
     shall be reduced by 18 percent.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Points of order are reserved.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Here is what this amendment is all about. At a time when high 
unemployment is causing many Americans to lose their jobs and their 
job-related health coverage, State fiscal crises are leading States to 
cut back health coverage, Medicaid and SCHIP programs. According to the 
Kaiser Commission, 49 of the 50 States have implemented or are planning 
to implement cutbacks in Medicaid during fiscal year 2003. It is 
estimated that adoption of those cutbacks will lead to the elimination 
of health coverage for 1.7 million people. Many of them will be 
children.
  This amendment would simply provide a 1 percentage add-on to the 
Federal assistance to every State for their Medicaid programs. To 
receive that additional aid, States would have to refrain from any 
further cutbacks in eligibility for children under both Medicaid and 
SCHIP and restore eligibility for children to the rules that prevailed 
on July 1, 2001. We would pay for the amendment by simply reducing the 
size of the tax cut for persons who make more than $1 million a year, 
from $88,000 to $72,000.
  So the choice is simple. If you want to keep children on the health 
care rolls, if you want to make sure they are not knocked off the 
health care rolls in order to finance supersize tax cuts for people who 
make more than a million dollars, you will vote for this amendment. 
That is what the amendment does.
  Again, if the majority chooses to exercise its right to offer a point 
of order, then we will, instead of appealing the ruling of the Chair, 
we will simply ask that we strike the enacting clause so that this bill 
may go back to the committee so we may have an opportunity

[[Page H6577]]

to offer an amendment which tries to prevent children from being 
knocked off the health care rolls. It is that simple. I would ask for a 
yes vote.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes 
legislation in an appropriations bill; and, therefore, violates clause 
2 of rule XXI.
  In addition, the amendment is a tax or tariff measure and is in 
violation of clause 5(a) of rule XXI. Clause 2 of rule XXI states in 
pertinent part, ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall 
not be in order if it changes existing law.'' The amendment amends 
existing law. Clause 5(a) of rule XXI states in part, ``A bill or joint 
resolution carrying a tax or tariff measure may not be reported by a 
committee not having jurisdiction to report tax or tariff measures, and 
an amendment in the House or proposed by the Senate carrying a tax or 
tariff measure shall not be in order during the consideration of a bill 
or joint resolution reported by a committee not having that 
jurisdiction.''
  The amendment is clearly legislation as well as a tax or tariff 
provision, and is, therefore, in violation of the House rules.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does any Member wish to be heard on the 
point of order?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I simply urge the Chairman not to insist on 
the point of order. If he does, I would concede the point of order and 
move on to the next motion I have already described.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The point of order is conceded and 
sustained.


                Preferential Motion Offered by Mr. Obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer a preferential motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Obey moves that the Committee do now rise and report 
     the bill back to the House with the recommendation that the 
     enacting clause be stricken.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I have already explained the motion and in 
the interest of saving time and also striking the last word to sum up 
in the end, I am going to ask that Members vote to strike the enacting 
clause so that we can repair this bill in the manner I have just 
described. I hope they do that.
  In the event that they do not, I am urging Members to vote no, 
because we do not believe that we ought to say to the country that we 
have room for $2 trillion in tax cuts, including an $88,000 tax cut for 
persons making over $1 million a year, but we do not have any room in 
the inn for children who need health care or need more help in Title I, 
for school districts who need more help on special education, and all 
of the others problems we have described today.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
motion.
  I just want to say to all Members, we are getting close to finishing 
up here.

                              {time}  1715

  I would urge all the Members to vote ``no'' on all of the amendments, 
and I would urge the Members to vote for the bill. It is fair. It is 
balanced. It meets the needs of the 280 million people of this Nation, 
and I think it is a very positive step. It is reasonable in terms of 
cost, and I would hope we have a strong ``yes'' vote in support of the 
bill and a strong ``no'' vote on all the amendments.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman for the 
courtesies he has extended and to thank the staff on both sides of the 
aisle for the work they have done.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6(g) of rule XVIII, this 15-minute 
vote on the motion of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on the amendments to this bill that were 
postponed earlier today.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 197, 
noes 224, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 348]

                               AYES--197

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

                               NOES--224

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Janklow
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher

[[Page H6578]]


     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Allen
     Cramer
     Fletcher
     Fossella
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Goss
     Harman
     Millender-McDonald
     Owens
     Payne
     Sanchez, Loretta


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there are 2 
minutes remaining to vote.

                              {time}  1738

  Ms. HART and Messrs. DUNCAN, HEFLEY, COBLE, COLE and WICKER changed 
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the motion was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will 
now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were 
postponed in the following order: Amendment No. 6 offered by the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen), the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
  These votes will be conducted as 5-minute votes.


                 Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Rahall

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. 
Rahall) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 210, 
noes 212, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 349]

                               AYES--210

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

                               NOES--212

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Janklow
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Cox
     Cramer
     Fletcher
     Fossella
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Goss
     Harman
     Millender-McDonald
     Owens
     Payne
     Sanchez, Loretta


                      Announcement by the Chairman

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

                              {time}  1747

  Mr. PICKERING changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Allen

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 199, 
noes 223, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 350]

                               AYES--199

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine

[[Page H6579]]


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

                               NOES--223

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dooley (CA)
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Janklow
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kildee
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Cramer
     Ehlers
     Fletcher
     Fossella
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Goss
     Harman
     Millender-McDonald
     Owens
     Payne
     Sanchez, Loretta


                      Announcement by the Chairman

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

                              {time}  1754

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


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Obey

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 210, 
noes 213, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 351]

                               AYES--210

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

                               NOES--213

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dooley (CA)
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Janklow
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)

[[Page H6580]]


     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Cramer
     Fletcher
     Fossella
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Goss
     Harman
     Houghton
     Millender-McDonald
     Owens
     Payne
     Sanchez, Loretta


                      Announcement by the Chairman

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

                              {time}  1808

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


                          personal explanation

  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, because of an emergency in my district, I 
missed rollcall vote No. 346, No. 347, No. 348, No. 349, No. 350, No. 
351, No. 352 and No. 353. If present I would have voted ``nay'' on 
rollcall vote No. 352 and No. 353 and ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 346, 
No. 347, No. 348, No. 349, No. 350 and No. 351.


             Amendment, as Modified, Offered by Mr. Toomey

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment, as modified, offered by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) on which further proceedings were postponed 
and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 210, 
noes 212, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 352]

                               AYES--210

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carson (OK)
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Costello
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Emerson
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Israel
     Istook
     Janklow
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     LaHood
     Latham
     Lewis (KY)
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCotter
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--212

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Case
     Castle
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pelosi
     Pickering
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tauscher
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Young (FL)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Bereuter
       

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Cramer
     Fletcher
     Fossella
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Goss
     Harman
     Millender-McDonald
     Owens
     Payne
     Sanchez, Loretta


                      Announcement by the Chairman

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

                              {time}  1818

  Mr. LANGEVIN and Mr. OSE changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina, Mrs. KELLY and Mr. McKEON changed their 
vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, on the Toomey-Chocola Amendment, I voted 
present as I have a conflict of interest on research project 
RD01HD039789, a project of the National Institute of Child Health and 
Human Development through the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife at 
Michigan State University.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read the last lines of the bill.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       This Act may be cited as the ``Departments of Labor, Health 
     and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 2004''.

  The CHAIRMAN. There being no further amendments in order, under the 
rule the Committee rises.

[[Page H6581]]

  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Thornberry) having assumed the chair, Mr. LaTourette, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2660) 
making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human 
Services, and Education, and related agencies for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes, pursuant to House 
Resolution 312, he reported the bill back to the House with sundry 
amendments adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will 
put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  Under clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 215, 
nays 208, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 353]

                               YEAS--215

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cox
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Foley
     Forbes
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--208

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

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Cramer
     Fletcher
     Fossella
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Goss
     Harman
     Janklow
     Millender-McDonald
     Owens
     Payne
     Sanchez, Loretta


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry) (during the vote). Two 
minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1836

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, July 10, 2003, I was 
unavoidably detained due to weather grounding my commercial flight. Had 
I been present for rollcall vote No. 353 I would have voted the 
following way: Rollcall vote No. 353, Final passage of H.R. 2660--
``yea.''

                          ____________________