[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.''
____________________