[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 175 (Monday, December 8, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H12766-H12845]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2673, CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 473, 
I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2673) making 
appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 2004, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 473, the 
conference report is considered read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
November 25, 2003, Book II, at page H 12323.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I call attention to the fact that this conference report was filed on 
November 25, nearly 2 weeks ago, so that every Member has had 2 weeks, 
if they wanted to, to review this bill to see what was in it and to see 
what was not in it.
  Something that I always enjoy reporting to the House and reminding 
the House of, and they probably get tired of hearing me say it, is that 
we passed all of our bills in the House, all of our appropriation 
bills, before the August recess, except for two; and those last two we 
passed on September 9, the first week back after the August district 
work period. So the House has done its job. It has done a good job. 
What we are doing here today is we are passing an omnibus appropriation 
bill that includes seven bills that we have already passed in the 
House. I say that again: these seven bills that are in this package 
already passed the House once. So this is now the omnibus bill; this is 
the conference report on that omnibus bill.
  I will not take a lot of time to say what the seven bills are that 
are included because I think everyone knows what those final seven 
bills are. But I want to say that there are some important items that 
need to be passed now, today, and not in January or February. Because 
if we were to operate under a continuing resolution until late January 
or sometime in February, there are some important funding issues that 
would not be resolved.
  For example, the $2.9 billion increase in medical care for veterans 
is a very important issue, and one that the House agreed to strongly. 
That increase will not take any effect whatsoever until such time as 
this bill passes. A CR will not provide for that 2.9 additional 
billions of dollars for veterans health care.

[[Page H12767]]

  The same factor applies for education money. The same increase would 
not be available under a CR that is available under this bill.
  For the FBI, counterterrorism and embassy security and other security 
issues of these types, the increased money that we made available for 
security in those areas would not be available under a CR. And the list 
goes on. The list is lengthy.
  So, Mr. Speaker, it is important that we pass this bill today, and I 
hope that we pass it with large numbers, large enough so that our 
friends at the other end of the Capitol understand that we are serious 
about this government of ours functioning; that we are serious about 
the issues that we brought to the attention of the Congress and that we 
intend to see them implemented.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, if there is anybody who wants to find something at 
fault, something to complain about in this bill, they can do it, 
because there are seven bills. I am sure there will be something there 
each of us may not like. But I tell my colleagues that it is the best 
product that we could provide for, considering the fact that we were 
negotiating with Republicans and Democrats in the House, we were 
negotiating with the Senate Republicans and Democrats, we were 
negotiating with the leadership, and we were negotiating with the White 
House. I think all in all we have come to a pretty good conclusion 
considering the fact that we were able to bring most of those issues 
together and to bring a bill that we believe we can pass with a great 
number today.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring to the House the conference report 
on the Consolidated Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004.
  Included in this bill are the following appropriations bills: 
Agriculture; Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary; District of 
Columbia; Foreign Operations; Labor, Education and Health and Human 
Services; Transportation and Treasury; and Veterans Affairs and Housing 
and Urban Development.
  So as you can see, this bill is a tremendously important bill. I'm 
sure it will not please everyone in all respects but it does address 
many important needs of this country.
  I believe we have done an extraordinary job in holding spending to 
appropriate levels--the bill totals $328.1 billion in discretionary 
funding. It is a fiscally responsible bill that complies with the 
fiscal parameters prescribed by the President limiting total 
discretionary spending to $786 billion or approximately 3 percent 
increase over last year's comparable levels. Additional spending has 
been offset by a $1.8 billion rescission from any unobligated balances 
in the Department of Defense, as well as from P.L. 107-38 and P.L. 107-
117, the $40 billion post 9/11 supplemental, exempting from cuts any 
relief funds for New York, Washington, D.C. area, and rural 
Pennsylvania. It also includes an across the board reduction of .59 
percent to all programs, projects and activities exempting Defense and 
Military Construction funds.
  I would like to highlight a few items that I believe are of interest 
to many Members:
  Veterans Medical Care is increased by $2.9 billion over last year, 
the largest onetime increase ever.
  D.C. School Choice--$40 million is provided to expand school choice 
in the District of Columbia, including $13 million to improve public 
education, $13 million to expand charter schools, and $14 million to 
provide opportunity scholarships for students in the District of 
Columbia.
  Special Education Grants are funded at $10.1 billion, $1.2 billion 
more than last year, and over three times the amount provided in 1995.
  Election Reform--Provides an additional $1 billion for programs under 
the Help America Vote Act.
  International HIV/AIDS Assistance--Provides $2.4 billion in 
international assistance for HIV/AID, TB and Malaria, the highest level 
in history.
  Millennium Challenge Account--Provides $1 billion for the Millennium 
Challenge Corporation.
  Highway Spending--Total highway spending amounts to $33.8 billion, an 
increase of $4.5 billion over the President's request and $6.1 billion 
over the FY03 guaranteed amount.
  Convention Security--$50 million is provided for security expenses at 
the national party conventions in Boston and New York City.
  Embassy Security--$200 million is provided for worldwide embassy 
security upgrades.
  FBI--$513 million in increases are provided for the FBI to fight 
terrorism.
  NIH--the bill continues our commitment to the NIH by providing an 
increase of $1 billion over last year.
  National Service Corporation is funded at $584 million, $200 million 
above last year.
  Faith- and Community-Based Initiatives are increased including the 
Compassion Capital Fund at $48 million and Mentoring Children of 
Prisoners at $50 million.
  Social Security--Provides a 6.1 percent increase to the Social 
Security Administration to improve service delivery of Social Security 
benefits and accelerate the time it takes to process disability claims.
  I believe we've have reached a point of no return--we must now pass 
this bill and turn our attention to the FY 2005 budget process.
  I encourage all Members to support this important bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record detailed information on each of 
the appropriation bills in this omnibus legislation.

[[Page H12768]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.001



[[Page H12769]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.002



[[Page H12770]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.003



[[Page H12771]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.004



[[Page H12772]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.005



[[Page H12773]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.006



[[Page H12774]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.007



[[Page H12775]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.008



[[Page H12776]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.009



[[Page H12777]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.010



[[Page H12778]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.011



[[Page H12779]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.012



[[Page H12780]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.013



[[Page H12781]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.014



[[Page H12782]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.015



[[Page H12783]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.016



[[Page H12784]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.017



[[Page H12785]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.018



[[Page H12786]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.019



[[Page H12787]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.020



[[Page H12788]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.021



[[Page H12789]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.022



[[Page H12790]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.023



[[Page H12791]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.024



[[Page H12792]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.025



[[Page H12793]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.026



[[Page H12794]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.027



[[Page H12795]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.028



[[Page H12796]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.029



[[Page H12797]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.030



[[Page H12798]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.031



[[Page H12799]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.032



[[Page H12800]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.033



[[Page H12801]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.034



[[Page H12802]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.035



[[Page H12803]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.036



[[Page H12804]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.037



[[Page H12805]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.038



[[Page H12806]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.039



[[Page H12807]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.040



[[Page H12808]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.041



[[Page H12809]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.042



[[Page H12810]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.043



[[Page H12811]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.044



[[Page H12812]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.045



[[Page H12813]]

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, only a few weeks after Congress eliminated 
the guarantee of health care under Medicare for every senior in 
America, just in time for the holidays we are telling every working 
person in this country that another guarantee is also a thing of the 
past: overtime pay.
  The passage of the Fair Standards Labor Act nearly 70 years ago 
safeguarded workers' rights in this country. It promised workers time 
and a half for the time they worked beyond the 40-hour workweek: a 
little extra cash to put a roof over their families' heads, to buy 
groceries, and pay their medical bills. On average, these extra wages 
account for roughly 25 percent of their total earnings.
  This bill, in clear defiance of the will of both Chambers of 
Congress, breaks that promise. This bill allows the Department of Labor 
to gut the Fair Standards Labor Act, effectively repealing the 40-hour 
workweek and forcing 8 million Americans, including police officers, 
firefighters, construction workers, nurses, and EMTs, to take a second 
job to make up for those lost earnings; this at a time when we already 
have millions of people out of work, where income is declining, poverty 
is increasing, and health care costs are rising.
  This bill opens the door to mandatory overtime, allowing employers to 
force millions of workers to stay late with little notice and without 
adequately compensating them. It will leave countless working women the 
worse off, spending less time with their families as they put more of 
their hard-earned wages to afford increased child care and 
transportation costs.
  The Republican majority has moved effectively to tear up our 
country's long-standing contract with the working people of this 
country, a contract that says that hard work deserves to be rewarded, 
especially when that work is above and beyond the call of duty, after 
normal working hours. By ending overtime pay, by denying a fair 
extension of unemployment benefits, this bill embodies that assault on 
America's working families.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stand up for those families 
today, to make a difference in their lives, and say ``no'' to this bill 
and oppose it.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds to say 
that this is an appropriation bill, and the issues that the gentlewoman 
discussed are not within our jurisdiction and are not in this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Istook), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Transportation.
  (Mr. ISTOOK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks, and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding me this time, and I rise in support in particular of the 
section on transportation, treasury, and independent agencies, which is 
included as division F of this bill. This is the first time that this 
body packaged together this particular grouping of agencies, including 
transportation, the Treasury Department, the executive office of the 
President, and independent agencies, such as the General Services 
Administration and the Office of Personnel Management. I am pleased to 
say that with the help of my hardworking colleague, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), and with good staff and with the good 
cooperation of the Senate, we have met the challenges of that 
particular grouping.
  This is a good effort, Mr. Speaker. This portion of the conference 
report contains $89.8 billion. That is just 3.7 percent above the level 
enacted for fiscal year 2003. Nondefense discretionary spending is 
below the President's budget request and below the fiscal year 2003 
level.
  However, we are able to establish important priorities. In 
particular, Federal aid to highways will receive a $2 billion increase. 
Even within the overall constraints, a $2 billion increase for 
highways, going from $31.8 billion to $33.8 billion. That addresses the 
most critical transportation needs in the entire country. It also 
provides much-needed jobs and will assist in relieving congestion in 
the overburdened highway system.
  In addition, it provides significantly more money for the IRS tax law 
enforcement programs. The return to Treasury on the investment in law 
enforcement is enormous; and we have given it, appropriately, a top 
priority.
  Other programs in the bill receive sufficient funding to continue 
operations but not enough for frills.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is very important for transportation in the 
country, whether we are talking about road, rail, mass transit, or any 
other system. I appreciate the effort to work together cooperatively 
with both sides of the aisle on that, and I ask that this bill be 
approved.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of the Transportation, 
Treasury, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2004, which is 
included as division F of this bill. This is the first time this body 
has had to package together the funding priorities of the 
Transportation Department, the Treasury Department, the Executive 
Office of the President, and independent agencies such as the Office of 
Personnel Management and the General Services Administration. Dealing 
with fundamental financial and personnel policy issues while trying to 
provide for the Nation's infrastructure has proven to be a formidable 
challenge. But I am proud to say that, with the help of my hard-working 
colleague from Massachusetts, Mr. Olver, and with the good cooperation 
of the Senate, we have met that challenge.
  This is a good Transportation and Treasury bill, Mr. Speaker. Within 
very tight fiscal constraints, it strikes a good balance between the 
programs of those departments. It provides for critical, core programs 
but trims back new initiatives.
  That portion of this conference report contains $89.8 billion in 
budgetary resources. That is just 3.7 percent above the level enacted 
for fiscal year 2003. Non-defense discretionary spending is below the 
President's budget request and below the fiscal year 2003 level.
  However, this part of the bill does establish priorities. In 
particular, the federal-aid highways program will receive a $2 billion 
increase, going from $31.8 billion to $33.8 billion. This addresses the 
most crucial transportation issue in America. This will provide much-
needed jobs around the country, and assist in providing congestion 
relief on our overburdened highway system. In addition, the bill 
provides almost $350 million--9 percent--more for IRS's tax law 
enforcement program in the coming year. Given the budget problems 
facing the Nation, every additional tax dollar the IRS collects is 
critical. The return to the Treasury on this investment is enormous, so 
we have given it a top priority.
  Let me make special note of one of our most critical grant programs, 
the election reform grants authorized by the Help America Vote Act of 
2002. These grants go out to all States, to help them meet Federal 
deadlines for upgrading voting machines. Given their budget situation, 
many States will have a difficult if not impossible time meeting the 
deadline without Federal help. This bill provides $1.5 billion for 
those grants, which is $1 billion above the House-passed level. The 
funding in this bill will bring total assistance for election reform to 
$3 billion.
  Other programs in the bill receive sufficient funding to continue 
their operations throughout the year, but they won't have enough for 
frills. The IRS's operating budget would rise by 3 percent. The FAA's 
by 7 percent. The Executive Office of the President receives an 
increases of only 1 percent. The essential air service program receives 
$102 million, which will sustain their current operations. The Airport 
Improvement Program is at $3.4 billion, which is also the FY 03 level. 
Amtrak, which requested $1.8 billion, will receive $1.225 billion, 
essentially the same amount as in the current year.
  The bill has a number of important oversight initiatives that I'd 
like to highlight as well.
  For Amtrak, the bill continues the strong oversight provisions first 
included in last year's appropriations bill. In addition, we have added 
a new provision authorizing the Surface Transportation Board to 
continue commuter rail service if Amtrak ceases operations, and 
providing $60 million to the Secretary for these purposes.
  In FAA, the bill provides additional resources for contract audits of 
major procurements and fences the funds only for that purpose. 
According to the IG, FAA has been negligent in performing these 
valuable audits. With major new acquisitions facing the agency, the 
bill requires FAA to do a better job at reviewing contractor proposals 
and bid prices and gives them money for that purpose.
  In the Federal Transit Administration, the bill directs FTA to ensure 
that alternative modes or alignments are analyzed as part of the

[[Page H12814]]

planning process for new starts, and that they fully support the mode 
chosen by weighing all viable alternatives and using quantitative 
measures, rather than pre-ordaining expensive light-rail as their 
choice for transit. We need to make sure that, when the Federal 
Government is asked to pay 50 percent or more of the money, local 
communities have done their homework in studying alternatives that will 
most effectively deal with the problems.
  In short, Mr. Speaker, this is a very good compromise. It involved 
some give and take by both sides, but we were able to preserve the most 
critical aspects of the House-passed bill. It deserves every Member's 
support.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished minority whip.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and initially I would like to submit for the Record at this point 
in time my remarks with reference to the Office of Federal Detention 
Trustee.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 
Wolf, the chairman of the Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations 
Subcommittee, for the opportunity to discuss the roles and authorities 
of the Federal Detention Trustee.
  It is my understanding that the language in the report addressing the 
building of detention facilities by the Office of Federal Detention 
Trustee clearly indicates that the Office does not have the authority 
to solicit contracts to build a new detention facility and directs the 
Office to withdraw any solicitation for such activities.
  While the language is report language and is not binding, I believe 
it is sufficient to prevent the Office of Federal Detention Trustee 
from going forward with its plans to solicit contracts to build a new 
detention facility.
  Chairman Wolf has committed to working with me to ensure that the 
Detention Trustees abides by the clear intent of the Congress that 
contracting for a new facility is not an allowable use of funds.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and 
I too wish to submit a statement for the Record regarding the Office of 
Federal Detention Trustee.
  On discussion of the role of the Office of Federal Detention Trustee 
at the Department of Justice, the statement of managers clearly 
indicates that the Office does not have the authority to solicit 
contracts to build a new detention facility. I would also point out 
that the committee revised the bill language to strike any reference to 
construction. I am fully aware that many States, including Maryland, 
Louisiana, Ohio, and others have excess prison bed space capacity. It 
was never the intention of the Congress to allow the Detention Trustee 
to build additional facilities, but to take advantage of existing State 
and local excess prison bed space. The committee will work with Mr. 
Hoyer of Maryland and other concerned Members in the coming year to 
address these concerns.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I rise again, as I always 
do, to say that the chairman of our committee is extraordinarily fair. 
I wish I could vote for this bill. I voted for many of the bills that 
are in here, as the chairman knows.
  But, Mr. Speaker, we have a very bad process that is going on here. 
We act in the House, the Senate acts the same way, and it goes to 
conference and magically it disappears, or it comes back here 180 
degrees different. This is a corruption of the democratic process. It 
has ignored the will of the House and the Senate on outsourcing, Cuba 
travel, drug reimportation, school vouchers in the District of 
Columbia. Funding in the omnibus for the No Child Left Behind is too 
low; funding for NIH represents a real reduction. The congressional 
branch does not work, Mr. Speaker, for the executive.
  I would urge the majority party, my friends on the other side, to let 
the executive department know that this is a democracy. It is not a 
kingdom; it is not a dictatorship. And just because the House passes 
something, the Senate passes something, and they do not like it, that 
does not mean the Congress of the United States ought to turn tail and 
run. Mr. Speaker, I would hope that we would be able to resolve some of 
these issues that the House and the Senate have agreed upon. I agree 
with the chairman, some of these are authorizing matters; but both 
Houses agreed and the White House did not like it, so it was dropped.
  The outsourcing is particularly, in my opinion, egregious because we 
had a conference. The chairman, as always, was fair and open. Senator 
Stevens was fair and open. We had an agreement. That agreement was 
adopted in an open conference, and lo and behold it has disappeared. It 
was totally changed. It has undermined the very protections for Federal 
employees we wanted to build in the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) was in charge, 
and he is in charge of our committee, no doubt about that; but if he 
made the final decisions, this would not have happened, and I know that 
and I lament it.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume to advise the gentleman that I am happy to report that one of 
the major issues he was concerned about, the election reform program 
and to help the States, that money is in this package.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for making that 
observation. He is absolutely right. And I want to make the public 
aware of the fact that we differ from time to time on partisan issues, 
but if the chairman of this committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Young), had not been such a tenacious supporter both of revising and 
reforming our election apparatus and then funding it, it would not be 
there.
  I want to thank the chairman profusely, because I think he, as he 
knows, and I think the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), our 
Speaker, has also been very responsible for this bipartisan 
accomplishment, and I thank the gentleman for his support. It is an 
important step. There are a lot of good things in this bill, and I 
would like to support it.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and 
Related Agencies.
  (Mr. BONILLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference 
agreement; and as we consider this bill, I would like to take a minute 
to recognize one of the star players behind the scenes.
  Lots of folks out there watch us on television and in committee 
hearings and markups and think that the Members of the House are the 
ones that actually do all the work, cross all the T's, dot all the I's, 
and check all the legalese, and we do check all that; but the people 
that do the work day in and day out are the great staff members of the 
committees and subcommittees. I am losing a key member of this team, 
the clerk for my agriculture appropriations subcommittee, and his name 
is Hank Moore.
  As many of my colleagues know, Hank has announced he will not be with 
us next year as we work our way through this process. He has decided 
after 30 years of working here for the Federal Government that he would 
like to spend more time with his family and is retiring.
  Mr. Speaker, most Americans probably do not realize, as I did not 
when I first arrived in the House of Representatives, that this bill is 
1,200 pages long. There are countless paragraphs, clauses, commas, 
sections, outlays, all kinds of terms that are put in this bill; and it 
has to be done right year in and year out. And while many of us are 
dealing with the substance of big issues as we develop these bills each 
year, good members of the staff, like Hank Moore, are there on 
weekends, late at night making sure that all of the language is exactly 
right every step of the way.
  As I have worked with Hank, and I frequently use football terms on 
occasion, but I want him to know that I have always been very grateful 
that every time I turned around, the ball was there. Every time. It 
made my job a lot easier, and it made the job of a lot of folks that 
preceded me in the Committee on Appropriations a lot easier. I want to 
wish him well, and his family, and let him know that we will miss him.

[[Page H12815]]

  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring before the House today the 
conference report on H.R. 2673, providing appropriations for 
Agriculture, Rural Development, the Food and Drug Administration and 
Related Agencies for fiscal year 2004, and for other purposes.
  I want to acknowledge the good work of the gentlewoman from Ohio, Ms. 
Kaptur, my ranking member, who has contributed greatly to this process. 
It has been a pleasure working with her and all the members of the 
subcommittee on both sides of the aisle.
  I believe we have produced a good bipartisan conference agreement 
that does a lot to advance important nutrition, research, and rural 
development programs and still meets our conference allocations on 
discretionary and mandatory spending.
  My goal this year has been to produce a bipartisan bill, and I 
believe we have done a good job in reaching that goal.
  This conference agreement does have significant increases over fiscal 
year 2003 for programs that have always enjoyed strong bipartisan 
support. Those increases include:
  Agricultural Research Service, $54 million for Salaries and Expenses; 
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, $2 
million; Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, $33 million; Food 
Safety and Inspection Service, $30 million; Farm Service Agency, $18 
million; Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund, $482 million; 
Reimbursement for net realized losses of the Commodity Credit 
Corporation, $990 million; Natural Resources Conservation Service, $12 
million; Rural Cooperative Development Grants, $15 million; Renewable 
Energy Program, $23 million; Broadband Telecommunications Loan 
Authorization, $522 million; Domestic Food Programs, $5.4 billion, 
including Child Nutrition Programs, $837 million and Food Stamp 
Program, $3.6 billion in program expenses as well as $1.0 billion in 
reserve to respond to economic conditions; Foreign Assistance and 
Related Programs, including P.L. 480, $45 million--excluding last 
year's supplemental appropriation; and Food and Drug Administration, 
$12 million.
  Mr. Speaker, we all refer to this bill as an agriculture bill, but it 
does far more than assist basic agriculture. It also supports human 
nutrition, the environment, and food, drug, and medical safety. This is 
a bill that will deliver benefits to every one of our citizens every 
day. I would say to all Members that they can support this conference 
agreement and tell all of their constituents that they voted to improve 
their lives while maintaining fiscal responsibility.
  The conference agreement is a bipartisan product with a lot of hard 
work and input from both sides of the aisle. I would like to thank the 
gentleman from Florida, Chairman Young, and the gentleman from 
Wisconsin, Mr. Obey, who serve as the distinguished chairman and 
ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations. I would also like to 
thank all my subcommittee colleagues: the gentleman from New York, Mr. 
Walsh; the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Kingston; the gentleman from 
Washington, Mr. Nethercutt; the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Latham; 
gentlewoman from Missouri, Mrs. Emerson; the gentleman from Virginia, 
Mr. Goode; the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. LaHood; the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut, Ms. DeLauro; the gentleman from New York, Mr. 
Hinchey; the gentleman from California, Mr. Farr; and the gentleman 
from Florida, Mr. Boyd. In particular, I want to thank the gentlewoman 
from Ohio, Ms. Kaptur; the distinguished ranking member of the 
subcommittee, for all her good work on this bill this year and the 
years in the past.

  Mr. Speaker, we have tried our best to put together a good, solid 
bill that works for all America. Much of it is compromise, to be sure, 
but I believe it is a good compromise and good policy.
  In closing, I would like to thank the subcommittee staff for all 
their hard work: Hank Moore, the subcommittee clerk; Martin Delgado; 
Maureen Holohan; Joanne Perdue; Martha Foley of the staff of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Obey; and Walt Smith, from my personal 
office. Without their good work, we would not have a bill here today.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support this conference 
agreement.
  Mr. Speaker, we have worked hard to bring a good conference agreement 
to the House. We have made prudent recommendations for the use of the 
budgetary allocation available to us, and we have done yeoman work in 
keeping the bill free of contentious issues that have caused concern in 
prior years. I think we have a very good conference agreement. In 
closing, I would certainly hope that all Members would support this 
agreement.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record detailed information regarding 
the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration and Related Agencies included in this omnibus 
legislation.

[[Page H12816]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.046



[[Page H12817]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.047



[[Page H12818]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.048



[[Page H12819]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.049



[[Page H12820]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.050



[[Page H12821]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.051



[[Page H12822]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.052



[[Page H12823]]

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\3/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on 
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and 
Related Agencies.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I also want to express my deep appreciation from the Democratic side 
of the aisle for the over two decades of professional and honest 
service that Hank Moore has devoted to the people of this country. I 
thank him for his professionalism and courtesy throughout, and wish him 
well in the months and years ahead. The Committee on Appropriations 
will always be his home, and we hope he returns to see us.
  I also dedicate my remarks today to Mr. Joe Skeen, who passed this 
past weekend in New Mexico, and to his wife, Mary, and family. It was a 
joy to work with him. He was a man who did not lead by partisanship, 
but by a deep concern for our country. Our Nation and its people are 
better for the years he devoted here. His perseverance, honesty and 
intelligence have made their mark. He and his good sense of humor will 
never be forgotten.
  Mr. Speaker, as the ranking member of the subcommittee, I would like 
to discuss some issues regarding this conference report. In working 
with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), it was not easy to make 
some of the decisions we were faced with. But first and foremost, I 
would like to focus on the fact that so many of the decisions, 
unfortunately because of the time constraints, that relate to 
Agriculture and the Food & Drug Administration happened behind closed 
doors and without full sunlight. Therefore, it makes it very difficult 
to support this bill in its entirety.
  In terms of the funding levels, the Agriculture division of this bill 
is $62 million lower than both the House and Senate bills. It is almost 
$1 billion below last year's bill, a reduction of almost 5 percent, 
even though mandatory programs, which do not have the control of this 
committee exerted upon them, have increased by 12 percent.
  On conservation, such an important issue, as we increase in 
population and as resources become more dear, we find the conference 
report cuts $70 million more from Farm Bill conservation programs for a 
total reduction of over $490 million.
  Finally, I want to focus on rural housing, also reduced, and I am 
deeply concerned that our prescription drug title to permit the 
importation of prescription drugs that are safe into our country was 
also dropped, even though we asked that it be included, and the House 
so voted.
  I wanted to end by saying that behind closed doors, just a few weeks 
ago, the country of origin labeling provisions were eliminated from 
this bill, 2 years past their scheduled implementation date, not just 
for meat, but produce was added. I would like the American people to 
know, if we look at the over 600 people who just got sick in Pittsburgh 
at Chi-Chi's restaurants, one of the ways we get at that problem is by 
tough country of origin labeling on produce as well as on meat. Behind 
closed doors, our attempt to do that was absolutely subverted. It is 
with great disappointment that I come to the floor today and say this 
bill could have been a lot better than what is before Congress today.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign 
Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs.
  (Mr. KOLBE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present the conference report 
for the fiscal year 2004 Foreign Operations, Export Financing and 
Related Programs bill which is incorporated as Division D in this 
Consolidated Appropriations Act.
  Mr. Speaker, the foreign operations section significantly furthers 
our foreign policy objectives and U.S. strategic interests abroad. It 
is a bill that is innovative and provides increased resources to combat 
the pandemic of HIV/AIDS. It also creates a new paradigm for foreign 
assistance, the Millennium Challenge Corporation.
  The conference report before the House provides $17.235 billion for 
foreign operations. This is $115 million more the House bill which 
passed last July, but nearly $1.2 billion below the amount contained in 
the Senate-passed bill. Therefore, with this tight allocation, we have 
made some tough choices and set priorities.
  For HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, this conference agreement 
provides $2.4 billion. When combined with the amounts in the Labor/HHS 
bill, that is $805 million more than fiscal year 2003, $362 million 
above the President's request and $325 million more than the House-
passed bill.
  It provides $400 million to the Global Fund to fight AIDS, TB and 
malaria, and includes language that gives other donors an incentive to 
contribute. This bill strongly supports our new AIDS coordinator, 
Ambassador Randy Tobias, and provides for one additional country 
outside Africa and the Caribbean to be added to the HIV/AIDS 
Initiative.
  This agreement both creates and appropriates funds for the new 
Millennium Challenge Corporation. The consolidated appropriations bill 
provides $1 billion for this exciting, new and innovative model to 
provide foreign assistance, one that seeks to give a boost to poor 
nations to enable them to break out of the cycle of poverty. Many have 
talked about the need to change the way U.S. foreign assistance is 
provided. President Bush came forward with leadership and vision, and 
this bill makes that vision a reality.
  The MCC is a key component of President Bush's new compact for global 
development, which links greater contributions from developed nations 
to greater responsibility from developing nations.
  There are a number of important programs and initiatives supported by 
this foreign operations conference report, too numerous to delineate in 
the time allotted to me. They include funds for Israel, Egypt, Jordan, 
for the Andean Counterdrug Initiative, Child Survival and Health 
Programs Fund, Development Assistance, the Eastern Europe and Baltic 
States, and the Independent States of the Former Soviet Union.
  There are a number of structural changes and process improvements in 
the bill. These changes support the role of Congress in reviewing 
foreign assistance. There are a number of management improvements in 
agencies like USAID which help ensure that taxpayer dollars are well 
spent.
  This conference agreement on foreign assistance presents a very good 
bill which is an important component of this consolidated measure. It 
does not do everything that we have been asked to do by the 
administration and others in Congress, but we have necessarily made 
reductions and sought efficiencies. It is a conference agreement that 
all Members should support.
  Finally, I want to mention two members of our staff who worked very 
hard on this bill, along with our outstanding committee staff. Rob 
Blair served on the detail from the Department of State, and Sean 
Mulvaney of my staff took the lead in developing the Millennium 
Challenge Corporation.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an important piece of legislation, and I urge 
its support.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present the conference report for the 
Fiscal Year 2004 Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related 
Programs bill, which is incorporated as Division D of this Consolidated 
Appropriations Act.
  Mr. Speaker, the foreign operations section significantly furthers 
our foreign policy objectives and U.S. strategic interests abroad. It 
is a bill that is innovative and provides increased resources to combat 
the pandemic of HIV/AIDS. It also creates a new paradigm for foreign 
assistance, the Millennium Challenge Corporation.
  The conference agreement before this house provides $17.235 billion 
for Foreign Operations. This is $115 million more than the House bill 
which passed last July, but $1.167 billion below the amount contained 
in the Senate passed bill. Within that tight allocation, we have made 
some tough choices and set priorities.
  For HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, this conference agreement 
provides $2.4 billion. When combined with the amounts in Labor/HHS that 
is $805 million more than FY2003, $362 million above the President's 
budget request, and $325.7 million more than the House passed bill. 
That this bill provides $400 million to the Global Fund to fight AIDS, 
TB

[[Page H12824]]

and malaria and includes language that gives other donors an incentive 
to contribute. This bill strongly supports our new AIDS Coordinator, 
Ambassador Randy Tobias, and provides for one additional country 
outside Africa and the Caribbean to be added to the HIV/AIDS 
Initiative.
  This agreement both creates and appropriates funds for the new 
Millennium Challenge Corporation. The consolidated appropriations bill 
provides $1 billion for this exciting, new and innovative model to 
provide foreign assistance--one that seeks to give a boost to enable 
them to break out of the cycle of poverty. Many have talked about the 
need to change the way that U.S. foreign assistance is provided. 
President Bush came forward with leadership and vision, and this bill 
makes that vision a reality.
  The MCC--as it is known for short--is a key component of President 
Bush's ``new compact for global development,'' which links greater 
contributions from developed nations to greater responsibility from 
developing nations.
  New resources will flow to those low-income countries that possess a 
demonstrated commitment to good governance, economic freedom, and 
investments in their own people. In eligible countries, the new MCC 
will target investments to overcome the greatest obstacles to economic 
growth and reduce poverty.
  The MCC departs from traditional foreign assistance and draws on 
lessons learned about development over the past 50 years;
  First, that aid is more likely to result in successful sustainable 
economic development in countries that are pursuing sound political, 
economic and social policies;
  Second, that development plans supported by a broad range of 
stakeholders, and for which countries have primary responsibility, 
engender country ownership and are more likely to succeed;
  And, finally, that integrating oversight and evaluation into the 
design of activities boosts aid effectiveness.
  I wish to commend the leadership of Chairman Hyde and Mr. Lantos and 
the House International Relations Committee, and their Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee counterparts for their strong support for this 
initiative.
  There are a number of important programs and initiatives supported by 
this foreign operations conference report. Let me name just a few:
  The agreement includes $2.132 billion for the economic support fund. 
Included is $480 million for Israel, $575 million for Egypt, and $250 
million for Jordan.
  The agreement provides $241 million for International Narcotics 
control and law enforcement, and an additional $731 million for the 
Andean Counterdrug Intitiative--$71 million more than the Senate bill.
  The agreement provides $1.835 billion for the Child Survival and 
Health Programs Fund, and $1.385 billion for Development Assistance.
  The conference report includes $445 million for assistance to Eastern 
Europe and the Baltic States, and $587 million for assistance for the 
Independent States of the Former Soviet Union. This is one area where 
reductions have been made as this agreement provides $245 million less 
for these nations than the FY2003 bill.
  The conference agreement provides $353.5 million for 
nonproliferation, anti-terrorism and demining, an increase of $49.1 
million over 2003.
  The conference agreement provides $4.450.1 billion for Military 
Assistance programs. This represents an increase of $221.3 million 
above FY2003. We have provided $2.160 billion in military assistance 
for Israel, $1.3 billion for Egypt and $206 million for Jordan. We have 
fully funded the budget request for international military education 
and training at $91.7 million.
  The conference agreement provides $1.713 billion for multilateral 
economic assistance, an increase of $223.2 million above FY2003. 
Included in the agreement is $321.7 million for international 
organizations and programs, and $913.2 million for the international 
development association.
  Mr. Speaker, there are a number of structural changes and process 
improvements in the agreement. These changes support the role of 
Congress in reviewing foreign assistance. There are a number of 
management improvements in agencies like USAID, which help ensure that 
taxpayers' dollars are well spent.
  We have endeavored to accommodate requests from colleagues, though, 
as always, we have strived to keep foreign assistance free of earmarks. 
However, I acknowledge that when faced with a Senate bill that included 
over 200 amendments, this task becomes increasingly more challenging.
  Mr. Speaker, this conference agreement on foreign assistance presents 
a very good bill. It is a very important component of this overall 
consolidated measure. It does not do everything we have been asked by 
the administration and others in the Congress. We have necessarily made 
reductions and sought efficiencies. It is a conference agreement that I 
think all members of this body should support. It represents a 
bipartisan bill that supports our President and Nation.
  Before closing, I would like to mention two members of our staff who 
worked very hard on this bill, along with our outstanding committee 
staff. Rob Blair served on detail from the Department of State and put 
in some outstanding work for us on the HIV/AIDS and global health 
issues. He left our subcommittee as detailee only a few days ago and 
already he is sorely missed. And, I would be remiss if I did not 
mention Sean Mulvaney of my staff who took the lead on the Millennium 
Challenge Corporation, and authored the legislation in Title VI of this 
agreement. As he consistently demonstrates on such issues as trade and 
international economics, Sean brings a personal commitment and 
intellectual rigor and honesty to his job. This overall agreement is a 
better product based on Sean's professionalism and expertise.
  I would, of course, also like to thank my ranking member, Mrs. Lowey; 
and the minority staff, Mark Murray and Joe Weinstein; and our 
subcommittee's staff, Charlie Flickner, Alice Hogans, Scott Gudes and 
Lori Maes.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing this is an important piece of legislation, 
with many priority initiatives of the President and the Congress. I 
hope that our colleagues in the other body will not delay further the 
delivery of these important programs, such as the effort to save the 
lives of those infected with HIV and AIDS.
  I urge adoption of the conference report.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
  (Mr. EMANUEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this appropriations 
bill.
  While there are some positive steps taken in this bill in the area of 
transportation and medical facilities, once again, the public trust is 
being turned over whole hog to special interests. Taxpayers are being 
asked to subsidize important special interests, just like we did in the 
prescription drug bill and as we did in the energy bill. Under those 
pieces of legislation, taxpayers are being overcharged 40 percent by 
the pharmaceutical industry when we could have competitive pricing. And 
in the energy bill, somewhere close to $20 billion, taxpayers are 
subsidizing the energy industry, the most profitable industry, and 
underwriting their business mission. They want to drill for oil, they 
should do it without taxpayers subsidizing their activities.
  Today, this bill is cut from the same cloth as the prescription drug 
and the energy legislation. This measure contains $50 million to build 
an indoor rain forest, $725,000 for a ``Please Touch Museum,'' $90,000 
for olive fruit fly research in Montpelier, France, $75,000 for a North 
Pole Transit System, all this while we refuse to increase college 
assistance and Pell Grants for middle-class families, while we refuse 
to increase funding for the Leave No Child Behind in the area of 
education.
  Sadly, for middle-class families and taxpayers, the culture of 
dependency, the culture of welfare has dominated these three bills, 
whether they be the prescription drug bill, the energy bill, or this 
appropriation bill. We must end welfare as we know it. The culture of 
dependency that has been dominated by corporate and special interests, 
and have turned the government, whole cloth, into a subsidy and ATM 
machine for the special interests.
  Mr. Speaker, this is another missed opportunity to end this new form 
of welfare that is being abused in government. For these reasons, I 
urge Members to vote against this appropriations bill.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Labor, 
Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies.
  (Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge Members to support this 
bill, but I just want to address a few of the highlights in the Labor, 
HHS, and Education portions.
  One, the Department of Education gets an increase of 4.8 percent 
which is above the overall rate of inflation, and, I think, recognizes 
the importance of education. Special education has an additional $200 
million over the House-passed number, for a total increase of $1.2 
billion over last year.

[[Page H12825]]

  Reading programs have been increased in the overall bill, as has 
improving teacher quality, which I think is extremely important. We 
have a number of programs in here that are important from the 
standpoint of improving teacher quality, including increasing the 
number of math and science teachers. Pell Grants are maintained at the 
highest level ever. Impact Aid is $48 million over last year. After-
school programs are $400 million over the President's request because 
we recognize the importance of these programs to young people. TRIO and 
Gear-Up are increased, Head Start is increased $148 million over last 
year, and we maintained comprehensive school reform. That is 
particularly important in addressing the dropout rate.
  Community health centers are expanded. I think most of us know from 
experience that these are an important part of a community's health 
program, to have funding for these health centers, and we provide funds 
to expand them.
  National Institutes of Health, we give them an increase of more than 
7 percent if we take into account one-time costs in fiscal year 2003. 
The same is true for a number of activities, such as international HIV, 
infectious disease, homeland security biodefense. In addition, LIHEAP 
is fund at $1.9 billion.
  I am particularly pleased that in the Labor Department, we are 
supporting job training programs. The worker training programs are 
extremely important, particularly as people shift to new types of 
employment. As the overall job economy changes in our society, it is 
important that we have a place that people can go and know that there 
is hope for getting a new job or getting a better job or getting an 
opportunity. I am glad we were able to do that in this bill.
  Overall, I think the Labor-HHS portion of the bill is very responsive 
to the needs of our people. It is less than 4 percent overall, which is 
lower than the rate of inflation. It is about 3.4 percent over last 
year.
  Mr. Speaker, given the fact that these programs are very important to 
people, touch the lives of 280 million Americans in one way or another, 
the subcommittee and the conference committee tried to address these 
challenges in the most effective way possible. I urge support of the 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, Division E of this conference agreement provides funding 
for a broad range of programs and activities affecting the lives of 
nearly every American. It provides help to workers looking for 
retraining or enhancing their job skills, assistance for teachers 
working hard to educate our children, support for families in need of 
health services, and funding for scientists seeking to understand and 
cure disease. The agreement totals $139 billion in discretionary 
spending, an increase of less than 4 percent over 2003.
  In the area of education, I want to begin by laying out a few basic 
facts. Federal funds for education have more than doubled over the past 
8 years. Discretionary appropriations for the U.S. Department of 
Education have climbed from $23 billion in FY1996 to $55.7 billion in 
this bill. This is an increase of 141 percent. The problem in American 
education is not lack of spending. It is lack of accountability for 
results. With the help of the reforms put in place by the No Child Left 
Behind Act, being implemented by good teachers and principals and 
caring parents all across this country, we are changing things for the 
better.
  I will give a few examples of how this bill takes a focused approach 
to improving education for our Nation's children. First, funding for 
Special Education for disabled children is increased by $1.2 billion in 
this bill, bringing total funding to $10 billion. Meeting our Federal 
commitment in this program has been a priority for the Congress for the 
past 8 years, and this bill continues that progress.
  Second, Title I, which helps children from low-income homes achieve 
academic success, is increased by nearly $700 million to a total of 
$12.35 billion. Coupled with the new accountability standards in No 
Child Left Behind, Title I has the potential to change ``business as 
usual'' at our public schools.
  Third, reading programs, which use sound scientific evidence to help 
children learn to read effectively, are funded at over $1 billion, 
representing a tripling of these funds in just 3 years. These programs 
are important because we know that many children are placed in special 
education simply because they have not been taught to read properly. By 
investing in sound reading programs, we can ensure that every child 
gets the help to excel in reading at a young age.


               tchr quality--comprehensive school reform

  There are many other good education programs funded in this bill. We 
have increased funding for training teachers, especially math and 
science teachers, so that our future workforce can compete in the high-
tech, global marketplace. We have included funds for after school and 
mentoring activities. We have increased funding for student aid 
programs and other higher education programs to help all students have 
a chance to realize the dream of graduating from college. Seventy-one 
education programs have been increased above last year's level in this 
bill. At the same time, other programs have been cut or eliminated from 
the budget entirely because they have not proven their results or 
because they duplicate other programs.
  Our conference bill also invests in important health service and 
research programs. Community health centers, which are the backbone of 
medical care in many communities, receive an increase of $120 million, 
which puts our efforts ahead of the benchmark anticipated in the 
President's 5-year expansion plan. Maintaining the congressional 
commitment to supporting the important care provided by our pediatric 
hospitals, the conference agreement provides a $13 million increase for 
the graduate medical education program for children's hospitals. To 
ensure that we have enough health care providers for these community 
clinics and hospitals, we have preserved the health professions and 
nurse training programs in the face of drastic reductions proposed by 
the administration.
  I'm pleased to report that we were able to provide more than a 30 
percent increase for the abstinence education program, which I know 
many of our Members believe is very important to strengthen their 
communities.
  We continue our commitment to biomedical research to provide the 
breakthroughs necessary to improve the quality of care we can give our 
citizens and provide answers to families who are desperate for help. 
The conference agreement provides over a 3 percent increase for the 
National Institutes of Health. This year's increase follows the 
successful campaign to double funding for NIH--in the previous 5 years, 
the NIH appropriation jumped from $13.6 billion to almost $27 billion. 
I am confident that the roadmap for future NIH investments developed by 
the new director of NIH will mold and discipline this investment to 
ultimately make possible better health care for our communities.
  The conference agreement includes $100 million to fund a new 
substance abuse treatment voucher program, Access to Recovery, which 
will open new pathways to people who need treatment for addiction. By 
investing in this new initiative, Congress is giving hope to those who 
are lost in the cycle of addiction. This program will increase 
treatment capacity and access to providers by giving vouchers to those 
most in need.
  In the area of faith-based programming, the conference agreement 
provides a 30 percent increase over last year. Increasing the capacity 
of small faith-based groups to provide outreach and services to our 
communities means that more people in need will be served. Programs in 
this bill with a faith component provide a wide-range of services 
including mentoring, substance abuse treatment, refugee services, child 
abuse prevention, and many others.
  To provide services to families and individuals who care for their 
elderly loved ones, $160 million is provided for the Family Caregiver 
Program within the Administration on Aging. This program provides 
information, assistance, counseling, respite and supplemental services 
to the millions of caregivers who are the most important long-term care 
resource in the country. This support allows our Nation's elderly to 
remain at home for as long as possible.
  For the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, the agreement 
provides $1.9 billion. Within those funds, the conferees have included 
$100 million to meet the additional home energy assistance needs 
arising from a natural disaster or other emergency.
  While much more could be said about how this bill will benefit the 
American people, I will stop here and simply say, it is a responsible 
bill, crafted during tight budget times, that tries to direct resources 
to programs that work for people most in need. I want to thank Chairman 
Young for his assistance in forging this agreement. We had some tough 
issues to resolve with the other body. Of the nearly 600 programs and 
activities funded in the bill, 61 percent of them were at different 
levels between the two bodies. On top of that, several difficult policy 
items had to be resolved.
  I also say to my friend, Mr. Obey, this year has been difficult for 
both of us. I respect your deep commitment to the programs in this bill 
and understand the reason for your opposition. I trust that in the 
future, we can again be partners.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 12 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is a pitiful Christmas tree with such a bad 
smell that it smells more like a garbage

[[Page H12826]]

truck than something appropriate to Christmas. It spectacularly insults 
the judgment of both the House and the Senate on a number of items.
  Both Houses of the Congress voted to provide overtime protections for 
workers because the administration is trying to take those protections 
away from 8 million workers.

                              {time}  1415

  This bill, without one minute of comment in the conference committee, 
arbitrarily at the instruction of the Republican leadership rips out 
those protections.
  Both Houses voted on a bipartisan basis to cap the number of 
television stations that could be owned by media conglomerates around 
the country. In the Senate, that amendment was offered by a Republican, 
Senator Stevens, and in the House it was offered by me. The House and 
Senate adopted both of them. Despite that fact, again, without a 
moment's discussion in the conference committee, at the instruction of 
the leadership, this conference committee has ripped out the judgment 
of both Houses on that score; and they have come back with a nice cozy 
insider arrangement that protects all of the major media giants from 
having to do anything inconvenient. So much for pluralism and 
democracy.
  This House voted to instruct the conferees to allow for drug 
reimportation. This conference committee has stripped that out. This 
House earlier reached a compromise in the DOD bill and in Interior on 
outsourcing. This conference again arbitrarily changes that bipartisan 
agreement.
  Fifthly, there are incredible numbers of American workers who have 
been unemployed for an extended period of time, and yet this Congress 
refuses to, in this same omnibus bill, extend long-term coverage for 
the unemployed. This Congress ought to be ashamed of itself on that 
score.
  This bill gratuitously amends and guts a key provision of the Clean 
Air Act.
  And then on funding levels, this bill on education falls $7 billion 
below the amount promised under the No Child Left Behind Act. It falls 
$350 million below the Republican-passed House budget resolution in the 
funding level it provides for title I, which is the main education 
program that helps disadvantaged children to try to improve their 
academic performance. And it falls $1 billion below the amount that was 
promised in the House budget resolution for helping to educate 
handicapped children.
  In the National Institutes of Health, the committee pretends that it 
is above the bill that left the House; but by the time you take into 
account the across-the-board cut that is required in the bill and other 
financial transactions, this bill is in reality $118 million below the 
President for the National Institutes of Health, $145 million below the 
House-passed bill, and $182 million below the Senate-passed bill. It on 
substance short-sheets and shortchanges some of the most basic 
obligations of government. Yet this conference finds room for over 
7,000 individual Member pieces of pork which cost the taxpayers over 
$7.5 billion.
  In 1995, the last year that I chaired the Committee on 
Appropriations, the House provided virtually no earmarks in the Labor-
Health-Education bill. There are well over 1,200 of those special 
earmarks this year.
  In the VA-HUD bill, we have a $1.1 billion plug for projects. $1.1 
billion is being spent for earmarked projects. One-quarter of the 
amount that is reserved for the House goes to three Members, one from 
New York, one from West Virginia, one from Alaska. If you take a look 
at the way these projects are distributed, if we distributed the 
earmarks evenly with every Member getting an equal amount in the Labor-
Health-Education bill, for instance, there would be about $2 million 
per constituent provided for each Member's district. But it is not 
provided equally.
  So if you are from Indiana, if we simply went by basic formulas, 
Indiana would get about $18 million in special earmarks, but it does 
not. In this bill, Indiana taxpayers get about 62 cents per capita by 
way of special earmarks. If you represent Oregon, you bring home to 
your constituents in this bill about 64 cents per capita in earmarks. 
North Carolina, you bring home about 85 cents per capita in earmarks. 
California, about a dollar. But in that same Labor-Health bill, if you 
are from Alaska, you bring home $47 per person. And then if you look at 
what else Alaska gets, they get $123 per person in the VA-HUD bill, 
they get $192 per person in the Transportation bill, and they get $220 
per person from the Commerce-Justice bill. That means that special 
grants to Alaska wind up totaling $638 per person in comparison to the 
table scraps that I just explained for States like Indiana, Michigan, 
North Carolina, California and the like.
  Mr. Speaker, the appropriations process used to be the main task of 
government. The main task of the Congress each year was to pass the 13 
appropriation bills which funded all of the financial activities of 
government. The appropriation bills used to provide an opportunity for 
a debate on priorities. Instead, what has happened is that the number 
of earmarks, the number of pieces of pork have become so numerous that 
Members of Congress have changed their focus and today instead of 
asking ``Where's the beef?'' in terms of funding levels for education 
or for health care or for science, instead they are asking, ``Where's 
the pork and how much did I get?''
  And what has happened is that these projects are now being used to 
entice Members into only asking one question: How much did I get in 
pork? Rather than what were we able to do to improve the program 
funding for education or health care or environmental protection or you 
name it. I think that fundamentally corrupts the appropriations 
process, I think it makes us all simply ATM machines rather than 
policymakers, and I think it does no credit whatsoever to the Congress 
as an institution.
  I want to point out, in a troubled agency like NASA, in 1995 there 
were two special earmarks that were provided. Today there are 104. Over 
the past few years since 1998, $1.7 billion has been diverted from 
regular NASA appropriations, a very troubled agency with serious safety 
problems; $1.7 billion has been diverted from those regular programs to 
industrial parks or museums or other local projects.
  In the Commerce-Justice bill in 1995, there were 45 projects costing 
the taxpayer $104 million. Last year, Mr. Speaker, there were 996, 
costing the taxpayer over $1 billion. There has been a 4,200 percent 
increase in earmarks for the Justice Department over that same period 
of time.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge that we vote ``no'' on this bill. 
This bill is a gratuitous insult to every worker who is entitled to 
overtime pay. It is an outrageous neglect of the workers who ought to 
see their elected representatives pushing for expanded unemployment 
compensation for the long-term unemployed. This bill falls seriously 
short of the funding that this Congress itself promised in the 
Republican budget resolution just 5 months ago for education. It falls 
far short of where we need to be in the area of health care. It falls 
half a billion dollars short of where we ought to be in providing aid 
to our local and State levels of government for law enforcement 
assistance. And I think the way in which the earmarking process has 
gradually moved from something which was a tolerable and understandable 
effort on the part of the Congress to shift a small number of financing 
decisions to Congress into a decision-making process in which the total 
dominant consideration is simply congressional pork rather than 
substance in programs. I think when we do that, we fundamentally erode 
the confidence that each individual Member has in this institution, and 
I think we erode the confidence that every taxpayer has in this 
institution. I regret that.
  This bill is a spectacular example of legislation and political 
pressure run amuck, and I would urge a ``no'' vote on the legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), chairman 
of the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia.
  (Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me 
this time.

[[Page H12827]]

  Mr. Speaker, the consolidated appropriations conference report before 
us this afternoon also contains the fiscal year 2004 District of 
Columbia appropriations bill. This portion of the conference report 
totals $8 billion, including $545 million for Federal payments to 
various District programs and projects, $1.8 billion in Federal grants 
to District agencies, and $5.7 billion in local funds for operating 
expenses and capital outlays of the District government.
  There is much to be proud of in this bill. I believe it reflects 
Congress' commitment to helping our Nation's capital. This is where we 
all work and where many of us live. Of the $545 million in Federal 
payments to various programs and projects, 68 percent of these funds, 
or $368 million, is for funding of the D.C. courts, public defender 
services, and the court services and offender supervision agency. These 
are District functions which we took over as a Federal responsibility 
in 1997.
  The remaining 32 percent, or $177 million, are for programs and 
projects that directly benefit the District. These include the very 
popular tuition assistance program for District college-bound students, 
$17 million; $11 million to reimburse the District for added emergency 
planning and security costs related to the presence of the Federal 
Government in the District; $40 million for a three-prong school choice 
program, promises we delivered upon; $42 million for capital 
development projects in the District; $5 million for the Anacostia 
waterfront; $4.5 million for public school facility improvements; and 
$14 million to improve foster care in the District. These are all 
initiatives we can be proud of as we vote in favor of this bill this 
afternoon. I ask that Members support the overall omnibus.
  In particular, I want to highlight the funding level for school 
choice.
  When the District of Columbia appropriations bill was on the House 
floor back in September, there was much criticism that the bill was 
walking away from the District's request of additional funding for 
public schools and public charter schools.
  While that was true at the time due to the fiscal constraints of the 
bill, I stated then and at every opportunity after that it was not my 
intention that that be the case when we come out of conference with the 
Senate. I fully supported the Mayor's approach and worked with Chairman 
Young towards a conference allocation that was sufficient to address 
all three sectors of education in the city. The conference agreement 
reflects this commitment and provides $13 million for each of the three 
sectors of education the District leaders requested--scholarships, 
public schools, and charter schools. We need to provide parents greater 
choices for parents and their children.
  In summary, the fiscal year 2004 District of Columbia Appropriations 
division is fiscally responsible and balanced and deserves bipartisan 
support.
  I thank Chairman Young for his leadership through a difficult 
conference.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), chairman of the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my colleague and the chairman 
of the Committee on Appropriations for yielding me the time and 
congratulate him and all of his committee members on a job well done. 
We can look at a lot of the things that we do around here as though it 
were a half a glass of water. We just heard a description of the bill 
from our colleague and friend from Wisconsin describing the glass half 
empty. I would suggest to all of you that we should really look at this 
bill today before us as a glass that is half full. The committee, under 
very difficult circumstances, had a lot of decisions to make; and I 
think they have made them very well.
  In the area of education, an area that I am very interested in as the 
chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, when we 
passed the No Child Left Behind Act in a broad bipartisan way, our 
commitment was to adequately fund the reforms in education. There was 
never any discussion about fully funding to the authorized levels. The 
commitment was to adequately fund our efforts to renew American 
education.

                              {time}  1430

  In this bill we continue that effort. In the area of Title I, we 
increase Title I spending by $700 million to $12.4 billion annually. 
This is more in the last 2 years than we saw in 8 years under former 
President Clinton in terms of increases to Title I. We should be very 
proud of that commitment.
  Another major area of our concern in education comes to children with 
special needs, the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, where 
we attempt to fund a portion of the cost for those students that have 
special needs in our local schools. Congress has been involved in this 
since 1975, and from 1975 to 1995, as this chart will show, we move 
spending from zero to about just a little over $3 billion. And since 
1995, we are not only just shy of $10 billion, but in this conference 
agreement the number is now $10.1 billion; $10.1 billion, over a 300 
percent increase since 1995. That is something that I think this 
Congress ought to be very proud of.
  Let me make one other point about the bill we have before us. And the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) who just spoke, who 
chairs the District of Columbia Subcommittee of the Committee on 
Appropriations, and that is the effort to help children in the District 
of Columbia who are stuck in very bad schools, and the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom 
Davis) and I worked diligently over the course of this year to help the 
Mayor and the School Board who requested our help in helping children 
that were stuck in failing schools. Of all the big urban systems around 
the country that have problems, and there are a lot of them, there is 
none that have bigger problems than the schools right here in the 
District of Columbia. The children here deserve as good a shot at an 
education as the children in our own districts. And for those children 
who are trapped in very bad schools, we believe they ought to have some 
choice. They ought to have a chance to go to a real school and get a 
real education. And the $13 million that is in this bill will help 
about 1,700 students here in the District of Columbia be able to choose 
a school of their choice, and I do believe this is good for those 
children, and it will be good for the DC schools because when we bring 
competition into where children can actually go to school, we have seen 
the public schools do improve. And I want to thank the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom 
Davis), and certainly, again, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Young) and his cardinals and the members of his committee 
for a job well done.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, once again we have heard the gentleman in the well, on 
behalf of the Republican Party, try to make the case that somehow the 
Republican Party was responsible for the education budget increases of 
the last 2 years. For the Republicans to take credit for increases in 
education spending over the last 8 years, Mr. Speaker, is like Saddam 
Hussein taking credit for providing the Third Infantry Division safe 
passage to Baghdad.
  The fact is that the majority party leadership fought every step of 
the way to prevent us from being able to eventually add the $19 billion 
in education funding that we provided, because of Democratic pressure 
over the past 8 years, $19 billion above the amount that the 
Republicans tried to put in their own education bill when those bills 
were before the House.
  The Republican Party leadership fought us every step of the way. That 
increase in $19 billion happened over their dead bodies, politically 
speaking, and in spite of every trick that their leadership could 
concoct to stop it from happening. They refused to give the 
subcommittees an allocation that would allow meaningful increases. They 
broke every arm on their side of the aisle to force people to vote for 
lower funding levels when the bills went to the floor. When that 
technique failed, they refused to allow the bills to be considered on 
the floor. When that did not work, and when they finally had to go to 
conference, and often they had the conference legislation that had 
never even been considered in the House because of the inadequacy of 
their allocation, they then blocked the conferees from reaching 
agreement between the two Houses because the funding levels for 
education would be too high in their judgment. They relented only at 
the very last minute

[[Page H12828]]

when conceding on education funding that increases that we were asking 
for was the only way to end the session and get the Congress out of 
town.
  On one occasion they even agreed to allow a funding level for 
education to be reported out of the conference and then decided they 
could not tolerate such a high level of support and forced the bill 
back into conference to strip out increases in education funding. For 
the Republican Party members of this House to claim that somehow they 
were responsible for those education budget increases, makes Pinocchio 
look like Honest Abe by comparison. The credibility gap that we have on 
the Republican side of the aisle has grown faster than Pinocchio's 
nose. So I just want to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it is crocodile 
tears to hear the Republicans profess that they really are friends of 
education.
  I also would like to point out one other thing, a newspaper ad which 
appeared in the Washington Post today. It reads ``The most outrageous 
Christmas list in America.'' It says ``It's called the omnibus. No, 
it's not Santa's sleigh, but it is laden with presents. It's coming to 
Washington D.C. this week. And you better believe the Bush 
Administration's best friends have front row seats.
  ``Having failed to pass seven of the Federal Government's 13 budget 
bills, the White House and Republican congressional leaders have rolled 
them all into one massive package dubbed `the omnibus.'
  ``So who does President Bush think is naughty and nice? Apparently no 
one is more deserving than Rupert Murdoch and his fellow network 
moguls. Despite the wishes of Congress and the vast majority of 
Americans, the President insists the omnibus include a relaxation of 
media antitrust rules. Now, the biggest networks will be able to 
acquire more of the hugely profitable local stations they desire.
  ``American workers, on the other hand, must have been very naughty. 
The omnibus bill eliminates extended unemployment benefits for millions 
of jobless. And 8 million workers who currently have Federal overtime 
protection lose their right to extra pay for those extra hours.''
  That is the problem with this bill, Mr. Speaker, and I urge a ``no'' 
vote.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have only myself left for a 
brief statement and the majority leader will close for our side.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman has two remaining speakers, I 
would ask him to use one of them now, and then I will close.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I extend best holiday greetings and a Merry Christmas to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and to say what a pleasure it is to 
work with him. He is an honorable opponent. We have many disagreements, 
but we work together for what we think is the best interest of country 
and the institution of the House and the Committee on Appropriations. 
His staff and our staff worked together extremely well. Jim Dyer, as 
our clerk and chief of staff, and Scott Lilly on the gentleman from 
Wisconsin's (Mr. Obey) side worked together very well, and we have a 
lot of staff and they do work together very well. We try to deal with 
our differences in a very respectful manner, and I think that the 
actions over the years have proved that. So I wish all of our 
colleagues a very Merry Christmas.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, and I hope that the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) would conclude, yield back his 
time, and then we will close.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has one remaining speaker?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the majority leader, and I will 
close.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I am waiting until the gentleman has one 
speaker. He does not have the right to two closing speeches. I have got 
the right to have the second to the last speech.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I understand the gentleman indicates he has 
two remaining speakers; so I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, to accommodate the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the distinguished majority leader.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  The conference report before us, one of the last bills that the House 
will pass before we recess for the year, in my opinion, is a fitting 
end to the legislative session. This omnibus represents the values of 
discipline, innovation, and conviction we all treasure, values also 
embodied in the man that we have most to thank for it, and that is the 
gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  When we pass this bill this afternoon, we will have funded vital 
priorities, made difficult and important choices, and reaffirmed our 
commitment to fiscal discipline. For a year that began with a 
struggling economy and pressing needs at home and abroad, that we have 
held the growth of discretionary spending to 3 percent is a titanic 
achievement in fiscal restraint.
  I know there has been a lot written, most of it false, about the 
spending habits of this body. But we have to look at what is going on 
here. Yes, spending has been out of control for a while, but we started 
ratcheting it down and we have ratcheted down, ratcheted down to where 
spending for 2004 will have an increase of only 3 percent. That is the 
lowest increase in spending in the 9 years we have been in the 
majority. I think that is significant and important, and we have the 
Committee on Appropriations, the chairman, to thank for that.
  And as far as the projects and earmarks are concerned, they cannot on 
the one hand decry the fact that they are not getting projects and 
earmarks and on the other hand argue that this bill is full of projects 
and earmarks and urge people to oppose the bill because it has 
earmarks. There is a fundamental difference in how we approach earmarks 
that has been going on for the last few years. We learned early on in 
the majority, when we had a Democratic President, that the Congress, 
being the third branch of government, had the right to direct spending 
to our districts, rather than wait on some bureaucrat to decide whether 
it was a useful project or not. The same is going on now. This Congress 
can state, through earmarks, the importance of spending in certain 
parts of the country and in our districts.
  I will give the Members a perfect example in this bill. There is 
money that goes to M.D. Anderson Hospital in Houston, Texas. Some may 
call that pork, but I will tell the Members what, the thousands of 
people that are relying on M.D. Anderson to cure them of their cancer 
do not think of that earmark as pork. They think it is real, it is 
important, it is important for their health, and it is important for 
their family and the length of time that they may be on this earth. It 
is not pork. It is an earmark. And they do not have to wait around for 
some bureaucrat to wait around and decide whether it is important or 
not. It is in the bill. The Congress is stating that that money should 
go to M.D. Anderson as a vital expenditure of taxpayers' money. There 
are all kinds of stories like that all over this country. And many 
Members have stood up for the good spending that they think is 
important in their districts. So I am not ashamed of the fact that 
there are earmarks in this bill.
  Secondly, the real opposition is coming because there is not enough 
spending, and I say to my colleagues if they want to show real fiscal 
restraint, we are doing it here in this bill, and we are doing it 
within the budget that we passed this year. This bill is within the 
budget we passed. Actually, the Medicare bill, the $400 billion 
prescription drug benefit, is within the budget that we passed. And it 
was an agreement between the House and the Senate and the White House 
to hold the line on spending, and we have done it. Yet opposition is 
decrying the fact that we are not spending enough. And if they were in 
charge, they would be spending much more than what we are spending in 
this omnibus bill. So I am not ashamed of the spending. I think the 
priorities were set and set well, and I give credit to the 
appropriators and the hard work that they have done.

                              {time}  1445

  But this bill is a success for this House and the American people, 
not

[[Page H12829]]

only for the money it does not spend, but the money it does spend. 
Included in all the pages of numbers and dollar signs, there are real 
programs that will benefit real people.
  First and foremost, the omnibus includes funding for a school choice 
initiative in Washington, D.C. Thanks to this program, 1,700 low-income 
children will be given a chance finally to attend schools that their 
parents choose, just like children in higher tax brackets always have. 
District children who have today been held captive by failed schools 
and bureaucrats will be given a chance to obtain the freedom, hope, and 
opportunity that a good education provides all of us.
  This bill also helps America's veterans to the tune of $2.9 billion 
in a funding increase in veterans medical benefits over last year. I 
thank the appropriators for working with the veterans community to meet 
this very fundamental obligation.
  I also want to thank negotiators for acknowledging and maintaining 
America's national commitment to defend the dignity of human life with 
the inclusion of the amendment of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Weldon) banning the patenting of human organisms.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is full of similar provisions, sound, 
disciplined policies, funded at responsible, reasonable levels. It is a 
spending bill worthy of the national challenges it meets, and I urge 
all Members to support its passage today.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3\1/3\ minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I simply want to say that I agree very much with the 
remarks of the distinguished majority leader that this legislation is a 
fitting close to this session, because this congressional session has 
been marked from start to finish with an iron-hard determination to do 
what was necessary to deliver the most to those who have the most in 
this society.
  We started with tax cuts which aimed a huge percentage of the 
benefits to those who are most well-off in our society, giving huge 
benefits to the most well-off 1 percent who earn more than $330,000 a 
year. Yet this same Congress denied tax cuts to persons whose income is 
so limited that they had to apply for the Earned Income Tax Credit. 
They were not allowed to come to the table to get their share of the 
tax cut.
  This is the same Congress which, even as it walks out the door, 
having provided in the energy bill fiscal health to companies like 
Hooters, this is the same Congress that now says, ``Oh, but, by the 
way, no, we will not provide a last-minute bit of help to workers who 
have been out of work for an extended period of time.'' They refuse to 
allow States to provide additional unemployment compensation for the 
long-term unemployed.
  This truly is a fitting close to the Congressional Record, which we 
have sadly seen since the beginning of January.
  With respect to the gentleman's comments about this Congress being a 
paragon of fiscal responsibility and virtue, I simply want to announce 
that I am perfectly willing right here and now to give the majority 
leader the Pulitzer Prize for fiction, because this is the same 
Congress and this is the same White House that has shown so much fiscal 
responsibility that in 3 short years they have taken us from a $230 
billion surplus to a record $375 billion-plus deficit. That is some 
fiscal responsibility. I think Mr. Webster would weep if we asked him 
to put that definition in the dictionary.
  I want to say one more time, Mr. Speaker, with all of the gifts that 
are given in the energy bill to the special interests, with all of the 
gifts that are given in this bill to many special interests throughout 
the land, with all of the gifts that were given to special interests in 
the tax bill, it seems to me that we could at least provide some 
additional benefits to the long-term unemployed. But, no, no, no, that 
does not fit in the Christmas plans for the Scrooges who are running 
the other party on the other side of the aisle.
  The motto for this Congress when it comes to working people ought to 
be ``Bah, humbug,'' because that is what the record looks like.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask for a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following article from the 
December 8 edition of the National Journal's Congress Daily AM 
bulletin, which comments on the choice of the Appropriation process by 
the majority party.

               [From the Congress Daily AM, Dec. 8, 2003]

                        The Triumph of Pettiness

                            (By David Hess)

       The partisan bitterness that has suffused Congress over the 
     past decade has reached a new level. Democrats have long 
     grumbled about power-mad Republicans who will stoop to 
     anything to exert their will. Republicans grouse about fault-
     finding, obstructionist Democrats and speak of getting even 
     for long-ago Democratic abuses. But up to this point, in the 
     rough and tumble of parliamentary skirmishing, both sides 
     have largely refrained from sweeping, systematic legislative 
     blackmail.
       Now the wraps are off even that. Furious about opposition 
     to key spending bills, Republican leaders have dropped the 
     hammer on hometown projects--known as ``earmarks''--sponsored 
     mostly by Democrats but also by some Republicans who have 
     balked at runaway spending in some of the bills.
       The first round of earmark trashing came in a big bill 
     funding the Labor Department and HHS; that legislation 
     contains about $180 million for local projects. The second 
     came when the GOP leadership wreaked vengeance on 100 members 
     of both parties who voted last summer against the VA-HUD 
     spending bill; approximately $750 million in earmarks are in 
     that legislation. After some finagling, House Labor-HHS 
     Appropriations Subcommittee ranking member David Obey, D-
     Wis., managed to restore about $20 million worth of 
     Democrats' projects and program enhancements in the Labor-HHS 
     spending bill. But major damage to the House's sense of 
     comity had been done.
       ``If they don't support the bills [in committee and on the 
     floor], then they shouldn't expect to get their projects,'' 
     said Rep. Ralph Regula, R-Ohio, a senior member of the House 
     who chairs the Labor-HHS Appropriations Subcommittee.
       Coming from regula--who for 40 years has served with 
     distinction from the Ohio General Assembly to the U.S. House 
     and enjoys a reputation as a fair and decent legislator--that 
     was a stunning remark. For it bespeaks a vindictive attitude, 
     prevalent now in the House in both parties, that poisons the 
     diminishing fount of civility in an institution at its best 
     when each party respects the other's right to act in 
     principled opposition--without fear of petty retribution--on 
     the issues of the times.
       Beyond that, this brand of political blackmail is 
     misguided. It is the scattershot tactic of ruthless partisans 
     lashing out in fury to inflict damage on critics who have 
     every right--if not the duty to their constituents' 
     interests--to express their criticism of policy choices. And 
     who exactly is being punished? Certainly not the members who 
     dared oppose the legislation on policy grounds. The real 
     victims are the folks back home, Republicans as well as 
     Democrats and independents, taxpayers all, who stand to 
     benefit from the earmarked projects.
       In Racine, Wis., for example, citizens will go without a 
     $400,000 water-treatment process to screen out a dangerous 
     pathogen, cryptosporidium, which causes serious and even 
     lethal intestinal disease. Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., the 
     project's sponsor, had voted against the FY04 VA-HUD bill 
     because it cut spending for veterans below the amount 
     provided in the Republicans' budget resolution.
       Then there's the case of Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y., a 
     member of the Appropriations Committee, who in last year's 
     Labor-HHS spending bill managed to secure funding for four 
     projects--two for hospitals, two for universities--worth a 
     total of $1.3 billion. This year he voted against both the 
     Labor-HHS and VA-HUD bills, on policy grounds, when they 
     reached the House floor. He paid a stiff price for his 
     opposition votes. Only one project, $150,000 in the Labor-HHS 
     bill to expand an emergency room in Newburgh's St. Luke's 
     Hospital, made the cut. Hinchey is not even certain it would 
     have survived, had New York's senators not supported the 
     project.
       The lame excuse is often made that the exigencies of party 
     discipline require stern measures to whip the members into 
     line. But what about the power of good policy ideas and moral 
     suasion to convince, rather than bludgeon, balky members who 
     harbor reasonable doubts about the impact of pending 
     legislation on their districts? Or the effect on principled 
     advocates, liberal and conservative alike, who oppose on 
     deeply felt philosophical grounds the options dictated by 
     party leaders? Are the leaders so hell-bent on winning they 
     must resort to strong-arm tactics, rather than persuasion and 
     the often-small compromises that win over reluctant members?
       In reflecting on the head-bashing partisanship so manifest 
     in Congress, this writer wonders what his later mother--a 
     stalwart, lifelong Republican--would have thought about such 
     behavior by the leaders of her party. The GOP embodied the 
     values she held dear: individualism, self-dependence, fiscal 
     integrity, personal enterprise, fair play and charity for the 
     worthy. She would have given short shrift to the small-
     minded, mean-spirited, punitive and divisive tactics this 
     sort of blackmail entails.

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.

[[Page H12830]]

  Mr. Speaker, again I appreciate the opportunity to work with the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), as we bring closure to these final 
seven appropriations bills which the House had already passed once, as 
I have said before.
  There are several important issues: one, as the majority leader said, 
is we are within the budget. There are a lot of good increases that we 
have called attention to, in health care, in education, in veterans 
care, in embassy security, in counterterrorism activities and all. But 
we offset those increases with rescissions, so that we were able to 
stay within the budget.
  This is a must-pass bill. Appropriations bills have to pass. They are 
about the only bills here that have to pass. That is why sometimes they 
attract some riders that actually cause us more problems in 
negotiations than the appropriations bills themselves. But it is a 
give-and-take. Republicans and Democrats in the House, Republicans and 
Democrats in the Senate, leadership of both parties, the 
administration, the President, we brought all of those divergent groups 
together and we came up with a package, and that is what is before us 
today.
  For those who are concerned that we did not spend enough money, we 
did; but we offset. We could have spent more, because we had requests 
from Members for over $50 billion worth of Member-adds. For those 
fiscal conservatives in our body, we found a way to say no to almost 
all of those requests, the $50 billion. But we bring about as good a 
fiscally conservative bill that meets the needs of the country as we 
possibly could.
  So, again, Mr. Speaker, as we get ready to pass this bill and hope 
and pray that the other body will see fit to do similar so that our 
agencies can get about their business, I want to thank you for the 
exemplary way in which you conducted this session today, I want to wish 
you a Merry Christmas, and I want to wish all the Members a Merry 
Christmas. We look forward to seeing you next year, when we start this 
appropriations process all over again.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask for a ``yes'' vote.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference 
report on H.R. 2673. This omnibus appropriations bill, which was thrown 
together at the last minute, underfunds important programs and proposes 
dangerous new policies. As Ranking Member of the House Judiciary 
Committee, I would like to detail my many concerns with this 
legislation.


                         law enforcement grants

  The conference report would significantly underfund Federal grants 
for enhanced law enforcement efforts, for both state and local law 
enforcement assistance and the Community Oriented Policing Services 
program (``COPS''). For instance, with respect to actual state and 
local law enforcement assistance grants (Local Law Enforcement Block 
Grants, State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, Byrne Grants, Justice 
Assistance Grants, drug courts, etc.), the Justice Department received 
$2 billion. This conference report would provide only $1.3 billion, a 
drastic cut of $700 million (35 percent). This means that important 
programs like police block grants, the Boys and Girls Clubs, Project 
ChildSafe, and others will be slashed.
  Developed by the Clinton Administration in 1994, COPS has community 
policing as its cornerstone; police officers concentrate on specific 
neighborhoods and gain the trust of community residents to prevent and 
solve crimes. Targeting youth violence has been a major priority for 
COPS; instead of locking up juveniles after they have committed 
offenses, the presence of cops on the beat and in schools helps to keep 
them out of trouble in the first place. In addition to putting cops on 
the street and in schools, the COPS program has reduced domestic 
violence, gang violence, and drug-related crimes by helping to create 
and organize community groups, victims' groups, treatment centers, and 
community police in various regions around the country. It is also 
important to note that local law enforcement is a critical component in 
the war on terrorism; local police in the everyday course of patrol may 
be the first to learn about potential terrorist acts or terrorists.
  Its success has led to COPS being praised by law enforcement and 
politicians on both sides of the aisle. Fraternal Order of Police, the 
largest law enforcement organization in the United States, has stated 
that ``[COPS] is a program that works and one that has had a positive 
impact on our nation today.'' Also, during his confirmation hearings, 
Attorney General John Ashcroft promised to continue supporting COPS 
and, as a Senator, cosponsored legislation to reauthorize it. Finally, 
Representative Jim Kolbe, a member of the Appropriations Subcommittee 
on Commerce-Justice-State-Judiciary, has noted that COPS ``has always 
played a vital role in community safety and [he was] glad to see 
Federal money funding such a position.'' This is why it should not be 
surprising that, initially intended to fund 100,000 officers, the 
program funded 116,573 officers in September 2002 alone.
  The Republican leadership, however, refuses to acknowledge the 
successes of COPS. Overall, this bill provides $756 million for COPS, a 
drastic cut from the FY03 level of $978 million. More specifically, the 
conference report provides only $120 million for the hiring of 
officers, which is the program's most important component; in FY03, 
this portion received $199 million (the Senate bill would have given 
$200 million for hiring). In the September 2003 issue of Washington 
Monthly, the Chief of the Richmond Police Department, Andre Parker, 
said he was ``dismayed at the current Administration's attitude toward 
local law enforcement. . . . [It] has not seemed to grasp what we 
face.'' It is clear that the Republicans are giving law enforcement and 
community policing the short shrift.
  If we take away funds now, our local communities who have used COPS 
money to hire police officers will be devastated; many already are 
hard-pressed financially because of the slowdown in the economy. So 
there is no question in my mind that reducing funds will lead to police 
layoffs and an increase in the cycle on crime and violence.


                          Biomedical Research

  The conference report also would stifle research on life-saving drugs 
and treatments. This is because of the report includes an amendment by 
Representative Dave Weldon that prohibits the PTO from issuing patents 
``encompassing or directed to'' human organisms (section 634 of 
Division B). While this provision has been marketed as targeted toward 
human cloning, it would have a much broader effect.
  Arguably, any medical treatment is ``directed to or encompasses'' 
human organisms. This is broad and vague prohibition could prevent 
patents on, and thus discourage research into, drugs and treatments for 
Alzheimer's, in vitro fertilization, and virtually any other area of 
medicine that pertains to the human body. This poorly-drafted provision 
is an example of why Congress should not legislate on medical practices 
and should not make important policy decisions without the input of 
experts in the field.


                               Gun Safety

  The Republican leadership also caved to the gun industry by 
preventing the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and explosives 
(``ATF'') from enforcing gun safety laws. For instance, the conference 
report includes proposals from Representative Todd Tiahrt that:
  Impose a 24-hour limit on destruction of records of approved firearm 
purchases (section 618 of Division B). The current rule permits the 
retention of records for 90 days. The new proposal would undermine 
audits of the system to ensure it is working properly and undermine the 
ability to retrieve firearms that have been transferred to criminals 
and other prohibited owners. A June 2002 study by the General 
Accounting Office stated that 288 of the 235 (97 percent) firearm 
retrievals initiated during the first 6 months of the current 90-day 
rule could not have been done under a 24-hour rule; in other words, the 
new rule would permit 228 prohibited persons (i.e. felons, domestic 
violence misdemeanants, fugitives) to keep their illegal guns.

  Prohibit the ATF from releasing to the public information regarding 
sales and dispositions of firearms kept by gun dealers and 
manufacturers, as well as any records of multiple handgun sales (where 
2 or more handguns are sold to the same buyer within 5 days) or gun 
tracing information reported to ATF (title I of Division B). Community 
residents no longer would be aware of neighbors stockpiling mass 
quantities of firearms.
  Prohibit ATF from requiring dealers to provide a physical inventory 
(title I of Division B). This precludes the ATF from finalizing a rule 
it proposed in August 2000 to require annual inventories. The purpose 
of the proposed rule was to allow dealers to identify missing firearms 
and report them as such. Had the ATF's proposal been in effect, we 
could have avoided the situation that occurred in the Washington, DC, 
sniper case where Bull's Eye Shooter Supply (the dealer from whom the 
snipers allegedly stole an assault rifle) asserted they did not know 
the gun was stolen until the ATF traced it to the store.
  Prevent ATF from computerizing records of gun dealers who go out of 
business (title I of Division B). Computerized records are critical 
with respect to being able to trace guns used in crimes. As a result of 
this amendment, a gun used in one crime could not be connected to 
another crime; depriving law enforcement of valuable evidence.
  In essence, the conference report would reverse Clinton 
Administration policies that led to a substantial decrease in the 
number of gun

[[Page H12831]]

dealers from 245,000 in 1994 to 58,500 now. By making it easier to be a 
gun dealer, the conference report would make gun shops as prevalent as 
7-Eleven; there would be one on every corner in every neighborhood in 
America, open all day and night. Moreover, as Kristen Rand, Legislative 
Director of the Violence Policy Center, noted on July 23, 2003, 
``Representative Tiahrt's proposal would aid criminal gun traffickers 
and at the same time devastate ATF's already weak oversight 
authority.'' Make no mistake about it, the only winners under this 
proposal are criminals and the NRA.
  Beyond these matters relating to Judiciary Committee jurisdiction, I 
am troubled by the conference reports treatment of other programs and 
initiatives important to everyday Americans.
  In a reversal of prior votes of the House and Senate, the conference 
report would encourage media monopolies. In June 2003, the Federal 
Communications Commission raised the broadcast ownership cap from 35 
percent of the national market to 45 percent of the market. This 
decision was widely criticized by Congress and the public, so much so 
that the House passed by a vote of 400-21 an appropriations bill that 
prevented the FCC from increasing the 35 percent cap. Similarly, the 
Senate Appropriations agreed by a vote of 29-0 to overturn the FCC 
decision, using an appropriations bill to retain the cap at 35 percent. 
Despite these prior votes, the Republican's engaged in backroom dealing 
to craft a conference report that lifts the cap to 39 percent (section 
629 of Division B). This simply is bad policy that will encourage 
consolidation and discourage the diversity of voices in the media that 
drives our democracy.

  The legislation fails to block a Labor Department regulation that 
would deny overtime pay to approximately 8 million workers across the 
country. Both the House and Senate had agreed to prevent this anti-
worker provision from becoming effective, but the Republican leadership 
has turned its back on working Americans.
  The House had agreed to permit drug reimportation so Americans with 
medical needs could reap the benefits of lower drug costs. By reneging 
on this promise, the Republican leadership is putting the needs of 
billion dollar corporations ahead of the needs of the sick.
  In a blow to public education and home rule, the Republican 
leadership is authorizing funds for a school voucher program for the 
District of Colombia. This program will drain needed funds from 
already-suffering public schools, depriving school-aged children of the 
education they need and deserve.
  Despite public rhetoric about how much it supports our troops, the 
Republican leadership thinks nothing of our men and women in uniform 
when they return from the front. The conference report provides 
veterans' medical programs with $700 million less than the Republican 
leadership promised in the budget resolution and $900 million less than 
the veterans groups had sought.
  Continuing the Majority's attack on the environment, the Republican 
leadership weakens the Clean Air Act and prevents 49 states (all except 
California) from adopting stricter emissions control laws for small 
engines.
  Despite public statements by the President and congressional leaders 
to support AIDS prevention and treatment, the conference report 
actually provides less money for AIDS programs than the President's 
request and other bills. The report requires the National Institutes of 
Health (``NIH'') to return to the treasury a large portion of non-
research funds. As a result, the NIH receives $118 million less than 
the President's request, $145 million less than the House level, and 
$182 million less than the Senate level. This translates into an actual 
cut from current funding levels for AIDS programs.
  The Bush Administration touted its ``No Child Left Behind'' package 
and signed it with great fanfare; not surprisingly, it sought virtually 
no funds for the program in its next budget. Now, the conference report 
gives $24.5 billion, which is $7.8 billion lower than the amount 
authorized in the actual bill. This gives schools just enough money to 
cover inflation and fails to give funding to cover costs incurred in 
complying with Federal mandates.
  The Republican leadership claims to be concerned about domestic 
security, but now it underfunds the very Department created to provide 
that security. For example, the 0.59 percent across-the-board budget 
cut applies to the Department of Homeland Security, such that the 
planned increase for border protection will have to be cut by two-
thirds.
  For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this 
conference report.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference 
report on H.R. 2673. Had this been the product of the appropriations 
committees of the two chambers, I would gladly lend my support to the 
passage of this funding bill. But the meddling of the Republican 
Leadership and administration that wants what it wants when it wants it 
made for legislative product that is not worthy of support.
  When I came to Congress in 1996, I made a commitment to my Michigan 
constituents to put people first. This bill fails to meet that test. 
This bill fails that test, and I would like to explain my reasons for 
opposing its passage.
  H.R. 2673 excludes a provision to that would prohibit the Department 
of Labor from issuing a regulation denying overtime pay to more than 8 
million workers. The provision to protect the pay of middle-income 
working Americans was agreed to by a majority of both bodies, and the 
Republican Leadership removed this provision.
  The bill shortchanges education. It provides $39 million less for 
education than what the House originally passed, after subtracting $318 
million in earmarked projects added in conference. The bill does not 
meet the promises of the ``No Child Left Behind Act''--providing $7.8 
billion less than was promised. It shortchanges help with the basics of 
math and reading by $6.2 billion when compared to the level promised in 
No Child Left Behind, leaving more than 2 million children behind. It 
also shortchanges funding for after-school centers by $751 million.
  The measure includes $14 million for a new private school voucher 
program for the District of Columbia. Private school vouchers drain 
much-needed funding away from public education where all children can 
benefit.
  This funding bill funds state and local law enforcement at $500 
million below the level funded last year, even though state and local 
law enforcement are on the frontlines in keeping our communities safe.
  The conference agreement abandoned the bipartisan agreement between 
both chambers of Congress to block the Federal Communications 
Commission regulations permitting broadcast networks to expand. The FCC 
issued rules raising the ceiling on media ownership from 35 to 45 
percent. Even though House and Senate conferees originally agreed to 
keeping the current (35 percent) limit, the White House forced a 
compromise at 39 percent, which would accommodate to giant media 
interests.
  The bill funds the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) at just 
$39 million, a sharp decrease from the fiscal year 2003 level of $106 
million. The MEP offers small manufacturers a range of services from 
plant modernization to employee training. These modernization efforts 
help our beleaguered small and mid-sized American manufacturers stay 
competitive.
  This bill forgets about the unemployed in America. Long-term 
unemployment in November surpassed a 20-year high. Two million 
Americans remain out of work and have been out of work for over six 
months. But the majority in this Chamber is ignoring the calls of the 
jobless for extending unemployment insurance benefits. Congress will be 
leaving town this week and after December 21, a half a million workers 
who are jobless through no fault of their own will lose unemployment 
benefits.
  For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the 
passage of this bill.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, I must express my extreme 
disappointment and dismay at the amount of funding in the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act for FY2004 for the health care of our nation's 
veterans.
  For almost an entire year, the Members of the House Veterans Affairs 
Committee (both Democratic and Republican) have been fighting for a 
budget that is worthy of our veterans. The $26.3 billion that is 
included for the FY2004 VA Medical Care Budget in this appropriations 
bill is approaching a billion less than the figure recommended by the 
House VA Committee and by the Independent Budget, the budget that is 
drafted by veterans. One billion dollars would fund approximately 5000 
doctors or 10,000 nurses or 3 million additional outpatient visits.
  As many of you know, VA Secretary Anthony Principi has been forced, 
because of lack of funds, to refuse enrollment to many veterans in the 
VA health care system. Waiting lists for health care appointments 
include tens of thousands of veterans who are waiting more than six 
months for their first health care appointment at the VA. This is not 
the message that we want to send to our troops who are fighting in 
Afghanistan and Iraq. Now, at this time more than ever, we must place 
veterans as a top priority. This appropriations bill does not do that.
  Veterans' health care is one of our most important funding issues. We 
hope and pray that we do not have veterans from the current conflict 
who become ill with Gulf War illnesses. But we must be prepared for 
that possibility. We must also not forget the warriors of the first 
Gulf War who are sick and still waiting to learn the cause and the cure 
for their illnesses. We must be ready to give treatment and care to all 
the men and women who have sacrificed for our country. We cannot 
guarantee that with the budget figures in this bill.
  It is time to stop this frustrating and ineffective funding for 
veterans' health care. It is time to change the process of funding VA 
medical

[[Page H12832]]

care. Congressman Lane Evans, Ranking Democratic Member of the House VA 
Committee, has introduced a bill (H.R. 2318), which I have co-
sponsored, to automatically increase VA health care funding each year 
to accommodate inflation and new enrollees. We must change from our 
current practice of discretionary funding for VA health care to 
mandatory (or assured) funding, the way we fund many other veterans' 
benefits. That change would do away with the fight we have to make each 
year in Congress for our veterans--a fight that, unfortunately, we 
often end up losing.
  We have the resources. It is a question of priorities. It is a 
question of will. Join me in vowing that this will be the last year we 
end up with less money than is needed for veterans' health care. Join 
me in pushing for passage of assured funding for our nation's veterans.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge my colleagues to vote against 
the Conference Report on the Fiscal Year 2004 Consolidated 
Appropriations bill.
  This Conference Report does a disservice to our constituents and to 
our country's democratic principles because it fails to respect the 
votes of Members of Congress and abuses the appropriations process.
  For example:
  It weakens the prohibition against the new FCC media ownership rules, 
despite the fact that stronger restrictions were agreed to by both 
Houses of Congress.
  It allows the Labor Department's new overtime regulations to go 
forward, flouting the will of the House and Senate and jeopardizing 
overtime pay for over 8 million workers.
  It underfunds the No Child Left Behind Act by $8 billion.
  Net funding for the NIH is $145 million less than passed by the House 
and $182 million less than the Senate supported.
  This bill fails in other important ways:
  It cuts funds for state and local law enforcement by $500 million.
  It implements a controversial school voucher program in the District 
of Columbia.
  It provides $230 million less for veterans' benefits than Republicans 
have promised.
  It rescinds $1.8 billion in appropriations--largely from the 
Department of Homeland Security.
  Because of these and many other serious flaws, I cannot in good 
conscience support this bill and I urge my colleagues to oppose the 
Conference Report. We could be doing so much more for our country.
  Mr. CASE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to what I believe to have 
been the unwarranted omission of language from the Omnibus 
Appropriations Conference Report, originally included in the Senate 
version of the Agriculture Appropriations bill, that would have 
designated funds to assist electric ratepayers on the Island of Kaua`i, 
Hawai`i.
  The Rural Community Advancement Program in Division A of the Omnibus 
Conference Report contained a directive to the Secretary of Agriculture 
to provide grant assistance to the not-for-profit, consumer-owned 
Kaua`i Island Utility Cooperative under the ``Rural Utilities Service, 
High Energy Costs Grants Account''.
  The Senate language was designed to provide a small amount of vitally 
needed assistance to families and small businesses on this economically 
challenged island. The poverty rate on Kaua`i runs at about twenty (20) 
percent. While unemployment has slightly declined to a somewhat low of 
5.3 percent, the jobs available are overwhelmingly very low-paying 
jobs. With a current electric rate of nearly 27 cents per kilowatt 
hour, many among the ``working poor'' face a daily decision whether to 
turn on a few lights, or put food on the table for their family.
  Twenty-seven cents per KWh is the highest cost for electricity 
anywhere in the United States except for two or three very small, 
remote villages in Alaska. A very large portion of families on Kaua`i 
must actually rely on the Food Bank to adequately feed their families.
  The Senate provision would simply have designated, from within funds 
otherwise appropriated for the High Energy Costs Grants Account, an 
amount to offset the expenses incurred recently when island residents 
took over the utility system as a means to help gradually lower the 
punishing electric costs being charged by an off-island investor-owned 
company.
  The Senate provision for the cooperative on Kaua`i was just one of 
several items dropped from the final conference agreement. I understand 
that the conference committee took a position against hard earmarked 
projects, relying instead on the Secretary to hopefully recognize the 
needs and make these allocations within the existing programs at the 
Department of Agriculture.
  Mr. Speaker, this language would have guaranteed an enormous impact 
on the Kaua`i community, and I am very concerned that it was not 
included in the measure before us today. I can only hope that the 
Secretary does in fact heed the intent of this language, and I will 
continue to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and both 
sides of the Capitol to assure my constituents this badly-needed 
relief.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, although I have objections to 
the overall bill and I oppose the overall conference report on H.R. 
2673, the Consolidated Appropriation Act 2004, I rise today to support 
the additional $1 billion dollars in funding that has been included in 
the Omnibus spending bill for the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). This 
funding is in addition to the $500 million request by the President and 
approved by the House in the Transportation, Treasury, and Independent 
Agencies Appropriations Act of 2004 section of this Omnibus spending 
bill.
  HAVA was signed by the President over a year ago in response to the 
frustrations experienced by both voters and candidates during the 2000 
election cycle. Reportedly, between four to six million Americans went 
to the polls in November 2000 and for a variety of reasons they were 
denied their right to vote and to have their vote counted. The causes 
for this denial of democracy range from faulty machinery to wrongful 
purges from voter lists to poorly designed ballots.
  Thanks to the leadership of the bill's co-sponsors, my House 
Administration colleague, Chairman Bob Ney, and former Ranking Member 
Steny Hoyer, with HAVA we now have the foundation for a much more 
efficient voting system, and the much needed increase in funding over 
the $500 million requested by the President necessary for its full 
implementation.
  The additional funding for HAVA will be used to educate voters about 
voting procedures as well as about their rights; make polling places 
more accessible to people with disabilities; create statewide voter 
registration databases that can be more effectively managed and 
updated; improve ballot review procedures, allowing voters to ensure 
that the ballots they cast are accurate; and create provisional 
balloting systems to guarantee that no eligible voter is ever turned 
away at the polls.
  Lastly, I would like to commend the chief sponsors of HAVA in the 
Senate, Senators Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Mitch McConnell (R-KY), for 
their bipartisan efforts to secure the additional funding in the other 
body. But the fight is far from over; the Senate needs to confirm the 
four nominees chosen to run the new Election Assistance Commission 
(EAC). In addition to being charged with overseeing the full 
implementation of HAVAs, the EAC will function as the clearinghouse for 
information on election management. This information will be necessary 
to ensure that the 2004 election cycle runs smoothly, and I would urge 
the other body to act on these critical nominations as quickly as 
possible.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant support of the omnibus 
appropriations bill. While there were several important reasons for me 
to vote in favor of this legislations, this bill also had several deep 
flaws.
  I would like to point to several positive items that I have worked 
for and was able to achieve through this appropriations bill. The bill 
contains a $50 million increase for the Department of Education's Math 
and Science Partnerships, which will help bring universities and the 
private sector together with local school teachers to provide long term 
teacher training. I hope this will put us on the path of reaching the 
authorized level of $400 million.
  I am also glad to see that the conferees retained a version of the 
Corzine amendment, which would restore cuts in student aid by blocking 
the implementation of recent Department of Education changes to 
financial aid eligibility formulas. The Department's changes would have 
drastically increased the expected family contributions by 
underestimating their level of state and local tax payments. In fact, 
the Department of Education recently determined that the changes in the 
state and local tax allowances will cause 84,000 students to lose their 
Pell Grants entirely, and will reduce Pell Grants overall by $270 
million. I was happy to work with Congressman Rick Keller and seventy-
five other Members of Congress on a letter to Labor-HHS conferees 
supporting the Corzine amendment freezing those changes.
  I am grateful that the conferees included language to begin a program 
intended to provide the public with science-based evidence on the 
safety of foods produced with biotechnology for human consumption.
  I have fought on behalf of New Jersey's birth defects registry 
program and led a bipartisan effort by our delegation to increase 
funding for birth defects registries. I am therefore pleased to see 
that this bill does increase the overall level of birth defects funding 
through the CDC. Funding for birth defects is now $113 million, a 
rather sizeable increase of $15 million from the previous fiscal year 
and $26 million over the Administration's budget request.
  The bill also provides $1.225 billion for Amtrak, which provides 
critical rail service for residents in my district and throughout the

[[Page H12833]]

Northeast. It also directs Amtrak to continue providing fare discounts 
to veterans and members of the military.
  The budget for the National Science Foundation (NSF) is increased 
$300 million over last year's level and $130 million over the budget 
request, bringing FY04 funding to $5.6 billion, the largest NSF budget 
ever. This will mean a great deal for improving funding for research 
and development.
  The bill also includes $12.1 billion for Section 8 voucher renewals 
for affordable housing, $810 million more than FY03 and $205 million 
more than the request. This will fully fund all authorized vouchers 
based on a 96% lease up rate and the most current cost estimates. I 
have heard from many constituents about their need for and support of 
this program.
  Once again however, the rhetoric from the House leadership is not 
being met with adequate resources for education. Congress has passed a 
sweeping reform of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, created 
several new programs and mandates, but we don't seem willing to provide 
the necessary funding. We cannot expect our schools to meet the so-
called ``adequate yearly progress'' standard if we cannot provide them 
the resources they need to do so.
  While funding for ``No Child Left Behind'' programs is nominally 
above last year's level, it is only sufficient to cover inflation and 
provides local schools with no additional resources to meet federal 
mandates. This bill provides $7.8 billion less than the amount promised 
for fiscal year 2004 by the highly touted ``No Child Left Behind'' 
authorization.
  Overall funding for the Department of Education is at $55.7 billion, 
only $279 million above the level contained in the House-passed bill. 
That increase, however, includes $318 million in special, member-
specific education projects. As a result, regular formula grant or 
merit-based programs are actually funded less than the level contained 
in the House bill.
  Further, the bill authorizes funds for a voucher program for D.C. 
schools. This is a poor policy decision that deprives citizens of the 
District of Columbia of making the decision for themselves and the 
school system from receiving much needed federal funding.
  The bill also fails to provide the resources necessary to increase 
students' access to higher education. The bill keeps the maximum Pell 
grant award at $4,050, the same as last year, even as the cost of 
college is going up all over the country.
  The omnibus bill will hurt those who have left school and are now in 
the workforce. A prohibition against the Labor Department's new 
overtime regulation was dropped entirely despite the fact that it has 
the support of solid majorities in both Houses. Allowing this new rule 
to go through will deny overtime pay to more than 8 million American 
workers. These are employees who rely on overtime to make ends meet, 
and it speaks volumes that the Republican leadership is willing to deny 
hard-working, middle class families that additional pay they earn.
  Further, I am concerned that because I opposed the House-passed bill 
on the principle that we cannot under-fund education and healthcare in 
this country, the leadership will now punish my constituents. Important 
projects will not be funded simply because of politics. For example, 
funding has been denied to naturally occurring retirement communities 
where the elderly can stay and receive services and E=Mc\2\, which 
provides important training to science teachers, will not be funded 
either.
  Mr. Speaker, I again want to say that I reluctantly support this bill 
in order to keep our government functioning and to fund important new 
initiatives. I hope that next year we will be able to work in a 
bipartisan manner so that we can best provide for the needs of all the 
Americans we proudly represent.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the Fiscal Year 2004 
Omnibus Appropriations bill. I will vote in favor of this bill because 
it includes federal funding for a great number of very worthwhile 
projects in my district of southern West Virginia, many of which I 
personally sought and others that were provided by the esteemed senior 
Senator from my state, West Virginia's great champion, Senator Robert 
C. Byrd.
  On my account, these projects include funding for technological 
infrastructure in a historically underserved area, transportation 
planning and congestion relief funding, funding to help educate the 
blind, federal assistance for wastewater treatment, and maritime safety 
training dollars for port security.
  In addition, it is with tremendous gratitude for his efforts that 
West Virginia thanks Senator Byrd for providing much-needed funding of 
projects such as a road building effort that will enable veterans to 
access their medical center. He also provided funding for our 
universities and colleges, funding for economic revitalization efforts, 
and federal dollars for a great number of other worthwhile endeavors.
  However, I cast my vote with great misgivings.
  As a result of White House meddling, this bill recklessly strips 
overtime protection provisions that a tremendous majority of Americans 
favor and that overwhelmingly passed both the House and the Senate. To 
do the President's bidding on behalf of his big corporate friends, the 
Republican leadership in the House and the Senate made sure in this 
bill that the Department of Labor can gut more than 60 years of worker 
protections.
  As a result of White House meddling, this bill unwisely fails to fund 
the No Child Left Behind initiative while actually even cutting many 
programs such as teacher quality grants, technology grants, safe and 
drug-free schools, and reading first grants.
  As a result of White House meddling, this bill unfairly freezes 
funding for child care and wrongly imposes more stringent work 
requirements for parents receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy 
Families.
  There are also a host of other shortcomings and deficiencies in this 
bill.
  But this is what happens when the Republican leadership of the House 
and Senate fail once again to complete their Constitutionally-required 
appropriations bills in a timely manner. A bunch of different bills get 
rolled into one rather than being considered individually on their 
respective merits. Then, the White House threatens, as it did here, to 
veto the entire bill, which would leave many federal agencies without 
funds and therefore leave many needy people without protection, unless 
the President once again gets exactly what he and his rich friends 
want.
  Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Speaker, I rise to discuss the importance of the 
State Assisted Fair Bid provision in the FY2004 Transportation 
Appropriations bill. The Conference Report contains a provision that 
will establish a pilot program to assist states that choose to contract 
with the private sector to provide intercity passenger rail service. I 
anticipate there will be at least two or three demonstration projects 
under this proposal in fiscal year 2004. The report provides the 
Secretary with up to $2.5 million to assist the states in implementing 
the competitive process. I have spoken with Appropriations Chairman 
Young, and he has assured me that the funding may be used for any 
purpose in the implementation of a Fair Bid Demonstration project, 
including providing insurance to states and operators in a manner that 
results in the lowest possible insurance costs. Furthermore, I 
understand that the Secretary is encouraged to use a portion of the 
$2.5 million in grant money provided to the states to subsidize 
alternative insurance arrangements as a part of the Demonstration 
Projects.
  I want to be clear in my understanding that the states have a great 
deal of latitude in proposing Demonstration Projects under this 
provision. The only statutory requirement is that the state must assist 
the intercity service with a subsidy of some nature. My friend, 
Chairman Young, has assured me that this is so. Obviously, all of the 
current state-assisted operations, which are commonly known as 403(b) 
service, and are now being operated under contract with Amtrak, are 
eligible. One example of this service that comes to mind is my state's 
Missouri Mule, which operates between St. Louis and Kansas City. The 
state of Missouri attempted a competitive bid for the Missouri Mule 
service last year when Amtrak increased the state subsidy requirement. 
The process failed, because Amtrak refused to make facilities and 
equipment, or even access to its national reservation system, available 
to any bidder on reasonable terms. In many ways, it is the Missouri 
Mule example that resulted in the Fair Bid language being contained in 
this bill. Certainly, the Missouri Mule will be a candidate under this 
new provision.
  However, there are many other candidates. The North Carolina Piedmont 
and Carolinian provide another example of such trains. The Amtrak 
Cascades Service between Vancouver, British Columbia and Eugene, Oregon 
is a 464-mile corridor that is subsidized by the Washington and Oregon 
DOTs. Services that are not current 403(b) services would also be 
eligible should the state choose to provide a subsidy. In another more 
general example, the State of Florida is interested in new conventional 
intercity passenger rail service along the East Coast, but Amtrak has 
declined to initiate the operation. In cooperation with the track

[[Page H12834]]

owner, the state has the option of putting that service out to 
competitive bid.
  Another example is New York's Empire service between Albany and New 
York City. That service is currently not subsidized, but Amtrak has 
requested a subsidy from the state as a condition of operating New 
York's remanufactured 125 mile per hour turbo trains. The Empire 
corridor could be put out to competitive bid under the terms of this 
provision.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference 
report on H.R. 2673. This bill would provide funds, for the fiscal year 
that began on October 1, for eleven of the fifteen Cabinet departments, 
several independent government agencies, and the District of Columbia 
government.
  I will oppose this bill because it is a combination of missed 
opportunities and misplaced priorities. This bill has many 
shortcomings, but let me focus on three key areas: agriculture, 
education and homeland security.
  Mr. Speaker, I grew up on a tobacco farm, and my district is one of 
the leading tobacco producing districts in the country. As a Member of 
the House Agriculture Committee, I know that our farmers are hurting. 
North Carolina's farm families are watching a way of life that has 
sustained us for generations vanish without any assistance from the 
federal government to transition into the future. I have been working 
throughout this Congress on a bipartisan basis to pass a buyout of the 
federal tobacco quota program to aid that transition. Having worked to 
achieve consensus legislation, my colleagues and I sought to attach 
buyout legislation to this omnibus appropriations bill, the last 
legislative vehicle of the First Session of the 108th Congress. But the 
Republican Leadership rejected this effort. As a last ditch effort, I 
wrote to Speaker Hastert and asked him to include Congressman Walter 
Jones's bill to freeze quota levels that determine how much tobacco 
farmers can produce. Again, we were denied.
  Our tobacco farmers deserve better, and I will vote No to protest the 
shabby treatment they have gotten from the Republican Congressional 
Leadership.
  As the former Superintendent of North Carolina's public schools, my 
life's work has been the improvement of educational opportunities for 
all of our children. In the U.S. House, I chair the Democratic Caucus's 
special Task Force on Education and Job Training. In the 107th 
Congress, I voted for the President's landmark No Child Left Behind 
(NCLB) education reform law because the Administration promised to 
provide the resources to make the tough new reforms work. 
Unfortunately, the Administration has broken that promise, and I have 
been forced to introduce legislation to require full funding for NCLB. 
This omnibus appropriations bill continues to break the promise of NCLB 
to our children, their parents, our teachers, taxpayers and schools. 
The bill shortchanges NCLB by $7.8 billion in fiscal year 2004 alone. 
This bill also contains misguided private school vouchers in the 
District of Columbia. Vouchers are bad public policy because they take 
taxpayer dollars to pay for private school tuition. That is just plain 
wrong, and I have consistently opposed vouchers throughout my service 
in public office.

  Our children deserve better, and I will vote against this bill 
because of the harm it does to our schools.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, as a center for the military, agriculture, 
technology and transportation sectors, North Carolina plays a prominent 
role in the ongoing effort to secure the homeland against the threat of 
additional terrorist attacks. As a Member of the House Select Committee 
on Homeland Security, I have worked throughout this Congress to bolster 
our nation's homeland security. Although this bill does not fund the 
Department of Homeland Security, two important provisions of the bill 
will negatively impact its operation. This legislation forces the 
rescission of $1.8 billion in prior year supplemental appropriations 
and a significant portion of those funds are in DHS. In addition, the 
across-the-board cut contained in this bill will have a dramatic impact 
on certain areas. For example, the needed increase of 570 Customs and 
Immigration agents for improving border protection will have to be cut 
by nearly two-thirds. Also, the bill cuts state and local law 
enforcement funds by $500 million below last year's level at a time 
when our state and local governments face massive budget shortfalls.
  Our communities deserve better, and I will vote against this bill 
because of its shortsighted treatment of our homeland security.
  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, there are many provisions of this bill I 
do support. I strongly support each of the projects for North 
Carolina's Second Congressional District that are funded in this bill. 
But the Republican Leadership chose to craft this bill through an 
indefensible and incoherent process. The result is a bill that can be 
summed up as a missed opportunities and misplaced priorities.
  The people of my district and this country deserve better. I will 
vote against final passage of this legislation, and I urge my 
colleagues to join me in doing so.
  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, because this bill is coming to the floor as 
a conference report, I am unable to offer a very important amendment. 
My amendment would require the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) 
to complete and issue its rulemaking in CC Docket 02-33 within 60 days 
of passage of this bill. This is proceeding pending at the FCC to 
determine whether broadband facilities provided by telephone companies 
should be regulated as telephone services under Title II of the 
Communications Act or as information services under Title I of the 
Communications Act.
  The FCC adopted the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on February 14, 
2002. Comments were filed on May 3, 2002 and reply comments on July 1, 
2002. The FCC, however, has been sitting on its hands for the last 16 
months.
  This is the same agency that, once it voted on its triennial review 
report and order spent another six months before actually releasing the 
text of the order. The FCC has not ruled on the petitions for 
reconsideration pending on the triennial review. My amendment will also 
require the FCC to rule on these petitions for reconsideration within 
60 days of passage of this bill. Unfortunately, the FCC's Nero seems to 
be fiddling again while the telecommunications industry's Rome is 
burning.
  The Industry is in state of regulatory stasis concerning broadband. 
Companies do not know what the broadband rules will be, so they cannot 
make sound decisions as to when, where, and even whether to deploy 
broadband. This is an industry that has lost more than 500,000 jobs 
during its current economic slide.
  This inaction is inexcusable. The delay is further harming an 
industry already seriously wounded. There is little doubt that 
ubiquitous deployment of broadband will boost the U.S. economy, and 
particularly the moribund telecommunications sector. A recently updated 
study by Robert Crandall, Charles Jackson, and Hal Singer states that 
``the cumulative increase in capital expenditures associated with the 
ubiquitous adoption of current generation (broadband) technologies will 
result in the cumulative increase in gross domestic product (GDP) of 
$179.7 billion (over nineteen years) and will sustain an additional 
61,000 jobs per year.'' Yet, the FCC continues to ignore the negative 
economic impact its indecision has on the industry.
  All my amendment does is require the FCC to complete something it 
should have done over a year ago. We've given the FCC enough time. The 
American people are waiting and the U.S. Congress has had enough of the 
FCC's paralysis.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the 
Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2004. In almost every areas of concern 
for families, this bill is grossly inadequate and detrimental to 
America's future.
  For our Nation's children and schools, the funding shortfalls in the 
Omnibus are legion. At a time when we are demanding more of our public 
schools, and as State and local education budgets continue to be cut, 
funding for No Child Left Behind is frozen. At a time when the average 
Pell Grant is worth about $50 less in real terms than it was in 1975, 
the size of the maximum grant is frozen.
  The Omnibus also freezes funding for the 21st Century Community 
Learning Centers program, the main source of Federal funding for after 
school programs. Over 1 million children will not have after school 
opportunities under this bill. This bill even falls $1 billion short of 
the level promised in the Republican budget resolution and 
authorization bill passed earlier this year for IDEA, which educates 
disabled children. Again, this funding shortfall is passed directly on 
to local school districts.
  For as many as 8 million workers, this bill also represents the end 
of overtime pay--but not the end of overtime hours. Although this body 
voted to strip the administration's plan to eliminate overtime coverage 
for millions of Americans, the Omnibus continues forward with a 
regulatory agenda determined to make Americans--from paralegals to 
paramedics--work longer hours for less pay.
  Finally, last July this Congress took a giant step forward in 
overwhelmingly voting to eliminate funding for section 213 of the 
PATRIOT Act, a provision what allows for so-called ``sneak and peak'' 
searches, or searches of property without the advanced notification of 
the person being searched. This action spoke to the anxiety of millions 
of Americans who believe the PATRIOT Act must be repealed or revised to 
restore fundamental civil liberties in this Nation. Again, the result 
of this bi-partisan vote is starkly absent from the Omnibus.
  Not only does the Omnibus cut education, it defies the will of the 
House on overtime pay and civil liberties. Our children and our 
families suffer and the integrity of the U.S. Constitution remains at 
risk. Vote against the Omnibus Conference Report.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I will be casting my vote against this bill 
today because of many serious flaws in this legislation, flaws that 
were included in the bill despite widespread, overwhelming opposition. 
Additionally,

[[Page H12835]]

the bill tragically underfunds several key programs, such as funding 
for education reform and veterans.
  Included in this legislation is language to delay the implementation 
of country-of-origin labeling until 2006. Country-of-origin labeling 
was required by the 2002 Farm Bill and is necessary to give U.S. 
consumers important information and give U.S. producers credit for the 
considerable investment they have made in the quality and safety of 
their products.
  Included in this legislation are provisions that could make 8 million 
women and men lose the overtime pay that they use to feed their 
families, pay for medicine, and educate their children. These 
provisions were not approved by a majority of the House and Senate.
  Included in this legislation today is language to allow television 
networks to own as much as 39 percent of a market. Shortly after the 
Federal Communications Commission made its decision to allow television 
networks to own stations reaching as much as 45 percent of the country 
earlier this year, both chambers of Congress went on record for 
supporting lowering the limit to 35 percent.
  In addition, while I support the intentions of last year's education 
reform promise to leave no child behind, I am also convinced that the 
success of this new law will be determined in part by the investment 
made in this historic reform effort. I am deeply disappointed that this 
funding plan falls more than $7.8 billion short of the resources 
promised.
  I am pleased to have supported the inclusion of a number of important 
North Dakota projects in this legislation. However, the House could and 
should consider clean legislation that does not contain those 
provisions not supported by a majority of representatives. I hope this 
bill is taken up again in January without these objectionable 
provisions.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my disappointment 
that the omnibus appropriations package before us, H.R. 2673, does not 
include provisions passed by both houses of Congress to protect 
workers' overtime pay nor does it extend the Temporary Extended 
Unemployment Compensation (TEUC) program.
  Mr. Speaker, there we are again, the holiday season is upon us and 
once more, it is time to buy presents for our loved ones. Whether we 
are celebrating Christmas, Chanukah, Kwanzaa or simply the holiday 
season, it is a time for sharing gifts, festive meals and caring for 
others. Unfortunately, the appropriations package before us will strip 
workers of their overtime rights and does not extend TEUC benefits, 
possibly resulting in Santa Claus not making stops at everyone's house 
next year.
  Millions of families continue to struggle through the rough fringes 
of our economy. Currently the official U.S. unemployment rate is at 5.9 
percent representing more than 8.5 million unemployed workers, and the 
rate for Hispanics has moved up to 7.4 percent. As much as these can be 
seen as mere figures, we must realize that they are more than just 
numbers. They represent human beings: someone who needs work and whose 
family may need food and clothing. These are not luxuries; they are the 
essentials.
  Too many Americans are going to wake up New Year's morning to find 
out that their unemployment insurance has run dry. In the past 2 years, 
we've seen some 3 million jobs disappear.
  Mr. Speaker, we had an opportunity to extend the reauthorization of 
the TEUC program and we failed to do it.
  I joined the efforts to extend those benefits so that working 
families still looking for jobs can enter the New Year with some place 
of mind. The leadership in this House, however, saw it differently and 
blocked our efforts to extend help to out-of-work Americans. They 
reportedly said the economy's doing so much better than unemployed 
workers don't need any extra help. Sadly, this failure not only hurts 
families but also the economy. Worse yet, it comes just a few weeks 
after these same leaders approved a $12 billion handout to insurance 
companies.
  That's not all. Even those who are fortunate to have jobs have come 
under attack by the leadership of this House. On March 31, 2003, the 
Bush administration proposed changes to the overtime pay rules that 
require additional pay for workers who put in more than 40 hours per 
week. These changes will impact up to 8 million employees who could 
find themselves working longer without any additional pay.
  Once again, Mr. Speaker, we had an opportunity to include provisions 
in this massive appropriations package to ensure that the rights of 
over 8 million workers to receive overtime for their hard work were 
protected, and we failed.
  The new rules will impact workers who make between $22,101 and 
$65,000 per year. These middle class workers, from journalists to 
medical technicians, often rely on the extra money they get for 
overtime and appreciate there being some limit on the time they are 
expected to work.
  Congress votes to stop this change in labor policy, though the vote 
was particularly close. Despite this action from Congress, the Bush 
administration has continued to push for the changes. The President 
even issued a veto threat against this massive appropriations bill if 
it included any attempt to maintain the overtime protections for these 
workers and their families.
  As we enter the holiday season, it's sad that there's so little 
compassion for Americans struggling to find jobs and make ends meet. 
Clearly, the battle for America's working families is not over.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, last summer this House in an overwhelming 
bipartisan fashion adopted H.R. 1950, the foreign relations 
authorization bill which, among other provisions, authorized the 
establishment of the Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) and the 
creation of a Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC).
  Today, this House will consider the conference report for the Foreign 
Operations Appropriations bill as a part of the Omnibus Appropriations 
bill that we are considering. In it will be authorizing language for 
the MCA and the MCC which largely reflects many of the priorities and 
structures incorporated in the MCA bill that Democrats and Republicans 
so painstakingly crafted in the Committee on International Relations.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight one specific aspect in the 
creation of a Millennium Challenge Corporation. I believe that the MCC 
will face a variety of management issues as it begins to administer the 
MCA. It is critical that the corporation have access to the best advice 
available to help frame its initial organizational structure and guide 
its subsequent operations, particularly in developing and fine-tuning 
policies, procedures and processes.
  I strongly encourage the chief executive officer or the interim CEO 
of the corporation to seek advice from organizations with managerial 
expertise--such as the National Academy of Public Administration 
(NAPA)--in designing and launching the Millennium Challenge 
Corporation. The report, which accompanied the MCC legislation reported 
from the Committee on International Relations made such recommendation, 
and I believe that it is important that we take note of this counsel 
since we are passing this legislation in a somewhat different from 
today.
  Mr. Speaker, I also would like to make a brief comment on section 534 
of the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2004 as it 
relates to assistance to Lebanon.
  Mr. Speaker, last year, this House adopted the conference report to 
H.R. 1646, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 2003, which 
became Public Law 107-228, included section 1224, a provision 
restricting foreign assistance to Lebanon until it fully took control 
of its borders. This provision, which derives from an amendment I 
offered to the bill and which prevailed on the House floor, reads as 
follows:

     SEC. 1224. ASSISTANCE TO LEBANON.

       (a) Prohibition--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, $10,000,000 of the amounts made available for fiscal 
     year 2003 or any subsequent fiscal year that are allocated 
     for assistance to Lebanon under chapter 4 of part II of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2346 et seq.; 
     relating to the economic support fund) may not be obligated 
     unless and until the President certifies to the appropriate 
     congressional committees that--
       (1) the armed forces of Lebanon have been deployed to the 
     internationally recognized border between Lebanon and Israel; 
     and
       (2) the Government of Lebanon is effectively asserting its 
     authority in the area in which such armed forces have been 
     deployed.
       (b) Requirement Relating to Funds Withheld--Notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law, any funds withheld pursuant to 
     subsection (a) may not be programmed in order to be used for 
     a purpose other than for assistance to Lebanon until the last 
     month of the fiscal year in which the authority to obligate 
     such funds lapses.

  Section 534 of the FY2004 Foreign Operations Appropriations Act, 
which is contained in this conference report, provides a special 
authority to provide assistance to Lebanon ``notwithstanding any other 
provision of law.'' I note that in trying to look at congressional 
intent to determine how to interpret this ``battle of the 
notwithstandings,'' I note that identical language to section 534 was 
contained in past foreign operations appropriations acts prior to the 
enactment of section 1224 of the Foreign Relations Authorizations Act 
of 2003. Section 534 and its predecessors were originally clearly 
designed to deal with issues other than the restriction in section 
1224. Moreover, there is no legislative history that would suggest that 
section 534 was meant to override section 1224. Finally, I understand 
that in a similar situation last year, after careful consideration, the 
administration decided not to use identical language in the FY 2003 
Foreign operations Act to override section 1224, even though that act 
was enacted after the Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 2003.

[[Page H12836]]

  On this basis, and particularly in view of the soon to be enacted 
Syria Accountability Act, which addresses the reasons that Lebanon is 
unable to deploy its troops to the border, I believe that congressional 
intent is clear that section 534 of the FY2004 Foreign Operations Act 
cannot be used to override section 1224 of the Foreign Relations 
Authorization Act of 2003.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I will vote against this 
conference report. I can support neither the process by which it was 
assembled nor the misshapen result of that process.
  Once again the House is being asked to vote on a massive omnibus 
measure that rolls together the thousands of specific accounts that 
properly should be included in no fewer than seven separate regular 
appropriations bills. This is exactly what happened last year, and it 
is just as objectionable now as it was then.
  I do not blame our appropriations committee for this. I have the 
greatest respect for both its Chairman, the gentleman from Florida, Mr. 
Young, and its ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Obey. 
They and their colleagues did their work, and the House passed all of 
the regular appropriations bills, in a timely fashion.
  Unfortunately, however, the Senate did not follow suit--and the 
leadership of both chambers insisted on taking control of the process 
in order to accommodate the desires of the Bush Administration. As a 
result, the bill before us today not only has provisions not considered 
by either chamber, it also omits some things that were approved by both 
bodies. And while it does provide essential funding for many purposes, 
in several important respects it falls far short of what is needed.
  For example, one of my biggest concerns is how this conference report 
deals with important scientific facilities of two agencies--the 
National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)--in Colorado.
  I voted against the commerce department funding bill when the House 
considered it earlier this year because it included severe reductions 
in funding for these facilities. I could not support such cuts, not 
just because these facilities employ so many Coloradans, but also 
because the work done there is so important for our country.
  Still, even though that part of the House bill was seriously 
inadequate, I hoped that the Senate would not make the same mistake and 
that the conference report would more appropriately recognize the needs 
of these facilities--but, as I have reviewed the conference report, 
that hope has faded.


                        noaa laboratory funding

  The conference report isn't as clear as it could be. For instance, it 
hasn't been possible to determine whether or not the report includes 
$4.5 million to pay rent for NOAA's Boulder labs. In fact, even NOAA's 
budget office isn't sure whether or not that money was included.
  Similarly, it isn't readily apparent how the research funding breaks 
down and at what levels the Colorado labs are funded--apparently 
program accounts have been padded with an ``administrative charge,'' 
though we don't know the amount, there are across-the-board rescissions 
that also affect program accounts, and there are huge numbers 
of earmarks in the bill that take from program funds. Furthermore, it 
isn't yet clear whether or not jobs will be lost at NOAA.

  One thing that is possible to discern--through inference--is that 
NOAA's Space Environment Center (SEC) is funded at $5.3 million. This 
is barely two-thirds of the base funds needed by SEC, which suffered 
similar shortfalls last year, and 40 percent less than the President's 
$8.3 million FY04 request.
  This is more than disappointing--in my opinion, it is irresponsible. 
Let me briefly explain what leads me to that conclusion.
  In October, the Science Committee's Environment, Technology, and 
Standards Subcommittee held a hearing to fully examine the issue of 
space weather and who should be responsible for its forecasting. We 
heard testimony from representatives of NOAA, the Air Force, and NASA, 
along with officials from the electric power, satellite, and airline 
industries, which are the predominant users of the SEC's forecasts.
  From that hearing, it was clear that:
  The services that NOAA's SEC provides are relied upon heavily by 
government and many critical private sector industries;
  The SEC functions cannot be easily transferred to another agency 
without huge expenditures and temporary to intermediate loss of 
forecasting services; and
  Even at the House approved funding level of $5.3 million, the SEC 
would have to significantly reduce current services at a time when our 
industries are more vulnerable to space weather.
  With our country increasingly vulnerable to these solar events, it is 
short-sighted and penny-pinching to reduce the services provided by the 
SEC.


         national institute for standards and technology (nist)

  The numbers for NIST are no more satisfactory. The overall Scientific 
and Technical Research and Services (STRS) account is funded at a lower 
level than both the House and Senate bills, and this lower level also 
includes $15.5 million in earmarks. The lab account thus will provide 
only minimal funding to cover mandatory cost-of-living increases, at 
the same time new responsibilities are being assigned to NIST.
  With approximately 55 percent of NIST's STRS budget devoted to 
personnel compensation and benefits, these cuts in the lab account will 
lead to more job losses at NISt, only continuing the steady decrease in 
the number of NIST staff in the laboratories since 1994.
  Funding for direly needed construction at Boulder's NIST laboratories 
is again less than is needed. The NIST Boulder laboratories have 
contributed to great scientific advances through its key facilities, 
but these facilities are now over fifty years old, and if they are to 
continue to make important contributions, they need help.
  Of the millions of dollars of work that was shown to be necessary in 
NIST's 1998 Facilities Improvement Plan, only about $11 million has 
been appropriated over the years--for the design of an electrical 
system upgrade at the Boulder facilities and for the first phase of 
construction of a new central utility plant. The central utility plan 
still needs $22.6 million, and the electrical services improvements 
need $5.5 million, yet the conference report includes $23.5 million in 
earmarks in the NIST construction account. Only about $20 million of 
about $65 million is left in the report for construction, and it's 
unclear how that total will be divided between NIST's Gaithersburg and 
Boulder labs.

  NOAA and NIST are not the only Commerce Department accounts that are 
shortchanged by the conference report--and the damage goes beyond 
federal agencies to hurt the private sector too.


                    Manufacturing Extension Program

  The conference report cuts by more than two-thirds the Manufacturing 
Extension Program, which assists thousands of small and medium-sized 
manufacturers across this country. This cut effectively guts the 
program, which was the Bush Administration's intent. With manufacturing 
jobs still being lost every month and high-tech companies struggling, 
now is not the time to turn our back on the manufacturing community and 
our small high-tech entrepreneurs.
  It is one thing to make government more lean; it is another thing to 
cut programs and jobs year in and year out at facilities all over the 
country--not because there is fat to cut at these facilities, but 
because the Subcommittee allocation simply doesn't provide enough money 
to go around. This conference report continues the pattern of bleeding 
NIST and NOAA dry--agencies that do so much to support our nation's 
economy and the public's well-being.
  Of course, the conference report does include funding for programs to 
assist veterans, housing programs, and many other worthwhile purposes, 
including necessary investments in transportation infrastructure--
things that I definitely support.
  Some of the transportation items are of special importance for 
Colorado. These include: $8 million for the Boardway Bridge/I-25 
interchange complex; $4 million for work on the Santa Fe/C-470 
corridor; $3 million for the McCaslin Boulevard/U.S. 36 interchange; $3 
million for repairs to the Red Cliff/Arch bridge; $2.5 million for 
implementation of the incident management plan for Interstate 70; $2.5 
million for the Colorado I-225 and Colfax Avenue interchange; $800,000 
for the U.S. 36, Wadsworth, and State Highway 128 interchange; $800,000 
for the I-70 and State Highway 58 interchange; $500,000 for the 
Wadsworth Blvd/SH121/Grandview grade separation project; $500,000 for 
the East 104th Ave. and U.S. 85 intersection improvements; $500,000 for 
the U.S. 6 and State Highway 121 interchange; $450,000 for the U.S. 36, 
I-270 interchange; $400,000 for work on State Highway 149; and $200,000 
for work on I-76 between Fort Morgan and Brush. In addition, the 
conference report includes $14 million for buses and bus facility 
projects of the Colorado Transit Coalition, whose request I strongly 
supported.
  If we had the chance to consider separate final bills for these 
purposes, I would be glad to support them. But instead they have been 
rolled into this conference report, with all the serious deficiencies I 
have mentioned.
  And those deficiencies are not the only ones--the conference report 
before us has other serious defects as well, such as the fact that it 
does nothing to prevent administrative actions that threaten the right 
of many workers to receive overtime pay to which they are now entitled, 
and the omission of the provision passed by both Chambers to make it 
easier for Americans to travel to Cuba.

[[Page H12837]]

  The bottom line, Mr. Speaker, is that these many deficiencies make it 
impossible for me to vote for this conference report.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, it is a sad commentary on the 
performance of the Republican leadership who control the White House 
and both Houses of Congress that they still cannot get the 
appropriations work done on time. I voted against several of these 
measures as stand-alone bills. Rolling them together and adding special 
interest provisions has not made them any better.
  Indeed, in several instances this bill represents a repudiation of 
the will of the public and express decisions of Congress. Examples 
include the fact that a bipartisan majority of Congress had already 
voted to prevent the Bush administration regulations that would deny 
overtime pay to 8 million employees. This bill strips the ban. 
Additionally, this bill abandons an overwhelming bipartisan agreement 
of both bodies of Congress to block Federal Communications Commission 
(FCC) regulations permitting broadcast networks to expand their reach 
and consolidate the industry.
  This omnibus appropriations bill spends too much on the wrong things 
and shortchanges critical needs such as education, veterans' 
healthcare, and state and local law enforcement. It's made all the 
worse that this funding is borrowed money that will add to our budget 
deficit. I vote ``no.''
  Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill, H.R. 2673, 
FY 2004 Consolidated Appropriations Act.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a disappointing bill in many ways. Not only is 
it inadequately funded, it is not timely.
  For the second year in a row, we will fail to provide the Nation's 
largest federal health care system, the Veterans Health Administration, 
with a timely and adequate budget. After another year of fierce battles 
over funding, we are not likely to pass a budget for veterans' health 
care until we return in January--after almost a third of the fiscal 
year is gone. In the worst case scenario, the veterans' health care 
system will subsist on a continuing resolution through the rest of the 
fiscal year.
  Not only will the budget be late, which wreaks havoc on VA's ability 
to plan effectively to meet the demands of its burgeoning workload, it 
will be greatly inadequate and, far less than the $1.8 billion 
additional funding we promised veterans in the budget last April. What 
will this likely mean for veterans who rely upon the VA as their health 
care provider?
  Increases in waiting time: VA's workload has increased each year 
since 1997. Wait times reached a crisis point of hundreds of thousands 
of veterans waiting more than six months for care, around the beginning 
of the last fiscal year. VA's budget, on the other hand has not kept 
pace with the rate of growth in enrollees or medical inflation. VA 
began to make progress addressing waiting times for its major clinics 
last year, but with another late and insufficient budget it is likely 
that waits will be on the rise again.
  Possible additional curtailments in enrollment: For the first time 
since 1997, last January, the Secretary chose to prohibit new veterans 
in Priority 8--some of whom make as little as $25,000 each year--to 
enroll in VA for their health care. Fiscal pressure may drive 
additional prohibitions.
  New fees and additional copayments for veterans: Every year, this 
Administration has proposed new entrance fees and increased copayments 
for veterans as a means of making its inadequate budgets balance by 
deterring veterans' utilization of health services and enhancing its 
scarce revenues.
  Continued inabilities to recruit scarce clinical personnel: For the 
second consecutive year, VA will have missed the prime time in the 
academic cycle for recruiting physicians--this is particularly damaging 
for recruitment of those in high-demand specialties. VA has held 
hundreds of these positions vacant and was relying on a timely and 
adequate budget, in addition to legislation, to help with these 
vacancies. Nurse and pharmacist shortages also continue to be 
problematic.
  Inabilities to prepare for returning troops: VA must shore up 
programs, such as its renowned post-traumatic stress disorder 
treatment, readjustment counseling, prosthetics, and other programs for 
special disabilities in order to meet the needs of new veterans 
returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.
  This Congress must now seriously consider the question, ``Is this 
really the best we can do for our veterans in a time of war?''
  Our answer must be an unqualified, ``no!''
  The time has come for us to assure that an adequate and timely budget 
is available to our veterans' health care system at the start of each 
new fiscal year. The time has come for a rational way of determining 
VA's budgetary needs. The time has come for us to support, H.R. 2318, 
``Assured Funding for Veterans Health Care Act of 2003.'' This bill 
would automatically fund the veterans' health care system by the number 
of enrolled veterans and the anticipated changes in the hospital 
inflation rates for each year.
  We really can do better by our Nation's veterans.
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, there are a number of things both 
good and bad in this Omnibus Appropriations bill that we're considering 
today. I want to talk specifically about an issue that is extremely 
important to me and the people I represent, and one that I've been 
working on for years.
  Our farmers grow the best produce and raise the best livestock in the 
world. And American consumers know this. Studies have shown that 
Americans want to buy American commodities, and are even willing to pay 
a premium to do so. Yet while a consumer can go into a department store 
and know that their shirt is made in this country, they can't go into 
the grocery store and have the same certainty about the food they are 
going to serve their families.
  U.S. producers need mandatory labeling in order to compete in the 
marketplace. Product differentiation is the only way consumers can 
exercise their choice between purchasing either domestic beef or beef 
produced by foreign competitors. Our nation's farmers and ranchers 
produce the best and safest commodities in the world, and our nation's 
consumers deserve the chance to determine where their food is born, 
raised, and processed.
  For these reasons we had country of origin labeling provisions added 
to the Farm Bill last Congress. Unfortunately this bill throws another 
hurdle in front of our consumers and our farmers, delaying 
implementation of this important law.
  Country of Origin Labeling is good for Americans farmers and good for 
Americans consumers. I am extremely disappointed that the conferees 
included these delays on country of origin labeling.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to an 
authorization provision contained in the conference report we are 
considering today. This provision--inserted in the eleventh hour--would 
limit a television broadcaster's potential national audience reach to 
39 percent. Not only is this bad public policy, but this provision is 
more susceptible to a First Amendment challenge than the FCC 
restriction it replaces. The DC Circuit rule in its 2002 Fox Television 
decision that the FCC failed to justify its old limitation. The court 
made it clear that any broadcast ownership limit is subject to at least 
rational-basis scrutiny under the First Amendment. Consequently, the 
FCC conducted an exhaustive study and developed a comprehensive record 
which concluded that a 45-percent limit was supportable. This bill 
ignores the FCC's findings, as well as the Fox decision, and plucks a 
39-percent figure out of thin air. An act of Congress is afforded more 
deference than an FCC rulemaking, but it is still subject to First 
Amendment scrutiny. With absolutely no record to support this limit, 
the provision might very well not withstand judicial review, 
potentially leaving us with no restriction whatsoever.
  The bill's ownership provision is also rooted in a misunderstanding 
of the FCC's new rule, current levels of concentration, and the state 
of competition. The FCC's rule measures potential audience reach, not 
the number of television stations an entity owns. No broadcaster owns 
anywhere near 45 percent of the nation's more than 1,700 full-power, 
commercial and non-commercial television stations. In fact CBS and FOX 
only own approximately 2 percent--the ruling by the FCC's would allow 
them to purchase only a handful more stations--while NBC owns less than 
2 percent, and ABC owns less than 1 percent.
  Mr. Speaker, the FCC rule limits a broadcaster to owning television 
stations whose signals, in the aggregate, serve areas encompassing no 
more than 45 percent of the nation's television households. This does 
not mean that viewers are watching the broadcaster's stations, only 
that the stations' signals are potentially available in the viewers' 
areas. No broadcaster's actual audience share is close to 45 percent. 
Even CBS, which currently leads the ratings race, only garners about a 
14-percent audience share during primetime. And in fact, the vast 
majority of the stations carrying CBS programming are independent 
affiliates not owned by CBS. In terms of actual viewership, no major 
broadcast network owns stations that, in the aggregate, exceed 3.4 
percent of the national viewing audience.
  To win viewers, each network still must compete with many other 
broadcasters, each of which would also theoretically own stations with 
signals available to 45 percent of the country. Indeed, there are now 
seven major broadcast networks--ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, UPN, WB, and PAX--
as well as foreign-language networks, and many independent 
broadcasters. Moreover, 85 percent of television households now 
subscribe to cable or satellite service with access to both broadcast 
and non-broadcast programming, and entities other than ABC, NBC, CBS or 
FOX own approximately 75 percent of the more than 100 channels of 
programming received in the average home. Also, keep in mind that the 
FCC's

[[Page H12838]]

local ownership rules still protect localism and diversity by requiring 
a minimum number of independent voices in each market. In this context, 
the drummed-up fear over the FCC's rule is almost as ludicrous as would 
be the fear over the national availability of Starbucks. Starbucks, it 
sometimes appears, can be found on every corner. But Starbucks' 
seemingly ubiquitous presence does not mean that consumers can't drink 
other brands of coffee, or forgo coffee altogether in favor of tea, 
juice, soda, or any other beverage.

  The FCC granted broadcasters the added flexibility to help preserve 
free, over-the-air television, which is losing ground to cable and 
satellite service. Since 2002, cable programming has had more primetime 
viewers than broadcast programming, and its lead is increasing. This is 
particularly significant because broadcasters depend exclusively on 
advertising, while cable and satellite providers benefit not only from 
rapidly increasing advertising revenue, but subscription revenue, as 
well. By preventing broadcasters from making limited and reasonable 
acquisitions to improve their economies of scale and operating 
efficiencies, we jeopardize the continued viability of free television 
broadcasting.
  Adding insult to injury, this bill will forbid the FCC from raising 
or lowering the 39 percent limit as market conditions continue to 
change. In fact, the bill eliminates the FCC's authority to 
periodically review even ``rules relating to the 39 percent national 
audience reach limitation.'' Eliminating the FCC's discretion over the 
national audience-reach limit in this manner is unwise. Congress 
created the FCC to avoid having to pass legislation every time 
conditions change. By requiring Congress to act whenever fine-tuning 
becomes necessary is not only impractical, but it stifles the media 
marketplace. Moreover, the rush to judgment is not even necessary here, 
as the Third Circuit has prevented the FCC's rule from taking effect 
while the court considers it on appeal. Unfortunately Mr. Speaker, the 
provision contained in this bill may just be yet another nail in the 
coffin of free, over-the-air television, as broadcasters find it 
increasingly difficult to grow when faced with the tightened broadcast 
ownership cap, and as business models continue to turn toward cable and 
satellite service.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, the House is meeting today--69 days after 
the beginning of the fiscal year--to debate H.R. 2673, a colossal $328 
billion spending bill that includes 7 of the 13 annual appropriations 
measures for fiscal year 2004.
  The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Young, and the gentleman from 
Wisconsin, Mr. Obey, have worked diligently this year to pass the 
annual spending bills one-by-one. However, as it became apparent that 
the Congress could not approve these measures individually, 
congressional leaders began working to fit them together into one 
catch-all bill, like the pieces of a $328 billion puzzle. 
Unfortunately, the pieces of this puzzle are not fitting together in a 
way that benefits the American people.
  I will oppose H.R. 2673 because it breaks promises Congress made 
regarding education, it cuts necessary Federal funds for State and 
local law enforcement, and fails to extend unemployment benefits for 
thousands of Missouri workers who are currently out of work this 
holiday season.
  Education remains a top priority of the people of Missouri. When I am 
back home, I frequently visit schools to meet with students and 
teachers. At nearly every location, teachers and administrators inform 
me of the difficulties they have when it comes to unfunded Federal 
mandates burdening their districts. School districts throughout the 
Show-Me State and the Nation are experiencing tough times as the poor 
economic conditions and the fiscal choices made by this Congress are 
leading to decreased revenue for schools. The professionals who teach 
our children and grandchildren deserve to have the resources they need 
to get the job done. When the Congress approves legislation authorizing 
specific legislative initiatives, we ought to fully fund them.
  H.R. 2673 provides $7.8 billion less than Congress promised in the No 
Child Left Behind Act and falls 45 percent short in special education 
funding promised under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act 
(IDEA) reauthorization bill that passed earlier this year. It also 
freezes Pell Grant awards at a time when State universities are 
drastically increasing tuition costs and underfunds by 18 percent the 
funds necessary for Impact Aid. H.R. 2673 also establishes a private 
school voucher program for students who live in the District of 
Columbia, moving Congress a step closer to abandoning our historical 
commitment to public schools and establishing the first Federal 
subsidies for getting a private school education.
  As a former prosecuting attorney and juvenile officer, I have worked 
closely with law enforcement officials. Law enforcement personnel play 
a critical role in protecting Missouri communities from the scourge of 
methamphetamine abuse and other crimes and from the threats posed by 
terrorism. Congress has a duty to provide adequate funding for those 
who protect us in our hometowns. Under H.R. 2673, State and local law 
enforcement is funded at $500 million below last year's levels.
  As the holidays approach, millions of Americans are still facing 
unemployment. While economic news has indicated that the numbers of 
jobless Americans decreasing, Congress must work to extend unemployment 
benefits to those who are not so fortunate. Time and again, we have 
worked in a bipartisan manner to assist unemployed Americans. I am 
disappointed that the House leadership has failed in this regard, 
especially at this time of year.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2673 shortchanges teachers and students, law 
enforcement personnel, and unemployed Missourians. Appropriations bills 
should speak to our priorities as a nation. I cannot support this 
measure that sets our country on a course of misplaced priorities.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend Subcommittee 
Chairman Istook, Subcommittee Ranking Member Olver, Chairman Young and 
Ranking Member Obey for including a provision I have been fighting for 
during the last several years to protect workers negatively impacted by 
illegal, age discriminatory cash balance pension plans.
   Mr. Speaker, as you know, on September 9, 2003, this House 
overwhelmingly passed by a vote of 258 to 160 an amendment I offered to 
the Fiscal Year 2004 Transportation-Treasury Appropriations bill 
barring the Treasury Department from helping to overturn the court 
decision in the Southern District of Illinois brought by IBM employees 
against IBM's cash balance pension plan.
  The Federal court in that case has determined that, as many of us in 
this House have argued, IBM's cash balance plan and indeed all cash 
balance plans inherently violate current Federal anti-age 
discrimination law. By its terms, my amendment barred Treasury from 
opposing the IBM employees in that case. One of the intended effects of 
my amendment was also to bar Treasury from finalizing the proposed 
regulations on cash balance plans--regulations that were improper 
because they are contrary to the requirements of Federal age 
discrimination statutes.
  On October 23, 2003, the Senate passed a similar amendment by Senator 
Harkin barring Treasury from finalizing these illegal regulations. 
These two amendments served as the foundation for the final legislative 
language which requires the Secretary to submit to the Congress 
proposed legislation to remedy the harm that these cash balance plans 
do to older workers. This legislative language also bars the Treasury 
Department from finalizing its illegal regulations on cash balance 
pension plans.
  Now, I understand that report language has been added that attempts 
to rewrite the legislative history of this provision by stating that 
the intent of this legislative language is not to call into question 
the validity of cash balance plans.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the intent of this provision. 
There is no doubt. This legislative provision is included in the final 
bill before the House because Members of this body and the other body 
have grave doubts about the legality of cash balance pension plans.
  While this report language in no way dilutes the effect of the 
legislative ban on Treasury finalizing its cash balance regulations, it 
is a cynical attempt to hoodwink the courts considering the validity of 
these cash balance plans into believing that Congress has not spoken on 
this issue. It was no doubt carefully crafted by lobbyists with the 
express intent of using it in a legal brief.
   Mr. Speaker, the debate on my amendment and Senator Harkin's are 
clear. None of us in this Chamber are fooled by this non-binding report 
language and I trust that the esteemed courts of this country will not 
be either.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, we are nearing the finish of this session 
of the 108th Congress, and I am sure most Members will be heartily glad 
to see it end.
  Today, we are considering an Omnibus bill making appropriations for 
departments and agencies that ought to be funded in seven separate 
appropriations bills, which have been held up by various obstacles, 
including insufficient allocations and controversial riders--or riders 
to stop controversial administration policies.
  On the matter that should be in a separate bill for the Departments 
of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Federal Judiciary, and several 
important related agencies, we began with a bad budget allocation that 
has gotten worse and will be further reduced by across-the-board cuts, 
both within our division of the Omnibus and across the government.
  I must say that our chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) 
is not to blame for the deficiencies in our portion of this bill. 
Throughout the process, he has been very fair and has sought to produce 
the best possible bill, given the limited resources his leadership gave 
him to work with. For that, I thank him very much.

[[Page H12839]]

  I also cannot thank the staff enough for all their hard work, long 
hours, and time away from their families. Mike Ringler, Leslie 
Albright, Christine Ryan Kojac, and John Martens for the majority, as 
well as Anne Marie Goldsmith and Alan Lang, this year's detailees, have 
worked closely with Rob Nabors and David Pomerantz of the Democratic 
staff and Lucy Hand, Nadine Berg, and Diaraf Thiouf of my staff and my 
Presidential Management Interns Pete Balfe and Erin McKevitt.
  However, the allocation is still too small, and I am seriously 
concerned about its impact on very important government functions in 
law enforcement, the judiciary, foreign affairs, and other areas. I am 
alarmed that the amounts we have worked out in conference with the 
Senate will be reduced by across-the-board cuts. We fought hard for 
adequate funding, for example, for the FBI and other law enforcement, 
but even those amounts face devastating cuts.
  Among the most worrisome deficiencies are the State and local law 
enforcement programs. Most of them are at barely acceptable levels, 
before the across-the-board cuts, but the Local Law Enforcement Block 
Grant, funded at nearly $400 million last year, falls to $225 million 
this year, before the across-the-board cuts. Even relatively small 
programs had to be cut, such as the Police Integrity grants, which 
falls from nearly $17 million in fiscal year 2003 to $10 million. We 
are asking State and local governments to do more to protect our 
people, as the resources available to support this work decline.
  Another alarming problem is the Manufacturing Extension Partnership 
(MEP) program, which this year falls from over $106 million to just 
under $40 million, before the across-the-board cuts. This is a severe 
blow to a very important program, at a time when manufacturers need 
help. I can only hope that in fiscal year 2005 we can get back to a 
more appropriate level.
  One last agency I would like to mention is the Legal Services 
Corporation (LSC) We had tried to stabilize LSC's funding this year, 
but across-the-board cuts will undercut that goal. Beyond that, there 
is growing concern that limits on the uses of private money donated to 
independent LSC grantees are hurting America's low-income families and 
imposing unwarranted government restrictions on the private sector. The 
administration does not tolerate such interference with the privately 
funded religious activities of its faith-based grantees. It--and we--
would not tolerate such interference with privately funded secular 
activities also dedicated to helping families in need. I am hopeful 
that next year we can address these restrictions on privately donated 
funds. At this point, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to submit 
for the Record letters I have received on this issue.
  I am also alarmed by the process that got us to this point. The 
Republican leadership has imposed policies that are not supported by 
the majority of the American people, the Congress, or the conferees--in 
our subcommittee's division, the dead-of-night ``compromise'' on media 
ownership. The gun provisions are also different from what was agreed 
to by the conferees.
  Mr. Speaker, if we can find $87 billion for a war we didn't have to 
fight, we ought to be able to find the resources to support our 
domestic law enforcement agencies with the personnel and resources they 
need; the commercial, statistical, and environmental activities of our 
Commerce Department; our foreign policy establishment; and such crucial 
agencies as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the Federal 
Trade Commission (FTC), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), 
and the Small Business Administration (SBA).
  Mr. Speaker, in the end, however most Members vote on the Omnibus 
Appropriations bill--and I recognize that many crucial programs would 
suffer under a long-term continuing resolution--I must emphasize that 
the resource allocation that has yielded Division B of the Omnibus, 
which funds the agencies in the jurisdiction of the Commerce, Justice, 
State, Judiciary, and Related Agencies Subcommittee, is grossly 
inadequate and may prove damaging to the national interest.

                                                November 20, 2003.
     Hon. Frank R. Wolf,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State and 
         Judiciary, Committee on Appropriations, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Jose E. Serrano,
     Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, and 
         Judiciary, Committee on Appropriations, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Wolf and Congressman Serrano: We write to 
     thank for your tremendous leadership on behalf of America's 
     families by supporting increased funding for the Legal 
     Services Corporation in the Fiscal Year 2004 Commerce, 
     Justice, State, the Judiciary and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Bill introduced in your Subcommittee.
       However, we also write to express our regret that for the 
     past several years this bill has included a restriction that 
     severely limits the manner in which independent civil legal 
     aid programs funded by LSC can spend their own private, state 
     and local funds.
       This ``private money'' restriction annually encumbers more 
     than $300 million in non-federal money, and harms communities 
     in two distinct ways. First, the restriction imposes costly 
     government obstacles to private philanthropy. Second, the 
     restriction closes the doors of justice to many low-income 
     individuals and families unable to afford necessary legal 
     representation in civil matters.
       The undersigned groups write to express our support for 
     amending the LSC appropriation in order to end this 
     governmental interference with non-federal funding for legal 
     aid nonprofits. We urge you to continue your tremendous 
     leadership on behalf of America's families by guiding efforts 
     to end this unfairness.
       In particular, we hope you will support removal of the 
     private money restriction because the restriction improperly 
     interferes with the right of private philanthropies and other 
     non-federal donors--including state and local governments--to 
     determine the purposes for which their charitable donations 
     will be used. In addition, the restriction interferes with 
     the right of non-federal donors to select those local 
     institutions best equipped to carry out the purposes of their 
     charitable donations.
       By removing the private money restriction, but keeping 
     intact restrictions that control activities financed with 
     federal LSC funds, Congress would properly place independent 
     LSC recipients in the same position as nonprofit grantees of 
     other federal entities which are permitted to use their non-
     federal funds free of unwarranted restrictions. This would 
     bolster the mission of LSC as a model public-private 
     partnership dedicated to supporting independent and 
     accountable local programs that set their own priorities 
     based on community need.
       Furthermore, Congress's removal of the LSC private money 
     restriction may well encourage increased charitable donations 
     to the more than 150 independent LSC recipients that serve 
     the working poor, veterans, the elderly, victims of domestic 
     violence, family farmers and people with disabilities in 
     every county and Congressional District in the Nation.
       Thank you very much for your support and continued 
     leadership on behalf of America's families.
           Sincerely,
         Brennen Center for Justice at NYU School of Law; 
           International Union, UAW; National Legal Aid and 
           Defender Association; Center for Law and Social Policy; 
           National Organization of Legal Services Workers, UAW 
           Local 2320; National Immigration Law Center; Open 
           Society Policy Center; Association of the Bar of the 
           City of New York; Community Service Society of New 
           York;
         National Council of La Raza; Council on Foundations 
           Independent Sector; National Council of Nonprofit 
           Associations; National Committee for Responsive 
           Philanthropy; OMB Watch; Charity Lobbying in the Public 
           Interest; Alliance for Justice; Nonprofit Coordinating 
           Committee of New York.
                                  ____



                                   Committee on the Judiciary,

                               Washington, DC, September 23, 2003.
     Hon. Jose Serrano,
     Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, 
         Judiciary and Related Agencies, Committee on 
         Appropriations, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Serrano. We greatly appreciate your 
     efforts to secure additional funding for the Legal Services 
     Corporation in the 2004 Commerce, Justice, State, the 
     Judiciary and Related Agencies Appropriations bill (CJS). You 
     know as well as any of us the importance of providing 
     affordable legal services to our country's most needy.
       We write today because, like you, we are increasingly 
     concerned about an unfair and unnecessary provision in the 
     CJS Appropriations bill that restricts the use of private and 
     other non-federal funds by independent legal service 
     providers funds in part by LSC. The ``private money 
     restriction'' encumbers more than $300 million annually in 
     non-federal funds--money that could be used to provide 
     critical legal assistance to our society's most vulnerable 
     individuals and families. The private money restriction 
     burdens independent legal service providers with unwarranted 
     costs; it impedes private charitable initiatives, and it 
     undermines our Nation's promise of equal justice for all.
       It is our hope that the Committee on Appropriations will 
     revisit the private money restriction when it considers the 
     2005 CJS Appropriations bill. We urge you to continue your 
     leadership on behalf of America's families by guiding efforts 
     in your Subcommittee to end this unfairness.
           Sincerely,
         John Conyers Jr., Howard L. Berman, Rick Boucher, Robert 
           C. Scott, Zoe Lofgren, Maxine Waters, William D. 
           Delahunt, Tammy Baldwin.
         Adam B. Schiff, Jerrold Nadler, Melvin L. Watt, Sheila 
           Jackson-Lee, Martin T. Meehan, Robert Wexler, Anthony 
           D. Weiner, Linda T. Sanchez.

  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, the conference report (108-401) for H.R. 
2673, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004, contains very 
important language within the FAA, operations section regarding 
improving our existing commercial air fleet's flight data and cockpit 
voice recorder standards.

[[Page H12840]]

  Specifically, this language request that the FAA seriously review the 
potential of transferring the U.S. military's deployable flight data 
recorder technology into our commercial air fleet.
  I am very pleased that this language was included as it reflects the 
goals I am seeking to implement within the legislation that I 
introduced earlier this year, H.R. 2632, the Safe Aviation Flight 
Enhancement (SAFE) Act.
  Congress has previously showed interest in the deployable technology 
and requested within the FY2001 Transportation Appropriations Bill, 
that the FAA issue a report to Congress on the benefits and 
advisability of using deployable flight recorders in the commercial 
fleet. This report was issued in the December 4, 2001 Future Flight 
Data Collection Committee Final Report and detailed the United States 
military's successful use of the deployable recorder technology, 
concluding that it would be acceptable to incorporate the deployable 
recorder technology within the NTSB's 1999 recommendation to improve 
flight recorder standards.
  The 1999 NTSB recommendations that the FAA's report is referring to 
were issued as a result of a history of delay in black box recovery and 
lost data due to crash damages in some of our countries most recent and 
devastating air accidents.
  Following a series of air accidents where critical flight recorder 
information was lost, the NTSB issued recommendations A-99-16 through 
18, which called on the FAA to require improved recorder capabilities 
and the installation of two sets of combination flight data and cockpit 
voice recorders in commercial aircraft to ensure the survival and 
recovery of at least one set of recorders.
  It is important to note that the intention of the Conferee's language 
on deployable recorders within the FAA, operations section of the 
FY2004 Omnibus appropriations conference report is that the FAA 
evaluate the deployable technology within the context of incorporating 
the deployable recorder system as one of the two combination recorder 
systems recommended in the NTSB's 1999 recommendations.
  I am hopeful that the FAA will move swiftly on this, since 4 years 
have passed and these recommendations have yet to be addressed.
  The terrorist attacks of 9/11 opened the Nation's eyes to the face 
that our skies are vulnerable to more than mechanical or human error. 
One of our best examples of what can occur when we do not have 
immediate access to this information following a crash was demonstrated 
in the aftermath of the TWA 800 crash. This accident clearly 
illustrated the pressures investigators are under to rule out the 
potential of terrorism and quickly identify the safety concerns. At the 
outset of TWA 800 crash investigation, there was intense speculation 
that a ground-to-air missile was the cause of this disaster. For every 
day that went by as we search the ocean floor for the recorders, the 
speculation and questions mounted about the potential of terrorism. 
Ultimately, it took 7 days and millions of dollars to recover those 
fight recorders from the bottom of the ocean and eventually, 
investigators and explosive's experts led us to the understanding that 
it was an accidental fuel tank explosion, not terrorism that was 
responsible for the crash.
  Post 9/11, we cannot afford to be faced with a similar situation of 
uncertainty. Our national security teams and transportation safety 
officials must have immediate access to the flight recorders to 
determine the appropriate response.
  The deployable technology presents us with ability to ensure 
immediate and complete access to the flight recorders today, as our 
United States Navy has successfully tested, developed and used the 
deployable recorder technology for years on aircraft including the 
Navy's F/A-18EF Super Hornet fleet. The deployable technology is 
capable of meeting the needs of the commercial industry and is designed 
to ``deploy'' from the aircraft during a accident, which allows it to 
land outside of the crash impact site, thus avoiding becoming ensnared 
within the aircraft wreckage and the direct impact forces and fire 
intensity of the crash. The deployable recorder is also designed to 
float indefinitely in cases of a water crash.
  The use of the deployable recorder in the commercial air fleet would 
provide the same benefits that it does for the military and would 
present an obvious way to maximize our ability to ensure the 
survivability and quick recoverability of flight recorders.
  Again, I am pleased that Congress addressed this very important issue 
to encourage the FAA to move expeditiously in formulating regulations 
to address the need for improved flight recorders and that Congress 
would like the deployable technology to be considered within the 
context of the dual-combination recorder recommendation issued by the 
NTSB in 1999.
  Such improvements will help us ensure that our safety and security 
officials will have immediate and complete access to the recorders 
following an aviation crash and make great strides in protecting the 
American people.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on July 22, 2003, I introduced an 
amendment to provide congressional support for the current U.S. Patent 
and Trademark Office (USPTO) policy and practice against approving 
patent claims directed to human organisms, including human embryos and 
human fetuses. The House of Representatives approved the amendment 
without objection on July 22, 2003, as section 801 of the Fiscal Year 
2004 Commerce/Justice/State Appropriations Bill. The amendment, now 
included in the Omnibus appropriations bill as section 634 of H.R. 
2673, reads as follows: ``None of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
made available under this Act may be sued to issue patents on claims 
directed to or encompassing a human organism.''
  The current Patent Office policy is that ``non-human organisms, 
including animals'' are patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101, 
but that human organisms, including human embryos and human fetuses, 
are not patentable. Therefore, any claim directed to a living organism 
must include the qualification ``non-human'' to avoid rejection. This 
amendment provides unequivocal congressional support for this current 
practice of the U.S. patent office.
  House and Senate appropriators agreed on report language in the 
manager's statement on section 634. The statement reads: ``The 
conferees have included a provision prohibiting funds to process 
patents of human organisms. The conferees concur with the intent of 
this provision as expressed in the colloquy between the provision's 
sponsor in the House and the ranking minority member of the House 
Committee on Appropriations as occurred on July 22, 2003, with respect 
to any existing patents on stem cells.''
  The manager's statement refers to my discussion with Chairman David 
Obey, when I explained that the amendment ``only affects patenting 
human organisms, human embryos, human fetuses or human beings.'' In 
response to Chairman Obey's inquiry, I pointed out that there are 
existing patents on stem cells, and that this amendment would not 
affect such patents.
  Here I wish to elaborate further on the exact scope of this 
amendment. The amendment applies to patents on claims directed to or 
encompassing a human organism at any stage of development, including a 
human embryo, fetus, infant, child, adolescent, or adult, regardless of 
whether the organism was produced by technological methods (including, 
but not limited to, in vitro fertilization, somatic cell nuclear 
transfer, or parthenogenesis). This amendment applies to patents on 
human organisms regardless of where the organism is located, including, 
but not limited to, a laboratory or a human, animal, or artificial 
uterus.
  Some have questioned whether the term ``organism'' could include 
``stem cells''. The answer is no. While stem cells can be found in 
human organisms (at every stage of development), they are not 
themselves human organisms. This was considered the ``key question'' by 
Senator Harkin at a December 2, 1998 hearing before the Senate 
Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and 
Education regarding embryonic stem cell research. Dr. Harold Varmus, 
then director of the NIH testified ``that pulripotent stem cells are 
not organisms and are not embryos . . .'' Senator Harkin noted: ``I 
asked all of the scientists who were here before the question of 
whether or not these stem cells are organisms. And I believe the record 
will show they all said no, it is not an organism.'' Dr. Thomas Okarma 
of the Geron Corporation stated: ``My view is that these cells are 
clearly not organisms . . . in fact as we have said, are not the 
cellular equivalent of an embryo.'' Dr. Arthur Caplan agreed with this 
distinction, saying that a stem cell is ``absolutely not an organism.'' 
There was a unanimous consensus on this point at the 1998 hearing, 
among witnesses who disagreed on many other moral and policy issues 
related to stem cell research.
  The term ``human organism'' includes an organism of the human species 
that incorporates one or more genes taken from a non-human organism. It 
includes a human-animal hybrid organism (such as a human-animal hybrid 
organism formed by fertilizing a non-human egg with human sperm or a 
human egg with non-human sperm, or by combining a comparable number of 
cells taken respectively from human and non-human embryos). However, it 
does not include a non-human organism incorporating one or more genes 
taken from a human organism (such as a transgenic plant or animal). In 
this respect, as well, my amendment simply provides congressional 
support for the Patent Office's current policy and practice.
  This amendment should not be construed to affect claims directed to 
or encompassing subject matter other than human organisms, including 
but not limited to claims directed to or encompassing the following: 
cells, tissues, organs, or other bodily components that are not

[[Page H12841]]

themselves human organisms (including, but not limited to, stem cells, 
stem cell lines, genes, and living or synthetic organs); hormones, 
proteins or other substances produced by human organisms; methods for 
creating, modifying, or treating human organisms, including but not 
limited to methods for creating human embryos through in vitro 
fertilization, somatic cell nuclear transfer, or parthenogensis; drugs 
or devices (including prosthetic devices) which may be used in or on 
human organisms.
  Jamed Rogan, undersecretary of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, 
has stated in a November 20, 2003, letter to Senate appropriators: 
``The USPTO understands the Weldon Amendment to provide unequivocal 
congressional backing for the long-standing USPTO policy of refusing to 
grant any patent containing a claim that encompasses any member of the 
species Homo sapiens at any stage of development . . . including a 
human embryo or human fetus . . . The USPTO's policy of rejecting 
patent application claims that encompass human lifeforms, which the 
Weldon Amendment elevates to an unequivocal congressional prohibition,, 
applies regardless of the manner and mechanism used to bring a human 
organism into existence (e.g., somatic cell nuclear transfer, in vitro 
fertilization, parthenogenesis).'' Undersecretary Rogan concludes: 
``Given that the scope of Representative Weldon's amendment . . . is 
full consistent with our policy, we support its enactment.''
  The advance of biotechnology provides enormous potential for 
developing innovative science and therapies for a host of medical 
needs. However, it is inappropriate to turn nascent individuals of the 
human species into profitable commodities to be owned, licensed, 
marketed and sold.
  Congressional action is needed not to change the Patent Office's 
current policy and practice, but precisely to uphold it against any 
threat of legal challenge. A previous Patent Office policy against 
patenting living organisms in general was invalidated by the U.S. 
Supreme Court in 1980, on the grounds that the policy has no explicit 
support from Congress. In an age when the irresponsible use of 
biotechnology threatens to make humans themselves into items of 
property, of manufacture and commerce, Congress cannot let this happen 
again in the case of human organisms.
  I urge my colleagues to support this Omnibus in defense of this 
important provision against human patenting.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the privatization 
provisions of this bill, provisions that govern when federal jobs are 
given to private contractors under an obscure Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) Circular called A-76.
  It is becoming increasingly clear that the Bush administration has 
declared war on federal employees. Under the guise of reform, it has 
stripped hundreds of thousands of federal employees of basic rights, 
like the right to appeal unfair treatment and the right to collective 
bargaining. It has opposed modest cost-of-living increases for rank and 
file employees while at the very same time supporting large cash 
bonuses for political employees.
  But the Administration's most direct assault on federal employees is 
the effort to terminate federal jobs and hire private companies to 
perform the same work. The President's ``Competitive Sourcing 
Initiative'' is aggressively forcing federal agencies to allow private 
contractors to bid for hundreds of thousands of jobs currently being 
performed by federal employees. Earlier this year, the Administration 
rewrote the rules governing competitions between public employees and 
private sector contractors.
  The House is on record as rejecting those new rules because those 
rules so blatantly favored contractors over federal employees. And on a 
bipartisan basis, appropriations conferees last month agreed to certain 
basic protections for all federal employees. Unfortunately, after the 
conference was closed on the Transportation Treasury Appropriations 
bill, OMB registered last minute objections, and the Republican 
leadership rewrote the bill to eliminate or truncate those basic 
protections for federal workers.
  For example, the bill, before us no longer includes language giving 
federal employees the right to contest agency competitive sourcing 
decisions, and it no longer even requires that an agency achieve 
significant cost savings on all privatizations. Mr. Speaker, it is time 
to end the assault on federal workers. Vote no on this bill. We can do 
better.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, like many of my colleagues, I 
have concerns with numerous provisions in this omnibus bill. Among them 
are three that may actually contribute to violent crime in our 
communities and aid terrorists. These NRA-backed provisions were added 
in the dead of night to the benefit of gun manufacturers and criminals 
who obtain guns illegally.
  The first weakens the highly successful Brady Bill by requiring 
federal authorities to destroy all firearm purchase records within 24 
hours instead of 90 days as under current law. This provision weakens 
law enforcement's ability to stop illegal gun purchases and rejects a 
July 2002 GAO study which concluded that a ``next-day destruction 
policy . . . would have public safety implications and could lessen the 
efficacy of current operations.'' Nearly one million illegal gun 
purchases have been stopped since the Brady law went into effect. Now 
is not the time to tie the hands of law enforcement officials who 
tirelessly work to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
  Another provision would protect ``bad apple'' gun dealers. For 
example, the snipers who terrorized Maryland, Virginia, and Washington, 
D.C. obtained the assault rifle used in their sniper attacks from a 
Tacoma, Washington gun store called Bull's Eye Shooter Supply. After 
the sniper suspects were apprehended and the gun was recovered and 
traced, Bull's Eye claimed to have no record of selling the gun, and 
did not even know it was missing until the shooting spree was over. The 
snipers' gun was just one of more than 238 firearms ``missing'' from 
Bull's Eye's inventory during the previous three years.
  This provision would essentially block ATF from requiring gun dealers 
like Bull's Eye to take regular inventories of their firearms. In 
August 2000, ATF issued a proposed rule requiring licensed dealers to 
do annual physical inventories. The rulemaking proceeding is still 
pending. If anything, Congress should require ATF to issue this rule. 
Instead, this legislation would block ATF from ever issuing this 
requirement as a final rule. This would severely hamstring ATF's 
ability to address what it has stated is a serious problem.
  And lastly, language was included to prevent public scrutiny of 
corrupt gun dealers.
  ATF has indicated analysis of crime gun traces and multiple sale 
reports has yielded a series of gun ``trafficking indicators'' that can 
be linked to particular firearms dealers.
  ATF has always made this information available to the public through 
Freedom of Information Act (``FOIA'') requests, which allow for vital 
public oversight of the effectiveness of the Agency. Under the 
provision in the omnibus appropriations bill, ATF will not be allowed 
to release trace or multiple sale data, thereby gutting the purposes of 
FOIA, and effectively shielding the most corrupt firearms dealers from 
public scrutiny.
  The NRA lobbied hard for these favors which do nothing to keep 
American families safe, but rather advance another well-connected 
special interest. Worse, they could actually contribute to more illegal 
gun purchases, meaning more criminals with guns.
  We should be working to prevent firearms from falling into the wrong 
hands. Instead, this Administration and Congressional leadership 
continues to roll back commonsense gun safety measures that save lives. 
We can, and must, do better.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the House will consider the 
conference report on H.R. 2673, the Agriculture Appropriations bill for 
FY 2004. This has become the omnibus spending bill for enacting the 
remaining seven appropriations bills--Agriculture, VA-HUD, Labor-HHS, 
District of Columbia, Commerce-Justice-State, Foreign Operations, and 
Treasury-Transportation. The bill would fund, for the fiscal year that 
began two months ago, 11 of the 15 Cabinet departments, several 
independent government agencies, and the District of Columbia 
government--and makes up $328 billion of the total discretionary budget 
for the year. Currently, these departments are operating under a 
continuing resolution funding the government through January 31, 2004.
  This measure is not only an irresponsible way to govern, but more 
importantly it represents misplaced priorities. This session of 
Congress has proven again that Republican policies are making it harder 
for Americans to succeed. Democrats want to put American families 
first. We will continue to fight to create jobs, make health care more 
affordable, honor our veterans, and return America to prosperity. The 
following highlights some of the deficiencies of the omnibus bill.
  This measure excludes a provision to block Bush Administration 
regulations that would deny overtime pay to 8 million employees. This 
provision to protect the pay of middle-income Americans was agreed upon 
by a majority of both bodies, and yet was dropped in the backroom deals 
at the 11th hour at the insistence of the Bush Administration. At a 
time when people are working harder and longer just to make ends meet, 
this measure permits a cut in the pay of millions of workers, including 
firemen and policemen, licensed practical nurses, and air traffic 
controllers.
  Even though education is a top priority of the American people, this 
measure provides $39 million less for education than the inadequate 
House bill, after subtracting the $318 million in earmarked projects 
added in conference. This measure fails to meet the promised education 
investment promised in the No Child Left Behind Act--providing $7.8 
billion

[[Page H12842]]

less than was promised. Like the House-passed bill, this measure 
shortchanges help with the basics of math and reading by $6.2 billion 
compared to that promised in No Child Left Behind--leaving more than 2 
million children behind. It also falls $751 million short for after-
school centers promised in the No Child Left Behind Act. The additional 
funds would have provided expanded learning opportunities for 1 million 
children. The conference report bill falls $352 million short of the 
$3.3 billion promised (in real terms) to states for improving teacher 
quality; as a result, approximately 78,000 fewer teachers will receive 
high quality, federally-supported professional development. This 
conference report falls 45 percent short in special education funding 
promised under the IDEA--Individuals with Disabilities Education Act--
reauthorization bill passed earlier this year.
  Not only does it shortchange education reform, it contains private 
school vouchers which harm public schools. The measure includes $14 
million for a new private school voucher program for the District of 
Columbia. Private school vouchers drain much-needed resources away from 
public education where all children can benefit, and reduces 
accountability.
  Mr. Speaker, I am gratified by what is in the bill regarding 
veterans' health care, paid for by cutting funds to process veterans' 
benefits and compensation claims. The conference agreement provides 
$1.1 billion more than the President requested veterans' health care, 
but still fails to keep the promise made by Republicans in the budget 
resolution--taking into account the across-the-board cut and not 
counting rescinded funds. After Republicans voted to cut veterans' 
health care by $14 billion, they agreed to provide an additional $1.8 
billion in the budget resolution because of Democratic pressure.
  However, this conference agreement subjects all veterans' programs to 
a 0.59 percent across-the-board cut--so some of the increase in 
veterans' health care is in effect paid for through cuts to other 
veterans' programs. The most dramatic is the cut in funds needed to 
speed up processing of applications for veteran benefits and 
compensation. Currently, there are 448,000 claims pending, with the 
average time to provides a claim at 157 days. The across-the-board cut 
will reduce funding for the claims administration by $6 million--
resulting in an estimated loss of 100 employees needed for veterans 
claims processing and benefits administration. Unfortunantly, State and 
Local Law Enforcement was also cut. State and local law enforcement is 
funded at $500 million below the FY 2003 level, even though state and 
local law enforcement are on the frontline in keeping our communities 
safe--dealing with crime and homeland security.

  The Omnibus funds the Manufacturing Extension Partnership at just $39 
million, a sharp decrease from the FY 2003 level of $106 million. The 
highly successful Manufacturing Extension Partnership offers small U.S. 
manufacturers a range of services from plant modernization to employee 
training. It particularly helps manufacturers adopt advanced 
manufacturing technologies--based on the latest R&D. These 
modernization efforts help our beleaguered small and mid-sized American 
manufacturers stay competitive.
  The conference agreement abandons the bipartisan agreement of both 
bodies of Congress to block FCC regulations permitting broadcast 
networks to expand. In June, the FCC relazed several media ownership 
rules and raised the television station cap, saying broadcast networks 
can buy more stations and expand their reach to 45 percent of the 
national audience, up from 35 percent. Both the House and the Senate 
passed provisions to keep the cap at 35 percent, but the conference 
agreement specifies that the TV station cap will be raised to 39 
percent of the national audience--allowing several networks to expand 
their reach and consolidate the industry. However, Mr. Chairman, even 
though I will not be supporting this bill, there are some very good 
things in this bill. I am glad for the AIDS funding which:
  Provides a total of $1.646 billion global assistance to combat HIV/
AIDs, tuberculosis and malaria, most of which is within the Child 
Survival and Health Programs Fund. $754 million in global assistance is 
anticipated in the Labor-HHS appropriations, bringing total funding to 
$2.4 billion;
  International HIV/AIDS, TB and Malaria programs are funded at $754 
million are increased $50 million over the request. I like the fact the 
bill has the Ryan White AIDS program which is increased by $64 million 
over FY03 with total funding of $2 billion; and
  Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) is funded at the 
president's request of $297 million, $7 million above last year.


                           section 8 housing

  Disabled Housing--Section 811--is funded at the requested level of 
$250 million.
  Includes $12.1 billion for Section 8 voucher renewals, $810 million 
more than FY03 and $205 million more than the request. This will fully 
fund all authorized vouchers based on a 96% lease up rate and the most 
current cost estimates.


                             hope vi money

  Appropriates $150,000,000 for the revitalization of severely 
distressed public housing program (HOPE VI), instead of $195,115,000 as 
proposed by the Senate and $50,000,000 as proposed by the House.


                          public housing money

  Modernization for public housing is funded $2.7 billion, the same as 
last year's level and $71 million above the request.
  Public Housing Operating Subsidies are funded at $3.6 billion, $26 
million above the request and $25 million above FY03.


                   community development block grants

  The Community Services Block Grant Act is funded at $735,686,000 
including for making payments for financing construction and 
rehabilitation and loans or investments in private business enterprises 
owned by community development corporations.


                                ethiopia

  Under the ``Child Survival and Health Programs Fund'', $34,000,000 
shall be made available for family planning, maternal and reproductive 
health activities in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, 
Nigeria, Tanzania, Uganda, Haiti, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Russia, Albania, 
Romania, and Kazakhstan.


                                  NASA

  NASA is funded at the President's request of $15.5 billion, $80 
million over last year.


                            veterans' health

  Provides total resources of $28.6B for the Veterans Health 
Administration: $17.9 billion plus $1.6 billion from the collections 
fund for Medical Services; $5 billion for Medical Administration; $4 
billion for Medical Facilities and $408 million for Medical Research--a 
total of $1.57 over the budget request.
  Fully funds the President's request for Veterans State Extended Care 
Facilities bringing total funding to $102 million, $3 million above 
last year's level.
  The conference agreement includes $57,000,000 from local funds for 
making refunds associated with disallowed Medicaid funding as proposed 
by both the House and Senate.
  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the Democrats were 
locked out of the appropriations process and that the Democrats were 
not able to participate, which is one of the many reasons why I cannot 
support this legislation.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I am encouraged by the conferees 
direction regarding NASA at this critical time. In the wake of the 
Columbia tragedy, NASA's practice of over-promising, over-marketing, 
and under-estimating the costs for its programs cannot be tolerated any 
longer.
  I applaud Chairman Walsh for his commitment in getting NASA to 
rethink its priorities relating to human space flight. We must now 
ensure that the return to flight of the Space Shuttle is not a return 
to business as usual. I support the Science Committee Chairman's 
position that we cannot perpetuate the Space Shuttle and Space Station 
indefinitely, and that any new program has to come with an affordable 
price tag. I do believe, however, that we need a bold vision for NASA. 
I think we should return to the Moon, but this time to stay.
  When the notion of an Orbital Space Plane was introduced, I welcomed 
it as a significant sea change in NASA's approach to space 
transportation development. One year later, however, NASA is still 
struggling with what it has touted as a simple design. According to 
NASA, OSP doesn't replace the Shuttle, and it's not clear how OSP night 
support any future mission. At an estimated cost of $18 billion over 
the next decade, NASA should not go forward until there is consensus 
between the Administration and the Hill concerning the direction of the 
U.S. space program. For too long, we endured costly development 
programs that failed to deliver results. Unfortunately, OSP is poised 
to head down the same path. We have been down this road before.
  Although the conference report calls for the NASA Administrator to 
report to Congress on a ISS re-supply plan by June 2004, the conferees 
do not go far enough in ensuring that Alternative Access to Station 
Program (AAS) remains viable. Current funding for this program runs out 
in January 2004, and the work of the private sector involved with this 
program could be potentially lost. It has been my belief that this 
program has the potential to address the national need for a viable, 
near-term cargo transfer capability as an alternative to the Space 
Shuttle. With the grounding of the Shuttle fleet, America is now at a 
vital crossroad concerning its ability to access space. NASA seems to 
be limiting its options in this regard to foreign launch capabilities. 
And to think several years ago we were concerned with the Russians in 
the Space Station Program's critical path. We must look to domestic, 
commercial solutions to address the critical need to re-supply the 
Space Station.

[[Page H12843]]

  Given my concerns, however, the NASA portion of this appropriations 
package is a good first step to help NASA prepare for the next chapter 
in the American space experience.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the fiscal year 2004 
conference agreement on Foreign Operations. The agreement as contained 
in Division D of this omnibus package represents a bipartisan 
agreement, and most importantly, provides critical funding for a host 
of essential programs that are vital to our national security.
  I want to thank Chairman Kolbe, and Senators McConnell and Leahy, for 
working with me to finalize this agreement. The Foreign Operations 
portion of this bill represents a fair agreement between the two Houses 
that stays within our overall allocation of $17.235 billion.
  The agreement provides a total of $1.64 billion for HIV/AIDS, an 
increase over the House level of more than $200 million. We have 
provided $400 million for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and 
Malaria, as well as increased funding for bilateral programs. With the 
$150 million for the Fund in the Labor HHS bill, the total U.S. 
contribution to the Global Fund for 2004 will be $550 million.
  Funds have been provided to the new Global AIDS coordinator, and we 
have clarified the authorities under which AIDS funds are provided in 
order to ensure that programs continue with a balanced approach to HIV/
AIDS prevention, awareness and treatment.
  It is my understanding that the Labor HHS bill provides $443 million 
in direct funding for AIDS programs, and an additional unspecified 
amount in the National Institutes of Health budget for AIDS research. I 
want to clarify that, while we will hear that total AIDS funding in 
2004 will be $2.4 billion, my calculations put us at just over $2.3 
billion.
  The agreement increases Child Survival funding in every category from 
amounts provided last year, and funds Basic Education at $326 million. 
I want to thank Chairman Kolbe for joining with me to acknowledge the 
importance of Basic Education. Unfortunately our priorities had shifted 
away from Basic Education in the years leading up to September 11th. 
This level of funding will continue the reversal of that unfortunate 
trend by increasing funding by 30% over last year.
  The agreement contains $650 million for the Millennium Challenge 
Corporation and the attendant authorization. While this corporation 
will be independent, we have built in requirements for the involvement 
of the State Department and USAID for coordination and decision-making. 
I have been opposed to the concept of creating a new independent 
agency, and I remain concerned that little to no attention has been 
paid to how these funds will be spent, monitored or audited.
  The authorization provisions provide Congress with ample opportunity 
to consult with the Chairman of the Corporation as the effort moves 
forward.
  An additional $350 million for the Millennium Challenge Corporation 
was added to this bill at the request of the President, and will be 
paid for with a combination of across-the-board cuts and rescission of 
unexpended balances from FY 2003 and prior supplementals.
  I would like to note that there is no way that these additional 
funds--bringing the total provided for the MCC to $1 billion--can be 
spent wisely next year.
  In putting together our recommendations for this bill, my top 
priorities were the core development and health accounts. The President 
has pledged that all funding for the Millennium Challenge Initiative 
would be in the form of increases above current foreign aid spending. 
Given that our 302(b) allocation was $1.7 billion below the President's 
request, we had to make some critical choices. The bottom line is that 
we could only afford $650 million for the Millennium Challenge 
Corporation in our bill.

  Apparently, if a program is a ``Presidential Initiative,'' it is not 
subject to budget targets, or a rational approach to how much can 
actually be spent wisely in a given year. The addition of the extra 
$350 million clearly violates the President's pledge that all MCC 
funding be additive.
  As we go forward, I intend to ensure that the President's pledge is 
kept. Outstanding White House commitments to increase other areas of 
foreign aid spending and currently unknown requirements for Iraq and 
Afghanistan will take foreign aid spending well over $20 billion next 
year. We cannot allow funding for this yet-to-be-formed MCC to take 
precedence over vital ongoing assistance programs.
  The conference agreement contains funding for a host of different 
countries and programs, which I fully support. I want to thank the 
Chairman for including the requirement that organizations administering 
refugee programs adhere to a ``sexual code of conduct.'' Together with 
funds provided in the recent supplemental, we have made a total of $65 
million available specifically for programs to meet the special needs 
of Afghan women. In addition $11 million is made available for women's 
leadership training.
  With respect to the issues surrounding family planning and 
reproductive health, I regret that the bill does not reverse the 
current restrictive Bush Administration policies on family planning. 
Many of us wanted simply to require that organizations providing 
assistance in foreign countries not be subject to laws more restrictive 
than the requirements of U.S. law.
  Unfortunately, inclusion of this language would have drawn a 
Presidential veto. The agreement does provide a total of $466 million 
for family planning, which is a substantial increase above last year. 
It also provides at least $34 million to the United Nations Population 
Fund (UNFPA), based on a Presidential certification. I hope that we can 
take the President at his word in terms of his commitment to work with 
China. We should work to reverse its objectionable family planning 
policies so that funds can flow to UNFPA and so that we do not punish 
poor women around the world because of the policies of one country.
  The agreement contains full funding for Israel, Egypt and Jordan and 
appropriate conditions on Palestinian statehood and direct assistance. 
We have also included language urging the United Nations Relief Works 
Agency to implement the recommendations of the recent GAO report 
regarding terrorism.
  The bill restricts military training to Indonesia unless the 
President certifies that the Indonesian military is fully cooperating 
in the FBI investigations into the killing of American citizens in 
Papua.
  The bill funds the request for Colombia but requires certification on 
compliance with human rights standards and the safety of chemicals used 
in aerial spray eradication programs.
  As with all conference reports, every element in the bill isn't 
perfect. However, I want to again thank Chairman Kolbe for his 
friendship and for working with me to accommodate many of my 
priorities.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to thank the conferees of the Fiscal 
Year 2004 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration 
and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill for their support of a food 
biotechnology education program. I am aware of the difficult challenges 
the conferees faced while crafting this bill, and I am pleased that the 
conferees included language in the conference report that takes us one 
step closer to full implementation of this program.
  I would like to specifically thank Chairman Bonilla, Ranking Member 
Kaptur, Chairman Goodlatte, and Ranking Member Stenholm for their 
cooperation and assistance during this process. I hope that we can 
continue to work together to find funding for this much-needed 
education program.
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to 
express my opposition to the Omnibus Appropriation Bill on which we 
will be voting today. This is an important bill. It funds 11 federal 
agencies and appropriates more than $820 billion. And although it 
contains many important provisions that I support, I regret to say that 
the bad in this bill far outweighs the good. In process, it was 
undemocratically constructed, often over-riding the will of the 
majority in both houses. In substance, it is laden with individual pork 
projects that benefit few, while it under-funds critical and vital 
government programs that could benefit many more.
  Let's first look at the process. A prohibition against the FCC change 
in the rules for media ownership was significally weakened in this 
Omnibus bill and the Labor Department's new overtime regulation was 
dropped entirely, despite the fact that both were agreed to by solid 
majorities in both Houses of Congress.
  But these are not the only reasons I have decided to vote against 
this bill. I oppose this bill both because of the priorities it 
represents as well as for those it fails to represent.
  Remember ``No Child Left Behind'', the President's education bill 
that passed with such fanfare earlier this year? This Omnibus bill 
provides a total of $24.5 billion for this program--$7.8 billion below 
the amount the Republicans promised for Fiscal Year 2004.
  In addition to this broken promise, the Majority has left our 
veterans behind, too. The veterans medical programs portion of the bill 
provides $230 million less than Republicans promised in their own 
budget resolution and $1.7 billion below the amount proposed by 
veterans' organizations.
  This bill does serious damage to several veteran programs. The most 
dramatic is the cut in funds needed to speed up the processing of 
applications for these benefits. At the present time, the Department is 
taking, on average, 157 days to process a claim. The Administration 
request, which the Committee funded, would have added no additional 
staff for processing claims. Veterans are not spared the 0.59 percent 
across the board cut. The cut will reduce funding for the 
administration of claims by $4 million, which will result in the 
estimated loss of 100 employees needed for claims processing.
  Although the Department of Homeland Security is not funded in this 
legislation, Homeland Security will be significally affected by

[[Page H12844]]

two provisions in this bill. This legislation forces the rescission of 
$1.8 billion in prior year supplemental appropriations, including a 
significant portion of funds for the Department of Homeland Security.
  Homeland Security will feel the sting of the 0.59 percent across-the-
board cut and will have a dramatic impact on certain areas in 
particular. The planned increase of 570 Customs and Immigration agents 
for improving border protection will have to be cut by nearly two-
thirds.
  It is true that passing appropriations bills is about making choices, 
about identifying priorities. I happen to believe that funding 
Veterans' Services and Homeland Security to protect our borders with 
additional Customs and Border personnel is a critical piece to this 
Nation's future.
  The Omnibus fails to provide for our children's education. It shuns 
our veterans in their time of need. It undermines the security of all 
of our citizens. It was done behind closed doors and thwarts decisions 
made earlier this year by both Houses.
  This bill is a failure of process and substance. I fear this bill 
will fail the American people. I would urge my colleagues to reject the 
unfair process and the unwise policies that flawed process has 
produced.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, In a recent speech, the President 
described democracy as when ``governments respond to the will of the 
people, and not the will of an elite.''
  Well, Well.
  For the past four years, the House has voted to end the ban on travel 
by Americans to Cuba. This year, the Senate overwhelmingly supported an 
identical provision.
  But it's not in the bill before us now.
  The President wants to keep the embargo intact, and believes that 
respecting the right of Americans to travel to Cuba would be a 
concession to Castro. A majority in both the House and Senate disagree. 
Our fundamental rights as Americans should never be viewed as a 
bargaining chip.
  When the Congress clashes with the White House, the President can do 
what he threatened to do: veto the bill. Sadly, his agents in Congress 
took a more cowardly path.
  Quietly and secretly, they took the conference report and had the 
provision erased. No debate. No vote. No democracy. All so the 
President doesn't have to decide whether to fulfill or break his 
promises to veto the bill.
  Recently, during his visit to Britain, the President said that 
democratic governments honor the aspirations and dignity of their own 
people. I submit that the best place to lead by example is in this 
Capitol building.
  This is now bigger than the Cuba debate. This is about the 
fundamental credibility of the legislative branch of our government.
  If the outcome is predetermined by the White House, no matter how 
many rules get broken in the process, then let's suspend the sermons on 
democracy. If the fix is in, let's stop pretending.
  Senator Hagel has said the White House treats Congress like a 
nuisance. I ask my colleagues, is that all we are?
  If this institution is to be more than a mere nuisance, then allow 
democracy to work. Here. And now. When the Congress votes to end the 
Cuba travel ban, send the provision to the President. And let the 
system work as the founding fathers intended.
  That would show what democracy is really all about.
  Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to 
H.R. 2673, the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2003. Despite the adequate 
funding provided for a number of district priorities, this legislation 
contains countless flawed provisions which will harm American families.
  The Administration's proposal to dramatically alter overtime rules 
for American workers will make it substantially more difficult for 
American workers to make ends meet. This provision will take money away 
from Americans willing to work longer hours to provide for their 
families.
  This legislation also features severe cuts to critical national 
priorities. State and local law enforcement is funded at $500 million 
below current levels when we are asking these heroes to do more every 
day to provide for our homeland security.
  The bill also dramatically underfunds our educational needs. The No 
Child Left Behind Act will receive $7.7 billion less than was 
authorized by the Act thus there will be fewer resources for programs 
in teacher training, bilingual education, and Safe and Drug Free 
Schools. In my own district, the teachers and faculty of Primitivo 
Garcia Elementary School, located in Westside Kansas City, have been 
working hard to meet the demands of the No Child Left Behind Act. They 
are already struggling to help their students succeed with limited 
Title I resources. This legislation fails to offer the students and 
faculty of Primitivo and schools across the country the Federal support 
they need for our children. The measure also fails to address our 
nation's higher education needs. Programs such as the Pell Grant which 
offer higher education funding to the neediest American students will 
not receive enough funding to meet current demands.
  The Omnibus measures also does serious funding damage to veteran 
programs. The most dramatic is the cut in funds needed to speed up the 
processing of applications for veteran benefits. Currently there are 
448,000 claims pending, of which 95,000 have been in the system for 
more than 6 months without a disposition. On average the Department is 
taking 157 days to process a claim. The administration request would 
have added no additional staff for processing claims. The 0.59% across 
the board cut will reduce funding for the administration of claims by 
$4 million and that will result in the estimated loss of 100 employees 
needed for claims processing. This comes at a time when the number of 
claims is likely to skyrocket as Iraqi war veterans apply for benefits. 
In my district, the Kansas City VA Medical Center provides quality 
service to thousands of veterans each year. The hospital's need for 
skilled health care professionals continues to grow. This bill fails to 
provide adequate funding to meet these needs.
  This legislation includes funding for a number of projects within the 
Kansas City area. Among the programs and departments receiving funding 
are a stormwater project in Belton, the Jackson County Sheriff's 
Department, the Cabot Westside Clinic and the Liberty Memorial Museum, 
which will use $100,000 for renovation and $50,000 for education. The 
Omnibus spending bill also includes more than $7 million for 
transportation projects, such as reconstruction of the Grandview 
triangle and expansion of the Lewis and Clark Expressway. Other 
recipients are the Kansas City Region Job Access Program, which will 
receive $500,000 for their programs to link low income families and 
welfare recipients to employment centers and employment related 
services; and the Kansas City Area Transportation Authority, which will 
use $4.7 million in funding for replacement, upgrades and improvements 
to basic transit infrastructure, including buses.
  As much as I was encouraged that these items were included in the 
bill, many important projects in Kansas City and around the nation were 
left unfunded for partisan reasons. In my own district, funding for the 
St. Vincent Family Service Center's Operation Breakthrough, the 
Independence School District, and St. Mark's United Inner City 
Services, all of which received previous Federal funding, were all 
denied funding because of this partisan vendetta. This is a dangerous 
precedent and I would urge the appropriators to consider the value of 
projects independent of partisan politics. The American taxpayers 
deserve no less.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose this legislation. We can do better. Let's work 
together to protect the overtime of American workers, adequately 
provide for our students and veterans, and give communities the support 
they need.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this irresponsible 
Omnibus spending bill. This Republican bill is a stealth attempt to 
impose an extremist agenda on America--an agenda that most Americans 
don't support. But, therein lies the Republican's deceitful strategy: 
to hide numerous controversial provisions in the minutia and complexity 
of a huge Omnibus bill, then ram it through with less than a few hours 
of debate.
  Let's take a moment to see what this bill actually includes.
  It will deny workers their right to overtime. It gives President 
Bush--despite all his false rhetoric about caring for working 
families--the green light to impose government regulations denying 
overtime pay to millions of hardworking Americans. That's right, it 
takes away worker protections for fair pay.
  Does the bill then at least make sure workers who can't find jobs 
receive extended unemployment benefits? No. Nowhere in this bill is 
there a dime for working Americans who are unemployed. Why? Well, 
because Republicans simply refuse to extend unemployment benefits to 
the over 2 million Americans who are suffering from long-term extended 
unemployment. These are folks who have been out-of-work for 26 weeks or 
more unable to find a job. His father, when he was President, extended 
federal unemployment benefits for these people, but this President Bush 
doesn't see any need to be that compassionate.
  While the President talks about recent minimal job growth as if it 
was ``mission accomplished'' on the economy, it isn't enough to make up 
for the millions of jobs that have disappeared since he took office. 
There are still 14 million Americans either out of work or making due 
with part time employment. We must do more to help these families 
survive. But, nothing is included in this last bill that Congress will 
consider this year.
  Of course this Republican Omnibus doesn't stop at making life harder 
for working Americans or ignoring Americans out of work. It also goes 
after America's veterans. It cuts the budget for the Veterans 
Administration by $443 million. This includes a $15 million cut

[[Page H12845]]

for medical care. Putting veterans health care on a shoestring budget 
isn't the way to reward those who have fought for this country or those 
who have come back critically injured from their duty in Iraq.
  This bill also hurts women's reproductive rights. It prevents federal 
employees from accessing reproductive health services under the health 
plans they pay into. It prohibits the District of Columbia from 
offering assistance for low-income women to access needed reproductive 
services. These women should not be singled out and prevented from 
exercising their constitutional right to reproductive choice. But, that 
is exactly the path this bill sets us on.
  This bill shortchanges America's public schools. It does this by 
taking a first step toward a federal program of vouchers for private 
schools by creating a school voucher demonstration program for 
Washington, DC. It doesn't matter that this demonstration will take 
money away from the DC public school system which serves all DC's 
students, while providing necessary funds for only a few students to 
attend private schools.
  This bill also undermines the diversity of our media marketplace by 
opening the door for the concentration of corporate power and influence 
over the public's airwaves. Even though the House and Senate each voted 
to maintain the existing Federal Communication Commission limitations 
on media ownership, this bill permits the FCC to allow greater 
concentration of media ownership. It will diminish the diversity of 
viewpoints and programming placing our very marketplace of ideas in the 
hands of a few major media conglomerates.
  With Republicans controlling the House, the Senate and the White 
House, this type of appropriations process in which everything is 
thrown into one, huge bill should be unnecessary. But, the facts is 
that this bill exists because the Republican leadership could not get 
their job done. Congress did not pass 7 of the nation's 13 spending 
bills that are required to keep the government operating.
  But, I also suspect that the Republican leadership has done this on 
purpose--using the Omnibus bill to all their extreme objectives enacted 
when they couldn't pass on their own. After all, the House already 
voted down destroying overtime pay for America's workers. The Senate 
had been unwilling to vote on school vouchers. And, both the House and 
Senate voted down new media ownership rules. Yet, they have all reared 
their ugly heads again in the Omnibus bill that will be the final 
business the House will consider this year.
  If most Americans were allowed to hear a real debate on this shameful 
and irresponsible bill, they would urge us to vote it down. I urge my 
colleagues to do just that.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Without objection, the 
previous question is ordered.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
  Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 242, 
nays 176, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 676]

                               YEAS--242

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bell
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boucher
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Case
     Chocola
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley (OR)
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Marshall
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Mica
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Oxley
     Pastor
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Scott (GA)
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spratt
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tauzin
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--176

     Abercrombie
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Becerra
     Berman
     Berry
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Castle
     Chabot
     Clay
     Collins
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cox
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Dooley (CA)
     Duncan
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Flake
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gephardt
     Green (WI)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Honda
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (NC)
     Moran (VA)
     Musgrave
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Otter
     Owens
     Pallone
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pomeroy
     Rangel
     Rodriguez
     Rohrabacher
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Woolsey

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Burton (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Cubin
     Doggett
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Gallegly
     Janklow
     Lantos
     Lynch
     Miller, George
     Nadler
     Pascrell
     Taylor (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1523

  Ms. KILPATRICK, Mrs. NAPOLITANO, Mr. ROYCE, and Mr. TOOMEY changed 
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Ms. CARSON of Indiana, Mr. GREEN of Texas, and Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon 
changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 676, due to urgent 
constituent support commitments in my Congressional District, I missed 
the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

                          ____________________