Congressional Record, Volume 150 Issue 105 (Wednesday, September 8, 2004)

[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 105 (Wednesday, September 8, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H6772-H6859]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 754 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 5006.

{time} 1152

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 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, with Mr.
LaTourette in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula).
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to offer today the fiscal year 2005
appropriations bill for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human
Services, Education and related agencies. By taking into consideration
the priorities of the President and the Members, all the Members of
this House, we have produced a bill that meets the needs of all
Americans. This bill affects the lives, in one way or another, of every
American.
We are appreciative of the efforts of the leaders of the House and
the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Young), to provide a workable allocation for this bill. I
am pleased to say that this bill was unanimously approved on a
bipartisan basis in both the subcommittee and the full committee. I
would also like to acknowledge the hard work, dedication, and expertise
of my subcommittee staff, as well as the minority staff, in putting
together this bill.
Mr. Chairman, this bill is about hope. It gives hope to every child
seeking a good education, it gives hope to everyone searching for a
good or better job than they have, and it gives hope to the ill seeking
a cure.
This bill provides $142.5 billion--that is $500 for every person in
the United States of America--a 2.2 percent increase over fiscal year
2004, for over 500 different discretionary programs. It is responsible,
it is fair, and it is balanced.
Let me first talk about education. I would like to discuss what this
bill provides for education. Education is essential to the preservation
of democracy, and an investment in education is an investment in human
capital and an investment in the future of this great Nation.
Mr. Chairman, Federal education spending has more than doubled since
fiscal year 1996, from $23 billion to nearly $60 billion today. We have
focused spending in this bill in the key areas that most directly
improve our children's education.
First and foremost, I believe that no child will be left behind if he
or she has a quality and dedicated teacher. Almost every teacher in our
Nation's classrooms today is there for one reason: They love children
and want to help them reach their full potential, and that should be
their goal.
We applaud their hard work and dedication, and we support them in
this bill by providing funding to encourage people to enter the field
of teaching and to strengthen and maximize the skills of those already
in the classroom.
I would urge young people that are thinking about a career to give
consideration to being in a classroom, where they can touch the lives
of children. Often when I speak to large groups out in the district, I
say, how many of you had a teacher that has made a difference in your
life? Almost every hand in the room goes up.
This bill also supports teachers and students by increasing funding
for Title I by $1 billion. Title I provides the additional resources to
low-income schools to help principals, teachers and students close
education achievement gaps. At the school level, Title I helps provide
additional staff, ongoing training and the latest research, computer
equipment, books or new curricula offerings that, coupled with strong
accountability efforts, helps disadvantaged children meet the same high
standards as their more advantaged peers.
In addition to the funding increases in Title I, this bill also
increases funding for scientifically based reading programs so that all
children can read well by the end of the third grade. In 3 short years,
funding for reading programs has tripled to over $1.3 billion, tripled,
and importantly so. Reading is the key. This investment will assist
parents, teachers and school districts in meeting the reading
challenges of our children.
Mr. Chairman, many of my colleagues speak with me about the financial
demands of special education on

[[Page H6773]]

their local school districts. We also hear from parents about the need
to support adequate special education funding to ensure their special-
needs children receive a quality and equal education opportunity.
In this bill, funding for special education totals over $11 billion,
a nearly 380 percent increase since fiscal year 1996, and $1 billion
more than last year.
Title III programs are designed to strengthen institutions of higher
education that serve a high percentage of minority students and
students from low-income backgrounds. I want to point out that in
fiscal year 2005, funding to Title III programs is at $519 million, and
this, combined with the funding for Howard University and other
historically black colleges and universities financing programs, our
commitment to minority serving institutions exceeds $975 million.

{time} 1200

The sharp rise in college costs continues to be a barrier to many
students. Pell grants help ensure access to postsecondary education for
low and middle-income undergraduate students by providing grants that
help meet college education needs. The bill continues to support a
maximum Pell grant level of $4,050, while also including $12.9 billion
for Pell grants, an increase of $823 million over last year.
Health and Human Services.
If you have good health, you have hope; and if you have hope, you
have everything. Health care is a critical part of our Nation's
economic development. To assist in protecting the health of all
Americans, and to provide essential human services, the bill provides
the Department of Health and Human Services over $62 billion for fiscal
year 2005.
Mr. Chairman, similar to the Department of Education, we have more
than doubled the funding for HHS since fiscal year 1996: $28.9 billion
in fiscal year 1996 to $62.2 billion for fiscal year 2005. I think that
is a tremendous increase under the circumstances, but will meet real
needs.
At the forefront of new progress in medicine, the National Institutes
of Health supports and conducts medical research to understand how the
human body works and to gain insight into countless diseases and
disorders. As a result of our commitment to NIH, our citizens are
living longer and better lives. Life expectancy at birth was only 47
years in 1900. By 2000, it was almost 77 years, and my colleagues heard
me say earlier that Dr. Zerhouni testified that every 5 years, life
expectancy goes up a year.
In every state across the country, the NIH supports research at
hospitals, universities, and medical schools. The 5-year doubling of
the NIH budget completed in fiscal year 2003 has picked up the pace of
discovery and heightened public expectations. We now expect NIH to
carefully examine its portfolio and continue to be a good steward of
the public's investment. Funding for NIH has increased by over $700
million, bringing its total budget to $28.5 billion. In that regard I
might say that we looked at all the programs and said, is this
producing results so that we could use the money as good stewards and
as wisely as possible for the 280 million Americans.
All of the information and advances we have gained from NIH, however,
will be useless if they do not make their way to health care providers
and individuals, those most responsible for their own health. Thus, the
work of the Centers for Disease Control and prevention is critical to
protecting the health and safety of people at home and abroad.
Recognizing the tremendous challenges faced by CDC, we have provided
over $915 million for the prevention and control of chronic diseases
such as diabetes, cancer, heart disease, arthritis and tobacco use, and
$640 million for immunizations. CDC's total allocation for fiscal year
2005 includes nearly $4.5 billion.
Mr. Chairman, health centers operating at the community level provide
regular access to high-quality, family-oriented, comprehensive primary
and preventive health care, regardless of ability to pay, and improves
the health status of underserved populations living in inner city and
rural areas. These funds provided in our bill, $1.8 billion, an
increase of $218 million over last year, are expected to serve 14.8
million patients in fiscal year 2005--83 percent more than in fiscal
year 1996. These are important to a lot of people. They are important
to emergency rooms, because it gives people a place to go as an
alternative.
Children's hospitals across the Nation are the training grounds for
our pediatricians and pediatric specialists. Many of these hospitals
are regional and national referral centers for very sick children,
often serving as the only source of care for many critical pediatric
services. The bill provides over $303 million to train these important
caregivers who care for America's youngest population, its children.
The Ryan White AIDS Drug Assistance Program funding is increased by
over $35 million, bringing its total to over $800 million. The increase
in funding assists those infected with the virus and receiving vital
medication through the drug assistance program. Overall, the Ryan White
AIDS programs are funded at more than $2 billion.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is the Federal agency
responsible for overseeing Medicare, Medicaid, and the State Children's
Health Insurance Program. CMS is the largest purchaser of health care
in the world and second only to Social Security in the level of Federal
spending. And while the mandatory funding for CMS programs comes
through the Committee on Ways and Means, this bill provides the costs
for their administrative functions. Funding for CMS is at $2.7 billion,
an increase of more than $100 million. That is important, because it
will speed up processing of claims for people in Medicare, Medicaid,
and so on.
Infant mortality rates in certain segments of our population are at
least 1\1/2\ times the national average. We have provided over $97
million for the Healthy Start Program, which uses community-designed
and evidence-supported strategies aimed at reducing infant mortality.

Our commitment to a child's well-being does not rest with Healthy
Start. We have provided nearly $6.9 billion for Head Start, a program
designed primarily for preschoolers from low-income families.
The Adoption Incentive Program has been successful in contributing to
substantial increases in adoptions in recent years. Between fiscal year
1998 and fiscal year 2002, a total of 236,000 children were adopted.
Think what that means. They got a home. They got a family, Mr.
Chairman. 236,000! While the overall number of children being adopted
has grown dramatically, some children needing permanent homes remain
less likely to be adopted. This bill provides $32 million for the
Adoption Incentives Program so that States may continue their efforts
to increase the number of children adopted by caring families.
Additional support for the President's initiatives in this bill
include: $55 million for the Compassion Capital Fund, which helps
faith-based and community organizations increase their effectiveness
and enhance their ability to provide social services to those most in
need. Mr. Chairman, $129 million for violent crime reduction programs;
$110 million for abstinence education, an increase of nearly $35
million over the fiscal year 2004 level.
The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program ensures that low-income
households are not without heating or cooling and provides protection
to our most vulnerable populations: the elderly, households with small
children, and persons with disabilities. The funds are distributed to
the States through a formula grant program, and we have provided $2
billion for fiscal year 2005, an increase of $110 million over the
fiscal year 2004 level. In addition, $227 million is included for the
weatherization program.
Mr. Chairman, our society is judged not only by the care we provide
to our young, but also by how we treat the elderly. This bill provides
over $1.4 billion to the Administration on Aging to enhance health
care, nutrition, and social supports to seniors and their family
caregivers.
In the labor area.
We ought to support the aspirations of people: good health, security,
meaningful work, creative and intellectual pursuits. The Department of
Labor plays a key role in many important worker-training and protection
programs. Therefore, we have restored

[[Page H6774]]

funding to core job training and employment assistance programs.
A number of communities continue to experience plant closings and
other layoffs, and we understand the need to support dislocated worker-
training programs that can assist workers to return to gainful
employment. In this bill, we restore funding for dislocated worker-
assistance programs to nearly $1.5 billion, $25 million over fiscal
year 2004, and an increase of over $96 million above the budget
request.
This bill includes $19 million for a Homeless Veterans Reintegration
program to operate employment programs that reach out to homeless
veterans and help them become employed.
Worker-protection programs, including OSHA and MSHA, are funded at
$462 million and $276 million, respectively.
The Social Security Administration receives its mandatory allocation
through the Committee on Ways and Means; this bill provides the funding
for their administrative costs. Effective administration of this agency
ensures efficient services to recipients. We have included $485
million, an increase in the funding for the Social Security
Administration to improve delivery of benefits and expedite the
processing of disability claims. I am sure all of my colleagues have
experienced this, where people very much need the funding and to get
their disability claims taken care of, and we recognize that; and we
have added money so that we can speed up the process.
Mr. Chairman, much more could be said about this bill which touches
every American at some point in life. We are mindful of the fiscal
limitations of our bill and have tried to use the allocation to fund
our highest priorities.
The French philosopher de Touqueville came to America in the 1800s
and wanted to see what makes this country different, and he observed,
``America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good,
America will cease to be great.''
This bill is about the goodness of America. This bill is a perfect
example of how the taxpayers of this country are providing funds to
help others. It is a perfect example of caring for each other, and I
think that is very much a part of the goodness of America. As I stated
earlier, this bill is about hope. Someone once said, ``Hope deferred
makes the heart sick, but a desire fulfilled is a tree of life.'' We
give hope to people who want better education. We give hope to people
who want better health, and we give hope to those who are seeking
retraining in order to get a job. This is very important in what this
bill does for the people of this Nation. I think the people desire a
good education, they desire meaningful jobs, and they desire good
health.
Mr. Chairman, this bill does its best, within the constraints of what
we had available, to meet the American people's needs. It is
responsible, it is fair, and it is balanced. I ask my colleagues to
support it.
Mr. Chairman, at this time I will submit a detailed table of the bill
into the Record.

[[Page H6775]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE04.001

[[Page H6776]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE04.002

[[Page H6777]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE04.003

[[Page H6778]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE04.004

[[Page H6779]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE04.005

[[Page H6780]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE04.006

[[Page H6781]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE04.007

[[Page H6782]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE04.008

[[Page H6783]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE04.009

[[Page H6784]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE04.010

[[Page H6785]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE04.011

[[Page H6786]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE04.012

[[Page H6787]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE04.013

[[Page H6788]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE04.014

[[Page H6789]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE04.015

[[Page H6790]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE04.016

[[Page H6791]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE04.017

[[Page H6792]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE04.018

[[Page H6793]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE04.019

[[Page H6794]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE04.020

[[Page H6795]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE04.021

[[Page H6796]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE04.022

[[Page H6797]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE04.023

[[Page H6798]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE04.024

[[Page H6799]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE04.025

[[Page H6800]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE04.026

[[Page H6801]]

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
I will include at this point in the debate the supplemental views
that I and my Democratic colleagues wrote on this bill which lay out
our concerns about this bill's shortcomings. I think they will be
sufficient to explain why so many of us have such grave misgivings
about this bill.

MINORITY VIEWS OF THE HONORABLE DAVID OBEY, STENY HOYER, NITA LOWEY,
ROSA DeLAURO, JESSE JACKSON, JR., PATRICK KENNEDY, AND LUCILLE ROYBAL-
ALLARD

While this bill is a modest improvement over the
President's budget request, it fails to meet America's needs
in education, health care, medical research, and human
services. The bill's inadequacies, however, are not the fault
of the Committee or Chairman Regula. This bill's shortcomings
are the direct and foreseeable result of the Majority's
reckless FY 2005 budget resolution which, as with each of the
budgets the Majority produced over the past three years,
abandons fiscal discipline, mortgages our nation's future,
and makes impossible critical investments that benefit all
Americans. It is the product of the skewed priorities of the
Majority, who value super-sized tax cuts for our wealthiest
and most privileged citizens over honoring our commitments
and protecting our most vulnerable citizens.
Even when provided with an opportunity to change course,
the Majority held rigidly to its failed budget blueprint.
Earlier this year, the Majority rejected a Democratic
alternative to the FY 2005 budget that was fiscally
responsible and allowed a greater investment in education,
health care, and many other critical priorities. Then, on
June 24, the Majority defeated a Democratic resolution to
revise the budget resolution that would have made a greater
investment in education, training, and health by modestly
scaling back tax cuts for those with annual incomes of $1
million or more.
Given the Majority Party's misguided budgetary choices,
shortfalls in appropriations are inevitable. In fact, the
Labor-HHS-Education Subcommittee received a relatively good
share of an inadequate total, allowing an increase of about
$3 billion above the current year. That increase was largely
allocated to a few areas: providing $1 billion increases for
two high-priority education programs, keeping up with rising
costs in the Pell Grant program, partially covering increased
research costs at NIH, and funding the administrative
expenses of the Social Security Administration.
After doing these things, the subcommittee had more than
exhausted the additional funds it was allocated above the FY
2004 level. Consequently, other priorities in the bill had to
be cut.

education--not at the top of the class

Next year, K-12 and higher education enrollments will again
reach record levels. Nearly 55 million students will attend
the nation's elementary and secondary schools--4 million more
students than in 1995. Full-time college enrollment will
reach 16.7 million students--14 percent more than a decade
ago.
At the same time that schools are serving more students,
the stakes are raised higher by the mandates of the No Child
Left Behind Act (NCLB). During the 2005 school year, schools
must actually test each student in grades 3-8 in reading and
math or face federal sanctions. Student achievement must
improve. And, every teacher of a core academic subject must
become ``highly qualified.''
Against the backdrop of record school enrollments,
unprecedented Federal education accountability requirements,
and rising demand for college assistance, the Committee bill
fails to match these growing demands with sufficient
resources. The bill provides a $2.0 billion (3.6 percent)
increase over FY 2004 for the Department of Education's
discretionary programs, continuing a downward slide in new
discretionary education investments under the Bush
Administration.
No Child Left Behind
While all 50 states and 15,500 school districts are
striving to address NCLB's worthy goals, money remains short
in many schools. Nonetheless, the Committee bill actually
cuts NCLB funding $120 million below the Administration's
request, while providing only $328 million (1.3 percent) more
than FY 2004. In total, the bill provides $9.5 billion less
than the funding promised in NCLB.
Fully funding Title 1--which serves low-income children in
schools with the greatest educational challenges--is the
centerpiece of federal education reform efforts. Title 1
grants to school districts receive a $1 billion (8.1 percent)
increase in the Committee bill, the same amount as the
President's request. Despite this needed increase, Title 1
appropriations in FY 2005 would still fall $7.2 billion short
of the NCLB funding promise--accounting for most of the total
$9.5 billion NCLB shortfall in the Committee bill.
A key concept in NCLB is that students who are falling
behind are able to receive tutoring and a broad array of
enrichment services in school and community-based after
school centers. Yet the Committee bill freezes funding for
21st Century Community Learning Centers at $999 million--only
half of the $2.0 billion authorized by NCLB. At the $2.0
billion level, an additional 1.3 million children could be
served in such communities as Davenport, Iowa, Columbus,
Ohio, Greenville, South Carolina, and Salt Lake City, Utah,
all of which are struggling to keep existing after school
centers open to serve children in working families.
The Committee bill freezes funding at last year's levels
for several programs that are important to the success of
NCLB. For example, English language learning assistance for
more than 5 million children who must learn to read and speak
English is frozen at $681 million, the second year in a row--
even while these children must meet the same rigorous
academic standards as all other children. About 6,500 rural
school districts will see their Rural Educational Achievement
Program grants level funded at $168 million, in the
aggregate; despite the difficulty they face in recruiting and
retaining teachers. In addition, investments in school
violence prevention, substance abuse prevention and school
safety activities are frozen at $595 million, nearly 10
percent less than the safe and drug-free schools funding
level three years ago.
The Committee bill makes only modest investments in a few
areas. For example, it provides a $63 million net increase
for teacher training in math and science instruction (after
accounting for an offsetting reduction in NSF support). It
provides 1,300 school districts located on or near military
bases and other federal facilities a $21 million (1.7
percent) increase under the Impact Aid program. Further, it
rejects the Administration's proposal to cut vocational and
career education by $316 million and, instead, provides an
increase to offset inflation.
These modest increases, however, are offset by deep
reductions in other education initiatives, including the
outright elimination of 22 programs. For example, the
Committee bill wipes out the Title VI education block grant,
although the Administration proposed to continue its flexible
funding of nearly $300 million to help the nation's school
districts pay for locally identified needs, such as up-to-
date instructional materials, counseling services, and
parental involvement activities. Moreover, arts education,
teacher training to improve American history instruction,
drop out prevention, K-12 foreign language assistance, and
community technology centers to bridge the digital divide in
low-income communities--all priority activities reauthorized
in NCLB--are terminated. Because of budget constraints, the
bill even denies over $100 million in education initiatives
requested by the President.
Special Education
President Bush's Commission on Excellence in Special
Education concluded, ``children with disabilities remain
those most at risk of being left behind.'' The Committee bill
makes progress in fulfilling federal commitments in special
education by providing a $1 billion (9.9 percent) increase
over FY 2004 for IDEA Part B State Grants, the same amount as
the President's request. Under the Committee bill, the
federal contribution toward special education costs incurred
by the nation's schools will increase from 18.7 percent in FY
2004 to 19.8 percent in FY 2005. Nonetheless, the Committee
bill falls $2.5 billion short of the $13.6 billion promised
last year by the Majority party when it passed H.R. 1350, the
IDEA reauthorization bill.
College Assistance
In today's increasingly technological society, a college
education is essential for a good-paying job. For low- and
moderate-income families, however, the task of sending a
child to college--which has never been easy--is now a
daunting challenge, given an average 26 percent tuition
increase in the last two years at 4-year public colleges and
universities.
The Committee bill, however, makes little progress in
making college more affordable for disadvantaged students.
The bill freezes the maximum Pell Grant for low-income
college students at $4,050 for the second year in a row,
freezes College Work Study assistance, and cuts Perkins Loans
by $99 million below last year's level.
College students will receive help with dramatically rising
tuition bills only through a $24 million (3.1 percent)
increase for Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants
(SEOGs), and a restoration of the $66 million LEAP grants for
state need-based student financial assistance programs, which
the Administration sought to eliminate.

investing less in america's labor force

For the Department of Labor's employment and training
assistance programs for unemployed Americans, the Committee
bill invests $236 million less than the Administration's
request and $40 million less than last year, despite a loss
of 1.8 million private sector jobs since President Bush took
office.
While the Committee bill provides a $25 million (1.7
percent) increase over FY 2004 to assist dislocated workers
affected by mass layoffs, it denies 80 percent of the
Administration's $250 million request for the Community
College technical training initiative and eliminates the $90
million prisoner re-entry initiative due to budget
constraints. The bill shaves the Administration's proposed
2.8 percent increase for salaries and other operating costs
for Job Corps, the highly successful initiative that helps
hard-core disadvantaged and unemployed youth, to a 1.8
percent increase over FY 2004.

[[Page H6802]]

Unemployment remains unacceptably high with 8.0 million
Americans out of work; however, the Committee bill actually
cuts assistance for individuals seeking jobs through the
Employment Service, a building block for the nation's one-
stop employment services delivery system. State Employment
Service funding is cut to $696 million, a 10 percent
reduction below FY 2004 and the lowest level in more than 10
years. The Committee bill also rescinds $100 million in prior
funding, as requested by the Administration, for the H-1B
training grants that help train Americans in high-skill,
high-wage jobs and reduce the nation's reliance on foreign
workers.
Further, funding to promote international labor standards
and combat abusive child labor will be eviscerated with a 68
percent cut in the Committee bill, which adds only $5 million
to the Administration's request. The $35.5 million provided
in the bill includes only $16 million for child labor
projects compared with the $82 million allocated in FY 2004.

falling short of the promise of a safe and healthy nation

For the health-related programs of the Department of HHS,
the Committee's bill falls short of what is needed to
maintain the health care safety net, protect the public
health, and advance medical research.
The measure does substantially increase funding for
Community Health Centers, expand a Global Disease Detection
initiative at CDC, and provide modest increases for AIDS drug
assistance and chronic disease prevention programs. In some
respects it is an improvement over the President's budget--it
rejects the Administration's proposal to cut bio-terrorism
preparedness assistance to health departments and hospitals,
and reduces the President's proposed cuts in rural health and
health professions programs.
However, a number of health programs are still cut below
the current-year level by the Committee bill. Examples
include the Healthy Communities Access Program, several rural
health programs, some health professions training programs
(especially those related to primary care and public health),
and block grants for public health services. A large number
of other programs have their funding frozen, often for the
second or third year in a row. These freezes, while health
care costs and the number of people needing assistance are
continuing to increase, mean real erosion in the health care
safety net and public health protection.
The Committee bill terminates the Healthy
Communities Access Program (HCAP), which makes grants to
local consortia of hospitals, health centers, and other
providers to build better integrated systems of care for the
uninsured. This means that roughly 70 communities will lose
their existing three-year grants and about 35 new grants will
not be made.
Rural Health Outreach Grants--which support
primary health care, dental health, mental health, and
telemedicine projects--are cut by 24 percent. Grants to
improve small rural hospitals are cut in half, funding to
help rural communities acquire the defibrillators that can
save the lives of heart attack victims are cut by more than
half, and a small new program to help improve emergency
medical services in rural areas is eliminated.
Apart from grants to Health Centers, the bill
continues to slow erosion of most other health care programs.
The Maternal and Child Health Block Grant is funded slightly
below its level of three years earlier, with no increase for
rising health care costs, population or anything else. These
grants help support prenatal care and health and dental
services for low-income children, and assist children with
disabilities and other special health care needs. The
National Health Service Corps--which helps bring doctors and
dentists into under-served areas--receives a bit less than in
FY 2003. The Ryan White AIDS Care programs (other than drug
assistance) is also slightly under its FY 2003 level (while
the number of AIDS patients has been rising by about 7
percent per year), and the Title X family planning program is
just 1.8 percent above FY 2003.
Support for training in primary care medicine and
dentisty--which is targeted to increasing the number of
doctors and dentists in rural and other underserved areas--is
cut 22 percent below the current year by the bill. Support
for training in public health and preventive medicine is cut
24 percent, despite the difficulties that public health
departments are having recruiting and retaining qualified
professionals.
The Committee bill does include a small, $5
million (3.5 percent) increase for nurse education and
training programs. While a step in the right direction, it
pales in comparison to the national commitment envisioned
under the Nurse Reinvestment Act, which was aimed at stemming
the looming nursing shortage.
CDC's childhood immunization program receives a
small but welcome $11 million increase in the Committee bill.
However, the bill's FY 2005 level is just 3.4 percent above
FY 2002 while the cost to immunize a child with all
recommended vaccines will have increased 18.5 percent.
Also in CDC, although the bill roughly doubles an
important Global Disease Detection initiative, funding for
ongoing domestic activities to control and respond to
infectious diseases like West Nile Virus, SARS and the flu
are increased by just 1.1 percent.
The Committee bill makes a 17.5 percent cut in
basic support to state and local health departments through
the Preventive Health and Health Services Block Grant. This
funding is used for a range of priorities, from health
screening to immunization to control of chronic diseases like
diabetes and asthma to basic epidemiological investigations
and public health laboratory operations.
For the National Institutes of Health, the Committee bill
is identical to the Administration's budget request. It
provides an increase of 2.6 percent--which is the smallest in
19 years and significantly less than the 3.5 percent needed
to cover estimated inflation in biomedical research costs.
Although the Administration says that its budget (and hence
the Committee bill) would produce a small increase in the
number of new and re-competing research project grants--
reversing a decrease that is occurring in FY 2004--it
achieves that result only by assuming unusually tight limits
on the average size of research grants, including cuts to
ongoing research projects below previously committed levels.
If grant amounts were instead allowed to increase at normal
rates, the number of new grants would decrease for the second
year in a row. Many Members have been circulating letters to
the Committee urging additional funding to accelerate
research into diseases like Parkinson's or Alzheimer's or
cancer. Many of the Members of Congress who have signed such
letters in fact voted for the Republican budget resolution
which has made it impossible for the committee to provide
funding levels requested in such letters. At the funding
level in the Committee bill, such increases simply are not
possible.

helping america's most vulnerable citizens

For the human services side of the Department of HHS, the
Committee bill includes increases for Low-Income Home Energy
Assistance (LIHEAP), Refugee Assistance, Head Start,
Abstinence-only Sex Education, and some programs of the
Administration on Aging. It also rejects most (but not all)
of the cut in the Community Services Block Grant proposed by
the President. On the whole, however, the bill's human
services appropriations fall short of what is needed.
For LIHEAP, the Committee added $111 million above FY 2004,
as proposed by the President. However, this barely does more
than reverse a decrease that occurred last year. Sharply
higher energy prices combined with cold winters have
increased the need for LIHEAP. These same conditions have
also led to growing need for the Energy Department's
Weatherization Assistance Program (which was recently
transferred to the Labor-HHS bill). However, the bill
includes no increase at all for Weatherization, rejecting the
$64 million addition proposed by the President.
The Child Care Block Grant has its funding essentially
frozen for the third year in a row under the Committee's
bill, meaning a real reduction in help for working families.
Appropriations for Head Start are $45 million less than the
amount proposed by the President. Overall funding for the
Administration on Aging is up by 2.2 percent. However, this
follows two years of even smaller increases, leaving the FY
2005 figure just 4.0 percent above its level three years
earlier.

The Democratic Alternative

The demands of the war on terrorism, the conflict in Iraq,
homeland security needs, and a sluggish economy require a
pragmatic and responsible approach to America's budget. Yet,
even with all these competing needs and challenges, this
bill's shortcomings were not fated.
The budget alternatives that Democrats offered earlier this
year--including the package of budget resolution revisions
that the House considered on June 24--would have allowed this
Committee to make a greater investment in education, health
care, medical research, and other pressing needs. Our budget
alternatives were also fiscally responsible; they would have
provided for these national needs and reduced the deficit by
modestly reducing tax cuts for those with annual incomes
above $1 million.
When this bill was considered by subcommittee and by the
full Appropriations Committee, amendments were offered
mirroring the Labor-HHS-Education portion of the Democratic
budget proposal. These amendments would have added $7.4
billion to the bill, paid for by 30 percent reduction in the
2005 tax cuts for people with incomes over $1 million.
Instead of tax cuts averaging about $127,000, this top-income
group would have their tax cuts reduced to an average of
$89,000. Regrettably, these amendments were defeated on party
line votes. Had they been adopted, we could:
Invest $1.5 billion more in Title I instruction to
help an additional 500,000 low-income and minority children
in the poorest communities succeed in school;
Invest $200 million more in after school centers
so that an additional 267,000 children, who are responsible
for taking care of themselves after school each day, have a
safe and nurturing place to go after school;
Invest $1.2 billion more to subsidize the high
costs of educating 6.9 million children with disabilities;
Provide a $450 increase in the maximum Pell Grant
for students with the greatest financial need, and begin to
restore its purchasing power for more than 5 million low-
income students;
Assist an additional 51,000 teachers improve their
instructional skills to become highly qualified under NCLB;
and

[[Page H6803]]

Ensure that 2,500 low-performing schools receive
the assistance they were promised to implement effective,
comprehensive reforms to raise their academic performance.
In the area of workforce training, the Democratic amendment
would have provided an additional $200 million to support
training and job placement services for more jobless
Americans. And, it would have fully restored funding to
combat child labor and promote workers' rights around the
world, which in turn would have helped workers here at home.
On the health and human services side, the Democratic
amendment would have allowed us to provide more help to the
45 million people without health care, maintain momentum in
biomedical research, and restore some of the lost purchasing
power in key human services programs. For example, the
amendment would do the following:
Maintain the Healthy Communities Access Program,
rather than terminating it as under the Committee bill, and
add some funds to make up for lost ground in programs like
the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant, Family Planning,
and Community Mental Health Block Grant.
Avoid any cuts in health professions training
programs, add $20 million to the National Health Service
Corps to get more doctors and dentists into underserved rural
and inner city areas, and add $35 million to Nurse
Reinvestment Act programs to help stem the nursing shortage
by providing more scholarships for nursing students and more
support for nursing schools.
Eliminate the proposed cuts in rural health
programs, and add an additional $19 million to better support
rural health clinics, hospitals and emergency services.
Provide $50 million to help meet some of the most
urgent unmet needs for dental care, through grants for rural
dental clinics, scholarships and student loan repayment
arrangements for dentists who locate in underserved areas,
and grants and low-interest loans to help dentists who agree
to participate in Medicaid establish and expand practices in
areas with dental shortages.
Add $500 million to the budget of the National
Institutes of Health--enough to provide a full inflation
adjustment, renew all ongoing research grants, and restore
the number of new grants to the FY 2003 level. This would
help maintain momentum in research to find better treatments
for diseases like cancer, Parkinson's disease, and
Alzheimer's.
Provide $50 million more for child immunization,
to help catch up with rising vaccine costs, and also add $50
million to other infectious disease control efforts at CDC
(including those aimed at HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and
sexually transmitted diseases).
Add $200 million to the Low-Income Home Energy
Assistance Program to help keep up with rising needs. Between
the 2002 and 2004 winter heating seasons, average home
heating costs rose 50 percent for natural gas users and 54
percent for users of fuel oil. As energy prices rise and the
economy remains weak, the number of households seeking
assistance is rising, but the program still serves only about
14 percent of the eligible population.
Provide an additional $70 million for senior citizens'
programs of the Administration on Aging, including Meals on
Wheels and other nutrition programs.
Budgets are as much about America's values are they are
about dollars and cents. By prioritizing massive tax cuts for
the wealthiest among us, House Republicans have once again
rejected traditional American values of shared sacrifice in
difficult times and equal opportunity for all Americans. The
Majority's priorities will mean less opportunity through
education and job training, decreased access to health care
in rural and other underserved areas, and a nation that is
less caring toward its most vulnerable children, families,
and senior citizens.
The decisions that have led to this unhappy situation have,
in fact, already been made by the Republican majority members
who have voted for the Republican budget resolution and
against our efforts to modify it. This bill is the inevitable
unhappy result of those decisions. The only way to achieve a
more favorable final outcome is for this bill to move to
conference with the Senate and be greatly altered to produce
a more responsible result.

David Obey.
Steny Hoyer.
Nita Lowey.
Rosa L. DeLauro.
Jesse L. Jackson, Jr.
Patrick J. Kennedy.
Lucille Roybal-Allard.

[[Page H6804]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE04.028

[[Page H6805]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE04.029

[[Page H6806]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE04.030

[[Page H6807]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE04.031

[[Page H6808]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE04.032

[[Page H6809]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE04.033

[[Page H6810]]

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Lowey), a member of the subcommittee.

{time} 1215

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the fiscal year 2005
Labor-HHS bill, and I first want to express my appreciation to the
gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) and the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Ranking Member Obey). They are men of principle, great fairness and
determination. It is a pleasure serving with them.
I also want to take a moment to convey my admiration for the
gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young). After years of leading the
Committee on Appropriations in a fair, bipartisan manner, my good
friend is leaving the chairmanship at the end of the year, and while I
look forward to continuing to work with the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Young) in the future, I want him to know how much his leadership will
be missed.
I also want to thank the staff on both sides of the aisle who
continue to be so very helpful.
My colleagues, the programs funded in the Labor-HHS bill are
critical, as we heard discussed by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Regula). We provide the children of working parents with safe places to
go after school. We lead the world in biomedical research. We recruit
young professionals into nursing, a profession with a looming shortage
that will affect all Americans who seek health services.
We allocate resources to State and local health departments, as well
as hospitals, so they are equipped to respond to a mass incident, for
which most are only modestly better prepared than they were on
September 11.
We prevent our most vulnerable from having to choose between food and
heat. We help put kids through college, a pinnacle of the American
dream.
These activities benefit every member of our society. However,
because of the limited allocation provided by the Committee on the
Budget, many important needs will remain underfunded.
For example, last year Congress did not fulfill its obligation to
fully fund the Title I program which serves the poorest children in
America, and because of that, more than half our Nation's school
districts from Kansas to Minnesota, North Dakota to Pennsylvania,
Missouri to Yonkers, New York, in my district, received less Title I
from one year to the next. We can expect similar funding cuts for
schools across the country in fiscal year 2005 because the bill falls
$7.2 billion short on the amount authorized under the No Child Left
Behind Act.
Despite a 26 percent tuition increase in the last 2 years, the bill
freezes the maximum Pell grant for low-income college students for the
second year in a row and cuts Perkins loans by $99 million below last
year's level.
Even though every school administrator and teacher I talked to pleads
for additional special education funding to meet the growing demands,
the bill falls $2.5 billion below the Republican promise made last year
in the IDEA reauthorization bill.
At a time when our Nation is desperate for additional nurses and
schools of nursing cannot accommodate the increased number of
applicants, an additional $5 million for nurse education and training
will help only a fraction of the 18,000 candidates denied admission
last year because there are not enough instructors to teach them.
Earlier this year this administration circulated a memorandum
indicating that the 2006 spending cuts outlined in this year's budget
will be implemented. That means huge reductions in spending on health,
education, and labor are just around the corner.
Mr. Chairman, in closing, I also want to express my continued concern
with the Weldon refusal clause provision. For over 30 years, there have
been Federal laws that allow doctors, nurses and hospitals to refuse to
provide abortion services because of their religious beliefs, as it
should be. However, just as the law protects religious or moral
objections, it protects the rights of patients, ensuring that women
have access to accurate and complete medical information when making
decisions about their own health. The Weldon provision would unravel
these protections, gutting the patient protections included in the
Title X family planning program, which require that all legal options
are presented to a woman. It is my hope that this provision will be
stripped from the final Labor-HHS spending bill.
Mr. Speaker, although I did discuss some significant flaws, I will
support final passage, and I have said many times that I am truly
honored to be a member of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human
Services, Education and Related Agencies. I believe that we have tried
to work as a team and make the most of the inadequate allocation
provided to us by the leadership.
I also continue to hope that through floor consideration today,
Senate consideration and during conference we will continue to work
together as a team to make additional improvements to the bill.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Wicker), a very valued member of our subcommittee.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, as usual, the next 2 days of debate on the
Labor-HHS education bill will be instructive.
First, the basics. We will authorize in this bill spending of $142
billion plus for health, for education and for the American workers of
this country in three major departments. This amounts to $3 billion
more than we spent last year, Mr. Chairman, an increase in the
discretionary spending in these 3 areas of 2.4 percent. At the same
time, we are keeping it within the subcommittee allocation and the
limits of the budget resolution, and I think the chairman is to be
commended for that.
I have enormous respect for the leadership of this subcommittee on
both sides of the aisle, certainly for the chairman, but also for my
friend on the Democratic side who just spoke and for the ranking
minority member.
What we will hear today amounts to sincerely held views and what it
really comes down to, in the long run, is a difference in philosophy.
I have been on this subcommittee for 10 years now, the 10 years that
the Republicans have been in the majority in this Congress. And each
year when this bill comes up, the majority puts forward a bill that
spends an amount of money over and above the last year, and our friends
on the Democratic side of the aisle object to the bill based on the
fact that they would like to spend more money and tax more.
When they object to the bill, Mr. Chairman, they will often say that
it is not really the fault of the leadership of this committee, not the
fault of the chairman of the full committee or the subcommittee; that
it is the underlying budget we adopted earlier which is at fault. What
they really mean when they say this is that they wish a budget had been
adopted so that taxes could be higher and that Federal spending could
be higher, and indeed, that is the basic difference in philosophy on
the two sides of the aisle.
Beginning in 2001, when we realized we were coming into a recession,
and then certainly after 9/11 and the tragedy and the cost of that
event, this majority on the Republican side decided to reduce the tax
burden on Americans, reduce the tax burden on families with children,
reduce the tax burden on married couples by eliminating the marriage
penalty, reduce the tax burden on lower income workers and on every
American who pays income tax, and, yes, to reduce taxes on the job
creators.
What has that gotten us during this time? What it has gotten us,
according to Chairman Greenspan's testimony before the Committee on the
Budget just this morning? Chairman Greenspan said, We are in a period
of moderate to excellent economic growth and the shallowest recession
in postwar history.
I would submit that this is the program we need, and is why we have
adopted the budget and why we should adopt the bill today.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, of all the appropriations bill this body
considers every year, it is the Labor-HHS and Education appropriations
bill that best represents our Nation's investment in the future.
Education, health care, medical research, job training, these are the
things that bind us as a

[[Page H6811]]

society and play formative roles in determining the course of this
country.
So the choices that we make in this bill can help to expand
opportunity for generations to come, making Americans live longer,
healthier, more productive lives. That is the power of this bill.
At a time when so many families are faced with the rising costs of
health care and college tuitions, a sluggish economy and falling wages,
this bill has the opportunity to strengthen the economic, health and
retirement security for every citizen in this country for generations
to come.
Unfortunately, this bill provides $9.5 billion less than the funding
promised in the No Child Left Behind Act, and most of the shortfall is
in Title I, which serves low-income children and schools with the
greatest educational challenges. With an average 26 percent tuition
increase in the last 2 years at 4-year public colleges and
universities, this bill misses a real opportunity to impact families'
lives. It freezes the Pell grant and college work study assistance
program and cuts the Perkins loan program.
With a hesitant economic recovery that is creating too few jobs, jobs
that generally pay $9,000 less than the ones lost, we should be giving
our 8 million unemployed workers the tools that they need to retrain
for this new and changing economy. Instead, this bill invests $236
million less than the administration's own request for employment and
training assistance programs, including a devastating cut of $88
million to the Employment Service, almost 10 percent, the building
block for the Nation's one-stop employment centers.
The shortfalls continue with appropriations for the Departments of
Health and Human Services in the area of the National Institutes of
Health. A few years ago, we were actually making good on the commitment
to double that budget, but now we are barely keeping up with inflation.
What that means is medical researchers, racing for lifesaving cures to
diseases like cancer, Alzheimer's, diabetes, find themselves having to
cut corners so that they can complete their research. NIH's ability to
continue its support for clinical trials will be endangered.
I was someone who was diagnosed with the deadliest of all
gynecological cancers, ovarian, more than 18 years ago. I know
firsthand how this research can save lives. It changed and it saved my
life. That is the power of the NIH.
I have said it before. For all their virtues, tax cuts do not save
lives. Now, with our Nation at war, our economy failing millions of
families, we are seeing the price all Americans have paid for these tax
cuts. Child care funding is back to where it was 3 years ago. Home
energy assistance is budgeted where we were 2 years ago, and Head
Start, which can only serve half the eligible children, is cut in real
dollar terms. Tax cuts are quite literally mortgaging the future we
pass on to our children and our children's children.
No appropriations bill touches the American family like this. I
believe we have a moral responsibility to do better for the people of
this country with this bill than we are.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, for the moment, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my ranking
member, also the chairman of the committee, for bringing this bill up
today.
I rise to highlight an important program that this bill fails to
fund. The Congress has supported and funded the Community Access
Program since its inception in 2000. The CAP program, the Community
Access Program, has provided communities with much-needed grant funding
to provide both preventive and primary care to their uninsured
populations.
In communities like mine in Houston, and literally hundreds across
the country, we utilize this funding to put together the necessary
consortium or groups to help solve our health care access problems.
For-profit, nonprofit and public health agencies coordinate services
using CAP funds.
Unfortunately, this bill completely eliminates the CAP program at a
time when the level of uninsured individuals in this country has
reached 44 million and is growing. Now is not the time to cut off
access to this important primary and preventive health care service in
our communities.
Without this health care access, our uninsured constituents tend to
seek health care from our hospital emergency rooms, where costs are
skyrocketing and beds are scarce.
This is truly a case where an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of
cure.
I thank the committee for its work to increase funding for community
health centers, which received $218 million over the President's
request, and that is great.
While the Community Health Center and Community Access Programs share
similar missions, the Community Access Program really helps coordinate
the services, whereas community healthcare centers are really important
to a growing number in our community and even need more.
I urge our colleagues on the Committee on Appropriations to restore
funding for the CAP program.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, I simply want to say that I agree with the remarks of
the gentleman from Texas, and I hope the committee will listen to what
he said.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

{time} 1230

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time and for his very good and hard work on this bill. I thank the
chairman of the committee, as well, for working against tremendous
odds.
There was a previous question that focused on the Obey amendment that
could not be offered. I will call it the millionaires amendment that
would have helped restore some balance in paying for programs which the
American people place particular priority on. I just want to use one of
those programs to vivify my concern, and the concern, of course, comes
because, unlike the Obey amendment, we are growing the deficit. The
deficit is like a child you do not see grow, and then one day you say,
oh, my, how you have grown. By that time, of course, the deficit could
bring down our economy. So it is important to do what the Obey
amendment would have done.
What the committee has done is to barely save, and I have come to
thank you for saving the so-called VERB program, a program that deals
with the most serious public health problem in the United States today,
obesity and overweight. All this Congress has done for this problem is
the so-called cheeseburger bill, the absurdity of suing somebody
because you are too fat. But we are leaving people to their own
devices.
The experts say that by 2005 obesity and overweight will have
overtaken smoking as the leading cause of death. At least for our
children, you have left in the bill, instead of allowing the
administration to kill the so-called VERB bill, and all VERB stands for
is action. There has been a 42 percent increase in obesity among
children in the last 25 years. It takes $85 million to keep this
program going. You have put $65 million in this rigorously evaluated
program that is only now in year 3 of its 5-year period.
But the rigorous evaluation shows an increase in physical activity of
at least 35 percent among children. So I thank you for saving this
program and hope that adults will be saved sometime in the future.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, this Labor, Health and Education bill is supposed to be
that portion of the budget which invests in our children, which opens
the door of opportunity for young people, which opens the door to the
doctor's office or to the hospital for people who live life on its
underside and do not have access to regular health care. It is supposed
to protect the interests of workers. This bill falls far short on all
fronts.
This bill does nothing to help workers, to protect workers against
the efforts of employers to chisel on overtime pay. It falls billions
of dollars behind the No Child Left Behind legislation in terms of
meeting our obligations to support the education of our

[[Page H6812]]

children. It brings to a screeching halt the healthy expansion of
after-school programs. It does, in so many ways, fall short of where we
ought to be; and it does that because the majority, as I said earlier,
has made a decision that its top legislative priority is ever more and
always to provide very large tax cuts to people who are already very
well off.
I really believe that there is no way to fix this bill, because this
bill is the result of two past decisions. It is the result, as the
gentleman from Ohio has said, it is the result of the Republican
majority's passing a budget resolution which provides inadequate room
for education, health, and worker-protection programs. It is also the
result of the second vote which occurred on this House floor just a few
weeks ago on a resolution that I offered to try to amend that budget
resolution so that it would be a somewhat more progressive product that
we could be proud of.
At this point, the only way that you could help this bill is to move
it on to the Senate in the hopes that the Senate will provide better
numbers so that in conference we can provide more resources for
education, health care, and worker-protection bills that are so crucial
to the welfare of this country's population.
I would say, Mr. Chairman, that there is only one way in the long
term that we can fix this problem, and that is to put a different
person in the White House and a different majority in the House of
Representatives and the Senate. Because what is really at stake in this
election, in my view, as someone said on the other side of the aisle,
what is really at stake is whether or not this country is going to
continue to build a social safety net for the middle class, for the
broad working class of this country, or whether we are going to say, in
effect, ``Sorry, but everybody is going to be on their own. You are
going to rely on the luck of the draw. If life treats you happily, you
will come out as one of life's winners; and if life does not treat you
so happily, sorry, but you are on your own. We have no obligation to
help in any significant way.''
This bill does a number of things for people, but it does not do
nearly enough to meet the rising challenges that we have. And I regret
very much that we are in that position, but there is not much we in the
minority can do to change it except to make clear what is happening. So
I urge Members to remember that as we go through the bill this
afternoon.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to remind my colleagues that in what is a relatively short period of 9
years, the total of this bill has gone from $65 billion to $143
billion. That is a dramatic increase, and I think it recognizes the
commitment on the part of Members on both sides that these are
important issues that we are addressing in this bill. But I think it
also reflects the fact that we have a caring approach.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Weldon), a very valued member of the subcommittee.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time, and I rise to congratulate the chairman. We have
a difficult budget year this year; and he has managed to cobble
together, I would have to say almost like a skilled surgeon, I may be
the doctor on the committee, but he handled this with the dexterity of
a skilled surgeon, balancing the critical issues of education, health,
and research against the budget realities.
Mr. Chairman, we are coming out of a recession. And to the gentleman
of Wisconsin, I would simply say it is really unclear to me if we had
not cut taxes that we would have more money in this bill. I think if we
had not cut taxes, the economy would be in a worse slump and that we
indeed would have less revenue, not more revenue.
Conflicting priorities are always a challenge for the Congress. The
gentleman from Ohio has achieved the right balance. I know it is not a
perfect bill, but I think this is our best shot at getting this bill
moving.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute, and I would simply
say to the gentleman the issue is not whether we should have cut taxes.
Obviously, any time the economy is underperforming, it is perfectly
legitimate to cut taxes over the short term. FDR invented that, and I
am fully subscribed to that Keynesian approach to economics.
What I do not subscribe to is the idea that in the context of cutting
taxes we have to give people who make $1 million a year a $127,000 tax
cut. I think we could very well limit the size of that tax cut. That is
the only tax cut that we have objected to and tried to change in order
to finance this bill.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I know the gentleman from
Wisconsin and I have discussed this issue in the past. The reason I
think that was the right economic priority is because most of those
people, at least in my congressional district, are small businessmen
and women; and they take most of those funds and pump them back into
their businesses, creating jobs. Most of the job growth has been in the
small business sector, and I think it was the right thing to do.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 additional minute, and I
would simply say in response that a very small portion of the people
who would be affected by our amendment are small businessmen. Very
small portion. The fact is that this House has to make a choice. Do we
think it is essential to provide a $120,000 tax cut to people making
over $1 million a year; or do we think that we ought to use some of
that money to provide better opportunity for education, better health
care for 45 million people that do not have it, and some additional
protection for our workers in what is becoming every day a more and
more brutal world market?
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York
(Mrs. McCarthy).
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman
from Wisconsin yielding me this time, and I rise in support of the
Labor-HHS bill today. While I feel the bill falls short in many areas,
particularly in education, I will support the final bill. However, I
would also like to rise today and speak to an issue that has great
personal meaning to me and has been ignored by our House leadership.
While my amendments reauthorizing the assault weapons ban have been
found nongermane, I will still be speaking to it, because so few
opportunities remain to do anything about it before it expires on
Monday.
One week from today, I will be able to purchase an assault weapon
from any number of Web sites and from our local gun stores, which means
our gangs and our police officers, and I just came back from a press
conference with the police chiefs and the rank-and-file officers, and,
unfortunately, many victims, all calling on our President to make some
calls over here to the House so that we can bring the bill up for a
vote.
A poll released this weekend by the National Annenberg Election
Survey says two-thirds of Americans support keeping the assault weapons
bill in place. And, in fact, 57 percent of gun owners support the ban,
putting to rest the notion the ban is somewhat a threat to our second
amendment.
Not one sportsman has missed a day in any hunting season due to the
ban on assault weapons. President Bush says he supports the ban, but so
far he has been doing the talk, but he has given us no action on it.
The ball is in the President's court. He needs to pick up the phone and
put renewing the ban on to the House floor. Only President Bush can
stay the assault weapons ban execution.
Almost every law enforcement agency in the country supports renewing
the ban. That is all the evidence I need to be convinced the ban is
working. The most immediate challenge relating to the ban expiring is
our police departments, who are saying they are not ready for this to
expire. It is basically our police officers who are out there
protecting us against terrorists and gangs, who protect our lives every
day on the front lines that will be facing these assault weapons when
they come back on the streets.
Since assault-style weapons do not need to be aimed, are designed to
be moved back and forth in a sweeping

[[Page H6813]]

fashion in order to rain bullets on an area instead of a specific
target, gang violence will become more reckless, with many more
innocent bystanders caught in crossfires.
Police departments will have to re-outfit their squad cars, purchase
new bulletproof vests, and make other expensive preparations for the
ban's expiration.
Many currently banned weapons have multiple-capacity clips, holding
up to 30 rounds of ammunition. Many State laws, including my State of
New York, limit our hunters to six rounds in a clip. Deer are given a
better chance of surviving than our police officers.
With the Bush budget intent on slashing grants to local police
departments and its reluctance to push for extending the ban, the
administration is depriving our police officers of the support that we
need.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) has 5\1/2\ minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 9\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Granger), a great member of our subcommittee.
Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill. It
has some very important programs in it. Specifically, one that I have
been involved in is the provision of a $2 billion increase from fiscal
year 2004 for the Department of Education to continue support for
effective reading programs and better technology in the classroom.
Mr. Chairman, I have been to the schools in my district that have
used this technology, and as a former teacher I can tell you that it
strengthens what a teacher is able to do, particularly with students
with problems. The other thing it provides that is very important, I
think, is the VERB program. The VERB program came to my district this
summer and addresses the serious health dilemma facing our young
people, and that is the rise of obesity.

{time} 1245

It is a very successful program which encourages children to be more
physically active. They sent a truck out to Six Flags Over Texas, and I
met the children there. They were able to pick out the verb that they
wanted to use that was fun, whether it was basketball, dancing,
skateboarding, running. They put excitement in exercise, and that is
how VERB is working, and that is how VERB has contributed to a 34
percent rise in free time of physical activity of 9 and 10 years old in
a target area. I approve this, and I certainly appreciate the work on
the bill.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman of the Committee on Education and the
Workforce and a great colleague from Ohio.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, let me congratulate the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Regula), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), and the
other members of the Committee on Appropriations for a job well done on
what is a very large bill and a very difficult bill.
There has been much said today about education, and the good news is
No Child Left Behind is working and working very well. As we see the
preliminary results coming in from around the country, we are seeing
increased test scores in both reading and math, especially for our most
disadvantaged children. If we look at where the Federal education
dollars go, by and large, they are aimed at those very children, those
disadvantaged children who need that extra help to have a chance at a
good education.
But while the news is good from No Child Left Behind and test scores
are going up, there has been this chorus of criticism from some of my
colleagues about the fact that it is underfunded and we are not
spending enough. It is easy to stand here in the well of the House and
talk about how the glass is half empty, but I am here to suggest it is
almost full.
If we look at this bill, there is a $2 billion increase in overall
education funding in this bill, bringing the total amount for education
spending to the Department to $57.7 billion. Now that means in
President Bush's first term in office, in just 4 years, the Department
of Education's overall funding will have increased by $15.5 billion. If
we look back over the 9.5 years Republicans have been in control of
Congress, we see education funding has skyrocketed by some $23 billion.
That is an increase of more than 150 percent under the Republican
Congress. Much of this increase in spending can be attributed to those
programs in No Child Left Behind.
The most significant program the Federal Government operates to help
disadvantaged children under No Child Left Behind is title I. Again
this year we see another $1 billion increase in Title I, about 8
percent over last year's level. If we look at what has happened over
the 4 years that the President has been in office, we will see these
massive increases. But we can go back all of the way to the 10 years
Republicans have been in Congress, and see that we have increased
spending for Title I for disadvantaged children by some 96 percent. And
the funding increases in just the first 2 years of President Bush's
term in office far outstrip the 8 years of the previous administration.
Title I increases are continuing. That is our commitment to helping the
disadvantaged students in our society get the kind of education they
all deserve.
Then we have special education. When Republicans took control of
Congress in 1994, we were spending $2.3 billion a year to help special
ed students around the country. This is 20 years after a Supreme Court
case and Congress passing the Individuals with Disabilities in
Education Act but never really funding it. Over the last 10 years, we
have increased funding from $2.3 billion to this year $11.1 billion.
That is a 378 percent increase in help for those students with special
needs.
I believe that the money we are spending to help our special-needs
students and our disadvantaged students is money well spent because if
we really truly believe no child should be left behind, the Federal
Government has to do its share.
I am here to say that I believe the Federal Government is doing its
share. We have had our increases over the last 4 years, we have kept
our commitments to our Nation's students. I would ask all of my
colleagues today to stand up and support these numbers and support our
bill.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to say that I react to the
gentleman's numbers with a touch of humor because the argument he makes
is similar to the child who kills his parents and then throws himself
on the mercy of the court because he is an orphan. The fact is if you
look at the historical record over the last 10 years, if the House
Republican majority had had its way, we would have appropriated about
$20 billion less for education over the last 10 years than the Congress
wound up appropriating. The House Republicans had to be led kicking and
screaming into supporting the increases which he now tries to claim
credit for.
I would point out this is the same Republican majority which tried 10
years ago to abolish the Department of Education and tried to make
savage cuts in education 3 years in a row before they finally got
religion.
I would also point out that in President Bush's first year, it was
the Democrats who led the effort to add $4 billion to the President's
education budget, and I am happy to say we finally persuaded the
Republican majority to agree with our request.
If the House Republicans had had their way, $3.4 billion less would
have been spent on education of the poorest children in America than
was actually appropriated, and 1 million low-income children would have
been eliminated from the Title I program; $3.1 billion less would have
been spent on the education of children with disabilities than was
actually appropriated if the House Republican majority had its way;
$524 million less would have been spent on safe and nurturing places
for children in the after-school hours than was actually appropriated
if the House Republican majority had its way; and the maximum Pell
grant would have been smaller in 5 of the last 10 years than the level
actually approved, again if the House Republican majority had its way.
So I guess I am willing to accept the fact that the Republicans now
want to borrow the money that we succeeded in

[[Page H6814]]

putting into the education budget and borrow it so they can make on
their own competing claims the education budget. I do not much care as
long as we've got the money.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to find every opportunity
possible to support more resources in this bill for education, health
care, and worker protection.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished minority whip.
(Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member for
yielding me this time.
I start by reiterating the observation that the ranking member, the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), has made. It is very nice to get
up and say with a chart, this is what we have spent. Those figures are
undoubtedly accurate. What is not accurate, as the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) so correctly pointed out, was that those were not
the figures that the Republican House budget proposed in years past. In
point of fact, when they talk about the 10-year period of time, the
fight almost every year between the Clinton administration and the
Republican House and sometimes Senate was that we had not put in
sufficient funds to meet our obligations as it relates to education,
Title I and other educational objectives. Invariably, the President got
his way. So, yes, the figures are higher, but they are not higher
because the Republican Committee on the Budget proposed them as such.
Mr. Chairman, this bill, in my opinion, fails to meet the crucial
priorities that the citizens of this great Nation expect and deserve in
education, in health care, in medical research, and in many other
areas, including the promotion of the quality and safety of work in
America.
But as I have said before, this is not the fault, and I reiterate,
not the fault of the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Regula). The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) neither sits on the
Budget Committee, nor, in my opinion, was he very enthusiastic about
the Committee on the Budget's product. And it is certainly not the
fault of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young). As a matter of fact,
earlier this year the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) made the
correct observation that the budget was not real, and the numbers
projected in the budget were insufficient to meet the obligations of
the Committee on Appropriations to provide for the needs of the
American people. That was the chairman of our committee speaking.
Instead, this bill's deficiencies have been caused by the Republican
majority's irresponsible and unrealistic budget resolution for fiscal
year 2005. This is not an unusual budget resolution. It is a political
document, not a fiscal document. It was made for the purposes of making
political points, not for investing in our people. It abandons fiscal
discipline and makes crucial investments in the American people
virtually impossible.
One would think that, because the Republicans have been in charge and
they have proposed not spending appropriate funds even though they say
they are going to, that we would have saved a lot of dollars. But in
point of fact, as the whole country knows, we have been going deeply
into debt over the last 40 months. In fact, the President's acceptance
speech in New York says he wants fiscal restraint, but he has led this
country, along with the Republican majority in this House and this
Senate, from a $5.6 trillion surplus to a $3 trillion to $4 trillion
deficit in 40 months. That is almost a $10 trillion turnaround from
fiscal responsibility to fiscal irresponsibility in less than 4 years.
Despite the rhetoric coming from the other side of the aisle, the
inescapable fact is that this bill underfunds the bipartisan No Child
Left Behind Act by at least $9.5 billion this year. That is in the
authorization bill, they imposed a mandate on the States. I supported
that bill. We want accountability, we want performance, we want quality
education for every one of our children. We said we are going to
require you to do certain things, States, but we are going to give you
resources to help you accomplish those objectives. We are $9.5 billion
short in that promise, and $25 billion short over the last 3 years,
short from what the President, in signing the authorization bill, said
we were going to do.
Unfortunately, we are falling behind in other areas as well. At a
time when this Congress and this administration proudly tout the
doubling of National Institutes of Health just a few years ago, NIH
today only gets the President's request level. This represents the
smallest increase in NIH funding in 19 years. As all of our citizens
know, NIH is charged with the responsibility of finding a cure for
cancer, making heart disease less fatal, finding a cure for diabetes,
seeing if we can find how to prevent Alzheimer's disease, and
responding to the AIDS crisis in this country and around the world.

{time} 1300

We are short-funding those critical efforts that afflict and threaten
our people. Moreover, it is simply not enough to keep up with the
medical inflation and will force NIH to lose momentum on the scientific
progress they gained from the doubling that Republicans and Democrats
all so proudly talked about.
In addition, Head Start, a program that Ronald Reagan said was a
success, George Bush I said it was a success, and Bill Clinton clearly
said it was a success, is cut by $45 million below the President's
request. Thousands of children will have no seat in Head Start,
notwithstanding the fact that we think it works. Ryan White HIV/AIDS
programs are largely frozen. The maximum Pell grant is frozen. And the
Department of Labor is slated for an overall cut of $98 million.
My friends, this bill is insufficient. It may well be better than a
continuing resolution, but it is insufficient to meet our obligations
and responsibilities. How sad it is that we pass the people's bill with
insufficient resources to meet the people's needs.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. One
comment I would like to make, we are talking about a lot of programs
here and an effort to improve education, but the bottom line is that
the real work is done in the classroom. I just want to pay tribute to
the teachers of America. I think we are so fortunate to have the
dedicated people that are in the classroom. I have met many of them, as
have you. As I said earlier, when I ask at a meeting, how many of you
had a teacher that impacted your life, every hand in the room goes up.
So what our job is, with programs, provide support for those people
that are out there and are dedicating their efforts and their lives to
young people of this Nation, and we should say a big thank you to all
of them.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I join my colleagues today in
opposition to H.R. 5006, the LHHS appropriation bill. We know that
Congress has many priorities to consider during this fiscal year. And
we implore Congress to make eliminating health and healthcare
disparities top priorities. This HHS bill, unfortunately, does not
contain such investment in the health and welfare of Americans nor does
it demonstrate unwavering commitment to well-being of our citizens,
including those most in need. With this bill, it is clear that the
Republicans do not see America's greatest asset is its people, and
refuse to invest in making its people as strong and healthy as
possible.
Let me say at the outset, Mr. Chairman, that this great country of
ours ranks at the bottom of all of the industrialized countries of the
world with regard to the quality of our health care system, we are not
where we should be given our resources in infant mortality, HIV/AIDS,
immunization, substance abuse and many of the major diseases. In most
cases the reason is because more than one third of our population
remains outside of the healthcare mainstream.
Today almost 45 million Americans are uninsured, of which 50 percent
are minorities: 18 percent of the total elderly population has no
coverage at all; 1 out of 6 Americans does not have health insurance;
more than 100,000 people lose their health insurance every day; and an
astounding 23 percent of African Americans have no insurance at all.
Our health care system in this country is currently in peril. It is
falling short on promise and contributing to the disabling illness and
premature death of the people it is supposed to serve. The picture is
the worst for African Americans who for almost every illness are
impacted most severely and disproportionately--in some cases more than
all other minorities combined. Every day in this country

[[Page H6815]]

there are at least 200 African American deaths, which could have been
prevented. Today we know that must of it happens because even when we
have access to care, the medical evaluations and treatments that are
made available to everyone else are denied to us--not only in the
private sector but in the public system as well.
What I am here to try to do today is to leave you with one indelible
message: that there are gross inequities in healthcare which cause
hundreds of preventable deaths in the African American community every
day and which tear at families, drain the lifeblood of our communities,
and breed an escalating and reverberating cycle of despair which this
subcommittee has the power to end this today if it has the will to do
so.
The choice if it can be considered that, is either to write off human
beings--our brothers and sisters--who make up this segment of our
population, or to make the requisite investment in fixing an
inadequate, discriminating, dysfunctional health care system.
The current strongly held-to ``cost-containment'' paradigm, while it
sounds good on the surface, has obviously not worked. We now have
double digit increases in premiums in an industry that was to rein in
its costs. What it did instead was create a multi-tiered system of
care, both within managed care and without. Those at the lowest rungs
of the system got sicker, the sicker, i.e. more costly, were and still
are being dropped, and those who were the sickest were and remain
locked out entirely. So not only are health care costs continuing to
escalate, the overall health picture in this country is worse than
ever.
What we now have is a system, which continues the failed paradigm in
which African Americans and other people of color who because they have
long been denied access to quality health care, now experience the very
worst health status. Not doing what is needed to change this is to
threaten the health of not just African Americans and other people of
color but every other person in this country, especially at a time when
we live under the cloud of possible bioterrorism.
Controlling the cost of health care, which can only be done in the
long term, will never be achieved without a major investment in
prevention, and leveling the health care playing field for all
Americans through fully funding a health care system that provides
equal access to quality, comprehensive health care to everyone legally
in this country, regardless of color, ethnicity or language.
The funding requests I am outlining today are the bare minimum to
ensure that our children have the opportunity for good health, that
there are health care professionals who can bridge the race, ethnicity
and language gaps to bring wellness within reach of our now sick and
dying communities, that states and communities will receive the help to
fill the gaps and repair the deficiencies of access and services, and
which will enable the affected communities themselves to take ownership
of the problems as well as the solutions to their increasing healthcare
crisis--a crisis that threatens the health and security of all
Americans. Yet this bill fails to even meet this baseline obligation.
If we have learned nothing in the last 10 years, we should have
learned that cost containment strategies in our unequal system of care
can never bring down healthcare costs. We can only ensure that quality
health care will be within the reach of future generations if we make a
major investment in prevention and increasing access to care now.
On March 20, 2002, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) released a
landmark report entitled: Unequal Treatment: Confronting Racial and
Ethnic Disparities in Health Care which was requested by Congressman
Jackson. Among other key findings, the report documented that
minorities in the United States receive fewer life-prolonging cardiac
medications and surgeries, are less likely to receive dialysis and
kidney transplants, and are less likely to receive adequate treatment
for pain. Its first and most telling finding states that ``racial and
ethnic disparities in healthcare exist and, because they are associated
with worse outcomes in many cases, are unacceptable.''

And so I urge the committee to give serious and favorable
consideration to our funding requests. Because of time limitations, let
me focus on just a few areas contained in the request:
Sixty-six million dollars for the Office of Minority Health, OS,
DHHS.
As the Department of Health and Human Services' (DHHS) lead office
for improving the health status of racial and ethnic minorities, the
Office of Minority Health (OMH) conducts and supports health promotion
and disease prevention programs and activities designed to help reduce
the high rates of death and disease in communities of color. OMH also
serves as one of the focal points for the Department's initiative to
eliminate health disparities. By increasing funding to $20.9 million,
this office will be able to expand OMH's elimination of health programs
in prevention, research, education and outreach, capacity building, and
the development of community infrastructure. The increased funding is
also needed to fund the State Partnership Initiative Grant Program;
Cultural and Linguistic Best Practices Studies; State Health Data
Management; Community Programs to Improve Minority Health Grants;
Center for Linguistic and Cultural Competence in Health Care;
Eliminating Obstacles to Participating in Government Programs;
Technical Assistance to Community Health Program; and Community-Based
Organization Partnership Prevention Centers.
Two hundred twenty-five million dollars for the National Center for
Minority Health and Health Disparities (NCMHD), NIH.
Funding is needed to develop and implement programs necessary to
further address minority health and health disparities and to help
improve the infrastructure associated with this research and outreach.
In addition, the loan repayment payment must be expanded to include
master degree graduates from schools of public health and public health
programs to ensure that efforts to build and disseminate research-based
health information are intensified. As required, the Center is
currently developing a strategic plan to guide the Center's efforts. To
be effective, the plan must include and reflect the direct input of the
NIH institutes and centers; consumer advocacy groups; the public;
researchers; professional and scientific organizations; behavioral and
public health organizations; health care providers; academic
institutions; and industry. The resulting plan is needed to serve as a
fundamental blueprint for the Center's activities, as well as a vehicle
for helping to ensure a coordinated and effective response to minority
health and health disparities.
One hundred twenty million dollars for the Racial and Ethnic
Approaches to Community Health (REACH), National Center for Chronic
Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, CDC.
The REACH program is a cornerstone CDC initiative aimed at helping to
eliminate disparities in health status experienced by ethnic minority
populations in cardiovascular disease, immunizations, breast and
cervical cancer screening and management, diabetes, HIV/AIDS and infant
mortality. The increase is needed to fund additional Phase I planning
grants, Phase II implementation and evaluation grants, expand and
enhance technical assistance and training, and apply lessons learned.
REACH received 211 applications in its first year, but it only had
enough funding to make 31 awards, leaving a very large number of
meritorious projects unfunded. REACH must have the resources necessary
to capitalize on the strengths that national/multi-geographical
minority organizations can provide the initiative.
Three hundred million dollars for the Agency for Healthcare Research
and Quality (AHRQ).
At a hearing before the Criminal Justice Subcommittee of the
Government Reform Committee on May 21, 2002, AHRQ Acting Director Dr.
Carolyn Clancy described the initiatives undertaken by her agency to
attack health disparities. One of the most important of these is the
EXCEED program, which funds Centers of Excellence to eliminate health
disparities in nine cities throughout the country. These include
efforts to address diabetes care for Native Americans, health
disparities in cancer among rural African American adults, and
premature birth in ethnically diverse communities in Harlem, New York.
According to Dr. Clancy, ``EXCEED encouraged the formation of new
research relationships as well as building on existing partnerships
between researchers, professional organizations, and community-based
organizations instrumental in helping to influence change in local
communities.''
The EXCEED program exemplifies the type of initiative recommended by
the IOM report, which urged ``further research to identify sources of
racial and ethnic disparities and assess promising intervention
strategies'' (Recommendation 8-1). Yet the Administration's 2003 budget
would curtail these efforts. In the budget, total AHRQ funding falls
from $300 million in 2002 to $251 million in 2003. About $192 million
of the AHRQ budget is protected from the cutbacks, meaning that $49
million must be trimmed from the remaining $108 million of spending, a
46 percent cut. The EXCEED program and other research grants to study
and reduce health disparities fall into this vulnerable $108 million.
Increase of $14 million for the U.S. DHHS Office of Civil Rights
(OCR) and a reworking of authorization language to tie it to disparity
work U.S. DHHS Office of Civil Rights to enforce civil rights laws.
Enforcement of regulation and statute is a basic component of a
comprehensive strategy to address racial and ethnic disparities in
healthcare, but it has been relegated to low-priority status. The U.S.
DHHS Office of Civil Rights (OCR) is charged with enforcing several
relevant federal statutes and regulations that prohibit discrimination
in healthcare (principally Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act),

[[Page H6816]]

but the agency suffers from insufficient resources to investigate
complaints of possible violations, and has long abandoned proactive,
investigative strategies.
Despite an increasing number of complaints in recent years, funding
for OCR remained constant in actual dollars from fiscal year 1981 to
fiscal year 2003, resulting in a 60 percent decline in funding after
adjusting for inflation. The decrease has severely and negatively
affected OCR's ability to conduct civil rights enforcement strategies,
such as on-site complaint investigations, compliance reviews, and local
community outreach and education. Providing a substantial increasing in
funding for the Office of Civil Rights is necessary for OCR to resume
the practice of periodic, proactive investigation, both to collect data
on the extent of civil rights violations and to provide a deterrent to
would-be lawbreakers.

Increased funding for Initiatives for Health Professions Training:
(1) $40 million for the Health Careers Opportunity Program ($5.2
million increase); (2) $40 million Minority Centers of Excellence ($7.4
million increase); (3) $52 million for Scholarships for Disadvantaged
Students ($5.8 million increase); and (4) $3 million for Faculty Loan
Repayment and Faculty Fellowships ($1.67 million increase).
Diversity in the health professions offers numerous benefits,
including ``increasing the proportion of under represented U.S. racial
and ethnic minorities among health professionals''. (IOM Report). Such
efforts were supported by HHS in the past, but now are threatened with
extinction.
The spring 1999 issue of the HHS Office of Minority Health's
newsletter Closing the Gaps focused on the theme of ``Putting the Right
People in the Right Places.'' The newsletter highlighted the startling
under representation of ethnic and minority groups within the health
professions and stressed the important role of three programs: (1) the
Health Careers Opportunity Program, which trains more than 6,000 high
school and undergraduate students each year and is associated with
acceptance rates to health professional schools that are 20 percent
higher than the national average; (2) the Minority Faculty Fellowships
Program, which addresses the problem that ``just four percent of
faculty at U.S. health profession schools are minorities''; and (3) the
Centers of Excellence Program, which works with Historically Black
Colleges and Universities and Hispanic Serving Health Professions
Schools to ``recruit and retrain minority faculty and students, carry
out research specific to racial and ethnic minorities, provide
culturally appropriate clinical education, and develop curricula and
information resources that respond to the needs of minorities.''
Unfortunately, the very same programs highlighted by HHS in 1999 as
successful have disappeared from the President's 2004 budget. In fact,
all of these programs received zero funding or are scheduled for
elimination.
To insure that no one is denied necessary health care because of
race, ethnicity or language, they must have the tools to do their job.
Bringing equity into our healthcare system demands a funding increase
for this office.
Fifty million dollars for Territorial Hospitals and Health
Departments.
Mr. Chairman, years of Medicaid caps have and continue to create a
crisis in the healthcare systems in the offshore territories. To
address and resolve this, last year I requested that the sum of $50
million be made available to the secretary for territorial hospitals
and health departments to close some of their critical health care gaps
and repair infrastructure deficiencies. I repeat this request again for
this year's appropriation.
Because of the Medicaid cap, and a match that is not indexed for
average income level, both which are Congressionally set, we are unable
to cover individuals at 100 percent of poverty--for the Virgin Islands
it is closer to 30 percent below that income level. Under the cap,
spending per recipient is at best one-fifth of the national average.
Our hospitals are struggling, because the cap prevents them from
collecting full payments for the services they provide, and they are
also unable to collect Disproportionate Share payments, despite the
fact that about 60 percent of their inpatients are below the poverty
level. About one-third of these qualify for Medicaid, which as I
indicated before, never fully reimburses them. The rest of their
patients have no coverage whatsoever.
Long-term care is limited, and thus unavailable to persons and their
families who need it, not because the rooms are not there, but because
we do not have enough Medicaid dollars to pay for them, even though the
federal funds are matched 2 to 1 by local dollars--far above our
requirement. While many states are covering women and their minor
children well above the 100 percent of poverty, we cannot even come
close.
Along with my fellow representatives from Guam, American Samoa and
Puerto Rico, I have introduced bills to both remove the Medicaid Cap
as well as, for the first time, provide for the creation of a
Disproportionate Share payment to our hospitals.

Our final request, Mr. Chairman, once again deals with the Minority
HIV/AIDS Initiative. We are here today once again to request funding
for the full amount of our request for the MAHI in the amount of $610
million. While our review of the current programs demonstrates the need
for increased funding, in light of our other requests which all have
the potential to impact this epidemic to some degree, and the budgetary
constraints of our government we are requesting a need-based increase
over our 2002 request of $70 million. We strongly believe that the $610
million request is absolutely necessary if we are to have any success
whatsoever in stemming the tide of this epidemic which continues to
ravage our communities.
Once again, the purpose of the special and targeted funding is to
provide technical assistance and to increase the capacity of our own
communities to administer programs aimed at prevention and treatment,
and to bolster or build the infrastructure needed to make all life
saving measures accessible.
The Minority HIV/AIDS request is not meant to be the total funding
for communities of color but should be utilized in such a way to better
enable our communities, that are hard to reach and out of the
mainstream, to access the $8 billion plus that is available for HIV and
AIDS.
It is also important to point out that as serious an issue as it is,
HIV and AIDS is just one symptom of all that is wrong in our
communities, many of which come under the purview of this subcommittee.
This funding will not only be successful in the fight against long term
HIV and AIDS but also in all other areas, if in the long term the
underpinnings of our communities are also strengthened.
There is a critical part of the Minority HIV/AIDS initiative request,
which does not involve money. It is one of language.
Mr. Chairman, the intent of the MAHI is to ensure that its funds,
which are only a small part of overall HIV/AIDS funding, are used to
build capacity within African American and other communities of color
which are the ones now being disproportionately impacted. The current
of the language initiative has not maintained that focus. We are
therefore requesting that the original FY 1999 language be restored or
be mirrored, in your 2005 bill, with the following change which I
believe meets the concerns of the Department with regard to
discrimination, while empowering our communities which is the only way
we can effectively control this and the other diseases which create the
disparities.
The cost in dollars today will be significant, but the cost in lives
and to our economy in the future are risks that we must not take.
There is no question that health disparities are deeply rooted in our
medical system and in our culture. Eliminating them is going to take a
lot more than one leadership summit or one media campaign. It will take
a long-term commitment. It will take a long-term investment.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. once said, ``Of all the forms of
inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and
inhumane.'' We have a moral obligation to end injustice in health care
and health disparities among Americans. I urge my colleagues to support
this request.
On behalf of the Congressional Black Caucus, I urge a ``no'' vote on
the rule and the underlying bill.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, a number of my colleagues
have stood up today to speak out against various parts of the Labor,
Health and Human Services and Education appropriations bill. I
recognize that through our positions as legislators, we have the
ability to create programs and new initiatives that can benefit our
constituents and our country. It is within the scope of our job to
debate which programs deserve particular funding. Appropriations bills
are Congress' vehicle of funding the public, not for creating
limitations and barriers for their basic rights afforded by the
constitution.
Within this appropriation bill is a provision that effectively
prohibits a federal agency or program, or State or local government,
from enforcing any abortion-related laws or regulations as they apply
to health care entities. ``Healthcare entity'' is defined to include
individual physicians or other health care professionals, hospitals,
provider-sponsored organizations, HMOs, insurance plans, or ``any kind
of health care facility, organization, or plan.'' This ``refusal
clause'' permits a broad range of individuals and institutions--
including hospitals, hospital employees, health care providers,
employers, and insurers--to refuse to provide, pay, counsel or even
issue referrals for medical treatment based on their moral or religious
views.
Refusal clauses affect a broad range of reproductive services,
including: information and referrals for family planning, genetic
counseling, infertility treatment, rape treatment, sterilization, STD
and HIV testing and treatment and abortion.
Doctors and health care providers have a duty to ensure that women
receive accurate

[[Page H6817]]

information and appropriate care. Failure to provide this care--even
for religious, political or ideological reasons--jeopardizes women's
health and violates bedrock principles of medical ethics.

obey overtime amendment

I would like to join many of my Democratic colleagues in supporting
Mr. Obey's amendment to restore overtime protection to the millions of
workers who will otherwise lose it if the Bush administration
regulation that went into effect on August 23 is allowed to remain in
effect.
Workers who are likely to see their pay cut include 2.3 million
``team'' leaders; almost 2 million low-level supervisors; hundreds of
thousands of loan officers and other financial service employees; more
than 1 million employees who lack college or graduate degrees or who
may not be considered ``artistic'' professionals; 90,000 computer
employees, funeral directors and embalmers; and more than 30,000
nursery school and Head Start teachers across the country.
Those families that lose overtime protection will find they will have
to work longer hours for significantly less money. Overtime accounted
for approximately a quarter of the income, more than $8,000 a year, for
families who earned overtime in 2000. As the pool of workers who are
exempt from overtime is expanded, those workers who are not directly
affected by the regulation will lose income as their opportunity to be
able to work overtime is diminished.
The Bush administration has justified the regulation on the basis of
a proposed clarification of the rules and limitation on litigation;
however, virtually every observer of the regulation has acknowledged
that the regulations will incorporate vague new terms, that provisions
of the regulation are confusing and conflicting, and that the
regulation will engender substantial litigation for years to come.
I will offer two amendments to this legislation that would address
the horrific effects of hepatitis C and lupus--the silent killer.
The purpose of the Jackson-Lee amendment relating to hepatitis C is
to increase the research activities at the Centers for Disease Control
for patients who are particularly at risk for the disease or resistant
to conventional treatments--African-Americans, children and
adolescents, renal dialysis patients, HIV/HCV positive patients, and
patients with hemophilia. Because hepatitis C is a communicable
disease, I believe this is an important step in getting this public
health issue under control.
Back in June of this year, I joined the ``Hepatitis C Movement for
Awareness'' to call for a more aggressive, and better informed,
national approach to the hepatitis C epidemic in the United States.
Hepatitis C infects 300 million people worldwide, including over 5.8
million Americans. Only 20 percent of those infected know they are
infected, and scientists are still unsure how the virus is spread, or
who is most likely to be infected. This deadly epidemic cannot be
ignored any longer. We need action. I commend the Hepatitis C Movement
for Awareness for its tenacity and energy in galvanizing in Washington
to make its case for change.
The second of my amendments relates to addressing the silent killer,
lupus. The purpose of this amendment is twofold. First the amendment
transfers $1,500,000 to the account of NIH's National Center on
Minority Health to increase educational programs on Lupus for health
care providers and for the general public. I believe that this will
help to facilitate the diagnosis of lupus today--particularly among
susceptible populations. Second, I am proposing to transfer $2,500,000
to the Centers for Disease Control to expand the operation of the
National Lupus Patient Registry. There are presently four pilot
registry programs operating in Michigan and in Georgia. These pilot
programs have been a good start, but additional data is needed to
distinguish between environmental and other factors that cause Lupus.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the two Jackson-Lee
amendments. I hope that the deficiencies that relate to the treatment
of hepatitis C and lupus can be addressed in conference.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to urge my colleague to oppose
the previous question on H.R. 5006, the FY 2005 Labor-HHS-Education
Appropriations bill in order that we could get an opportunity to debate
an amendment by Ranking Member Obey which the majority on the Rules
Committee refused to make in order. The Obey amendment would add $7.4
billion to the GOP bill, paid for by reducing the average tax cut for
millionaires in FY 2005 from $127,000 to $89,000.
As a physician and the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus'
Health Braintrust, I am particularly supportive of the amendment's
proposed to add additional funds for health care. The amendment would
increase health care and funding by $1.1 billion, including providing
$500 million for critical investments in medical research at NIH;
providing $333 million for maintaining access to health care, including
restoring the Community Acess Program for the Uninsured, eliminated by
the Republican bill, increasing funding for rural health, and
increasing funding for the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant and
Healthy Start; and providing $100 million for childhood immunization
and infectious disease programs.
Conversely, the majority bill shortchanges health care programs in
some critical ways. It cuts rural health care activities by 21 percent
from FY 2004. It cuts helath care professions trading by 8 percent. It
cuts public and preventative health activities by 18 percent. And it
only provides a piddling 4.6 percent increase in HIV/AIDS programs for
the second year in a row.
My colleagues the majority bill clearly demonstrates that their
rhetoric about supporting the middle class and families are not
reflected in the legislation they propose. Democrats on the other hand
have consistently fought on behalf of programs that would strengthen
the middle class and families.
I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question and support the
Obey substitute.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this
legislation.
Mr. Speaker an important and necessary provision is included in the
bill that is intended to protect health care entities from
discrimination because they choose not to provide abortion services.
The amendment, adopted during full committee consideration, is
intended to protect the decisions of physicians, nurses, clinics,
hospitals, medical centers, and even health insurance providers from
being forced by the government to provide, refer or pay for abortions.
This is reasonable federal policy and one that was overwhelmingly
approved by this very body by a vote of 229-189.
The policy simply states that health care entities should not be
forced to provide elective abortion--a practice to which a majority of
health care providers object and which they will not perform as a
matter of conscience.
But while 45 States and the Federal Government protect the right of
health care provider to decline involvement in abortion, abortion
advocates are working to abolish these legal protections.
Abortion advocates have launched a campaign to force hospitals and
other health care entities to provide, refer, and pay for abortions.
They argue that the term ``health care entity'' only covers
individuals and not institutions. They have also argued that because an
entity receives Federal funds they are required to provide abortions.
By twisting the law they have successfully used the courts and State
and local governments to violate the objections to abortions of health
care entities and providers.
This is why we need to strengthen Federal protections against
discrimination based on objections to abortion.
The right of conscience is fundamental to our American freedoms. We
should guarantee this freedom by protecting all health care providers
from being required to perform, refer, or pay for elective abortions.
I urge my colleagues to support the language in the bill and support
its passage.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to show my support for the
Community Services Block Grant, CSBG. CSBG funds the anti-poverty
community action agencies and family self-sufficiency efforts of a
nationwide network of 1,100 community agencies. These organizations
create, coordinate, and deliver comprehensive programs and services to
as many as 27 percent of all people living in poverty in the United
States.
Total Action Against Poverty is a community action agency whose
service area includes Virginia's Sixth Congressional District, which I
represent. This agency offers more than 31 programs in housing,
education, employment, training, rehabilitation, community development,
neighborhood organization, child care, and family development.
The Community Services Block Grant provides flexible funding that
enables community action agencies to pursue comprehensive, innovative
approaches to help low-income Americans achieve self-sufficiency.
The demand for community action agencies' services among impoverished
individuals and families has not abated and, in fact, continues to
grow.
Demand for core emergency CAA services, including food banks,
clothing, emergency shelter, and utility assistance, continues to
increase dramatically.
One of Total Action Against Poverty's programs offers a diverse array
of education and training programs for low-income, unemployed, and
underemployed adults residing in the Roanoke Valley Alleghany Regional
Planning District. The centerpiece of this initiative is the Center for
Employment Training, CET, which provides individualized training
tailored to enhance competitiveness in the local workforce. Local
businesses help develop training and curricula, and facilitate the
hiring of CET graduates.

[[Page H6818]]

I support the work and the difference that this agency, one of many
like it across the U.S., is doing to make a difference in my district.
I encourage my colleagues to support the Community Service Block Grant
in the Labor-HHS bill.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those
amendments will be considered read.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

H.R. 5006

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

That the following sums are appropriated, out of any money in
the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the Departments
of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and
related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2005, and for other purposes, namely:

TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

Training and Employment Services

(Including rescission)

For necessary expenses of the Workforce Investment Act of
1998, including the purchase and hire of passenger motor
vehicles, the construction, alteration, and repair of
buildings and other facilities, and the purchase of real
property for training centers as authorized by such Act,
$2,649,728,000 plus reimbursements; of which $1,642,442,000
is available for obligation for the period July 1, 2005,
through June 30, 2006, except that amounts determined by the
Secretary of Labor to be necessary pursuant to sections
173(a)(4)(A) and 174(c) of such Act shall be available from
October 1, 2004, until expended; of which $1,000,965,000 is
available for obligation for the period April 1, 2005,
through June 30, 2006, to carry out chapter 4 of such Act;
and of which $6,321,000 is available for the period July 1,
2005, through June 30, 2008, for necessary expenses of
construction, rehabilitation, and acquisition of Job Corps
centers: Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision
of law, of the funds provided herein under section 137(c) of
such Act, $301,227,000 shall be for activities described in
section 132(a)(2)(A) of such Act, and $1,178,192,000 shall be
for activities described in section 132(a)(2)(B) of such Act:
Provided further, That $8,000,000 shall be for carrying out
section 172 of such Act: Provided further, That,
notwithstanding any other provision of law or related
regulation, $76,874,000 shall be for carrying out section 167
of such Act, including $71,787,000 for formula grants,
$4,583,000 for migrant and seasonal housing (of which not
less than 70 percent shall be for permanent housing), and
$504,000 for other discretionary purposes: Provided further,
That notwithstanding the transfer limitation under section
133(b)(4) of such Act, up to 30 percent of such funds may be
transferred by a local board if approved by the Governor:
Provided further, That funds provided to carry out section
171(d) of such Act may be used for demonstration projects
that provide assistance to new entrants in the workforce and
incumbent workers: Provided further, That no funds from any
other appropriation shall be used to provide meal services at
or for Job Corps centers.
For necessary expenses of the Workforce Investment Act of
1998, including the purchase and hire of passenger motor
vehicles, the construction, alteration, and repair of
buildings and other facilities, and the purchase of real
property for training centers as authorized by such Act;
$2,463,000,000 plus reimbursements, of which $2,363,000,000
is available for obligation for the period October 1, 2005,
through June 30, 2006, and of which $100,000,000 is available
for the period October 1, 2005, through June 30, 2008, for
necessary expenses of construction, rehabilitation, and
acquisition of Job Corps centers.
Of the unobligated funds contained in the H-1 B
Nonimmigrant Petitioner Account that are available to the
Secretary of Labor pursuant to section 286(s)(2) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1356(s)(2)),
$100,000,000 are rescinded.

community service employment for older americans

To carry out title V of the Older Americans Act of 1965, as
amended, $440,200,000.

Federal Unemployment Benefits and Allowances

For payments during the current fiscal year of trade
adjustment benefit payments and allowances under part I and
section 246; and for training, allowances for job search and
relocation, and related State administrative expenses under
part II of chapter 2, title II of the Trade Act of 1974
(including the benefits and services described under sections
123(c)(2) and 151 (b) and (c) of the Trade Adjustment
Assistance Reform Act of 2002, Public Law 107-210),
$1,057,300,000, together with such amounts as may be
necessary to be charged to the subsequent appropriation for
payments for any period subsequent to September 15 of the
current year.

State Unemployment Insurance and Employment Service Operations

For authorized administrative expenses, $141,934,000,
together with not to exceed $3,440,914,000 (including not to
exceed $1,228,000 which may be used for amortization payments
to States which had independent retirement plans in their
State employment service agencies prior to 1980), which may
be expended from the Employment Security Administration
Account in the Unemployment Trust Fund including the cost of
administering section 51 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986, as amended, section 7(d) of the Wagner-Peyser Act, as
amended, the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, the Immigration
Act of 1990, and the Immigration and Nationality Act, as
amended, and of which the sums available in the allocation
for activities authorized by title III of the Social Security
Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 502-504), and the sums available
in the allocation for necessary administrative expenses for
carrying out 5 U.S.C. 8501-8523, shall be available for
obligation by the States through December 31, 2005, except
that funds used for automation acquisitions shall be
available for obligation by the States through September 30,
2007; of which $141,934,000, together with not to exceed
$672,700,000 of the amount which may be expended from said
trust fund, shall be available for obligation for the period
July 1, 2005, through June 30, 2006, to fund activities under
the Act of June 6, 1933, as amended, including the cost of
penalty mail authorized under 39 U.S.C. 3202(a)(1)(E) made
available to States in lieu of allotments for such purpose:
Provided, That to the extent that the Average Weekly Insured
Unemployment (AWIU) for fiscal year 2005 is projected by the
Department of Labor to exceed 3,327,000, an additional
$28,600,000 shall be available for obligation for every
100,000 increase in the AWIU level (including a pro rata
amount for any increment less than 100,000) from the
Employment Security Administration Account of the
Unemployment Trust Fund: Provided further, That funds
appropriated in this Act which are used to establish a
national one-stop career center system, or which are used to
support the national activities of the Federal-State
unemployment insurance or immigration programs, may be
obligated in contracts, grants or agreements with non-State
entities: Provided further, That funds appropriated under
this Act for activities authorized under the Wagner-Peyser
Act, as amended, and title III of the Social Security Act,
may be used by the States to fund integrated Employment
Service and Unemployment Insurance automation efforts,
notwithstanding cost allocation principles prescribed under
Office of Management and Budget Circular A-87.

Advances to the Unemployment Trust Fund and Other Funds

For repayable advances to the Unemployment Trust Fund as
authorized by sections 905(d) and 1203 of the Social Security
Act, as amended, and to the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund
as authorized by section 9501(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1954, as amended; and for nonrepayable advances to
the Unemployment Trust Fund as authorized by section 8509 of
title 5, United States Code, and to the ``Federal
unemployment benefits and allowances'' account, to remain
available until September 30, 2006, $517,000,000.
In addition, for making repayable advances to the Black
Lung Disability Trust Fund in the current fiscal year after
September 15, 2005, for costs incurred by the Black Lung
Disability Trust Fund in the current fiscal year, such sums
as may be necessary.

Program Administration

For expenses of administering employment and training
programs, $111,375,000, together with not to exceed
$57,479,000 which may be expended from the Employment
Security Administration Account in the Unemployment Trust
Fund.

Employee Benefits Security Administration

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses for the Employee Benefits Security
Administration, $132,345,000.

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation Fund

The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation is authorized to
make such expenditures, including financial assistance
authorized by section 104 of Public Law 96-364, within limits
of funds and borrowing authority available to such
Corporation, and in accord with law, and to make such
contracts and commitments without regard to fiscal year
limitations as provided by section 104 of the Government
Corporation Control Act, as amended (31 U.S.C. 9104), as may
be necessary in carrying out the program, including
associated administrative expenses, through September 30,
2005, for such Corporation: Provided, That none of the funds
available to the Corporation for fiscal year 2005 shall be
available for obligations for administrative expenses in
excess of $266,330,000: Provided further, That obligations in
excess of such amount may be incurred after approval by the
Office of Management and Budget and the Committees on
Appropriations of the House and Senate.

Employment Standards Administration

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses for the Employment Standards
Administration, including

[[Page H6819]]

reimbursement to State, Federal, and local agencies and their
employees for inspection services rendered, $400,797,000,
together with $2,021,000 which may be expended from the
Special Fund in accordance with sections 39(c), 44(d) and
44(j) of the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act:
Provided, That $1,250,000 shall be for the development of an
alternative system for the electronic submission of reports
required to be filed under the Labor-Management Reporting and
Disclosure Act of 1959, as amended, and for a computer
database of the information for each submission by whatever
means, that is indexed and easily searchable by the public
via the Internet: Provided further, That the Secretary of
Labor is authorized to accept, retain, and spend, until
expended, in the name of the Department of Labor, all sums of
money ordered to be paid to the Secretary of Labor, in
accordance with the terms of the Consent Judgment in Civil
Action No. 91-0027 of the United States District Court for
the District of the Northern Mariana Islands (May 21, 1992):
Provided further, That the Secretary of Labor is authorized
to establish and, in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3302, collect
and deposit in the Treasury fees for processing applications
and issuing certificates under sections 11(d) and 14 of the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended (29 U.S.C.
211(d) and 214) and for processing applications and issuing
registrations under title I of the Migrant and Seasonal
Agricultural Worker Protection Act (29 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.).

Special Benefits

(including transfer of funds)

For the payment of compensation, benefits, and expenses
(except administrative expenses) accruing during the current
or any prior fiscal year authorized by title 5, chapter 81 of
the United States Code; continuation of benefits as provided
for under the heading ``Civilian War Benefits'' in the
Federal Security Agency Appropriation Act, 1947; the
Employees' Compensation Commission Appropriation Act, 1944;
sections 4(c) and 5(f) of the War Claims Act of 1948 (50
U.S.C. App. 2012); and 50 percent of the additional
compensation and benefits required by section 10(h) of the
Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, as amended,
$233,000,000, together with such amounts as may be necessary
to be charged to the subsequent year appropriation for the
payment of compensation and other benefits for any period
subsequent to August 15 of the current year: Provided, That
amounts appropriated may be used under section 8104 of title
5, United States Code, by the Secretary of Labor to reimburse
an employer, who is not the employer at the time of injury,
for portions of the salary of a reemployed, disabled
beneficiary: Provided further, That balances of
reimbursements unobligated on September 30, 2004, shall
remain available until expended for the payment of
compensation, benefits, and expenses: Provided further, That
in addition there shall be transferred to this appropriation
from the Postal Service and from any other corporation or
instrumentality required under section 8147(c) of title 5,
United States Code, to pay an amount for its fair share of
the cost of administration, such sums as the Secretary
determines to be the cost of administration for employees of
such fair share entities through September 30, 2005: Provided
further, That of those funds transferred to this account from
the fair share entities to pay the cost of administration of
the Federal Employees' Compensation Act, $39,668,000 shall be
made available to the Secretary as follows:
(1) for enhancement and maintenance of automated data
processing systems and telecommunications systems,
$12,351,000;
(2) for automated workload processing operations, including
document imaging, centralized mail intake and medical bill
processing, $14,221,000;
(3) for periodic roll management and medical review,
$13,096,000; and
(4) the remaining funds shall be paid into the Treasury as
miscellaneous receipts:

Provided further, That the Secretary may require that any
person filing a notice of injury or a claim for benefits
under chapter 81 of title 5, United States Code, or 33 U.S.C.
901 et seq., provide as part of such notice and claim, such
identifying information (including Social Security account
number) as such regulations may prescribe.

Special Benefits for Disabled Coal Miners

For carrying out title IV of the Federal Mine Safety and
Health Act of 1977, as amended by Public Law 107-275, (the
``Act''), $276,000,000, to remain available until expended.
For making after July 31 of the current fiscal year,
benefit payments to individuals under title IV of the Act,
for costs incurred in the current fiscal year, such amounts
as may be necessary.
For making benefit payments under title IV for the first
quarter of fiscal year 2006, $81,000,000, to remain available
until expended.

administrative expenses, energy employees occupational illness
compensation fund

(including transfer of funds)

For necessary expenses to administer the Energy Employees
Occupational Illness Compensation Act, $40,821,000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That the Secretary of
Labor is authorized to transfer to any executive agency with
authority under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness
Compensation Act, including within the Department of Labor,
such sums as may be necessary in fiscal year 2005 to carry
out those authorities: Provided further, That the Secretary
may require that any person filing a claim for benefits under
the Act provide as part of such claim, such identifying
information (including Social Security account number) as may
be prescribed.

Black Lung Disability Trust Fund

(including transfer of funds)

In fiscal year 2005 and thereafter, such sums as may be
necessary from the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund, to
remain available until expended, for payment of all benefits
authorized by section 9501(d)(1), (2), (4), and (7) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended; and interest on
advances, as authorized by section 9501(c)(2) of that Act. In
addition, the following amounts shall be available from the
Fund for fiscal year 2005 for expenses of operation and
administration of the Black Lung Benefits program, as
authorized by section 9501(d)(5): $32,646,000 for transfer to
the Employment Standards Administration, ``Salaries and
Expenses''; $23,705,000 for transfer to Departmental
Management, ``Salaries and Expenses''; $342,000 for transfer
to Departmental Management, ``Office of Inspector General'';
and $356,000 for payments into miscellaneous receipts for the
expenses of the Department of the Treasury.

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses for the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration, $461,599,000, including not to exceed
$91,747,000 which shall be the maximum amount available for
grants to States under section 23(g) of the Occupational
Safety and Health Act (the ``Act''), which grants shall be no
less than 50 percent of the costs of State occupational
safety and health programs required to be incurred under
plans approved by the Secretary under section 18 of the Act;
and, in addition, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration may retain up
to $750,000 per fiscal year of training institute course
tuition fees, otherwise authorized by law to be collected,
and may utilize such sums for occupational safety and health
training and education grants: Provided, That,
notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, the Secretary of Labor is
authorized, during the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005,
to collect and retain fees for services provided to
Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratories, and may utilize
such sums, in accordance with the provisions of 29 U.S.C. 9a,
to administer national and international laboratory
recognition programs that ensure the safety of equipment and
products used by workers in the workplace: Provided further,
That none of the funds appropriated under this paragraph
shall be obligated or expended to prescribe, issue,
administer, or enforce any standard, rule, regulation, or
order under the Act which is applicable to any person who is
engaged in a farming operation which does not maintain a
temporary labor camp and employs 10 or fewer employees:
Provided further, That no funds appropriated under this
paragraph shall be obligated or expended to administer or
enforce any standard, rule, regulation, or order under the
Act with respect to any employer of 10 or fewer employees who
is included within a category having a Days Away, Restricted,
or Transferred (DART) occupational injury and illness rate,
at the most precise industrial classification code for which
such data are published, less than the national average rate
as such rates are most recently published by the Secretary,
acting through the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in accordance
with section 24 of that Act (29 U.S.C. 673), except--
(1) to provide, as authorized by such Act, consultation,
technical assistance, educational and training services, and
to conduct surveys and studies;
(2) to conduct an inspection or investigation in response
to an employee complaint, to issue a citation for violations
found during such inspection, and to assess a penalty for
violations which are not corrected within a reasonable
abatement period and for any willful violations found;
(3) to take any action authorized by such Act with respect
to imminent dangers;
(4) to take any action authorized by such Act with respect
to health hazards;
(5) to take any action authorized by such Act with respect
to a report of an employment accident which is fatal to one
or more employees or which results in hospitalization of two
or more employees, and to take any action pursuant to such
investigation authorized by such Act; and
(6) to take any action authorized by such Act with respect
to complaints of discrimination against employees for
exercising rights under such Act:

Provided further, That the foregoing proviso shall not apply
to any person who is engaged in a farming operation which
does not maintain a temporary labor camp and employs 10 or
fewer employees: Provided further, That none of the funds
appropriated under this paragraph shall be obligated or
expended to administer or enforce the provisions of 29 CFR
1910.134(f)(2) (General Industry Respiratory Protection
Standard) to the extent that such provisions require the
annual fit testing (after the initial fit testing) of
respirators for occupational exposure to tuberculosis.

[[Page H6820]]

Amendment Offered by Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut:

Amendment to Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education
Appropriations Bill, 2005, as Reported

Offered by Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut

In title I, in the item relating to Occupational Health and
Safety Administration, after the aggregate dollar amount
insert the following: ``(reduced by $25,000,000)''.
In title II, in the item relating to Office of the
Secretary, after the aggregate dollar amount insert the
following: ``(increased by $25,000,000)''.
In title II, in the item relating to Office of the
Secretary, after the fourth dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $25,000,000)''.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support
of my amendment to accelerate the adoption of health information
technology and to improve health care quality for all Americans,
significantly reduce preventable medical errors, and rein in rising
health care costs. My amendment would add $25 million to the Department
of Health and Human Services to advance health information technology.
This meets the Secretary's budget request to fund State, regional or
local grants to develop health systems that coordinate with each other.
This funding will also help unleash our creativity through grants to
foster innovative information technologies that improve health care.
Mr. Chairman, this President and this Secretary of Health and Human
Services, Tommy Thompson, have provided remarkable, aggressive, and
visionary leadership to bring America's health care system into the
21st century, to improve the quality of care available to all
Americans, and to dramatically reduce administrative costs, medical
errors, duplicate testing, duplicate record keeping, and address all
those aspects of our health care system that have already been
identified by the Institute of Medicine as being the source of poor-
quality care and an enormous health care cost.
At this moment, with health care costs rising at an extraordinary
rate, pressing premiums up for everyone, including our seniors under
part B, we must push forward to develop interoperable electronic health
records, e-prescribing and all those other applications of modern
information technology to our health sector. It is indeed bizarre that
other sectors of the economy, manufacturing, banking, many other
sectors, are far ahead of the health care sector in integrating,
absorbing, using and exploiting information technology to both improve
the quality of operations in those sectors and the quality of the
product as an outcome. Information technology will dramatically improve
the quality of health care available to all Americans and holds out the
promise of reducing costs tremendously.
For example, health information technology will reduce medical errors
which account for 44,000 to 98,000 deaths annually, more than motor
vehicle accidents, breast cancer, or AIDS. It will reduce known medical
errors that cost $30 billion to $35 billion annually. Health IT will
save $5.4 billion a year annually that is spent on unnecessary services
because tests or second opinions cannot be located. It will also
eliminate costly defensive medical practices which account for as much
as $108 billion in unnecessary health care costs each year. Health IT
will allow physicians to detect negative drug interactions which result
in 7,000 deaths each year.
My friends in this body, we must do everything we possibly can to
back Secretary Thompson and this President in moving health information
technology into our health care sector as rapidly as possible. These
innovative grants, the work that they are doing to establish standards,
the pressure they are putting on the private sector to develop
interoperable technologies is all exactly what needs to happen; and it
is my hope that we will be able to accomplish the goal of this
amendment, to provide the full $50 million that the new office, of
which Dr. Brailer is now the head as the national coordinator of
information technology, that their full budget allocation request can
be fulfilled.
I have talked with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) about this.
Rather than pursuing this amendment further, I am going to withdraw it.
But I did want to stress how important it is that we back this office
with its full dollar amount. I hope that in the course of the
development of this bill, that that goal will be fulfilled.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I commend
the gentlewoman for what she is trying to do here. My concern is that
if we diminish OSHA's impact, we will have more people going into the
hospital. Part of the objective of OSHA is to have safety in the
workplace and get fewer people in. I think her desire to improve the
quality programs that are embodied in the amendment here, we will be
sensitive to this in conference. We have no idea what the other body's
bill is going to look like and where the emphasis is going to be. I
appreciate the fact that the gentlewoman will withdraw her amendment,
but we will keep this very much in mind.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. I thank the chairman very much for his
comments.
Mr. Chairman, I also want to say both to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Regula) and also to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) that you
have brought forward for this body a very fine, balanced bill in a
difficult era. The money that you have put into critical health care
activities that the Federal Government funds, like the children's
hospitals and also into public education as well as job training and a
number of other areas is really a tribute to the kind of thoughtful
leadership that this body is capable of.
I do withdraw my amendment, recognizing the importance and value of
OSHA, and I appreciate your willingness to look at this critical
function as you move this bill toward its final conclusion.
Mr. REGULA. I thank the gentlewoman for her contribution.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mine Safety and Health Administration

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses for the Mine Safety and Health
Administration, $275,567,000, including purchase and bestowal
of certificates and trophies in connection with mine rescue
and first-aid work, and the hire of passenger motor vehicles;
in addition, not to exceed $750,000 may be collected by the
National Mine Health and Safety Academy for room, board,
tuition, and the sale of training materials, otherwise
authorized by law to be collected, to be available for mine
safety and health education and training activities,
notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302; and, in addition, the Mine
Safety and Health Administration may retain up to $1,000,000
from fees collected for the approval and certification of
equipment, materials, and explosives for use in mines, and
may utilize such sums for such activities; the Secretary is
authorized to accept lands, buildings, equipment, and other
contributions from public and private sources and to
prosecute projects in cooperation with other agencies,
Federal, State, or private; the Mine Safety and Health
Administration is authorized to promote health and safety
education and training in the mining community through
cooperative programs with States, industry, and safety
associations; and any funds available to the department may
be used, with the approval of the Secretary, to provide for
the costs of mine rescue and survival operations in the event
of a major disaster.

Bureau of Labor Statistics

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses for the Bureau of Labor Statistics,
including advances or reimbursements to State, Federal, and
local agencies and their employees for services rendered,
$455,045,000, together with not to exceed $78,473,000, which
may be expended from the Employment Security Administration
Account in the Unemployment Trust Fund.

Office of Disability Employment Policy

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses for the Office of Disability
Employment Policy to provide leadership, develop policy and
initiatives, and award grants furthering the objective of
eliminating barriers to the training and employment of people
with disabilities, $47,555,000.

Departmental Management

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses for Departmental Management,
including the hire of three sedans, and including the
management or operation, through contracts, grants or other
arrangements of Departmental activities conducted by or
through the Bureau of International Labor Affairs, including
bilateral

[[Page H6821]]

and multilateral technical assistance and other international
labor activities, $264,653,000, of which, $7,000,000 to
remain available until September 30, 2006, is for Frances
Perkins Building Security enhancements, and $30,000,000 is
for the acquisition of Departmental information technology,
architecture, infrastructure, equipment, software, and
related needs, which will be allocated by the Department's
Chief Information Officer in accordance with the Department's
capital investment management process to assure a sound
investment strategy, together with not to exceed $314,000,
which may be expended from the Employment Security
Administration Account in the Unemployment Trust Fund:
Provided, That no funds made available by this Act may be
used by the Solicitor of Labor to participate in a review in
any United States court of appeals of any decision made by
the Benefits Review Board under section 21 of the Longshore
and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 921) where
such participation is precluded by the decision of the United
States Supreme Court in Director, Office of Workers'
Compensation Programs v. Newport News Shipbuilding, 115 S.
Ct. 1278 (1995), notwithstanding any provisions to the
contrary contained in Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of
Appellate Procedure: Provided further, That no funds made
available by this Act may be used by the Secretary of Labor
to review a decision under the Longshore and Harbor Workers'
Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 901 et seq.) that has been
appealed and that has been pending before the Benefits Review
Board for more than 12 months: Provided further, That any
such decision pending a review by the Benefits Review Board
for more than 1 year shall be considered affirmed by the
Benefits Review Board on the 1-year anniversary of the filing
of the appeal, and shall be considered the final order of the
Board for purposes of obtaining a review in the United States
courts of appeals: Provided further, That these provisions
shall not be applicable to the review or appeal of any
decision issued under the Black Lung Benefits Act (30 U.S.C.
901 et seq.).

veterans employment and training

Not to exceed $194,098,000 may be derived from the
Employment Security Administration Account in the
Unemployment Trust Fund to carry out the provisions of 38
U.S.C. 4100-4110A, 4212, 4214, and 4321-4327, and Public Law
103-353, and which shall be available for obligation by the
States through December 31, 2005, of which $2,000,000 is for
the National Veterans' Employment and Training Services
Institute. To carry out the Homeless Veterans Reintegration
Programs (38 U.S.C. 2021) and the Veterans Workforce
Investment Programs (29 U.S.C. 2913), $26,550,000 of which
$7,550,000 shall be available for obligation for the period
July 1, 2005, through June 30, 2006.

{time} 1315

Amendment Offered by Ms. Hooley of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Ms. Hooley of Oregon:
In title I, in the item relating to ``Departmental
Management--veterans employment and training'', after the
aggregate dollar amount, insert the following: ``(increased
by $5,000,000)''.

In title II, in the item relating to ``Office of the
Secretary--general departmental management'', after the
aggregate dollar amount, insert the following: ``(reduced by
$5,000,000)''.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentlewoman has a good
amendment here. We are prepared to accept this, and I think in light of
all the circumstances, the need for veterans' employment and training
is growing, and, therefore, I think this is a very positive amendment,
and we would be willing to accept it at this point.
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for
accepting the amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, we also would be happy to accept it on this
side of the aisle. It is a good amendment.
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, just very briefly, this is so our
Guard and Reserves can go back to the job they left when they went
overseas. The men and women of our Armed Forces fought for their
country. They should not have to fight for their jobs when they return
home, and I thank them for accepting the amendment.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hooley
amendment.
All of us are incredibly grateful to the men and women of our armed
forces, including members of the National Guard and Reserves. Thousands
of our Guard members and Reserves have been activated, taking them away
not only from their families, but from their jobs, as well.
The Hooley amendment provides $5 million to the Department of Labor
Veteran's Employment and Training Program, specifically for a
nationwide campaign to educate America's employers about the Uniformed
Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA).
USERRA spells out the responsibilities of employers of members of the
National Guard and Reserve, and it explains the employment rights of
those members. However, many employees and employers do not know about
USERRA.
Mr. Chairman, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has estimated that 70
percent of military reservists called to active-duty work in small or
medium-size companies.
In response, I introduced H.R. 4477 with the bipartisan support of
U.S. Representative Jeb Bradley. H.R. 4477 is a simple, straightforward
bill, and it complements the Hooley amendment. My bill seeks to promote
understanding between employees and employers when it comes to their
rights and obligations under USERRA. H.R. 4477 would require the
Department of Labor to produce a poster--similar to the Family and
Medical Leave poster--for employers to post at work sites.
Mr. Chairman, many employers across the country either do not know
about USERRA, or they are only vaguely aware of it. By not complying
with USERRA, employers put themselves at risk of facing Department of
Labor investigations. By educating employers and employees before
potential violations, we can protect employers from costly litigation,
potential fines, and public embarrassment.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4477 would not create additional paper work or
burden employers with difficult Department of Labor requirements. In
fact, H.R. 4477 is an effort to educate employers and keep them from
unknowingly breaking existing law.
Mr. Chairman, I commend U.S. Representative Hooley for bringing her
amendment to the floor today. By educating employers and employees
about USERRA, we can assist them in working out any potential conflicts
before employees are activated. I urge adoption of the Hooley
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).
The agreement was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to this paragraph of the
bill?
If not, the Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Office of Inspector General

For salaries and expenses of the Office of Inspector
General in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector
General Act of 1978, as amended, $64,029,000, together with
not to exceed $5,561,000, which may be expended from the
Employment Security Administration Account in the
Unemployment Trust Fund.

Working Capital Fund

For the acquisition of a new core accounting system for the
Department of Labor, including hardware and software
infrastructure and the costs associated with implementation
thereof, $10,000,000.

GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 101. None of the funds appropriated in this title for
the Job Corps shall be used to pay the compensation of an
individual, either as direct costs or any proration as an
indirect cost, at a rate in excess of Executive Level II.

(transfer of funds)

Sec. 102. Not to exceed 1 percent of any discretionary
funds (pursuant to the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985, as amended) which are appropriated for
the current fiscal year for the Department of Labor in this
Act may be transferred between appropriations, but no such
appropriation shall be increased by more than 3 percent by
any such transfer: Provided, That the Appropriations
Committees of both Houses of Congress are notified at least
15 days in advance of any transfer.
Sec. 103. Not later than 30 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretry of Labor shall issue a
monthly transit subsidy of not less than the amount each of
its employees of the National Capital Region is eligible to
receive, not to exceed a maximum of $100, as directed by
Executive Order 13150.
This title may be cited as the ``Department of Labor
Appropriations Act, 2005''.

TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Health Resources and Services Administration

Health Resources and Services

For carrying out titles II, III, IV, VII, VIII, X, XII,
XIX, and XXVI of the Public Health Service Act, section
427(a) of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act, title
V and sections 1128E, 711 and 1820 of the Social Security
Act, the Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986, as
amended, the Native Hawaiian Health Care Act of 1988, as
amended, the Cardiac Arrest Survival Act of 2000, and the
Poison Control Center Enhancement and Awareness Act,
$6,305,333,000, of which $32,500,000 from general revenues,
notwithstanding section 1820(j) of the Social Security Act,
shall be available for carrying out

[[Page H6822]]

the Medicare rural hospital flexibility grants program under
section 1820 of such Act: Provided, That of the funds made
available under this heading, $250,000 shall be available
until expended for facilities renovations at the Gillis W.
Long Hansen's Disease Center: Provided further, That in
addition to fees authorized by section 427(b) of the Health
Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986, fees shall be collected
for the full disclosure of information under the Act
sufficient to recover the full costs of operating the
National Practitioner Data Bank, and shall remain available
until expended to carry out that Act: Provided further, That
fees collected for the full disclosure of information under
the ``Health Care Fraud and Abuse Data Collection Program'',
authorized by section 1128E(d)(2) of the Social Security Act,
shall be sufficient to recover the full costs of operating
the program, and shall remain available until expended to
carry out that Act: Provided further, That no more than
$45,000,000 to remain available until expended is available
for carrying out the provisions of Public Law 104-73:
Provided further, That of the funds made available under this
heading, $278,283,000 shall be for the program under title X
of the Public Health Service Act to provide for voluntary
family planning projects: Provided further, That amounts
provided to said projects under such title shall not be
expended for abortions, that all pregnancy counseling shall
be nondirective, and that such amounts shall not be expended
for any activity (including the publication or distribution
of literature) that in any way tends to promote public
support or opposition to any legislative proposal or
candidate for public office: Provided further, That
$803,872,000 shall be for State AIDS Drug Assistance Programs
authorized by section 2616 of the Public Health Service Act:
Provided further, That in addition to amounts provided
herein, $25,000,000 shall be available from amounts available
under section 241 of the Public Health Service Act to carry
out Parts A, B, C, and D of title XXVI of the Public Health
Service Act to fund section 2691 Special Projects of National
Significance: Provided further, That notwithstanding section
502(a)(1) of the Social Security Act, not to exceed
$119,158,000 is available for carrying out special projects
of regional and national significance pursuant to section
501(a)(2) of such Act.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Green of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Green of Texas:
In title II, in the item relating to ``Health Resources and
Services Administration--Health Resources and Services'',
insert after the first undesignated paragraph the following
undesignated paragraph:
In addition, for carrying out section 340 of the Public
Health Service Act (relating to the healthy communities
access program), $104,000,000.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment that would
restore the much-needed funding for the Community Access Program, and,
believe me, I appreciate what the chairman and the ranking member on
the subcommittee and the full committee did with the resources that we
have. I know there are more demand resources, but to actually zero out
the Community Access Program I think is something that this House and
this Congress should not do.
With more than 44 million Americans currently living without health
insurance, there is no doubt that too many Americans are going without
necessary preventative health care. This lack of access to care comes
at an extremely high cost both in human and budgetary terms. Nearly 40
percent of uninsured adults skip a recommended medical test or
treatment. And 20 percent indicate that they have needed but have not
received care for a serious health problem in the past year.
Without access to primary health care, the uninsured end up in our
emergency rooms where treatment is extremely expensive and taxpayers
are footing the bill; either that or the shareholders in our for-profit
corporations.
This is where the Community Access Program, or the CAP program, comes
in. This successful program was created 4 years ago to help local
agencies coordinate preventative and primary health care for uninsured
individuals in their communities. CAP allows coordinating efforts
between the for-profit hospitals, the nonprofit, and the public health
providers and literally everyone in the community to serve the people
more efficiently. The program facilitates a community-based approach to
preventative health care and allows the community to tailor its program
specifically to the needs of its uninsured population.
The CAP program has been instrumental in providing health care to the
uninsured in my hometown in Houston. Gateway to Care, the community
access collaborative in Harris County, Texas, has used CAP funding to
expand primary health care services by steering uninsured individuals
to the county's existing services, which the uninsured rarely take
advantage of. From CAP funds, Gateway has developed a nurse triage
service that individuals can utilize 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. So
instead of someone showing up in the emergency room, they actually have
a phone number to call, and maybe it is just a sinus infection and they
can direct them to the closest clinic in their area instead of showing
up at whether it is our for-profit or our public hospitals or our
nonprofits. Instead of calling 911 and having an ambulance come to get
them, these individuals can speak with a qualified nurse who can help
them determine the type of care they require.
Gateway has utilized this funding to increase the enrollment in the
State's CHIP program and to develop a streamlined eligibility system
among the four major safety net providers in our county. Gateway's
achievements have helped thousands of Houstonians access necessary
health care services.
And yet Gateway is not alone in its successful use of this CAP
funding. The program has funded more than 150 health care
collaboratives in 42 States; so it is clear that CAP has touched most
of us in this Chamber. CAP collaboratives are serving the uninsured
across America from Jacksonville, Florida, to Portland, Maine, from
Anchorage, Alaska, to Los Angeles, California. They serve small areas
like Concord, North Carolina, and urban areas like Houston.
Mr. Chairman, I will include for the Record a list of the American
cities that have benefited from this successful program.

Birmingham, AL, Montgomery, AL, Sylacauga, AL, Anchorage,
AK, Sitka, AK, Augusta, AR, Helena, AR, Ratcliff, AR, Bisbee,
AZ, Navajo, AZ, Prescott, AZ, Tuscon, AZ, Bakersfield, CA, El
Centro, CA, Eureka, CA, Lompoc, CA, Los Angeles, CA,
Martinez, CA, Orange, CA, Salinas, CA, San Francisco, CA, San
Leandro, CA, San Mateo, CA, Stockton, CA, Vallejo, CA,
Colorado Springs, CO, Denver, CO, Greeley, CO, Derby, CO, New
Haven, CT, Middletown, CT, Dover, DE, Ft. Lauderdale, FL,
Jacksonville, FL, Kissimmee, FL, Miami, FL, Orlando, FL, St.
Augustine, FL, Tallahassee, FL, Tampa, FL, Atlanta, GA,
Augusta, GA, Macon, GA, Des Moines, IA, Couer D'Alene, ID,
Carlinville, IL, Chicago, IL, Rockford, IL, Springfield, IL.
Indianapolis, IN, South Bend, IN, Tribune, KS, Wichita, KS,
Ashland, KY, Louisville, KY, Lexington, KY, Franklin, LA, New
Orleans, LA, Boston, MA, Cambridge, MA, Springfield, MA,
Yarmouthport, MA, Lavale, MD, Rockville, MD, Portland, ME,
Detroit, MI, Grand Blanc, MI, Kalamazoo, MI, Lansing, MI,
Marquette, MI, Muskegon, MI, Saginaw, MI, Ypsilanti, MI,
Alexandria, MN, Mankato, MN, Minneapolis, MN, St. Cloud, MN,
Kansas City, MO, Kirksville, MO, Jackson, MS, Clarksdale, MS,
Billings, MT, Asheville, NC, Concord, NC, Durham, NC,
Greensboro, NC, Pinehurst, NC, Raleigh, NC, Washington, NC,
Bismarck, ND, Chadron, NE, Columbus, NE, Omaha, NE, Concord,
NH, Albuquerque, NM, El Rito, NM, Santa Fe, NM, Amherst, NY.
Binghamton, NY, Brooklyn, NY, New York, NY, Queens, NY,
Tarrytown, NY, Warrensburg, NY, Cincinnati, OH, Columbus, OH,
Dayton, OH, Tulsa, OK, Cave Junction, OR, Portland, OR,
Blossburg, PA, Norristown, PA, Philadelphia, PA, Pittsburgh,
PA, Scranton, PA, Cranston, RI, Columbia, SC, Greenville, SC,
Orangeburg, SC, Chattanooga, TN, Memphis, TN, Talbott, TN,
Nashville, TN, Austin, TX, Corpus Cristi, TX, Dallas, TX, El
Paso, TX, Galveston, TX, Houston, TX, Uvalde, TX, Salt Lake
City, UT, Arrington, VA, Danville, VA, Falls Church, VA,
Richmond, VA, Winchester, VA, Olympia, WA, Seattle, WA,
Spokane, WA, Wenatchee, WA, Milwaukee, WI, Huntington, WV,
Martinsburg, WV, Charleston, WV, Hinton, WV.

As much success as these communities have achieved with CAP funding,
the bill unfortunately eliminates that program. Last year the program
received $104 million appropriation; yet the administration transferred
$20 million of that, or roughly 20 percent of the total funding, to a
pediatric AIDS initiative. No one wants to deny the pediatric AIDS
patients the care they need, but this situation demonstrates the
problem we have with this bill. We are forced to rob one very worthy
program to pay for another necessary program, and in the end the health
of our community suffers.
My amendment would restore the $104 million for CAP, restoring
funding for the program to the fiscal year 2004 enacted levels.

[[Page H6823]]

Because of the host of worthy health care programs in this bill, we
do not have an offset, and I would like to withdraw the amendment.
I appreciate the chairman's courtesy in allowing me to talk about the
amendment, but I want my colleagues to understand the tremendous
strides this program has made in providing primary health care to those
44 million Americans currently living without insurance. The program is
worthy of our support, and it is my hope that funding will be restored
in conference.
Again, to the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) and the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), I appreciate their allowing me the time, and
I thank them for the funds for the community health centers, but we
still need the dollars to coordinate these community health centers.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GREEN of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me simply say the gentleman is absolutely
right. This is a program that was begun by Secretary Shalala, who
recognized that it is not enough to provide money to health centers if
we do not also provide a thoughtful way to coordinate programs and
services. This is what makes some of these efforts workable, and I
think it is a disgrace that at a time when we have seen the number of
uninsured increase from 40 to 45 million people, that we are
eliminating a program that is crucial to providing service in more than
20 communities around the country.
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw
the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I appreciate the fact that the gentleman is withdrawing the amendment
because there is not an offset, but I want to commend him for his
thoughts on this issue because it is important. These centers are very
important, and it is a classic example of what confronted us in the
subcommittee, and that is, there is so much in the way of good things
that need to be done, and we had to make priority judgments. We will
keep this in mind as we go to conference, but I certainly think the
need is out there.
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his
comments.
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
I am sorry that my colleague has withdrawn the amendment, and I hope
they are going to be able to work this out further down the road.
But with that I also want to bring up what health care costs are
because of assault weapons. Unfortunately, I have not been allowed to
bring up the bill for a vote on assault weapons, but I just want to
give the Members some health care costs.
Death and injuries caused by firearms cost the U.S. about $100
billion a year. If we keep assault weapons off the streets, we can
bring that down and use the money for our community centers in those
areas that need it. This includes hospitalization, other medical care
costs, rehabilitation, and lost productivity.
I hope that we can, before this week is over, bring up the assault
weapons bill so that we can have the bill and reduce health care costs
in this country.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there other amendments to this paragraph of the
bill?
If not, the Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Health Education Assistance Loans Program Account

Such sums as may be necessary to carry out the purpose of
the program, as authorized by title VII of the Public Health
Service Act, as amended. For administrative expenses to carry
out the guaranteed loan program, including section 709 of the
Public Health Service Act, $3,270,000.

Vaccine Injury Compensation Program Trust Fund

For payments from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program
Trust Fund, such sums as may be necessary for claims
associated with vaccine-related injury or death with respect
to vaccines administered after September 30, 1988, pursuant
to subtitle 2 of title XXI of the Public Health Service Act,
to remain available until expended: Provided, That for
necessary administrative expenses, not to exceed $3,176,000
shall be available from the Trust Fund to the Secretary of
Health and Human Services.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Disease Control, Research, and Training

To carry out titles II, III, VII, XI, XV, XVII, XIX, XXI,
and XXVI of the Public Health Service Act, sections 101, 102,
103, 201, 202, 203, 301, and 501 of the Federal Mine Safety
and Health Act of 1977, sections 20, 21, and 22 of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, title IV of the
Immigration and Nationality Act, and section 501 of the
Refugee Education Assistance Act of 1980; including purchase
and insurance of official motor vehicles in foreign
countries; and purchase, hire, maintenance, and operation of
aircraft, $4,228,778,000, of which $81,500,000 shall remain
available until expended for equipment, and construction and
renovation of facilities, and of which $142,808,000 for
international HIV/AIDS shall remain available until September
30, 2006. In addition, such sums as may be derived from
authorized user fees, which shall be credited to this
account: Provided, That in addition to amounts provided
herein, the following amounts shall be available from amounts
available under section 241 of the Public Health Service Act:
(1) $14,000,000 to carry out the National Immunization
Surveys;
(2) $149,600,000 to carry out the National Center for
Health Statistics surveys;
(3) $28,600,000 to carry out information systems standards
development and architecture and applications-based research
used at local public health levels;
(4) $15,000,000 to carry out Public Health Research; and
(5) $41,900,000 to carry out Research Tools and Approaches
activities within the National Occupational Research Agenda:

Provided further, That none of the funds made available for
injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention may be used, in whole or in part, to
advocate or promote gun control: Provided further, That the
Director may redirect the total amount made available under
authority of Public Law 101-502, section 3, dated November 3,
1990, to activities the Director may so designate: Provided
further, That the Congress is to be notified promptly of any
such transfer: Provided further, That not to exceed
$12,500,000 may be available for making grants under section
1509 of the Public Health Service Act to not more than 15
States, tribes, or tribal organizations: Provided further,
That without regard to existing statute, funds appropriated
may be used to proceed, at the discretion of the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, with property acquisition,
including a long-term ground lease for construction on non-
Federal land, to support the construction of a replacement
laboratory in the Fort Collins, Colorado area: Provided
further, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, a
single contract or related contracts for development and
construction of facilities may be employed which collectively
include the full scope of the project: Provided further, That
the solicitation and contract shall contain the clause
``availability of funds'' found at 48 CFR 52.232-18.

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 4 offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
In title II, in the item relating to ``Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention-Disease Control, Research, and
Training'', in paragraph (2) of the first proviso, insert
after the dollar amount (relating to the National Center for
Health Statistics surveys) the following: ``(increased by
$2,500,000)''.

In title II, in the item relating to ``National Center on
Minority Health and Health Disparities'', insert after the
dollar amount the following: ``(increased by $1,500,000)''.

In title II, in the item relating to ``Children and
Families Services Programs'', insert ``(decreased by
$4,000,000)'' after the aggregate dollar amount and insert
``(decreased by $4,000,000)'' after the dollar amount in the
tenth proviso (relating to competitive grants to provide
abstinence education).

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me, because this is a
very important debate, again add my appreciation to the members of the
Committee on Appropriations, the chairman and ranking of the full
committee, and, of course, the ranking and subcommittee chairman of
this Labor-HHS.
I hope that the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) will rise
to support this amendment and share her thoughts as well on another
deadly health issue, and that is the use of guns and the resulting
injuries and deaths that come about through that. I do add

[[Page H6824]]

my voice in this very short time for having the reauthorization of the
assault weapons ban. I remember studying this issue in Houston, and I
found that for an injured child, costs were at that time, some maybe 5
to 10 years ago, $60,000 per their care. I imagine it has quadrupled at
this point. So I hope that we will move in that direction.
I, too, raise an issue that I hope my colleagues will join me
enthusiastically, and I also will acknowledge the hard work of a former
colleague, Congresswoman Carrie Meek of Florida, who at most times when
we came to the floor dealing with the appropriations, Labor-HHS, the
Members can be assured she was speaking about the deadly disease of
lupus.
Today I am proposing two amendments to the Labor-HHS-Education
appropriations bill to further research and outreach on lupus, and I
urge the Members to support these amendments. Lupus is a chronic,
disabling, and potentially fatal condition in which the immune system
attacks the body's own organs and tissues. Lupus strikes primarily
women, and it is twice as common among people of color. Currently it is
estimated that 1.5 million to 2 million Americans have lupus. There is
no cure for lupus. No new drugs have been approved to treat the disease
in nearly 40 years, and no medically validated measure to diagnose and
track the disease's progression and how it exists.
I, too, am concerned about the National Institutes of Health and the
more opportunities for research, and I hope in conference we can alter
the configuration so that many researchers in labs around the country
and professors will not be denied their opportunity to find the cure
for lupus. That is why I am adding this small of amount of dollars that
is budget-neutral as evidenced and indicated by CBO.
Early diagnosis and treatment of lupus are essential to minimizing
life-threatening complications. Lack of understanding of lupus combined
with the disease's complexity leads to significant underdiagnosis. And
I might say that it strikes young women in a potentially hardship
manner. I remember a young woman that I knew in my church, had two
beautiful young children and a beautiful husband, was taken in the
prime of her life not knowing that she had lupus, and it was too late
in order to provide her with the treatment that she needed, and
certainly there was no cure at the time.

{time} 1330

Symptoms of the disease may resemble the flu or other less severe
instances. In some instances, the patient's apparent symptoms may seem
to subside, leading up to a false sense of security. Some surveys
indicate that some lupus patients may suffer for 4 years or more and
visit 3 or more different physicians before obtaining a diagnosis. I
know this personally, because I had a member of my family who I had to
take to doctors trying to find out whether it was or whether it was
not. And you can be assured in our frustration, but also our great
concern and our fear, that we were overcome by the fact that it was
really a diagnosis that was hard to pinpoint. The delay in obtaining
treatment can be devastating, because time is lost while irreversible
organ damage may appear.
The purpose of these amendments is twofold. First, the amendment
transfers $1.5 million to the account of the NIH's National Center for
Minority Health to increase educational programs on lupus for health
care providers and for the general public.
Let me assure you that we have yet addressed in this House the
disparities in health care as it relates to minorities. We have yet to
pass the equity to health care bill that has been promulgated or
written by the Hispanic Caucus, the African American Caucus and the
Asian Pacific Caucus and others. I believe that this will help to
facilitate the diagnosis of lupus today, particularly among susceptible
populations.
Second, I am proposing to transfer $2.5 million to the Centers for
Disease Control to expand the operation of the National Lupus Patient
Registry. There are presently four pilot registry programs in Michigan
and in Georgia. These pilot programs have been a good start, but
additional data is needed to distinguish between environmental and
other factors that cause lupus.
Let me say to my colleagues, no one knows when their neighbor, their
friend, their constituent may be diagnosed. There is one strong point
about this disease: It is not easily diagnosed, and many people live
with it for a very long period of time. Mr. Chairman, that is why we do
not know how many people really have lupus. I would ask my colleagues
to join me in this effort and support this amendment, very, very well
balanced, and, might I say, not violating CBO. I ask for support of
this amendment.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, there are a couple of things that I would point out in
opposition to this. Number one, we are already recognizing the need for
health statistics. In this bill, we have increased the amount for this
purpose by $21,960,000. This is an increase of almost 20 percent over
last year.
Secondly, at NIH we have increased the amount for monthly health and
health disparities reports by $5.3 million.
So it is not the case that we have ignored the subject. I think we
have tried to deal within the constraints of what we have available,
and to take the money out of the other program, I think, would be just
a mistake at this point. Therefore, I would be in opposition to the
amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I must also reluctantly oppose the amendment, because I
think it has an unintended effect. The amendment, as I read it, would
actually result in a small across-the-board reduction in funding for
virtually all public health agency programs, including the National
Institutes of Health. I do not think that is what we want to do.
Secondly, I would point out the gentlewoman has made quite clear in
her remarks that she is attempting to add funding for a specific
disease. In all of the years this subcommittee has funded the National
Institutes of Health, it has never dictated to the National Institutes
exactly how much money they should spend on any specific disease, and I
do not think we ought to start now.
So I reluctantly would have to oppose the amendment and say that what
we really need is an overall increase in funding for NIH so that we can
attack lupus and dozens of other diseases that are causing great pain
and suffering to people around the world.
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Jackson-Lee amendment. This
amendment would increase funds for the National Center for Health
Statistics surveys and for the National Center For Minority Health and
Health Disparities.
The cost of health care for minorities is completely
disproportionate. Nowhere is this truer than when it comes to the cost
of gun violence. Although African Americans and Hispanics make up only
12.1 and 12.5 percent of the U.S. population respectively, these groups
suffered 37 percent of all firearm deaths in 2000.
In 2000, homicide with firearms took the lives of 5,699 African
Americans. In 2000, homicide with firearms took the lives of 1,958
Hispanics.
In 2000, the death rate for firearm injuries was two times higher for
the African American population than the Caucasian population. In 2000,
firearms homicide was the leading cause of death for African Americans
age 15 to 34.
The assault weapons ban expires September 13, and we are not allowed
to bring it up on the floor. This is something that could go into our
communities, save lives and keep down health costs.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. McCARTHY of New York. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished
gentlewoman.
Mr. Chairman, let me carefully say this adds more money to the NIH.
We respectfully add the fact that it is not necessarily a specific
designation for a specific disease. But might I say that because of the
discrepancies in access to health care for minorities and access to
health care in respect to those who are being treated for lupus and the
definitive impact on minorities as it relates to minority women as it
relates

[[Page H6825]]

to lupus, I would offer to say that this is an amendment that has
vibrancy and is necessary without in any way undermining or penalizing
NIH.
I might also say that I have from the CBO that this is clearly
budget-neutral and does not have an impact on the outlays.
So this is an amendment that is viable for my colleagues to support.
I ask for all of my colleagues to look seriously at the opportunity for
NIH to make its own determination on a very vital disease, a disease
that is necessarily in need of both a cure and research.
I would also offer to say to my colleagues that when we speak about
lupus, it is like a silent killer, because you can have it without
knowing. You can have it without being diagnosed. Therefore, it is
extremely important to be able to provide these additional resources.
I ask my colleagues to provide support for this amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. McCARTHY of New York. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to say I am sure it is not the
intention of the gentlewoman from Texas to fund this amendment by
providing for an actual reduction in NIH, but the way she has drawn the
amendment, it has that effect. I understand that is not her intention,
but that is the effect of the amendment as written.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-
Lee) will be postponed.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, as we discuss the fine work that our doctors and
scientists are performing with the help of Federal assistance, I want
to make sure that my colleagues are aware of the limitations on
critical research that are currently in place. These restrictions, the
current regulations that guide the National Institutes of Health, are
stifling progress into curing chronic conditions and diseases that
affect up to 100 million Americans, a number that dramatically
increases when you consider their families and loved ones.
Unfortunately, rather than overturning these limitations, the committee
report to today's Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education
appropriations bill instead reaffirms them.
For 3 years, the tremendously promising field of human embryonic stem
cell research has been restricted to work on stem cell lines developed
before August 9, 2001. Despite the limitations of this policy, our
Nation's scientists have made tremendous progress. They have already
shown that they can direct the development of human embryonic stem
cells into insulin-producing cells that might help cure juvenile
diabetes. This type of research holds promise of new therapies, even
cures, for countless conditions and diseases such as diabetes,
Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, ALS, heart disease, spinal cord injury and
cancer.
Mr. Chairman, our scientists are maximizing the resources made
available to them under the current policy, but we can do better. We
must make it possible for researchers to engage in the responsible
pursuit of human pluripotent stem cell research.
Earlier this summer, I was proud to join the gentleman from Delaware
(Mr. Castle) and the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) in
introducing legislation that would achieve this goal by directing NIH
to fund stem cell research only if those cells had been derived from
excess human embryos created through the in vitro fertilization process
for fertility treatment, embryos which otherwise would have been
discarded. All tissue donations would be voluntary, accompanied by
informed consent and without compensation.
Under these principles, research could flourish. The Federal
Government would maintain reasonable and ethical oversight and the
promise of cures, and in some cases the promise of life itself would be
extended and restored to millions of Americans.
Unfortunately, our current policies place limits on the hopes and
dreams of these millions of Americans. Scientists are reporting that it
is increasingly difficult to attract new scientists to this area of
research because of concerns that funding restrictions will keep this
research from being successful. Foreign countries, most notably Great
Britain, have been far more supportive of stem cell research.
Mr. Chairman, we face the real danger that without Federal funding,
the Nation's top academic researchers at universities, medical schools
and teaching hospitals cannot join in the search for cures, which means
much slower progress.
Mr. Chairman, we owe it to our constituents to ensure that this
research takes place ethically and with the full support of the Federal
Government and as soon as possible. For far too many Americans, there
is no time to waste.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I do not totally disagree with my colleague but just a
little bit that just spoke, because there are limited directions of
stem cell research that I think that we could all support, whether you
are prolife, prochoice, which is not an issue in this case.
Dr. Larry Goldstein from the University of San Diego, California, my
daughter interned with him, and he does genetic research.
I would like to remind my colleagues, first of all, that it was
President George W. Bush that supported stem cell research in a certain
line, that turned out to be tainted.
There are some folks and some doctors that would actually clone
people for body parts. I do not think most Americans support that, and
I do not support cloning. But there is an area in which I think we can
all come together.
Dr. Goldstein told me that quite often a woman invests her embryos
because she is going to go through chemo or radiation treatments, and
maybe she wants in-vitro fertilization at a later date. But they do not
save those embryos for 1,000 years. They discard them. They throw them
away, because they can't save them. They are thrown down the toilet.
In that case, why can we not use those stem cells to further
research? They are not going to become life. They are going to be
discarded, they are going to be thrown away.
I think that if you sat in the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and
Human Services, Education and Related Agencies of the Committee on
Appropriations during hearings where they have children with unique
diseases, I had one little girl 8 years old, and she said,
``Congressman, you are the only person that can save my life.''
If we can come together and work in this particular area, I do not
support cloning, but if they are going to be discarded, why can we not
use those to enhance; save life?

{time} 1345

I have asked the President, along with Mrs. Reagan and Mary Tyler
Moore and others, to work in this direction.
There is a third area which Dr. Goldstein pointed out, that there are
some stem cells that are so diseased it would be unethical to implant
them. Doctors and researchers want to use those stem cells to be able
to eliminate those diseases in children, and that is another area in
which we can come together. Unfortunately, many of my colleagues, in my
opinion, want to go too far. But I think we can all get around it and
embrace an area in which the stem cells are going to be thrown away,
they are going to be discarded, and we are this close, I say to my
colleagues, to getting rid of diabetes. Let us come together on the
issue.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I want to say that I absolutely agree with the
gentleman who just spoke, and I congratulate him for the comments that
he made. Everyone who has looked with any care whatsoever at this issue
understands that there are massive ethical considerations surrounding
this question. We need to try to work our way through those ethical
considerations in a way that will bring people together on some very
fundamental questions, rather

[[Page H6826]]

than pulling them apart. I think the gentleman has pointed to one way
that can be done.
I would caution those in this society who think that we can somehow
stop science from engaging in the kind of research just discussed by
the gentleman from California, I would caution those who feel that we
can stop that kind of research. We cannot. That kind of research will
go forward. The only question is whether it will go forward in the
United States or whether it will be somewhere else, and whether or not
it will go forward under the auspices of the National Institutes of
Health with all of the ethical considerations that they try to bring to
bear on this issue, or whether it will be conducted by scientific teams
that are not quite so careful about the ethical considerations
involved.
I think that the gentleman from California has pointed out how we
could move people forward on this issue in a way which is not
destructive of anyone's ethical values. We need to start recognizing
that we are dealing with real situations, real human beings; and
humanity is not going to allow politicians to get in the way of
attacking some of the medical problems that have been discussed by the
gentleman from Rhode Island or by the gentleman from California; and I
congratulate both of them for raising the issue this afternoon.

Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
Page 26, line 18, insert after the aggregate dollar amount
the following: ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.
Page 46, line 4, insert after the aggregate dollar amount
the following: ``(decreased by $1,000,000)''.
Page 48, line 2, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(decreased by $1,000,000)''.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the
amendment. We do not have a copy.
The CHAIRMAN. Will the gentlewoman submit the amendment to the desk?
We do not seem to have a copy of it either.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved by the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me again join the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) on the desire to attack
another health issue and that is of course to see the ban on assault
weapons reauthorized.
I rise to offer an amendment on another and very fast-growing
epidemic in our country called hepatitis C. Mr. Chairman, I have an
amendment that relates to this very grave matter as it is being
distributed to my colleagues.
Our Nation is facing an epidemic of hepatitis C virus, or HCV
infection. HCV is the most common blood-borne infection in the United
States. Although many of them do not know it, nearly 4 million
Americans are currently infected, and 35,000 new infections occur each
year.
I have been told about this because of the sizable population of
hepatitis C-infected veterans that I have come across. And I want to
thank Ed Wendt, a constituent of mine who has raised the question of
what we are doing and how we are doing it and how we can do better by
those who are infected and the many, many veterans who are infected by
this disease.
This insidious virus takes thousands of lives annually, primarily
through cirrhosis and liver cancer. HCV costs millions of dollars in
health care and lost wages each year, but it receives inadequate
attention from the public, the medical field, and the Federal
Government.
Hepatitis is an inflammation of the liver. Inflammation of the liver
with swelling, tenderness, and sometimes permanent damage can be caused
by infection with various viruses or by substances such as chemicals,
drugs, and alcohol. Current concern over viral hepatitis stems from the
serious long-term health consequences for long-term sufferers.
Hepatitis C virus is one of six known types of the hepatitis viruses.
The C virus has emerged as a cause of chronic liver disease, both in
the United States and worldwide. It is of concern because of its
potential for serious long-term health consequences. It resorts, or
causes, if you will, the need for liver transplants as evidenced by my
constituent who has suffered long and had a difficult health history.
Its pattern of infection among young, hard-to-reach risk groups and the
current lack of vaccine or curative therapy impacts or increases the
number of deaths.
Some studies indicate that minority populations in the U.S. are
disproportionately affected by hepatitis C virus, and some reports have
shown that African Americans do not respond to the current treatment of
chronic HCV infection with the same efficacy as whites. This is why I
started out this debate by saying it is time now for us to pass the
equity in health care and disparities in health care in America. But
this amendment, as did the lupus amendment, attempts in some small way
to address this divide.
HCV is a particular problem for patients coinfected with HIV.
According to Dr. Raymond Chung, M.D., director of the Center for Liver
Disorders at Massachusetts General Hospital, ``About 25 percent of
those with HIV are coinfected with HCV, largely because these viruses
share modes of transmission.'' Treatment of patients coinfected with
HCV and HIV is particularly challenging, because many of the retroviral
treatments traditionally used in HIV therapies are toxic to the liver.
Better information about HCV will help develop treatments that are
effective for HIV and compatible with HCV. That is all I am asking for
in this very simple and minimal amendment of asking for $1 million.
The purpose of this amendment is to increase the research
opportunities and to be able to provide patients who are at risk for
some control studies: African Americans, children, and adolescents,
renal dialysis patients, HIV- and HCV-positive patients, and patients
with hemophilia. Because hepatitis C is a communicable disease, I
believe this is an important step in getting this public issue under
control.
Back in June, I joined the Hepatitis C Movement for Awareness to call
for more aggressive and better informed national approach to the
hepatitis C epidemic in the United States. Hepatitis C infects 300
million people worldwide, including over 5.8 million Americans. We must
do something more. And only 20 percent of those infected know they are
infected, and scientists are still unsure how the virus is spread or
who is most likely to be infected. This deadly epidemic cannot be
ignored any longer. We need action, and I ask my colleagues to support
this amendment.
The grass-roots movement of this organization is made up of veterans,
victims of hepatitis C, and other health care advocates; and they came
to Washington to simply ask the question, can we get help. They are
seeking our help, working with the Veterans Administration, which I
must say I applaud for looking at this issue more closely. This is not
an issue for one person or two persons, it is for millions of people,
and those who go infected who do not know they are infected.
I want to congratulate those who worked on this effort, including Ed
Wendt and the whole hepatitis C movement, because they do it not for
themselves. They do it for those who come after them. They ask that we
have a wake-up call so that we can stop the tragedy of the hepatitis C
epidemic.
Now it is time that we wake up together and move forward on an
amendment that will simply help us move in that direction. I urge my
colleagues to join me in supporting this important amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk that relates to a very
grave matter with respect to the status of minority health. Our nation
is facing an epidemic of Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) infection. HCV is the
most common blood-borne infection in the United States. Although many
of them do not know it, nearly four million Americans are currently
infected, and 35,000 new infections occur each year. This insidious
virus takes thousands of lives annually--primarily through cirrhosis
and liver cancer. HCV costs millions of dollars in healthcare and lost
wages each year, but it receives inadequate attention from the public,
the medical field, and the federal government.
Hepatitis is an inflammation of the liver. Inflammation of the liver,
with swelling, tenderness, and sometimes permanent damage, can be
caused by infection with various viruses or

[[Page H6827]]

by substances such as chemicals, drugs, and alcohol. Current concern
over viral hepatitis stems from the serious long-term health
consequences for long term sufferers.
Hepatitis C virus is one of six known types of the hepatitis virus.
Hepatitis C has emerged as a major cause of chronic liver disease both
in the United States and worldwide. It is of concern because of its
potential for serious long-term health consequences, its pattern of
infection among young, hard-to-reach risk groups, and the current lack
of a vaccine or curative therapy.
Some studies indicate that minority populations in the U.S. are
disproportionately affected by the hepatitis C virus (HCV), and some
reports have shown that African-Americans do not respond to treatment
of chronic HCV infection with the same efficacy as whites.
HCV is a particular problem for patients co-infected with HIV.
According to Dr. Raymond Chung, MD, director of the Center for Liver
Disorders at Massachusetts General Hospital, ``About 25 percent of
those with HIV are co-infected with HCV, largely because these viruses
share modes of transmission.'' Treatment of patients co-infected with
HCV and HIV is particularly challenging because many of the retroviral
treatments traditionally used in HIV therapies are toxic to the liver.
Better information about HCV will help to develop treatments that are
effective for HIV and compatible with HCV.
The purpose of this amendment is to increase the Hepatitis C research
activities at the Center for Disease Control for patients who are
particularly at risk for the disease or resistant to conventional
treatments--African-Americans, children and adolescents, renal dialysis
patients, HIV/HCV positive patients, and patients with hemophilia.
Because Hepatitis C is a communicable disease, I believe this is an
important step in getting this public health issue under control.

Back in June of this year, I joined the ``Hepatitis C Movement for
Awareness'' to call for a more aggressive, and better informed,
national approach to the Hepatitis C epidemic in the United States.
Hepatitis C infects 300 million people worldwide, including over 5.8
million Americans. Only 20% of those infected know they are infected,
and scientists are still unsure how the virus is spread, or who is most
likely to be infected. This deadly epidemic cannot be ignored any
longer. We need action. I commend the Hepatitis C Movement for
Awareness for its tenacity and energy in galvanizing in Washington to
make its case for change.
The grassroots movement made up of Veterans, victims of Hepatitis C,
and other healthcare advocates, came to Washington to tell policymakers
about the pressing need for a viable national Hepatitis C policy. They
feared that the present policies are based on worn out assumptions, and
untested hypotheses. I agreed that more information was needed to help
lawmakers craft appropriate strategies for mitigation of the rampant
disease. I have been pressing the GAO for a comprehensive study of the
past and present Hepatitis epidemic in the United States. We have to
know where we stand, where mistakes have been made, and how we can do
better. This epidemic is devastating our Veterans and our minority
communities.
The Hepatitis C Movement for Awareness graciously presented me with
an award for progress made toward the GAO report. I appreciated
receiving this award. But, what I appreciated more was at the
friendship and cooperation of my constituents Ed Wendt, Tricia Lupole,
and the whole Hepatitis C Movement for Awareness. Years ago, the gave
me a wake-up call on the tragedy of the Hep C epidemic. Now it is time
to wake up Washington, and the nation by pursuing this amendment.
I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this important
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Ohio wish to make his point of
order?
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order, and I move to
strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment, if I understand it correctly, takes $1
million out of abstinence and puts it into CDC without any clarity as
to how it would be used in CDC. We have over $4 billion in CDC already.
I do not think that adding another $1 million would be significant in
their total budget; and in abstinence, it is important that we kept
that as tight as possible. Again, it is a rearranging of priorities,
and for that reason I object to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin continue to reserve
his point of order?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation, and I move to
strike the requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that I would appreciate it if
Members have amendments to offer that they at least provide each side
of the committee with a copy of the amendment. I think it is a
disservice to the House when amendments are sprung on the committee and
we have no opportunity to review them. If we are shown them ahead of
time, we can help Members draft them correctly so that they are in
order.
So it seems to me it is in the interests of both people who offer
these amendments and it is in the interests of the House for Members
who are planning to offer amendments to provide us copies. It would
seem to me a simple matter of common courtesy.
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I support the Jackson-Lee amendment on hepatitis C. I
spent over 30 years as a nurse before I came to Congress; and,
unfortunately, hepatitis C a number of times, when it is diagnosed, it
is far too late for so many of the patients. Unfortunately, the signs
do not show up until the disease is very advanced, and because we are
in a global world now and it is becoming a communicable disease, it is
spreading more rapidly. Much more research needs to be done to see how
we can stop this.
But I know one of the ways that we can have more money so we have the
money for research is to try and stop the amount of money that is being
spent every single year because of gun violence. And with the assault
weapons ban expiring on September 13, we are going to see more violence
on our streets; we are going to see more of these patients in our
trauma hospitals, which is going to drive up the cost of health care
all the way around. That is a shame. That is preventable. We need,
certainly, the administration to back the police around this country
and to back the health care providers around this country who all want
to see the ban put in place.

{time} 1400

If we do that, we can keep down health care costs because of the gun
violence and have money go into research for hepatitis C and for so
many other issues that all of us here care about.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished
gentlewoman for yielding.
I ask my colleagues to simply help us. It is simply asking $1 million
for the hepatitis C, and I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs.
McCarthy) for her information.
This bill, with all the hard work of the appropriators, and I really
appreciate them, was sprung on Members on Labor Day weekend. My
apologies for the amendment being at the leg counsel, and it is
supposed to be at the desk. It is now there, but I really ask my
colleagues to look at the need. I also know my staff gave the amendment
to both managers of the bill.
We are talking about 300 million worldwide, close to 10 million
around the country, veterans, children and others infected with
hepatitis C. The more we can do, the better off we are.
I believe this is a well-grounded amendment that should warrant the
support of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and I would ask
my colleagues to support this.
As I indicated, CBO has indicated this is revenue-neutral, has no
impact with respect to the issues at hand, and I would simply ask that
this amendment be supported.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out, we do have $22.5
million in the bill now for hepatitis C funding, and we recognize the
importance of that, and we have done all that we could within the
budget constraints, and there is a sizable amount there.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me just quickly say, I
respect what the gentleman has done. One of the problems we have is we
are suffering because we have such a great percentage of our dollars
going to the

[[Page H6828]]

tax cut. I think we can do more. Certainly what we have is what the
gentleman has been able to do, but I believe this disease is so deadly
that adding additional funds is a priority and should be a priority
when we talk about health care and also inequity in health care, and I
thank the distinguished gentleman.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the Jackson-
Lee amendment?
If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-
Lee) will be postponed.
Are there further amendments to this paragraph of the bill?
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder
of the bill through page 42, line 7 be considered as read, printed in
the Record and open to amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Ohio?
There was no objection.
The text of the bill from page 28, line 16 through page 42, line 7 is
as follows:

National Institutes of Health

National Cancer Institute

For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to cancer, $4,870,025,000, of
which up to $8,000,000 may be used for facilities repairs and
improvements at the NCI-Frederick Federally Funded Research
and Development Center in Frederick Maryland.

National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute

For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to cardiovascular, lung, and
blood diseases, and blood and blood products, $2,963,953,000.

National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research

For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to dental disease,
$394,080,000.

National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases

For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to diabetes and digestive and
kidney disease, $1,726,196,000.

National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke

For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to neurological disorders and
stroke, $1,545,623,000.

National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases

(including transfer of funds)

For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to allergy and infectious
diseases, $4,440,007,000: Provided, That $100,000,000 may be
made available to International Assistance Programs, ``Global
Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, Malaria, and Tuberculosis'', to
remain available until expended: Provided further, That up to
$150,000,000 shall be for extramural facilities construction
grants to enhance the Nation's capability to do research on
biological and other agents.

National Institute of General Medical Sciences

For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to general medical sciences,
$1,959,810,000.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development

For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to child health and human
development, $1,280,915,000.

National Eye Institute

For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to eye diseases and visual
disorders, $671,578,000.

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences

For carrying out sections 301 and 311 and title IV of the
Public Health Service Act with respect to environmental
health sciences, $650,027,000.

National Institute on Aging

For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to aging, $1,055,666,000.

National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases

For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to arthritis and
musculoskeletal and skin diseases, $515,378,000.

National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders

For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to deafness and other
communication disorders, $393,507,000.

National Institute of Nursing Research

For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to nursing research,
$139,198,000.

National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism

For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to alcohol abuse and
alcoholism, $441,911,000.

National Institute on Drug Abuse

For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to drug abuse,
$1,012,760,000: Provided, That in addition to amounts
provided herein, $6,300,000 shall be available from amounts
under section 241 of the Act to carry out national surveys on
drug abuse and related analysis.

National Institute of Mental Health

For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to mental health,
$1,420,609,000.

National Human Genome Research Institute

For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to human genome research,
$492,670,000.

National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering

For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to biomedical imaging and
bioengineering research, $297,647,000.

National Center for Research Resources

For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to research resources and
general research support grants, $1,094,141,000: Provided,
That none of these funds shall be used to pay recipients of
the general research support grants program any amount for
indirect expenses in connection with such grants.

National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine

For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to complementary and
alternative medicine, $121,116,000.

National Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities

For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to minority health and health
disparities research, $196,780,000.

John E. Fogarty International Center

For carrying out the activities at the John E. Fogarty
International Center, $67,182,000.

National Library of Medicine

For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to health information
communications, $316,947,000, of which $4,000,000 shall be
available until expended for improvement of information
systems: Provided, That in fiscal year 2005, the Library may
enter into personal services contracts for the provision of
services in facilities owned, operated, or constructed under
the jurisdiction of the National Institutes of Health:
Provided further, That in addition to amounts provided
herein, $8,200,000 shall be available from amounts under
section 241 of the Act to carry out National Information
Center on Health Services Research and Health Care Technology
and related health services.

Office of the Director

(including transfer of funds)

For carrying out the responsibilities of the Office of the
Director, National Institutes of Health, $359,645,000, of
which up to $7,500,000 shall be used to carry out section 217
of this Act: Provided, That funding shall be available for
the purchase of not to exceed 29 passenger motor vehicles for
replacement only: Provided further, That the Director may
direct up to 1 percent of the total amount made available in
this or any other Act to all National Institutes of Health
appropriations to activities the Director may so designate:
Provided further, That no such appropriation shall be
decreased by more than 1 percent by any such transfers and
that the Congress is promptly notified of the transfer:
Provided further, That the National Institutes of Health is
authorized to collect third party payments for the cost of
clinical services that are incurred in National Institutes of
Health research facilities and that such payments shall be
credited to the National Institutes of Health Management
Fund: Provided further, That all funds credited to the
National Institutes of Health Management Fund shall remain
available for 1 fiscal year after the fiscal year in which
they are deposited: Provided further, That a uniform
percentage of the amounts appropriated in this Act to each
Institute and Center, as determined by the Director and
totaling not more than $176,800,000, may be utilized for the
National Institutes of Health Roadmap Initiative: Provided
further, That amounts utilized under the preceding proviso
shall be in addition to amounts made available for the
Roadmap Initiative from the Director's Discretionary Fund:
Provided further, That up to $500,000 shall be available to
carry out section 499 of the Public Health Service Act.

buildings and facilities

(including transfer of funds)

For the study of, construction of, renovation of, and
acquisition of equipment for, facilities of or used by the
National Institutes

[[Page H6829]]

of Health, including the acquisition of real property,
$99,500,000, to remain available until expended.

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services

For carrying out titles V and XIX of the Public Health
Service Act with respect to substance abuse and mental health
services, the Protection and Advocacy for Mentally Ill
Individuals Act, and section 301 of the Public Health Service
Act with respect to program management, $3,270,360,000:
Provided, That in addition to amounts provided herein, the
following amounts shall be available from amounts available
under section 241 of the Public Health Service Act:
(1) $79,200,000 to carry out subpart II of title XIX of the
Public Health Service Act to fund section 1935(b) technical
assistance, national data, data collection and evaluation
activities, and further that the total available under this
Act for section 1935(b) activities shall not exceed 5 percent
of the amounts appropriated for subpart II of title XIX;
(2) $21,803,000 to carry out subpart I of part B of title
XIX of the Public Health Services Act to fund section 1920(b)
technical assistance, national data, data collection and
evaluation activities, and further that the total available
under this Act for section 1920(b) activities shall not
exceed 5 percent of the amounts appropriated for subpart I of
part B of title XIX;
(3) $16,000,000 to carry out national surveys on drug
abuse; and
(4) $4,300,000 for substance abuse treatment programs.

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

Healthcare Research and Quality

For carrying out titles III and IX of the Public Health
Service Act, and part A of title XI of the Social Security
Act, amounts received from Freedom of Information Act fees,
reimbursable and interagency agreements, and the sale of data
shall be credited to this appropriation and shall remain
available until expended: Provided, That the amount made
available pursuant to section 927(c) of the Public Health
Service Act shall not exceed $303,695,000.

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services

Grants to States for Medicaid

For carrying out, except as otherwise provided, titles XI
and XIX of the Social Security Act, $119,124,488,000, to
remain available until expended.
For making, after May 31, 2005, payments to States under
title XIX of the Social Security Act for the last quarter of
fiscal year 2005 for unanticipated costs, incurred for the
current fiscal year, such sums as may be necessary.
For making payments to States or in the case of section
1928 on behalf of States under title XIX of the Social
Security Act for the first quarter of fiscal year 2006,
$58,517,290,000, to remain available until expended.
Payment under title XIX may be made for any quarter with
respect to a State plan or plan amendment in effect during
such quarter, if submitted in or prior to such quarter and
approved in that or any subsequent quarter.

Payments to Health Care Trust Funds

For payment to the Federal Hospital Insurance and the
Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds, as
provided under section 1844, 1860D-16 and 1860D-31 of the
Social Security Act, sections 103(c) and 111(d) of the Social
Security Amendments of 1965, section 278(d) of Public Law 97-
248, and for administrative expenses incurred pursuant to
section 201(g) of the Social Security Act, $114,608,900,000.
To ensure prompt payments of Medicare prescription drug
benefits as provided under section 1860D-16 of the Social
Security Act, $5,216,900,000, to become available on October
1, 2005, for fiscal year 2006.

Program Management

For carrying out, except as otherwise provided, titles XI,
XVIII, XIX, and XXI of the Social Security Act, titles XIII
and XXVII of the Public Health Service Act, and the Clinical
Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988, not to exceed
$2,746,253,000, to be transferred from the Federal Hospital
Insurance and the Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance
Trust Funds, as authorized by section 201(g) of the Social
Security Act; together with all funds collected in accordance
with section 353 of the Public Health Service Act and section
1857(e)(2) of the Social Security Act, and such sums as may
be collected from authorized user fees and the sale of data,
which shall remain available until expended: Provided, That
all funds derived in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 9701 from
organizations established under title XIII of the Public
Health Service Act shall be credited to and available for
carrying out the purposes of this appropriation: Provided
further, That $24,400,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2006, is for contract costs for CMS's Systems
Revitalization Plan: Provided further, That $78,300,000, to
remain available until September 30, 2006, is for contract
costs for the Healthcare Integrated General Ledger Accounting
System: Provided further, That not less than $129,000,000
shall be for processing Medicare appeals, of which
$50,000,000 shall be transferred to the Social Security
Administration for processing Medicare appeals: Provided
further, That the Secretary of Health and Human Services is
directed to collect fees in fiscal year 2005 from
Medicare+Choice organizations pursuant to section 1857(e)(2)
of the Social Security Act and from eligible organizations
with risk-sharing contracts under section 1876 of that Act
pursuant to section 1876(k)(4)(D) of that Act: Provided
further, That the aggregate amount under this heading is
hereby reduced by $9,000,000, such reduction shall be
allocated among the programs and activities under this
heading (including programs and activities for which amounts
are specified under this heading) in such manner as the
Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
determines to be appropriate.

Health Maintenance Organization Loan and Loan Guarantee Fund

For carrying out subsections (d) and (e) of section 1308 of
the Public Health Service Act, any amounts received by the
Secretary in connection with loans and loan guarantees under
title XIII of the Public Health Service Act, to be available
without fiscal year limitation for the payment of outstanding
obligations. During fiscal year 2005, no commitments for
direct loans or loan guarantees shall be made.

Administration for Children and Families

Payments to States for Child Support Enforcement and Family Support
Programs

For making payments to States or other non-Federal entities
under titles I, IV-D, X, XI, XIV, and XVI of the Social
Security Act and the Act of July 5, 1960 (24 U.S.C. ch. 9),
$2,873,802,000, to remain available until expended; and for
such purposes for the first quarter of fiscal year 2006,
$1,200,000,000, to remain available until expended.
For making payments to each State for carrying out the
program of Aid to Families with Dependent Children under
title IV-A of the Social Security Act before the effective
date of the program of Temporary Assistance to Needy Families
(TANF) with respect to such State, such sums as may be
necessary: Provided, That the sum of the amounts available to
a State with respect to expenditures under such title IV-A in
fiscal year 1997 under this appropriation and under such
title IV-A as amended by the Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 shall not exceed the
limitations under section 116(b) of such Act.
For making, after May 31 of the current fiscal year,
payments to States or other non-Federal entities under titles
I, IV-D, X, XI, XIV, and XVI of the Social Security Act and
the Act of July 5, 1960 (24 U.S.C. ch. 9), for the last 3
months of the current fiscal year for unanticipated costs,
incurred for the current fiscal year, such sums as may be
necessary.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to this section of the bill? If
not, the Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Low-Income Home Energy Assistance

(including transfer of funds)

For carrying out low-income home energy assistance
activities, $2,227,000,000: Provided, That of the total
amount provided under this heading, $1,900,000,000 shall be
for the low-income home energy assistance program under title
XXVI of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (42
U.S.C. 8621 et seq.): Provided further, That of the total
amount provided under this heading, $100,000,000, to remain
available until expended, shall be for the low-income home
energy assistance program under title XXVI of the Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (42 U.S.C. 8621 et seq.)
for the unanticipated home energy assistance needs of one or
more States, as authorized by section 2604(e) of such Act,
and notwithstanding the designation requirement of section
2602(e) of such Act: Provided further, That of the total
amount provided under this heading, $227,000,000 is hereby
transferred to the Department of Energy for the
weatherization assistance program under part A of title IV of
the Energy Conservation and Production Act (42 U.S.C. 6861 et
seq.), and shall remain available until expended.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Sanders

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Sanders:
Page 42, line 11, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $22,000,000)''.
Page 42, line 12, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $11,000,000)''.
Page 42, line 25, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $11,000,000)''.
Page 50, line 12, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $26,000,000)''.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by thanking the gentleman
from Ohio (Chairman Regula) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Ranking
Member Obey) for their very, very hard work on this important bill.
Mr. Chairman, as I think every American from Vermont to California
knows, in a couple of weeks as winter approaches, people are going to
have a very, very rude surprise when they take a look at their home
heating bills. I do not have to tell anybody here or anybody in America
that the cost of home heating fuels are skyrocketing

[[Page H6830]]

out of control, and I do not have to tell anybody here that millions
and millions and millions of Americans are going to find it
increasingly difficult to pay these outrageously high costs in order to
keep warm this winter.
Mr. Chairman, according to the Energy Information Administration, the
price of heating oil, natural gas and propane are expected to
skyrocket. They are going to go off the wall.
The amendment that I am offering today would provide relief to
hundreds of thousands of families by increasing funding for the highly
successful and widely supported Low Income Home Energy Assistance
Program, the LIHEAP program, as well as the Weatherization Assistance
Program, by $22 million. This increase, I should point out to my
friends, would still be $42 million below the President's request. The
amendment would be offset by a $26 million reduction in departmental
management at the Department of Health and Human Services, which would
still provide, with that reduction, level funding for this program.
This amendment has tripartisan support and is being cosponsored by my
colleagues, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons), the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy), the gentleman from New
Hampshire (Mr. Bradley), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey),
and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan). It also enjoys the
very strong support of the National Community Action Foundation.
Mr. Chairman, from California to Vermont, every American knows that
energy costs are only going to go up this winter. Here is what the
Energy Information Administration is predicting: Compared to the
winters of 1998 to 2000, the price of natural gas will be 55 percent
higher; the price of heating oil will be 45 percent higher; and the
price of propane will be 41 percent higher.
LIHEAP is the primary program that provides assistance to help lower-
income families pay their energy bills, and there has been no time when
more people are going to need LIHEAP assistance than now. We are facing
a crisis, and if we do not act, large numbers of Americans could well
go cold this winter.
Mr. Chairman, in this country no American family should go without
heat this winter. Not one senior citizen should choose between heating
their homes and paying for the prescription drugs that they need.
Mr. Chairman, LIHEAP and weatherization enjoy broad bipartisan
support in Congress. Last March, more than 70 Members of both the House
and Senate, including 20 Republicans, cosigned letters calling for $3
billion in funding for LIHEAP. Even if this amendment were signed into
law, LIHEAP would still be more than $500 million short of that mark.
Similar amendments that I have offered in the past to increase
funding for weatherization have been very successful because I think
they have strong tripartisan support, understanding that it is absurd
that people lose their heat through faulty windows or roofs, and that
it makes sense economically and environmentally to substantially
increase weatherization.
Mr. Chairman, for those of us concerned about protecting the
financial well-being of lower-income Americans and for those of us
concerned about the environment, this is a very important amendment. It
will make more homes throughout this country energy-efficient through
proper insulation. This is good for low-income people, it is good for
the government, it is good for our environment.
The weatherization program also creates good-paying jobs, increases
property values, and decreases U.S. energy use by the equivalent of
some 15 million barrels of oil every year.
Under this program, 105,000 homes will be weatherized this year, but
much more can and must be done, and while 4.8 million families received
LIHEAP assistance this year, over 25 million eligible families did not
receive any help due to lack of funding from the Federal Government.
Mr. Chairman, we can do better than that, we must do better than
that, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this important
amendment.
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
I rise in support of the Sanders-Simmons-McCarthy amendment and am
honored to be a cosponsor.
This vital amendment would increase funding for the Low Income Energy
Assistance Program and Weatherization Assistance Program by $26
million.
Recent predictions indicate that this winter may be one of the
harshest in many years in the Northeast, and the Energy Information
Administration is predicting the price of heating oil, natural gas and
propane will skyrocket. By the way, those prices have already
skyrocketed.
LIHEAP provides the needed warmth for our most vulnerable
communities, the poor, the elderly and the disabled. These
disadvantaged communities are also, unfortunately, the most affected by
gun violence.
When we have seen over the last several months that unemployment has
gone up in certain areas of our country, our seniors are facing higher
medical costs, higher prescription drug costs, now a 17 percent
increase on their Medicare. Adding any little bit, amount, as far as
increases on heating is going to be a problem for them.
As my colleague from Vermont has said, there is no one in this
country that should be cold, but also another thing that happens,
unfortunately, in this poorest of the poor communities is the gun
violence we see on a daily basis. I could speak about that in my own
district of Long Island. I know they say the suburban areas do not have
gun violence. Well, unfortunately, after September 13 we are probably
going to start seeing an increase of that because we are not allowed to
bring up the assault weapons bill here on the House floor.
It is a shame that our seniors and our most vulnerable, who are our
children and the poor that live in the communities, will be facing
these guns again. It is a shame that our police officers who patrol
these areas will also be facing these problems again.
I am sorry that we are not allowed to bring up the assault weapons
bill that will expire on September 13. I hope that the leadership will
change its mind.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that we recognized in our bill the
importance of LIHEAP. We did increase it by $111 million over last
year. The total provided in the bill is now $1.9 billion, a lot of
money, and that is the formula grants that go right out to the States.
In addition, there is $100 million for the contingent emergency fund,
and lastly, in the weatherization assistance grant, which came to us
from the Subcommittee on the Interior and Related Agencies, we are
funded at $227 million.
None of us know exactly what the needs will be in the coming winter.
It could be severe, it could be mild; and if it is a mild winter, I
think this is more than adequate. If it is a severe winter, we may want
to do a supplemental appropriation.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for his support for
these programs over the years, and I am not going to argue with him
about the value of these programs because I know he appreciates the
value of the programs.
But what my friend cannot deny is that the cost of heating fuels are
skyrocketing. There is no debate about that, and the problem is that if
we simply increase weatherization and LIHEAP by a little bit, it is not
going to keep up with 30, 40, 50 percent increases in home heating
fuel.
I think my friend would recognize, and none of us can predict the
weather, but even with an average winter, the fact that heating fuels
are soaring will mean that fewer dollars will be available to people,
or we are going to have to cut back on the number of people that
utilize the programs.
All I am doing, this is not a multibillion-dollar increase, and I
know my friend's heart is in the right place on this issue. It is a
relatively modest increase of $22 million. I would appreciate support
for it.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, it seems easy to take
this out of the administrative

[[Page H6831]]

budget of the Secretary of Health and Human Services, but let me point
out that he has a great challenge in oversight to manage that
Department effectively, and that is part of his administrative budget.
Within that budget, he has to administer the Centers for Disease
Control, the National Institutes of Health, the FDA, HRSA, SAMHSA, the
Indian Health Services, CMS, the children and families programs, the
older americans programs and the health care quality. Now, that is
quite a range of services that he has to manage effectively if they are
going to serve the public well, and we are faced with some priority
choices here.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, if my friend would further yield, I
understand that, and it is like I would not be unhappy if the gentleman
took care of that in conference. I know it is a tough judgment.
I simply would like the Members to stand up for folks who might go
cold this winter. That is the point that I want to make. I am not going
to get in a great argument with my colleague here. And perhaps he can
adjust that in conference.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, well, if the gentleman would be willing to
withdraw, we certainly would keep it in mind in conference, because I
understand. I come from a State where it gets reasonably cold in the
winter, too.

{time} 1415

I understand what the gentleman is saying about fuel costs. We do not
know, I see gasoline is like a yo-yo. One day it is $1.89 out my way,
and the next day it is $1.69. But the problem for the Secretary of HHS
to manage all these agencies, what we have tried to do is put in a
reasonable amount for his needs.
Now, in conference, maybe we can address this, and we would certainly
keep it in mind if the gentleman would consider withdrawing it.
Mr. SANDERS. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Chairman, I
think it is best to give the Members an opportunity to express their
will on this, but I thank the gentleman very, very much.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Vermont for bringing forth
this very, very important amendment. Tens of millions of families in
America are in for bad news this winter when they get their heating
bills in the mail. According to the Energy Information Administration,
the prices of heating oil and natural gas are expected to skyrocket.
The EIA predicts that compared to the winter of just 4 years ago, the
price of natural gas will be 55 percent higher and the price of heating
oil will be 45 percent higher this winter.
Now, these increased costs could not come at a worse time. According
to our Census Bureau, since 2001, when President Bush took office, the
number of people living in poverty has increased by 4.3 million, and
the median family income has dropped by over $1,500. The median family
is the exact mid-point among our roughly 100 million American families,
and all families with income below that median family's income have
lost income. Families are already struggling to pay high and rising
gasoline and health care costs.
So the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, the LIHEAP program,
is the primary program that provides assistance to help lower-income
families pay their energy bills. There has been no time when more
people are going to need LIHEAP assistance than now. This amendment
would provide modest, but important, relief to thousands of these
families by increasing funding for the LIHEAP and Weatherization
Assistance Program by about $22 million. The increase proposed by this
amendment would still leave that LIHEAP account $42 million below the
President's request.
Mr. Chairman, not one family should go without heat this winter, and
not one senior citizen should have to choose between heating their home
and purchasing their prescription drugs. I urge my colleagues to vote
``yes'' on this important amendment when it comes up later.
Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment of the gentleman
from Vermont, and thank also the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Regula), for his support of LIHEAP funding, both in this budget and in
the past. However, given the recent run-up in the cost of all kinds of
petroleum products, gasoline, to say nothing of natural gas and the
price of oil, this is a very important issue for all of us in the
Northeast and in the cold-weather States.
Before I became a Member of Congress, I served in the New Hampshire
legislature, and I chaired the committee that dealt with all of the
energy issues, so I know firsthand how important LIHEAP funding on a
Federal basis is for all of the cold-weather States. We have seen over
the last several years the price of natural gas increase by over 50
percent, the price of oil by 45 percent, propane by 40 percent; and it
is going to cost, Mr. Chairman, over $1,000 to heat an average home
this winter with natural gas, oil, and propane. So this modest amount
of money, $22 million, which would come out of overhead and
administration, is very important to my region of the country, and I
ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this amendment to
increase funding for the highly successful Low Income Home Energy
Assistance Program (LIHEAP) and Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP)
by $22 million. This modest increase in funding would still be $42
million below the President's request, but it could help thousands of
low-income Americans, the elderly and disabled stay warm this winter.
This increased investment for our Nation's most vulnerable population
would be offset by a $26 million reduction in Departmental Management
at the Department of Health and Human Services which would still
provide level funding for this program.
The Energy Information Administration is predicting that the price of
heating oil, natural gas and propane will skyrocket this winter.
Compared to average heating costs from 1998 to 2000, consumers are
expected to pay 55 percent more for natural gas; 45 percent more for
heating oil; and 41 percent more for propane. Heating a home with
natural gas will cost an average of $1,049 this winter; heating with
fuel oil will cost $1,094; and, heating with propane will cost $1,361.
This increased cost in energy couldn't come at a worse time. Since
2001, the number of people living in poverty has increased by 4.3
million, and the average family income has dropped by over $1,500.
LIHEAP and WAP are needed now more than ever to make sure that on the
richest country on earth, our constituents don't have to make the
unacceptable choice between heating their homes and feeding their
families.
Last March, more than 70 Members of both the House and Senate,
including 20 Republicans, co-signed letters in support of $3 billion in
funding for LIHEAP. Even if this amendment was signed into law, LIHEAP
would still be more than $500 million short of this mark.
Simply put, Weatherization and LIHEAP work. WAP has allowed low-
income families to save more than $200 a year in heating costs. These
modest savings can be used for other important family needs such as
food, clothing, housing and other basic necessities of life. And,
LIHEAP is a vital safety net for our Nation's low-income families which
reduces the percentage of their income spent on residential energy
costs. Unaffordable home energy can result in: homelessness; health and
safety problems, such as malnutrition, hypothermia and heat stroke;
and, lack of educational attainment for children. LIHEAP protects
public health and safety by keeping families warm in the winter and
cool in the summer.
For all of these reasons I support this amendment.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this important
amendment, which I am pleased to join in cosponsoring.
This amendment would provide a modest boost to the funding levels for
these two programs--$11 million more for LIHEAP and $11 million more
for Weatherization. This additional funding is desperately needed, but
it would still leave many needs unmet. LIHEAP alone needs $1 billion
above the $1.9 billion level in this bill to simply maintain the
purchasing power it enjoyed in 1982. Meanwhile, we are seeing greatly
increased volatility in oil and natural gas markets which threaten
consumers with higher home heating prices this winter. The Department
of Energy reports that consumers are expected to pay 55 percent more
for natural gas; 45 percent more for heating oil; and 41 percent more
for propane than they did in the years between 1998 and 2000. As a
result, heating a home with natural gas will cost an average of $1,049
this winter; heating with fuel oil will cost $1,094; and, heating with
propane will cost $1,361.
According to the Census Bureau, nearly 36 million Americans--
including almost 13 million

[[Page H6832]]

children--now live in poverty. That is an increase of over a million
people in the last year alone. Faced with a growing number of families
in poverty, the Republican leadership has brought to the floor an
appropriations bill that does little to help those Americans who have
fallen below the poverty line. It seems the Republican leadership would
rather protect President Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans
than lend a helping hand to the poorest Americans.
For the low income families and seniors of Massachusetts and the rest
of New England, winter--and increased utility bills--will be here too
soon. Many families and seniors will once again be faced with the
difficult decision between heating and eating.
Two crucial programs that help low-income families and seniors deal
with the high cost of heating their homes in the winter are the Low
Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) and the Weatherization
Assistance Program. This appropriations bill's funding levels for these
two crucial programs are inadequate to meet the current and growing
needs of low-income Americans.
There is bipartisan support from legislators representing warm and
cold climates to raise LIHEAP's funding to $3 billion, but this
appropriations bill is nowhere near that level of funding. I urge my
colleagues to pass this amendment today as a first step to meeting
LIHEAP needs in the very near future. We owe the low-income families
that rely on this program no less.
I urge adoption of the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the Sanders
amendment?
If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders)
will be postponed.
Are there further amendments to this paragraph of the bill?
If not, the Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Refugee and Entrant Assistance

For necessary expenses for refugee and entrant assistance
activities and for costs associated with the care and
placement of unaccompanied alien children authorized by title
IV of the Immigration and Nationality Act and section 501 of
the Refugee Education Assistance Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-
422), for carrying out section 462 of the Homeland Security
Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-296), and for carrying out the
Torture Victims Relief Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-179),
$491,336,000, of which up to $10,000,000 shall be available
to carry out the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2003
(Public Law 108-193): Provided, That funds appropriated under
this heading pursuant to section 414(a) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act and section 462 of the Homeland Security
Act of 2002 for fiscal year 2005 shall be available for the
costs of assistance provided and other activities to remain
available through September 30, 2007.

Payments to States for the Child Care and Development Block Grant

For carrying out sections 658A through 658R of the Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (The Child Care and
Development Block Grant Act of 1990), $2,099,729,000 shall be
used to supplement, not supplant state general revenue funds
for child care assistance for low-income families: Provided,
That $19,120,000 shall be available for child care resource
and referral and school-aged child care activities, of which
$1,000,000 shall be for the Child Care Aware toll free
hotline: Provided further, That, in addition to the amounts
required to be reserved by the States under section 658G,
$272,672,000 shall be reserved by the States for activities
authorized under section 658G, of which $100,000,000 shall be
for activities that improve the quality of infant and toddler
care: Provided further, That $9,864,000 shall be for use by
the Secretary for child care research, demonstration, and
evaluation activities.

Social Services Block Grant

For making grants to States pursuant to section 2002 of the
Social Security Act, $1,700,000,000: Provided, That
notwithstanding subparagraph (B) of section 404(d)(2) of such
Act, the applicable percent specified under such subparagraph
for a State to carry out State programs pursuant to title XX
of such Act shall be 4.5 percent.

Children and Families Services Programs

For carrying out, except as otherwise provided, the Runaway
and Homeless Youth Act, the Developmental Disabilities
Assistance and Bill of Rights Act, the Head Start Act, the
Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, sections 310 and
316 of the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act, as
amended, the Native American Programs Act of 1974, title II
of Public Law 95-266 (adoption opportunities), the Adoption
and Safe Families Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-89), sections
1201 and 1211 of the Children's Health Act of 2000, the
Abandoned Infants Assistance Act of 1988, sections 261 and
291 of the Help America Vote Act of 2002, part B(1) of title
IV and sections 413, 429A, 1110, and 1115 of the Social
Security Act, and sections 40155, 40211, and 40241 of Public
Law 103-322; for making payments under the Community Services
Block Grant Act, sections 439(h), 473A, and 477(i) of the
Social Security Act, and title IV of Public Law 105-285, and
for necessary administrative expenses to carry out said Acts
and titles I, IV, V, X, XI, XIV, XVI, and XX of the Social
Security Act, the Act of July 5, 1960 (24 U.S.C. ch. 9), the
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981, title IV of the
Immigration and Nationality Act, section 501 of the Refugee
Education Assistance Act of 1980, sections 40155, 40211, and
40241 of Public Law 103-322, and section 126 and titles IV
and V of Public Law 100-485, $8,985,663,000, of which
$32,103,000, to remain available until September 30, 2006,
shall be for grants to States for adoption incentive
payments, as authorized by section 473A of title IV of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 670-679) and may be made for
adoptions completed before September 30, 2005: Provided
further, That $6,898,580,000 shall be for making payments
under the Head Start Act, of which $1,400,000,000 shall
become available October 1, 2005, and remain available
through September 30, 2006: Provided further, That
$710,088,000 shall be for making payments under the Community
Services Block Grant Act: Provided further, That not less
than $7,184,000 shall be for section 680(3)(B) of the
Community Services Block Grant Act, as amended: Provided
further, That in addition to amounts provided herein,
$5,982,000 shall be available from amounts available under
section 241 of the Public Health Service Act to carry out the
provisions of section 1110 of the Social Security Act:
Provided further, That to the extent Community Services Block
Grant funds are distributed as grant funds by a State to an
eligible entity as provided under the Act, and have not been
expended by such entity, they shall remain with such entity
for carryover into the next fiscal year for expenditure by
such entity consistent with program purposes: Provided
further, That the Secretary shall establish procedures
regarding the disposition of intangible property which
permits grant funds, or intangible assets acquired with funds
authorized under section 680 of the Community Services Block
Grant Act, as amended, to become the sole property of such
grantees after a period of not more than 12 years after the
end of the grant for purposes and uses consistent with the
original grant: Provided further, That funds appropriated for
section 680(a)(2) of the Community Services Block Grant Act,
as amended, shall be available for financing construction and
rehabilitation and loans or investments in private business
enterprises owned by community development corporations:
Provided further, That $55,000,000 is for a compassion
capital fund to provide grants to charitable organizations to
emulate model social service programs and to encourage
research on the best practices of social service
organizations: Provided further, That $15,000,000 shall be
for activities authorized by the Help America Vote Act of
2002, of which $10,000,000 shall be for payments to States to
promote access for voters with disabilities, and of which
$5,000,000 shall be for payments to States for protection and
advocacy systems for voters with disabilities: Provided
further, That $105,046,000 is only for making competitive
grants to provide abstinence education (as defined by section
510(b)(2) of the Social Security Act) to adolescents, and for
Federal costs of administering the grant: Provided further,
That grants under the immediately preceding proviso shall be
made only to public and private entities which agree that,
with respect to an adolescent to whom the entities provide
abstinence education under such grant, the entities will not
provide to that adolescent any other education regarding
sexual conduct, except that, in the case of an entity
expressly required by law to provide health information or
services the adolescent shall not be precluded from seeking
health information or services from the entity in a different
setting than the setting in which abstinence education was
provided: Provided further, That within amounts provided
herein for abstinence education for adolescents, up to
$10,000,000 may be available for a national abstinence
education campaign: Provided further, That in addition to
amounts provided herein for abstinence education for
adolescents, $4,500,000 shall be available from amounts
available under section 241 of the Public Health Services Act
to carry out evaluations (including longitudinal evaluations)
of adolescent pregnancy prevention approaches: Provided
further, That $2,000,000 shall be for improving the Public
Assistance Reporting Information System, including grants to
States to support data collection for a study of the system's
effectiveness.

Promoting Safe and Stable Families

For carrying out section 436 of the Social Security Act,
$305,000,000 and for section 437, $105,000,000.

Payments to States for Foster Care and Adoption Assistance

For making payments to States or other non-Federal entities
under title IV-E of the Social Security Act, $5,037,900,000.
For making payments to States or other non-Federal entities
under title IV-E of the Act, for the first quarter of fiscal
year 2006, $1,767,200,000.

[[Page H6833]]

For making, after May 31 of the current fiscal year,
payments to States or other non-Federal entities under
section 474 of title IV-E, for the last 3 months of the
current fiscal year for unanticipated costs, incurred for the
current fiscal year, such sums as may be necessary.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for the
purpose of engaging in a colloquy with the chairman.
Mr. Chairman, the committee report on the Labor-HHS bill includes
language that encourages the National Institutes of Health to adopt a
policy that would make available to the public without charge the
scientific journal articles that report the results of research that
has been supported with NIH funding. As you know, Mr. Chairman, I have
been very concerned for a number of years that the public is not always
able to access the results of that research, federally funded research,
unless they had a university library nearby or could pay often very
large subscription fees of the journals, costs that are beyond most
families' budgets.
The NIH, in response to language in the bill, has acted quickly to
respond to our guidance. It posted the draft policy last Friday,
September 3. Dr. Zerhouni, the Director of NIH, took care to seek
comment from the various stakeholders involved in the issue, seeking
comment from publishers, for-profit and nonprofit groups, from
scientists, and from advocates for curing different diseases; and he
has held three public meetings. Dr. Zerhouni heard some powerful
stories from patients and family members who were struggling to learn
as much as they could about treatment for serious diseases that affect
them and their loved ones and had previously been unable to access some
of the key information that could help them.
Dr. Zerhouni has produced a draft proposal from NIH that carefully
balances the interests of these groups; and, most importantly, Mr.
Chairman, it moves NIH in the direction of making more research
available to the people who financed it, namely, the American
taxpayers.
Mr. Chairman, I see the action by the NIH to date as being consistent
with the language in our bill, and I would appreciate the chairman's
thoughts on this.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ISTOOK. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I have been very pleased to see that NIH
has responded so quickly and thoughtfully to the House report language.
I think it is a very simple proposition: NIH, or the taxpayer, pays for
the research, even pays for the journals, and should be able to share
the results with the taxpaying public. Our investment in research is
not well served by a process that limits taxpayer access instead of
expanding it, and I should add public access.
I encourage NIH to move expeditiously to finalize its proposal after
considering the comments it receives on its policy. The public deserves
nothing less.
Mr. ISTOOK. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman
for his comments.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Administration on Aging

Aging Services Programs

For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided, the
Older Americans Act of 1965, as amended, and section 398 of
the Public Health Service Act, $1,403,479,000, of which
$5,500,000 shall be available for activities regarding
medication management, screening, and education to prevent
incorrect medication and adverse drug reactions; and of which
$4,558,000 shall remain available until September 30, 2007,
for the White House Conference on Aging.

Office of the Secretary

General Departmental Management

For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided, for general
departmental management, including hire of six sedans, and
for carrying out titles III, XVII, XX, and XXI of the Public
Health Service Act, and the United States-Mexico Border
Health Commission Act, $380,298,000, together with $5,851,000
to be transferred and expended as authorized by section
201(g)(1) of the Social Security Act from the Hospital
Insurance Trust Fund and the Supplemental Medical Insurance
Trust Fund: Provided, That of the funds made available under
this heading for carrying out title XX of the Public Health
Service Act, $13,120,000 shall be for activities specified
under section 2003(b)(2), all of which shall be for
prevention service demonstration grants under section
510(b)(2) of title V of the Social Security Act, as amended,
without application of the limitation of section 2010(c) of
said title XX: Provided further, That of this amount,
$25,000,000 shall be for advancing health care information
technology nationally, including demonstration project
grants; $52,838,000 shall be for minority AIDS prevention and
treatment activities; $14,847,000 shall be for an Information
Technology Security and Innovation Fund for Department-wide
activities involving cybersecurity, information technology
security, and related innovation projects; and $5,000,000
shall be to assist Afghanistan in the development of maternal
and child health clinics, consistent with section
103(a)(4)(H) of the Afghanistan Freedom Support Act of 2002.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Stupak

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on this, and we
do not have a copy of the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. If the gentleman could provide us with a copy, we will
distribute it to everybody.
Is there objection to the gentleman from Michigan offering his
amendment at this point?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Stupak:
Page 49, line 25, insert ``(increased by $10,000,000)''
after the 1st dollar amount.
Page 50, line 3, insert ``; of which $160,414,000 shall be
available to carry out the Nutrition Services Incentive
Program;'' after ``reactions;''.
Page 50, line 12, insert ``(reduced by $10,000,000)'' after
the dollar amount.

Mr. STUPAK (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Michigan?
There was no objection.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to increase
funding for seniors' meals programs by $10 million. The Meals on Wheels
program is a critical lifeline to our Nation's seniors who are most in
need of our assistance.
The bill includes $730 million for senior nutrition programs, $16
million more than last year, or a 2.2 percent increase. I wish to thank
the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), and the ranking
member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), for including these
additional funds and recognizing the importance of these programs to
our seniors. I am offering this amendment because, despite the increase
in the bill, the funding falls far too short.
I am sure that all of us have met and spoken with seniors in our
districts. I am sure that the seniors have told my colleagues how much
they depend on senior meals assistance and the Meals on Wheels program,
or the meals they receive at the senior centers. I am sure that if
Members, like I have done in the past, would go out and actually
deliver senior meals to the homes of homebound seniors, they would
realize how important not just these prepared meals are but also the
social interaction these homebound seniors have with members of the
public.
I have heard from the area agencies on aging in my district that they
are cutting meals they are offering. In Michigan, we have had to cut
back significantly weekend meals, evening meals, and even the senior
lunch meals. The challenges faced by our Meals on Wheels program is
compounded by the fiscal problems of the States that have not been able
to increase their contributions, despite their acknowledgment that the
need for these programs continues to grow.
This amendment would simply increase funding for the Nutrition
Services Incentives Program by $10 million to $160 million. The House
approved a similar amendment of mine back in 2001. Unfortunately, that
amendment back in the 2001 appropriation bill to increase funding for
the program to $160 million was dropped in conference. That was 4 years
ago, and funding for senior meals programs has stayed basically flat
until this year.
Mr. Chairman, we need to make this investment now. Nationally, 4.6
million Meals on Wheels meals were cut last year, and a number of
congregate meals were cut by 2.9 million, for a total of 7.5 million
meals that had to

[[Page H6834]]

be cut last year because of lack of funding. These decreases in funding
ignore the 25 percent increase in the number of Americans who are
expected to be eligible for the Older Americans Act programs in the
next 5 years.

{time} 1430

It is critical that we include the highest level of funding possible
for senior nutrition programs. I understand and I appreciate the work
of the committee and what they have done to increase funding. I
appreciate the fact that both the ranking member and the chairman have
indicated that, if possible, they will try to increase funding in the
conference report.
Mr. Chairman, I will ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment
with the understanding that we will continue to work to increase
funding in the future. This program is critically important to our
seniors. While I appreciate the appropriators' work, I think we need to
continue to highlight the concerns that we have for the lack of funds
for the Senior Meal Program.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, when I hear my colleagues from both sides of the aisle
offering all of these amendments obviously to help our constituents
from all over the country, and I thank my chairman and the ranking
member for working so hard to bring us everything we need. I think more
of us as Members should sit here instead of trying to watch this on
television. I know that we are working very hard to keep the people of
the United States comfortable, to make sure they have heat and do
research to keep them healthy, and yet we have a program in place that
is going to expire on September 13, which is the assault weapons bill.
Yet we are not allowed to bring it up on the floor to talk about it.
That is a shame. This is something that is working, does not cost any
money, and yet as Members of Congress we are not allowed to bring the
bill up for a vote, and the American people want it.
I thank the committee and subcommittee chairmen for doing the hard
work they are doing, but I wish we could debate the assault weapons
ban. The police officers on the street want to keep this ban in place.
The health care professionals want to keep this ban in place. Every
help organization wants to keep this ban in place. All of the different
organizations which represent children want to keep the ban in place. I
do not understand why we do not bring that issue to the floor for a
vote. I hope by Monday, September 13, the White House will heed our
call. I hope that the Speaker of the House will heed our call and
answer to the American people.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Office of Inspector General

For expenses necessary for the Office of Inspector General,
including the hire of passenger motor vehicles for
investigations, in carrying out the provisions of the
Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, $40,323,000:
Provided, That of such amount, necessary sums are available
for providing protective services to the Secretary and
investigating non-payment of child support cases for which
non-payment is a Federal offense under 18 U.S.C. 228.

office for civil rights

For expenses necessary for the Office for Civil Rights,
$32,043,000, together with not to exceed $3,314,000 to be
transferred and expended as authorized by section 201(g)(1)
of the Social Security Act from the Hospital Insurance Trust
Fund and the Supplemental Medical Insurance Trust Fund.

policy research

For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided,
research studies under section 1110 of the Social Security
Act and title III of the Public Health Service Act,
$20,750,000, which shall be available from amounts available
under section 241 of the Public Health Service Act to carry
out national health or human services research and evaluation
activities: Provided, That the expenditure of any funds
available under section 241 of the Public Health Service Act
is subject to the requirements of section 206 of this Act.

Retirement Pay and Medical Benefits for Commissioned Officers

For retirement pay and medical benefits of Public Health
Service Commissioned Officers as authorized by law, for
payments under the Retired Serviceman's Family Protection
Plan and Survivor Benefit Plan, for medical care of
dependents and retired personnel under the Dependents'
Medical Care Act (10 U.S.C. ch. 55 and 56), and for payments
pursuant to section 229(b) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 429(b)), such amounts as may be required during the
current fiscal year. The following are definitions for the
medical benefits of the Public Health Service Commissioned
Officers that apply to 10 U.S.C. chapter 56, section 1116(c).
The source of funds for the monthly accrual payments into the
Department of Defense Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Care
Fund shall be the Retirement Pay and Medical Benefits for
Commissioned Officers account. For purposes of this Act, the
term ``pay of members'' shall be construed to be synonymous
with retirement payments to United States Public Health
Service officers who are retired for age, disability, or
length of service; payments to survivors of deceased
officers; medical care to active duty and retired members and
dependents and beneficiaries; and for payments to the Social
Security Administration for military service credits; all of
which payments are provided for by the Retirement Pay and
Medical Benefits for Commissioned Officers account.

public health and social services emergency fund

(including transfer of funds)

For expenses necessary to support activities related to
countering potential biological, disease, nuclear,
radiological, and chemical threats to civilian populations,
$1,842,247,000: Provided, That this amount is distributed as
follows: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
$1,187,760,000; Office of the Secretary, $64,438,000;
National Institutes of Health, $47,400,000; and Health
Resources and Services Administration, $542,649,000: Provided
further, That employees of the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention or the Public Health Service, both civilian
and Commissioned Officers, detailed to States,
municipalities, or other organizations under authority of
section 214 of the Public Health Service Act for purposes
related to homeland security, shall be treated as non-Federal
employees for reporting purposes only and shall not be
included within any personnel ceiling applicable to the
Agency, Service, or the Department of Health and Human
Services during the period of detail or assignment.
In addition, $450,000,000, to remain available until
expended, for the Strategic National Stockpile: Provided,
That subject to 31 U.S.C. 1531, there shall be transferred to
the Secretary of Health and Human Services the functions,
assets, unexpended balances (including those from
appropriations authorized under section 121(3) of Public Law
107-188 and prior authorities); and liabilities of the
Strategic National Stockpile, including the functions of the
Secretary of Homeland Security relating thereto: Provided
further, That the stockpile shall be deployed as deemed
appropriate by the Secretary, or when requested by the
Secretary of Homeland Security.
In addition, for activities to ensure a year-round
influenza vaccine production capacity and the development and
implementation of rapidly expandable influenza vaccine
production technologies, $60,000,000, to remain available
until expended.

GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 201. Funds appropriated in this title shall be
available for not to exceed $50,000 for official reception
and representation expenses when specifically approved by the
Secretary.
Sec. 202. The Secretary shall make available through
assignment not more than 60 employees of the Public Health
Service to assist in child survival activities and to work in
AIDS programs through and with funds provided by the Agency
for International Development, the United Nations
International Children's Emergency Fund or the World Health
Organization.
Sec. 203. None of the funds appropriated under this Act may
be used to implement section 399F(b) of the Public Health
Service Act or section 1503 of the National Institutes of
Health Revitalization Act of 1993, Public Law 103-43.
Sec. 204. None of the funds appropriated in this Act for
the National Institutes of Health, the Agency for Healthcare
Research and Quality, and the Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration shall be used to pay the
salary of an individual, through a grant or other extramural
mechanism, at a rate in excess of Executive Level I.
Sec. 205. None of the funds appropriated in this title for
Head Start shall be used to pay the compensation of an
individual, either as direct costs or any proration as an
indirect cost, at a rate in excess of Executive Level II.
Sec. 206. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be
expended pursuant to section 241 of the Public Health Service
Act, except for funds specifically provided for in this Act,
or for other taps and assessments made by any office located
in the Department of Health and Human Services, prior to the
Secretary's preparation and submission of a report to the
Committee on Appropriations of the Senate and of the House
detailing the planned uses of such funds.
Sec. 207. Notwithstanding section 241(a) of the Public
Health Service Act, such portion as the Secretary shall
determine, but not more than 2.3 percent, of any amounts
appropriated for programs authorized under said Act shall be
made available for the evaluation (directly, or by grants or
contracts) of

[[Page H6835]]

the implementation and effectiveness of such programs.

(transfer of funds)

Sec. 208. Not to exceed 1 percent of any discretionary
funds (pursuant to the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985, as amended) which are appropriated for
the current fiscal year for the Department of Health and
Human Services in this Act may be transferred between
appropriations, but no such appropriation shall be increased
by more than 3 percent by any such transfer: Provided, That
an appropriation may be increased by up to an additional 2
percent subject to approval by the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations: Provided further, That the
Appropriations Committees of both Houses of Congress are
notified at least 15 days in advance of any transfer.
Sec. 209. The Director of the National Institutes of
Health, jointly with the Director of the Office of AIDS
Research, may transfer up to 3 percent among institutes and
centers from the total amounts identified by these two
Directors as funding for research pertaining to the human
immunodeficiency virus: Provided, That the Congress is
promptly notified of the transfer.
Sec. 210. Of the amounts made available in this Act for the
National Institutes of Health, the amount for research
related to the human immunodeficiency virus, as jointly
determined by the Director of the National Institutes of
Health and the Director of the Office of AIDS Research, shall
be made available to the ``Office of AIDS Research'' account.
The Director of the Office of AIDS Research shall transfer
from such account amounts necessary to carry out section
2353(d)(3) of the Public Health Service Act.
Sec. 211. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be
made available to any entity under title X of the Public
Health Service Act unless the applicant for the award
certifies to the Secretary that it encourages family
participation in the decision of minors to seek family
planning services and that it provides counseling to minors
on how to resist attempts to coerce minors into engaging in
sexual activities.
Sec. 212. None of the funds appropriated by this Act
(including funds appropriated to any trust fund) may be used
to carry out the Medicare+Choice program if the Secretary
denies participation in such program to an otherwise eligible
entity (including a Provider Sponsored Organization) because
the entity informs the Secretary that it will not provide,
pay for, provide coverage of, or provide referrals for
abortions: Provided, That the Secretary shall make
appropriate prospective adjustments to the capitation payment
to such an entity (based on an actuarially sound estimate of
the expected costs of providing the service to such entity's
enrollees): Provided further, That nothing in this section
shall be construed to change the Medicare program's coverage
for such services and a Medicare+Choice organization
described in this section shall be responsible for informing
enrollees where to obtain information about all Medicare
covered services.
Sec. 213. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no
provider of services under title X of the Public Health
Service Act shall be exempt from any State law requiring
notification or the reporting of child abuse, child
molestation, sexual abuse, rape, or incest.
Sec. 214. (a) Except as provided by subsection (e) none of
the funds appropriated by this Act may be used to withhold
substance abuse funding from a State pursuant to section 1926
of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300x-26) if such
State certifies to the Secretary of Health and Human Services
by May 1, 2005 that the State will commit additional State
funds, in accordance with subsection (b), to ensure
compliance with State laws prohibiting the sale of tobacco
products to individuals under 18 years of age.
(b) The amount of funds to be committed by a State under
subsection (a) shall be equal to 1 percent of such State's
substance abuse block grant allocation for each percentage
point by which the State misses the retailer compliance rate
goal established by the Secretary of Health and Human
Services under section 1926 of such Act.
(c) The State is to maintain State expenditures in fiscal
year 2005 for tobacco prevention programs and for compliance
activities at a level that is not less than the level of such
expenditures maintained by the State for fiscal year 2004,
and adding to that level the additional funds for tobacco
compliance activities required under subsection (a). The
State is to submit a report to the Secretary on all fiscal
year 2004 State expenditures and all fiscal year 2005
obligations for tobacco prevention and compliance activities
by program activity by July 31, 2005.
(d) The Secretary shall exercise discretion in enforcing
the timing of the State obligation of the additional funds
required by the certification described in subsection (a) as
late as July 31, 2005.
(e) None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be used
to withhold substance abuse funding pursuant to section 1926
from a territory that receives less than $1,000,000.
Sec. 215. In order for the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention to carry out international health activities,
including HIV/AIDS and other infectious disease, chronic and
environmental disease, and other health activities abroad
during fiscal year 2005, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services--
(1) may exercise authority equivalent to that available to
the Secretary of State in section 2(c) of the State
Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 (22 U.S.C. 2669(c)).
The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall consult with
the Secretary of State and relevant Chief of Mission to
ensure that the authority provided in this section is
exercised in a manner consistent with section 207 of the
Foreign Service Act of 1980 (22 U.S.C. 3927) and other
applicable statutes administered by the Department of State,
and
(2) is authorized to provide such funds by advance or
reimbursement to the Secretary of State as may be necessary
to pay the costs of acquisition, lease, alteration,
renovation, and management of facilities outside of the
United States for the use of the Department of Health and
Human Services. The Department of State shall cooperate fully
with the Secretary of Health and Human Services to ensure
that the Department of Health and Human Services has secure,
safe, functional facilities that comply with applicable
regulation governing location, setback, and other facilities
requirements and serve the purposes established by this Act.
The Secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized, in
consultation with the Secretary of State, through grant or
cooperative agreement, to make available to public or
nonprofit private institutions or agencies in participating
foreign countries, funds to acquire, lease, alter, or
renovate facilities in those countries as necessary to
conduct programs of assistance for international health
activities, including activities relating to HIV/AIDS and
other infectious diseases, chronic and environmental
diseases, and other health activities abroad.
Sec. 216. The Division of Federal Occupational Health may
utilize personal services contracting to employ professional
management/administrative and occupational health
professionals.
Sec. 217. (a) Authority.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the Director of the National Institutes of
Health may use funds available under section 402(i) of the
Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 282(i)) to enter into
transactions (other than contracts, cooperative agreements,
or grants) to carry out research in support of the NIH
Roadmap Initiative of the Director.
(b) Peer Review.--In entering into transactions under
subsection (a), the Director of the National Institutes of
Health may utilize such peer review procedures (including
consultation with appropriate scientific experts) as the
Director determines to be appropriate to obtain assessments
of scientific and technical merit. Such procedures shall
apply to such transactions in lieu of the peer review and
advisory council review procedures that would otherwise be
required under sections 301(a)(3), 405(b)(1)(B), 405(b)(2),
406(a)(3)(A), 492, and 494 of the Public Health Service Act
(42 U.S.C. 241, 284(b)(1)(B), 284(b)(2), 284a(a)(3)(A), 289a,
and 289c).
Sec. 218. The unobligated balance of the funds appropriated
by section 1897(g) of the Social Security Act, as added by
section 1016 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement,
and Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-173), is
rescinded.

Mr. REGULA (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the remainder of the bill through page 63, line 13, be
considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any
point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Ohio?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to the portion of the bill now
open?
If not, the Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 219. (a) CMS Program Management Account.--The amount
otherwise provided by this Act for ``Centers for Medicare and
Medicaid Services--Program Management'' is hereby reduced by
$155,000,000.
(b) Medicare Claims Processing Fee.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding section 1842(c)(4) of the
Social Security Act, each claim submitted by an individual or
entity furnishing items or services for which payment may be
made under part A or part B of title XVIII of such Act is
subject to a processing fee of $5.00 if the claim--
(A) duplicates, in whole or in part, another claim
submitted by the same individual or entity; or
(B) is a claim that cannot be processed and must be
returned by the medicare claims processing contractor
involved to the individual or entity for completion or
correction.
(2) Deduction and transfer.--The Secretary of Health and
Human Services shall deduct any fees assessed pursuant to
paragraph (1) against an individual or entity from amounts
otherwise payable from a trust fund under such title to such
individual or entity, and shall transfer the amount so
deducted from such trust fund to the Program Management
account of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
(3) Availability.--Fees collected under this subsection
shall remain available until expended.
(4) Waiver authority.--The Secretary of Health and Human
Services may provide for waiver of fees for claims described
in paragraph (2) in cases of such compelling circumstances as
the Secretary may determine.

[[Page H6836]]

(5) Exclusion of fees in allowable costs.--An entity may
not include a fee assessed pursuant to this subsection as an
allowable item on a cost report under the Social Security
Act.
(6) Effective date.--This subsection shall apply to claims
referred to in paragraph (1) submitted on or after a date,
specified by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, that
is not later than 3 months after the date of the enactment of
this Act.

Point of Order

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, reluctantly, quite frankly, I raise this
point of order, but it is necessary to do so.
My point of order is against section 219(b) of the bill on the
grounds that this provision violates clause 2(b) of House rule XXI
because it is legislation included in a general appropriations bill.
The rule, as I understand it, does not protect against that.
My point of order is this proposes to change existing law and
constitutes legislating in an appropriations bill and violates clause
2(b) of rule XXI.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of
order?
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, reluctantly we concede the point of order,
but I would point out this is part of the President's request. It is a
management tool to let the user pay for a service being provided by the
government. But the gentleman is correct, it does violate the right of
the authorizers to deal with this subject, and it is not a proper part
of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded and sustained. The
provision is stricken from the bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 220. The amount appropriated in this Act for ``Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention--Disease Control Research
and Training'' is hereby reduced by $15,000,000, to be
derived from the amounts made available for administrative
and related information technology expenses: Provided, That
the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention shall determine the allocation of the reduction
among Agency activities, and shall submit to the Committees
on Appropriations a report specifying the proposed
allocation.
Sec. 221. Limitation on Use of Funds; Study.
(a) Limitation on Funds.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, none of the funds appropriated by this Act
or any other Act may be expended by the Secretary of Health
and Human Services or by a medicare fiscal intermediary or
administrative contractor--
(1) to apply the criteria (commonly known as the ``75
percent rule'') that are used to determine whether a hospital
or unit of a hospital is an inpatient rehabilitation facility
(as defined in Department of Health and Human Services,
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, ``Medicare
Program; Final Rule; Changes to the Criteria for Being
Classified as an Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility'', 69
Federal Register 25751 et seq. (May 7, 2004), and any
accompanying CMS Manual System Transmittals (including, but
not limited to, Transmittal 221 and any change request
pursuant to such rule) for purposes of the medicare program;
(2) to compile facility data pertaining to compliance with
such 75 percent rule or enforce such rule; or
(3) to utilize or apply any existing or new local medical
review policy, local coverage determination, or national
coverage determination with respect to medical necessity
standards for inpatient rehabilitation facilities under the
medicare program;

until the date that is 9 months after the date on which the
report required by subsection (b)(3) is transmitted to the
Secretary and the Congress.
(b) Study and Report.--(1) The Secretary of Health and
Human Services shall contract with the Institute of Medicine
of the National Academy of Sciences to study and make
recommendations (and submit a report under paragraph (3))
on--
(A) a clinical consensus on how to modernize the medicare
criteria used to distinguish an inpatient rehabilitation
facility from an acute care hospital and other providers of
intensive medical rehabilitation; and
(B) the appropriate medical necessity criteria for
determining clinical appropriateness of inpatient
rehabilitation facility admissions, with due consideration
being given to chapter 1, section 110 of the Medicare Benefit
Policy Manual, the current capabilities of treatments and
modalities performed by acute and post-acute providers, and
the combined medical and functional needs of patients.
(2) Under such contract the Institute shall use a panel
that includes a multi-disciplinary group of expert
researchers and clinicians in the field of medical
rehabilitation.
(3) Under such contract the Institute shall submit a report
to the Secretary and the Congress on the study and
recommendations described in paragraph (1) not later than
October 1, 2005.

Amendment Offered by Mr. LoBiondo

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

Amendment offered by Mr. LoBiondo:
In title II, amend section 221 (page 65, line 19, through
page 68, line 2) to read as follows:
Sec. 221. (a) Notwithstanding section 412.23(b)(2) of title
42 of the Code of Federal Regulations, none of the funds
appropriated by this Act may be expended by the Secretary of
Health and Human Services to treat a hospital or unit of a
hospital that was certified by the Secretary as an inpatient
rehabilitation facility on or before June 30, 2004, as a
subsection (d) hospital (as defined in section 1886(d)(1)(B)
of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(1)(B)))
until, not later than 60 days after the date on which the
report under subsection (b) is issued, the Secretary, taking
into account the recommendations in such report--
(1) determines that the classification criteria of
hospitals and units of hospitals as inpatient rehabilitation
facilities under such section 412.23(b)(2) are not
inconsistent with such recommendations; or
(2) promulgates a regulation providing for revised criteria
under such section 412.23(b)(2), which regulation shall be
effective and final immediately on an interim basis as of the
date of publication of the regulation.
(b) The study referred to in subsection (a) is a study by
the Comptroller General of the United States directed in the
statement of managers accompanying the conference report on
the bill H.R. 1 of the 108th Congress regarding clinically
appropriate standards for defining inpatient rehabilitation
services under such section 412.23(b)(2).
(c) The aggregate amount appropriated under title II for
``Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services--Program
Management'' is hereby reduced by $3,500,000.

Mr. LoBIONDO (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New Jersey?
There was no objection.
Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the
LoBiondo-Lowey-Wamp amendment. The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs.
Lowey) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) have joined together
in trying to bring this to the attention of our colleagues.
Before I discuss the amendment, however, I would like to thank the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Regula) for their support on this critical issue. I would also like to
thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and his staff for
their willingness to work with me and my colleagues on this issue, and
to help in crafting an amendment which will help rehab patients across
the country.
The LoBiondo-Lowey-Wamp amendment would halt the Centers for Medicare
and Medicaid Services, CMS, on the implementation of the so-called 75
percent rule until a study is completed on the issue. As many know,
rehabilitation hospitals provide essential care to patients recovering
from conditions such as a stroke, hip replacement or cardiopulmonary
disease. This policy, commonly known as the 75 percent rule, sets
limits on which patients would be eligible for care at these
facilities.
Under the current rule which went into effect on July 1, fewer
Americans will have access to rehab care. This is wrong. Fewer patients
needing treatment for conditions such as arthritis and joint
replacement will qualify for this care, an important element in the
overall recovery process. It is simply wrong not to do something about
this. In addition, access to rehab care for patients recovering from
cancer, cardiac conditions, transplant and pulmonary conditions is also
threatened.
This amendment is by no means the first attempt to deal with the
issue. Over the past year, the majority of Members of Congress not
once, but twice has called on CMS to withhold implementation of the 75
percent rule until a thorough independent assessment by medical experts
is completed. A similar directive was included in both the Medicare
Modernization Act passed last November and the fiscal year 2004 omnibus
appropriations bill. Yet despite the will of Congress, CMS finalized
the 75 percent rule in April and implemented it on July 1 without
either commissioning a study in advance or making significant, much-
needed updates.

[[Page H6837]]

Our amendment seeks to ensure that Congress' intent is carried out
and that patients across America continue to have access to the rehab
care they need. It will ensure that experts in the field of
rehabilitative care study the issue and make recommendations that will
produce a rule for rehab hospitals that reflects the advances medicine
has made in the area of rehabilitative care.
I would like all of my colleagues to think what it would be like for
them if they had to go to one of their constituents who needed rehab
care, and they were denied access to the rehab hospital in their
district; or worse yet, that rehab hospital had to close. What would my
colleagues think if they had a family member, someone in their family,
that was denied rehabilitative care, very good care, because of a
stupid rule that we were not able to fix? People across America who
need these services will not accept that Congress stood back and did
nothing when there is something we can do.
I thank all Members in this Chamber who have supported our efforts to
change the 75 percent rule, and I urge Members to cast a yes vote for
the LoBiondo-Lowey-Wamp amendment.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LoBIONDO. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, with the understanding that this has been
cleared with the Committee on Ways and Means, we are prepared to accept
this amendment.
Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
First of all, I would like to thank our distinguished chairman
because he has worked with us and understands the importance of this
very critical issue in so many Members' districts across the country. I
rise in strong support of the amendment, and I am appreciative for all
of us who have been working together. Just a few words on it, and again
I thank our chairman.
Last year CMS decided to change and reinstate the patient
rehabilitation facilities 75 percent rule, a rule which was enforced
inconsistently and intermittently until it was fully suspended in 2002
because rehabilitation care had evolved so far beyond the original
rule's scope.
In an effort to ensure that the rule would be updated appropriately,
Congress asked CMS to commission an independent study on the status of
rehabilitative care and use the findings to rewrite the rule. As my
colleagues know, we had more than 300 Members of Congress supporting
this request and the inclusion of similar directives in the fiscal year
2004 omnibus spending bill and the Prescription Drug Act.
CMS issued the final 75 percent rule without the benefit of a study,
leaving the list of qualifying conditions practically the same as those
imposed two decades ago. Considering the impact of these rehabilitation
policies on the health and well-being of our constituents, we could not
stand by and let our call for a study go unfulfilled. So again with the
support of the Committee on Ways and Means chairman, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Thomas), and the ranking member, the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Rangel), the LoBiondo-Lowey-Wamp amendment will ensure that
an independent study of the issue is conducted and the findings used to
rewrite the 75 percent rule.
I am very appreciative, Mr. Chairman, of both committees, and
particularly the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula). We have worked
together in a bipartisan way to bring this amendment to the floor, and
I want to thank the staff of the gentleman from California (Mr.
Thomas), Joel White and Deb Williams, for carefully working out the
details of this amendment late last night and early this morning. I am
delighted we have been able to work this out.

{time} 1445

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief, just to add that this is one of
those rare opportunities for the Appropriations Committee and the Ways
and Means Committee to meet at the water's edge. Sometimes we put
limitation amendments on appropriations bills and they strike those
through a point of order, which they have the right to do here. Yet
they chose to agree with us and say that this GAO study needs to be
completed and all the science needs to be brought to bear before this
rule is actually implemented.
Let me just say that one of the greatest areas of innovation in our
health care delivery system in this country is inpatient rehabilitation
hospitals where virtually every family in America has had somebody
benefit from one of those hospitals, and they are wowed at what we are
doing. It is a very fluid area of health care. It is changing every
month because of new technologies and new procedures. Yet some of these
rules are antiquated in these 13 categories. They need to be changed
based on what is happening in health care, not a bean counter at OMB
saying, we only have this much money or we want to reduce this much
money, therefore, this is what you are going to be reimbursed for.
In our health care delivery system, we need to reimburse wherever the
innovation is, wherever the patient is, wherever the need is, wherever
the cure is; and that is what this does is allow science to prevail and
not some arbitrary limitation that is set down the street by any
administration or any government bureaucrat.
That is, frankly, where the Congress is doing its job to weigh in,
because we are sensitive to these things; and, frankly, sometimes the
Appropriations Committee can be very helpful by using the power of the
money flow and the appropriations process to say, wait a second, stop
the trains, we are going in the wrong direction.
This is a win-win. Congratulations to all and thanks especially to
Ways and Means for letting us live to fight another day on behalf of
patients and inpatient rehabilitation hospitals across the country. I
thank the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) and the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo). It is always a pleasure to work with them.
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman for accepting this
amendment. It is extremely important for someone that has spent so much
time in a rehab unit taking care of patients, even to the point of
taking care of my son going back a number of years ago.
Medical technology and the science of taking care of those that never
had a chance to learn how to walk again or possibly feed themselves
again is now possible. It is mainly because of rehab. I know a lot of
people think that they used to lay around the hospital after a hip
operation. Today you have a hip operation, and you go to a rehab unit.
It actually saves money, mainly because the patient is getting the
rehab that they need so they can get up and walk and have a quality-of-
life issue. On the other end of it, unfortunately going back not that
many years ago, even for a simple hip operation, especially with the
elderly, they ended up getting pneumonia and unfortunately needed more
long-term care.
With that being said, the majority of our rehab hospitals and rehab
units in an awful lot of our larger cities are filled, unfortunately,
with patients because of gun violence in this country. On September 13,
we are going to see the assault weapons bill expire unless this
Congress, the Speaker of the House, the President of the United States
get involved and allow us to debate this. We can save billions of
dollars just on health care costs if we can bring down gun violence. We
have seen a 60 percent drop since the assault weapons bill was passed
on the use of those guns on our officers in our communities.
Large capacity clips, we are going to have them back out on the
streets again. These are the large capacity clips that we see our men
and women using that are serving this country so well over in the war
in Iraq. We saw yesterday in the paper where someone with a gun had a
large capacity clip that had 50 rounds. This is what we are going to go
back to unless we stop by September 13, on Monday, to be able to renew
the ban on assault weapons, to protect our communities, protect our
police officers and to a very, very large extent, make more room in the
emergency rooms, make more room in the trauma centers, make more room
in the rehab units, because today because

[[Page H6838]]

of medical technology, thank goodness, people like my son are surviving
these horrific wounds. A lot of our police officers are surviving their
horrific wounds. But unfortunately the rehab, the expense to get those
victims back on their feet certainly is extremely expensive.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 222. None of the funds appropriated in this title may
be used to impede the exchange of information between the
Office of the Actuary of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services and Congress, including its members, committees, and
staff.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Allen

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Allen:
At the end of title II (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. For research on outcomes of health care items and
services (including the comparative clinical effectiveness of
prescription drugs), as authorized by section 1013 of the
Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization
Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-173), $50,000,000.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on this
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio reserves a point of order.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, when Americans turn on their televisions
today, they are inundated by television advertisements promoting
particular prescription drugs. Doctors are overwhelmed by detailers
from the pharmaceutical industry coming to praise the virtues of the
particular drugs that are manufactured by the people who employ them.
But what patients and physicians in this country really need is quality
information, evidence-based information about the comparative
effectiveness of different drugs that are advertised to treat the same
illness or condition.
The Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act
provides for research on outcomes of health care items and services,
including the comparative clinical effectiveness of prescription drugs.
Today I am pleased to join my colleague from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson) in
offering an amendment to fund that provision in the new Medicare law.
Section 1013 of the new Medicare law authorizes $50 million in fiscal
year 2004 for the Agency For Health Care Research and Quality to
conduct outcomes research on prescription drugs and other treatments.
Unfortunately, the President's fiscal year 2005 budget contained no
funding for this initiative. Currently, there really is a dearth of
evidence-based information available to assist practitioners in
choosing the most appropriate medication for their patients.
The $50 million we seek would fund new research and literature
surveys to improve scientific evidence about the comparative
effectiveness and safety of prescription drugs and other treatments.
Additionally, funds would be used to communicate the results of this
research to health care practitioners, health care purchasers and
consumers. All we are asking is for better information to be available
to doctors and patients. And if we can make that better information,
independent research not funded by the pharmaceutical industry, if we
make that information available, we will have better health care
quality in this country; and we will have lower prices as well. It is
very important that we ensure that our prescription drug spending is
not based on the latest television or glossy magazine advertisement,
but on science-based and tested information.
Physicians and their patients need access to credible, unbiased,
evidence-based data on the comparative effectiveness of prescription
drugs so they can make informed decisions about their purchases. As the
cost of health care continues to rise, obtaining the greatest health
care value is essential. More objective research will improve the
quality of care and help to reduce costs.
This spring, Members from both sides of the aisle joined me in
sending a letter to the chairman and ranking member urging $75 million
for this provision. In addition, the Senate approved an amendment in
support of $75 million for prescription drug comparative effectiveness
studies, indicating the high level of bipartisan support for this
initiative.
I do hope that the chairman agrees that this provision, which has
been authorized, is a worthy initiative. I look forward to working with
him and the committee to provide some funding in conference and to
encourage the administration to add money for this purpose in next
year's budget.
Though I would urge support for this amendment, I do intend to
withdraw the amendment, but first I would like to give an opportunity
to my friend from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson) to speak on it.
Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Allen-Emerson
comparative effectiveness research amendment. As my colleague said, as
the costs of health care continue to rise, we really do need to make
sure that our Nation's health care providers have every possible tool
at hand so that they can understand the best, most efficient level of
quality care to give their patients.
We obviously in Congress have recognized that need because we
authorized $75 million in funding for the Agency For Health Care
Research and Quality to conduct comparative effectiveness and health
care outcomes research. This information would be made available to
providers and consumers alike and allow physicians and their patients
to make more informed and personalized decisions on each individual
patient's plan of care.
More importantly, comparative effectiveness research will provide
evidence-based research to help improve the efficiency of our health
care system. Currently, very little objective evidence-based
information is available to help physicians choose the most appropriate
prescription medications for each patient. Without such information
available, many patients may be prescribed a more expensive brand-name
medication when a less costly generic medication may have the same
clinical effectiveness. Funding further comparative effectiveness
research efforts will provide American health care consumers with
impartial research-based evidence of the value of different
prescription medications and, moreover, will help drive down the costs
of health care in the United States.
Mr. Chairman, I also want to mention, in this time when we are all
very concerned with the number of uninsureds around the country, with
the increasing inflation in the health care delivery system, with small
businesses and large businesses experiencing incredibly difficult
increases in their costs, this is a measure that has been endorsed by
many large and small employer groups, namely, the AARP, the AFL-CIO,
Caterpillar Tractor Company, Eastman Kodak, Kaiser Permanente, Verizon
Communications, General Motors, United Health Care, the Coalition For
Health Services Research. I could go on and on. But the bottom line is
anything that we can do effectively to lower the costs of delivering
health care in this country is something that the Congress should do.
I urge adoption of this amendment.
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Listening to my two colleagues, I appreciate this amendment they have
put forward. Obviously, with the medical technology that we have today
and with the medicines that are out there, I sometimes sit when I am
watching the TV shows and I am watching them advertise all of these
particular drugs, I hope everybody also listens to see what the side
effects are going to be. They better listen carefully, because some of
these side effects are very serious.
There are many drugs on the market that are over 10 to 15 years old
that work just as well. People have to realize that. Unfortunately,
even our doctors now, they are given information, thinking, wow, if
this can help my patient. Let us hope that is what they are thinking.
But we have to reevaluate this whole thing. It used to be you went to
your doctor, the doctor knew which particular drug would work for you
for whatever ailment you had, and you took it. Now we see TV, the
doctors tell me, they want this drug, they want this drug, they want
this drug.

[[Page H6839]]

Aspirin still works very, very well. Ibuprofen when I was working,
gosh, a long time ago, that was a prescription drug. It is now over the
counter. But there are still many prescription drugs that work just as
well. Obviously, sometimes they are not going to work for the patient.
That is when we should try a new drug. The research and development and
the research that is needed to see what these actual new drugs do, I
think, is extremely important.
With that being said, also, September 13, the assault weapons bill is
going to expire. The reason I bring it up towards the health care
section is mainly because how much health care money is expended on,
unfortunately, these horrific wounds that we see. We also know with a
lot of these types of assault weapons, there are head injuries. People
do not realize when you have a head injury, a lot of times these
patients have to be on an awful lot of different drugs that might even
put the patient to the point of where they think they might be
schizophrenic. It does fit and tie in with these bills.
The important thing is the assault weapons bill costs absolutely no
money. We can renew it. It does not cost anybody anything except saving
lives, saving health care costs; and I hope that the President of the
United States will ask the Speaker of the House to allow this bill to
come up on the floor for a vote.

{time} 1500

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Maine?
There was no objection.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I appreciate the fact that the gentleman is withdrawing the
amendment. I think it has been a good discussion about what is a
continuing problem. We have recognized it to some extent by putting 12
million plus or minus in AHRQ to do this very thing, and it is
something we should keep in mind in the future. But the problem here is
there is no offset for the $50 million. I think the intention is good,
but this has been a tough bill to make all the dollars fit.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Maine.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his comments.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Udall of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Udall of New Mexico:
At the end of title II, insert after the last section
(preceding the short title) the following section:
Sec. _. Of the amount made available in this title for the
account ``Office of the Secretary--General Departmental
Management'', $23,000,000 is transferred and made available
as an additional amount under the account ``Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention--Disease Control, Research,
and Training''.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an
amendment to increase funding in the fiscal year 2005 Labor-HHS
appropriations bill before us for the CDC's Preventative Health Care
Block Grant. This important grant is one of the few grants that allows
States the flexibility to address their own unique health care
challenges in exciting and innovative ways.
Unfortunately, H.R. 5006 cuts the amount of funding for the
Preventative Block Grant by $23 million from the fiscal 2004 amount of
$133 million to $110 million for fiscal year 2005. The funding provided
in the legislation is also $23 million below the administration's
request for fiscal year 2005.
My amendment would restore the funding to last year's level. It would
offset the increase in the Preventative Health Care Block Grant by
reducing the level of the Department of Health and Human Services
departmental management by the same amount.
Mr. Chairman, this block grant has allowed State health departments
to address a wide variety of public health issues, including
cardiovascular disease, diabetes, physical activity, suicide
prevention, just to name a few. States have documented that investment
of block grant dollars has resulted in improved health care outcomes
and in some significant cost savings.
I strongly believe that the Preventative Health Care Block Grant is
exactly the type of program we should be supporting. The national
investment in prevention is currently estimated to be less than 5
percent of the annual health care costs despite strong evidence that
prevention can be cost effective and helps people enhance the quality
of their lives.
In addition, this block grant is excellent public policy because it
provides States with great flexibility in addressing the public health
care needs their populations face.
Mr. Chairman, I am a strong supporter of health care promotion
programs that have the potential to improve health, improve the quality
of life, reduce health care costs, and boost productivity. I believe it
is time for America to increase its investment in health care
prevention strategies. It is a fact that adaptable lifestyle factors,
such as smoking, sedentary lifestyle, poor nutrition, unmanaged stress,
and obesity, account for approximately half the premature deaths in the
United States. Moreover, spending on chronic diseases related to
lifestyle and other preventable diseases accounts for an estimated 70
percent of total health care spending. With the pending retirement of
the baby boom generation, the financial burden of these preventable
diseases will further threaten the solvency of the Medicare program.
It is my hope that with a greater focus on prevention, we will be
able to greatly reduce the number of individuals who suffer from all
types of ailments, including diabetes, cancer, heart disease, and
strokes just to name a few areas where preventative health care can
make the difference. The CDC's Preventative Health Care Block Grant
goes a long way towards achieving this goal.
One of the other key components of the block grant is that it is the
primary source of flexible funding that provides States the latitude to
fund any of 265 national health care objectives available in the
Nation's Healthy People 2010 Health Improvement Plan.
Mr. Chairman, I know the chairman and ranking member of the Labor,
Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies Subcommittee
did the best they possibly could in stretching the dollar as far as
they could in this bill, and for that I applaud them. However, a cut of
this magnitude, nearly 18 percent, will force State and local health
departments to eliminate or severely reduce some very important public
health activities.
I look forward to working with the chairman and ranking member to
restore funding to this account in some way.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New Mexico?
There was no objection.
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
I thank my colleague for bringing up this very important issue,
preventative medicine and the research that needs to go into it. Any of
us that have ever been in the health care field know preventative care
and having the best techniques is the best thing that we can all offer
anyone. There are so many things that we can do today to prevent,
unfortunately, diseases that certainly could cost us as people and
human beings in quality of life and, of course, the health care system
millions and billions of dollars every single year.
With that being said, preventative care is what we should be looking
at--how are we going to stop gun violence in this country. The first
step that we can take is making sure the assault weapons ban is renewed
by September 13. That alone will save so much money every single year.
Our police officers, our children, and even those that live in the
poorest communities where some of these health care communities are
being closed down because of a lack of funds, people do not realize on
the mental end the stress of living in these communities, what it
costs.
I am hoping that we in time will have enough money to run the
programs that we need; but to be honest, we can save money by cutting
down on gun violence. We can save emotional stress

[[Page H6840]]

by cutting down on gun violence. We certainly can protect our police
officers in this country by making sure the assault weapons ban comes
up for a vote, passes here in the House. It has already been passed in
the Senate, and the President said he would sign the bill if it gets on
his desk.

Amendment Offered by Ms. Bordallo

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

Amendment offered by Ms. Bordallo:
At the end of title II (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. For ``Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services--
Grants to States for Medicaid'' $8,000,000 to be used for an
increase in the amount available under section 1108 of the
Social Security Act for fiscal year 2005 of $2,500,000 for
Guam, $2,500,000 for the Virgin Islands, $2,000,000 for
American Samoa, and $1,000,000 for the Northern Mariana
Islands, and the amount otherwise provided by this title for
``John E. Fogarty International Center'' is hereby reduced by
$8,000,000.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully request that the House
adopt the Bordallo-Christensen-Faleomavaega amendment to the fiscal
year 2005 Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services
appropriations bill.
For years, Mr. Chairman, citizens of the United States territories
have experienced numerous disparities with respect to health care
access and quality. While many of the reasons for such disparities must
be resolved at the local level, there are several Federal programs
whose administration in the territories contribute to these observed
disparities. The most notable and glaring deficiency are Medicaid
funding ceilings to the U.S. territories as mandated by section 1108 of
the Social Security Act.
In Guam, Medicaid and the SCHIP combined cover only about 25 percent
of all estimated costs eligible for Medicaid-matching grants. Similar
Federal funding shortages have been experienced in all U.S. territories
as a result of section 1108 funding caps. U.S. territories were hit
particularly hard by the previous recession where unemployment caused
territorial governments to cover the spiraling uninsured health care
costs despite shrinking revenues.
The amendment would provide a temporary boost in Medicaid funding to
Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of
the Northern Mariana Islands in order to assist those governments in
meeting critical shortages in public health funding. This amendment is
offset by reducing by 8 million funding for the John E. Fogarty
International Center.
Mr. Chairman, while I support the mission of the John E. Fogarty
International Center, I feel that it is important to concentrate on
providing adequate health care to citizens in the U.S. territories
before investing further in international health care research. Funding
for the John E. Fogarty International Center would be reduced to just
under fiscal year 2003 levels, at which time the center had experienced
consecutive years of double-digit percentage funding increases.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment has bipartisan support based on the
hearing that we had chaired by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentlewoman's amendment that
we have sponsored together with the gentlewoman from the Virgin
Islands.
Mr. Chairman, in fiscal year 2003 American Samoa's Medicaid program
cost $12.2 million. If American Samoa were treated like a State, the
Federal Government would have been responsible for $6.1 million or half
the cost; but the American Samoa government would have been responsible
for the other half also, about $6.1 million. As it is, a Federal
ceiling is in place, unfortunately. So for fiscal year 2003, the
Federal ceiling for American Samoa was $3.7 million. The Federal
Government only paid out $3.7 million, and we had to meet the rest of
the obligation of the total cost of $12.2 million.
The bottom line, Mr. Chairman, is there is definitely a need for this
additional appropriations for our Medicaid needs, and I ask my
colleagues to please support this proposed amendment.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to join my colleagues
Madeleine Bordallo and Eni Faleomavaega in strong support of our
amendment to provide some additional relief to our constituents in the
form of additional health care dollars. It remains a national shame in
my view, that because of where they live, my low-income and indigent
constituents, as well as those of my colleagues, are not able to
receive the same level of Medicaid assistance because of a punitive
cap.
My colleagues, while the national per capita expenditure for Medicaid
is $3862, the expenditure for the Virgin Islands is only $436. The
total cost of Medicaid in the Virgin Islands is about $15 million per
year but the Federal government only covers about $6 million of that
amount. According to the Virgin Islands Medicaid Director, the 18,000
Medicaid recipients she serves receive an absolute ``bare bones''
service.
Mr. Chairman, a report 3 years ago entitled the Access Improvement
Project of the Virgin Islands, revealed that great disparities exist
for eligible children in the Virgin Islands compared to the continental
United States. The report shows that while the Nation as a whole spends
an average of $76 for EPSDT screening per Medicaid eligible child, the
U.S. Virgin Islands only spent $1.20. Additionally, the total Medicaid
expenditures per child also shows an astonishing disparity.
In the age group 15 to 20, national Medicaid expenditures were
approximately 599 percent more than what is being spent in the Virgin
Islands. We also received a 50 percent match, despite a State like
Mississippi where the average income is $1,500 higher than ours. They
receive 80 percent match. And the Virgin Islands Medicaid program
cannot provide wheelchairs, hearing aids or prosthetic devices, and
only provides physical and occupational therapy to a limited degree
because of the limited funding.
Mr. Chairman, this modest amendment which we are offering today,
would provide a one time 25 percent increase in Medicaid payments to
the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa so that our most
vulnerable constituents could receive better health care services which
they otherwise would have to do without because of our already
overburdened local governments.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Point of Order

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
amendment because it provides an appropriation for an unauthorized
program and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The pertinent part
of clause 2 of rule XXI is as follows: An appropriation may not be in
order as an amendment for an expenditure not previously authorized by
law.
Mr. Chairman, the authorization for this program has not been signed
into law, and therefore it violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr.
Faleomavaega) wish to be heard on the point of order?
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I kindly respect the decision the
Chairman has made concerning his opinion that has been expressed
concerning the proposed amendment. We realize there is no
authorization. But I thought that this was part of the appropriations
process, that we have made in the past precedents where appropriations
have been made without any authorization. But again I have to respect
my good chairman's decision on this and sincerely hope that maybe down
the line we will be able to work something out to give due assistance
to the insular areas on this very important issue.

{time} 1515

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule. The proponent of an item
of appropriation carries a burden of persuasion on the question whether
it is supported by an authorization in law.
Having reviewed the amendment, the underlying law, and entertained
argument on the point of order, the Chair is unable to conclude that
the item of appropriation in question is authorized in law. The
amendment proposes appropriations above the levels currently authorized
in law.
The Chair is therefore constrained to sustain the point of order
under clause 2(a) of rule XXI.
Are there further amendments to this paragraph of the bill?
If not, the Clerk will read.

[[Page H6841]]

The Clerk read as follows:

This title may be cited as the ``Department of Health and
Human Services Appropriations Act, 2005''.

TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Education for the Disadvantaged

For carrying out title I of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (``ESEA'') and section 418A of the
Higher Education Act of 1965, $15,535,735,000, of which
$7,849,390,000 shall become available on July 1, 2005, and
shall remain available through September 30, 2006, and of
which $7,383,301,000 shall become available on October 1,
2005, and shall remain available through September 30, 2006,
for academic year 2005-2006: Provided, That $7,037,592,000
shall be available for basic grants under section 1124:
Provided further, That up to $3,500,000 of these funds shall
be available to the Secretary of Education on October 1,
2004, to obtain annually updated educational-agency-level
census poverty data from the Bureau of the Census: Provided
further, That $1,365,031,000 shall be available for
concentration grants under section 1124A: Provided further,
That $2,469,843,000 shall be available for targeted grants
under section 1125: Provided further, That $2,469,843,000
shall be available for education finance incentive grants
under section 1125A: Provided further, That $80,000,000 shall
be available for comprehensive school reform grants under
part F of the ESEA.

Impact Aid

For carrying out programs of financial assistance to
federally affected schools authorized by title VIII of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965,
$1,250,893,000, of which $1,083,687,000 shall be for basic
support payments under section 8003(b), $50,369,000 shall be
for payments for children with disabilities under section
8003(d), $45,936,000 shall be for construction under section
8007 and shall remain available through September 30, 2006,
$63,000,000 shall be for Federal property payments under
section 8002, and $7,901,000, to remain available until
expended, shall be for facilities maintenance under section
8008: Provided, That for purposes of computing the amount of
a payment for an eligible local educational agency under
section 8003(a) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(20 U.S.C. 7703(a)) for school year 2004-2005, children
enrolled in a school of such agency that would otherwise be
eligible for payment under section 8003(a)(1)(B) of such Act,
but due to the deployment of both parents or legal guardians,
or a parent or legal guardian having sole custody of such
children, or due to the death of a military parent or legal
guardian while on active duty (so long as such children
reside on Federal property as described in section
8003(a)(1)(B)), are no longer eligible under such section,
shall be considered as eligible students under such section,
provided such students remain in average daily attendance at
a school in the same local educational agency they attended
prior to their change in eligibility status.

School Improvement Programs

For carrying out school improvement activities authorized
by titles II, part B of title IV, subpart 6 of part D of
title V, parts A and B of title VI, and parts B and C of
title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 (``ESEA''); the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act;
section 203 of the Educational Technical Assistance Act of
2002; the Civil Rights Act of 1964; and section
105(f)(1)(B)(iii) of the Compact of Free Association
Amendments Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-188), $5,641,401,000,
of which $4,031,016,000 shall become available on July 1,
2005, and remain available through September 30, 2006, and of
which $1,435,000,000 shall become available on October 1,
2005, and shall remain available through September 30, 2006,
for academic year 2005-2006: Provided, That $410,000,000
shall be for subpart 1 of part A of title VI of the ESEA:
Provided further, That $68,394,000 shall be available to
carry out part D of title V of the ESEA and section 203 of
the Educational Technical Assistance Act of 2002: Provided
further, That $12,230,000 shall be available to carry out the
Supplemental Education Grants program for the Federated
States of Micronesia, and $6,100,000 shall be available to
carry out the Supplemental Education Grants program for the
Republic of the Marshall Islands: Provided further, That up
to five percent of these amounts may be reserved by the
Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of the
Marshall Islands to administer the Supplemental Education
Grants programs and to obtain technical assistance, oversight
and consultancy services in the administration of these
grants and to reimburse the U.S. Departments of Labor, Health
and Human Services, and Education for such services: Provided
further, That the amount made available in the Department of
Education Appropriations Act, 2004, under the heading School
Improvement Programs and including any funds transferred by
the Secretary of Education pursuant to section 304 of that
Act for state assessment grants authorized under section 6111
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, shall
not be less than $390,000,000: Provided further, That,
notwithstanding any other provision of law, including any
across-the-board reduction that would otherwise apply, the
funds made available for fiscal year 2005 under the heading
School Improvement Programs for state assessment grants under
section 6111 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 shall not be less than $400,000,000.

Amendment Offered by Mrs. Maloney

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

Amendment offered by Mrs. Maloney:
In the item relating to ``School Improvement Programs'',
insert before the period at the end the following:

: Provided, That, of the funds made available under this
heading, $3,000,000 is for carrying out subpart 21 of part D
of title V of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 (commonly referred to as the Women's Educational Equity
Act of 2001; 20 U.S.C. 7283 et seq.)

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) reserves a point
of order against the amendment.
The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, we are calling this the Patsy Mink
amendment, as the first legislation was written and passed by our
distinguished colleague and friend that founded the Women's Educational
Equity Act. This would restore the $3 million for this program that was
taken out in the mark before us, and this has no offset because the
money would come out of the school improvement program that has well
over $50 million in it.
This is certainly needed. Some people on the other side of the aisle
have said that we no longer need the Women's Educational Equity Act,
but the figures that came out last week from the Census Bureau showed
that the pay gap widened between men and women in 2003, and that
women's pay slumped for the first time since 1999, falling to 75.5
cents to the male dollar.
I will include for the Record the census report that shows the gap
between men and women growing, and specifically the fact that women's
pay has slumped for the first time since 1999.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank very much Patsy Mink
for her hard work and leadership in authoring WEEA. It has made a
difference in the lives of millions of girls and women for 30 years by
training teachers to treat boys and girls fairly in the classroom,
teaching about reducing sexual harassment, and encouraging girls to
study math and science among many other things. WEEA ensures that girls
and women will succeed in school, plain and simple.
Unfortunately, in this tight budget year, WEEA was zeroed out in this
bill. Mr. Chairman, I can assure you that cutting the $3 million to
girls' education is totally unfair and will not help in any way to
balance the budget.
Women have made great strides over the past 30 years, but these
strides have not happened by themselves. It is programs like WEEA that
provide the training, the materials and the support for our young girls
in the educational system, but we still have a tremendous long way to
go before we reach a point when WEEA will no longer be needed.
In 2003, male students scored higher on average than female students
in mathematics. Girls represent only 17 percent of the computer science
AP test takers. Women are roughly 20 percent of IT professionals. Women
receive less than 28 percent of the computer science bachelor's
degrees, down from a high of 37 percent in 1984. Women make up just 9
percent of engineering-related bachelor degrees. These statistics are
unacceptable, but would be worse without WEEA.
As the educational needs of our society change and grow, as math and
technology continue to become prominent skills of our everyday lives,
gender equity in our education system is more important than ever.
Girls must catch up with boys when it comes to math and technology, and
WEEA can help.
This amendment, the Patsy Mink Women's Educational Equity Act, will
support our daughters, our sisters, our friends. Vote yes on the
Maloney-Woolsey-Sanchez amendment.
I also would like to cite a report that came out recently, the
Dingell-Maloney report, that showed that there was a consistent gap
between the earnings between men and women for the past 20 years, a
consistent 40 percent gap. After making up for time for pregnancy or
taking care of sick parents, there is still a 20 percent unexplained
gap between men and women's pay. This translates into pensions.

[[Page H6842]]

I would consider a vote against this amendment a vote against women,
a vote against equity and opportunity for women in the workforce. It
begins in the classroom. This program is as needed today as when Patsy
Mink first wrote it. So I call upon my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle to vote for their daughters, their sisters and their friends, and
to support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I will place in the Record the Dingell-Maloney report
that shows the persistent 20 percent gap, which can only be explained
as discrimination.
I want to thank very much my colleague, the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey) for her excellent leadership and help on this
issue through many Congresses, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey) for his fine help.

GAO Pay Gap Report Highlights

(Briefing by Reps. Maloney & Dingell)

The General Accounting Office (GAO) examined 18 years of
data on over 9,300 Americans for an earnings study
commissioned by Representatives Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) and
John Dingell (D-MI). The new study is a follow-up to the more
narrowly-focused 2002 GAO report on the earnings gap between
female and male managers.
Results of the GAO study show: The pay gap is real. Women
working full-time today are paid an average of 80 cents for
every dollar that men are paid, even when accounting for
demographic and work-related factors such as occupation,
industry, race, marital status and job tenure. This 20
percent earnings gap cannot be explained due to differences
in work patterns or histories.
Differing work patterns lead to an even larger earnings gap
between men and women--suggesting that working women are
penalized for their dual role as wage earners and those who
disproportionately care for home and family obligations. The
GAO study confirms that women in the workforce are less
likely to work a full-time schedule and are more likely to
leave the labor force for longer periods of time than men,
suppressing women's earnings even further. And, men with
children are paid about 2 percent more than men without
children, whereas women with children are paid about 2.5
percent less than women without children.
The pay gap has persisted for past two decades. The GAO
study confirms that the earnings gap between women and men
has been consistent from 1983-2000, despite a sense of
continued progress toward gender equality in the workplace.
The GAO also reviewed other studies and interviewed
employers and earnings experts to round out their analysis,
leading to troubling questions about the persistent pay gap:
Why do workplaces still maintain the same policies, practices
and structures that existed when most of their workers did
not have obligations to care for children and family life?
Why do industries and professions dominated by women pay
disproportionately less than male-dominated industries? How
much does the pay gap between men and women cost families?
In response to the GAO findings, Representatives Maloney
and Dingell seek to establish a new Center for the Study of
Women and Workplace Policy at a public university that would
serve as a nationwide resource for employers, women and
families. The Center would follow up on the GAO study,
collaborate with businesses and women's organizations on
solutions to the earnings gap, and publish yearly guides on
best practices for employers and family friendly workplaces
for women.

[From the Feminist Daily News Wire, Sept. 2, 2004]

Wage Gap Increases Between Women and Men, US Census Reports

Figures released by the US Census Bureau last week show
that the pay gap between women and men widened in 2003.
Women's pay slumped for the first time since 1999, with women
earning only 75.5 cents to every dollar men earn. The Census
Bureau stated that this marks the first ``statistically
significant'' decline in women's pay since 1995,
AccountingWEB.com reports, with real median earnings of women
over the age of 15 fell 0.6 percent to $30,724. The Institute
for Women's Policy Research has stated that the 1.4 percent
decrease in the gender wage ratio is the largest backslide
since 1991.
Though over forty years have passed since the Equal Pay Act
was signed in 1963, at which point women earned 59 cents to
the dollar men earned, progress to attain its goals has been
slow. With more families becoming dependent on women as
breadwinners, and with approximately half of women entering
retirement alone, the wage gap is a crucial issue that
affects the health and well-being of women and their
families. The poverty rate for women and girls increased to
13.7 percent from 13.3 percent in 2002, increasing for the
third straight year, reports Women's eNews. In addition, the
uninsured rate rose more sharply for women at four percent,
with the rate for men only rising one percent.
The Asheville Citizen-Times reports that the typical prime-
age working woman earned $273,592 over the 15 year period
between 1983 and 1998, compared with $722,693 for the typical
prime-age working man. In addition to the wage gap, this
discrepancy occurs because women work more part-time jobs and
take more time out of the workforce to raise children.
However, the Asheville Citizen-Times reports that in October
2003 the General Accounting Office released a report titled
``Women's Earnings'' that examined 18 years of data. The
report found a 20 percent earnings gap between men and women
that could not be explained, even after accounting for
factors such as occupation, industry, marital status, and job
tenure.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment, because we
need to continue to give women the boost they must have yet to succeed
in this global economy that we are living in.
Our late colleague, Patsy Mink, authored the Women's Educational
Equity Act, which we call WEEA. WEEA and other equity provisions have
been doing a very, very good job. But, do you know what? That good job
has made this program vulnerable, because it appears that their success
could be an excuse to eliminate this good program.
It is hard to believe that the Members of this Congress think that
gender equity provisions can be eliminated today because more women are
enrolled in college, are graduating from college, or because boys, of
all things, have reading scores that are not as good as girls. That is
a very shortsighted view.
Women are still underrepresented in math and science and in
engineering-related fields, fields that actually pay higher salaries
and oftentimes require overseas hiring to fill the positions.
Many girls and women shy away from any sort of science or technology
activity, despite the importance of these areas in modern society. We
need to fix that, because research has shown that interest in math and
science begins to wane in early adolescence.
We want to make sure that girls keep all their options open. They do
not have to be scientists, they do not have to be mathematicians, they
do not have to be engineers, but when they are ready to go to college,
they have to have the option, just like the guys do.
The National Bureau of Economic Research reports that students who do
well in math outearn their nonmathematical counterparts even if they do
not go on to college. Within 6 years of graduating high school in 1980,
young men with strong basic math skills were earning 53 cents more per
hour than those with average math skills. The difference between women
with stronger math skills and men with average math skills was even
more significant, with women earning 74 cents more per hour.
It is clear that increased comprehension in math and science benefits
women. The Women's Educational Equity Act program is critical to
helping promote equal education opportunities for girls and women by
providing funds and assistance to educational agencies. That is why our
amendment would protect this successful program by leveling out funding
for WEEA at $3 million. We would be taking funds from the Fund for the
Improvement of Education, or FIE. These funds fund individual Member
projects. I can tell you that every single Member in this body will
better serve their constituents if they are serving the women in their
school districts.
If our schools do not continue to receive this support, females and
minorities will continue to dominate the low-wage jobs, while America's
high-wage, high-tech jobs go to foreign undergraduates and foreign
graduates. Women will continue to have fewer economic opportunities
than men and less access to the careers that will support them and
their families. Without these opportunities, this country will be
deprived of the highly-educated, highly-skilled workforce we need in
the United States to compete in the global economy.
Gender equity in education is not a women's thing. All Americans, men
and women alike, have a stake in making sure that all students gain the
skill and self-confidence they need in elementary and secondary school
to become productive, self-supporting adults.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support our amendment, to
protect this important program from becoming yet another unnecessary
casualty of a very shortsighted budget.

[[Page H6843]]

The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Ohio continue to reserve his
point of order?
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
I rise in support of the Maloney-Woolsey-Sanchez amendment. This
amendment would provide funds for the Patsy Mink Women's Educational
Equity Act program. This is an important program promoted and named
after our dearly missed colleague Patsy Mink, who I served with on the
Committee on Education and the Workforce.
It is designed to promote gender equality in providing counseling and
guidance, physical education and the development of the classroom
materials.
A lot of people in Title IX kind of made fun of us women, and yet
when you look at the women in the Olympics, these programs work. So we
have to make sure that we keep them going.
I understand that I am lucky. I work in Congress. With that being
said, I get equal pay. But an awful lot of my colleagues that are my
friends that are working on the outside world doing the hard work right
next to their male colleagues, they do not get the same pay. So women
are disadvantaged in many parts of our society, and equal education
offers them the opportunity to grow.
Our women also are living, unfortunately, sometimes in a violent
society, especially those in the low-income areas. Think about all the
women that right now possibly will be losing their husbands either from
the war in Iraq or even from September 11, where we need to and we
still continue the trend of educating them so they can educate
themselves and have a job. But the majority of firearm homicides are
the result of intimate partner violence.
With that being said, on September 13 the assault weapons bill will
expire in this country. We know it has saved lives. We know that
basically it has certainly put women at less risk, especially those
that are in low-income areas and their children.
I do not understand why we cannot bring up the bill for a vote. I do
not understand why. The President of the United States has said that he
would sign the bill if it got onto his desk.

{time} 1530

Well, we are the ones here who are holding it up. He is going to sign
the bill. That is a good sign. So I think that we should move forward
between today and Monday afternoon and be able to get this vote done so
we can continue something that works. A program like this works. We
have seen equal education getting better and better. Why are we even
looking at a program to either cut it back or to see it expire when a
program works?
Police chiefs from all over the country were here today. The rank-
and-file were here today. Unfortunately, victims were here today too. I
mentioned them many times today. We can cut down on health care costs;
we can cut down on those who are in rehab hospitals, some who never
leave. We can cut down on the amount of people who are unfortunately
injured because of large-capacity clips and assault weapons. The bottom
line is, why did we have an assault weapons ban in the beginning?
Because too many of our police officers were being mowed down. We are
putting that risk right back on the streets again. We are putting that
risk to our police officers today, when things are actually even worse
than they were 10 years ago.
This is when we should be renewing this ban. This is when we should
be making sure our police officers who are protecting us because
terrorists are in this country. This is what we should be doing. The
American people care about this issue. They count on us, we in
Congress, our leaders, our President, to take a lead on this. And we
are letting them down, unless somebody has a change of heart. Do not
think this is going to go away, because it is not. It will not,
unfortunately, because one day we will be standing here and people will
be saying, why did we not do something about it, and that is going to
be, unfortunately, when we have a tragedy in our school or our police
officers are mowed down, and people say, why did you not do something.
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in
strong support of the Maloney/Woolsey/Sanchez amendment to restore
Women's Educational Equity Act, or WEEA, funding in the Labor HHS bill.
I am standing here again, as I did in 1999 with my late colleague
Patsy Mink, to urge Congress to provide $3 million in funding for this
vitally important program.
WEEA was established in 1974 to promote educational equity for girls
and women, including those who suffer multiple discrimination based on
gender, race, ethnicity, national origin, disability, or age. The
program was also established to urge compliance with Title IX which
prohibits sex discrimination in federally funded education programs and
activities.
In the last 29 years, WEEA has funded more than 700 projects
throughout the United States. And, unlike a number of programs this
Congress has funded, the results speak for themselves.
Girls and women in this country are doing better. For the first time,
women's educational achievement equals or surpasses that of men. Women
are also more likely to graduate, more likely to engage in school
activities, and less likely to engage in high risk activities.
However, as women advance through their educational careers, they
become increasingly less likely to enroll in advanced placement
courses, especially those in math and sciences.
According to 2000 figures, only 18 percent of engineering degrees are
awarded to women, and only 10.6 percent of employed engineers are
female. As a representative from Orange County--one of the largest
aerospace and defense industrial bases in the country--I know this is a
problem. Time and time again, my aerospace and defense contractors tell
me that they simply can't find enough people to hire, especially enough
women, and that they are having to turn to foreign students to meeting
hiring needs.
It doesn't have to be this way. Programs such as WEEA will help fill
those programs with our women.
And because of the lack of role models in these fields, classroom
textbooks and other educational materials do not sufficiently reflect
the experiences, achievements, or concerns of women and, in most cases,
are not written by women.
Studies show that women teachers, especially in the K-8 grades, often
feel uncomfortable or underqualified to teach math and science. Studies
also show that many of our young women perceive math and science as
``unfeminine.'' Why is this? Is there something hidden in the
curriculum? Is it in the way that we teach? What makes women believe
they are best suited for other fields? WEEA programs are searching to
find the answers to these questions.
Three million dollars is a small amount of money to expend on a
program with tremendous payoffs. Support WEEA. Vote for the Maloney/
Woolsey/Sanchez amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I will not take the full 5 minutes. There was an
amendment brought to the floor just a few minutes ago by the
gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo), the gentlewoman from the Virgin
Islands (Mrs. Christensen), and the gentleman from Guam (Mr.
Faleomavaega) regarding Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa,
and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands; and it was
regarding section 1108 of the Social Security Act, which places a
funding ceiling on all Medicaid funding to U.S. territories.
In Guam, Medicaid and CHIP combined cover only about 25 percent of
all estimated costs eligible for Medicaid matching grants.
The reason I came to the floor is because we had a hearing on this
not long ago and the hearing was as a result of my going to Guam and
Saipan and the Marianas to talk to them about health care problems. My
Subcommittee on Wellness and Human Rights was looking into the problems
they are facing over there regarding health care. They have an absolute
epidemic of type 2 diabetes. They do not have enough equipment over
there to take care of the population. People are literally dying
because they cannot be taken care of as far as their dialysis is
concerned. They are running those machines 24 hours a day, Mr.
Chairman. Mr. Chairman, they are running those dialysis machines in the
Northern Marianas and Guam and Saipan 24 hours a day. The people cannot
get health care.
The Speaker of the House of Representatives in Guam had heart
trouble. They had to fly him all the way

[[Page H6844]]

from Guam to Honolulu to get health care. Otherwise, he would have
died. That is the Speaker of the House over there.
I know that there was a point of order raised against this, and I
understand that we cannot legislate on an appropriations bill. But I
would just like to say to the chairman, this is not a political thing.
This is not a Democrat or Republican thing. The people of that area of
the world, American citizens are dying because they cannot get adequate
health care, and the economy has been hit very hard over there in that
region of the world, and they cannot reach the matching grant
requirement which is much lower than in the 48 States that we have
right here.
So I would just like to say to my good friend, the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Regula), and the Committee on Appropriations and all of the
members of the Committee on Appropriations, something has to be done
about the problem in Guam, Saipan, and the Northern Marianas and
American Samoa, because those people over there simply are not getting
health care. It is not a question of quality of health care; they are
not getting health care. They do not have enough dialysis machines,
they do not have enough equipment to take care of people with heart
trouble and, as I said before, they are having to go all the way to
Hawaii, 4, 5, 6, 7 hours on a plane to have their lives saved.
So I just wanted to bring this to the attention of my colleagues on
the Committee on Appropriations, and I will bring it to the attention
of the authorizing committee as well; I know it is important to do
that. But I am sorry I was not on the floor to discuss this when it
came up. I know it would not have done any good, because it is subject
to a point of order. But this is something that they are suffering from
over there.

Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will
now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were
postponed in the following order: amendment No. 4 offered by Ms.
Jackson-Lee of Texas; an amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas;
and an amendment offered by Mr. Sanders of Vermont.
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on amendment No. 4 offered by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-
Lee) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 15-minute vote followed by two 5-minute
votes.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 112,
noes 305, not voting 16, as follows:

[Roll No. 425]

AYES--112

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baldwin
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capuano
Carson (IN)
Case
Clay
Conyers
Cooper
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Deutsch
Dingell
Doggett
Evans
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gephardt
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holt
Honda
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Rangel
Rodriguez
Rothman
Ruppersberger
Rush
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Serrano
Sherman
Slaughter
Stark
Tanner
Thompson (MS)
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOES--305

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Baca
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (OK)
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clyburn
Coble
Cole
Collins
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Farr
Feeney
Ferguson
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Hill
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCollum
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pascrell
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Saxton
Schakowsky
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Upton
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--16

Ballenger
Cannon
Dicks
Dooley (CA)
Dunn
Engel
Flake
Grijalva
Jones (OH)
Mollohan
Nethercutt
Ryan (OH)
Schrock
Smith (WA)
Tauzin
Young (AK)

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Walden of Oregon) (during the vote).
Members are advised there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

{time} 1606

Messrs. FRELINGHUYSEN, SHIMKUS, BISHOP of Georgia, HOYER, CARSON of
Oklahoma, CLYBURN, THORNBERRY, LAMPSON, TIBERI, BUYER, ETHERIDGE,
SPRATT, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY,
Messrs. MILLER of North Carolina, BACA, STRICKLAND, GONZALEZ, KUCINICH,
GEORGE MILLER of California, OBERSTAR, OLVER, LANGEVIN and REYES
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. LYNCH changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

[[Page H6845]]

Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Walden of Oregon). The pending business
is the demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) on which further proceedings
were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The Clerk designated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 156,
noes 261, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 15, as follows:

[Roll No. 426]

AYES--156

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Case
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dingell
Doggett
Emanuel
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kleczka
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Rothman
Ruppersberger
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Tanner
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Wilson (NM)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOES--261

Aderholt
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carson (OK)
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Eshoo
Evans
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Hill
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaHood
Lampson
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Marshall
Matheson
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moore
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Souder
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (FL)

ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

Lipinski

NOT VOTING--15

Akin
Ballenger
Cannon
Dicks
Dooley (CA)
Dunn
Engel
Flake
Grijalva
Mollohan
Nethercutt
Ryan (OH)
Schrock
Tauzin
Young (AK)

Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

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

{time} 1615

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

Amendment Offered by Mr. Sanders

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

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 305,
noes 114, not voting 14, as follows:

[Roll No. 427]

AYES--305

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Bartlett (MD)
Bass
Beauprez
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Butterfield
Camp
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Clyburn
Coble
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crane
Crowley
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Foley
Ford
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gephardt
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Gordon
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hayworth
Herseth
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kirk
Kleczka
Kline
Kucinich
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George

[[Page H6846]]

Moore
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Ney
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Platts
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiahrt
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walsh
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Wilson (NM)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOES--114

Aderholt
Akin
Barrett (SC)
Barton (TX)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Cantor
Carter
Case
Cole
Collins
Cox
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Everett
Feeney
Forbes
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Greenwood
Harris
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Keller
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Lewis (CA)
Linder
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (VA)
Musgrave
Myrick
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Pitts
Pombo
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Regula
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Royce
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--14

Ballenger
Bilirakis
Cannon
Dicks
Dooley (CA)
Engel
Flake
Grijalva
Mollohan
Nethercutt
Ryan (OH)
Schrock
Tauzin
Young (AK)

Announcement by the Chairman

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

{time} 1624

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

personal explanation

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, on September 7th and 8th, 2004, I was
delayed in returning from my district due to official business and I
missed rollcall vote Nos. 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427.
If I had been here I would have voted in favor of rollcall vote No.
422, to name the Harvey and Bernice Jones Post Office Building, and
rollcall vote No. 423 to name the General William Carey Lee Post Office
Building.
I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 424, the Previous
Question regarding the Rule for the Labor Health and Human Services and
Education Appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2005.
I would have voted in favor of rollcall vote No. 425, Ms. Jackson-
Lee's amendment to increase funding in the CDC and NIH for Lupus. I
would have voted in favor of rollcall vote No. 426, Ms. Jackson-Lee's
amendment to increase funding in the CDC for Hepatitis C.
I would have voted in favor of rollcall vote No. 427, Mr. Sander's
amendment to increase funding for the low-income home energy assistance
program and the weatherization assistance program by $22,000,000.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder
of the bill through page 95, line 21, be considered as read, printed in
the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Ohio?
There was no objection.
The text of the remainder of the bill through page 95, line 21, is as
follows:

Indian Education

For expenses necessary to carry out, to the extent not
otherwise provided, title VII, part A of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965, $120,856,000.

Innovation and Improvement

For carrying out activities authorized by part G of title
I, subpart 5 of part A and parts C and D of title II, parts
B, C, and D of title V, and section 1504 of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (``ESEA''), $669,936,000:
Provided, That $18,391,000 shall be available to carry out
section 2151(c) of the ESEA, of which not less than
$10,000,000 shall be provided to the National Board for
Professional Teaching Standards, not less than $7,000,000
shall be provided to the American Board for the Certification
of Teacher Excellence, and up to $1,391,000 may be reserved
by the Secretary to conduct an evaluation of activities
authorized by such section: Provided further, That
$50,000,000 shall be for subpart 2 of part B of title V:
Provided further, That $100,000,000 shall be available to
carry out part D of title V of the ESEA.

Safe Schools and Citizenship Education

For carrying out activities authorized by subpart 3 of part
C of title II, part A of title IV, and subparts 2, 3 and 10
of part D of title V of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (``ESEA''), $801,369,000, of which
$440,908,000 shall become available on July 1, 2005 and
remain available through September 30, 2006: Provided, That
$440,908,000 shall be available for subpart 1 of part A of
title IV and $203,472,000 shall be available for subpart 2 of
part A of title IV: Provided further, That $128,347,000 shall
be available to carry out part D of title V of the ESEA:
Provided further, That of the funds available to carry out
subpart 3 of part C of title II, up to $11,852,000 may be
used to carry out section 2345.

English Language Acquisition

For carrying out part A of title III of the ESEA,
$681,215,000, of which $595,715,000 shall become available on
July 1, 2005, and shall remain available through September
30, 2006: Provided, That funds reserved under section
3111(c)(1)(D) of the ESEA that are not used in accordance
with section 3111(c)(2) may be added to the funds that are
available July 1, 2005, through September 30, 2006, for State
allotments under section 3111(c)(3).

Special Education

For carrying out parts B, C, and D of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act, $12,176,101,000, of which
$6,560,447,000 shall become available for obligation on July
1, 2005, and shall remain available through September 30,
2006, and of which $5,413,000,000 shall become available on
October 1, 2005, and shall remain available through September
30, 2006, for academic year 2005-2006: Provided, That
$11,400,000 shall be for Recording for the Blind and
Dyslexic, Inc. to support the development, production, and
circulation of recorded educational materials: Provided
further, That the amount for section 611(c) of the Act shall
be equal to the amount available for that section during
fiscal year 2004, increased by the amount of inflation as
specified in section 611(f)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act.

Rehabilitation Services and Disability Research

For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided, the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Assistive Technology Act of
1998 (``the AT Act''), and the Helen Keller National Center
Act, $3,054,587,000, of which $15,000,000 shall be for grants
to States under title III of the AT Act: Provided, That the
Federal share of such grants shall not exceed 75 percent, and
the requirements in sections 301(c)(2) and section 302 of the
AT Act shall not apply to such grants.

Special Institutions for Persons With Disabilities

american printing house for the blind

For carrying out the Act of March 3, 1879, as amended (20
U.S.C. 101 et seq.), $17,000,000.

NATIONAL TECHNICAL INSTITUTE FOR THE DEAF

For the National Technical Institute for the Deaf under
titles I and II of the Education of the Deaf Act of 1986 (20
U.S.C. 4301 et seq.), $55,790,000, of which $1,685,000 shall
be for construction and shall remain available until
expended: Provided, That from the total amount available, the
Institute may at its discretion use funds for the endowment
program as authorized under section 207.

GALLAUDET UNIVERSITY

For the Kendall Demonstration Elementary School, the Model
Secondary School for the Deaf, and the partial support of
Gallaudet University under titles I and II of the Education
of the Deaf Act of 1986 (20 U.S.C. 4301 et seq.),
$104,000,000: Provided, That from the total amount available,
the University may at its discretion use funds for the
endowment program as authorized under section 207.

Vocational and Adult Education

For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided, the
Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act of
1998, the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act, and
subpart 4 of part D of title V of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (``ESEA''), $2,025,456,000,
of which $1,234,456,000 shall become available on July 1,
2005, and shall remain available through September 30, 2006,
and of which $791,000,000 shall become available on October
1, 2005, and shall remain available through September 30,
2006: Provided, That of the amount provided for Adult
Education State Grants, $69,135,000 shall be made available
for integrated English literacy and civics education services
to immigrants and other limited

[[Page H6847]]

English proficient populations: Provided further, That of the
amount reserved for integrated English literacy and civics
education, notwithstanding section 211 of the Adult Education
and Family Literacy Act, 65 percent shall be allocated to
States based on a State's absolute need as determined by
calculating each State's share of a 10-year average of the
Immigration and Naturalization Service data for immigrants
admitted for legal permanent residence for the 10 most recent
years, and 35 percent allocated to States that experienced
growth as measured by the average of the 3 most recent years
for which Immigration and Naturalization Service data for
immigrants admitted for legal permanent residence are
available, except that no State shall be allocated an amount
less than $60,000: Provided further, That of the amounts made
available for the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act,
$9,169,000 shall be for national leadership activities under
section 243 and $6,692,000 shall be for the National
Institute for Literacy under section 242: Provided further,
That $101,698,000 shall be available to support the
activities authorized under subpart 4 of part D of title V of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, of which
up to 5 percent shall become available October 1, 2004, and
shall remain available through September 30, 2006, for
evaluation, technical assistance, school networking, peer
review of applications, and program outreach activities, and
of which not less than 95 percent shall become available on
July 1, 2005, and remain available through September 30,
2006, for grants to local educational agencies: Provided
further, That funds made available to local education
agencies under this subpart shall be used only for activities
related to establishing smaller learning communities in high
schools.

Student Financial Assistance

For carrying out subparts 1, 3 and 4 of part A, part C and
part E of title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as
amended, $14,755,794,000, which shall remain available
through September 30, 2006.
The maximum Pell Grant for which a student shall be
eligible during award year 2005-2006 shall be $4,050.

Student Aid Administration

For Federal administrative expenses (in addition to funds
made available under section 458), to carry out part D of
title I, and subparts 1, 3, and 4 of part A, and parts B, C,
D and E of title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as
amended, $120,247,000.

Higher Education

For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided,
section 121 and titles II, III, IV, V, VI, and VII of the
Higher Education Act of 1965 (``HEA''), as amended, section
1543 of the Higher Education Amendments of 1992, the Mutual
Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961, and section
117 of the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education
Act, $1,976,056,000, of which $1,500,000 for interest
subsidies authorized by section 121 of the HEA shall remain
available until expended: Provided, That $9,876,000, to
remain available through September 30, 2006, shall be
available to fund fellowships for academic year 2006-2007
under part A, subpart 1 of title VII of said Act, under the
terms and conditions of part A, subpart 1: Provided further,
That $988,000 is for data collection and evaluation
activities for programs under the HEA, including such
activities needed to comply with the Government Performance
and Results Act of 1993: Provided further, That
notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds made
available in this Act to carry out title VI of the HEA and
section 102(b)(6) of the Mutual Educational and Cultural
Exchange Act of 1961 may be used to support visits and study
in foreign countries by individuals who are participating in
advanced foreign language training and international studies
in areas that are vital to United States national security
and who plan to apply their language skills and knowledge of
these countries in the fields of government, the professions,
or international development: Provided further, That up to
one percent of the funds referred to in the preceding proviso
may be used for program evaluation, national outreach, and
information dissemination activities.

Howard University

For partial support of Howard University (20 U.S.C. 121 et
seq.), $243,893,000, of which not less than $3,552,000 shall
be for a matching endowment grant pursuant to the Howard
University Endowment Act (Public Law 98-480) and shall remain
available until expended.

College Housing and Academic Facilities Loans Program

For Federal administrative expenses authorized under
section 121 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, $578,000 to
carry out activities related to existing facility loans
entered into under the Higher Education Act of 1965.

Historically Black College and University Capital Financing Program
Account

The aggregate principal amount of outstanding bonds insured
pursuant to section 344 of title III, part D of the Higher
Education Act of 1965, shall not exceed $357,000,000, and the
cost, as defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974, of such bonds shall not exceed zero.
For administrative expenses to carry out the Historically
Black College and University Capital Financing Program
entered into pursuant to title III, part D of the Higher
Education Act of 1965, as amended, $212,000.

Institute of Education Sciences

For carrying out activities authorized by Public Law 107-
279 and section 672 of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act, $526,804,000: Provided, That, of the amount
appropriated, $195,518,000 shall be available for obligation
through September 30, 2006.

Departmental Management

Program Administration

For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided, the
Department of Education Organization Act, including rental of
conference rooms in the District of Columbia and hire of
three passenger motor vehicles, $421,055,000.

OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS

For expenses necessary for the Office for Civil Rights, as
authorized by section 203 of the Department of Education
Organization Act, $90,248,000.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

For expenses necessary for the Office of the Inspector
General, as authorized by section 212 of the Department of
Education Organization Act, $47,790,000.

GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 301. No funds appropriated in this Act may be used for
the transportation of students or teachers (or for the
purchase of equipment for such transportation) in order to
overcome racial imbalance in any school or school system, or
for the transportation of students or teachers (or for the
purchase of equipment for such transportation) in order to
carry out a plan of racial desegregation of any school or
school system.
Sec. 302. None of the funds contained in this Act shall be
used to require, directly or indirectly, the transportation
of any student to a school other than the school which is
nearest the student's home, except for a student requiring
special education, to the school offering such special
education, in order to comply with title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964. For the purpose of this section an
indirect requirement of transportation of students includes
the transportation of students to carry out a plan involving
the reorganization of the grade structure of schools, the
pairing of schools, or the clustering of schools, or any
combination of grade restructuring, pairing or clustering.
The prohibition described in this section does not include
the establishment of magnet schools.
Sec. 303. No funds appropriated under this Act may be used
to prevent the implementation of programs of voluntary prayer
and meditation in the public schools.

(transfer of funds)

Sec. 304. Not to exceed 1 percent of any discretionary
funds (pursuant to the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985, as amended) which are appropriated for
the Department of Education in this Act may be transferred
between appropriations, but no such appropriation shall be
increased by more than 3 percent by any such transfer:
Provided, That the Appropriations Committees of both Houses
of Congress are notified at least 15 days in advance of any
transfer.
Sec. 305. Section 8002(m) of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7702(m)) is amended by
striking ``5 years'' each place it appears and inserting ``7
years''.
Sec. 306. None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall
be available to the Secretary of Education--
(1) to enforce any change or clarification of Department of
Education policy with respect to the Federal Family Education
Loan Program Consolidation loans for borrowers with both FFEL
and non-FFEL loans, as provided for in a dear colleague
letter of the Secretary's dated April 29, 2004; or
(2) to issue letters regarding loan verification
certificates to providers of Federal Family Education Loan
requesting information regarding William D. Ford Direct
Student Loans, including Direct Stafford, PLUS, and
Consolidation Loans, that state either of the following:
(A) We cannot approve the certification form (s). The
borrower has Direct Loans.
(B) We cannot approve the certification form (s). The
borrower has a Direct Consolidation Loan and has no other
loans.
This title may be cited as the ``Department of Education
Appropriations Act, 2005''.

TITLE IV--RELATED AGENCIES

Armed Forces Retirement Home

For expenses necessary for the Armed Forces Retirement Home
to operate and maintain the Armed Forces Retirement Home--
Washington and the Armed Forces Retirement Home--Gulfport, to
be paid from funds available in the Armed Forces Retirement
Home Trust Fund, $61,195,000, of which $4,000,000 shall
remain available until expended for construction and
renovation of the physical plants at the Armed Forces
Retirement Home--Washington and the Armed Forces Retirement
Home--Gulfport.

Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled

For expenses necessary of the Committee for Purchase From
People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled established by
Public Law 92-28, $4,672,000.

Corporation for National and Community Service

Domestic Volunteer Service Programs, Operating Expenses

For expenses necessary for the Corporation for National and
Community Service to

[[Page H6848]]

carry out the provisions of the Domestic Volunteer Service
Act of 1973, as amended, $353,197,000: Provided, That none of
the funds made available to the Corporation for National and
Community Service in this Act for activities authorized by
section 122 of part C of title I and part E of title II of
the Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 1973 shall be used to
provide stipends or other monetary incentives to volunteers
or volunteer leaders whose incomes exceed 125 percent of the
national poverty level.

Corporation for Public Broadcasting

For payment to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, as
authorized by the Communications Act of 1934, an amount which
shall be available within limitations specified by that Act,
for the fiscal year 2007, $400,000,000: Provided, That no
funds made available to the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting by this Act shall be used to pay for receptions,
parties, or similar forms of entertainment for Government
officials or employees: Provided further, That none of the
funds contained in this paragraph shall be available or used
to aid or support any program or activity from which any
person is excluded, or is denied benefits, or is
discriminated against, on the basis of race, color, national
origin, religion, or sex.
Of the amounts made available to the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting for fiscal year 2005 by Public Law 108-7, up to
$20,000,000 is available for grants associated with the
transition of public broadcasting to digital broadcasting,
including costs related to transmission equipment and program
production, development, and distribution, to be awarded as
determinded by the Corporation in consultation with public
radio and television licensees or permittees, or their
designated representatives; and up to $60,000,000 is
available pursuant to section 396(k)(10) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, for replacement and
upgrade of the public television interconnection system:
Provided, That section 396(k)(3) shall apply only to amounts
remaining after allocations made herein.

Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service

Salaries and Expenses

For expenses necessary for the Federal Mediation and
Conciliation Service to carry out the functions vested in it
by the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947 (29 U.S.C. 171-
180, 182-183), including hire of passenger motor vehicles;
for expenses necessary for the Labor-Management Cooperation
Act of 1978 (29 U.S.C. 175a); and for expenses necessary for
the Service to carry out the functions vested in it by the
Civil Service Reform Act, Public Law 95-454 (5 U.S.C. ch.
71), $43,964,000, including $1,500,000, to remain available
through September 30, 2006, for activities authorized by the
Labor-Management Cooperation Act of 1978 (29 U.S.C. 175a):
Provided, That notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, fees charged,
up to full-cost recovery, for special training activities and
other conflict resolution services and technical assistance,
including those provided to foreign governments and
international organizations, and for arbitration services
shall be credited to and merged with this account, and shall
remain available until expended: Provided further, That fees
for arbitration services shall be available only for
education, training, and professional development of the
agency workforce: Provided further, That the Director of the
Service is authorized to accept and use on behalf of the
United States gifts of services and real, personal, or other
property in the aid of any projects or functions within the
Director's jurisdiction.

Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

Salaries and Expenses

For expenses necessary for the Federal Mine Safety and
Health Review Commission (30 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), $7,813,000.

Institute of Museum and Library Services

For carrying out the Museum and Library Services Act of
1996, $261,743,000, to remain available until expended.

Medicare Payment Advisory Commission

Salaries and Expenses

For expenses necessary to carry out section 1805 of the
Social Security Act, $9,905,000, to be transferred to this
appropriation from the Federal Hospital Insurance and the
Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds.

National Commission on Libraries and Information Science

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses for the National Commission on
Libraries and Information Science, established by the Act of
July 20, 1970 (Public Law 91-345, as amended), $1,000,000.

National Council on Disability

Salaries and Expenses

For expenses necessary for the National Council on
Disability as authorized by title IV of the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973, as amended, $2,873,000.

National Labor Relations Board

Salaries and Expenses

For expenses necessary for the National Labor Relations
Board to carry out the functions vested in it by the Labor-
Management Relations Act, 1947, as amended (29 U.S.C. 141-
167), and other laws, $248,785,000: Provided, That no part of
this appropriation shall be available to organize or assist
in organizing agricultural laborers or used in connection
with investigations, hearings, directives, or orders
concerning bargaining units composed of agricultural laborers
as referred to in section 2(3) of the Act of July 5, 1935 (29
U.S.C. 152), and as amended by the Labor-Management Relations
Act, 1947, as amended, and as defined in section 3(f) of the
Act of June 25, 1938 (29 U.S.C. 203), and including in said
definition employees engaged in the maintenance and operation
of ditches, canals, reservoirs, and waterways when maintained
or operated on a mutual, nonprofit basis and at least 95
percent of the water stored or supplied thereby is used for
farming purposes.

National Mediation Board

Salaries and Expenses

For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the
Railway Labor Act, as amended (45 U.S.C. 151-188), including
emergency boards appointed by the President, $11,635,000.

Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

Salaries and Expenses

For expenses necessary for the Occupational Safety and
Health Review Commission (29 U.S.C. 661), $10,516,000.

Railroad Retirement Board

dual benefits payments account

For payment to the Dual Benefits Payments Account,
authorized under section 15(d) of the Railroad Retirement Act
of 1974, $108,000,000, which shall include amounts becoming
available in fiscal year 2005 pursuant to section
224(c)(1)(B) of Public Law 98-76; and in addition, an amount,
not to exceed 2 percent of the amount provided herein, shall
be available proportional to the amount by which the product
of recipients and the average benefit received exceeds
$108,000,000: Provided, That the total amount provided herein
shall be credited in 12 approximately equal amounts on the
first day of each month in the fiscal year.

Federal Payments to the Railroad Retirement Accounts

For payment to the accounts established in the Treasury for
the payment of benefits under the Railroad Retirement Act for
interest earned on unnegotiated checks, $150,000, to remain
available through September 30, 2006, which shall be the
maximum amount available for payment pursuant to section 417
of Public Law 98-76.

Limitation On Administration

For necessary expenses for the Railroad Retirement Board
for administration of the Railroad Retirement Act and the
Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act, $102,202,000, to be
derived in such amounts as determined by the Board from the
railroad retirement accounts and from moneys credited to the
railroad unemployment insurance administration fund.

Limitation on the Office of Inspector General

For expenses necessary for the Office of Inspector General
for audit, investigatory and review activities, as authorized
by the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, not more
than $6,561,000, to be derived from the railroad retirement
accounts and railroad unemployment insurance account:
Provided, That none of the funds made available in any other
paragraph of this Act may be transferred to the Office; used
to carry out any such transfer; used to provide any office
space, equipment, office supplies, communications facilities
or services, maintenance services, or administrative services
for the Office; used to pay any salary, benefit, or award for
any personnel of the Office; used to pay any other operating
expense of the Office; or used to reimburse the Office for
any service provided, or expense incurred, by the Office.

Social Security Administration

Payments to Social Security Trust Funds

For payment to the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance
and the Federal Disability Insurance trust funds, as provided
under sections 201(m), 228(g), and 1131(b)(2) of the Social
Security Act, $20,454,000.

supplemental security income program

For carrying out titles XI and XVI of the Social Security
Act, section 401 of Public Law 92-603, section 212 of Public
Law 93-66, as amended, and section 405 of Public Law 95-216,
including payment to the Social Security trust funds for
administrative expenses incurred pursuant to section
201(g)(1) of the Social Security Act, $28,578,829,000, to
remain available until expended: Provided, That any portion
of the funds provided to a State in the current fiscal year
and not obligated by the State during that year shall be
returned to the Treasury.
For making, after June 15 of the current fiscal year,
benefit payments to individuals under title XVI of the Social
Security Act, for unanticipated costs incurred for the
current fiscal year, such sums as may be necessary.
For making benefit payments under title XVI of the Social
Security Act for the first quarter of fiscal year 2006,
$10,930,000,000, to remain available until expended.

limitation on administrative expenses

For necessary expenses, including the hire of two passenger
motor vehicles, and not to exceed $15,000 for official
reception and representation expenses, not more than
$8,674,100,000 may be expended, as authorized

[[Page H6849]]

by section 201(g)(1) of the Social Security Act, from any one
or all of the trust funds referred to therein: Provided, That
not less than $2,000,000 shall be for the Social Security
Advisory Board: Provided further, That unobligated balances
of funds provided under this paragraph at the end of fiscal
year 2005 not needed for fiscal year 2005 shall remain
available until expended to invest in the Social Security
Administration information technology and telecommunications
hardware and software infrastructure, including related
equipment and non-payroll administrative expenses associated
solely with this information technology and
telecommunications infrastructure: Provided further, That
reimbursement to the trust funds under this heading for
expenditures for official time for employees of the Social
Security Administration pursuant to section 7131 of title 5,
United States Code, and for facilities or support services
for labor organizations pursuant to policies, regulations, or
procedures referred to in section 7135(b) of such title shall
be made by the Secretary of the Treasury, with interest, from
amounts in the general fund not otherwise appropriated, as
soon as possible after such expenditures are made.
In addition, $124,000,000 to be derived from administration
fees in excess of $5.00 per supplementary payment collected
pursuant to section 1616(d) of the Social Security Act or
section 212(b)(3) of Public Law 93-66, which shall remain
available until expended. To the extent that the amounts
collected pursuant to such section 1616(d) or 212(b)(3) in
fiscal year 2005 exceed $124,000,000, the amounts shall be
available in fiscal year 2006 only to the extent provided in
advance in appropriations Acts.
From funds previously appropriated for Federal-State
partnerships, any unobligated balances at the end of fiscal
year 2004 shall be transferred to the Supplemental Security
Income Program and remain available until expended to promote
Medicare buy-in programs targeted to elderly and disabled
individuals under titles XVIII and XIX of the Social Security
Act.

office of inspector general

(including transfer of funds)

For expenses necessary for the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act
of 1978, as amended, $25,748,000, together with not to exceed
$65,359,000, to be transferred and expended as authorized by
section 201(g)(1) of the Social Security Act from the Federal
Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal
Disability Insurance Trust Fund.
In addition, an amount not to exceed 3 percent of the total
provided in this appropriation may be transferred from the
``Limitation on Administrative Expenses'', Social Security
Administration, to be merged with this account, to be
available for the time and purposes for which this account is
available: Provided, That notice of such transfers shall be
transmitted promptly to the Committees on Appropriations of
the House and Senate.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Shadegg

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Shadegg:
At the end of title III of the bill, insert after the last
section (preceding the short title) the following:
Sec. _. For ``School Improvement Programs'' for innovative
programs, as authorized by part A of title V of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
7201 et seq.), and the amount otherwise provided by this Act
for ``Education for the Disadvantaged'' is hereby reduced by,
$20,000,000.

Mr. SHADEGG (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Arizona?
There was no objection.
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment offered by myself and
the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave), and we believe it is
extremely important at this particular time in our Nation's history.
Mr. Chairman, the base bill we have before us omits any funding for
title V, part A education block grants, and that program has previously
been funded at the level of $296 million. That program is one of the
few places where educators in America have flexibility to spend money
as they see fit. Indeed, these title V block grants are critical, and
they give local educators the flexibility and the funds to address
local needs. They are used to reduce class size, buy computers, provide
teacher training, and they are used to support remedial reading
efforts.
It is the flexibility of these grants that are so important at a time
when the no child left behind bill is being funded across our Nation,
and some people say there is not sufficient funding. Many local
educators have spoken up and said this program needs to be funded.
Indeed, in a letter from the American Association of School
Administrators, which represents more than 14,000 school administrators
and local education leaders across the country, in a letter dated just
yesterday, they said, ``At a time when every dollar flowing from the
Federal Government to local districts has a specific purpose, only this
funding stream,'' the title V education block grant, ``allows districts
the flexibility to use the dollars to meet the unique needs of the
local school district.'' The letter went on to say every district
benefits from funding under this block grant; therefore, every district
would be affected by its elimination, and they reiterate these dollars
are helping local school districts implement No Child Left Behind.
I believe there is no opposition to the addition of the funding which
this amendment offers. What there is is a debate about the source of
that funding. The amendment takes $20 million from the Even Start
Program and puts it into this title V education block program. We chose
that because it was the only source we could find. We would note that
Even Start is already funded at $247 million, and that is a sufficient
amount to continue the programs already funded. I urge my colleagues to
support the amendment.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Obey to Amendment Offered by Mr. Shadegg

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Obey to amendment offered by Mr.
Shadegg:
Strike the provisions of the amendment reducing funds for
Education for the Disadvantaged.
Insert the following language into the amendment:
``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 Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003
shall be reduced by $125 for each such taxpayer.' ''

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the proposed
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio reserves a point of order on
the amendment to the amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I certainly have no objection to the
gentleman's efforts to provide funding for the block grant program. I
think we ought to do that, but I offer this amendment to illustrate
that the budget resolution adopted by the majority has put this
committee in a position where each time a Member of either the majority
or minority party tries to save a deserving program, they are forced to
gouge another deserving program in order to pay for it.

{time} 1630

Yet at the same time, that same budget resolution made it possible
for the government to provide every person in this country who makes $1
million or more a year with a $127,000 tax cut this year. What this
amendment points out is that if we simply reduce that $127,000 tax cut
for millionaires by $125, so they would be stuck with a whole $125 less
than $127,000, if we did that, we would not have to cut into the Even
Start program.
I am not the sponsor of the Even Start program. The sponsor of the
Even Start program was a former Republican Member of this House who was
a Republican chairman of the Education and Labor Committee, Bill
Goodling. I do not think we ought to be going after that program in
order to do what the gentleman wants to do. So I am offering this
amendment simply to illustrate that there are other ways to deal with
this problem that are much more socially just and economically
sensible.
I do not see why we ought to be cutting into funding which helps
families of disadvantaged children learn to read and write. I do not
see why we should be cutting into that program in order to fund the
other block grant program. But this is the kind of robbing-Peter-to-
pay-Paul situation that we have been backed into by the majority and by
the White House.
Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment in the hopes that the majority
will not strike it on a point of order, because I think this is a much
more civilized way to deal with what the gentleman is trying to do.

[[Page H6850]]

Point of Order

The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Ohio insist on his point of
order?
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, we will have to insist on our point of
order because obviously this is legislating on an appropriations, to
add the language that the gentleman from Wisconsin is proposing. It
violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part that
an amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if
it changes existing law. Obviously, this amendment proposes a change in
existing law by prescribing changes in tax liabilities; and, therefore,
we insist on our point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin wish to be heard on
the point of order?
Mr. OBEY. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman seeks to strike this amendment on a point
of order. I would point out that the purpose of the Budget Act is to
force Congress to make choices, to choose between priorities in the
process of putting together a comprehensive budget. What the majority
has done by the way it has used budget resolutions and the process of
reconciliation is, instead, to fragment the budget process so that the
Congress never gets to deal with the trade-offs between revenues and
expenditures. That, I think, is a fundamental corruption of the
original intention of the Budget Act.
I wish that the majority party had not determined to walk down this
road, but they have; and under the approach that they have established
in the House, I must concede the point of order, but it is too bad
because it means that we are going to be gouging one good Republican
program in order to pay for one good national program.
The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded and sustained and the
amendment to the Shadegg amendment is not in order.
Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to offer this amendment today with the
gentleman from Arizona to restore much-needed funding for the title V
block grant program. These funds allow local educators the flexibility
to address local needs, whether it is school safety, remedial reading,
dropout prevention, professional development or support for charter
schools.
This innovative education program is the most flexible program
contained within the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. It is the
only formula program that allows recipients to use the funds to benefit
any and all student populations in any and all schools. In 2001-2002,
23 percent of the money provided to Colorado through this block grant
was used for literacy programs, and 11 percent was used for library
materials. Other States have used the money for computers and teachers.
Many States are now using the money to meet the academic requirements
of No Child Left Behind.
I am extremely supportive of giving our local educators flexibility
with their funding so they can make decisions that truly benefit
students. These innovative education funds can be used for anything to
improve academic achievement. I urge my colleagues to support this
amendment and restore these funds.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
I rise in support of this amendment. I think it is a fairness issue
because we want to give all the children in the schools of the United
States an opportunity. What this does, and unfortunately we had to drop
it from the original bill, it was $296 million last year and down to
zero, in an effort to beef up a lot of programs that are very important
to Members.
But I think in fairness this is a very modest amendment that is being
proposed by the gentleman from Arizona. It is $20 million. It gives the
schools that are taking responsibility, the parochial schools, some of
the private schools, some of the schools that are in another venue, and
it is a modest amount to say to them, we understand and we care about
what happens in your school, too. We care about the students in your
school, that they get an equal shot or at least some help, a
recognition of the importance of that.
The Even Start program will still have a lot of money left. It is not
as if we are putting it way behind. In light of all that, I strongly
support the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the
requisite number of words.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Arizona is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the subcommittee
for his support of this amendment; and to my friend from the opposite
side of the aisle, I want to make it clear to him, we did propose a
much more modest amendment, only $20 million. Our original goal had
been to restore the entire $296 million. I would hope that in
negotiations with the other body you would find, as I know the chairman
will look to find, funds to put into this block grant program. I
understand and sympathize with the remarks he made in his effort.
Hopefully, as this bill moves forward and he will be in the conference
and I will not, you can restore these funds even above the $20 million
level here. Our effort was to be sure there was a line item in the bill
as it leaves the House for you to work with as you go to the Members of
the other body on this issue.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 501. The Secretaries of Labor, Health and Human
Services, and Education are authorized to transfer unexpended
balances of prior appropriations to accounts corresponding to
current appropriations provided in this Act: Provided, That
such transferred balances are used for the same purpose, and
for the same periods of time, for which they were originally
appropriated.
Sec. 502. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current
fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
Sec. 503. (a) No part of any appropriation contained in
this Act shall be used, other than for normal and recognized
executive-legislative relationships, for publicity or
propaganda purposes, for the preparation, distribution, or
use of any kit, pamphlet, booklet, publication, radio,
television, or video presentation designed to support or
defeat legislation pending before the Congress or any State
legislature, except in presentation to the Congress or any
State legislature itself.
(b) No part of any appropriation contained in this Act
shall be used to pay the salary or expenses of any grant or
contract recipient, or agent acting for such recipient,
related to any activity designed to influence legislation or
appropriations pending before the Congress or any State
legislature.
Sec. 504. The Secretaries of Labor and Education are
authorized to make available not to exceed $28,000 and
$20,000, respectively, from funds available for salaries and
expenses under titles I and III, respectively, for official
reception and representation expenses; the Director of the
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service is authorized to
make available for official reception and representation
expenses not to exceed $5,000 from the funds available for
``Salaries and expenses, Federal Mediation and Conciliation
Service''; and the Chairman of the National Mediation Board
is authorized to make available for official reception and
representation expenses not to exceed $5,000 from funds
available for ``Salaries and expenses, National Mediation
Board''.
Sec. 505. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act,
no funds appropriated under this Act shall be used to carry
out any program of distributing sterile needles or syringes
for the hypodermic injection of any illegal drug.

Point of Order

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order
against section 506. This provision violates clause 2(b) of House rule
XXI. It proposes to change existing law and, therefore, constitutes
legislation on an appropriation bill in violation of House rules.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of
order?
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, we recognize the validity of the
gentleman's point and we certainly, in light of the circumstances,
concede that the point of order is valid.
The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded and sustained and that
provision is stricken from the bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 507. When issuing statements, press releases, requests
for proposals, bid solicitations and other documents
describing projects or programs funded in whole or in

[[Page H6851]]

part with Federal money, all grantees receiving Federal funds
included in this Act, including but not limited to State and
local governments and recipients of Federal research grants,
shall clearly state--
(1) the percentage of the total costs of the program or
project which will be financed with Federal money;
(2) the dollar amount of Federal funds for the project or
program; and
(3) percentage and dollar amount of the total costs of the
project or program that will be financed by non-governmental
sources.
Sec. 508. (a) None of the funds appropriated under this
Act, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds
are appropriated under this Act, shall be expended for any
abortion.
(b) None of the funds appropriated under this Act, and none
of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are
appropriated under this Act, shall be expended for health
benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion.
(c) The term ``health benefits coverage'' means the package
of services covered by a managed care provider or
organization pursuant to a contract or other arrangement.
Sec. 509. (a) The limitations established in the preceding
section shall not apply to an abortion--
(1) if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or
incest; or
(2) in the case where a woman suffers from a physical
disorder, physical injury, or physical illness, including a
life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from
the pregnancy itself, that would, as certified by a
physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an
abortion is performed.
(b) Nothing in the preceding section shall be construed as
prohibiting the expenditure by a State, locality, entity, or
private person of State, local, or private funds (other than
a State's or locality's contribution of Medicaid matching
funds).
(c) Nothing in the preceding section shall be construed as
restricting the ability of any managed care provider from
offering abortion coverage or the ability of a State or
locality to contract separately with such a provider for such
coverage with State funds (other than a State's or locality's
contribution of Medicaid matching funds).
(d)(1) None of the funds made available in this Act may be
made available to a Federal agency or program, or to a State
or local government, if such agency, program, or government
subjects any institutional or individual health care entity
to discrimination on the basis that the health care entity
does not provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for
abortions.
(2) In this subsection, the term ``health care entity''
includes an individual physician or other health care
professional, a hospital, a provider-sponsored organization,
a health maintenance organization, a health insurance plan,
or any other kind of health care facility, organization, or
plan.
Sec. 510. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act
may be used for--
(1) the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research
purposes; or
(2) research in which a human embryo or embryos are
destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of
injury or death greater than that allowed for research on
fetuses in utero under 45 CFR 46.208(a)(2) and section 498(b)
of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 289g(b)).
(b) For purposes of this section, the term ``human embryo
or embryos'' includes any organism, not protected as a human
subject under 45 CFR 46 as of the date of the enactment of
this Act, that is derived by fertilization, parthenogenesis,
cloning, or any other means from one or more human gametes or
human diploid cells.
Sec. 511. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act
may be used for any activity that promotes the legalization
of any drug or other substance included in schedule I of the
schedules of controlled substances established by section 202
of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812).
(b) The limitation in subsection (a) shall not apply when
there is significant medical evidence of a therapeutic
advantage to the use of such drug or other substance or that
federally sponsored clinical trials are being conducted to
determine therapeutic advantage.
Sec. 512. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be obligated or expended to enter into or renew a contract
with an entity if--
(1) such entity is otherwise a contractor with the United
States and is subject to the requirement in section 4212(d)
of title 38, United States Code, regarding submission of an
annual report to the Secretary of Labor concerning employment
of certain veterans; and
(2) such entity has not submitted a report as required by
that section for the most recent year for which such
requirement was applicable to such entity.
Sec. 513. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to promulgate or adopt any final standard under
section 1173(b) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320d-
2(b)) providing for, or providing for the assignment of, a
unique health identifier for an individual (except in an
individual's capacity as an employer or a health care
provider), until legislation is enacted specifically
approving the standard.
Sec. 514. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be transferred to any department, agency, or instrumentality
of the United States Government, except pursuant to a
transfer made by, or transfer authority provided in, this Act
or any other appropriation Act.
Sec. 515. None of the funds made available by this Act to
carry out the Library Services and Technology Act may be made
available to any library covered by paragraph (1) of section
224(f) of such Act (20 U.S.C. 9134(f)), as amended by the
Children's Internet Protections Act, unless such library has
made the certifications required by paragraph (4) of such
section.
Sec. 516. None of the funds made available by this Act to
carry out part D of title II of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 may be made available to any elementary
or secondary school covered by paragraph (1) of section
2441(a) of such Act (20 U.S.C. 6777(a)), as amended by the
Children's Internet Protections Act and the No Child Left
Behind Act, unless the local educational agency with
responsibility for such covered school has made the
certifications required by paragraph (2) of such section.
Sec. 517. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be
used to enter into an arrangement under section 7(b)(4) of
the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 (45 U.S.C. 231f(b)(4))
with a nongovernmental financial institution to serve as
disbursing agent for benefits payable under the Railroad
Retirement Act of 1974.
Sec. 518. (a) None of the funds provided under this Act, or
provided under previous appropriations Acts to the agencies
funded by this Act that remain available for obligation or
expenditure in fiscal year 2005, or provided from any
accounts in the Treasury of the United States derived by the
collection of fees available to the agencies funded by this
Act, shall be available for obligation or expenditure through
a reprogramming of funds that--
(1) creates new programs;
(2) eliminates a program, project, or activity;
(3) increases funds or personnel by any means for any
project or activity for which funds have been denied or
restricted;
(4) relocates an office or employees;
(5) reorganizes or renames offices;
(6) reorganizes programs or activities; or
(7) contracts out or privatizes any functions or activities
presently performed by Federal employees; unless the
Appropriations Committees of both Houses of Congress are
notified 15 days in advance of such reprogramming of funds.
(b) None of the funds provided under this Act, or provided
under previous appropriations Acts to the agencies funded by
this Act that remain available for obligation or expenditure
in fiscal year 2005, or provided from any accounts in the
Treasury of the United States derived by the collection of
fees available to the agencies funded by this Act, shall be
available for obligation or expenditure through a
reprogramming of funds in excess of $500,000 or 10 percent,
whichever is less, that--
(1) augments existing programs, projects (including
construction projects), or activities;
(2) reduces by 10 percent funding for any existing program,
project, or activity, or numbers of personnel by 10 percent
as approved by Congress; or
(3) results from any general savings from a reduction in
personnel which would result in a change in existing
programs, activities, or projects as approved by Congress;
unless the Appropriations Committees of both Houses of
Congress are notified 15 days in advance of such
reprogramming of funds.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia:
At the end of the bill, insert after the last section
(preceding the short title) the following:
Sec. __. (a) Paragraph (2) of section 1122(c) of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
6332(c)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``If sufficient funds'' and inserting the
following:
``(A) Concentration grants.--If sufficient funds''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) Targeted grants.--Notwithstanding the inability of a
local educational agency to meet the minimum eligibility
criteria described in section 1125(a)(1) for a fiscal year,
if sufficient funds are appropriated, the amount made
available to the agency under section 1125 for that year
shall be--
``(i) if the agency met such minimum eligibility criteria
and received a grant under section 1125 for the preceding
fiscal year, not less than 67 percent of the amount of such
grant; or
``(ii) if the agency met such minimum eligibility criteria
and received a grant under section 1125 for the second
preceding fiscal year (but not the preceding fiscal year),
not less than 34 percent of the amount of such grant.
``(C) Education finance incentive grants.--Notwithstanding
the inability of a local educational agency to meet the
minimum eligibility criteria described in section 1125A(c)
for a fiscal year, if sufficient funds are appropriated, the
amount made available to the agency under section 1125A for
that year shall be--
``(i) if the agency met such minimum eligibility criteria
and received a grant under

[[Page H6852]]

section 1125A for the preceding fiscal year, not less than 67
percent of the amount of such grant; or
``(ii) if the agency met such minimum eligibility criteria
and received a grant under section 1125A for the second
preceding fiscal year (but not the preceding fiscal year),
not less than 34 percent of the amount of such grant.''.
(b) The amendments made by this section apply only with
respect to funds appropriated for fiscal year 2005 or any
subsequent fiscal year.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed
in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Virginia?
There was no objection.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio reserves a point of order.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I also reserve a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin reserves a point of order.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, first let me state I realize
this amendment is subject to a point of order so I will withdraw the
amendment, but I want to take the opportunity to raise an important
issue that is of great importance to the Fairfax County school
districts which I represent.
Mr. Chairman, No Child Left Behind requires the Department of
Education to use the most up-to-date poverty data from the Census
Bureau when determining eligibility for title I grants. The intent
behind this requirement is sensible. We want title I funds going where
they are most needed.
That said, two of the four available title I grant programs, Targeted
Grants and Education Finance Incentive Grants, have a 5 percent cutoff
for eligibility. If a school district falls below this level, they lose
all funding through these grants. There are no hold-harmless provisions
for a drop in poverty rates.
In the case of Fairfax County, our most recent poverty figures fell
about 1 percent to 4.94 percent. While this figure represents a small
number of students, 106 students to be exact, it has equated to a 26
percent reduction in title I funds.

{time} 1645

We lose almost $3\1/2\ million for losing 106 students. That is about
$33,000 a student. My concern is not just that my local school district
has lost $3.3 million for the coming school year, it is that a school
district like Fairfax County can hover at around the 5 percent level
year after year, and this makes it impossible to plan effectively since
it is unclear from one year to the next whether these funds will be
available.
Our amendment would implement hold harmless provisions for targeted
and EFIG grants. The first year the school district fell below the 5
percent level, it would still be eligible for two-thirds of the amount
they received the previous year. The second year it would be eligible
for one-third. The third year it would lose eligibility.
In my estimation such a stair-step system would better reflect a true
change in the demographics of a given school district and allow better
planning from year to year. As I said, this equates to almost $33,000 a
student for a loss of 106 students.
I will withdraw the amendment, but hope that the members on the
authorizing committee and appropriation committees will work with us in
the future to try to look at such a stepped approach, which I think
makes for better planning.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this
amendment which will help to correct an ``unfair penalty'' relating to
Title I funding for some of our nation's most deserving schools.
There are four different grant categories which deliver Title I funds
to school districts: Basic Grants, Targeted Grants, Education Finance
Incentive Grants (EFIG), and Concentration Grants. The Department of
Education maintains a 5 percent poverty level ``cliff'' for Education
Finance Incentive Grants and targeted grants.
This means that if a school district's poverty line falls below five
percent, they lose a significant portion of their Title I funds.
The Davis-Moran amendment would provide a phase out of funds over
several years, for example, if the school district falls below the 5
percent requirement, they would only lose 33 percent the following
fiscal year. After the second consecutive year, they would lose 66
percent. After the third year, they would lose all funding. If a school
district's poverty data rose above the 5 percent minimum level, it
would be fully eligible to receive education finance incentive grants
and targeted grants.
As a representative of one of the largest public school systems in
the country, Fairfax County, I am deeply troubled that they are set to
lose over $3 million in Title I funds because their poverty level is
4.96 percent, slightly below the 5 percent floor required for most
Title I grants.
This loss of Title I funds is going to have a devastating impact on
several school districts and comes at a particularly critical time.
School districts are facing the public choice and supplemental services
sanctions mandated by No Child Left Behind, and these same school
districts are going to be forced to redirect Title I funds out of the
very classrooms where they are needed the most.
No Child Left Behind stipulates that the Department of Education must
use the most-up-to-date poverty data from the Census Bureau in
determining a school district's eligibility to receive Title I funds.
Because of this, the Department of Education is using data from
census year 2000 for their calculations of poverty rates. Unfortunately
it is 2004 and we do not have the same economy that we had 4 years ago.
In Fairfax County alone, the student population eligible for the free
and reduced-price lunch program has increased by 18 percent since FY
2000. This data more clearly reflects the need of the Fairfax County
school system to receive Title I funds than old census data.
Because Title I funds are allocated on the basis of poverty and not
the basis of free and reduced price lunch eligibility, this school
system stands to see their Title I funds decreased by 26 percent, the
largest dollar decrease of any school division in the country.
This poverty threshold calculation actually under emphasizes
significant pockets of poverty in otherwise relatively wealthy school
districts. The Fairfax County Public School System is a perfect example
of a school district which includes the wealthy areas of Great Falls
and McLean but also the traditionally underserved areas of the Route 1
Corridor and Baileys Crossroads, where a majority of students on free
and reduced lunch reside.
This calculation is not fair to those students in the poor sections
of a wealthy county, and does not accurately portray the needs of them,
their teachers and their schools.
I urge all my colleagues to adopt the Davis-Moran amendment and make
the Title I funding formula more equitable in order to ensure that no
child is left behind.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
withdraw the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Virginia?
There was no objection.

Amendment Offered by Mr. George Miller of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. George Miller of California:
At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be
used by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation to enforce
section 4010(c) of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an
amendment to better protect the pension benefits of millions of
Americans. Workers' retirement security has been taking it on the chin
for the last 4 years. First, tens of thousands of workers and retirees
lost their retirement savings after the Enron and WorldCom debacles.
Then the Bush administration tried to restart the cash balance
conversions and cut the pensions of millions of older workers. Under
that proposal millions of older workers would have seen their pension
benefits cut up to in half, and they would have had no way to return
and repair the amount of money that they were planning to retire on.
And now we find out that thousands of pension plans are, in fact,
underfunded, and many are considering the termination and the dumping
of billions of dollars of liability on the Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corporation, the agency that ensures the workers of this country's
pensions.
The Pension Benefits Guaranty Corporation has gone from a $7 billion
surplus to a $10 billion deficit in just 2

[[Page H6853]]

years. The GAO has it on its watch list of high-risk agencies. And a
handful of airlines, including United, Delta, and US Air, may soon dump
more liabilities on the Pension Benefits Guaranty Corporation that
reach as high as $30 billion.
One of the worst parts of this is that the workers have no idea that
their pension funds are underfunded and at risk, that their employer
could default on their pension promises. Let me say that again. That
while these plans are underfunded, and while they are at risk, the
workers are not informed of that information. Pension law requires
underfunded pension plans to report their underfunding to the
government, but not to the workers.
My amendment is simple. I prohibit the Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corporation from enforcing the part of the law that prohibits them from
disclosing to workers and to retirees the funding status of their
pension plan. After all, this is their money. This is money that they
have contributed to those pension plans. It is money that they are
planning on for their retirement. It is money that they are planning on
for their future, and it is money that they cannot replace if they are
an older worker. They ought to have this information.
Most interesting is the fact that the Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corporation wants to make this information public. The Bush
administration has said that they support making it public. But this
provision in the law prevents them from doing this.
There is no reason why the government should know the status of
company pension plans, but the workers should not. Workers are losing
more and more each day under the administration's proposals on pension.
Their jobs are being outsourced overseas. Their wages are falling. They
have no protection of an adequate minimum wage. They are either losing
their health care benefits or paying more in copays and deductibles and
more of their wages on skyrocketing health insurance premiums, and they
are losing their retirement security.
We have got to be able to provide them this information. This is very
analogous to the workers at the Enron Corporation. The corporation knew
that their 401(K) plans were in serious jeopardy. The corporation
officers were unloading the stock because they knew they could not
continue that criminal enterprise that they were engaged in in ripping
off the energy consumers of this Nation. They unloaded. They got out.
They took care of their golden parachutes. But the workers lost their
401(K) plans.
In this Congress we listened to the testimony of these workers as
they talked about their entire retirement being destroyed, workers who
were 60 years old, 65 years old, who had worked 10 and 15 and 20 years,
who were planning to retire, no way to replace those savings. And now
we see, and now we see, that there are hundreds of corporations that
are underfunding; in fact, over 1,000 corporations that are underfunded
according to the law in their pension plans, but this information is
disclosed only to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation and not to
this.
Why am I here with this amendment on the floor? Because I have
requested the chairman of the committee to ask to make this information
public, and he has refused to do so. If he would do that, the law
provides that it would be made available to the Members of Congress. At
least we could start to see some of this information. But that will not
be done.
The fact of the matter is this, and it is very simple: The workers in
these corporations paid into these pensions. The corporations
contributed to these pensions. The workers gave up other benefits to
get these pensions. That money belongs to the workers. The workers
ought to have the information.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California (Mr. George
Miller) has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. George Miller of California was allowed to
proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, it is just a matter of
decency. We see now major reforms going on in the administration of
mutual funds and how their relationships are on behalf of workers, the
disclosures of fees, the disclosures of their transactions, time days,
one scandal after another, with people cheating the owners of the money
out of their funds. Now we see the machinations of corporations as they
try to cover up the potential liability or the potential failure or the
loss of these pensions of the workers. Transparency is the watchword of
the day. The workers of America, of corporations that are in danger of
unloading these pensions and getting rid of these pensions, the workers
of this country are entitled to that information.
I would hope that this House would support this in the name of the
transparency, in support of the position of the Bush administration, in
support of the position of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
that this information should be made available, and I would urge an aye
vote.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I rise in strong support of the amendment by the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller). I think most Americans, Mr. Chairman,
would be shocked to know that information about their pension which
they own is not available to them at the same time it is available to a
government agency.
When the President speaks about Social Security, he is fond of
talking about trying to create accounts which are private property of
citizens so that we can know what is ours. Pensions are already private
property of citizens. When one contributes to a pension fund, or their
employer contributes on their behalf to their fund, they own it. But
under the present law, one of the more remarkable laws that we have on
the books, if the pension fund that one's employer sponsors is in
trouble, if it looks like it is going to be unable to pay benefits
because its costs are exceeding its revenue, and it looks like the fund
might crash so that the Federal Government, under the jurisdiction of
the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, will have to step in and make
the pension fund whole, the law says that one's pension fund has to
tell the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation that it is in trouble,
and it has to disclose the nature of that trouble. So this government
agency gets this information about one's pension fund being in trouble
and their check being in jeopardy. Believe it or not, there is a
statute that says once this government agency has this information that
a person's pension is in trouble, it cannot tell him.
We do not understand that. We think if someone works for a company,
and is counting on their pension being delivered, and has contributed
to that pension, and has had the employer contribute to that pension,
and the pension is in jeopardy so much that the trustees of the fund
have to report that trouble to a government agency, we think that the
citizens, the pensioners themselves, have a right to know.
That is what the gentleman from California's (Mr. George Miller)
amendment does. It prohibits the administration, prohibits the
executive branch, from enforcing this secrecy law. One's pension should
not be held secret from them if they are an employee or a citizen or a
future pensioner. That is what this says.
It is my understanding that, as the gentleman from California (Mr.
George Miller) said, in fact, the administration supports this change,
wants this information to be made public.
I do not believe this is a partisan issue. I think that responsible
Members on both sides of the aisle would understand that if their
pension is in trouble, they ought to have a right to know it, not later
after the pension fund has failed and they do not get their check, not
after it is too late to do something about it, as was in the case of
the Enron and WorldCom employees, but now, as soon as it is timely, so
they can do something about it.
So if the Members believe, as I think people on both sides of the
aisle do, that someone's pension is their property, and if they
believe, as I think people on both sides of the aisle do, that they
have the right to know about the dynamics and phenomena happening about
one's own property, and if they believe that some government agency has
the right to know what is going on with their pension and they should,
too, if they believe those things, then they ought to vote for the
gentleman from California's (Mr. George Miller) amendment. It is an

[[Page H6854]]

idea that is supported, to my understanding, by the administration. I
hope it would be supported by both sides of the aisle here. I would
urge a ``yes'' vote.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve a point of order.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
I appreciate the concerns of my colleagues on the other side, but I
rise today in opposition to their amendment. And while they make it
sound simple as it would normally be the case, there is nothing at all
simple about the amendment that is being offered.
The 4010 information that is required to be submitted to the Pension
Benefit Guaranty Corporation would be for any defined benefit pension
plan that has a negative balance actuarially of at least $50 million,
and these could be public companies, they could be private companies.
And the information that has to be supplied to the Pension Benefit
Guaranty Corporation is not just information about where the pension
fund is. It also includes all types of detailed information about the
finances of the company itself.

{time} 1700

For private companies who may be in this position, this is very
sensitive information.
The reason we have not dealt with the issue as yet is we have been
working on a long-term fix for the defined benefit pension plans. As we
get into those conversations, we have had a number of hearings over the
past couple of years, we passed the Pension Equity Funding Act earlier
this year, signed by the President, to fix the most immediate problems.
But as the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the author
of the amendment, well knows, we have had a number of hearings last
year and this year about the long-term problems facing defined benefit
pension plans, a traditional pension plan, and what we hope to do is to
have a bill next year that would revise all of the funding rules to
make it easier for companies to comply with the rules and, most
importantly, to ensure that companies are funding their pension plans.
As part of this overall bill, I think there may be a way to address
the concerns raised by the gentleman from California (Mr. George
Miller) in terms of who the companies are or the extent of their
pension issue, without disclosing all of the sensitive financial data
that must be submitted to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
So I would urge my colleagues to vote no on the Miller amendment, and
my colleagues should know that a commitment is on my part to the
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and to all of my
colleagues that we will address that portion that is not nearly as
sensitive on the financial data as we deal with the broader overhaul of
our defined pension benefit laws and regulations.
I would urge my colleagues to vote no.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman
for yielding, and I thank the comments of my chairman, the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), on this situation. But I must say I continue
to disagree with the gentleman, and I disagree on two grounds.
First and foremost, we have made several requests to him to ask the
PBGC, and we have specifically have asked, the Democrats on the
committee have asked the PBGC for this information. They will not make
it available to the committee, much less the public. They will not make
it available to the committee because the chairman of the committee
must make that request to them.
So when you talk about us going into long-term pension reform, Mr.
Chairman, at a minimum we ought to have this information about the
magnitude of the problem and the variations among the various
corporations and the industries that are involved in this, if we are
going to, in fact, deal with some kind of long-term and necessary fix,
that I hope we will, and I thank you for holding those hearings. We
need that information as members of the committee at a minimum.
But, furthermore, this information was available up until 1994. Then
the Clinton administration cut a deal on the financing of GATT, and
this information, the corporations prevailed on them to make this
secret in exchange for a premium increase to pay for GATT. Who got left
out? Who was not at the table? The American worker. So all of a sudden
they did not get the information anymore.
The point and the magnitude and the necessity for this amendment, let
me just point out that according to Standard & Poor, 290 of the 362
companies in the Standard & Poor's 500 that offer defined benefit plans
are underfunded by $165 billion in 2003.
The point is this, that this is a huge, looming problem. You know the
people who just went through bankruptcy at U.S. Air and thought they
had cured their problem? Well, when United said, we think we might
offload our pension onto the public taxpayers, all of a sudden the
people at U.S. Air are in trouble again.
We think these people ought to have that information, so they, when
they are negotiating, because if United does this, it is a likelihood
that U.S. Air does it, and if U.S. Air does it, it is a likelihood that
Delta will do it.
Well, that is a catastrophe for the PBGC and for those workers. There
is something about transparency. We insisted in other financial
arrangements where individuals have their money in the hands of third
parties, and in this case we ought to do it for corporations.
So I appreciate, and I have said to the chairman very often, that he
has given attention to this problem. We hope to have a long-term
solution. But this is fundamental to the rights of workers at this most
perilous time with respect to the security of their pensions.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. REGULA. If I understand this correctly, the corporation would
have to disclose information under the requirements of this section
that would go beyond the pension part of their liability.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would
yield further, I appreciate that argument, but in reviewing the case,
the Bush administration said they support the disclosure under this
provision of the law, and the PBGC supports that. I do not think these
two entities are interested in destroying these corporations. The fact
of the matter is this information was made available for many years.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman
from California, and I fully agree with his statement.
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, all day today we have been hearing so many different
issues coming up onto the floor that are concerning so many people, and
I thank the ranking member, and I thank the chairman, and I thank the
ranking minority ranking member on the Committee on Education and the
Workforce for bringing these issues up.
I am here because I am not allowed to bring up the assault weapons
bill onto the floor. With that, I will continue for the rest of the
evening and all day tomorrow and all day Monday to talk about how we
need to get the President involved to be able to make some phone calls
to the Speaker of the House. I know that he supposedly is going to be
meeting with all the police officers and chiefs that we met this
morning to try and convince them that this is what the American people
want, this is what our police officers want.
It comes down to a safety issue. There are so many things that we
have to handle here, and we actually, in my opinion, have wasted an
awful lot of time this year. We have done more politicking than we have
done actual work, and that is too bad, because the only one that
suffers is the American people.
If the assault weapons ban is not renewed, the American people in the
end will suffer, our children will suffer, our communities will suffer,
our health care system will suffer.

[[Page H6855]]

This is a bill that is already in place. They say enforce the law.
Well, let us continue enforcing the law. Let us make sure the assault
weapons bill stays in place. It saves lives. It does not cost us a
penny.
I just heard that one of the large gun manufacturers, with every
assault weapons gun that they buy, they will get a free large-capacity
clip. Is that not terrific? It is much easier to mow down our own
citizens.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by our
colleague and join in offering the amendment by our colleague from
California (Mr. George Miller). This amendment follows very closely
legislation that the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and
I introduced last year to address this problem.
There are at the moment that we gather here in Congress, I suppose,
tens of millions of Americans who are out working, trying to ensure
that their families have a better future. As they do their work and
they look forward to payday to get their paycheck, one of the things
they also consider are whatever benefits that they get with their work.
For many workers, particularly those that move in their forties and
fifties to begin to think about what retirement lies ahead, they have a
particular concern with the retirement plan for their company and
whether it will, in fact, allow them to retire in dignity and enjoy the
fruits of their labor after they have provided for their family and
community, to be able to enjoy a decent, dignified retirement.
In recent years, American employees, American workers, have had good
reason to be fearful that that very significant benefit of retirement
that they have worked for, with some companies perhaps for 20 or 30
years, will not be there when they need it in full amount.
First there were the employees of Enron. Thousands of them, through
no fault of their own, lost their retirement. Then the same thing
happened at WorldCom. Thousands of people who had worked for that
company almost since its origin losing their retirement future, the
hope of a dignified retirement, many of them having to go back into the
workforce.
Really, when you look back over the activities of this Congress since
the Enron debacle, as far as preventing another debacle for employees
at Enron and their retirement futures, or WorldCom, this Congress has
done next to nothing to prevent other employees from suffering the same
fate.
As the years have gone by and Congress has been inactive, our economy
has struggled, and we have begun to see more major companies,
particularly in the airline industry, begin to raise questions as to
whether they were going to put their pension plan into bankruptcy,
whether they were going to stop making pension payments.
This amendment does not solve all those problems. It is a very modest
amendment. It simply expresses confidence in the employees, that they
deserve to know the same information that their employer is filing with
the government bureaucracy.
As my colleague from California just pointed out, were it not for the
fine print in legislation that was approved in 1994, we would have the
right to know this information. This amendment is based on the
principle that if the employee has the information, they can choose to
go to another employer who has a fully funded pension plan, or they can
turn to their employer and ask, why not? Why am I being given a false
promise of a secure retirement, when, in fact, this plan is not funded
at a sufficient level to assure that all workers who work here and
retire will be able to enjoy their retirement with dignity?
Of course, there is another public policy consideration here, and
that is that there is a government agency, the Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corporation, that is responsible for ensuring and protecting against
those plans that fail. From all of the recent reports about the status
of that corporation, we face the potential of something that will make
the savings and loan bailout of a few decades back look modest in
comparison to the dangers of major pension funds, one after another,
going under and placing a burden on this corporation.
The Bush administration came out in support of the very kind of
amendment that is being offered here today. As usual, once some special
interest began to question the wisdom of this provision, they fell
moot. But their recommendation is a matter of public policy; it is
clear, and it is out there.
The Government Accountability Office, the Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corporation itself, all of these have recommended that this information
that they get be made available to the employee so that the employee
will be empowered.
This amendment is based on the principle that the workers that are
out there deserve the right to know, they deserve the right to be
empowered about their pension future, and I can see no good reason not
to provide that information.
The suggestion by the chairman of the committee that he has a long-
term plan to deal with this is great, but it is a little too long for
the term of those who are concerned about their retirement safety and,
one after another, pension plans failing.
I urge adoption of the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) insist on his
point of order?
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I do. But we recognize that since it is a
limitation amendment, that it would not be in order. On that basis, I
withdraw it.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman withdraws his reservation.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. George
Miller) will be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Stearns

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Stearns:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be
expended by the Secretary of Health and Human Services to
carry out the modification of coverage policy number 35-26 of
the Medicare Coverage Issues Manual R125CM announced by the
Secretary on July 15, 2004, in the press release entitled
``HHS ANNOUNCES REVISED MEDICARE OBESITY COVERAGE POLICY-
Policy Opens Doors to Coverage based on Evidence'' until the
date on which the Secretary submits to Congress a report
containing the Secretary's estimate of the increased costs to
the medicare program by reason of such modification of
coverage policy.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) reserves a point
of order against the amendment.
The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) is recognized for 5 minutes
in support of his amendment.
(Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment. Obviously
the chairman has reserved a point of order. He might want to listen to
my arguments. Perhaps persuasiveness of what I have to say will change
his mind.
All of us know that on July 15, 2004, the Secretary of Health and
Human Services announced that Medicare would allow for the coverage of
antiobesity treatments and interventions by Medicare.

{time} 1715

He said this would go on as long as scientific and medical evidence
demonstrates their effectiveness in improving the health of
beneficiaries on Medicare.
Now, the question I have, and part of my amendment here is, we do not
know what this means. Does this mean that it is going to have an
immediate impact on Medicare's coverage? Does this mean there are new
benefits? We just do not know. Because the Secretary is saying, let us
just take a look at this treatment or at that treatment, evaluate it on
the basis of improving the health of individuals.
So my amendment is basically saying, okay, Mr. Secretary, if you want

[[Page H6856]]

to go ahead and look at the coverage of somebody who is overweight,
give them treatments or intervention and use taxpayers' good, hard-
earned dollars to do so and you want to do it on the basis of
scientific and medical evidence, what is it going to cost?
So I would urge the chairman to put this in the mix, maybe perhaps in
conference or something, because we all know that Medicare is
increasing, in light of obesity contributions, which is in the billions
of dollars to Medicare, the Nation's health care costs, this just may
be the thing that increases it dramatically. Part B premiums are rising
at 17 percent. We have heard Senator Kerry talk about that on the
campaign trail. So what is the cost of this new benefit that we are
speculating might occur after we prove the scientific and medical
evidence to use it?
I think that, besides information about health outcomes, information
about the possible consequences and obesity policy changes in future
premiums would be useful and also should be part of this debate.
Now, all of us in this Chamber and throughout America believe in
preventive health treatments, and for Medicare, we accept that.
Medicare beneficiaries are now offered ``Welcome to Medicare''
physicals and screening for diabetes and heart disease. But, obviously,
these new benefits are passed along in premiums to beneficiaries, and
we should also talk about that.
Now, I remind my colleagues that on August 27, Federal Reserve
Chairman Greenspan was speaking about Social Security and Medicare
entitlements, and he warned his audience at that point, he said, ``If
we have promised more than our economy has the ability to deliver to
retirees, as I fear we have, we must recalibrate our public programs so
that pending retirees have time to adjust.''
Let us think about what we promise and what we decide as a Nation to
cover and, more importantly, what is the price tag for these new
benefits for the beneficiaries.
With 64 percent of the American population that is overweight, a
substantial number of beneficiaries may likely qualify for this new
coverage, and that will increase the cost. Moreover, with the
declaration of obesity as a disease, we tread into public funding and
issues involving sheer behavior. Now, science certainly points to
biological contributions to obesity, for example, genetics or
uncontrolled metabolism. But still, there are undoubtedly behavioral
choices involving what we eat and whether we exercise. These are a
matter of personal preference and choice, and I think it is dangerous
to say that, just because Medicare is a public program, it can insert
itself into private decisions.
Recently, in an article in Reason Magazine on ``The War on Fat,''
they write that the argument based on taxpayer-funded health insurance
proves too much. It gives the government an open-ended license to tax,
regulate, or ban any behavior that might lead to disease or injury. If
diet is a political issue, what is not? The same logic suggests that
government should take an interest in how much we sleep or whether we
floss regularly.
So I submit, Mr. Chairman, that we should find the cost of this new
benefit to Medicare and, obviously, trial lawyers also may use the
policy change as another weapon in their arsenal.
So, Mr. Chairman, in light of your distinguished leadership here and
you are saying that it is out of order, I am willing to withdraw this
amendment. I recognize that this is perhaps not the appropriate place,
but I urge the chairman and his colleagues on the conference committee
to consider defining the cost before we allow this new benefit to
continue.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I understand what the gentleman is getting at. I think
it is a very difficult definition as to what obesity would be because
there are so many factors, but what we might consider and will look at
in the conference would be some language just asking the Secretary to
give us some idea of what kind of costs are going to be involved in
implementing a program of this type, without putting a huge burden on
the Secretary to implement or to go ahead with the program.
So I think the gentleman from Florida has served a useful purpose of
causing us to focus on what could be a significant challenge
prospectively.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his leadership
and consideration on this; and I think perhaps that is a compromise, to
ask the Secretary how much it will cost to implement this, based upon
this sort of general understanding of what he is going to do. So I
thank the chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Florida?
There was no objection.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Hefley

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Hefley:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. Total appropriations made in this Act (other than
appropriations required to be made by a provision of law) are
hereby reduced by $1,425,000,000.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that
would cut discretionary spending in this appropriations bill by $1.4
billion, an amount equal to 1 percent of the $142.5 billion
discretionary spending price tag. As many of my colleagues know, I have
offered a similar amendment on many of the appropriations bills.
Let me begin by saying, however, that I recognize the difficult job
the committee has had in putting together this bill. It is complex, it
is big, it is a lot of money, it is important, and there are many, many
good things in this; and I commend the chairman and the ranking member,
particularly, for their effort in this, to produce a bill with as many
good things in it as there are.
However, the fact remains that the Federal budget for fiscal year
2005 is going to be too large. Until we can make a dent in the
outrageous level of the Federal deficit, we must be even more diligent
in reining in spending. I do not think it is too much to ask to trim
the budget for this spending bill by a mere 1 percent and prove to the
American public that we want to make a priority of balancing the
Federal budget.
I also want to point out that this amendment is structured so that
the administration would maintain the ability to determine which
accounts should be cut or scaled back in order to achieve this
rescission, rather than cutting all programs across the board. My
intent is not to single out all programs for reduction, but I am
confident that we can eliminate some of the waste and abuse and find a
way to trim 1 percent of the total spending.
Thus, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment and reduce the
amount of discretionary spending in this bill by 1 cent on the dollar.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman's concern, and it is a
worthy objective, but we have tried already to cut back. When we know
that we are bringing out a bill of this magnitude that affects the
lives of 280 million Americans in terms of their education, in terms of
their health resources, in terms of the ability to find new employment
opportunities, we have already pushed that as hard as we can; and we
are under the cost of living. It is only a 2.2 percent increase over
last year.
I think we have worked very hard to meet the needs of the American
people in a very responsible way. While it seems like 1 percent is not
a lot, it is $1.4 billion. And do we start taking it out of programs
for special needs children, do we take it out of the title I, or do we
take it out of health research? We realize the difficulty of applying
something like this across the board.
Reluctantly, I oppose the amendment because I think we have already
made a real effort to make this bill as financially responsible as
possible, given the challenges of meeting the needs of the people of
this Nation.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.

[[Page H6857]]

Recorded Vote

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, this 15-minute vote
on the Hefley amendment will be followed by one 5-minute vote, as
ordered on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr.
George Miller).
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 79,
noes 333, not voting 21, as follows:

[Roll No. 428]

AYES--79

Akin
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Brady (TX)
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Collins
Cox
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal (GA)
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, M.
Duncan
Everett
Feeney
Flake
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Gibbons
Graves
Gutknecht
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Jenkins
Jones (NC)
King (IA)
Kingston
Lewis (KY)
Linder
McCotter
McInnis
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Norwood
Otter
Paul
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Terry
Thornberry
Toomey
Vitter
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)

NOES--333

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burns
Burr
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Carter
Case
Castle
Chandler
Clay
Clyburn
Cole
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Herseth
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Kleczka
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sweeney
Tauscher
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--21

Ballenger
Bono
Cannon
Crane
Cummings
Engel
Gephardt
Goss
Istook
Millender-McDonald
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Nethercutt
Ney
Portman
Ryan (OH)
Schrock
Smith (MI)
Tauzin
Watson
Young (AK)

Announcement by the Chairman

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

{time} 1752

Messrs. RUSH, BRADY of Pennsylvania, FRANK of Massachusetts, Ms.
SCHAKOWSKY, and Messrs. OWENS, LYNCH and ISRAEL changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. SULLIVAN, OTTER, MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida, and WHITFIELD
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 428 I was
detained by my constituents and was unable to get to the floor in time
for voting. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Amendment Offered by Mr. George Miller of California

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. George
Miller) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The Clerk designated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 429]

AYES--268

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Bass
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burr
Butterfield
Camp
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Clay
Clyburn
Coble
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Ford
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gallegly
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hefley
Herseth
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Houghton
Hoyer
Hyde
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)

[[Page H6858]]

Platts
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Renzi
Reyes
Rodriguez
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wilson (NM)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOES--148

Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Beauprez
Biggert
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Boozman
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Burgess
Burns
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Cantor
Carter
Chocola
Cole
Collins
Cox
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Dunn
Everett
Feeney
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett (NJ)
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Johnson, Sam
Keller
King (IA)
Kingston
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lucas (OK)
McCrery
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Weldon (FL)
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--17

Ballenger
Bono
Cannon
Crane
Engel
Gephardt
Goss
Hunter
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Nethercutt
Ney
Nussle
Ryan (OH)
Schrock
Tauzin
Young (AK)

Announcement by the Chairman

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

{time} 1805

Messrs. TAYLOR of North Carolina, ADERHOLT, SHUSTER, SWEENEY, WAMP,
Ms. HART and Mr. WALSH changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

{time} 1800

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, there are now more than 8 million people out of work in
this country; 3 million have been out of work for so long they have
exhausted their unemployment compensation benefits. We have more than
1.5 million fewer private sector jobs than we had 4 years ago, and the
administration's response to that has been to impose new regulations
allowing employers to chisel workers on overtime protection, despite
the fact that cost of living has risen twice as much this year as last
year, despite the fact that gas prices, college tuition, and health
care costs are going through the roof.
I had planned at this point to offer an amendment with the gentleman
from California (Mr. George Miller) which would block most of the
sections of that new rule with one exception: We would have allowed the
changes to go forward that improve the situation for workers that make
between $8,000 and $23,000 a year. But now I have been told that if I
intend to offer that amendment tonight, the majority will shut down the
House for the evening.
The record will show that the minority on every single appropriation
bill has cooperated procedurally with the majority, even when we have
not agreed with the content of those bills, in the interest of comity
in the hopes that somehow we could reach compromise and accommodation
as we move through the process.
In spite of that cooperation, the majority by the end of this fiscal
year will only be able to show that they have passed 1 and possibly 2
of the 13 appropriation bills. I want it made clear that the reason for
that miserable record is because of the rigidity of the majority and
because of their refusal to work with the minority or even other
members of the majority in the other body. This is part of a long
pattern of procedural abuse.
On prescription drugs, the majority held the vote open for 3 hours
when they did not get the result they wanted. On the PATRIOT Act, the
Sanders amendment was held open for 40 minutes until enough arms could
be broken on the majority side. On vouchers on the D.C. bill, the roll
was held open for 50 minutes until the majority could achieve a
different result. On campaign finance, the House was kept at bay for 2
hours before the majority moved ahead.
I would simply make this point, Mr. Chairman. The majority is busy
trying to bring the nicer points of democracy to Iraq. It would be nice
if they would recognize those same niceties here at home.
I want to make one further point. People are asking me, why are you
cooperating procedurally on bringing the Labor, Health, Education bill
to the floor when you are so opposed to its contents? Well, there are
two reasons. First of all, because we believe on the minority side that
these issues ought to be debated even if we do not win. Secondly, very
frankly, I want the record to show in the end that even though the
minority has given the majority every single procedural cooperation
that we could, that the majority has still not been able to perform
because of its own rigidity and because they refuse to work with
anybody, because they refuse to compromise with anybody.
It is outrageous after we have been asked for so long to bring this
bill to the floor, they now want to pull the bill so they have another
chance to twist arms overnight.
Do you really want to put workers in so much of a corner that you
will not even allow us to have a vote on this overtime provision? We
already won this vote once in the House, we won it once in the Senate,
and yet the majority leadership arbitrarily stripped it out of the bill
last year. Now you are trying to play the same game this time. I hope
that every majority Member who intends to vote for this amendment
tomorrow, if the House comes back into session on this bill, I hope you
will stick with your conscience overnight and not cave in to pressure
by tomorrow morning.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Regula).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 216,
noes 195, not voting 23, as follows:

[Roll No. 430]

AYES--216

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cox
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastert

[[Page H6859]]

Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
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
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Northup
Nunes
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
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)

NOES--195

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
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
Chandler
Clay
Conyers
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
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Hill
Hinchey
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
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
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOT VOTING--23

Ballenger
Bono
Cannon
Clyburn
Crane
Engel
Gephardt
Goss
Hinojosa
Kleczka
McGovern
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Nethercutt
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Paul
Ryan (OH)
Schrock
Strickland
Tauzin
Young (AK)

Announcement by the Chairman

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

{time} 1829

So the motion was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Simpson) having assumed the chair, Mr. LaTourette, Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 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, had come to no
resolution thereon.

____________________