[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 105 (Wednesday, September 8, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H6763-H6772]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5006, DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH
AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS
ACT, 2005
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 754 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 754
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 5006) making appropriations for the
Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and
Education, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2005, and for other purposes. The first reading
of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order
against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate
shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. After
general debate the bill shall be
[[Page H6764]]
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. Points
of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply
with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived except: sections 219(b),
221, and 506. Where points of order are waived against part
of a section, points of order against a provision in another
part of such section may be made only against such provision
and not against the entire section. During consideration of
the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the
Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of
whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be
printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated
for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so
printed shall be considered as read. At the conclusion of
consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall
rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as
may have been adopted. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Terry). The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms.
Pryce) is recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 754 is an open rule which provides for
1 hour of general debate equally divided between the gentleman from
Ohio and the gentleman from Wisconsin on H.R. 5006, the fiscal year
2005 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education and Related
Agencies appropriations bill.
The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill
and against provisions in the bill except as specified in this
resolution.
After general debate, any Member wishing to offer an amendment may do
so as long as it complies with the regular rules of the House.
The bill shall be read for amendment by paragraph, and the rule
authorizes the Chair to accord priority in recognition to Members who
have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record.
Finally, the rule permits the minority to offer a motion to recommit
with or without instructions.
Mr. Speaker, we have before us today a funding package that fulfills
our promises to hard-working Americans and their families. Before I
summarize the main components of this package, it is worth taking a
big-picture view of the context in which we consider this incredibly
important legislation today.
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues in this Chamber and all Americans
listening to this debate today need no reminder that the world has
changed dramatically since the terrorist attacks on our Nation. While
we hang our flags a little higher and wear our stars and stripes a
little more often these days, we do so in part as a response to the
tragedy that took place on our soil on September 11.
The war against terror has brought us many new challenges; namely,
how best to protect our homeland and keep it safe from future acts of
terrorism. That is not an easy job. Yet each day that goes by without
an act of terror in America's neighborhoods offers us reassurance that
we are doing what is necessary to protect our Nation from harm, and
each day monumental steps are being taken an ocean away in Iraq,
Afghanistan and elsewhere to nab terrorist cells and offer citizens of
these nations new opportunities to live their lives free of fear and
full of promise.
Mr. Speaker, as I see it, we cannot have a discussion about domestic
priorities without taking a look at the bigger picture, without
recognizing up front that we do, in fact, live in a different world
today, and that we have sizable commitments to fulfill that we did not
have a few years ago.
Like so many of my colleagues, I hear quite a bit from my
constituents back home about the need to balance spending priorities.
In fact, many of the candidate surveys I filled out this year for
reelection specifically asked, ``If elected, how do you intend to
balance domestic priorities with fighting the war on terror and
protecting the homeland?'' In 100 words or less, I might add. Now, that
is a tall order.
But really, that is a very fair question and one that we in Congress,
especially Members who sit on our Committee on Appropriations, must
take very seriously.
So my purpose here today is to assure the American people that while
we have incredible demands, expectations and commitments to fulfill as
we continue to fight the war on terror and protect our homeland, we
remain equally determined to fund critical initiatives here in the
United States in a fiscally responsible manner.
Today I am privileged to be the first to give my colleagues the lay
of the land as to how this Congress intends to fulfill its promises to
Americans across the country in the areas of education, health and
labor.
I am proud to report that the gentleman from Florida, the gentleman
from Ohio and their colleagues on the Committee on Appropriations have
produced a funding plan that reflects our priorities, meets our goals,
and, most importantly, places the greatest amount of funding in the
areas where we need it most.
Since the beginning of the 108th Congress, we have made tremendous
progress in strengthening our Nation's education system. This House has
moved forward measures to ensure our schools have the tools they need
to meet President Bush's call for high standards and accountability,
and while making remarkable progress, our work is not yet done.
The legislation before us today recognizes the important role
education programs play in the lives of children with special needs by
funding special education grants at the highest level in history, at
over $11 billion. My friends watching in my home State of Ohio will be
pleased to know that since fiscal year 2003, money directed to our
State for special education programs has increased by 25 percent.
This legislation also recognizes the critical role that teachers play
in the education of our Nation's students. We all remember those
teachers who inspired us to learn and to succeed. We want to give every
teacher tools to inspire their students. That is why this bill provides
nearly $3 billion for grants to States to administer professional
development programs for their teachers.
Of course, educating our Nation's children is a shared
responsibility, at a Federal, State and a local level.
{time} 1045
And I think my colleagues would agree with me that the Federal
Government is fulfilling its role in dedicating funds to strengthen our
Nation's education system.
When we talk about education, often our first thoughts are about the
millions of American children who deserve to have good teachers, small
classrooms, up-to-date textbooks, and a safe environment in which to
learn. And while we can give our children the best of each of those
things, if the child does not have his health, these things mean
nothing. Same goes for adults who go to work every day to provide for
their families. Without their health, productivity decreases, paychecks
stop coming, and families struggle.
Good health is really the backbone to living a quality life. The
Federal Government, through partnerships with State, local, and private
entities, have made significant investments in medical research and
health programs for years now. A few years ago, Congress fulfilled its
commitment to doubling the budget of the National Institutes of Health,
the medical research arm of the Federal Government. This truly was a
remarkable goal and an even more remarkable achievement to meet such a
goal. Since then, Congress has not rested on its laurels. We continue
to provide significant increases in funding for NIH, as indicated by
the $700 million increase in funds over last year's level. This brings
NIH funding to a record high of $28.5 billion.
We all know that investments in research yield new treatments, but
those treatments are only meaningful if they are accessible to those
who need them. The legislation before us today recognizes the unique
role that community health centers play in neighborhoods across
America. These centers help ensure that the neediest in our communities
have access to health care services.
President Bush and this Congress are committed to increasing Federal
support for community health centers.
[[Page H6765]]
This bill expands the President's Community Health Center initiative to
increase the role of community health centers in our neighborhoods by
funding the program at $1.8 billion, an increase of $200 million over
last year.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to take a moment to highlight one other
critical health-related program included in this package. That is the
Children's Hospital Graduate Medical Education program. This program,
funded at $303 million, helps our Nation's children's hospitals train
future pediatricians. It is a wonderful program that has been increased
significantly in funding based on annual evaluations since its very
inception. I want to give a special thanks to both the chairman and the
ranking member for supporting this critical program again this year.
Last but not least, this legislation makes clear Congress' support
for job training programs and assistance for dislocated workers. The
worker-training portion of the bill restores funding for core job
training to over $1.5 billion and provides another $1.5 billion to
assist displaced workers. Mr. Speaker, the best part of this package is
that it recognizes that we have limited resources to spend, yet still
meets America's needs with those resources. It demonstrates that
funding America's priorities can be both generous and responsible.
Before closing, I would like to once again express my appreciation to
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Young) for their tremendous leadership as they have worked
tirelessly this year to assure that Congress spends generously but
wisely. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and approve the
underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for
yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, appropriation bills are the truest
expression of Congress' priorities. All year long we may claim to
support after-school programs and child care assistance or provide
expanded job-search assistance to the 1.2 million unemployed Americans.
All year long we may have expressed opposition to the new Labor
Department overtime rules. Today is the day we match the deeds to
words.
Mr. Speaker, the bill before us, H.R. 5006, the fiscal year 2005
Appropriations Act for the Department of Labor, Health and Human
Services, and Education, shortchanges a wide range of programs
important to the people we serve.
Now, why are these programs being shortchanged? To meet our homeland
security or our defense needs? To pay down our historic $422 billion
deficit? No. Programs are being shortchanged to pay for tax cuts that
the Congressional Budget Office found go disproportionately to the
wealthiest Americans.
Schools are shortchanged under H.R. 5006. And those who supported the
No Child Left Behind Act should have a problem with the fact that this
measure shortchanges our schools to the tune of $9.5 billion.
The promises made when No Child Left Behind was signed into law over
2\1/2\ years ago may be a faint memory to those who supported the bill,
but let me assure you that school superintendents, principals,
teachers, and parents have not forgotten.
While I was pleased to see the bill raises funding levels for special
education and title I funding by $1 billion each, this is a far cry
from what has been promised.
The elimination of 22 education programs under H.R. 5006 warrants
attention. Among them are the Dropout Prevention Program, Teaching
American History grants, Foreign Language assistance, and the Arts in
Education program, which encourages the integration of arts into
classroom instruction.
There is a human toll to cutting these programs. A 60 percent cut to
the Perkins loan program will result in 53,000 students losing college
assistance. A freeze in the level of Federal support for after-school
programs may force communities to close their centers. In my district,
this year, the Rochester school board had to make the painful decision
to cut their budget by over $7 million. The children in Rochester did
not have the option this summer to take summer school, and now their
after-school programs are in jeopardy.
Turning to the Health and Human Services section of the bill, I am
troubled by cuts to public health and our critical health care safety
net programs. The bill terminates the Healthy Communities Access
program, which is a vital grant program supporting local efforts that
take care of the health of the uninsured. It is wrong to eliminate this
important program, especially given the fact that, according to the new
census figures, the number of uninsured Americans has swelled to 45
million.
Mr. Speaker, I submit herewith for the Record a report issued by the
U.S. Census Bureau which provides further details regarding this issue:
Estimates derived from SIPP data answer such questions as:
What percentage of households move up or down the income
distribution over times? How many people remain in poverty
over time? How long do people without health insurance tend
to remain uninsured?
Income in the United States
highlights
Real median household money income remained unchanged
between 2002 and 2003 at a level of $43,318, following two
consecutive years of decline. Median income remained
unchanged for all types of family and nonfamily households
(such as married-couple household and single individuals)
between 2002 and 2003.
Real median household income remained unchanged for non-
Hispanic White, Black, and Asian households between 2002 and
2003. Households with Hispanic householders (who can be of
any race) experienced a real decline in median income of 2.6
percent between 2002 and 2003.
The most commonly used measure of household income
inequality, the Gini index, did not change between 2002 and
2003. The share of aggregate income received by the lowest
quintile declined from 3.5 percent to 3.4 percent, as did the
real income level delineating the 20th percentile of
household income, from $18,326 to $17,984 (a 1.9 percent
decline in real terms). The 80th percentile of household
income increased 1.1 percent, from $85,941 to $86,867 in real
terms.
The real median earnings of men who worked full-time, year-
round remained unchanged between 2002 and 2003 at $40,668.
The real median earnings of the comparable group of women
declined by 0.6 percent to $30,724. Reflecting the fall in
the earnings of women, the female-to-male earnings ratio
declined from 0.77 to 0.76 between 2002 and 2003. The last
time the female-to-male earnings ratio experienced an annual
decline was between 1998 and 1999.
Compared with 1967, the first year for which household
income statistics are available, real median household income
is up 30 percent. Over this period, median income tended to
rise and fall along with the business cycle. median income
peaked in 1999, was unchanged in 2000, declined over the next
2 years (by a cumulative 3.3 percent), and was unchanged in
2003.
race and hispanic origin
Real median household income remained unchanged for most
race groups between 2002 and 2003. For example, the median
incomes of non-Hispanic White households, Black households,
and Asian households remained unchanged. Hispanic households
experienced a decline in median income of 2.6 percent.
Black households had the lowest median income. Their 2003
median money income was about $30,000, which was 62 percent
of the median for non-Hispanic White households (about
$48,000).
Median money income for Hispanic households was about
$33,000 in 2003, which was 69 percent of the median for non-
Hispanic White households.
Asian households had the highest median income among the
race groups. Their 2003 median money income was about
$55,000. 117 percent of the median for non-Hispanic White
households.
american indian and alaska native population
Because of the relatively small population of this racial
group, the sampling variability of their income data is
larger than for the other racial groups and may cause single-
year estimates to fluctuate more widely. To reduce the
chances of misinterpreting changes in income or comparisons
of income with other groups, the Census Bureau uses 2-year-
average medians for measuring changes in the income of
American Indians and Alaska Natives over time, and 3-year-
average medians when comparing the income of this group with
other racial groups.
The 3-year-average (2001-2003) median income for American
Indian and Alaska Native households was higher than the
median for Black households; not different from the median
for Hispanic households; and lower than the medians for non-
Hispanic White households and Asian households.
Comparison of 2-year moving averages (2001-2002 and 2002-
2003) shows that the median income for American Indian and
Alaska
[[Page H6766]]
Native households who chose that race alone or in combination
with another increased by 4.0 percent over that period for
single-race American Indian and Alaska Native households,
median income remained statistically unchanged.
nativity
Native households had a real median income in 2003
($44,347) that was not different from that in 2002. Foreign-
born households experienced a real decline of 3.5 percent to
$37,499. Households maintained by a foreign-born house-holder
who was not a citizen of the United States experienced their
third consecutive annual decline in real median household
income, down 5.6 percent from 2002 to $32,806. The real
median income of house-holds maintained by a foreign-born
householder who was a naturalized citizen remained unchanged
at $46,049.
Median income was $44,347 for native households, 18 percent
higher than the median for all foreign-born households
($37,499), and 35 percent higher than for noncitizen foreign-
born households ($32,806).
region
Real median money income of house-holds did not change
between 2002 and 2003 in three of the four regions, while
income in the South declined 1.5 percent to $39,823. the
South had the lowest income of any region. In 2003, the
median income of households in the Northeast was $46,742; in
the Midwest, it was $44,73; and in the West, it was $46,820.
residence
Real median income remained unchanged between 2002 and 2003
for households inside metropolitan areas overall and outside
metropolitan areas, while the real median income of
households in central cities of metropolitan areas declined
by 1.4 percent of $37,174. This is the third consecutive year
that households in central cities of metropolitan area
experienced a decline.
income inequality
The Gini index indicated no change in household income
inequality between 2002 and 2003. The 2003 Gini index (0.464)
was higher than in 1995 although the individual annual
changes in that period were not statistically significant.
Between 2002 and 2003, the real income of the household at
the 20th income percentile (that is, the income percentile
(that is, the income delineating the lowest 20 percent of
households) declined 1.9 percent from $18,326 to $17,984, and
the income of the household at the 80th income percentile
increased 1.1 percent from $85,941 to $86,867 (the income
levels denoting the 40th and 60th percentiles did not
change). In addition, the share of aggregate income received
by the lowest household income quintile declined from 3.5
percent to 3.4 percent. The shares of all other quintiles
were unchanged--in 2003, the second quintile received 8.7
percent, the third quintile 14.8 percent, the fourth quintile
23.4 percent, and the fifth quintile 49.8 percent.
work experience and earnings
Of the 80.6 million men aged 15 and over who worked in
2003, 73.0 percent worked full-time, year-round, unchanged
from 2002. Of the 71.4 million women in the same age group
who worked in 2003, 58.7 percent worked full-time, year-
round, also unchanged from 2002.
The real median earnings of men who worked full-time, year-
round in 2003 ($40,668) did not change from 2002, while those
of their female counter-parts declined by 0.6 percent, to
$30,724. The decline in women's real earnings between 2002
and 2003 was the first since 1995. Reflecting the decline in
the real earnings of women, the female-to-male earnings ratio
for full-time, year-round workers fell from 0.77 to 0.76
between 2002 and 2003. The last time the female-to-mail
earnings ratio experienced an annual decline was between 1998
and 1999.
Health Insurance Coverage in the United States
highlights
The number of people with health insurance coverage
increased by 1.0 million in 2003, to 243.3 million (84.4
percent of the population).
An estimated 15.6 percent of the population or 45.0 million
people, were without health insurance coverage in 2003, up
from 15.2 percent and 43.6 million people in 2002.
The percentage and number of people covered by employment-
based health insurance fell between 2002 and 2003, from 61.3
percent and 175.3 million to 60.4 percent and 174.0 million.
The percentage and number of people covered by government
health insurance programs increased between 2002 and 2003,
from 25.7 percent and 73.6 million to 26.6 percent and 76.8
million, driven by increases in the percentage and number of
people covered by Medicaid (from 11.6 percent and 33.2
million to 12.4 percent and 35.6 million) and Medicare (from
13.4 percent and 38.4 million to 13.7 percent and 39.5
million).
The proportion of children who were without health
insurance did not change, remaining at 11.4 percent of all
children, or 8.4 million, in 2003. With an uninsured rate at
19.2 percent, children in poverty were more likely to be
uninsured than all children.
The uninsured rate and number of uninsured increased from
2002 to 2003 for non-Hispanic Whites (from 10.7 percent and
20.8 million to 11.1 percent and 21.6 million), but not for
Blacks or Asians. Although the number of uninsured increased
for Hispanics (from 12.8 million to 13.2 million), their
uninsured rate was unchanged at 32.7 percent.
The historical record is marked by a 12-year period from
1987 to 1998 when the uninsured rate (12.9 percent in 1987)
either increased or was unchanged from on year to the next.
After peaking at 16.3 percent in 1998, the rate fell for two
years in a row to 14.2 percent in 2000, before the latest
period of annual increases to 15.6 percent in 2003.
type of coverage
Most people (60.4 percent) were covered by a health
insurance plan related to employment for some or all of 2003,
but the proportion declined from the previous year. This
decline essentially explains the fall in total private health
insurance coverage, from 69.6 percent in 2002 to 68.6 percent
in 2003.
The percentage of people covered by health insurance
provided by the government increased between 2002 and 2003.
Medicaid coverage rose by 0.7 percentage points to 12.4
percent in 2003. Medicare coverage also rose in 2003, by 0.2
percentage points to 13.7 percent. Among the entire
population, 26.6 percent had government insurance, including
Medicare, Medicaid, and military health care (3.5 percent).
race and hispanic origin
In 2003, the uninsured rate for Blacks was unchanged at
about 19.5 percent, and the rate for Asians unchanged at
about 18.7 percent. The uninsured rate rose for non-Hispanic
Whites--from 10.7 percent to 11.1 percent. Among Hispanics,
the uninsured rate was unchanged at 32.7 percent, whereas the
number of Hispanics without coverage increased from 12.8
million to 13.2 million in 2003.
The 3-year averages of the uninsured rates by race and
Hispanic origin (2001-2003) show that people who reported
American Indian and Alaska Native had an uninsured rate that
was lower than the uninsured rate for Hispanics (32.8
percent) but higher than those of the other race groups.
Comparison of 2-year moving averages (2001-2002 and 2002-
2003) shows that the uninsured rate for American Indians and
Alaska Natives did not change.
nativity
The uninsured rate increased in 2003, from 12.8 percent to
13.0 percent for the native population, and from 33.4 percent
to 34.5 percent for the foreign-born population. Among the
foreign born, the uninsured rate for noncitizens also
increased, from 43.3 percent to 45.3 percent, while the
uninsured rate for naturalized citizens was unchanged at 17.1
percent. The proportion of the foreign-born population
without health insurance (34.5 percent) was about two and a
half times that of the native population (13.0 percent) in
2003. Among the foreign born, noncitizens were more likely
than naturalized citizens to lack coverage--45.3 percent
compared with 17.1 percent.
economic status
The likelihood of being covered by health insurance rises
with income. Among people in households with annual incomes
of less than $25,000 in 2003, 75.8 percent had health
insurance; the level increased with income up to 91.8 percent
for those with incomes of $75,000 or more. Compared with
2002, the coverage rate was unchanged for those with
household incomes more than $75,000, whereas rates fell for
those in each lower category of household income.
Of those 18 to 64 years old in 2003, full-time workers were
more likely to be covered by health insurance (82.5 percent)
than part-time workers (76.2 percent) or nonworkers (74.0
percent). The uninsured rate for those working full-time
increased from 16.8 percent in 2002 to 17.5 percent in 2003.
The comparable rates for those working part-time or not
working did not change.
children's health insurance coverage
The percentage and number of children (people under 18
years old) without health insurance did not change between
2002 and 2003, at 11.4 percent and 8.4 million, respectively.
The likelihood of health insurance coverage varied among
children by poverty status, age, race, and Hispanic origin.
Children in poverty were more likely to be uninsured than the
population of all children in 2003--19.2 percent compared
with 11.4 percent.
Children 12 to 17 years old were more likely to be
uninsured than those under 12--12.7 percent compared with
10.6 percent. While 21.0 percent of Hispanic children did not
have any health insurance in 2003, the comparable rates among
children for whom a single race was reported were 7.4 percent
for non-Hispanic White children, 14.5 percent for Black
children, and 12.4 percent for Asian children.
region
The South was the only region to show an increase in the
percentage of people without health insurance in 2003, up
from 17.5 percent in 2002 to 18.0 percent. The uninsured
rates for other regions did not change in 2003--12.9 percent
for the Northeast, 12.0 percent for the Midwest, and 17.6
percent for the West.
residence
The uninsured rates increased between 2002 and 2003 inside
metropolitan areas overall (from 15.3 percent to 15.6
percent) and for people living in the suburbs (from 13.1
percent to 13.5 percent), while the uninsured rates for
people in central cities of metropolitan areas (19.5 percent)
and outside metropolitan areas (15.5 percent) did not change
in 2003.
Mr. Speaker, it is also wrong to freeze funding for Title X Family
Planning services or for prenatal care for mothers and medical
treatment for uninsured children, which this bill does.
[[Page H6767]]
Most importantly, this bill does nothing to address the recently
announced, just last week, over the holiday, the 17 percent hike to
Medicare premiums, which is the largest premium increase in the 40-year
history of Medicare. For seniors living on fixed incomes, there is no
room in their budgets to pay another $11.60 for doctors' visits per
month.
At a time when seniors in Medicare are preoccupied with questions of
the prescription drug law, the news of a premium increase only
compounds their concern and frustration with the Medicare program.
Medicare is not being reformed; it is being eviscerated.
Another troubling aspect of the bill is the inclusion of a provision
offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) that could have
a devastating effect on women's ability to receive the full range of
reproductive health services, including abortion care and even simple
information about their medical options. Talk about unconstitutional.
Under the Weldon amendment, health care companies are granted the
right to exempt themselves from any Federal, State, or local law that
assures women have access to abortion services and information. This is
another gag rule. This sweeping ``refusal'' policy, otherwise known as
a ``backdoor gag rule on doctors,'' is not restricted to just the
actual abortion services, but also would allow companies not to pay for
abortions, or even referrals for patients to see another doctor.
Once again, we are asking professionals not to be able to give to
their patients the information they deserve and they need. It not only
undermines the rights of women but also bestows power on insurance
companies to choose whether or not to comply with the law. This is a
precedent that should worry all of us and one that we have seen before
that has been struck down. I know that this provision will be struck in
conference and, if not, certainly in the courts.
It also says that should that information be given, the community can
lose all of its Federal money. I do not know exactly how extensive that
is. Does that mean all Medicare, Medicaid, nutrition money, highway
money, school money, everything else that comes in from the Federal
Government to the community will be cut off because a woman has been
told her rights? Surely nobody in this House would want that.
Now, let me address some unfinished business from last year's
appropriation debate: unemployment and overtime. This is really a
tragedy, Mr. Speaker, for the millions of unemployed who are losing
their homes, their cars, and are unable to keep their children in
college. Millions of unemployed Americans today lost their jobs because
of trade policies or outsourcing or the stalled economy, and they have
not found replacement jobs. They have had to survive without the
unemployment assistance for a year, something this country has never
done before.
The news that 144,000 jobs were created in August was no solace,
since our economy is still 1.2 million jobs short of where it was in
2000. At this rate, the current administration will be the first in our
history to see fewer non-farm jobs created at the end of 4 years.
A 10 percent cut to farm offices is certainly not helpful. And
funding Job Corps at a paltry $1.5 billion and providing only $25
million for community college training initiatives are also troubling
decisions.
In addition to training, today's unemployed, over a fifth of whom are
the long-term unemployed, need Congress to extend the unemployment
insurance. I have constituents, as do all of my colleagues, who have
exhausted all their regular and extended unemployment and still have
not been able to secure a job. Unemployment insurance, which expired
last November, must be extended and more needs to be done for America's
dislocated workers.
Finally, I want to turn to a subject of keen interest to working
Americans, access to overtime compensation. This week, for the 122nd
year, Americans came together to commemorate Labor Day, a day when we
celebrate the contributions that workers have made to the strength and
the prosperity of our country. Alas, this year there is no cause for
celebration for America's workers.
Today, they are simply struggling to support their families on wages
that have not kept pace with inflation. They strain to cover exploding
health care premiums, and they try to avoid joining the ranks of the
1.4 million workers who lost coverage last year alone. And they worry
that their jobs are the next to be shipped off to Mexico or China. Now,
with the enactment of the Labor Department's new overtime rules, they
have a whole new source of stress. Today, they worry they are among the
6 million workers who stand to lose access to overtime pay under the
new rules.
My colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), will offer an
amendment to block enforcement of the final overtime rule with one
exception. It would allow an increase to the salary threshold for low-
wage workers from $8,060 to $23,600. Last year, this body approved, by
a vote of 221 to 203, a similar measure that would have stopped the
Department of Labor from rolling back the 40-hour workweek. As we all
know, at the insistence of this administration, that provision was
stripped out from the final fiscal year 2004 omnibus appropriations
bill, even though it had passed both Houses.
Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Congressional Record a list of people
who are losing their overtime work, which include firefighters, police
sergeants, nurses, licensed practical nurses, nursery school teachers,
oil and gas pipeline workers, steel workers, teachers, and on and on.
The Republican-Led Senate Voted 99:0 To Protect Overtime Rights for
Workers in 55 Job Categories Because They Had No Confidence in the
Administration's Claims
Any work paid on an hourly basis
Blue collar workers
Any work provided overtime under a collective bargaining
agreement
Team Leaders
Computer programmers
Registered Nurses
Licensed practical nurses
Nurse midwives
Nursery school teachers
Oil and gas pipeline workers
Oil and gas platform workers
Refinery workers
Steel workers
Shipyard and ship scrapping workers
Teachers
Technicians
Journalists
Chefs
Cooks
Police Officers
Firefighters
Fire sergeants
Police sergeants
Emergency medical technicians
Paramedics
Waste disposal workers
Day care workers
Maintenance employees
Production line employees
Construction employees
Carpenters
Mechanics
Plumbers
Iron Workers
Craftsmen
Operating engineers
Laborers
Painters
Cements masons
Stone and brick masons
Sheet metal workers
Utility workers
Longshoremen
Stationary engineers
Welders
Boilermakers
Funeral directors
Athletic trainers
Outside sales employees
Inside sales employees
Grocery store managers
Financial services industry workers
Route drivers
Assistant retails managers
Mr. Speaker, we do not do enough in this bill, and we really must.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes
to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the rule. There is a
campaign of disinformation that is being waged against the overtime pay
reforms put in place by the Department of Labor late last month, and I
would like to speak to that.
The administration has guaranteed overtime protection for 6.7 million
working Americans, and it is a reform that was needed and it was
overdue. We have not seen millions of workers lose their overtime pay.
In fact, we have watched as 1.3 million additional Americans have
gained their right to claim overtime pay.
[[Page H6768]]
The previous system was outdated, it was unfair, and the Bush
administration deserves credit for reforming the system, even though
they knew the political interests aligned against the President would
try to frame it as a negative.
The old status quo was a 54-year-old regulation. That is what the
critics are claiming was fair. Under that regulation, someone earning
as little as $8,060 would be classified as a white collar employee and
prevented, prevented, from receiving overtime pay. No more, Mr.
Speaker. This new policy is worker-friendly, it is fair, and I support
the rule.
{time} 1100
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago we heard one of the speakers
on the majority side of the aisle talk about this bill in terms of
being a bill which meets our promises. I am not quite sure what bill
she was referring to, but it certainly could not have been this one
because this bill is a monument to broken promises and is an
embarrassment to the institution, in my view, if this institution
pretends that it cares about making the long-term investments in our
economy and in our kids that are necessary.
If you take a look at what this bill does not produce, this bill
falls $9.5 billion below the promises in the No Child Left Behind Act
of just 3 years ago for Title I alone, which is the major program by
which we attack poor education systems for disadvantaged children. For
Title I alone, this bill is $7 billion short of the promises laid out
in the No Child Left Behind Act.
Special education: Both political parties posed for political holy
pictures in terms of how much we are going to try to do for handicapped
children, and yet this bill provides $2.5 billion less than the
Republicans promised in their own budget of just 1 year ago.
Then if we look at Pell grants, I was so flabbergasted, I practically
fell onto the floor when I saw the President of the United States speak
to the Republican convention and talk about his determination to
increase Pell grants, when, in fact, the majority has frozen Pell
grants for 2 years in a row, and this bill is part of that freezing
process. So Pell grants have been frozen while tuition has gone up at
the average 4-year university by almost 17 percent in that same time
period.
In the Department of Labor, we have almost a million and a half fewer
private sector jobs than we had 4 years ago, and yet this legislation
cuts help for people making a job search through State agencies by 10
percent.
The Community Access Program, which attempts to provide access to
decent health care for poor people, is eliminated. The After School
Center Program, which is an effort to see to it that kids do not go
home to an empty nest after they finish the school day and can still
receive some meaningful instruction, that program is frozen. NIH,
National Institutes of Health, which do the basic research on all
disease: smallest increase in 19 years. Now these cuts are not
necessitated, as was indicated on the majority side, because we are at
war; these cuts are necessitated because the majority has decided that
their top priority is to provide people who make a million dollars a
year with a $127,000 tax cut next year. That is why these squeezes are
made necessary.
So, Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask the House to vote against the
previous question on the rule so that we can offer an amendment that
would shave those tax cuts for millionaires from $127,000 to a mere
$89,000. I do not know how they will be able to get along with a mere
$89,000 tax cut, the poor devils, but they are just going to have to do
it. We are going to try to shave that tax cut for the most well-off
people in this society so we can continue to meet our obligation to the
least well-off people in our society.
What is at stake, in my view, is whether or not this Congress is
willing to slowly shred the safety net for the middle class, or whether
we are going to continue to build that safety net. I want to be able to
offer an amendment which will restore $5.5 billion more to education,
which will invest $200 million more in workforce training, invest an
additional $1.6 billion to provide more assistance to the 45 million
people without health care, and make a series of other adjustments that
will make this a far more progressive and humane bill. The only way we
can do that is if we defeat the motion on the previous question on the
rule. I would urge the House to do just that when the opportunity comes
in just a few moments.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume
to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the dean of the delegation
from the great State of Ohio and the chairman of the Subcommittee on
Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time. I want to highlight some of the positive things about this bill.
This bill distributes over $142.5 billion, and it does things for
people. It is aimed at helping people, and I think we can be proud as a
Congress for what we are doing here. It funds over 500 discretionary
programs, and every one of those programs is important to people in
this Nation. But, importantly, also, it stays within the subcommittee's
302(b) allocation and the constraints that were established in the
budget resolution. It would be easy to go over because these programs
are something that are very sensitive, but I think we have tried very
hard, and we had a bipartisan effort in the subcommittee, to meet the
needs and aspirations without exceeding the budget.
We did this with a lot of hearings, 23 days of hearings. We heard
from 33 different agencies, and we had over 100 public witnesses. One
of the things that we have done in our subcommittee is give the public
an opportunity to be heard on how these programs affect them and what
is important to them.
The bill only goes up a little over 2 percent above last year's
level, and obviously we had to make some very tough priority choices in
order to stay within the constraints of the budget resolution which
gave us a little bit over 2 percent.
A policy decision we made was to focus on education, and we put $342
million more into education programs than was requested in the
President's budget. The bill reflects the priorities of Members of the
House. For example, the original budget proposed to cut vocational
education State grants by $200 million. We not only restored the $200
million, but added $20 million above last year because we recognized
that vocational education is extremely important as people need to have
training and retraining. We think of vocational education as only at
the high school level, but we have a lot of adult education programs
that give individuals an opportunity to get skills for new job
opportunities that come their way.
We increase the funding for student aid in higher education in
certain areas not requested by the administration, and we restored
other programs that were proposed for termination. I think overall the
bill reflects the priorities of the Members of this House on both sides
of the aisle in the field of education. Obviously, it would be nice to
have a lot more, but we have to work within the constraints of the
budget.
An area of great interest to our Members is special education, IDEA,
and we added a billion dollars to this program above last year that
brings the total to over $11 billion. In Title I, we added a billion
dollars over last year for a total of $13.3 billion. In addition to aid
to education, this bill expands funding for training and adjustment
services for workers that are dislocated due to plant closures and mass
layoffs. It reflects the fact that we have somewhat of a changing mix
of the employment opportunities in our society.
This bill also provides $50 million for the President's new Community
College/Community-Based Job Training Initiative. These types of
institutions, because they are sort of a hands-on opportunity, have
provided a lot of great help to people. I know in my own district we
have a vocational or trade school that is post-high school 2 years. It
offers skills in about 45 different curricula offerings, and
enrollments just leaped to a very high level, and the important thing
is that they have an excellent record in placing their graduates, their
2-year graduates, in jobs. So we want to support that type of thing in
this bill.
Another area that is of interest to people are the community health
centers, because it keeps people out of
[[Page H6769]]
emergency rooms that really need that access. It provides medical help
to the people that are without means. I think expansion of the
community health center service is very important. We support the
proposal of the President in his budget.
Through NIH, we support medical research. This is an agency that
gives hope to people, hope that there will be a cure. I think the
measure of the success is testimony by Dr. Zerhouni that every 5 years
life expectancy goes up a year in the United States. That is a
tremendous record. We try to continue the support. We have more than
doubled NIH in the last 5 years, and we added $700 million to this
year's bill.
Also we recognize that preparedness is very important in today's
world of terrorism and uncertainty, so we have given the Federal, State
and local public health officials the ability to respond to terrorism,
to meet whatever emergencies arise in the public health system. One of
the things that has been our goal is to make the whole public health
system seamless, starting with the Centers for Disease Control and with
the State public health and the local public health, so the ability to
communicate when there is an emergency is done almost instantly.
Secretary Thompson has given great leadership, I think, in focusing an
information center in HHS that allows a quick response whenever there
is a critical problem. Because of the importance of all this, we added
$188 million above the 2004 level.
We added $398 million to the Centers for Disease Control. Because we
have a freer flow of people around the world: SARS, the West Nile
virus, hepatitis, influenza, and other emerging global disease threats.
And the watchdog, the protection for all of us, is done effectively by
the Centers for Disease Control. They are on the cutting edge.
Recognizing that, we put an increase in $29 million over 2004 to deal
with some of these threats to all of us.
I could say a lot more about the bill and will in the general debate,
but I think overall the bill, given the constraints that we had in
terms of the allocation, we have done a fair job. I think fair in the
sense that it reflects not a partisan outlook, but reflects the feeling
of the members of the subcommittee and the full committee and the
Members of this House, many of whom testified on various things. We
tried to make a balanced bill that would give the best possible service
to the American people in terms of their education, in terms of their
health, job retraining, and basically I suppose one could describe this
bill as the epitome of hope. It gives hope that there will be cures
found by NIH, hope that people will get new skills so they can be
reemployed, and hope that their children will have better education
opportunities than they have, and we have tried to respond to that
desire on the part of the American people.
I urge Members to support this rule and to support the bill when we
get to it. I think it is a fair and balanced approach to the challenges
that confronted our subcommittee.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
{time} 1115
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished
gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I thank the chairman and
ranking member of this committee for the work that they have done, as
well as the full committee, because I know that they have worked, as we
would say, against all odds. But I think when we come to the floor of
the House, it is appropriate to tell the truth and to really
acknowledge why this bill does not deserve in its present form the
support of those of us who believe in comprehensive health care and
recognizing the valiant work of Americans who work every day to make
the engine of this country run.
First of all, this bill suffers because this administration and this
Congress have made a decision that those who make a million dollars,
those who make millions of dollars a year, are far more important with
giving them, the 1 percent richest of America, the biggest tax cut that
they will ever have. In fact, part of the reason why we are suffering
in this legislation is because there is this idea that we should make
these tax cuts permanent, permanent in the light of soaring costs in
the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, young men and women losing their lives
and not having the resources that they need in health care and jobs
when they come home, those who do come home, and then those families
whose young ones have lost their lives not having the resources in
order to survive.
This is a bill that suffers a lot. First of all, it immediately
squeezes the middle class. How does it do that? By eliminating for the
first time in history the rights to overtime. Overtime has been
somewhat of a sacred understanding that when you go the extra mile, you
are paid in many instances. This bill does not affirm that because, of
course, it affirms the Labor Department's regulations. I hope that we
all will support the Obey-Miller amendment in order to restore the
rights of overtime.
This bill does not affirm what we call access to health care by
minorities. Hispanic males and African American females were in the
highest obesity at-risk groups when data was evaluated by race and
gender. African American men are at least 50 percent more likely to
develop lung cancer than white men. African American men are twice as
likely to be diagnosed for prostate cancer as white men. We have a
problem in the lack of access to health care and disparity in health
care. None of the resources in this bill focus particularly on that
concern. In fact, the Centers for Disease Control loses money.
Job-training programs lose money. But more importantly, the whole
idea of promoting good health care for the uninsured loses its momentum
in this legislation. For example, the NIH gets its smallest increase
over the years. The NIH is involved in research that helps improve
health conditions. And, of course, we have a problem with respect to
community health centers in promoting more of those in our community.
Access to health care is a key to good health care, particularly for
those who are uninsured.
I will offer two amendments that deal with the inequities in health
care in particular, adding dollars to lupus research and also adding
dollars for research in hepatitis C, which impacts minorities and
veterans to a high degree.
I would say that this legislation is lacking in a lot of ways. It is
lacking in its caring attitude. It is lacking in the recognition that
there are great needs among populations that have been underserved. It
is lacking in the fullest amount of funding to allow the utilization,
to close the gap between health care. And, of course, it is lacking in
the understanding of the 44 million that are uninsured. I would hope
that we would come to grips with the fact that health care is very much
a part of the American dream. It is a part of equality and justice.
Until we have justice in health care, until we have justice in labor
rights, our country is not meeting its promise.
I hope that my colleagues will vote enthusiastically for the Obey-
Miller amendment to restore overtime rights, and I hope they will
support my amendments on adding additional funds for lupus research and
as well as adding additional funds to find the cure and do research in
hepatitis C.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to
the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), a champion and leader in the
area of education.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time, and I rise in support of the underlying legislation and the rule
which is before us because it includes many things which I support,
community health centers, the Ryan White AIDS program, and programs and
activities at the CDC and the NIH, but mostly because the bill reflects
our priority for the schools and students across the country. In the
past 9 years, this Congress has provided record increases to our
Nation's education programs, more than doubling discretionary spending
to the U.S. Department of Education. As we all know, in recent years
these increases have been coupled with widespread reforms that will
ensure that every child in the classroom is learning.
In January of 2001, the No Child Left Behind Act was signed into law,
and we are now beginning to see the benefits of these bold policies. In
the past couple of months, many States have reported
[[Page H6770]]
the number of schools in need of improvement is actually decreasing. In
fact, in my home State of Delaware, 128 of our 173 schools have met
adequate yearly progress, up from 75 in the last school year. This is
remarkable news, and educators across the country are to be commended
for their dedication to meeting the rigors of No Child Left Behind.
No Child Left Behind provides the road map for reform, and our past
appropriations acts have given the funding to help make it possible.
Title I alone has increased over $3 billion in the past 3 years and
programs encompassed by the No Child Left Behind Act have nearly
doubled over the same time period. Today's bill builds upon our
impressive record by providing increases to IDEA, State assessments,
teacher quality, Impact Aid and the Institution of Education Sciences,
to name only a few.
As time progresses, the facts grow clearer that No Child Left Behind
is the right thing for our students and that the Federal Government is
providing the resources needed. There is no evidence to show that the
law is an unfunded mandate, and we should all stand proud on our record
of supporting all education programs.
I would be remiss if I did not take time here today to discuss
embryonic stem cell research as well. As many of my colleagues know, I
have been leading the House effort with my colleague from Colorado (Ms.
DeGette) to expand the current Federal policy in order to realize the
true hope that science holds for millions of patients who suffer
nationwide. We have organized letters, met with the Nation's premier
scientists, visited the Harvard Stem Cell Institute and Children's
Hospital in Boston where leading research is taking place, and have
introduced bipartisan legislation that would expand the policy while
remaining consistent with the President's ethical concerns.
Times have changed and science has moved forward from the President's
thoughtful decision, and there are now over 150 new stem cell lines
nationwide that have been derived with improved technology and are
genetically diverse. We must reevaluate this policy. Unfortunately, now
is not the time to do so. This issue must be decided on science, not
politics. We must have a thorough debate in the House and in the U.S.
Senate on the state of the research and how to move the policy forward
while ensuring that research is conducted ethically.
Mr. Speaker, I plan to press forward with this issue in the coming
months. It is too important to ignore.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I
want to call a vote for the previous question and urge a ``no'' vote.
If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to
the rule that will make in order an amendment that was submitted to the
Rules Committee yesterday by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Ranking
Member Obey) but, sadly, was rejected. The amendment would increase
funding for a number of vital programs and services that are
insufficiently funded in the bill.
The programs and services provided in H.R. 5006 touch the lives of
almost every American. The bill funds activities ranging from education
for preschoolers from low-income families, to college tuition
assistance, and to home-delivered meals for the elderly. It also
provides for job training, worker protection, and funding for medical
research. But as critical as these programs are to our citizens, the
leadership has drastically underfunded them. The Obey substitute will
help restore funding to a number of the most important of these
programs.
I want to point out that this amendment is fully paid for. It offsets
the increased costs of the programs by slightly scaling back the 2001
and 2003 tax cuts for those with incomes above $1 million. Under this
amendment, their average tax cut would go from $127,000 to $89,000,
still a very substantial tax cut. I think most people making that kind
of money are willing to accept this modest cut, especially since it
will help improve the quality of life for so many less-privileged
Americans and help America.
Mr. Speaker, all Members of this House need to be very concerned
about the lack of adequate funding for the critical programs and
services in this bill, whether it is health care, education, medical
research, services for the elderly, low-income energy assistance. The
list is long. The Obey amendment would help correct the funding
deficiencies in the bill and would do so, as I said, with no additional
cost to the deficit.
I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to vote ``no'' on the
previous question so that we can vote on the Obey amendment. A ``no''
vote will not stop the House from taking up the Labor-HHS bill. It will
not affect the open-amending process provided for in the rule. But a
``yes'' vote will prevent the House from considering this important
amendment.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Is there objection to the
request of the gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Today we have a unique opportunity to tell the American people what
their government is doing with their money. While this Congress remains
fully committed to fighting the war on terror and protecting our
homeland, we remain just as focused on meeting the needs of Americans
here at home. That is what we are doing today.
This carefully crafted package reflects the Federal Government's
commitment to ensuring that children with special needs and the
teachers who inspire them to learn have the tools they need in school
to succeed. This package also reflects the government's commitment to
ensuring that critical agencies like the National Institutes of Health
can conduct medical research to better treat illnesses and making
certain that those treatments get into the hands of the Americans who
need them. This package also reflects the government's commitment to
seeing that men and women looking for new jobs receive the helping hand
and training that they need to bring home a paycheck.
Mr. Speaker, the authors of this appropriations package, my good
friend from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and his committee, were asked to do a
very tough job this year, to balance spending priorities. Once again,
they have met this challenge by producing a carefully crafted product
that provides considerable increases for vital programs and services
while preserving our commitment to spending taxpayers' dollars wisely.
I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying
legislation.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:
Previous Question for H.Res. 754--Rule on H.R. 5006 Fiscal Year 2005
Labor/HHS/Education Appropriations
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
``Sec. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
resolution, the amendment printed in section 3 shall be in
order without intervention of any point of order and before
any other amendment if offered by Representative Obey of
Wisconsin or a designee. The amendment is not subject to
amendment except for pro forma amendments or to a demand for
a division of the question in the committee of the whole or
in the House.
Sec. 3. The amendment referred to in section 2 is as
follows:
In title I, under the heading ``Employment and Training
Administration, Training and Employment Services'', after
``$2,649,728,000'' insert ``(increased by $125,858,000)'',
after $1,642,442,000'' insert ``(increased by
$125,858,000)'', and after ``$1,178,192,000'' insert
``(increased by $38,000,000)''.
In title I, under the heading ``State Unemployment
Insurance and Employment Service Operations'', after each
appearance of ``$141,934,000'' insert ``(decreased by
$137,000)'', and after ``$3,440,914,000'' insert ``(increased
by $87,995,000)''.
In title I, under the heading ``Departmental Management,
Salaries and Expenses'', after ``$264,653,000'' insert
``(increased by $74,317,000)''.
In title II, under the heading ``Health Resources and
Services Administration, Health Resources and Services'',
after ``$6,305,333,000'' insert ``(increased by
$403,000,000)'', after ``$32,500,000'' insert ``(increased by
$7,500,000)'', and after ``$278,283,000'' insert ``(increased
by $17,000,000)''.
In title II, under the heading ``Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, Disease
[[Page H6771]]
Control, Research, and Training'', after ``$4,228,778,000''
insert ``(increased by $100,000,000)''.
In title II, under the heading ``National Cancer
Institute'', after``$4,870,025,000'' insert ``(increased by
$63,486,000)''.
In title II, under the heading ``National Heart, and Blood
Institute'', after ``$2,963,953,000'' insert ``(increased by
$38,639,000)''.
In title II, under the heading ``National Institute of
Dental and Craniofacial Research'', after ``$394,080,000''
insert ``(increased by $5,137,000)''.
In title II, under the heading ``National Institute of
Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases'', after
``$1,726,196,000'' insert ``(increased by $22,503,000)''.
In title II, under the heading ``National Institute of
Neurological Disorders and Stroke'', after ``$1,545,623,00 ''
insert ``(increased by $20,149,000)''.
In title II, under the heading ``National Institute of
Allergy and Infectious Diseases'', after ``$4,440,007,000''
insert ``(increased by $54,622,000)''.
In title II, under the heading ``National Institute of
General Medical Sciences'', after ``$1,959,810,000'' insert
``(increased by $25,548,000)''.
In title II, under the heading ``National Institute of
Child Health and Humane Development'', after
``$1,280,915,000'' insert ``(increased by $16,698,000)''.
In title II, under the heading ``National Eye Institute'',
after ``$671,578,000'' insert ``(increased by $8,755,000)''.
In title II, under the heading ``National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences'', after ``$650,027,000''
insert ``(increased by $8,474,000)''.
In title II, under the heading ``National Institute on
Aging'', after ``$1,055,666,000'' insert ``(increased by
$13,762,000)''.
In title II, under the heading ``National Institute of
Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases'', after
``$515,378,000'' insert ``(increased by $6,719,000)''.
In title II, under the heading ``National Institute of
Deafness and Other Communication Disorders'', after
``$393,507,000'' insert ``(increased by $5,130,000)''.
In title II, under the heading ``National Institute of
Nursing Research'', after ``$139,198,000'' insert
``(increased by $1,815,000)''.
In title II, under the heading ``National Institute on
Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism'', after ``$441,911,000'' insert
``(increased by $5,761,000)''.
In title II, under the heading ``National Institute on Drug
Abuse'', after ``$1,012,760,000'' insert ``(increased by
$13,203,000)''.
In title II, under the heading ``National Institute of
Mental Health'', after ``$1,420,609,000'' insert ``(increased
by $18,519,000)''.
In title II, under the heading ``National Human Genome
Research Institute'', after ``$492,670,000'' insert
``(increased by $6,423,000)''.
In title II, under the heading ``National Institute of
Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering'', after
``$297,647,000'' insert ``(increased by $3,880,000)''.
In title II, under the heading ``National Center for
Research Resources'', after ``$1,094,141,000'' insert
``(increased by $136,907,000, of which $122,644,000 shall be
for extramural facilities construction grants)''.
In title II, under the heading ``National Center for
Complementary and Alternative Medicine'', after
``$121,116,000'' insert ``(increased by $1,579,000)''.
In title II, under the heading ``National Center on
Minority Health Disparities'', after ``$196,780,000'' insert
``(increased by $2,565,000)''.
In title II, under the heading ``John E. Fogarty
International Center'', after ``$67,182,000'' insert
``(increased by $876,000)''.
In title II, under the heading ``National Library of
Medicine'', after ``$316,947,000'' insert ``(increased by
$4,132,000)''.
In title II, under the heading ``Office of the Director'',
after ``$359,645,000'' insert ``(increased by $14,719,000)''.
In title II, under the heading ``Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration, Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services'', after ``$3,270,360,000'' insert
``(increased by $40,000,000)''.
In title II, under the heading ``Low-Income Home Energy
Assistance'', after ``$200,000,000'', after
``$1,900,000,000'' insert ``(increased by $200,000,000)''.
In title II, under the heading ``Refugee and Entrant
Assistance'', after ``$491,336,000'' insert ``(increased by
$32,000,000)''.
In title II, under the heading ``Payments to States for the
Child Care and Development Block Grant'', after
``$2,099,729,000'' insert ``(increased by $100,000,000)''.
In title II, under the heading ``Children and Families
Services Programs'', after ``$8,985,663,000'' insert
``(increased by $110,000,000)'', after ``$6,898,580,000''
insert ``(increased by $80,000,000)'' and after
``$710,088,000'' insert ``(increased by $30,000,000)''.
In title II, under the heading ``Administration on Aging,
Aging Services Programs'', after ``$1,403,479,000'' insert
``(increased by $70,000,000)''.
In title II, in the first paragraph under the heading
``Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund'', after
``$1,842,247,000'' insert ``(increased by $16,000,000)'', and
after ``$1,187,760,000'' insert ``(increased by
$16,000,000)''.
In title II, in the third paragraph under the heading
``Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund'', after
``$60,000,000'' insert ``(increased by $40,000,000)''.
In title II, under the heading ``Education for the
Disadvantaged'', after ``$15,535,735,000'' insert
``(increased by $1,727,686,000)'', after ``$7,849,390,000''
insert ``(increased by $1,727,686,000)'' after
``$7,037,592,000'' insert ``(increased by $233,636,000)'',
after each appearance of ``$2,469,843,000'' insert
``(increased by $633,182,000)'', and after ``$80,000,000''
insert ``(increased by $227,686,000)''.
In title II, under the heading ``School Improvement
Programs'', after ``$5,641,401,000'', and after
``$4,031,016,000'' insert ``(increased by $425,000,000)''.
In title II, under the heading ``Special Education'', after
``$12,176,101,000'' insert ``(increased by $1,200,000,000)'',
and after ``$6,560,447,000'' insert ``(increased by
$1,200,000,000)''.
In title II, under the heading ``Student Financial
Assistance'', after ``$14,755,794,000'' insert ``(increased
by $2,200,000,000)'', and after ``$4,050'' insert
``(increased by $450)''.
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following new section:
Sec. . In the case of taxpayers with adjusted gross income
in excess of $1,000,000, for the tax year beginning in 2005
the amount of tax reduction resulting from enactment of the
Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 and
the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003
shall be reduced by 30 percent.
Mr. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time,
and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes
the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered, on the question of
the adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 209,
nays 190, not voting 34, as follows:
[Roll No. 424]
YEAS--209
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (FL)
NAYS--190
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
[[Page H6772]]
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Case
Clyburn
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--34
Andrews
Ballenger
Bilirakis
Boehlert
Brady (TX)
Cannon
Chandler
Clay
Conyers
Culberson
Engel
Flake
Grijalva
Hobson
John
Jones (OH)
Kleczka
Kolbe
Lampson
Lewis (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McInnis
Mollohan
Nethercutt
Norwood
Owens
Payne
Putnam
Ryan (OH)
Schrock
Simmons
Tauzin
Udall (CO)
Young (AK)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson) (during the vote). Members are
advised 2 minutes remain in this vote.
{time} 1152
Mr. DOOLEY of California and Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida changed
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________