[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 106 (Thursday, September 9, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H6932-H6981]
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 further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 5006.
{time} 1400
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 further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 5006) making appropriations for the Departments of
Labor, Health and Human
[[Page H6933]]
Services, and Education, and related agencies for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes, with Mr. Thornberry
(Chairman pro tempore) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole rose
earlier today, a request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered
by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) had been postponed and the
bill was open from page 104, line 1, through page 105, line 16.
Pursuant to the order of the House of today, no further amendment to
the bill may be offered except:
Pro forma amendments offered at any point by the chairman or ranking
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their designees
for the purpose of debate;
Amendments 1 and 3;
Amendment 6, which shall be debatable for 30 minutes;
An amendment by Mr. Stark regarding Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services, which shall be debatable for 20 minutes;
An amendment by Mr. Neugebauer, regarding NIMH grants;
An amendment by Mr. Hayworth regarding totalization agreements with
Mexico, which shall be debatable for 30 minutes;
An amendment by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey regarding participation by
Federal employees in conferences;
An amendment by Mr. Oberstar regarding fatal chronic illness;
An amendment by Mr. Ramstad regarding SAMHSA;.
An amendment by Mr. Brown of Ohio regarding Centers for Medicare and
Medicaid Services;
An amendment by Mrs. Wilson of New Mexico regarding Head Start;
An amendment by Mr. King of Iowa regarding section 505 of the Illegal
Immigration Reform and Responsibility Act;
An amendment by Mr. John regarding mosquito control;
An amendment by Mr. Kildee regarding education funding, which shall
be debatable for 20 minutes; and
An amendment by Ms. Bordallo regarding Medicaid funding.
Each amendment may be offered only by the Member named in the request
or a designee, or the Member who caused it to be printed in the Record
or a designee, shall be considered as read, shall not be subject to
amendment, except pro forma amendments offered by the chairman or
ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their
designees for the purpose of debate, and shall not be subject to a
demand for division of the question.
Except as otherwise specified, each amendment shall be debatable for
10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent. An amendment shall be considered to fit the description
stated in this request if it addresses in whole or in part the object
described.
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Hayworth
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Hayworth:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used by the National Labor Relations Board to exert
jurisdiction over any organization or enterprise pursuant to
the standard adopted by the National Labor Relations Board in
San Manuel Indian Bingo and Casino and Hotel Employees &
Restaurant Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC and
Communication Workers of America, AFL-CIO, CLC, Party in
Interest, and State of Connecticut, Intervenor, 341 NLRB No.
138 (May 28, 2004).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the
amendment, and I would ask the gentleman from Ohio if he intends to
claim the time in opposition to the amendment. If he does not, then I
would like to claim the time.
Mr. REGULA. No, I am not. I am going to support the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey)
reserves a point of order.
The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) is recognized for 15
minutes on his amendment.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, in May of 2004, the National Labor Relations Board
overturned 30 years of its own precedent and ruled that it has
jurisdiction over tribal government enterprises located on tribes' own
sovereign lands. Where tribal law has governed relations between tribes
and their employees, the National Labor Relations Board seeks to
replace that law with its regulatory authority in this area. This
decision by the NLRB is a frontal assault on tribal sovereign rights.
The National Labor Relations Act expressly exempts States, cities,
and local governments from its coverage; and the NLRB has ruled that
territorial governments, such as Puerto Rico and Guam, are also exempt
from its jurisdiction. But the National Labor Relations Board
incorrectly decided that it should exercise its own jurisdiction over
tribal governments on their own lands. If this unfair decision stands,
the only governments that will be subject to NLRB jurisdiction will be
tribal governments.
There is a basic misunderstanding here, Mr. Chairman. The NLRB
misunderstands that tribal governments, like State governments, rely
upon government-owned enterprises to generate revenue to support
governmental purposes, such as reservation law enforcement and fire
services, and programs for the health, education and welfare benefit of
tribal members. Consistent with the policy behind the NLRA exemptions
for governments, private parties such as labor unions should not be
able to hold government-owned enterprises hostage where disagreements
arise.
Ironically, the NLRB specifically ruled against the San Manuel Band
of Mission Indians, a tribe based in Southern California, that has
enacted into its tribal law a tribal labor relations ordinance with
greater, let me repeat this, with greater labor union rights than the
National Labor Relations Act. In fact, the tribe has a collective
bargaining agreement with the Communication Workers of America. The
heavy-handed, activist NLRB overlaid an incompatible legal regime where
a tribal one, agreed to on a government-to-government basis with the
State of California, was in place and was, in fact, working. Now, San
Manuel and other tribes have conflicting laws and great uncertainty
about which law applies.
I strongly support the tribes in their efforts to protect their
sovereign rights. Congress should reaffirm these rights and make clear
that tribes are exempt from the NLRA, which was the view of the
National Labor Relations Board until this misguided decision was
promulgated.
There are certainly sound policy reasons for such a fix. Tribes are
sovereign governments that exercise jurisdiction over their own
territory. Although some Federal laws compel tribes to deal with other
sovereigns, such as States, on a government-to-government basis, this
NLRB decision would force tribes to deal with private entities, labor
unions, for the first time, contrary to long-established Federal Indian
policy.
But until Congress can consider a permanent solution to this problem,
this amendment, Mr. Chairman, would have the effect of calling a
temporary time out to allow this body to more thoroughly consider a
more substantive solution, to avoid additional confusion among the
tribes and to limit unnecessary conflict between tribes and labor
unions.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment enjoys broad-based support from across
the width and breadth of Indian Country. The National Congress of
American Indians, the oldest and largest intertribal organization in
the United States, and the National Indian Gaming Association strongly
support this amendment. The San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, along
with many other tribes, also have weighed in with strong support for
this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, this is a question of sovereignty. We dare not
equivocate nor abdicate the role of Congress in dealing with
government-to-government relationships and the sovereignty that tribes
enjoy. Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, I would urge all to vote in favor of
this amendment because it is a vote that supports sovereignty for
Indian nations and a vote for the fundamental rights of the first
Americans to
[[Page H6934]]
maintain their status of sovereignty and their rights as sovereign
governments.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey) seek to control the time in opposition?
Mr. OBEY. I do, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is
recognized for 15 minutes.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), ranking member on the
subcommittee with jurisdiction.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, as a Member with a lifelong and established
record of being an advocate for protecting the sovereign rights of
Indian tribes, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
Since first becoming aware of the unfavorable administrative ruling
of the National Labor Relations Board that determined it has
jurisdiction to regulate the labor practices of on-reservation tribal
enterprises under the National Labor Relations Act, I, along with my
Democratic colleagues, the gentlewoman from California (Minority Leader
Pelosi), the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), and others have been
participating in ongoing, sincere discussions between tribal
representatives and representatives of labor.
The purpose of these discussions is to work out a permanent
legislative solution that honors the principles of tribal sovereignty
and Labor's traditional role of collective bargaining.
The amendment offered today by my dear friend, the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), undermines the ongoing discussions we have had,
because this temporary fix would harm the amicable relationship between
the parties involved and would possibly destroy our efforts to seek a
permanent legislative solution that is mutually satisfactory to all
parties.
I have met with the various parties in my own office. They are in an
active discussion trying to seek a permanent solution. I am convinced
that this temporary solution will interfere with those negotiations to
reach that which the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) and I share
in common, some solution and some balance to this very important
principle embodied in our Constitution of retained sovereignty and
collective bargaining.
I am convinced, or I would not be standing here, that we will get a
solution satisfactory to both sides on this issue.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, I have a great deal of respect for my colleague from
Michigan, and it is an honor to cochair with my colleague the Native
American Caucus in this body, and listening to his rationale in
response, quite candidly, is a bit confusing because on more than one
occasion we have stood united on this basic point, that sovereignty is
nonnegotiable. Yet the foundation of his argument is that an amicable
relationship exists between some in this House and some in organized
labor and some in the tribes; and if they only have the time, they can
work this out. Mr. Chairman, I find that rationale one that just does
not pass muster.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Boehner), my friend.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, let me thank my colleague for the time and
let me congratulate him on his amendment. I think his amendment is a
reasonable solution to a growing problem and deserves our support.
Simply put, it reverses a jurisdictional land grab by the National
Labor Relations Board that would reverse 30 years of policy and
precedent which held that jobs on reservations are not subject to the
Federal labor board's jurisdiction because tribes are sovereign
nations.
Until recently, the NLRB held that the National Labor Relations Act
did not extend jurisdiction over tribal activities that were located on
Native American lands, consistently holding for years that tribes are
units of government and exempt from Federal labor law. If tribal
activities occurred off Native American lands, the NLRB had
discretionary jurisdiction under the National Labor Relations Act,
which it would assert if it was appropriate. Yet, earlier this year,
the NLRB took the unusual step of ruling that it had the authority to
settle a labor dispute on Native American land.
In this case, the NLRB held that it has discretionary jurisdiction
over all tribal activities whether located on or off Native American
land, which it would now assert on a case-by-case basis. Now, this is a
critical blow to tribal sovereignty, and I believe that the effect of
the gentleman's amendment would be to stay this decision by the NLRB.
Those conversations that are under way can continue to see if there is
some way to come to some agreement on this; but to let this decision
stand I think is a mistake, and I think the gentleman's amendment has
an awful lot of merit.
{time} 1415
The Federal Government has passed numerous laws to enhance tribal
self-determination and give Native Americans the ability to govern
themselves from intrusive Federal interference. It is simply irrational
for Congress to declare that tribes should govern themselves and then
take away their ability to do so. Restoring this fundamental right, I
think, is the right thing to do.
The amendment before us simply reverses the erroneous NLRB decision
and restores tribal sovereignty, and I urge my colleagues to support
the amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank my
colleague from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for yielding me this time.
I find it very interesting that we hear a lot from the other side
today about sovereignty, and they are all very excited about it, as if
they have just discovered it. It is interesting to hear about
sovereignty from the other side, because where were they when we were
trying to get sovereignty included in homeland security? Where were
they when we were trying to get sovereignty included into all of the
other issues, like the environment? Where were they when we tried to
get sovereignty into the welfare reform bill, and tribes had to go
through States rather than have that money disbursed to them directly,
as they should under the trust responsibility?
There have been many votes that have been cast on this floor, and I
would venture to say most of these votes, because they are brought up
by the majority, I think give the true explanation as to what this
debate is all about. We have seen more votes that are antisovereignty
votes on this floor in the last several years than the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Kildee), who has been here for over 20 years, has ever
recalled.
So when some of my friends on the other side call into question the
commitment of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), when it was
that gentleman who was the author of the IGRA legislation that provided
for sovereignty, I find that suspect. When people talk about, oh, it is
sovereignty, and yet where were they when it came to the meetings that
took place so that we could get a resolution of this issue?
My colleagues, I do not think this is so much about sovereignty as it
is election-year politics. That is what this is about, make no mistake
about it. If there was a true interest in getting this issue resolved,
this issue could be resolved.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Regula), the chairman of the subcommittee.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I just want to rise in support of the
amendment. The decision on sovereignty will not be made today, it was
made a couple hundred years ago when our forefathers decided they
wanted to take these lands, and in the process they granted the Indian
tribes sovereignty.
Sovereignty is the issue, and the gentleman's amendment does respect
the sovereignty of the tribes that they received in the early years of
this Nation.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
(Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
[[Page H6935]]
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to inform the House of something that I
think is very important. Over the last year, Mr. Chairman, we have
watched the horrors of Darfur unfold before our very eyes. President
Bush and Secretary Powell, the Congressional Black Caucus, and Members
on both sides have focused on this issue and using every tool possible
to save life.
Today the United States took the historic step of calling what is
occurring in Darfur, Sudan, genocide. In his testimony this morning
before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Secretary of State Colin
Powell stated: ``We concluded that genocide has been committed in
Darfur and that the Government of Sudan and the jinjaweid bear
responsibility, and genocide may still be occurring. We believe, in
order to confirm the true nature, scope and totality of the crimes our
evidence reveals, a full-blown and unfettered investigation needs to
occur. Sudan is a contracting party to the Genocide Convention and is
obligated under the Convention to prevent and punish acts of genocide.
To us, at this time, it appears Sudan has failed to do so.'' And then
he went on to say what the position is.
I want to thank President Bush, and I want to thank Secretary Powell,
and I want to thank the people in the State Department for calling this
genocide and to doing everything they can to stop the genocide that is
taking place in Sudan.
Remember Rwanda? Nobody would say anything about Rwanda. This
administration has said it is genocide, and I say, God bless President
Bush and God bless Secretary Powell.
Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Congressional Record the full remarks
of Secretary Powell before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee:
The Crisis in Darfur
(By Secretary Colin L. Powell)
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify on the situation in Darfur. Let me
start by reviewing a little history.
The violence in Darfur has complex roots in traditional
conflicts between Arab nomadic herders and African farmers.
The violence intensified during 2003 when two groups--the
Sudan Liberation Movement and the Justice and Equality
Movement--declared open rebellion against the Government of
Sudan because they feared being on the outside of the power
and wealth-sharing agreements in the north-south
negotiations. Khartoum reacted aggressively, intensifying
support for Arab militias, the so-called jinjaweid. The
Government of Sudan supported the jinjaweid, directly and
indirectly, as they carried out a scorched-earth policy
towards the rebels and the African civilian population.
Mr. Chairman, the United States exerted strong leadership
to focus international attention on this unfolding tragedy.
We first took the issue of Sudan to the United Nations (UN)
Security Council last fall. President Bush was the first head
of state to condemn publicly the Government of Sudan and to
urge the international community to intensify efforts to end
the violence. In April of this year, the United States
brokered a ceasefire between the Government of Sudan and the
rebels, and then took the lead to get the African Union (AU)
to monitor that ceasefire.
As some of you are aware, I traveled to the Sudan in
midsummer and made a point of visiting Darfur. It was about
the same time that Congressman Wolf and Senator Brownback
were here, as well as Secretary General Kofi Annan. In fact,
the Secretary General and I were able to meet and exchange
notes. We made sure that our message to the Sudanese
government was consistent.
Senator Brownback can back me up when I say that all of us
saw the suffering that the people of Darfur are having to
endure. And Senator Corzine was just in Darfur and can vouch
for the fact that atrocities are still occurring. All of us
met with people who had been driven from their homes--indeed
many having seen their homes and all their worldly
possessions destroyed or confiscated before their eyes--by
the terrible violence that is occurring in Darfur.
During my visit, humanitarian workers from my own Agency--
USAID--and from other Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs),
told me how they are struggling to bring food, shelter, and
medicines to those so desperately in need--a population of
well over one million.
In my midsummer meetings with the Government of Sudan, we
presented them with the stark facts of what we knew about
what is happening in Darfur from the destruction of villages,
to the raping and the killing, to the obstacles that impeded
relief efforts. Secretary General Annan and I obtained from
the Government of Sudan what they said would be firm
commitments to take steps, and to take steps immediately,
that would remove these obstacles, help bring the violence to
an end, and do it in a way that we could monitor their
performance.
There have been some positive developments since my visit,
and since the visit of Senator Brownback, Congressman Wolf,
and the Secretary General.
The Sudanese have met some our benchmarks such as engaging
in political talks with the rebels and supporting the
deployment of observers and troops from the AU to monitor the
ceasefire between Khartoum and the rebels. Some improvements
in humanitarian access have also occurred through the
government continues to throw obstacles in the way of the
fullest provision of assistance.
The AU Ceasefire Commission has also been set up and is
working to monitor more effectively what is actually
happening in Darfur. The general who is in charge of that
mission, a Nigerian general by the name of Okonkwo, is
somebody that we know well. He is the same Nigerian
general who went into Liberia last year and helped
stabilize the situation there.
The AU's mission will help to restore sufficient security
so that these dislocated, starving, hounded people can at
least avail themselves of the humanitarian assistance that is
available. But what is really needed is enough security so
that they can go home. And what is really needed is for the
jinjaweid militias to cease and desist their murderous raids
against these people--and for the Government in Khartoum to
stop being complicit in such raids. Khartoum has made no
meaningful progress in substantially improving the overall
security environment by disarming the jinjaweid militias or
arresting its leaders.
So we are continuing to press that Government and we
continue to monitor them. We continue to make sure that we
are not just left with promises instead of actual action and
performance on the ground. Because it is absolutely clear
that as we approach the end of the rainy season, the
situation on the ground must change, and it must change
quickly. There are too many tens upon tens of thousands of
human beings who are at risk. Some of them have already been
consigned to death because of the circumstances they are
living in now. They will not make it through the end of the
year. Poor security, inadequate capacity, and heavy rains
(which will not diminish until late September) continue to
hamper the relief effort.
The UN estimates there are 1,227,000 Internally Displaced
Persons (IDPs) in Darfur. In July, almost 950,000 IDPs
received some form of food assistance. About 200,000 Sudanese
refugees are being assisted by UNHCR and partner
organizations in Chad. The World Food Program (WFP) expects
two million IDPs will need food aid by October.
U.S. Government provision of aid to the Darfur crisis in
Sudan and Chad totaled $211.3 million as of September 2,
2004. This includes $112.9 million in food assistance, $50.2
million in non-food assistance, and $36.4 million for
refugees in Chad, $5 million for refugee programs in Darfur,
and $6.8 million for the African Union mission.
The. U.S. also strongly supports the work of the AU
monitoring mission in Darfur. In fact, 23 initiated the
Mission through base camp set-up and logistics support by a
private contractor. The Mission is staffed with 125 AU
monitors now deployed in the field and has completed
approximately 20 investigations of cease-fire violations. The
AU monitoring staff is supported by a protection force of
305, made up of a Rwandan contingent of 155 (they arrived on
August 15) and a Nigerian contingent of 150 (they arrived on
August 30). Recognizing the security problems in Darfur, the
UN and the U.S. have begun calling for an expanded AU mission
in Darfur through the provision of additional observers and
protection forces. Khartoum appears to have signaled a
willingness to consider an expanded mission.
I am pleased to announce, Mr. Chairman, that the State
Department has identified $20.5 million in FY04 funds for
initial support of this expanded mission. We look forward to
consulting with the Congress on meeting additional needs.
As you know, as we watched through the month of July, we
felt more pressure was required. So we went to the UN and
asked for a resolution. We got it on July 30.
Resulution 1556 demands that the Government of Sudan take
action to disarm the jinjaweid militia and bring jinjaweid
leaders to justice. It warns Khartoum that the Security
Council will take further actions and measures--UN-speak for
sanctions--if Sudan fails to comply. It urges the warring
parties to conclude a political agreement without delay and
it commits all states to target sanctions against the
jinjaweid militias and those who aid and abet them as well as
others who may share responsibility for this tragic
situation. Too many lives have already been lost. We cannot
lose any more time. We in the international community must
intensify our efforts to help those imperiled by violence,
starvation and disease in Darfur.
But the Government of Sudan bears the greatest
responsibility to face up to this catastrophe, rein in those
who are committing these atrocities, and save the lives of
its own citizens. At the same time, however, the rebels have
not fully respected the ceasefire. We are disturbed at
reports of rebel kidnappings of relief workers. We have
emphasized to the rebels that they must allow unrestricted
access of humanitarian relief workers and supplies and
cooperate fully, including with the AU monitoring mission.
[[Page H6936]]
We are pleased that the Government of Sudan and the rebels
are currently engaged in talks in Abuja, hosted by the AU.
These talks are aimed at bringing about a political
settlement in Darfur. The two sides have agreed on a protocol
to facilitate delivery of much-needed humanitarian assistance
to rebel-held areas, and are now engaged in discussions of a
protocol on security issues. We are urging both sides to
intensify negotiations in order to reach a political
settlement.
At midsummer, I told President Bashir, Vice President Taha,
Foreign Minister Ismail, the Minister of Interior and others,
that the United States wants to see a united, prosperous,
democratic Sudan. I told them that to that end we are fully
prepared to work with them. I reminded them that we had
reached an historic agreement on June 5--an agreement
between the Government of Sudan and the Sudan People's
Liberation Movement (SPLM). That agreement covered all the
outstanding issues in the north-south process.
Since then, the parties have been engaged in final
negotiations on remaining details. However, the parties are
stuck on the specifics of a formal ceasefire agreement and
have not yet begun the final round of implementation
modalities. Special Envoy Sumbeiywo met recently with the
parties, but could not resolve the remaining ceasefire-
related issues. Khartoum appears unwilling to resume talks at
the most senior level, claiming it must focus on Darfur. That
would be fine if its focus were the right focus. But it is
not. The SPLM is more forward leaning, but still focused on
negotiating details. We believe that a comprehensive
agreement would bolster efforts to resolve the crisis in
Darfur by providing a legal basis for a political solution
(decentralization) and by opening up the political process in
Khartoum.
President Bashir has repeatedly pledged to work for peace,
and he pledged that again when we met in midsummer. But
President Bush, this Congress, Secretary General Annan and
the international community want more than promises. We want
to see dramatic improvements on the ground right now. Indeed,
we wanted to see them yesterday.
In the meantime, we are doing all that we can. We are
working with the international community to make sure that
all of those nations who have made pledges of financial
assistance meet those pledges. In fact, the estimated needs
have grown and the donor community needs to dig deeper.
America has been in the forefront of providing assistance to
the suffering people of Darfur and will remain in the
forefront. But it is time for the entire international
community to increase their assistance. The U.S. has pledged
$299 million in humanitarian aid through FY05, and $11.8
million to the AU mission, and we are well on the way to
exceeding these pledges.
SYG Annan's August 30 report called for an expanded AU
mission in Darfur to monitor commitments of the parties more
effectively, thereby enhancing security and facilitating the
delivery of humanitarian assistance. The report also
highlighted Khartoum's failure to rein in and disarm the
jinjaweid militia, and noted that the Sudanese military
continued to take part in attacks on civilians, including
aerial bombardment and helicopter strikes.
We have begun consultation in New York on a new resolution
that calls for Khartoum to cooperate fully with an expanded
AU force and for cessation of Sudanese military flights over
the Darfur region. It also provides for international
overflights to monitor the situation in Darfur and requires
the Security Council to review the record of Khartoum's
compliance to determine if sanctions, including on the
Sudanese petroleum sector, should be imposed. The resolution
also urges the Government of Sudan and the SPLM to conclude
negotiations on a comprehensive peace accord.
And finally there is the matter of whether or not what is
happening in Darfur is genocide.
Since the U.S. became aware of atrocities occurring in
Sudan, we have been reviewing the Genocide Convention and the
obligations it places on the Government of Sudan.
In July, we launched a limited investigation by sending a
team to refugee camps in Chad. They worked closely with the
American Bar Association and the Coalition for International
Justice and were able to interview 1,136 of the 2.2 million
people the UN estimates have been affected by this horrible
violence. Those interviews indicated:
A consistent and widespread pattern of atrocities
(killings, rapes, burning of villages) committed by jinjaweid
and government forces against non-Arab villagers;
Three-fourths (74%) of those interviewed reported that the
Sudanese military forces were involved in the attacks;
Villages often experienced multiple attacks over a
prolonged period before they were destroyed by burning,
shelling or bombing, making it impossible for villagers to
return.
When we reviewed the evidence compiled by our team, along
with other information available to the State Department, we
concluded that genocide has been committed in Darfur and that
the Government of Sudan and the jinjaweid bear
responsibility--and genocide may still be occurring. Mr.
Chairman, we are making copies of the evidence our team
compiled available to this committee today.
We believe in order to confirm the true nature, scope and
totality of the crimes our evidence reveals, a full-blown and
unfettered investigation needs to occur. Sudan is a
contracting party to the Genocide Convention and is obliged
under the Convention to prevent and to punish acts of
genocide. To us, at this time, it appears that Sudan has
failed to do so.
Article VIII of the Genocide Convention provides that
Contracting Parties ``may call upon the competent organs of
the United Nations to take such action under the Charter of
the United Nations as they consider appropriate for the
prevention and suppression of acts of genocide or any of the
other acts enumerated in Article III.''
Today, the U.S. is calling on the UN to initiate a full
investigation. To this end, the U.S. will propose that the
next UN Security Council Resolution on Sudan request a UN
investigation into all violations of international
humanitarian law and human rights law that have occurred in
Darfur, with a view to ensuring accountability.
Mr. Chairman, as I said the evidence leads us to the
conclusion that genocide has occurred and may still be
occurring in Darfur. We believe the evidence corroborates the
specific intent of the perpetrators to destroy ``a group in
whole or in part''. This intent may be inferred from their
deliberate conduct. We believe other elements of the
convention have been met as well.
Under the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment
of the Crime of Genocide, to which both the United States and
Sudan are parties, genocide occurs when the following three
criteria are met:
Specified acts are committed: (a) killing; (b) causing
serious bodily or mental harm; (c) deliberately inflicting
conditions of life calculated to bring about physical
destruction of a group in whole or in part; (d) imposing
measures to prevent births; or (e) forcibly transferring
children to another group;
These acts are committed against members of a national,
ethnic, racial or religious group; and
They are committed ``with intent to destroy, in whole or in
part, [the group] as such''.
The totality of the evidence from the interviews we
conducted in July and August, and from the other sources
available to us, shows that:
The jinjaweid and Sudanese military forces have committed
large-scale acts of violence, including murders, rape and
physical assaults on non-Arab individuals;
The jinjaweid and Sudanese military forces destroyed
villages, foodstuffs, and other means of survival;
The Sudan Government and its military forces obstructed
food, water, medicine, and other humanitarian aid from
reaching affected populations, thereby leading to further
deaths and suffering; and
Despite having been put on notice multiple times, Khartoum
has failed to stop the violence.
Mr. Chairman, some seem to have been waiting for this
determination of genocide to take action. In fact, however,
no new action is dictated by this determination. We have been
doing everything we can to get the Sudanese government to act
responsibly. So let us not be preoccupied with this
designation of genocide. These people are in desperate need
and we must help them. Call it a civil war. Call it ethnic
cleansing. Call it genocide. Call it ``none of the above.''
The reality is the same: there are people in Darfur who
desperately need our help.
I expect that the government in Khartoum will reject our
conclusion of genocide anyway. Moreover, at this point
genocide is our judgment and not the judgment of the
International Community. Before the Government of Sudan is
taken to the bar of international justice, let me point out
that there is a simply way for Khartoum to avoid such
wholesale condemnation. That way is to take action.
The government in Khartoum should end the attacks, ensure
its people--all of its people--are secure, hold to account
those who are responsible for past atrocities, and ensure
that current negotiations are successfully concluded. That is
the only way to peace and prosperity for this war-ravaged
land.
Specifically, Mr. Chairman, the most practical contribution
we can make to the security of Darfur in the short-term is to
increase the number of African Union monitors. That will
require the cooperation of the Government of Sudan.
In the intermediate and long term, the security of Darfur
can be best advanced by a political settlement at Abuja and
by the successful conclusion of the peace negotiations
between the SPLM and the Government of Sudan.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman
for yielding me this time, and I rise in opposition to the Hayworth
amendment. I think it is unfortunate, as the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Kildee) pointed out, that this amendment is offered here. This
amendment will not stop the impact of the NLRB ruling, it will simply
stop the enforcement of that act, so those who want to seek to organize
under the act will go forward,
[[Page H6937]]
and we will find out about penalties for noncompliance or the results
of the actions much later, some years from now, if this amendment
passes.
But I think it is also important to note the gentleman sort of
belittled the efforts of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee),
myself, the leaders of the tribes, the leaders of the AFL-CIO sitting
down together to work this out. And yet he cites that the California
arrangement was basically the subject of negotiations where, in fact,
the tribes, the labor unions, and Governor Schwarzenegger came up with
an arrangement that some say is stronger than the current National
Labor Relations Act.
The point is these are good-faith negotiations. We have had several
meetings. Many people were surprised that either of those organizations
would walk into the same room to sit down and discuss this, but they
recognized the problem here. The problem, unlike State governments, is
that you have tens of thousands of workers and potentially many tens of
thousands of workers working in Indian gaming facilities, who, if they
are not properly treated, if they are mistreated, not saying they will
be, they are not enrolled members of the tribe, and they really have no
recourse. They have no recourse to that activity. They cannot vote
against the mayor, they cannot recall the city council, they cannot
organize their fellow citizens because they are not members of that
tribe.
As my colleague knows, in many of these instances, the size of the
tribe may be a couple hundred people. Obviously, they cannot run a
casino because the workforce there is several thousand of those
individuals. So I do not think it is a matter of national policy. And
the Indians have recognized this in our discussions, that you would
leave people without some recourse to an ability to organize. That is
why they have recognized, at least in these discussions, that we should
go forward and try to see whether or not we can develop a system that
honors sovereignty and is a parallel system to provide for the
protection and the recognition of these workers.
That is, in effect, what we are doing now. And I did not quite
understand the previous exchange, because the suggestion is somehow
that this is make-work. I hope not, because I, obviously, and many of
the people in that room are very prominent people and very busy people.
I hope we are not wasting our time.
Now, what has happened since this amendment appeared, those meetings
have all been canceled. So I think it has been destructive to that
process.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from
Arizona.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding, and this
would make the point. In terms of the negotiations in California, were
they not, in fact, conducted on a government-to-government basis?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). Time of the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller) has expired.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to my friend, the
gentleman from California.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman
for yielding me this time, and I am sorry, but I will have to ask him
to repeat the question.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield to me for
that purpose.
The gentleman talked about the California situation and the
negotiations that went on in the gentleman's home State. I would just
simply ask: Were not those negotiations conducted with sovereign tribal
entities negotiating with the State of California on a government-to-
government basis?
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Reclaiming my time, which the
gentleman yielded to me, Mr. Chairman, I would respond that, actually
the chairman of the San Manuel Tribe will say no; that that was not the
case. But I would tend to agree with the gentleman. Exactly.
That is what we are trying to do here as representatives of the
Federal Government, recognizing the doctrine of sovereignty and
protecting that with the tribes.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Which is exactly my point.
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute, and I would simply make the
point in response that what we are dealing with here today, contrary to
the comments of my friend from Rhode Island, sovereignty was not
created in the wake of IGRA. Indeed, a part of the Indian Gaming
Regulatory Act was a government-to-government negotiation between
sovereign tribes and the respective States.
Now, with reference to what has gone on and what has been described
as productive negotiations, yes, indeed, tribes met with several union
officials in attempts to negotiate. Our understanding is essentially
the negotiations went nowhere. And, Mr. Chairman, the tribes are in no
position to negotiate because of this NLRB ruling. This amendment is an
immediate solution for now, and it will fix this problem, offering a
time out, until a final solution can be crafted.
Sovereignty is not conditional. We cannot accept it in some
instances, but then, when it somehow is politically inconvenient,
ignore it in others. That is why this amendment should be passed, and I
ask my colleagues to join me in this.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey) continue to reserve his point of order on this amendment?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Brown).
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, the gentleman
from Wisconsin, for yielding me this time.
For the first time, under the San Manuel decision, workers at Indian
casinos, Indians and non-Indians alike, enjoy the full protection of
the NLRA's right to organize and right to engage in collective
bargaining. The right to organize and collectively bargain, those
rights are internationally recognized ILO human rights.
Many tribes have established tribal labor ordinances pursuant to
State gaming compacts. Basic labor rights, including the right to free
association, the right to collective bargaining, and labor rights that
are reflected in both the NLRA and many tribal labor ordinances, are
the rights that we insist on in international trading with our
international trading partners, including underdeveloped nations.
We insist that labor rights be enforced in international trade
agreements. We include provisions in trade agreements to protect those
rights. We debate those rights on the House floor. We insist upon that,
yet this amendment denies those rights to workers in the United States.
This amendment leaves workers with no enforceable right to organize
or to engage in collective bargaining. So we are saying to other
countries, do it there, but in our own country we are not preserving
and protecting those labor rights, the rights to organize and the
rights to bargain collectively.
Rather than pass this amendment, Mr. Chairman, we should be working
with both tribal and labor representatives to discuss solutions to the
potential conflict between workers' rights and tribal sovereignty. The
Hayworth amendment pits workers' rights against tribal rights.
Ultimately, it damages both.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
It is interesting to listen to my friend, the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Brown), try to characterize this amendment, when I think more
accurately we would characterize this as a choice. And this is the
choice to make in this Chamber, and, Mr. Chairman, especially for those
who say time and again they are friends of sovereignty.
Are we, in fact, going to respect the provisions in Article I,
section 8 of our Constitution that grants sovereign rights and
sovereign immunity to Indian tribes in that document of limited and
specified powers, or are we going to make a change for political
convenience, for political alliances?
And I understand it may be very uncomfortable for some in this
Chamber, but are we basically going to say, Mr. Chairman, that the
rights of union negotiations supersede the rights of sovereignty?
Make no mistake, Mr. Chairman, in this Chamber, at this time, this
decision will be made. And I would offer for
[[Page H6938]]
all to note that we should never suborn sovereignty for political
convenience. We dare not make that mistake. Support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1430
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).
Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Hayworth
amendment. Tribal nations have established commercial gaming
enterprises because of the economic prospects and to improve the living
conditions of their tribal members. Before gaming, many of these tribes
had little or no economic development and next to nothing on their
lands to provide a foundation of commerce.
If you had come to Las Vegas when my family came to Las Vegas over 4
decades ago, you would have found similar circumstances. A remote place
in the Nevada desert with virtually no economic activity. My community
looked to gaming, and now Las Vegas has one of the most vibrant
economies in the United States. The key to Las Vegas' success is a
strong relationship between labor and management. As a result, our
casino workers have good-paying jobs, good benefits, good working
conditions. Workers at tribal gaming facilities deserve the same.
The National Labor Relations Board ruled it has jurisdiction at
casinos operated by American Indian tribes. This decision ensures that
the rights of all workers in this country, including those working on
tribal lands, are protected. Las Vegas is a shining example of why such
an atmosphere of respect between employees and employers strengthens
the entire community.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment which is one-
sided and jeopardizes ongoing discussions between those parties
impacted by the ruling. Rather than resolving the situation, this
amendment may only cause deterioration in efforts to come to mutually
beneficial solutions. The NLRB has ruled and this Congress should not
overturn that ruling.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller).
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, there is a little bit
of having it both ways. The gentleman from Arizona says he respects the
California compacting process; yet in the 106th and 107th Congress, we
debated this amendment when he wanted to prohibit the State of
California or any entity negotiating a compact with the Indians from
even discussing labor rights. I am a little bit confused here about
what it is.
The gentleman does not like the negotiations that were going on
because he likes what California is doing, but now we see in fact this
amendment is not just about what happened with the National Labor
Relations Act, because he has been trying to prevent the tribes or
States from engaging in any discussion on terms and conditions of
employees. This was long before.
The gentleman does not come here with some pure heart. The gentleman
is subsuming what those compacts could be about; and this Congress,
recognizing sovereignty, passed legislation to allow for that
compacting to take place. That is what the law is, that those
arrangements take place between the governors and the tribes.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, while I respect my colleague from Arizona,
I do not think this is the right time or right vehicle to consider this
issue. As we have seen time and time again, the Native American Caucus
has been unified on amendments and bills that benefit Indian Country.
Today that is not the situation.
Mr. Chairman, as Members know, I have been a long supporter of both
tribal sovereignty and workers rights, as have many in this body. But
the amendment we are considering now could have far-reaching
implications on these issues and should not be acted upon in a hasty
fashion.
Several States, such as California and New York, have previously
worked out agreements with Native American tribes on this very issue.
Currently, similar negotiations are underway to find a more permanent
solution for all of Indian Country.
Even if the Hayworth amendment is passed today and becomes law, it is
not a permanent fix. We will be back here again next year debating the
same issue. We should be looking for a permanent solution, and we
should allow all parties to continue to work out an agreement and not
move this amendment today.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining, the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) has 1 minute remaining, and the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has the right to close.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
It is very simple at the end of day. I listened with interest to the
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), who would not let me
answer a question. It had nothing to do with my advocacy of any policy,
simply the notion that negotiations take place on a government-to-
government basis.
Now, much has been made of the National Labor Relations Act and the
National Labor Relations Board; but many in this Chamber, friends who
unfortunately line up on the other side of this issue today, often cite
the document that trumps all of these organizations, the United States
Constitution, article 1, section 8, that Congress shall have the power
to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States
and with the Indian tribes.
Sovereignty is not situational. The Constitution of the United States
trumps the National Labor Relations Act. It trumps any treaty, and
tribes, as sovereign governments, should have the freedom to determine
if this should go forward. Support this amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, a few years ago I endured efforts to recall me because
I steadfastly supported the principle of tribal sovereignty, and I do
not regret that. I think I took the right position. But I am opposed to
this amendment because of something that happened in Wisconsin several
years ago. One of the tribes in my district contracted out for the
operation of a casino to a private operator. That private operator had
some very strange rules. One of the rules when women were hired was
very blunt: Put out or get out. It was an outrageous way to deal with
female employees, but we had no way to reach into that situation and
protect those women workers because the State compacts did not provide
protection under such circumstances.
I do not ever want that to happen again to any woman working anywhere
in my State or any other State in the Union. That is why I believe that
the correct vote on this amendment is to vote against this amendment
because the last time I looked, the United States Constitution
guarantees equal protection under the law to every citizen; and I am
not about to suggest that in cases of casinos, for instance, on or off
reservation, that the people who work for those casinos are not going
to be entitled to the protection which they need in order to experience
decent working conditions.
I think a Congress that cannot protect women in those circumstances
is a Congress that is impotent, and I do not believe Congress ought to
be impotent in those situations, so I urge a ``no'' vote on the
amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Hayworth) will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Kildee
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Kildee:
At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the
following new section:
[[Page H6939]]
Sec. ___. None of the funds appropriated under this Act may
be used by the Secretary of Education to administer or pay
any special allowance under section 438(b)(2)(B) of the
Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087-1(b)(2)(B))
pursuant to the provisions of section 682.302(e)(2) of the
regulations of the Department of Education (34 CFR
682.302(e)(2)).
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
today, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) and the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Wicker) each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple. At a time when students and
families are struggling with skyrocketing tuition, we are squandering
an opportunity to generate more student aid. This fiscal year alone,
nearly $1 billion in special student loan subsidies will be paid by the
Federal Government to lenders rather than used for financial aid for
students. This subsidy results from an obscure provision in the Higher
Education Act and its regulations which provide lenders a 9.5 percent
rate of return on certain student loans.
This rate of return is excessive when we consider that lenders are
guaranteed approximately a 3.5 percent rate on other student loans. The
9.5 percent guarantee was established in the high interest rate year of
1980. Congress intended for it to be phased out of existence beginning
in 1993; but through a regulatory loophole, the guarantee has
continued. Both the New York Times and the L.A. Times have reported on
this loophole. The Government Accountability Office will soon issue a
report which calls for the Department of Education to correct its
regulations on this matter.
This special subsidy has caused a loss of financial opportunity for
students. Students are bearing the brunt of rising college costs and
shrinking grant aid. Today we have an opportunity to correct this
problem. Despite this issue being addressed in the last Presidential
budget, no action has taken place. Since this subsidy has not been
eliminated, it has now tripled in the past 3 years.
It has been publicly announced in our hearings in the Committee on
Education and the Workforce and in the press that we will not authorize
the Higher Education Act this year. This essentially prevents Congress
from addressing this issue in the normal fashion. This amendment is the
only recourse left to us today. The amendment ends the special subsidy
for new loans which are funded with proceeds from bonds which have been
refunded or transferred.
Today, Mr. Chairman, we have an opportunity to curtail the biggest
use of this provision to date. I urge Members join me in supporting
this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Boehner).
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Kildee amendment.
In February of this year, President Bush called on Congress to end
the 9.5 percent floor interest rate subsidy paid to some lenders in the
student loan program. The 9.5 percent floor was supposed to be phased
out beginning in 1993, but through a bureaucratic move by the Clinton
administration Department of Education, the practice has continued.
We followed the President's lead earlier this year when we introduced
the College Access and Opportunity Act and called for the elimination
of these 9.5 percent loans, which in my view and the administration's
view and the view of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) are being
abused by some lenders in order to get an extra subsidy on the student
loans that they process.
I would welcome the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) to the
efforts we have put forward throughout this year to eliminate the 9.5
percent floor, and urge my colleagues to support the gentleman's
amendment.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), a cosponsor of the amendment.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Kildee) for his leadership on this issue. I am very pleased to
hear that this amendment is going to be accepted, because I think it is
a bipartisan amendment. Its goal is to save the taxpayer money, money
that could be better spent both towards reducing the deficit and
investing in education programs like Pell grants and other programs
which will help provide greater student loans to many needy students
out there.
As Members have heard, this 9.5 percent loan scheme has been in place
for some time, but only recently have we seen many people taking
advantage of it and really abusing it. According to GAO's preliminary
findings, it will cost the taxpayer $1 billion this year. If we do not
close it now, it will cost the taxpayer even more down the road. These
are dollars that could be invested in other forms of support in the
area of education.
{time} 1445
I do want to note that the budget submitted by the Bush
administration this year, the fiscal year 2005 budget, assumed that we
as a Congress would address this issue. So I very much hope that as
this appropriation bill goes to the Senate, that we stick with this
provision and this position, because if we do not and this is removed
from the bill, it will end up costing the taxpayers billions of dollars
going forward.
I am very pleased to hear that this has been accepted, but I do want
to underline the importance of addressing this right now, because as a
result of our action to close these loopholes, those that have been
taking advantage of it may be encouraged to try and take even greater
advantage of it until it is actually shut down. So if we do not shut it
down in the next few months, we are going to see a further run on the
taxpayer and further loss of valuable resources that we could spend and
invest in other very important education initiatives.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The question is on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Kildee) will be postponed.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Tancredo
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Tancredo:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. ___. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act may be used to pay the salaries and
expenses of personnel to carry out the provisions of section
1011 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and
Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-173).
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
today, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) and the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Regula) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
My amendment is very simple and straightforward. It would essentially
prevent the implementation of section 1011 of the prescription drug
bill passed by Congress earlier this year. That section, as the Members
may recall, is a controversial provision of the law that provides $1
billion to cover the health care costs of illegal aliens in the
country.
Let me quickly add that what this amendment does not do, because
oftentimes we submit an amendment of this nature and there are all
kinds of claims made about what dire things would happen if it were to
pass. This amendment restricts health care to no one. It has nothing to
do with provision of
[[Page H6940]]
health care. Health care will still, of course, be provided to people
because of EMTALA, because of the requirement of the Federal
Government.
Right now we spend upwards of $61 billion a year, Federal dollars,
going to hospitals for Medicaid reimbursement. That, by the way, does
not cover Medicare payments, but just in Medicaid alone, $61.2 billion.
The provisions of EMTALA said that if you accept Federal dollars, you
must provide service to people on any basis if they need it. They
cannot be refused medical attention for emergency care.
This does not change that in any way, shape or form. The services
will still be provided. But recently promulgated rules designed to
implement the section fall short of establishing any meaningful
accountability measures for the money, and, more importantly, they do
not require information-sharing with homeland security officials to
ensure that illegal aliens are deported after their condition
stabilizes. As a result, the same illegal aliens could conceivably
receive medical care at taxpayers' expense over and over and over
again.
It is also important to note that many of the States incurring the
heaviest costs for treating illegal aliens have helped create their own
problems. In many cases they have taken steps to make themselves
magnets for illegal immigrants, whose health care costs they are now
burdened with, by permitting them to obtain driver's licenses, enroll
in higher education at instate rates, obtain public services through
the use of consular ID cards. All of these things, of course, attract
more people to come who are, in fact, in the country illegally, and
then their health care costs become a burden to the taxpayer.
The sad irony is that many of the Americans who are being asked to
cough up the $1 billion to fund health care for these illegal aliens do
not have health insurance themselves. This giveaway is bad for
taxpayers, sends the wrong message to illegal aliens and Americans
alike, and comes at far too high a price. It was wrong when we passed
it. It is wrong today.
Mr. Chairman, we have more pressing needs in this country than
providing a patients' bill of rights for illegal aliens. I hope Members
will support my amendment and save American taxpayers $1 billion.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment would forbid the use of CMS funds to
administer the undocumented alien program funded in last year's
Medicare Modernization bill. I am reluctant to get into this debate
because it is the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Commerce,
and last year's Medicare bill included funding for this new program
intended to provide relief to hospitals in jurisdictions with large
numbers of undocumented aliens.
I think the goal here might be to prevent these undocumented aliens
from having health care, but the truth of the matter is the hospitals
are going to pay the price. They are not going to turn anybody away
that comes to the door that needs medical treatment. And if they cannot
get reimbursed from CMS, they are going to have to eat it. The
hospitals have to do a lot of this as it is with charity patients and
so on, and I do not think it is fair to use an amendment like this to
put an additional burden on hospitals. While it may seem to preclude
undocumented aliens from getting health care, the truth is they are
going to get it, and instead of being reimbursed, the hospitals are
going to have to eat it and, in effect, pass it on to the rest of their
clients.
This was defeated as a proposal to overturn the program by 331-88
last May on H.R. 3722. I understand the feelings of the gentleman from
Colorado, but the truth of the matter is I do not think it is a burden
we want to shove off on hospitals, and they already have enough outlays
for charity patients, for charity work, and let us not add one more set
of problems to them.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I agree with the gentleman when he says that this will not prevent
anyone from obtaining services, and it is not my intent to prevent
anyone from obtaining services. That is really not the purpose of this.
Hospitals, yes, they will provide the services. They must under EMTALA.
It is absolutely accurate to say that the burden falls somewhere,
taxpayers, somewhere along the line, he is right.
To me it is just peculiar, to say the least, that we actually take
part of the law and identify a program for $1 billion for services for
people who have broken the law. That is the peculiar aspect of this. If
we had to add $1 billion to the $34.6 billion that we give hospitals in
order to care for the poor, if that is the place to do it, that is the
place to do it. It is this odd identifying in law a provision for
services for people who have broken the law, other than incarceration
services.
It is also odd, I would say, that there are really only two groups of
people in this country that can obtain free medical health care, health
services, at any time they want, and that is people who are
incarcerated and people who are here illegally. What a strange
situation.
I just believe that the $1 billion should be reallocated. There are
better uses, or at least better placement of it, than in this bill.
That is my only purpose.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this
time, and I come to rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado.
Once again, what we are looking at here is something that tries to
deal with the symptoms of illegal immigration. It does not actually
deal with the problem that we have of illegal immigration. But in this
case we are really not talking about going after illegal immigrants at
all. We are going after hospitals. We are going after health care
providers. We are going after the people that are providing the health
care, that are providing emergency services for these people, and we
are saying we are going to punish those particular people.
This is an antihospital amendment. There is no other way to describe
it. It is just an antihospital amendment. If this amendment passes, we
are punishing the overburdened and undercompensated hospitals, which I
happen to have a lot of them in my district because we have a lot of
the illegal immigration in Arizona. And so the costs in Arizona are
tremendous. This is targeted directly against the hospitals in places
like Arizona and along the border there.
If the Federal Government mandates that hospitals treat those that
are brought to their doors, and they do, then the problem is you need
to reform that law, EMTALA as it is called. If you want to deal with
the problem, reform that. Otherwise the Federal Government needs to be
responsible for the mandate that it has created by saying that
hospitals must serve anybody who shows up in their emergency room, must
serve them. That is the way it probably should be, in my opinion. I do
not think we want hospitals saying, we are going to turn you away, and
we are going to deal with this other person. But if you want to reform
it, that is where you need to reform it.
We have hospitals in my district that are going bankrupt. They cannot
offer medical services because they are not being reimbursed. One of
our two major hospitals in Tucson has closed their trauma one center
largely because the other hospital is overburdened with trauma one care
right now, and it is largely because of this problem, and this, of
course, would put an even greater burden on them and hurt them even
more. They are disappearing through no fault of their own. They are
complying with the law. They are dealing with the care for people that
need this care.
This is the wrong approach. I urge rejection of this amendment.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I would just conclude by saying that I certainly agree with the last
gentleman and his reference to the fact that this does not solve any
illegal immigration problem. It is not designed to do that. That is not
the purpose. It is designed to correct what I believe to
[[Page H6941]]
be a terrible flaw in the law. We should never, ever put in law that we
are, in fact, taking taxpayer money and providing services for people
who have broken the law. That is a bad precedent. If you want to add
the money, put it into the already $61 billion that we give hospitals
for the purpose of treating folks who are in need. That is all I am
saying. It has got nothing to do with immigration.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to
Congressman Thomas G. Tancredo's amendment to the Labor-HHS-Education
Appropriations bill, H.R. 5006. This amendment would prohibit the use
of funds to pay the salaries and expenses of personnel to carry out the
section of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and
Modernization Act of 2003, that deals with federal reimbursement for
emergency health services furnished to undocumented aliens.
The effect of this amendment would be to require physicians and other
health care providers to become part-time border patrol agents.
According to the American Medical Association (AMA), withholding
necessary care on the basis of a person's immigration status would
violate the Hippocratic Oath. The AMA also has expressed concern over
the fact that discouraging undocumented individuals from seeking
medical care for problems that might cause harm to others, such as
communicable diseases, could have very negative effects on existing
public health efforts.
I share the concerns of the AMA. The fear of deportation inevitably
would prevent some undocumented immigrants from seeking care for
communicable diseases until they are extremely ill, at which point they
might have already exposed many people to their diseases.
Today's health care delivery system is very fast-paced, and, in an
emergency situation, the urgency of providing life-saving care takes
precedence over anything else. Requiring hospitals to collect
immigration data would divert time and attention from caring for
patients. Hospitals do not have the expertise or the resources to
interrogate and investigate patients in the pressured environment of an
emergency room.
It also would divert funds that could be used to provide health care
services for some of America's estimated 44 million uninsured patients.
A substantial portion of these funds would have to be used to establish
and implement an expensive new immigration enforcement program for our
already underfunded, overburdened community hospitals.
This legislation would weaken federal Emergency Medical Treatment and
Active Labor Act (EMTALA) obligations by redefining the circumstances
under which hospitals are required to treat patients who are
undocumented immigrants. Such a policy would create a dangerous
situation for all patients because physicians would be required to
impose differing standards of care based on whether they determine a
patient to be in the country legally or not. By necessity, emergency
department professionals must be afforded the latitude necessary to
provide treatment based solely on which treatment is medically
appropriate for the patient and without regard to immigration status.
It is in the best interests of all patients, documented and
undocumented alike, that medical staff be permitted to focus their
attention on caring for patients and providing necessary medical
treatment rather than on assisting the federal government in enforcing
the immigration laws of this country. I urge you therefore to vote
against this amendment.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
The amendment was rejected.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Stark
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Stark:
Page 105, after line 16, insert the following new section:
Sec. 519. The amount otherwise provided by this Act for
``DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES--Office of the
Secretary--General Departmental Management'' is hereby
reduced by $84,500.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
earlier today, the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) and the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) each will control 10 minutes.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio reserves a point of
order on the amendment.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark).
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, this is probably the lowest-priced amendment to be
offered to this bill, but what it does basically is takes away $84,500
from the Secretary of HHS's management budget. The purpose of the
amendment is to establish firmly the rights of Congress in regard to
getting information from the administration.
Very quickly, during the course of drafting and debating the Medicare
bill that dealt with prescription drugs, the head of CMS Mr. Scully
threatened improperly the actuary for CMS and caused this actuary to
withhold information from the House of Representatives which would have
indicated that the drug bill would not cost $400 billion, but more like
$530 or $540 billion. That is a $140 billion difference. It may very
well have affected the way many of us might have voted on that bill. It
was substantial information. This information was not classified, and
it comes under a bill that started back in 1912 when then Senator
LaFollette indicated that we should have this information in the normal
course of our proceedings available to us. According to GAO, who has
recently suggested that the point of this legislation be enacted, never
in the history of that legislation since 1912 has anybody violated this
law until now. And it was GAO who said that the recourse for violating
the law, for preventing a member of the administration from giving us
information relative to our business, should be that the salary of the
Administrator of CMS was improperly paid during the time from the point
he gagged his subordinate until the end of his term when he resigned in
December.
{time} 1500
So quite simply said once again, it is uncontrovertable that the law
was broken by Mr. Scully, that the remedy is that he should not have
the salary that he was paid during the period in which the information
was withheld from us, and it indeed runs to the prerogative of this
House to receive the information that is necessary for us to do our
business in the normal course of legislating. And the Secretary can get
the $84,500 back if he wants to go after Mr. Scully for it, and it is
highly symbolic, but I think it is imperative that we establish our
rights to receive information, either side of the aisle, or from any
administration in the future.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve a point of order, and
I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I am not sure I understand the objective of this
amendment, reducing the Office of the Secretary by $84,500 in general
departmental management. Here we are talking about a Department with a
$60 billion, $60 billion, budget, and to manage that Department
efficiently and effectively, we gave a reasonable amount in the bill.
And I think it would be a great mistake because the programs that are
part of Health and Human Services are very important to people, and if
we start debilitating the ability of the Office of the Secretary to
manage these agencies well and these programs well, we are not hurting
the head of the agency, we are hurting the people who would be
benefiting from the programs.
And for this reason I think it is a big mistake, because already, in
constructing a bill and because of the constraints, we had a limited
amount of additional funding under the Budget Act, and it would be a
serious mistake to constrain them even more. And to penalize the
Department for a mistake by Tom Scully, and he is no longer there, is
not right. It is penalizing the people, tens of thousands of people,
that benefit tremendously from the Health and Human Services programs,
and to in any way erode the ability to manage these programs on behalf
of people I think is a big mistake. And I would, therefore, be strongly
in opposition to this proposal.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Brown).
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
California (Mr. Stark) for yielding me this time.
[[Page H6942]]
I rise in support of the Stark amendment. This whole Tom Scully issue
is a sorry page in a sordid chapter in congressional history. Think
about this whole process of the Medicare bill passing this Congress if
this new law that seniors, most seniors I know, think was foisted on
them, this bill written by the drug industry and the insurance
industry.
The vote to pass Medicare was taken in the middle of the night. The
debate started at midnight. The vote was taken at 3 o'clock. The roll
call, unprecedented in congressional history, was kept open for 2 hours
and 55 minutes until Republican leadership could twist arms all over
this House floor back in the cloakroom; waking up the President in the
middle of the night; trying to change Republican votes; trying to
literally bribe at least one Republican Member of Congress, who talked
about it on radio the next day; the millions of dollars in campaign
contributions that were used to pass this Medicare bill. Tens of
millions of dollars went to President Bush's reelection from the drug
industry and the insurance. Tens of millions of dollars went into
Republican leadership campaign coffers from the drug industry and
insurance industry. And then to top off this sordid chapter in
congressional history, Mr. Scully, the gentleman, a good public
servant, but the gentleman that was negotiating on behalf of seniors,
on behalf of taxpayers, was negotiating this bill, and he was lining
himself up for a job soon after the bill was signed by President Bush,
a job representing and lobbying for drug companies and for insurance
companies. What is wrong with this?
This amendment needs to be passed to at least undo part of this very
sordid chapter in congressional history.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would feel a lot better about this issue
if the Republican leadership in the Congress decided to do something
when they first heard that Tom Scully, who was the Administrator of the
agency, Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, threatened to fire
the actuary if he gave Congress the accurate information about how much
the Medicare bill would cost. We were told in the Congress that it was
going to cost $400 billion. It turned out it was $600 billion. And the
actuary knew about it, and Mr. Scully said to him if he told the
Congress, he was going to fire him.
I hear no sense of outrage from the Republican leadership of the
Congress, of the House. I hear no sense of outrage from Republican
Members who voted for this bill because they thought it would only be
$400 billion and would have voted against it if they had known the true
facts.
The Government Accountability Office has issued its findings to the
investigation in this matter, and they said what Mr. Scully did was
improper, and he should not be paid. So under the amendment offered by
the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark), we would take out $84,500
from the appropriations bill in order to make the point of protest as
to what happened. That is not a lot of money given the scope of this
appropriations bill, but I would feel more comfortable in deferring to
the chairman of the subcommittee if he and other leaders on the
Republican side of the aisle had at least expressed some outrage on
behalf of this institution that we were treated the way we were.
So I support the Stark amendment at least to do something about this
issue.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I have one more speaker, but I did want to repeat that, as far as
this gentleman is concerned, the issue here, I know the dollars are not
significant, but I rather suspect that the laws that were violated were
written by the Republican Party when it was in the minority, and I do
not think it is an issue that is partisan. I really believe this is an
issue that does not deal with anything other than the very most basic
facts which we need to carry out our duties here. And, yes, the $84,500
is symbolic, but it is the only recourse that we have under the law.
The law was clearly broken. It seems to me that we should demand that
it be taken and leave it to the Secretary to collect the $84,500 in any
manner that he sees fit.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Pallone).
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I think this amendment is very important
and should be supported.
There has to be some consequence of the Medicare Administrator giving
the wrong information to Congress about such an important bill and
knowing full well that he was giving that wrong information to
Congress. I mean, keep in mind that Mr. Scully was told by Mr. Foster
what the actual cost would be, and knowing full well that information,
and knowing that if that accurate information had been given to this
body, we would never have passed the bill, but he still refused to give
it and actually sought to even penalize Mr. Foster, or threatened him,
if the accurate information was given to us.
The Department has said that they are not going to ask Mr. Scully for
the money back for his salary. Mr. Scully has said that he has no
intention of returning it to the government. So there is simply no
penalty for giving inaccurate, false information to this body that they
know to be false. That is a terrible thing, no consequences. How can we
operate as a body when the actuary's information is not given to us,
and there is no consequence for that even though the GAO says it is
wrong?
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, the Stark Amendment takes direct aim at
part of the Bush Administration's pattern of cover ups, clandestine
policy making, and concealment of critical information from the
Congress. I urge all my colleagues to support it.
We had Dick Cheney's secret energy task force. We've seen military
records concealed. We had no-bid contracts for Halliburton. We've seen
government reports doctored--like the one on minority health
disparities. And we've seen more games played with numbers during this
Administration than you'd get from an Enron accountant. Tax cuts--
they're free! (Yet we've got the largest deficits on record.)
Employment--it's up! (Yet, we still have 1.2 million fewer jobs now
than when the recession started and more workers than ever looking for
work.) The uninsured--we're covering them! (Yet, 5.2 million Americans
have been added to the ranks of the uninsured under President Bush's
watch.)
The recent HHS Inspector General and the GAO reports on the unsavory
activities of Mr. Tom Scully, the Administrator of the Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), during the Medicare debate give
us one more example of the Administration's deception of Congress and
the American people.
The Administration, through former CMS Administrator Scully, covered
up important cost information, particularly the fact that the bill
would cost more than 500 billion dollars, that Congress should have
seen prior to voting on the Medicare bill. Mr. Scully threatened the
Chief Actuary with adverse consequences if he provided requested
estimates to Congress, and had his underling threaten the Chief Actuary
as well. All the while making sure that the White House had the real
information.
Just this week, GAO issued a legal opinion stating that Mr. Scully's
actions violated federal law, and is recommending that the money from
the Medicare Administrator's salary which he received during these
improper activities--$84,500--be returned to the Treasury. This
amendment does that.
Accountability has been lacking throughout the four years of this
Bush Presidency. We need to bring accountability back to the
government. And we should start right here with this Amendment offered
by my colleague Representative Stark.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I would, as a matter of prerogative of the
House, encourage us all to support this modest amendment, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry).
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
California (Mr. Stark).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. Stark) will be postponed.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Paul
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
[[Page H6943]]
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Paul:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to create or implement any new universal mental
health screening program.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House earlier
today, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes.
(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, my amendment says that no funds in this bill
will be permitted to be used to institute system of universal mental
health screening. The New Freedoms Commission on Mental Health, a
commission established in 2002, has recommended universal mental health
screening for all our children in our public schools as well as adults
who work in these schools. As a medical doctor, as a civil libertarian,
and a strict constitutionist, I strongly reject this notion, this plan,
as dangerous and nonproductive.
This type of screening would surely lead to a lot more treatment of
hyperactive kids. We already have an epidemic in our schools today that
are overtreated. Too often under these conditions, children are coerced
into taking medicine. It has been known that parents who have denied
medication for their children have been accused of child abuse. There
is already tremendous pressure on parents to allow public school
officials to put children on medication like Ritalin.
This amendment would not deny, in the routine course of events,
medical treatment for those who are suffering from mental disease. What
my concern is for a universal screening test of all children for mental
illness.
Diagnosis in psychiatry is mostly subjective. It is very difficult to
come up with objective criteria. If we wanted psychiatrists to perform
the test to make it more objective, it would be impossible. We are
talking about an unbelievable number of psychiatrists that are not
available, so nonpsychiatrists would be doing this testing.
One of the worst downsides from a program like this would be for a
child to be put on a list as having some type of mental disorder.
{time} 1515
An unruly child is going to be the first one to be determined as
mentally disturbed. It is happening all the time. Those are the
individuals that are hyperactive even in a normal sense and end up on
Ritalin.
But can you imagine a list of this sort? They claim it will be
private, but can you imagine if there is a list that has identified an
individual as a possible candidate for violence? And what if he were to
be hired by an important industry? What if the post office was to hire
this individual and he was on this list and we did not make this
information available to the hiring authorities? That means there would
be tremendous pressure to make public officials use this list for
reasons that I think would be very, very negative.
The whole notion of testing children to me represents a principle
even more intrusive than a mandatory blood test. It would make more
sense medically to have a blood test for, say, AIDS, if you thought it
was the responsibility of the Federal Government to take this job upon
themselves. But, no, if we tried to do this in the area of mental
diseases, believe me, the criteria would be way too arbitrary. A
diagnosis will be too difficult to determine with a set of objective
standards.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). Does any Member rise in
opposition to the amendment?
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I am a little baffled by this, because there is nothing
in this bill to establish the universal mental health screening. I do
not know what the need for the amendment is. I understand what the
concern of the gentleman is if this were the case, but we do not have
it. There is no requirement, there is no money, there is no action.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, that is correct, there is no money specified
for this. But on previous legislation, the authority exists for us to
be involved in mental health. The particular bill's mental health
services, it is on the books. The legislative authority is there. It
could be done by regulation.
I am just saying you are correct, it is not on there, so there should
be no objection, is my interpretation. It is just a protection, a
statement by the House that we do not like this idea because this is a
recommendation from a commission set up by the administration, and I
would like to cut it off before it gets very far.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I guess you might call
this preventive medicine.
Mr. PAUL. I hope the gentleman will join me in this effort for
preventive medicine.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is a little inflammatory. You do have a lot
of people who for, one reason or another, maybe family members, maybe
in their own case, they do have problems. I think, in a way, to pass an
amendment of this type is sort of putting our thumb in their eye or
sort of saying, hey, we do not want any part of this.
What the commission did in their report is say this is a problem we
need to be thinking about, that we need to address. But I think it is
premature, and it is unfair in a way to identify a segment of the
population and say under no circumstances are you going to get any
help.
For this reason, I would have to oppose the amendment.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I think the amendment was misconstrued by the previous
speaker, because it would not deny medical care. What it does is it
denies the authority to the administration to have universal screening
of all children in public school. It does not deny care to any
individual that may qualify.
Already the SAT tests have now been changed to incorporate having the
students write a paragraph about personal beliefs and their world view.
Can you not see the connection? If one has a strange world view or a
strange personal belief, if you have a prejudice or whatever one may be
deemed mentally ill.
This is a dangerous idea and a notion that has been used by
totalitarian societies throughout the ages. Just think of the extreme
of this if this is not nipped in the bud, as happened in the Soviet
system. People were not always convicted of crimes; but they were put
in psychiatric hospitals to be retrained, to be conditioned to think
differently and politically correct.
When we see a monopoly school system, a universal school system,
talking about standardizing what they think is sound mental health,
believe me, we are treading on dangerous ground.
I would like to restate once again, this amendment does not deny
treatment to any individual that is pointed out to have medical needs.
This goes along with the principles of reasonable cause. They cannot go
in and search our houses, or at least they are not supposed to, without
a reasonable cause. We should not go into these kids' minds without
reasonable cause and sort out this kind of information.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out that this is the President's
new Freedom Commission on Mental Health, and it is titled, ``Achieving
the Promise. Transforming Mental Health Care in America.'' But nowhere
in this report does it propose universal mental health screening.
So this amendment is totally unnecessary, and I think it is almost a
slap in the face to people that have some difficult problems.
Therefore, I would be strongly in opposition to it.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
[[Page H6944]]
Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I
certainly agree with the gentleman's comments. I have great respect and
affection for the gentleman from Texas. I know that he believes what he
believes deeply, and I respect that. But I just would have to say that
I wish we were at the stage in this country in terms of our recognition
of mental illness, I wish we were at the stage in this country where we
could provide every child with the opportunity to be screened, so that
we can catch ahead of time developing problems and help families who
otherwise have nowhere to turn.
I join with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) in opposition to the
amendment.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy), a member of our subcommittee.
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I think we have before us
a choice between science and stigma. Stigma is the biggest barrier to
us making sure millions of Americans gain access to what is
fundamentally a physical illness. You do not need to take my word for
it. You have every Nobel Laureate, the Surgeon Generals of the United
States, all saying this is a physiologically, biologically based
illness. So the notion that we are going to shut kids out from being
screened so that we can intervene and make a difference in their lives,
I do not understand.
I would add one more thing: our colleagues have learned the hard way.
Three of our colleagues have lost their children in the last couple of
years alone as a result of suicide. We voted on one of those bills on
suicide prevention on Senator Smith's son, who died a year ago
yesterday as a result of suicide. We know of many others whose
tragedies we do not want to go into.
But to think that suicide and mental illness are not scientifically
based is to look back and think we are still living in the Stone Age.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Paul) will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Brown of Ohio
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Brown of Ohio:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used for administrative costs for the collection of
monthly premiums under part B of the medicare program for
months in a year at monthly premium rates that exceed the
monthly premium rates for months in the previous year.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
today, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against this
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio reserves a point of
order.
The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) is recognized for 5 minutes on
his amendment.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, last week, the Bush administration on Friday afternoon
when no one was paying attention, right after he made a speech at the
convention assuring seniors that Medicare would be strong and prosper,
and right as Labor Day weekend began and no one was paying attention,
the President announced a dramatic increase, a historically high
increase in Medicare part B premiums paid by seniors and the disabled,
a 17 percent increase, the single biggest premium hike in Medicare
history.
Most seniors rely on the Social Security cost-of-living adjustments,
COLAs, to offset Medicare premium increases. Though the administration
has not published it yet, the Social Security COLA will be about 3
percent, making the Medicare increase almost six times what the COLA
increase for Social Security will be.
Usually they are announced at the same time. This year, because of
the election, presumably, the President thought he could sort of
quietly do this right before Labor Day. He did not really want to
announce them at the same time, presumably because the premium increase
for Medicare was five to six times what the COLA increase would be.
Why are those premiums rising so dramatically? The Bush
administration spokesman says it is because seniors are going to
receive enhanced benefits. He did not acknowledge that the premium
increase will help cover enhanced benefits for HMOs, $12 billion worth.
So we have a $130 increase for seniors' premiums, and we have $12
billion more going into HMO pockets. HMO profits already are soaring;
they increased 50 percent last year. Yet the Bush administration is
tapping the Medicare trust fund and making seniors pay more out of
pocket to finance a $12 billion HMO slush fund. That is just the
beginning. The total HMO payment changes in last year's law will cost
taxpayers $46 billion.
So even as it is emptying the Medicare trust fund, the Bush
administration has the audacity to ask the American seniors to pay
more. The change would require each of 40 million senior and disabled
Americans to pay $139 more next year for Medicare coverage. My
amendment would stop the premium increase.
Unfortunately, my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), is
using his discretion to object to the amendment on procedural grounds.
I urge my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), to reconsider
because we need to look at this bigger picture: how much money are we
paying the insurance companies; how much are we telling seniors they
have to reach into their pockets.
There is no justification for pouring billions into the pockets of
already very profitable HMOs and asking seniors on fixed incomes to
absorb a 17 percent increase just to appease a President bent on
privatizing Medicare.
Asking seniors to finance the President's privatization agenda is not
just unjustifiable; it is, frankly, shameful. If this amendment does
not pass, seniors will see their premiums rise sharply while HMOs take
billions more in so-called bonus payments.
The chairman can and should permit a vote on this amendment so we can
begin to restore the trust of seniors and the fiscal integrity of
Medicare.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would point out that the gentleman that just spoke is
a member of the authorizing committee with jurisdiction, and,
therefore, this ought to be handled there.
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment
offered by Mr. Brown, my good friend and the ranking member of the
Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee.
Last week the Bush administration announced a 17-percent increase in
premiums for Medicare Part B benefits. This is the highest increase in
Medicare's long history.
In fact, since the Bush administration came to town, Medicare
premiums have increased twice as much as they did during all 8 years of
the Clinton administration combined.
On every account, it is wrong for our seniors on fixed incomes to
face double digit increases in their Medicare premiums.
But to make matters worse, our seniors are left footing the bill as a
result of this administration's failed health care policies.
If this administration wants to increase access to health care, it
should ensure that Medicare--as a safety net program--is truly
affordable to America's senior citizens.
Instead, this administration is charging our seniors an extra $5.5
billion next year, all the while diverting $12 billion from the
Medicare Trust Fund to help HMOs lure Medicare beneficiaries away from
traditional Medicare.
Instead of siphoning money from the Medicare Trust Fund to the HMOs'
pockets, the administration should focus on the fiscal realities facing
the Medicare program.
By stopping the Medicare Part B premium increase, the Brown amendment
will force them to do just that.
[[Page H6945]]
I urge my colleagues to do right by America's seniors and support
this amendment.
Point of Order
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
amendment because it is a violation of section 302(f) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974. The Committee on Appropriations filed
a suballocation of budget totals for fiscal year 2005 on July 22, 2004,
House Report 108-633. This amendment would provide new budget authority
in excess of the suballocation made under section 302(b) and is not
permitted under section 302(f) of the act.
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown)
wish to be heard on the point of order?
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I have one additional speaker. Is it
possible that he can speak before that?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) has
made a point of order on the amendment. The Chair must at this point
entertain only argument related to the point of order.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak respecting the
opinion and statement of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) on the
point of order.
Mr. Chairman, this is a question of, by and large, moving money from
the Medicare trust fund, the money that Congress has decided should go
to insurance companies, and, as a result, costing Medicare
beneficiaries an additional payment out of their pockets.
It is basically a zero-sum game. Are we in this body going to say
insurance companies are going to get the money, or are we going to say
we are going to charge beneficiaries for that money? I would appeal
based on that.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair is prepared to rule on the point
of order.
The Chair is authoratively guided under section 312 of the Budget Act
by an estimate of the Committee on the Budget that an amendment
providing any net increase in new discretionary budget authority would
cause a breach of the pertinent allocation of such authority.
The amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio would increase the
level of new discretionary budget authority in the bill.
{time} 1530
As such, the amendment violates section 302(f) of the Budget Act.
The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not in order.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Ramstad
Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The Clerk will designate
the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Ramstad:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are
revised by reducing the amount made available for
``Employment and Training Administration-Training and
Employment Services (including Rescission)'', by reducing the
amount made available for ``Employment Standards
Administration-salaries and Expenses'', by reducing the
amount made available for ``Occupational Safety and Health
Administration-salaries and Expenses'', by reducing the
amount made available for ``Mine Safety and Health
Administration-salaries and Expenses'', by reducing the
amount made available for ``Bureau of Labor Statistics-
salaries and Expenses'', by reducing the amount made
available for ``Departmental Management-salaries and
Expenses'', by reducing the amount made available in title I
for ``Office of Inspector General'', by reducing the amount
made available for ``Health Resources and Services
Administration-Health Resources and Services'', by reducing
the amount made available for ``Children and Families
Services Programs'', by reducing the amount made available
for ``Administration on Aging-Aging Services Programs'', by
reducing the amount made available for ``Office of the
Secretary-General Departmental Management'', and by
increasing the amount made available for ``Substance Abuse
and Mental Health Services Administration-Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Services'', by $18,978,00, $10,802,00,
$10,967,000, $7,280,000, $15,022,000, $5,000,000, $4,386,000,
$11,042,000, $12,312,000, $1,158,000, $5,234,000, and
$100,000,000, respectively.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
today, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad) and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes on the amendment.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on this
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula)
reserves a point of order.
The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad) is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This amendment would fully fund the President's request for the
Access to Recovery grant program, which helps people who need chemical
dependency treatment get the help they need from the treatment provider
of their choice.
Mr. Chairman, it is time for Congress to get serious about the
problem of alcohol and other drug addiction and treat it like the
number 1 public health crisis it is. Nearly 1 in 10 Americans today is
suffering the ravages of chemical addiction. Twenty-six million
Americans are addicted to drugs and/or alcohol, and 156,000 Americans
died last year from this fatal disease.
The public costs of untreated addiction are also staggering. A
Brandeis University study found that addiction costs the American
economy $400 billion a year. That is billion with a B, Mr. Chairman.
These criminal justice costs, health care costs, lost productivity in
the workplace, and so on are a huge drain on our economy, and there are
countless other human costs we cannot even begin to quantify.
At the same time, Mr. Chairman, there is real hope for Americans
struggling with the disease, hope through treatment and recovery. We
have all the empirical evidence in the world to show that treatment
works, and expanding access to treatment, as the President wants us to
do, is not only the right thing to do, but it is also the cost-
effective thing to do.
The National Institute on Drug Abuse did an exhaustive study and
found that every dollar spent on treatment saves $7 in criminal justice
costs alone. If savings in health care are factored in, we save $12 for
each dollar spent on treatment. A California study found that statewide
emergency room admissions dropped by one-third after treatment, and
crime declined by two-thirds following treatment.
So the question, Mr. Chairman, is not whether we can afford to
provide treatment; the question is whether we can afford not to provide
treatment.
Mr. Chairman, I stand here today as a grateful recovering alcoholic
of 23 years, 1 month, and 9 days, and I am alive today only because I
had access to the treatment that I needed. If fully funded, the Access
to Recovery program could extend the same lifeline to 100,000 other
Americans who desperately need help, who desperately need treatment.
President Bush proposed the Access to Recovery program last year, and
we funded just half of his $200 million request. As a result, 45 States
applied for funding; because of the lack of funds, only 14 States and 1
tribal government received any grants. It is clear, Mr. Chairman, the
demand far outstrips the supply of these critical funds. The bill
before us, once again, contains only one-half the funding that the
President requested.
Mr. Chairman, this is a life-or-death issue, and we cannot afford to
be half-hearted about it. This amendment would fully fund the
President's request by adding $100 million to the Access to Recovery
program. It is fully offset with cost-savings for administrative
accounts.
Mr. Chairman, President Nixon, when he first declared the war on
drugs in the 1970s, directed 60 percent of funding, of Federal funding,
to treatment. Today we are down to 18 percent, 18 percent. That is why
over half the treatment beds available just 10 years ago are gone. That
is why 3.5 million Americans were denied treatment last year alone.
This program, the Access to Recovery program, will not only enable
addicted Americans to receive treatment, it will also help increase the
number of providers, and the rigorous peer review process at SAMHSA for
obtaining the grants and its strong program evaluation requirements
will lead us to better performance-based treatment in this country.
I urge my colleagues to support this critical program and provide
hope to thousands of Americans who need
[[Page H6946]]
treatment for the fatal disease of alcohol and other addiction, alcohol
and other drug addiction.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Point of Order
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of
order.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman for his concern. We
have the same concern in the subcommittee. We have put lots of money in
the State grants. We have put $100 million in this program. I think it
is important that we prove the efficacy of it, give the agency a chance
to demonstrate that it will work.
But in the meantime, we are constrained by parliamentary rules, and
under the parliamentary requirements, this does require some additional
expenditure.
Therefore, 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. Clause 2 of Rule
XXI states in pertinent part: ``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. The amendment, therefore, violates clause 2 of Rule XXI, and
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Ramstad) wish to be heard on the point of order?
Mr. RAMSTAD. I do, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I understand this amendment is subject to a point of
order because it seeks to add funding to an account administered by
SAMHSA. Unfortunately, the authorization for SAMHSA did expire at the
end of last year.
At the very least, Mr. Chairman, this should be a wake-up call for
Congress to reauthorize SAMHSA without further delay. SAMHSA is a
critical source of treatment funding for the 45 million Americans
suffering from mental illness and the 26 million Americans suffering
from chemical addiction.
It is unfortunate this amendment will most likely be ruled out of
order because Congress has not acted to reauthorize SAMHSA. However, I
look forward to working with the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula)
and my other colleagues on the critical mission of expanding access to
treatment for people suffering the ravages of chemical addition.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr.
Kennedy) wish to be heard on the point of order?
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would like to be
heard on the point of order.
I believe that this is an important point that the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad) brought up. I thought it was brought up very
poignantly because of the importance of this issue, and I wanted to
join him in addressing this issue and to ask my colleagues to
acknowledge the real champion on these issues with alcoholism and
substance abuse that the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad) speaks
so eloquently about and is such a leader on.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair is prepared to rule on the point
of order.
The proponent of an item of appropriation carries the burden of
persuasion on the question of whether it is supported by an
authorization in law.
Having reviewed the amendment 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 Chair is therefore constrained to sustain the point of order
under clause 2(a) of Rule XXI.
The amendment is not in order.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to send or otherwise pay for the attendance of more
than 50 Federal employees ``from that agency'' at any single
conference occurring outside the United States.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
today, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes on the amendment.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Over the last few days, I have heard colleagues from both sides of
the aisle address the financial situation that our government finds
itself in with regard to the budget deficits and our level of spending.
Mr. Chairman, while people may disagree on each side of the aisle on
exactly how we got to this point, how we got here, I think most Members
will agree that we are, in fact, spending too much money.
That is why I am proposing today a very simple amendment, a common-
sense approach, I think, to help limit the amount of money that the
government spends of our constituents' hard-earned tax dollars.
My amendment will simply do this: It will limit the number of Federal
employees that are sent to international conferences funded under this
bill to 50. Recently there has been a trend, unfortunately, by various
government agencies to send far in excess of this number of staff to
international conferences, costing taxpayers millions upon millions of
dollars. Like all of my colleagues, I understand the importance of
staff, both on a personal level and on an agency level, but I think we
have an obligation to our citizens back at home to do all we can to
rein things in.
Let me just take a moment to cite one example. Back in 2002, a U.S.
agency sent 236 people to an international AIDS conference in
Barcelona, Spain. These employees were sent at a cost of $3.6 million
of taxpayers' funds. Someone pointed out after I raised this point
earlier how much treatment and how many individuals could have been
treated with that $3.6 million had we not sent so many people.
Due to my limited time here right now, I am not going to go into
other examples of excesses as far as employees and staff being sent to
these conferences; I am just going to urge my colleagues on both sides
of the aisle to support this amendment, to support the limited number
to 50, a number that we have done on voice vote on a previous bill, on
the foreign ops bill, a number that was also concurred with by the
Secretary of HHS as well as in his own directive to his employees. So I
encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, and I yield
myself such time as I may consume.
I understand my colleague's concern about international travel. I
think that Secretary Thompson has done a good job of trying to get
guidelines established in the agency. William Steiger, who is the son
of one of our former highly respected House colleagues, is a point
person in the agency. They are reviewing their travel requirements.
I am not going to object to the amendment, but I think that Secretary
Thompson is very much aware of this problem, and I think he will
address it certainly in the way in which he administers the Department.
He has done a superb job in handling a very difficult agency in HHS.
There may be special occasions when it requires more than 50,
particularly when many of these meetings are in Canada.
But in any event, we will address this as we go along, and we are not
going to object to it today.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of
my time.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Neugebauer
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
[[Page H6947]]
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Neugebauer:
At the end of the bill, insert after the last section
(preceding the short title) the following section:
Sec. _. None of the funds made available in this Act for
the National Institute of Mental Health may be used to fund
grant number MH054142 & MH064527.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
today, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer) and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas. (Mr. Neugebauer).
(Mr. NEUGEBAUER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
My amendment would prohibit the National Institute of Mental Health
from further funding a grant studying the decorations of dorm rooms and
college students' Web pages. It also would prohibit NIMH from further
funding a grant studying what makes for a meaningful day.
This would not cut out any funding for NIMH; it would simply focus
research funding that is provided toward serious mental health issues
and not interior decoration.
I have personally read this grant application and found that each
participant was allowed to receive $100 for decorating his dorm room
and, additionally, three $1,000 prizes were given away in a lottery to
the study participants.
The second application states that ``for many students, attending
college may be a source of meaning itself, as a stepping stone to
future goals or as a means of occupying a meaningful social role.''
Now, I do not think we need to spend $1 million for college students to
determine what is a meaningful day in their life.
Each of us meet with constituents on a daily basis with serious
mental health issues threatening not only themselves, but their
families. Right now, when Americans are facing these unbearable losses,
taxpayer dollars should be focused on serious mental health issues like
bipolar disorders and Alzheimer's.
Research areas under the NIMH include Alzheimer's, schizophrenia,
bipolar disorder, and suicide prevention. Grants to questionable
studies like dorm room wall decorations cloud many of the good things
that the National Institute of Mental Health does and can do.
According to a recent study published by the Treatment Advocacy
Center and Public Citizen, ``Individuals with serious mental illnesses
account for 58 percent of our direct costs for all mental illness.
However, only 5.8 percent of the NIMH budget funds `clinically
relevant' studies.''
I have no doubt that those receiving those NIH funds will conclude
that their research is valid, but when I talk to Americans with mental
health issues and mental illnesses, I want to be able to tell them that
we are committing NIH funds to studying serious mental health issues.
{time} 1545
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Flake).
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time,
and I thank the gentleman for bringing this important amendment
forward. Every once in a while you just have to stand back and say,
hey, you have gone too far here, and studying dorm room walls to see if
the paintings or the decorations on them say something about the health
of the student or whatnot is just going too far.
I can look back at college and I can tell my colleagues my dorm room
walls were pretty bare. It said one thing about me, that I was broke,
and that is what most students are worried about in college, just
getting through. To tell them that they are paying taxes and some of
their taxes are going to study what they have put on their dorm room
walls, as to what that tells about them, is simply absurd.
So I think every once in a while you have to step back and say we
will have none of this; you have gone too far, the taxpayers deserve
better.
I thank the gentleman for bringing it forward, and I urge support for
the amendment.
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The gentleman from Texas
has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Does the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) seek the time in
opposition?
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Hulshof).
Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
I would like to commend the gentleman from Texas for working with me.
I would like to commend the gentleman and thank the gentleman for the
advance notice seeking to rescind funding for a competitive grant that
has been awarded to a constituent of mine. I would like to, but I
cannot because he did not have the common courtesy to advise me of that
in advance.
Certainly, the gentleman portrays the amendment in a simplistic way,
and I know that is certainly great fodder for an election-year press
release, but I would say to the gentleman that the grant itself does
have substance.
First about the scientist. Dr. Laura King, who is a constituent of
mine at Columbia, Missouri, I would like to put her curriculum vitae
into the Record, Mr. Chairman, at this point.
Laura A. King, Ph.D.
Office Address: Department of Psychological Sciences,
University of Missouri
McAlester Hall
Columbia, MO 65211
(573) 882-6389
K[email protected]
Date of Birth: January 4, 1964, Dover, Ohio
Academic Record & Honors
Ph.D.--1991 University of California, Davis, Psychology,
with distinction
M.A.--1990 University of California, Davis, Psychology
M.A.--1989 Michigan State University, Psychology, Phi Kappa
Phi
A.B.--1986 Kenyon College, English Literature with High
Honors & Distinction; Psychology with Distinction; summa cum
laude, ranked 2nd in class; Phi Beta Kappa; Semi-finalist for
the Mellon Fellowship in the Humanities, 1986; Awards for
Outstanding Junior English Major (1985) and Outstanding
Senior Psychology Major (1986)
Research Grants Awarded
NIMH/FIRST Award MH54142 $475,728.00, 1995-2000 ``Goals,
Identity, and Meaning in Life''
NIMH 2R01MH054142-06A2 (same grant, different name)
``Goals, Memory, and Self-Regulation'', 2002-2005; $450,000
Templeton Prize in Positive Psychology, $50,000 (including
$35,000 unrestricted research grant)
Awards
Chancellor's Award for Outstanding Research and Creative
Activity in the area of Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2004,
University of Missouri
Named a H.O.P.E. Professor for excellence in teaching, SMU,
2000
Maguire Teaching Fellow (for Teaching Ethics), SMU, 2000
The ``M'' Award presented by SMU for ``sustained
excellence,'' 1999
Mortar Board Senior Honor Society Faculty Appreciation
Award, 1998
Rotunda Outstanding Faculty Teaching Award, SMU, 1996
Faculty Member of the Month Award, SMU Student Association,
April, 1995
Professional Experience
2003-present--Professor, University of Missouri, Columbia
2001-2003--Associate Professor, University of Missouri,
Columbia
1997-2001--Associate Professor, Southern Methodist
University
1991-1997--Associate Professor, Southern Methodist
University
1988-1991--Teaching Assistant and Instructor, University of
California, Davis
1988--Graduate Assistant, Murray Lectures Committee, M.S.U.
1986-1988--Teaching Assistant, Michigan State University
1984-1986--Writing Clinic Tutor, English Department, Kenyon
College
Professional Affiliations
Society for Personology (Elected for membership, 2004);
Association for Research in Personality--elected Member At
Large, 2002; American Psychological Association; APA Division
8; American Psychological Society; Midwestern Psychological
Association; Society of Experimental Social Psychology;
International Society for Self and Identity
Editorial Activities
Associate Editor, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 1999-2003
Associate Editor, Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin 1998-1999
[[Page H6948]]
Guest Co-editor, with Kennon Sheldon American Psychologist:
Special Section on Positive Psychology, 2001; Guest Editor,
Journal of Personality: Special Section: Personality
Development and Personal Growth, 2002; Editorial Board,
Journal of Personality, 1996-2003; Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 1997-1999; Ad hoc Reviewer, Psychological
Bulletin, Psychological Review, Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin Journal of Abnormal Psychology, Social
Cognition, Journal of Research in Personality, Basic and
Applied Social Psychology, Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, Psychological Science
Grant Review Panels
National Institutes of Health Panel RPHG-4, 1999-2003 SPIP,
2003-present; Special emphasis panels, 3/2000, 7/2000
publications
Articles
Scollon, C.N., & King, L.A. (2004). Is the good life the
easy life? Social Indicators Research 68, 127-162.
Twenge, J.M., & King, L.A. (in press). A good life is a
personal life: Relationship fulfillment and work fulfillment
in judgments of life quality. Journal of Research in
Personality.
King, L.A., & Raspin, C. (2004). Lost and found possible
selves, well-being and ego development in divorced women.
Journal of Personality, 72, 603-631.
Burton, C.M., & King, L.A. (2004). The health benefits of
writing about peak experiences. Journal of Research in
Personality, 38, 150-163.
King, L.A., & Smith, S.N. (2004). Happy, mature, and gay:
Intimacy, power, and difficult times in coming out stories.
Journal of Research in Personality, in press.
King, L.A., & Smith, N.G. (2004). Gay and straight possible
selves: Goals, identity, subjective well-being, and
personality development. Journal of Personality, 72, 967-994.
King, L.A. (2003). The Mysterious and Audacious World of
Melanie Klein. Contemporary Psychology, 48.
King, L.A. (2003). Money really doesn't buy happiness.
Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy.
King, L.A. (2003). Some truths behind the trombones?
Psychological Inquiry, 128-131. Invited commentary on
Lazarus.
Singer, J.A., King, L.A., Green, M.C., & Barr, S.C. (2002).
Personal Identity and Civic Responsibility: ``Rising to the
Occasion'' Narratives and Generativity in Community Action
Student Interns. Journal of Social Issues 58, 535-556.
King, L.A. (2002). Personal growth and personality
development: A foreword to the special section. Journal of
Personality, 70, 1-4
King, L.A. (2001). The health benefits of writing about
life goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27,
798-807.
Sheldon, K., & King, L.A. (2001). Why positive psychology
is necessary. (foreword to the special section). American
Psychologist, 56, 216-217.
King, L.A. (2001). The hard road to the good life: The
happy, mature person. The Journal of Humanistic Psychology,
Special Issue on Positive Psychology, 41, 51-72.
King, L.A., & Patterson, C. (2000). Reconstructing life
goals after the birth of a child with Down Syndrome: Finding
happiness and growing. International Journal of
Rehabilitation and Health, 5, 17-30.
King, L.A. (2000). Why happiness is good for you: A
commentary on Fredrickson. Prevention and Treatment, 3,
Article 4. Available on the World Wide Web: http://
journals.apa.org/prevention/volume3/pre0030004c.html.
King, L.A., Scollon, C.K., Ramsey, C.M., & Williams, T.
(2000). Stories of life transition: Happy endings, subjective
well-being, and ego development in parents of children with
Down Syndrome. Journal of Research in Personality, 34, 509-
536.
King, L.A., & Miner, K.N. (2000). Writing about the
perceived benefits of traumatic life events: Implications for
physical health. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
26, 220-230.
Pennebaker, J.W., & King, L.A. (1999). Linguistic Styles:
Language use as an individual difference. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1296-1312.
King, L.A. (1998). Ambivalence over emotional expression
and reading emotions in situations and faces. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 753-762.
King, L.A., & Napa, C. (1998). What makes a life good?
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 156-165.
King, L.A., Richards, J., & Stemmerich, E.D. (1998). Daily
goals, life goals, and worst fears: Means, ends, and
subjective well-being. Journal of Personality, 66, 713-744.
King, L.A., & Pennebaker, J.W. (1998). What's so great
about feeling good? Psychological Inquiry, 9, 53-56. (Invited
commentary on Ryff & Singer).
King, L.A., & Broyles, S. (1997). Wishes, gender,
personality, and well-being. Journal of Personality, 65, 50-
75.
King, L.A., & Williams, T. (1997). Goal orientation and
performance in the martial arts. Journal of Sport Behavior,
20, 397-411.
King, L.A., McKee-Walker, L. & Broyles, S. (1996).
Creativity and The Five Factor Model. Journal of Research in
Personality, 30, 189-203.
King, L.A. (1996). Who is regulating what and why? The
motivational context of self-regulation. Psychological
Inquiry, 7, 57-61. (Invited commentary on Baumeister &
Heatherton).
King, L.A. (1995). Wishes, motives, goals, and personal
memories: Relations and correlates of measures of human
motivation. Journal of Personality, 63, 985-1007.
King, L.A. (1993). Emotional expression, conflict over
expression, and marital satisfaction. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 10, 601-607.
King, L.A., Emmons, R.A., & Woodley, S. (1992). The
structure of inhibition. Journal of Research in Personality,
26, 85-102.
King, L.A., & Emmons, R.A. (1991). Psychological, physical
and interpersonal correlates of emotional expressiveness,
conflict and control. European Journal of Personality, 5,
131-150.
King, L.A., & Emmons, R.A. (1990). Conflict over emotional
expression: Psychological and physical correlates. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 864-877.
Emmons, R.A., & King, L.A. (1989). Personal striving
differentiation and affective reactivity. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 478-484.
Emmons, R.A., & King, L.A. (1988). Conflict among personal
strivings: Immediate and long-term implications for
psychological and physical well-being. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 48, 1040-1048.
Chapters
King, L.A., Eells, J.E., & Burton, C.M. (2004). The good
life, broadly defined. In A. Linley, & S. Joseph, (Eds.),
Positive Psychology In Practice. (pp. 35-52). New Jersey:
John Wiley and Sons.
King, L.A. (2003). Measures and meanings: The use of
qualitative data in social and personality psychology. In C.
Sansone, C. Morf, & A. Panter, Handbook of Methods in Social
Psychology, (pp. 173-194). NY: Sage.
King, L.A., & Burton, C.M. (2003). The Hazards of Goal
Pursuit. In E. Chang & L. Sanna (Eds). Virtue, Vice and
Personality: The Complexity of Behavior. (pp. 53-70).
Washington, D.C.: APA.
King, L.A. (2002). Gain Without Pain: Expressive Writing
and Self Regulation. In S.J. Lepore & J. Smythe (Eds.), The
Writing Cure, Washington, D.C.: American Psychological
Association.
King, L.A. (1998). Personal goals and personal agency:
Linking everyday goals to future images of the self. In M.
Kofta, G. Weary, and G. Sedek (Eds.), Personal Control in
Action: Cognitive and Motivational Mechanisms (pp. 109-128).
New York City, NY: Plenum.
King, L.A., & Emmons, R.A. (2000). The assessment of
motivation. In A.E. Kazdin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Psychology,
Vol. 5. (pp. 320-324). New York: American Psychological
Association and Oxford University Press.
King, L.A., & Napa, C. (1999). Ambivalence. In D. Levinson,
J. Ponzetti, & P. F. Jorgensen (Eds.), The Encyclopedia of
Human Emotions, New York, NY: MacMillan Reference.
King, L.A., & Pennebaker, J.W. (1997). Thinking about
goals, glue, and the meaning of life. In R.S. Wyer, Jr.
(Ed.), Advances in Social Cognition (pp. 97-105). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Emmons, R.A., King, L.A., & Sheldon, K. (1992). Goal
Conflict and the Self-Regulation of Action. In D. M. Wegner
and J. W. Pennebaker (Eds). Handbook of Mental Control (pp.
528-551). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Emmons, R.A., & King, L.A. (1992). Thematic analysis,
experience sampling, and personal goals. In C.P. Smith (Ed.),
Thematic content analysis for motivation and personality
research (pp. 73-86). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Emmons, R.A., & King, L.A. (1989). On the personalization
of motivation. In T.K. Srull & R.S. Wyer, Jr. (Eds), Advances
in social cognition (V. 2., pp. 111-122). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Manuscrips Under Review
King, L.A. Happy endings.
King, L.A., Hicks, J.A., Baker, A.K., & Krull, J. Positive
affect and the experience of meaning
King, L.A. & Eells, J.E. Older but wiser, and happier and
nicer: Folk concepts of maturity.
Lyubomirsky, S., King, L.A., & Diener, E. The benefits of
positive emotion.
King, L.A., Baker, A.K., & Burton, C.M. The relocation of
joy: Rediscovering happiness after a life transition.
Manuscripts In Preparation
King, L.A., Hicks, J., & Burton, C. Self disclosure vs.
self construction: Reconsidering the healing power of writing
King, L.A., & Williams, T. Enacting a life dream:
Implications for daily experience, and psychological and
physical well-being.
King, L.A., & Kennedy, T.D. What they did for love;
Generativity, subjective well-being and the career narratives
of professional dancers.
King, L.A., & Marquis, J. Making a contribution: Changing
life goals, generativity, and subjective well-being in
infertile individuals.
King, L.A. The consequences and correlates of the pursuit
of happiness.
Williams, T., King, L.A., & Eels, J. Are important goals
difficult? Person X Appraisal Interactions in Personal Goals.
Drigotas, S.M., & King, L.A. Intuition, emotional
intelligence, and social functioning.
Presentations
Invited Colloquia and Talks
King, L.A. (2004, May). Who I am and who I was: Stories of
the discovery and construction of meaning in life
transitions. Presented
[[Page H6949]]
in Symposium entitled ``Second Changes in Life:
Transformative Stories of Self and Society. Dan McAdams,
Chair. Foley Center for the Study of Lives, Northwestern
University.
King, L.A. (2004, April). Happiness and the Meaningful
Life. Keynote Speaker Address. Michigan Undergraduate
Research Conference. Kalamazoo College.
King, L.A. (2004, April). Stories of Life Transition:
Implications for Happiness and Personality Development.
Kenyon College, Gambier, OH.
King, L.A. (2004, April). Writing for Our Lives:
Implications for psychological and physical health. Kenyon
College, Gambier, OH.
King, L.A. (2003, May). A Meaningful Life: The positive
psychology approach to the Life Story. Psi Chi Distinguished
Speaker Presentation. Midwestern Psychological Association
Convention. Chicago, IL.
King, L.A. (2002, October). In favor of happy endings.
Presented at the International Positive Psychology Summit,
Washington, D.C.
King, L.A. (August, 2002). All that ends well really is
well. Invited address, presented at a Presidential Symposium.
American Psychological Association, Chicago, IL. Martin
Seligman, Chair.
King, L.A. (2002, February). The relative weight of work
and family in judgments of life quality. University of
Maryland, College Park, MD.
King, L.A. (2001, December). The Articulated Self: Writing,
revising and reinventing the life story. University of
Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
Twenge, J., & King, L.A. (2001, October). A good life is a
good personal life. University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
King, L.A. (2001, February). Goals, stories, and the
meaning of life. University of Missouri, Columbia, MO.
King, L.A. (2001, February). Healthy Pleasures. Two talks,
plus discussion presented as part of SMU's Godbey Lecture
Series, Looking on the Bright Side of Life, with Mike
McCullough.
King, L.A. (2000, April). Trivial Pursuits and Magnificent
Obsessions: The Role of Life Goals in Happiness, Health, and
Maturity. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC.
King, L.A. (2000, Spring). The Psychology of the Good Life.
Godbey Lecture Series, Southern Methodist University. A
series of four lectures, plus discussion, presented in
Dallas, TX.
King, L.A. (2000, February). Are only bad things good for
us? University of Texas at Austin.
King, L.A. (2000, February). Lost and found possible
selves: The role of what might have been in subjective well-
being and personality development. Presented at the First
Annual Personality Preconference, The Society for Personality
and Social Psychology Conference. Nashville, TN.
King, L.A. (1999, October) Reconstructing the future:
Personal growth, subjective well-being, and physical health
in response to life changing events. Iowa Psychological
Association Convention, Pella, IA.
King, L.A. (1999, November). Lost and Found Possible
Selves: Implications for Well-being and Maturity. Feminist
Reading Group, Southern Methodist University. Dallas, TX.
King, L.A. (1999, April). What the stories we tell say
about us: Subjective well-being and personal growth.
University of Texas at Dallas.
King, L.A. (1998, February). A psychology of Goya's Los
Caprichos. Meadows Museum of Art. Southern Methodist
University, Dallas, TX.
King, L.A., & Napa, C. (1997, April). What makes life worth
living? Presented at the Midwestern Psychological Association
Convention, Chicago, IL.
King, L.A. (1996, October). Emotional disclosure: Basic
mechanisms and re-writing the life story, Universidad
Autonomous de Mexico (UNAM), Mexico City.
King, L.A. (1996, March). Personal goals and personal
development: Becoming the people we want to be. Southern
Methodist University, Dallas, TX.
King, L.A. (1996, February). Daily goals and best possible
selves: Implications for Subjective well-being. University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
King, L.A. (1996, April). Personal strivings, possible
selves and the meaning of life. Invited paper presented at
the Southwestern Psychological Association Convention, San
Antonio, TX.
King, L.A. (1995, December). Goals, wishes, and ultimate
life dreams: Explorations in personality and motivation. The
University of Houston, Houston, TX.
King, L.A. (1994, September). Goal conflict, ambivalence
and psychological well-being. Department of Psychiatry,
Universitat Ulm and the Psychiatric Hospital at Weissenau,
Germany.
King, L.A. (1994, September). Linking current goals to
future images of the self: Implications for well-being and
goal progress. Presented at an invited conference entitled
``Issues in Personal Agency.'' The University of Warsaw,
Poland. M. Kofta, G. Weary, and G. Sedek, Organizers.
King, L.A. (1994, December). Personal strivings and the
imagined future self: Implications for subjective well-being.
The University of Texas-El Paso, El Paso, TX.
King, L.A. (1993, November). Ambivalence over emotional
expression and the interpretation of emotional stimuli, Texas
A&M University, Bryan-College Station, TX.
Symposia Organized
King, L.A. Chair (2000, October). Happiness, Optimism, Hope
and Maturity: A social psychology of human strengths. Society
of Experimental Social Psychology. Contributors: Ed Diener &
Carol Nickerson, Sonja Lyubomirsky, C. R. Snyder, and Laura
King.
Selected Conference Papers
King, L.A., Baker, A. K., Velasquez, L., & Burton, C. M.
(2004). Changes, happiness, and maturity, APA.
King, L.A. & Baker, A. K. (2003). The Relocation of Joy:
American Psychological Association Convention.
King, L.A. (2002, April). Writing and revising your way to
health and happiness. Presented at the SPAM Meeting,
Columbia, MO.
King, L.A. (2002, February). The self looks upon itself
transformed: Narrative explorations in self change. Society
for Personality and Social Psychology, in a symposium
entitled ``Self Perception.'' Savannah, GA.
King, L.A. (1999, January). If it's positive, it must be an
illusion. Presented at the First Annual Invited Conference of
Positive Psychology, Akumal, Mexico.
King, L.A. (1998, June). Stories of life transitions: Happy
endings and subjective well-being. Presented at the Nags Head
Conference on Personality and Social Behavior.
King, L.A. (1997, August). Doesn't everybody just want to
be happy? Presented in a symposium entitled, ``Looking on the
Bright Side'' C. Langston, Chair. 105th Annual Convention of
the American Psychological Association. Chicago.
King, L.A. (1997, July). Finding meaning in traumatic
events: Implications for physical well-being. Presented in a
symposium entitled ``Trauma: Social, Clinical, and
Personality Perspectives'' Luc Vandenberg, Chair. 4th annual
European Congress of Psychology, Dublin, Ireland.
King, L.A. (1995, June), Linking current goals to future
images of the self: The case of Pre-med students. Presented
at the Nags Head Conference on Personality and social
Behavior, Highland Beach, FL.
King, L.A. (1994, August), Implicit and Self-Attributed
Motives: Relations to Private Wishes, Worst Fears, and
Awareness. Paper presented in a symposium entitled,
``Implicit and Explicit Motivation.'' W. Fleeson, Chair.
102nd Annual Convention of the American Psychological
Association. Los Angeles, CA.
King, L.A. (1994, August). Personal strivings and ultimate
life goals: Linking the present with the future. Presented in
a symposium entitled, ``Goals Units in Personality:
Development and Change of Personal Goals.'' C. Langston,
Chair. 102nd Annual Convention of the American Psychological
Association. Los Angeles, CA.
King, L.A. (1994, June). Personal goals and personal
development: Development as a deliberate process. Presented
at the Nags Head Conference on Personality and Social
Behavior, Highland Beach, FL.
King, L.A. & Whitmore, J. (1993, April). Ambivalence over
Emotional Expression and Interpretation of Emotional Stimuli.
Paper presented at the 65th Annual Convention of the
Midwestern Psychological Association. Chicago, IL.
King, L.A. (1992, August). Intrapsychic Conflict and Self-
destructive Behavior: A Vicious Circle. Presented at
Symposium entitled ``Self-Destructive Behavior: Clinical,
Social and Personality Perspectives'' R. A. Emmons, Chair.
American Psychological Association Convention, Washington,
D.C.
King, L.A. (1992, May). Autonomic Correlates of Writing
about Emotion. Presented at the Nags Head Conference on
Affect and Cognition, Highland Beach, FL.
King, L.A. (1992, May). Goals and Motives to Achieve:
Motivational Contributions to Performance. Paper presented at
the Midwestern Psychological Association. Chicago, IL.
Selected Recent Poster presentations
King, L.A., Scollon, C. K., & Eells, J. (2001, February).
Counting our blessings: Gratitude, mood and well-being.
Presented at the Society for Personality and Social
Psychology. San Antonio, TX.
King, L.A., Patterson, C., Smith, S.N., & Ruff, K. (2000,
August). Reclaiming agency: Motivational themes in the
autobiographical memories of divorced women. Presented at the
American Psychological Association Convention, Washington,
D.C.
King, L.A., Patterson, C., Smith, S.N., & Ruff, K. (2000,
August). Mature, happy and gay: Exploring healthy adulthood
via coming out stories. Presented at the American
Psychological Association Convention, Washington, D.C.
Patterson, C., & King, L.A. (1999, August). the lost and
found possible selves of parents of children with Down
Syndrome: Implications for psychological well-being.
Presented at the American Psychological Association
Convention, Washington, D.C.
Meier, J. A., & King, L.A. (1999, May). Emotional writing
in infertile women: Psychological distress and conception.
Paper presented at the Midwestern Psychological Association
Convention, Chicago, IL.
Napa, C. K., & King, L.A. (1999, May). Is the good life the
easy life? Presented at the Midwestern Psychological
Association Convention, Chicago, IL.
Scollon, T. B., & King, L.A. (1998, August). Psychological
responses to life goal change. Presented at the 106th Annual
APA Convention. San Francisco, CA.
Napa, C. K., & King, L.A. (1998, May). Admirable Lives.
Midwestern Psychological Association Convention. Chicago, IL.
Fisk, L., & King, L.A. (1998, May). Best and lost possible
selves: Psychological well-being
[[Page H6950]]
in injured athletes. Midwestern Psychological Association
Convention. Chicago, IL.
Miner, K., & King, L.A. (1996, August). Writing about
traumatic events and recovery: Implications for psychological
and physical well-being. Presented at the 104th Annual
Convention of the American Psychological Association.
Toronto, Canada.
King, L.A. (1995, August). Ambivalence over emotional
expression in survivors of sexual trauma. Presented at the
103rd Annual Convention of the American Psychological
Association. Los Angeles, CA.
Counseling Experience & Community Service
2002--PRISM Board Member (Columbia, MO Gay-Straight Teen
Alliance)
1993-1995--Literacy Volunteers of America (LVA), literacy
tutor in Dallas County
1993-present--Certified to train literacy tutors
1993--LVA Dallas Curricular Review Board Member
1989 to 1991--Certified HIV test counselor Davis, CA, Davis
Community Clinic
Teaching Interests
Undergraduate courses taught: Personality Psychology;
Introductory Psychology; Social Psychology; Personality and
Social Development; The Person in Psychology and Literature
(in the SMU in Oxford program); The Psychology of Sexual
Behavior; Research Design; Graduate courses taught: The
Psychology of Character (awarded the Maguire Teaching
Fellowship for courses in Ethics); Research Design;
Quantitative methods II: Multivariate Statistics;
Contemporary Approaches to Social Psychology; Additional
interests: Health Psychology, The Psychology of Emotion;
Contemporary Issues in Personality; The Storied Self;
Graduate Seminar in Personality; Undergraduate Statistics for
Psychology; Honors Introduction to Psychology.
In addition, of course, to the many awards, she was most recently
awarded the University of Missouri's Chancellor's Award for outstanding
research and creativity activity in the area of social and behavioral
sciences, not to mention the fact that the scientific field has
recognized her because of this important work with the American
Psychological Association, Templeton Positive Psychology Prize.
In addition, as the curriculum vitae will indicate, Dr. King has had
30 separate presentations. She is preparing seven manuscripts in
preparation, five manuscripts under review, 11 chapters and manuscripts
already published, and 34 published articles; but particularly as it
relates to the substance of the study, this study has relevance to the
prevention of mental disorders, just as the gentleman says that he
professes that he supports.
Giving patients tools to alleviate depression could minimize the
development of other chronic health conditions that flow from
depression. Specifically, I would say that studies have shown
prevalence of depression and severe psychological problems among
college students is growing. Sixty-one percent have reported feeling
hopeless; 45 percent felt so depressed they could barely function; 9
percent felt suicidal.
Perhaps that is not of relevance or significance to my colleague, but
I certainly would say to him that the average age of diagnosis for
bipolar disorder is 21, and 27 years for unipolar depression, and 5
percent of college students drop out of college due to psychiatric
disorders.
So, again, I recognize that the gentleman wants to talk about being
fiscally responsible, and certainly Congress has a prerogative to
exercise congressional oversight, but I would just say to the
gentleman, as it relates specifically to the funding and the study
specifically, that that is a legitimately peer-reviewed award by the
National Institutes of Health, a grant was competitively sought, that
was, in fact, awarded to a very distinguished scientist in this
particular field, and I would urge a ``no'' vote on the gentleman's
amendment.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to thank
the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I would also like to say very rarely, if ever, have I
ever disagreed with my friend from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer) before, but I
do oppose this amendment today.
The intent of this amendment is to ensure that the National
Institutes of Health is prudent about which grants are funded through
their peer-review process. While I agree with this intent, I do not
think the amendment accomplishes that goal.
For instance, the University of Texas grant currently under
discussion has already been funded and completed in previous fiscal
years. Furthermore, any discussions about follow-up funding do not
pertain to the Labor-HHS appropriations bill currently under
consideration.
This project has received funding for a second study, but it was
awarded by the National Science Foundation in the VA-HUD appropriations
bill, which has not yet been brought to the House floor for
consideration.
Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to vote against this
amendment and instead focus our efforts on reforming the National
Institutes of Health grant selection process.
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, can I inquire how much time I have
left.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer)
has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) has
1 minute remaining, and the gentleman from Ohio has the right to close.
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Pence).
(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Neugebauer
amendment as a commonsense statement about what I think the American
people would have us do in this majority, and that is, after allowing
our distinguished appropriators to do their level best in producing
legislation that the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) has produced
is to come to this floor and in the absence of a Presidential line item
veto to try and do that ourselves.
The amendment in particular of the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Neugebauer) in focusing, as it does, on funding that would in one case
explore the value and merit of dormitory decorations is precisely that
which, I believe if the President had a line item veto, would be struck
from legislation again and again.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer) is new to this institution,
but he is demonstrating a courage and a conviction and, more to the
point, a common sense that I think is a great value to this
institution. I rise with great respect to the members of the committee
who have produced this important and meritorious legislation to
strongly support the Neugebauer amendment.
Bring common sense back to the spending process. Pass the Neugebauer
amendment today.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer)
has 30 seconds remaining.
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.
Well, first of all, I want to thank the distinguished chairman for
his hard work in bringing this bill forward. It is a good bill.
I believe that we do have to bring some common sense to this process,
and we have to be good stewards of the American taxpayers' money, and
there are some serious mental health issues that need to be addressed
in this country. Our charge as Members of this Congress is to
prioritize how we spend that money and make sure that we are putting it
into areas where there are serious mental health issues at risk.
Certainly, I think that this amendment is very positive and would
encourage Members to vote in support of this amendment.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.
I am not going to oppose this in a vote because the grants are over.
They have been completed. The amendment does not have any impact, in
essence; but I think the gentleman is trying to make a point that they
ought to be cautious about what type of grants they fund.
I would point out that NIH funds almost 40,000 grants annually; and,
obviously, when you look at 40,000, you can find a couple that you
might have some question about the efficacy of those particular grants,
but on the other hand, I would not want to get our committee or this
body in the position of trying to monitor or to be in the decision-
making process on what grants are funded.
We have very capable people at NIH. It is peer-reviewed by
physicians, by people who are very knowledgeable on
[[Page H6951]]
the subject; and the objective of many of these grants is ultimately in
good faith to, in some way, improve the health conditions. But given
the fact that they are over with, I am not going to object to the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Neugebauer).
The amendment was agreed to.
Sequential Votes Postponed in the Committee of the Whole
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. 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 by Mr.
Obey of Wisconsin; amendment No. 6 by Mr. Hayworth of Arizona;
amendment by Mr. Kildee of Michigan; amendment by Mr. Stark of
California; amendment No. 3 by Mr. Paul of Texas.
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Obey
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Obey) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will 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 vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 223,
noes 193, not voting 18, as follows:
[Roll No. 434]
AYES--223
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capito
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
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (NY)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Maloney
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 (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nussle
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
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Simmons
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOES--193
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Everett
Feeney
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Keller
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Latham
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Manzullo
McCrery
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner (OH)
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--18
Ballenger
Cannon
Clyburn
Goss
Greenwood
Johnson, Sam
Kanjorski
Lucas (OK)
Majette
Nethercutt
Quinn
Ryan (OH)
Schrock
Shuster
Tauzin
Toomey
Waters
Young (AK)
{time} 1621
Mrs. CUBIN changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Ms. HARMAN and Mr. MURPHY changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Ms. MAJETTE. Mr. Chairman, I was unavoidably detained during the vote
on the Obey amendment to the Labor, HHS, Education Appropriations bill
for FY 2005. Had I been present for the vote on the Obey amendment to
protect overtime I would have voted ``yes.''
Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). Pursuant to clause 6 of
rule XVII, the remainder of this series will be conducted as 5-minute
votes.
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Hayworth
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona
(Mr. Hayworth) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated 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 185,
noes 227, not voting 21, as follows:
[Roll No. 435]
AYES--185
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carson (OK)
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Flake
[[Page H6952]]
Foley
Forbes
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Hobson
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Jenkins
John
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
Kingston
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Manzullo
Matheson
McCotter
McCrery
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Pickering
Pomeroy
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryun (KS)
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stupak
Sullivan
Tancredo
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Young (FL)
NOES--227
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Case
Chandler
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Ford
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefley
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Houghton
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Simmons
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Sweeney
Tauscher
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Wexler
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--21
Ballenger
Cannon
Delahunt
Gephardt
Goss
Greenwood
Istook
Kanjorski
Kleczka
Lucas (OK)
Moran (KS)
Nethercutt
Quinn
Ros-Lehtinen
Ryan (OH)
Schrock
Shuster
Tauzin
Terry
Toomey
Young (AK)
Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus) (during the vote). Members are
advised 2 minutes remain in this vote.
{time} 1630
Ms. DUNN changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Kildee
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Kildee) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated 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 413,
noes 3, not voting 17, as follows:
[Roll No. 436]
AYES--413
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Clyburn
Coble
Cole
Collins
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
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)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
[[Page H6953]]
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (FL)
NOES--3
Blunt
Istook
Kingston
NOT VOTING--17
Ballenger
Cannon
Delahunt
Gephardt
Goss
Greenwood
Kanjorski
Lucas (OK)
Moran (KS)
Nethercutt
Quinn
Ryan (OH)
Schrock
Shuster
Tauzin
Toomey
Young (AK)
Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus) (during the vote). Members are
advised that 2 minutes remain in this vote.
{time} 1638
Mr. SHIMKUS changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Stark
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. Stark) 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 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 195,
noes 216, not voting 22, as follows:
[Roll No. 437]
AYES--195
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Case
Chandler
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutknecht
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOES--216
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
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
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
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)
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Manzullo
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Meek (FL)
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sandlin
Saxton
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--22
Ballenger
Cannon
Delahunt
Ford
Gephardt
Goss
Greenwood
Gutierrez
John
Kanjorski
Lucas (OK)
Moore
Moran (KS)
Nethercutt
Quinn
Ryan (OH)
Schrock
Shuster
Tanner
Tauzin
Toomey
Young (AK)
Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry)(during the vote). Members
are reminded that there are 2 minutes remaining to vote.
{time} 1646
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Paul
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Paul) 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 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 95,
noes 315, not voting 23, as follows:
[Roll No. 438]
AYES--95
Aderholt
Akin
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Bonner
Boozman
Brady (TX)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burton (IN)
Camp
Cantor
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Culberson
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Doolittle
Duncan
Everett
Feeney
Flake
Forbes
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Goode
Goodlatte
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hart
Hayes
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hunter
Johnson (IL)
Jones (NC)
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
Kingston
Linder
Manzullo
McCotter
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Norwood
Ose
Otter
Paul
Pence
Petri
[[Page H6954]]
Pitts
Pombo
Ramstad
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Taylor (MS)
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Upton
Vitter
Whitfield
NOES--315
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Burr
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Carter
Case
Castle
Chandler
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Foley
Ford
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Gordon
Granger
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Herseth
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Kleczka
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Ney
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Platts
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Simmons
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sweeney
Tauscher
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--23
Ballenger
Cannon
Delahunt
Gephardt
Goss
Greenwood
Istook
Kanjorski
Langevin
Lucas (OK)
McInnis
McNulty
Moran (KS)
Nethercutt
Quinn
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Schrock
Shuster
Tanner
Tauzin
Toomey
Young (AK)
Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry) (during the vote). Members
are reminded 2 minutes remain to record their vote.
{time} 1654
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Bordallo
Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Ms. Bordallo:
At the end of bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to enforce the limitations under section 1108 of the
Social Security Act on the amount certified for fiscal year
2005 with respect to title XIX of such Act with respect to
Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Northern
Mariana Islands, but only insofar as such amount provided by
this Act does not exceed $9,190,000 for Guam, $9,420,000 for
the Virgin Islands, $5,950,000 for American Samoa, and
$3,380,000 for the Northern Mariana Islands, and the amount
otherwise provided by this Act for ``Centers for Medicare and
Medicaid Services--Program Management'' is hereby reduced by
$8,000,000.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
today, the gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo) and the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Barton) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo).
Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) and the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for allowing me the opportunity to offer this
amendment. I come before the House today to address the chronic health
care disparities in the Insular Areas.
This amendment temporarily brings the Insular Areas into parity with
the funding of other States. While States receive between 50 to 75
percent in Federal matching funds for their Medicaid costs, Guam and
the Insular Areas' matching funds are arbitrarily reduced to 25 percent
at the most. The gap in funding must therefore be borne by the local
governments. This financial burden has crippled the health care system
in Guam.
Chronic illnesses such as cancer and heart disease are abnormally
prevalent in the Insular Areas. Diabetes is a leading cause of death on
Guam. Contagious diseases like tuberculosis are a constant threat to
the health of our children. Patients needing emergency care in Guam are
often medvaced to Hawaii for treatment, largely at their own expense.
Guam's only cancer clinic has recently closed. The Guam Memorial
Hospital Authority is on the verge of bankruptcy with constant safety
concerns.
The gentleman from Indiana (Chairman Burton), the gentleman from
California (Mr. Honda), the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr.
Faleomavaega), and the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs.
Christensen) have each advocated forcefully that Congress address this
issue. And now is the time to do it.
We have had a hearing on the dangerous health care disparities in the
Insular Areas. The GAO is currently conducting a study to further
document these problems. The amendment before us has been scored by CBO
and is fully offset.
Listen to the plea for medical assistance coming from the Insular
Areas. America's most disadvantaged citizens truly need our help, and
this is the first step in the right direction; and I urge the Members
to support it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to this amendment.
Obviously I am not opposed to providing additional dialysis and health
care for the residents of the Virgin Islands and Guam and the Northern
Mariana Islands. However, having said that, the way this amendment is
structured, if we were to support the amendment, if it were to pass, it
would change the Medicaid funding formula, which, as we all know, is a
very sensitive issue and is something that in the next Congress I
intend to make a major effort to do a fair reform of that formula.
If this amendment were to pass, it is my understanding that the
people that are covered by the amendment, 2 million out of the 3
million covered are qualified for Medicaid, and there could be, I am
not saying there would be, but could be as much as $28 million in
expenditures, additional expenditures. Since I have the committee of
jurisdiction and we had not even been approached on this until either
yesterday
[[Page H6955]]
or today, I would hope that the gentlewoman and the gentleman from
Indiana would withdraw the amendment and we could work with them to
find a way to get some funding this year in some additional bill that
is going to come before the floor.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I had an opportunity to speak
with the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Barton) about this issue; and
as I understand it, he is pretty much committed to helping get these
funds this year through another source to help the people in this area.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman
is correct. I am not opposed to the underlying substance of the
amendment. My objection is to the procedure, and the way in which it
has come forward in order to implement it in its current configuration
would cause a major problem down the road in Medicaid-matched rates
with other States.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue
to yield, the limitations that are placed on American citizens in that
part of the world as far as Medicaid is concerned are quite low. Is it
my understanding that he is going to try to change that in the next
Congress so that there is a more equitable distribution?
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman
is correct. My father was a diabetic. I respect the fact that the
gentleman has been out and had, if not a formal hearing, at least some
meetings in the Territories in which this was discussed. I understand
the gentlewoman's concern and her requirement that she has to represent
her constituents. This is not a policy objection. This is a fact that
when we deal with Medicaid, we have got a carefully crafted formula
that involves all the States and the Territories and this amendment
would upset that formula.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I further yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I know the gentleman from Texas
(Chairman Barton). He is a man of his word. And if he says that he will
help us get the funds for the people who are suffering over in that
part of the world who are American citizens, I am sure he will do that;
and he has also said he will address the distribution formula or the
limitations that are placed on the Marianas, Guam, and Saipan and
others. In any event, he has made a commitment to do that. I think it
would probably be wise to consider withdrawing the amendment because I
know he is a man of his word and he will help us get this problem
solved. But I will leave it up to them.
{time} 1700
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) for his kind words and
support.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Honda).
Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the amendment, but it
sounds like there is a work afoot to be able to support the desire for
the gentlewoman from Guam (Mr. Bordallo) to work further in the next
session. Is that what I am hearing?
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HONDA. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. It would certainly be in the next session. I am
not opposed to trying to do something in the next 4 or 5 weeks in this
session, if we can find the right vehicle.
Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, that would be great. As
Chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific Islander Caucus, I support
that effort and would work with both the chairman and the gentlewoman
from Guam in the furtherance of this amendment. I thank the gentleman
for his cooperation.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
(Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Chairman
Barton), and I appreciate the challenge that diabetes faces in the
United States.
I will insert in the Record a letter, and I had considered an
amendment, but actually it fits really well with this. As chairman of
the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources
of the Committee on Government Reform, we have been trying for about 2
years to get from the Department of HHS a listing of the studies on
adult stem cell research, embryonic stem cell research, and others.
Finally, yesterday, after a full 23 months, the Department gave us a
listing of all the studies that have been done on stem cell research as
it relates to diabetes, as it relates to Parkinson's disease and
others. I will insert the correspondence that we have had back and
forth for the Record, as well as the list of studies and their
conclusions about the effectiveness of adult stem cell research and the
fact that they do not have any successful clinical studies on embryonic
stem cell research.
Mr. Chairman, one of the most exciting and controversial areas of
clinical research in recent years has involved stem cells.
The Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human
Resources, which I chair, has held a series of hearings on stem cell
research. We have learned dramatic advances in medicine have been made
utilizing stem cells obtained from adult tissues and cord blood.
Yet proponents of human cloning and destructive embryonic stem cell
research continue to promise ailing patients and their families and
friends and members of Congress that stem cells from these
controversial sources will yield even greater medical breakthroughs.
When the subcommittee held its hearings, we located a number of
patients successfully treated with stem cells derived from cord blood
and adult tissues. Yet we were unable to find a single patient or a
single disease that has ever been successfully treated with embryonic
stem cells or through cloning human embryos.
In October 2002, nearly 2 years ago, Congressman Chris Smith and I
sent a letter to the director of the National Institutes of Health,
NIH, requesting that the agency prepare a comprehensive report of all
medical therapies for humans that currently exist and ongoing clinical
trials which utilize (1) adult stem cells, (2) cord blood stem cells,
(3) embryonic stem cells, (4) fetal (germ) cells or (5) stem cells from
cloned embryos.
We believe that this information is vitally important for patients,
scientists and lawmakers so we can turn our attention away from media
hype and focus our attention and resources on real medical
breakthroughs that are offering the best hope and promise for real
people.
Knowing the high profile stem cell research has had in recent years,
we expected that NIH, with a budget of nearly $30 billion, would be
quick to respond to Congress to demonstrate that taxpayer-funded
research on stem cells--including embryonic stem cells--was indeed
living up to the promises.
After repeated inquiries by my staff on the status on this report
over a year and a half, on June 17, 2004, Chairman Tom Davis and I sent
a written ultimatum inquiring about the status of the report.
The following day, the subcommittee received a response signed by Dr.
James Battey, Director of the National Institutes on Deafness and Other
Communication Disorders (NIDCD) and Director of the Stem Cell Task
Force.
The letter we received, however, did not fully answer the questions
we had posed and was clearly inadequate.
Subcommittee staff, in fact, identified five NIH-sponsored clinical
trials in which human patients are being treated with adult stem cell
therapies, which, astonishingly, were not included in the NIH response.
At a meeting on July 2 between subcommittee staff and NIH staff, Dr.
Battey agreed that he and his colleagues would assemble a comprehensive
report as originally requested.
Since that meeting just 2 months ago, researchers in Germany have
successfully utilized adult stem cells to reconstruct a man's jawbone
and researchers at the Northwestern University in Chicago successfully
cured a woman with severe rheumatoid arthritis by transplanting adult
stem cells from her sister.
Still there have been no cures, treatments, clinical trials or
published studies reported utilizing stem cells derived from human
embryos or clones.
[[Page H6956]]
Just yesterday--a full 23 months after sending our initial request to
the agency and following another written inquiry--NIH finally delivered
a 79-page report on stem cell therapies. The NIH report finds that over
100 health disorders and conditions are currently treatable with non-
embryonic stem cells. Yet, not a single condition has been treated with
embryonic stem cells.
Based on the available medical data provided by the Nation's premier
scientific institute, adult stem cell research clearly continues to
live up to its promise by yielding real results while embryonic stem
cell and cloning research remains unproven.
These findings underscore the need to continue to prioritize adult
stem cell research that has actually yielded the most practical results
for patients rather than siphoning resources away to gamble on purely
speculative research.
I would like to submit for the Record the cover letter from NIH's
report, a list of conditions currently being treated with adult stem
cells and a letter sent to Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy
Thompson in July regarding our request as well as a letter to the
Director of the NIH sent last week.
September 8, 2004.
Hon. Mark Souder,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and
Human Resources, Committee on Government Reform, House of
Representatives, Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Souder: Dr. Elias Zerhouni, Director of the
National Institutes of Health (NIH), asked me to provide
additional materials to respond to your questions for the NIH
and Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) regarding
the current status of medical therapies and clinical research
using stem cells.
In your recent letter of July 9, 2004 to HHS Secretary
Tommy Thompson, you reiterated four areas for which you are
requesting information:
1. A comprehensive listing of all medical therapies which
utilize various types of stem cells,
2. A listing of all ongoing clinical trials or experiments
involving human subjects using these same categories of stem
cells,
3. The findings of any studies that utilized stem cells or
tissues from embryos or fetuses to treat human patients from
Parkinson's disease and juvenile diabetes, and
4. A listing of alternatives to stem cells from embryos and
fetuses that have shown promise in human subjects for
treating juvenile diabetes, Alzheimer's, and Parkinson's
disease.
To develop responses to these questions, my staff reviewed
over 18,000 published biomedical journal articles for the
past 10 years (1994-June 2004) using the database PubMed.
PubMed was developed at the NIH/National Library of Medicine
(NLM) and provides access to citations and abstracts from the
biomedical journal literature. In developing the response it
was decided to limit the literature search to publications
within the past 10 years due to the overwhelming volume of
articles on bone marrow treatments prior to 1995. The terms
for the search strategy and a glossary of medical terms are
included in the accompanying notebook under Tabs 1 and 2. Our
review did not include any results published or added to
PubMed after June 2004, since NIH had to proceed with the
analysis on a fixed set of data. Since June 2004, it is
estimated there are over 300 published articles that meet our
search criteria. Any specific biomedical journal articles
that you may be aware of that were published after June 2004
are listed through PubMed at http://www.nlm.nih.gov.
As a result of the analysis, my staff compiled a listing of
medical therapies which utilize various types of stem cells
as published in the scientific literature over the past 10
years. This listing is provided as Tab 3.
In addition, my staff conducted a search of current
clinical trials that involve stem cells as a part of the
treatment protocol. The clinical trials database used in this
search is available from the NIH/NLM at http://
clinicaltrials.gov. The database provides regularly updated
information about clinical research in human volunteers. The
clinical trials database currently contains approximately
11,400 clinical studies sponsored by the NIH, other federal
agencies, and some privately funded trials. The listing of
ongoing clinical trials is provided under Tab 4. The search
terms used were ``stem cell transplantation or stem cells''
and retrieved 563 studies of trial records as of August 24,
2004. For access to the full clinical trial records, search
http://clinicaltrials.gov/. I would like to underscore that
while there have been claims in the popular press and
elsewhere of people who have been helped or cured by stem
cell therapies, the NIH cannot attest to their veracity as
proven therapies until such time as scientific clinical
trials have been conducted and the results of those trials
have been published in the scientific peer-reviewed
literature.
I am also providing information from our analysis on any
findings of studies that use stem cells or tissues from human
embryos or fetuses to treat Parkinson's disease or juvenile
diabetes. There are currently no studies using stem cells or
tissues from embryos or fetuses to treat type 1 diabetes.
With regards to Parkinson's disease, we found that scientists
have tried two approaches utilizing tissues from embryos or
fetuses to treat human patients with Parkinson's disease. The
first study showed that human embryonic dopamine-neuron
tissue transplants survive in patients with severe
Parkinson's disease and result in some clinical benefit in
younger but not in older patients. In addition, dystonia and
dyskinesias recurred in 15 percent of the patients who
received transplants, even after reduction or discontinuation
of the dose of dopaminergic medications, like levodopa. In a
follow-up article looking at the same patients, scientists
measured cognitive performance at 1 year after
transplantation. Performance was not significantly different
between the two patient groups (transplanted and no
transplant). The second study showed that, as with embryonic
tissue transplanted PD patients, younger PD patients with
fetal tissue transplants do show motor improvement. However,
the underlying disease process does not slow down after fetal
transplantation, and Parkinson symptoms ultimately recur.
Moreover, fifty-six percent of transplanted patients
developed dyskinesia that persisted after overnight
withdrawal of dopaminergic medication. A further discussion
of these results is contained in Tab 5.
Under the second question in Tab 5, we describe a potential
tissue-based alternative to stem cells from embryos and
fetuses that has shown promise for treating juvenile
diabetes. In addition, NIH funds significant research in
focusing on other possible therapies for each of these
diseases, and would be glad to provide further information on
these upon request.
Finally, in order to better manage the results of the
PubMed journal literature that were used in our analysis, my
staff developed a database of the 18,349 records, which can
be searched by keywords, author, and other searchable limits.
The database URL and passwords will be sent to you under
separate cover. An example of the user interface with
descriptions of search field capabilities is appended in Tab
1.
I hope you find this information satisfactory in responding
to your questions on stem cell treatment.
Sincerely,
James F. Battey, Jr.,
M.D., PhD. Director, National Institute on Deafness and
Other Communication Disorders, Chair, NIH Stem Cell Task
Force.
disorders and conditions treated with non-embryonic stem cells
Note: Not all of these treatments are considered
``standard' treatments--many are experimental
Source: Compiled from NIH's database search and the
National Marrow Donor Program
Acute Leukemias: Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL); Acute
Myelogenous Leukemia (AML); Acute Biphenotypic Leukemia;
Acute Undifferentiated Leukemia; Philadelphia chromosome
positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia.
Chronic Leukemias: Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia; Chronic
Lymphocytic Leukemia; Juvenile Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia;
Juvenile Myelomonocytic Leukemia.
Myelodysplastic Syndromes: Chronic Myelomonocytic Leukemia;
Refractory Anemia.
Stem Cell Disorders: Aplastic Anemia; Fanconi's Anemia;
Paroxysmal Nocturnal Hemoglobinuria (PNH); Pure Red Cell
Aplasia.
Myeloproliferative Disorders: Acute Myelofibrosis;
Agnogenic Myeloid Metaplasia (myelofibrosis); Essential
Thrombocythemia; Polcythemia Vera.
Lymphoproliferative Disorders: Non-Hodgkin's Lymphomia;
Hodgkin's Disease.
Phagocyte Disorders: Chediak-Higashi Syndrome; Chronic
Granulomatous Disease; Neutrophil Actin Deficiency; Reticular
Dysgenesis.
Inherited Metabolic Disorders: Adrenoleukodystrophy;
Gaucher's Disease; Hunter's Syndrome (MPS-II); Hurler's
Syndrome (MPS-IH); Krabbe Disease; Lysosomal Storage
Disorders; Maroteaux-Lamy Syndrome (MPS-VI); Metachromactic
Leukodystrophy; Morquio Syndrome (MPS-IV); Mucolopidosis II
(I-cell Disease); Mucopolysaccharidoses (MPS); Niemann-Pick
Disease; Peroxisomal Disorders; Sanfilippo Syndrome (MPS-
III); Scheie Syndrome (MPS-IS); Sly Syndrome, Beta-
Glucuronidase Deficiency (MPS-VII); Wolman Disease.
Histiocytic Disorders; Familial Erythrophagocytic
Lymphohistiocytosis; Hemophagocytosis; Histiocytosis-X;
Langerhans cell histiocytosis.
Inherited Erythrocyte Abnormalities: Cooley's Anemia;
Diamond Blackfan Anemia; Fanconi's Anemia; Sickle Cell
Disease; Thalessemias.
Inherited Immune System Disorders: Ataxia-Telangiectasia;
Bare Lymphocyte Syndrome; DiGeorge Syndrome; Kostmann
Syndrome; Leukocyte Adhesion Deficiency; Omenn's Sydrome;
Severe Combned Immunodeficiency (SCID); SCID with Adenosine
Deaminase Deficiency; SCID with Absence of T & B Cells; SCID
with Absence of T Cells, Normal B Cell Common Variable
Immunodeficiency; Wiskott-Aldrich Syndrome; X-Linked
Lymphoproliferative Disorder.
Other Inherited Disorders: Lesch-Nyhan Syndrome; Cartilage-
Hair Hypoplasia;
[[Page H6957]]
Glanzmann Thrombasthenia; Leukodystrophy; Osteogenesis
Imperfecta; Osteopetrosis.
Inherited Platelet Abnormalities: Amegakaryocytosis;
Congenital Thrombocytopenia.
Plasma Cell Disorders: Multiple Myeloma; Plasma Cell
Leukemia; Waldenstrom's Macroglobulinemia.
Other Malignancies: Brain cancer; Breast cancer; Ewing's
Sarcoma/Ewing's family of tumors; Gastrointestinal cancers;
Lung cancers; Malignant Thyoma; Meningeal cancer;
Musculoskeletal cancers; Neuroblastoma; Renal cell carcinoma;
Reproductive cancers (ovary, testes, stem cells cancer);
Retinoblastoma; Sarcoma; Skin cancer/melanoma; Urinary
cancer.
Autoimmune Disorders: Autoimmune Lymphoproliferative
Syndrome (ALPS); Crohn's Disease; Juvenile arthritis;
Multiple sclerosis; Rheumatoid arthritis; Systemic lupus
erythematosus.
Other Diseases/Conditions: AIDS; Alzheimer's Disease;
Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS, Lou Gehrig's Disease);
Chronic myeloproliferative disorders; Coronary (Heart)
Disease; Cytomegalovirus Infection; Graft versus Host Disease
(GVHD); Nervous system repair; Ocular/Corneal Damage;
Parkinson's disease; Skeletal and cartilage repair; Stroke.
____
July 9, 2004.
Hon. Tommy G. Thompson,
Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Secretary: As Chairman Davis and I indicated in
our letter dated June 17, 2004, over the past two years the
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human
Resources and the office of Chairman Chris Smith have been in
correspondence with the NIH regarding the current status of
medical therapies and clinical research using adult and
embryonic stem cells.
How the Department has allowed this matter to drag on for
nearly two years defies excuse or explanation.
On October 8, 2002, Chairman Smith and I sent a letter to
Dr. Elias Zerhouni, Director of the National Institutes of
Health (NIH), requesting ``a detailed report'' providing
comprehensive information about the medical applications of
adult and embryonic stem cells as well as stem cells from
cloned embryos and aborted fetuses.
After almost a year had passed, Subcommittee records
indicate that on August 4, 2003, Subcommittee staff inquired
into the status of the requested report and were told that
the letter had been in the office of the Assistant Secretary
for Legislation (ASL) ``for some months'' and would be out
``in a few weeks.''
On October 14, 2003, Subcommittee staff again inquired into
the status of the report and were assured that although ``. .
. the letter is in final draft and is going through the
clearance process now.''
The written inquiries on the status of this report are
recorded below. There were also numerous telephone
conversations that are unrecorded here. The dates of
correspondence from the Subcommittee to HHS regarding our
October 8, 2002, letter are as follows:
August 4, 2003; October 14, 2003; October 27, 2003;
November 19, 2003; February 10, 2004; March 25, 2004; April
20, 2004; June 17, 2004.
After repeated inquiries about the status of the report by
email, I sent a formal, written letter to you, Mr. Secretary,
on April 20, 2004.
Remarkably, there was no answer to the April 20 letter.
After waiting several weeks for acknowledgement, on June
17, 2004, Chairman Tom Davis of the House Government Reform
Committee and I sent another letter communicating our concern
about a number of outstanding correspondence and document
requests.
On June 18, 2004, the Subcommittee received a letter signed
by Dr. James Battey, Director of the National Institutes on
Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD) and
Director of the Stem Cell Task Force, responding to our
request for information regarding stem cell therapies.
However, the letter we received did not respond to the
plain meaning of our request on October 8, 2002. Instead of a
thorough response, it represented only a sampling of the
information we requested. Through subsequent phone and email
conversations within hours of receiving the response,
Subcommittee staff communicated disappointment regarding the
quality and depth of the letter we received and asked that
the response be revised and completed by June 30, 2004.
In lieu of sending a revised document, at the close of the
day on June 30, an HHS Deputy Assistant Secretary requested a
meeting with members of the Subcommittee staff to ``discuss
the response on adult stem cells and how [NIH] may be able to
better respond to your inquiries here.''
At this meeting on July 2, Subcommittee staff communicated
our frustration about the delay in receiving a response from
the Department as well as our disappointment regarding the
quality of the letter. In order to assist the Department in
responding to the Subcommittee's inquiry, I have included a
summary of the meeting that took place, along with an outline
of our agreement about the nature of a forthcoming, revised
report in response to our October 8, 2002 written request.
The original letter, dated October 8, 2002 requested
(italics added):
``a comprehensive listing of all medical therapies'' which
utilize various types of stem cells,
``a listing of all ongoing clinical trials or experiments
involving human subjects using these same categories of stem
cells,
``the findings of any studies that utilized stem cells or
tissues from embryos or fetuses to treat human patients from
Parkinson's disease and juvenile diabetes,'' and
``a listing of alternatives to stem cells from embryos and
fetuses that have shown promise in human subjects for
treating juvenile diabetes, Alzheimer's, and Parkinson's
disease.''
In response to our letter, the NIH stated that there are no
treatments or ongoing clinical trials utilizing embryonic
stem cells or stem cells from cloned embryos or aborted
fetuses. The NIH letter also reported the adverse effects
resulting from the two known clinical trials using fetal
tissue transplantation to treat Parkinson's disease.
However, instead of a comprehensive listing of all medical
therapies and a listing of all ongoing clinical trials in
which human patients were being treated with adult stem cell
therapies, NIH included a sampling of the work ongoing at
some NIH Institutes and a listing of NIH-funded clinical
trials.
That is not what was requested.
The Subcommittee identified several obvious omissions in
Dr. Battey's letter.
(1) From the NIH website www.clinicaltrials.gov, in the NIH
National Library of Medicine Medline database, and in the
popular press, Subcommittee staff identified extramurally
funded clinical trials and clinical research involving human
patients which were not included in the NIH letter, including
some that began as early as 1999 and should have been
available to Dr. Battey prior to his submission of the letter
to the ASL office in November 2002. A selection of
extramurally funded clinical trials not included in the NIH
letter are listed below:
Sponsor: Baylor College of Medicine; Stem Cell Transplant
to Treat Patients with Systemic Sclerosis; Phase I H7157;
Study start date: June 1999; Date last reviewed: March 2004.
Sponsor: Texas Heart Institute, Houston, Texas;
Transendocardial, Autologous Bone Marrow Cell Transplantation
for Severe, Chronic Ischemic Heart Failure, announced in
media April 16, 2004; www.genomenewnetwork.org/articles/2004/
04/16/stem_cell_trial.php; Circulation. 2003 May
13;107(18):2294-302.
Sponsor: Caritas St. Elizabeth's Medical Center of Boston;
Stem Cell Study for Patients with Heart Disease 00165; Study
start date: January 2004; Date last reviewed: April 2004.
Sponsor: Bioheart, Inc.; Autologous Cultured Myoblasts
(BioWhittaker) Transplanted via Myocardial Injection; Phase I
BMI-US-01-001; Study start date: June 2003; Date last
reviewed: December 2003.
Sponsor: Bioheart, Inc.; MYOHEARTTM (Myogenesis
Heart Efficiency and Regeneration Trial); Phase I BMI-US-01-
002; Study start date: February 2003; Date last reviewed:
December 2003.
In response, Dr. Battey maintained that the intent of NIH
was to provide a comprehensive listing of work funded by NIH,
but not by universities or pharmaceutical companies, citing
the difficulty of enforcing compliance with a law (PL105-115,
signed November, 1997) mandating that privately funded trials
also be listed on the www.clinicaltrials.gov website.
Nonetheless, Subcommittee staff were also able to identify
several intramurally funded clinical trials at
www.clinicaltrials.gov, in which human patients are being
treated with adult stem cell therapies, which, astonishingly,
were not included in the NIH response:
NIAMS (National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal
and Skin Diseases); Autologous Stem Cell Transplant for
Systemic Sclerosis; Phase I N01 AR-9-2239; Study start date:
July 2002; Date last reviewed: March 2004.
NINDS (National Institute of Neurological Disorders and
Stroke); Investigating Endothelial Precursor Cells 03-N-0269;
Study start date: August 1, 2003; Date last reviewed: August
1, 2003.
NHLBI (National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute); The
Effect of Exercise on Stem Cell Mobilization and Heart
Function in Patients Undergoing Cardiac Rehabilitation 03-H-
0086; Study start date: January 28, 2003; Date last reviewed:
December 5, 2003.
Stem Cell Mobilization to Treat Chest Pain and Shortness of
Breath in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease 02-H-0264;
Study start date: August 6, 2002; Date last reviewed: July
17, 2003.
NIDCR (National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial
Research); Bone Regeneration Using Stromal Cells 94-D-0188;
Study start date: August 3, 1994; Date last reviewed: June 4,
2003.
(2) The Subcommittee also identified several reports of
clinical research not yet in clinical trials that were also
missing from the report. Some of these studies, reported in
peer-reviewed journals and in the public media are listed
below:
Preliminary clinical research using adult skeletal
myoblasts to repair injured heart muscle:
Pagani, et al, 2003. Autologous skeletal myoblasts
transplanted to ischemia-damaged myocardium in humans.
Histological analysis of cell survival and differentiation. J
Am Coll Cardiol. Mar 5; 41(5):879-88.
Hagege, et al, 2003. Viability and differentiation of
autologus skeletal myoblast grafts
[[Page H6958]]
in ischaemic cardiomyopathy. Lancet. Feb 8; 361(1956):491-2.
Menasche, et al, 2003. Autologous skeletal myoblast
transplantation for severe postinfarction left ventricular
dysfunction. J Am Coll Cardiol. Apr 2; 41(7):1078-83.
Autologous bone marrow or blood cells transplanted
into human heart:
Dr. Cindy Grines at Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, Michigan:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/conditions/03/06/
teen.heart.ap/http://www.sctline.com/info/
english_viewarticle.asp?id=1966.
Assmus et al, 2002. Transplantation of Progenitor Cells and
Regeneration Enhancement in Acute Myocardial Infarction
(TOPCARE-AMI). Circulation. 2002 Dec 10; 106(24):3009-17.
Dobert et al, 2004. Transplantation of progenitor cells
after reperfused acute myocardial infarction: evaluation of
perfusion and myocardial viability with FDG-PET and thallium
SPECT. Eur J. Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2004 Apr 3 [Epub ahead of
print]
(3) Included in the response from NIH was an enclosure from
the National Bone Marrow Donor Program entitled ``Diseases
Treatable by Stem Cell Transplantation,'' dated 2002.
However, this list contained only blood disorders, autoimmune
diseases, and related cancers treatable with hematopoietic
stem cells. The letter did not include a more updated,
comprehensive listing of additional diseases treated with
hematopoietic or other adult stem cell types.
When questioned about these omissions, Dr. Battey conceded
that the report was not comprehensive. The wide range of
information missing from the NIH response to our October 8,
2002 letter demonstrates the need for NIH to review responses
to ensure that Congress receives accurate and thorough
information in response to its requests.
Dr. Battey also indicated that he had made a decision when
responding to the letter to include only NIH information that
would be difficult for Congress to obtain through publicly
accessible sources.
However, Subcommittee staff reiterated to HHS staff at the
meeting that our request for a comprehensive document
remained unchanged and unfulfilled.
In response to Subcommittee documentation of the inadequacy
and omissions of the NIH response, Dr. Battey apologized.
Dr. Battey agreed he and his colleagues would assemble a
comprehensive report as requested on October 8, 2002.
Subcommittee staff agreed to give a time extension to the $27
billion agency.
Dr. Battey and Subcommittee staff agreed that the revised
report would:
(1) be comprehensive in scope as originally requested,
including both NIH funded research as well as privately
funded research in the public domain, including studies
abroad,
(2) be in a format that is easily accessible and
searchable,
(3) include anecdotal reports of clinical research when
these reports appear substantive and likely to lead to future
clinical research and/or clinical trials, and
(4) include only minimal analysis necessary for translating
the factual components of the report into lay terms.
The Subcommittee staff and the Department also agreed that
an iterative response would be provided to Senator Brownback
in advance of his July 14, 2004, hearing on adult stem cell
research.
Subcommittee staff emphasized that this report will be an
invaluable resource as Congress seeks to make policy
decisions and educate the public based on accurate and in-
depth scientific data rather than the often-misleading
information that is readily available from the news media and
lobbying groups.
I appreciate your attention to this matter and your
assurances that the Department will be more responsive to
matters of Congressional oversight. This, as you know, is not
a peripheral issue of concern only to a small number of
people. I would think, on an issue of this magnitude, that
HHS would have wanted to have this report available in
response not only to Congress but for the President and
others to whom such information might be important.
It is my hope that as members of Congress and their staff
continue to face critical and complex science policy issues
they will be able to draw on accurate, thorough, timely, and
up-to-date information from the Department of Health and
Human Services.
Sincerely,
Mark E. Souder,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Criminal Justice,
Drug Policy, and Human Resources.
____
August 31, 2004.
Hon. Elias A. Zerhouni, M.D.,
Director, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD.
Dear Dr. Zerhouni: Chairman Bill Young of the House
Appropriations Committee and Chairman Ralph Regula of the
Labor, HHS, Education Subcommittee have urged members of the
House of Representatives to contact you with questions
regarding specific research projects funded by the National
Institutes of Health (NIH).
On October 8, 2002, Congressman Chris Smith and I requested
``a detailed report'' providing comprehensive information
about the medical applications of adult and embryonic stem
cells as well as stem cells from cloned embryos and aborted
fetuses.
On June 17, 2004, Chairman Tom Davis and I sent another
letter inquiring about the status of the report. The
following day, the Subcommittee received a response signed by
Dr. James Battey, Director of the National Institutes on
Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD) and
Director of the Stem Cell Task Force.
The letter we received, however, did not fully answer the
questions we had posed. At a meeting on July 2 between
Subcommittee staff and NIH staff, Dr. Battey agreed that he
and his colleagues would assemble a comprehensive report as
originally requested. The Subcommittee sent a letter to
Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson re-
iterating this commitment on July 9, 2004.
Since our meeting, researchers in Germany have successfully
utilized adult stem cells to reconstruct a man's jawbone. The
case, reported in The Lancet, involved a 56-year-old man who
lost a substantial portion of his jawbone, also called the
mandible, during cancer surgery. After nine years of eating
only soft food and soup, the patient is now able to enjoy his
first dinner in nearly a decade. Our understanding is that
Dr. Pamela Gehron Robey is doing similar research at the
National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research.
Another study conducted at the Northwestern University in
Chicago reported in the journal Arthritis & Rheumatism found
that transplanting adult stem cells from a healthy woman to
her sister with severe rheumatoid arthritis apparently cured
the disease, researchers report.
Still there have been no cure, treatments, clinical trials
or published studies reported utilizing stem cells derived
from human embryos or clones.
I look forward to a response regarding the status of this
stem cell report prior to consideration of the Labor/HHS/
Education appropriations for fiscal year 2005 by the House of
Representatives.
Sincerely,
Mark E. Souder,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Criminal
Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources.
Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, first I want to thank the gentleman from Texas
(Chairman Barton), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the ranking member, the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Dingell), for their willingness to work with the
Delegates to address the disparities contributed to by the Medicaid
caps on our territories.
I also want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda) for
his support and all of the others in Congress who have talked to me
about supporting this issue. I think it is very important to me and all
of the other Delegates from the Territories that these gentlemen have
made a commitment to work with us in the future. I certainly am very
willing to sit down and work with them.
Mr. Chairman, this has been an issue with the Territories for the
last 20 years. We have been bringing it before Congress, all to no
avail. I am sure, with the assistance of all these fine gentleman, we
will be able to work out some solutions.
I also want to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Pombo)
for signing off on this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). Is there objection to the
request of the gentlewoman from Guam?
There was no objection.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Hayworth
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Hayworth:
At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the
following new section:
Sec. ___. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be
used by the Commissioner of Social Security or the Social
Security Administration to pay the compensation of employees
of the Social Security Administration to administer Social
Security benefit payments under a totalization agreement with
Mexico which would not otherwise be payable but for such
agreement.
CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of today,
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) and a Member opposed each
will control 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume. Mr. Chairman, I recognize the broad scope of this bill and how
difficult it is to meet the challenges of funding on all the important
programs.
[[Page H6959]]
Let me take time to commend the chairman of the subcommittee and his
expert and able staff.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment regarding the Social
Security totalization agreement signed on June 29 by the Social
Security Commissioner and her Mexican counterpart. Totalization
agreements are bilateral agreements between the United States and
another country to coordinate Social Security programs. Essentially, a
totalization agreement eliminates the need to pay Social Security taxes
in both countries when U.S. companies send workers to the other country
and vice versa and it protects benefit eligibilities for workers who
divide their careers between the two countries.
In a general concept, totalization agreements are desirable, but I
would ask my colleagues to carefully review what is at stake in this
recent decision and agreement involving Mexico.
By every account, Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, the Social Security
Administration tried to slip Mexico totalization under the radar
without coming to Congress, as the Social Security Administration had
promised. This is a problem; and, therefore, it requires a response
from this House.
I personally met with Social Security Commissioner Barnhart. I
believe she is very capable and, on balance, has done a fine job. But
following our discussions, I continue to believe that serious problems
remain with this totalization agreement with Mexico.
The principal problem with the agreement is that our Social Security
Administration assumes that only 50,000, only 50,000, Mexican workers
will apply for Social Security benefits. But with estimates of over 4
million Mexican workers here illegally, I think the number in fact will
be significantly higher.
To be clear, Mr. Chairman, this is not an immigration issue. This is
a Social Security solvency issue; and if a mere 25 percent above that
estimate of 50,000 apply, and I will do the math for you, that would
mean 60,000 people actually take up benefits, the GAO has found it will
be a financially significant drain on the trust fund.
Now, for purposes of full disclosure, obviously not every Mexican
national working here illegally will suddenly qualify for Social
Security. We passed and the President signed into law H.R. 743, the
Social Security Protection Act, which keeps many illegal workers from
assessing benefits. But, Mr. Chairman, a significant new population,
perhaps hundreds of thousands, would have access to Social Security
under this Mexico totalization agreement.
Specifically, it would be three groups: number one, workers who were
illegal at one time, such as those with temporary work visas, who have
fallen into illegal worker status by overstaying their visas; number
two, the dependents of these once legal workers; and, number three,
these Mexican workers who have worked more than six quarters in the
United States and less than 40.
The 50,000 estimate that Social Security assumes will take advantage
of these benefits are Mexicans working legally in the United States,
and it does not account for these three groups I have detailed.
Now, to give an idea of how large a group are unaccounted for here,
according to Citizenship and Immigration Services' most recent data in
2002, 166,000 Mexicans changed their status to permanent resident from
a variety of other classifications, for example, visitor, temporary
worker, no status, et cetera. Again, Mr. Chairman, that is 166,000 in 1
year.
The Social Security Administration assumes only 50,000 are here, when
three times that received permanent resident status in 2002 alone; and
that 50,000 will only grow at the rate of general population growth
when hundreds of thousands more will move in and out of legal status
each and every year. To assume that hundreds of thousands of these
workers would pass up benefits is unrealistic.
Mr. Chairman, let me make this very clear. If only fully legal
workers were to collect benefits under this totalization plan, I would
not oppose it. But, Mr. Chairman, I have serious doubts that this would
be the case.
The Social Security trust fund will begin spending more than it
receives in the year 2018. In 2042, the trust fund will have spent up
the surpluses it has built up. It will be totally bankrupt. Opening the
floodgates to hundreds of thousands of illegal workers can only hasten
the coming funding crisis facing Social Security.
I urge support for this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) is
recognized for 15 minutes in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the Social Security so-called totalization agreements
permit the United States and another country to coordinate their Social
Security programs. The Social Security Administration has totalization
agreements in force with 20 countries, including Canada, Australia, and
most of Western Europe.
Totalization agreements help American workers and American business.
These agreements prevent the Americans working overseas for United
States companies from having to pay two Social Security systems. As a
result, American workers and their companies save approximately $800
million annually in foreign Social Security taxes. Totalization
agreements also protect benefits for workers who divide their careers
between two countries.
In June, the Commissioner of Social Security and Director General of
the Mexican Social Security Institute signed a totalization agreement.
Now, what does that mean? This agreement has not been approved. The
signing of the agreement is the first step in the approval process. The
State Department and the White House must review the agreement in order
to determine whether the agreement should be sent to Congress for
approval. We have no idea at this time whether it will even be sent to
us for approval.
Congress has the final say. Should the President send a proposed
totalization agreement with Mexico to Congress for approval, Congress
has 60 legislative days during which either the House or the Senate are
in session to consider the agreement and to disapprove it, if
necessary.
It is imperative that we follow through with the vetting process
established in the law, not circumvent it through appropriation
legislation. Why? Because there is much concern, confusion, and
misinformation about a United States Mexican totalization agreement. We
need to hear all the facts. We do not need to rush to judgment. We need
regular order.
For example, there are a number of advantages in a totalization
agreement with Mexico. First, an agreement would save about 3,000
United States workers and their employers about $140 million in Mexican
Social Security taxes over the next 5 years. Second, Mexico is the
second largest trading partner, and a totalization agreement with
Mexico would be consistent with one of the goals of the North American
Free Trade Agreement, to strengthen cooperation and friendship. Lastly,
Social Security's official scorekeepers estimate a U.S.-Mexican
agreement would have a negligible impact on Social Security long-term
financing. The 5-year cost to the U.S. Social Security system has now
been estimated at about $525 million. That is over a 5-year period.
Contrary to what many believe, a totalization agreement would not
change current law prohibiting payment to persons living illegally in
the United States. Also a totalization agreement would not create a
substantial enticement for Mexican citizens to work illegally in the
United States. That is because the recently enacted Social Security
Protection Act of 2004 strengthened the law to prevent those who only
worked illegally from receiving benefits.
While there are potential advantages to a totalization agreement with
Mexico, there are also concerns, and we concede that. For example,
Social Security official scorekeepers have stated there is considerable
uncertainty involved in their estimates. It could be higher; it could
be lower. In addition, there are concerns about the potential for
fraudulent receipt of benefits and the integrity of the Mexican
records.
There are also some issues relating to a potential United States-
Mexican totalization agreement that raise serious questions about the
impact of the
[[Page H6960]]
agreement on Social Security financials and drives the need for a full
and fair vetting through public hearings held by the committee of
jurisdiction, the Committee on Ways and Means Subcommittee on Social
Security, which I chair.
{time} 1715
Only if we allow the vetting process to continue as designated rather
than obstructed will the Congress and the American people be assured
whether a totalization agreement with Mexico is in the best interests
of our Nation's workers and those who depend upon those benefits.
For this reason I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I listened with interest to the comments of my subcommittee Chair,
and I think it is worth noting in this debate, if there could be
guarantees that a resolution of disapproval would be allowed to come to
the floor, and one of my friends, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Collins) has drafted it, there would be no need for this amendment, and
we could withdraw it. We have made that clear. But that guarantee has
not been forthcoming. Therefore, the appropriations process is our
opportunity for a floor vote.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Smith).
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I chaired the bipartisan Social
Security Task Force, and we talked about this so-called totalization,
which is pretty much a reciprocal effort between countries to earn and
get payments for retirement benefits, for three reasons. One is the
oversight of Congress would result in maybe 60 days delay, but not a
real opportunity to turn this around. I support the amendment, but
because I think we need sort of a cooling off period of at least a year
to look at the consequences, a couple of consequences.
One is the solvency of Social Security. So as we look at the
potential cost to Social Security, the actuaries are already estimating
that Social Security is going to be insolvent by 2018, this provision
lowers the date of insolvency because of the cost. Let me just quote
what the Social Security Administration estimates. Number 1, it is
going to cost approximately $105 million per year over the first 5
years, like the chairman suggested; but, further, the GAO found that a
lack of consideration to the estimated millions of current and former
unauthorized workers and family members from Mexico who are already
residing in the United States who could qualify under various amnesty
and guest worker proposals make the cost of such an agreement highly
uncertain and could have a measurable impact on the long-range
actuarial balance of the trust fund. This is what the GAO said.
So the potential benefits are to 3,000 workers in Mexico, American
workers, and what we are looking at is potentially millions of Mexican
workers in the United States.
Now, there is a huge difference in the totalization agreements that
we have with Europe. The differences, I think, are substantial in two
ways. Number 1, in addition to the vastly greater number of new
beneficiaries claiming claims to this entitlement from under the
Mexican agreement, the other nations, mostly in Europe, that we have
these reciprocal agreements with involve a relatively small or few
number of people, and there is closer economic parity. So because of
the wage differences between Mexico and the United States, it could be
very costly to the Social Security system.
I just suggest to my colleagues that as Social Security looks at a
$12 trillion unfunded liability, to add these potential large costs to
Social Security without thoroughly examining the consequences of what
it is going to do to our solvency of our system in the United States,
without the kind of changes that we need in Social Security, should be
put off for a year.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Weller), a valuable member of the Committee on Ways and
Means.
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the position taken by
the chairman of the Subcommittee on Social Security, the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Shaw), in opposition to an amendment offered by my
longtime friend and respected seatmate of 10 years, who I disagree with
on his amendment, in a respectful way.
Let me ask, I think, three important questions. One, why are we
having this vote, which is essentially putting the cart before the
horse? Why are we singling out Mexico, our next-door neighbor, number 2
trading partner, and friend? And, three, why is there an effort to
essentially vent our frustration over illegal immigration on a
potential agreement with our friend, Mexico?
That is why I think it is important for us to be very careful on this
amendment, because we have Social Security totalization agreements with
7 out of 10 of our biggest trading partners. Mexico is our second
largest trading partner. We have thousands of American workers working
in Mexico who right now are in a situation where they are forced to pay
two sets of Social Security taxes. A totalization agreement would be of
great benefit to American workers working in Mexico, as well as their
American employers who may be employing them. In fact, they say they
could save up to $140 million in additional taxes that workers and
American companies would suffer unless we have a totalization
agreement.
Now, the issue of putting the cart before the horse. Under the
procedure for a totalization agreement, the totalization agreement,
when it is finalized, because it is not yet finalized; it still has to
be signed off on by the State Department and the White House before it
would be considered a final agreement, and then it would have to come
to Congress where we could have an up-or-down vote on whether or not to
accept it. That is where Congress comes in with our role. Again, this
vote here today is putting the cart before the horse, and Congress does
truly have the final say.
Mr. Chairman, I pointed out earlier that Mexico is our second largest
trading partner. It is a longtime friend, a fellow democracy, and I do
not believe it should be singled out when our other friends, Canada,
Australia, most of Western Europe, have concluded totalization
agreements that have been in place now for, in many cases, two decades,
protecting American workers from double taxation.
I would also, when it comes to the issue of illegal immigration,
because we realize that is an issue that is hanging over this vote
today, and this should not be a vehicle to vent that frustration, it
should not be a vehicle, because this actually helps American citizens.
A totalization agreement would not change current law prohibiting
payment of benefits to persons living illegally in the United States. I
think it is important to note that. Let me say that one more time. A
totalization agreement would not change current law prohibiting payment
of benefits to persons living illegally in the United States. Second, a
totalization agreement would not create an enticement for Mexican
illegal immigrants to come here.
The bottom line is just vote no on this amendment, let us move on,
consider it next year when it is brought up to us through regular
order.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I would note again for my friend from
Illinois this is not an immigration issue, it is a solvency of Social
Security issue.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Goode).
Mr. GOODE. Mr. Chairman, I salute the gentleman from Arizona for
having the courage to address this issue.
Totalization with Mexico will harm the Social Security Trust Fund. It
will be a major drain on this fund. They talk about 20 countries that
we have a totalization agreement with. None of them have 5 million
illegal workers in the country like Mexico does.
We are better off to stop this snake here and now, cut off its head.
Some say wait, let it get bigger. Let it bite us again. I say no. Cut
off its head today by stopping the funding.
If we grant an amnesty, and there are plenty of amnesty bills
floating around, those illegals will be legal, and we will have a huge
drain on the Social Security fund.
I want to stand with the seniors in this country. I want to protect
Social
[[Page H6961]]
Security for United States citizens, and I want to preserve it for
future generations, not drain it by allowing Mexico and illegals to get
in it and suck a big truckload of money out of it.
Stand up for Social Security and vote yes with the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), a very valued member of the
Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me time
on this measure.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Arizona has offered an amendment
that bars funding for an agreement that Congress has yet to consider,
much less be approved.
This summer, the United States and Mexico signed a totalization
agreement, an agreement that would coordinate retirement coverage for
at least 3,000 American workers who divide their careers between
America and Mexico. But this agreement is far from final. It must be
approved by the State Department, then the White House, and then sent
to Congress where the committee of jurisdiction, the Subcommittee on
Social Security, which is part of the full Committee on Ways and Means,
will carefully review it.
This amendment is premature and tramples upon the deliberative
process at the heart of our committee system. So I oppose this
amendment on jurisdictional grounds, but I would also like to speak for
a minute on some of the other statements that are being made by those
who support this amendment.
First, the United States is currently a partner in 20 totalization
agreements, with countries ranging from Canada to South Korea.
Totalization is not a new concept. In fact, currently we are saving
American workers and their employees about $800 million from double
taxation that would otherwise occur. An agreement with Mexico will mean
that the U.S. has totalization agreements with 8 of our top 10 trading
partners.
Secondly, totalization agreements have no impact on immigration law.
Today it is illegal for Social Security to pay benefits to undocumented
immigrants. Totalization will not change that.
Finally, totalization will not bankrupt the Social Security Trust
Funds. In the long term, Social Security estimates that the impact to
the trust funds will be negligible. In the short term, costs will
approximate $105 million per year for the first 5 years. In comparison,
in the last year with Canada, that totalization agreement with Canada
cost $197 million.
Whatever your beliefs are on the merits of such an agreement, we need
to debate the facts, not the rhetoric. Another reason why is our first
consideration of this issue should be before the Committee on Ways and
Means, not as an amendment to an appropriations bill.
I urge Members to vote no on the Hayworth amendment.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, to further demonstrate that this issue
transcends normal partisanship, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), my friend from the other side of
the aisle.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. I rise here in support of the Social Security system and concerns
about its looming revenue shortfalls.
We heard from the esteemed chairman that this would only cost $500
million over 5 years. Now, the GAO says that that is not at all an
accurate estimate. In fact, they said, the actions the Bush
administration ``took to assess the integrity and compatibility of
Mexico's Social Security system were limited and neither transparent
nor well-documented. The administration provided no information showing
it assessed the reliability of Mexican earnings data and the internal
controls used to ensure the integrity of information that the Social
Security Administration will rely on to pay Social Security benefits.''
In other words, the agreement could be setting the stage for massive
fraud.
Mr. Chairman, $500 million is a lot of money around here. We have
pitched battles over tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, a few
million, and to just dismiss this and say, well, $500 million. And then
the point that, well, the House has to approve it. Well, if this was
going to come to the House for an up-or-down vote for certain, and if
we had to approve it before it became binding for all time on the
people of the United States and our Social Security system, that would
be one thing. This is under an upside down, backwards procedure that
says, we can only vote if we are allowed to vote on a resolution of
disapproval. There is no guarantee that such a resolution will be
brought forward and no way to guarantee that.
So the question becomes will we take something the GAO has assessed
as being on faulty data, poorly negotiated, with low-ball estimates on
the cost, and just hope that we get to vote on it before it becomes
binding, before it costs Social Security perhaps $1 billion over 5
years? We do not really know what it will cost. But with the looming
shortfalls with Social Security, I do not believe we can take that
risk.
We should go back to the drawing board. This should be done in a
transparent manner. It should be done with good data. And then it
should be brought forward with an assurance that we will get to vote up
or down.
{time} 1730
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would like to remind the previous speaker that when we are talking
about a shortfall of $500 million over 5 years in the Social Security,
we are saving American workers and American companies $800 million a
year.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Nadler).
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) a few moments
ago said that the Social Security system would go insolvent in 2018.
This is simply wrong. In 2018, the Social Security system will have to
begin to pay benefits from the interest accumulated on the trust fund.
Sometime in the later 2020s, the Social Security system will have to
begin to dip into the principal of the trust fund. That will not be
exhausted until at least 2042, according to the trustees, and according
to the Congressional Research Service, 2050. There is no Social
Security problem until at least 2042 or 2050.
Now, we are told that we have to start paying back the bonds. Social
Security lent the money to the General Treasury; that is true, it did.
That is how you invest money. You invest in U.S. bonds. That is not a
problem with the Social Security system. It may be a problem for the
budget, but the fact is the system is solvent. Those are legal due-and-
owing obligations, exactly as legally binding as a U.S. savings bonds
is to pay to my colleagues or me if we own a savings bond.
In 1983, Chairman Greenspan chaired a commission which recommended
increasing Social Security taxes, which we did in 1986, to precisely
generate the surplus which we will start dipping into when the baby
boomers start retiring, and that is a surplus which we will start
dipping into in 2018. To say that produces a crisis is to say that we
lied to an entire generation of people when we increased the taxes in
order to produce that surplus to dip into later. We will dip into that.
Mr. Greenspan, of course, says it was fine to reduce taxes on the
rich; and because we did that, we have a budget deficit. We cannot
repay the bonds; and therefore we should reduce benefits starting in
2018. That is simply thievery.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The gentleman from Arizona
(Mr. Hayworth) has 3 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Shaw) has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Florida has the
right to close.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this
amendment, and we need to take some time to take a look at what this
totalization agreement is all about, and we need to make sure that the
democratic process is brought to play when this becomes law or does not
become law.
The fact is the totalization agreement that we are talking about
would,
[[Page H6962]]
most likely, include illegal immigrants in our Social Security system.
Let us make sure what that status is. If we have 5 million people from
Mexico who come here and have been working illegally in our system, do
we want to pay out Social Security to those illegal immigrants? We need
to know the answers to that before we move forward.
Those who are against this amendment would put us in a situation
where we might wake up 6 months down the road and this totalization
agreement would be law and we would never have had a chance to vote on
it. Social Security is too important for the American people, and the
idea of making illegal immigrants eligible for Social Security is too
important for us to let it just go by and possibly have this come into
law without even a vote on the floor.
The American people ought to notice what is going on here today. We
have seen health care in California go to hell. We have seen the school
and education programs going to hell in California. We have seen our
criminal justice going to hell, and now we want to take a risk with
Social Security? People in California know that those illegal
immigrants who are here, oh, yes, even if they are paying Social
Security, they are taking that job away from an American citizen.
Our senior citizens do not believe that Social Security should be
provided to illegal immigrants. It will cost the Social Security
billions and billions of dollars when this folly is done, and it will
bankrupt the system.
We need time to talk about it. We need time to get the calculations
right. We know that in the past we have been given all sorts of
statistics that have been wrong. Let us not gamble with Social
Security. Let us watch out for our own people instead of illegal
immigrants.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would say to the previous speaker that this in no way provides for
Social Security payments to illegal workers.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Lincoln Diaz-Balart).
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
opposition to the amendment of my friend from Arizona.
We have these totalization agreements with about 20 countries:
Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Ireland, Netherlands, Norway,
Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom. But even though this agreement is
not yet approved by the Congress, it will, under regular order, be
considered by the Congress.
We are to then, under this amendment, outright reject by defunding an
agreement with our neighbors to the south and Mexico, our largest
trading partner? Why? I think it is incorrect; and I think that's
unfortunate, perhaps unintentional, signals are being sent out by this
amendment that we must be very wary of; and so it is important to focus
on the facts, as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) has said.
The law is not changed by this totalization agreement. Social
Security benefit accounts will not be paid to undocumented workers.
That is the fact. That is the law. I oppose this amendment, with
respect to my friend from Arizona.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, to close out advocacy on this amendment,
I yield the remaining minute to my friend, the gentleman from Indiana
(Mr. Hostettler).
(Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Hayworth
amendment.
As chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and
Claims, I convened a hearing on this issue of totalization with Mexico
on September 11, 2003.
As a result of the troubling testimony received at that hearing, I
asked the GAO to conduct a study on the possible effects of such an
agreement. I wanted to make sure that any totalization agreement with
Mexico does not drain tens or hundreds of billions of dollars out of
the Social Security trust fund by paying benefits to aliens who are
illegally present and working in the United States while at the same
time we are fighting to keep the fund solvent to ensure benefits for
American workers.
Unfortunately, we know now that the Social Security Administration
did not use an accurate actuarial basis for the proposed totalization
agreement with Mexico. They did not account for the estimated millions
of illegal aliens residing in this country, nor did they account for
reported widespread fraud by these illegal workers using Social
Security numbers belonging to others and ``not for employment''
numbers.
The system cannot tolerate the burden of paying out to possibly
millions of illegal workers. Protect the Social Security system and
vote for the Hayworth amendment.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.
There has been a lot said, and it is mostly about illegal immigrants,
which has not a darn thing to do with the issue that is in front of us
this evening.
It would be a mistake for anybody to come down here to the floor and
vote for this amendment, thinking that there is some way that without
doing this that this is going to support illegal immigration. It does
not have anything to do with this.
This is a good deal for American workers. It is a good deal for
American companies, and it is a good deal that the Congress oppose this
particular legislation. Let the committee have a look at it. The
committee is going to vet this thing. There is no question about it.
The gentleman from Michigan who spoke earlier in the debate talked
about how, if the Congress changes this and that, that then all of the
sudden they are going to open the floodgates. I am sorry, we cannot
pass legislation or pass amendments based upon what we think the
Congress might do. I am talking about what the law is, and this has a
negligible effect upon the trust fund, and the Congress should look at
it.
This issue is not before the Congress now. The timing is all wrong.
The administration has to send this to the State Department and to the
White House for approval, and then we have 60 legislative days in which
to kill it, if that is what the Congress wants to; but we should look
at it, and we should do it in regular order. We should not be doing it
by trying to tie the hands of the government from enforcing something
that has not even happened yet. That is just plain malarkey.
Vote ``no'' on this amendment, and let the regular process go
forward. It has nothing to do with illegal workers receiving Social
Security benefits.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hayworth
Amendment.
I want to prevent the Social Security totalization agreement with
Mexico from moving forward because it is a bad deal for Americans who
rely on Social Security now and in the future.
Since rumors first circulated that this agreement might be in the
works, I have told the negotiators that it is a bad idea.
Despite having met with me privately on this issue and heard my
concerns, Social Security Commissioner Barnhart signed this agreement
anyway.
This agreement with Mexico is completely different in scope from our
other totalization agreements. Primarily, we have an illegal
immigration problem with Mexico that we don't have with the other 19
countries. Coupled with the ill-considered immigration proposal from
the Administration, this totalization agreement would wreck havoc on
our already troubled Social Security system and is a recipe for
disaster.
There is hardly another issue that unites my constituents more than
in opposition to this totalization agreement with Mexico. I urge my
colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment to prevent the
agreement from moving forward.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time for debate on this amendment has
expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Hayworth) will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Oberstar
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
[[Page H6963]]
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Oberstar:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
TITLE ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES PROGRAMS FOR PATIENTS WITH
FATAL CHRONIC ILLNESSES
(a) Establishment of Programs--The Secretary of Health and
Human Services shall carry out research, demonstration, and
education programs with respect to fatal chronic illness
through the Public Health Service.
(b) Studies on End-of-Life Care--The Secretary shall
conduct studies on end-of-life care through all relevant
agencies and through the Assistant Secretary for Planning and
Evaluation. Such studies shall include an examination of the
development of practice parameters applicable to such care as
well as research regarding such care. Such studies shall also
include an annual report from the Secretary to the
appropriate committees for oversight in Congress and to the
Special Committee on Aging in the Senate on service delivery
and quality of life for persons living through fatal chronic
illness and their families and professional caregivers.
(c) Health Resources and Services Administration--
(1) In general--In carrying out subsection (a), the
Secretary, acting through the Administrator of the Health
Resources and Services Administration, shall carry out
research, demonstration, and education programs toward
improving the delivery of appropriate health and support
services for patients with fatal chronic illnesses.
(2) Health centers--As determined appropriate by the
Secretary, paragraph (1) may be carried out through the
program under section 330 of the Public Health Service Act
(relating to community and migrant health centers and health
centers regarding homeless individuals and residents of
public housing), including by designating individuals with
fatal chronic illnesses as medically underserved populations.
(3) Caregivers--Programs under paragraph (1) shall include
activities regarding appropriate support services for
caregivers for patients with fatal chronic illnesses,
including respite care.
(4) Health professions training--Programs under paragraph
(1) shall include making awards of grants or contracts to
pubic and nonprofit private entities for the purpose of
training health professionals, including students attending
health processions schools, in the care of patients with
fatal chronic illnesses. Such training shall include training
in the provision of appropriate palliative care and
appropriate referral to hospices, and training provided as
continuing education.
(5) Initiative--Programs under paragraph (1) shall include
an initiative to coordinate innovation, evaluation, and
service delivery relating to fatal chronic illnesses.
(d) Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality--
(1) In general--In carrying out section 912(c) of the Pubic
Health Service Act, the Secretary, acting through the
Director of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality,
shall, with respect to patients with fatal chronic
illnesses--
(A) identify the causes of preventable health care errors
and patient injury in health care delivery, including errors
of inadequate mobilization of services to the home,
inadequate continuity of caregivers, inadequate symptom
prevention, management, and relief, or inadequate advance
care planning;
(B) develop, demonstrate, and evaluate strategies for
reliable performance of the care system, including reducing
errors and improving patient safety and health outcomes; and
(C) disseminate such effective strategies throughout the
health care industry.
(2) Grants--in carrying out paragraph (1)(A), the Secretary
shall make grants for the purpose of developing reliable and
current data and insight as to the merits and efficiencies of
various strategies for providing health care, including
palliative and hospice care, and social services for patients
with fatal chronic illnesses.
(e) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention--The
Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
shall expand activities with respect to epidemiology and
public health in fatal chronic illness. Such activities may
include contracting with the Institute of Medicine or another
national interest non-profit organization to provide a review
of the status of care for the end of life, which review shall
be included by the Secretary in the annual reports to
Congress under subsection (h).
(f) National Institutes of Health--
(1) Expansion of activities--The Director of the National
Institutes of Health (in this subsection referred to as the
Director) shall expand, intensify, and coordinate the
activities of the National Institutes of Health with respect
to research on fatal chronic illness. Such activities shall
include programs, requests for proposals, study section
membership, advisory council membership, and training
programs to support rapid and substantial improvements in
understanding--
(A) mechanisms of disability and suffering in fatal chronic
illness and the relief and management of that disability and
suffering through to end of life; and
(B) human resource, service delivery arrangements,
technology, and financing that would be most useful in
ensuring comfort and dignity for individuals with fatal
chronic illness, and in relieving the burden for family and
professional caregivers.
(2) Administration--the Director shall carry out this
subsection acting through the Directors of every Institute
within the National Institutes of Health that has at least
one fatal chronic illness in its purview.
(3) Collaboration--In carrying out this subsection, the
Director of the National Institutes of Health shall
collaborate with the Department of Veterans Affairs, the
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and any other
agency that the Director determines appropriate. The
Secretary of Veterans Affairs and the Director of the Agency
for Healthcare Research and Quality shall assist in such
collaboration.
(4) Responsibilities of Institutes--Each Institute with the
National Institutes of Health that has fatal chronic illness
in its purview shall establish a plan for improving
understanding of the mechanisms of disability and suffering
in fatal chronic illness and the relief and management of
that disability and suffering through to end of life.
Since most Americans now die of chronic heart or lung
failure, cancer, stroke, dementia, or multifactorial frailty,
each such institute shall develop and implement a strategic
plan and a set of projects that aim primarily to ensure that
affected patients and their families can live through
advanced illness and death comfortably and meaningfully.
(5) Centers of Excellence--
(A) In General--In carrying out paragraph (1), the Director
shall make awards of grants and contracts to public or
nonprofit private entities for the establishment and
operation of centers of excellence to carry out research,
demonstration, and education programs regarding fatal chronic
illness, including programs regarding palliative care.
(B) Designation--In carrying out this subsection, the
Director shall designate at least 2 Claude D. Pepper Older
Americans Independence Centers (supported by the National
Institute on Aging), 2 program projects of the National,
Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, and 2 comprehensive cancer
centers (supported by the National Cancer Institute) to
provide education and information support and research data
and methods leadership for substantial and rapid improvements
in the understanding of the mechanisms of disability and
suffering in fatal chronic illness and the relief and
management of that disability and suffering through to the
end of life.
(C) Research--Each center established or operated under
subparagraph (A) or designated under subparagraph (B) shall
conduct basic and clinical research into fatal chronic
illness.
(D) Certain activities--The Secretary shall ensure that,
with respect to the geographic area in which a center of
excellence under subparagraph (A) is located, the activities
of the center include--
(i) providing information and education regarding fatal
chronic illness to health professionals and the public;
(ii) serving as a resource through which health
professionals, and patients and their caregivers, can plan
and coordinate the provision of health and support services
regarding fatal chronic illness; and
(iii) providing training and support of implementation of
quality improvement.
(g) Medicare Pilot Programs for Treatment of Fatal Chronic
Illnesses--
(1) Establishment--The Secretary, in all relevant parts of
the Department of Health and Human Services, including the
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and the Office of
the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, shall
provide for pilot programs under this subsection. The pilot
programs shall be developed under a coordinated national
effort in order to demonstrate innovative, effective means of
delivering care to Medicare beneficiaries with fatal chronic
illnesses under the Medicare program. The pilot programs
shall be completed within 5 years after the date that funds
are first appropriated under this subsection.
(2) Design--The pilot programs under this subsection shall
be designed to learn how--
(A) to effectively and efficiently deliver quality care to
the fatally chronically ill;
(B) to provide and maintain continuity of care for the
fatally chronically ill;
(C) to provide advance care planning to the fatally
chronically ill;
(D) to determine what rate and strategies for payment are
most appropriate;
(E) to deliver emergency care for the fatally chronically
ill;
(F) to facilitate access to hospice care when the Medicare
beneficiary becomes eligible for such care;
(G) to develop and estimate the effect of potential
alternative severity criteria for eligibility of specially
tailored programs;
(H) to test the effectiveness and costs of new strategies
for family caregivers support;
(I) to implement a clinical services and payment program
that uses thresholds of severity to define the onset of the
need for comprehensive end-of-life services;
(J) to test the merits of using severity criteria (relating
to fatal chronic illness) in determining eligibility for the
Medicare hospice program, but only when use of such criteria
expands access to hospice care to individuals who are not yet
terminally ill (as that term is defined at section
1861(dd)(3)(A) of the Social Security Act); and
[[Page H6964]]
(K) to arrange financial incentives so that substantially
diminished payments arise when care providers fail to ensure
timely advance care planning, symptom prevention, management,
and relief, or continuity of care across time and settings.
(3) Conduct of pilot programs--The Secretary shall conduct
pilot programs in at least 6 sites and in at least 3 States.
(4) Report to congress--the Secretary shall submit to
Congress a report on the pilot programs under this
subsection. Such report shall include recommendations
regarding whether the pilot programs should become a
permanent part of the Medicare program.
(h) Annual Reports--The Secretary, in consultation with the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs and other appropriate Federal
agencies, shall submit an annual report to Congress on end-
of-life care an on the research, demonstration, and education
programs and studies conducted under this section. The
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shall be the lead
agency for integrating and preparing the annual reports under
this subsection unless the Secretary designates otherwise.
(i) Definitions--For purposes of this section:
(1) The term `fatal chronic illness' means a disease (or
diseases), condition (or conditions), or disorder (or
disorders) that ordinarily worsens and causes death and that
causes a physical or mental disability or periodic episodes
of significant loss of functional capacity.
(2) The term `Secretary' means the Secretary of Health and
Human Services.
(j) Authorization of Appropriations--There are authorized
to be appropriated--
(1) such sums as may be necessary to carry out subsections
(a), (b), (c), and (f);
(2) $50,000,000 for the 5-fiscal-year period (beginning
with fiscal year 2004) to carry out subsection (c), excluding
paragraph (5) of that subsection;
(3) $100,000,000 for the 3-fiscal-year period (beginning
with fiscal year 2004) to carry out subsection (c)(5);
(4) $20,000,000 for the 5-fiscal-year period (beginning
with fiscal year 2004) to carry out subsection (d);
(5) to carry out subsection (g) for each of fiscal years
2003 through 2007--
(A) $50,000,000 for the purposes of conducting evaluations
of pilot programs; and
(B) $50,000,000 for the purpose of providing clinical
services under pilot programs; and
(6) $500,000 for each fiscal year during the 5-fiscal-year
period beginning with fiscal year 2004 to carry out
subsection (h).
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
today, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes on the amendment.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I just want to reserve a point of order. I
understand that the plan is to withdraw the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula)
reserves a point of order on the amendment.
The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula). I
acknowledge that the point of order would lie against the amendment. I
appreciate the opportunity to discuss my amendment and then
subsequently to withdraw that amendment.
The purpose of this amendment is to address an issue that few of us
want to talk about, but which all of us are going to face in some way
or another, and that is, end-of-life care. We are all getting there,
and this amendment would do five things. It is derived from a bill I
introduced last year that would do five things.
It would provide grants through NIH to train health care
professionals in the care of patients with fatal, chronic illness. It
would direct the NIH to expand and to intensify research on fatal,
chronic illnesses. Three, it would establish pilot programs under
Medicare to improve delivery of care and continuity of care for end-of-
life considerations. Four, it would provide funds for advanced care
planning; and, five, facilitate access to hospice care when that
becomes necessary at the end-of-the-life decision.
Why is this an important issue? Well, frankly, it is an issue that my
wife, Jean, and I have discussed around the dinner table. We have both
lost spouses who succumbed at a very unusually and unanticipated age to
cancer. We both attended to frail and disabled parents. We all have
friends who have been in the same position. As the baby boom generation
reaches older age, the number of people facing serious illness and
death is going to double over the next 25 years.
Second, 28 percent of Medicare's budget over the last few years has
been spent caring for the last few years, in many cases the last few
months of life. Who are there to provide these services? These are
family members. The value of the services that family care-givers
provide in a sense for free is estimated in excess of $250 billion a
year.
Third, there are a number of professionals in the health care field
who do not get training in the course of their medical education in
palliative care, in end-of-life decision-making with families.
We need to do a better job of training our health care professionals.
We need to do a better job of preparing families for end-of-life care
decision-making.
We have to acknowledge that Americans are living longer. The fastest
growing age group in our society is people over age 85. Half of them
need some help with personal care. We should be doing a better job with
our NIH resources to help families, to help health care professionals,
to help patients themselves to deal with fatal, chronic illness, the
end-of-life care decisions.
That is simply what this amendment would do, provide those resources.
I take this opportunity to discuss the issue in this detail so that
next year when we come back into session again, this bill will be
reintroduced and will have an opportunity for a broader discussion and
legislative action, to bring to the floor legislation that will be
meaningful, implement these recommendations and then be eligible for
the funding that I requested and set forth in the legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Minnesota?
There was no objection.
{time} 1745
Amendment Offered by Mr. King of Iowa
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The Clerk will designate
the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. King of Iowa:
At the end of the bill (but before the short title), insert
the following new section:
Sec. ___. None of the funds made available under this Act
to the Department of Education may be expended in
contravention of section 505 of the Illegal Immigration
Reform and Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1623).
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
today, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes on the amendment.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment today to enforce existing
Federal law that requires any State providing illegal aliens instate
tuition discounts to provide these discounts to all students,
regardless of State of residence. In other words, all legal students
get no less tuition discount than illegal students.
That is existing law. But my amendment would not allow any Department
of Education funds to be spent in violation of existing Federal law;
namely, section 505 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and
Responsibility Act of 1996. It simply seeks to enforce existing law.
There are approximately 12 States that have adopted a policy that
they would give instate tuition breaks to illegal aliens as students,
and yet students that might live within sight of the State border and
not be residents of that State, would pay out-of-State tuition costs.
That would then necessarily entail that citizens of the United States,
people who lived in the neighborhood and in the region, would pay out-
of-State tuition while illegal aliens would get instate tuition breaks.
That would be in violation of this section of the 1996 Immigration Act,
and I seek to tighten that up with this simple amendment that is
consistent with current law.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition,
although I will not oppose the amendment.
[[Page H6965]]
It is my understanding this is a State issue, but that we are
prepared to accept it because the Department of Education is in
compliance. They are not doing anything to violate the section 505.
I do not think it is necessary we have this. It really is something
the States deal with in the funding of their higher education programs.
So under those circumstances, we are prepared to accept the amendment.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume to thank the gentleman, the chairman, for his cooperation on
this issue.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to
Congressman Steve King's amendment to the Labor-HHS-Education
Appropriations bill, H.R. 5006. This amendment would prohibit any funds
from being spent by the Department of Education in violation of Section
505 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Responsibility Act of 1996 (8
U.S.C. 1623)(IIRIRA). Section 505 of IIRIRA prohibits states from
giving in-state tuition unless they provide in-state rates to all U.S.
citizens under the same conditions.
The States have responded by offering in-state tuition based not on
residency but on having attended school in the state and graduated from
high school there. These states are thus in compliance with section
505. Congressman King's amendment would not stop that practice, but it
would make it more difficult for children in other states to afford a
college education. This is a serious barrier for undocumented students,
as they are also ineligible for any publicly-funded financial aid.
The real issue is whether children who have lived in the United
States and been educated here should be able to afford a college
education even if they were brought here illegally by their parents.
Even though they had no say in the decision, our laws force them to
suffer the consequences of their parents' actions.
The consequence of this policy is that our country will punish
innocent children and foster an increase in the unskilled,
undereducated workforce, which will be accompanied by increased
spending on social service programs, higher rates of crime, and
decreased opportunities for a higher quality of life. Who benefits from
such a policy?
We all suffer when good students in our communities are prevented
from completing their education and reaching their full potential. We
suffer because we are deprived of future contributors and leaders who
could help stimulate economic growth and social richness. We suffer
because children who might have been scientists, nurses, teachers, or
engineers are forced, instead, to exist in a legal limbo.
I urge you to vote against this amendment.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. John
Mr. JOHN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. John:
Page 105, after line 16, insert the following section:
Sec. _. Of the amount made available in title II for the
account ``Office of the Secretary--General Departmental
Management'', $100,000,000 is transferred and made available
under the account in such title ``Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention--Disease Control, Research, and Training'' for
carrying out the program under section 317S of the Public
Health Service Act (as added by Public Law 108-75).
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
today, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. John) and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes on this amendment.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. John).
Mr. JOHN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
although I will not take all 5 minutes. But I did think it was
important for me to come here and talk about this amendment to this
legislation.
I am offering this amendment, and I have worked with the ranking
member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), and also the chairman,
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), about trying to work through this
in conference, but I thought it was very important that we talk just a
little bit about this piece of legislation.
The amendment that I have at the desk is an amendment today to fully
fund a piece of legislation that was passed out of this body last year
and that was signed by the President of the United States. It is called
the Mosquito Abatement for Safety and Health Act, the MASH Act. The
MASH Act has the support of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin)
and also Senator Gregg, who have joined together to support this piece
of legislation along with the National Association of Counties.
This amendment offers protection for our constituents from mosquito-
borne diseases like the West Nile virus. This year alone, Mr. Chairman,
over 1,100 human cases of the West Nile virus have popped up, and over
30 deaths have been reported in all but three States and the District
of Columbia. Last year alone, this country faced over 9,800 human cases
and 264 deaths from the West Nile virus which is spreading across our
country.
Of course, countless Americans, mainly our young and our elderly, are
very susceptible to the West Nile virus, but it can be kept under
control.
I guess many of us outside of the deep South consider that Labor Day
has passed and that summer is over, so the mosquitoes go away. But I
can tell my colleagues that the infected mosquitoes are continuing to
spread well into the months of November and even into some of December.
What this piece of legislation does is establish a one-time matching
grant through the CDC, Center for Disease Control, to enable counties
to begin to improve their mosquito abatement programs. Funds can be
used for laboratory equipment, purchase of equipment, conduct outreach,
educational programs, the kinds of things we need to do to protect our
constituents from mosquitoes and this bad disease.
Currently the CDC offers some educational programs, but they do not
have real assistance to our counties and to our parishes to make sure
that we have the proper funds. Abatement programs are handled through
the local government in many instances. So the Federal Government, I
believe, because of the West Nile virus and it being spread throughout
the whole continental United States, needs to get involved in this to
protect our constituents.
I certainly would ask both the chairman and the ranking member to
work through this in conference committee, because I feel that this is
not just a Louisiana problem, it is certainly a national problem. And I
am prepared to withdraw the amendment at the proper time.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman's concern. We have the same
concern, and we will do as much as we can in conference. This is a
serious problem, and we have put $42 million in CDC to combat West Nile
virus, which is an increase over last year, but more needs to be done.
I commend the gentleman for bringing this issue to our attention. And
as I understand, the gentleman is going to withdraw his amendment, but
we will be sensitive to it.
Mr. Chairman, I might say for the benefit of Members that are
watching, I believe this is the last amendment, so we should be able to
wrap up here pretty fast, for those who have planes or whatever.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to assure the gentleman
of my agreement with his comments. I think that we have become
incredibly arrogant in assuming that we have conquered these virus-
borne diseases and other communicable diseases. In fact, we are
learning that we are going to be facing a whole new generation of
threats to public health, and I think even with this additional money
in the bill, there needs to be much, much more.
Mr. JOHN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
thank both the ranking member and also the chairman for working on this
with me. This is a new disease, and we do not know much about it. This
can
[[Page H6966]]
go a long way in understanding and gaining some information and
education about it and also in stopping the spread of this disease.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Louisiana?
There was no objection.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to explain to the House why there will not
be a recommittal motion.
Mr. Chairman, I voted to report this bill from subcommittee and full
committee to the House in order to give the House an opportunity to
make some hard choices, but I had frankly expected to vote against the
bill for all of the reasons listed in the minority views in the
committee report beginning on page 281, and I submit for the Record at
this point the minority views signed onto by the Democratic members of
the subcommittee which outline in some detail what we consider to be
the shortcomings of 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
[[Page H6967]]
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.
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;
[[Page H6968]]
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
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 H6969]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH09SE04.001
[[Page H6970]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH09SE04.002
[[Page H6971]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH09SE04.003
[[Page H6972]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH09SE04.004
[[Page H6973]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH09SE04.005
[[Page H6974]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH09SE04.006
[[Page H6975]]
MINORITY VIEWS OF THE HONORABLE DAVID OBEY, STENY HOYER, NITA LOWEY,
ROSA DeLAURO, JESSE JACKSON, JR., PATRICK KENNEDY, AND LUCILLE ROYBAL-
ALLARD ON THE ADMINISTRATION'S OVERTIME REGULATION
The Administration is poised--in a few short weeks--to
implement the most sweeping, anti-worker revision of the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) since its inception in 1938. The
overtime pay requirements of the FLSA, which guarantee for
most workers ``time and a half'' pay for hours worked beyond
a standard 40-hour work week, are one of the nation's bedrock
worker protections. The FLSA's overtime provisions cover
approximately 115 million workers--about 85 percent of the
nation's workforce.
On August 23rd, 2004, the Department of Labor's final
overtime regulations (redefining who is considered a
professional, administrative, or executive employee and
thereby exempt from overtime pay) are slated to go into
effect, giving employers a huge windfall taken right out of
employees' paychecks. On the eve of Labor Day, more than 6
million Americans soon will be getting less pay for their
labors courtesy of the Bush Administration.
This anti-worker regulation is just the latest attack on
America's workers by this Administration. Since President
Bush entered office, 1.8 million private sector jobs have
been lost. Despite modest job creation in the last few
months, some 8.2 million Americans remain unemployed--2.3
million (38 percent) more than when President Bush entered
office. Further, more unemployed individuals are out of work
for longer periods of time. In June 2004, 1.7 million
individuals had been unemployed for over 6 months--nearly
triple the number of long-term unemployed at the start of the
Administration.
For families who received overtime pay in 2000, overtime
earnings accounted for about 25 percent of their income or
about $8,400 a year. Overtime compensation is essential to
their ability to pay mortgages, medical bills, and make ends
meet. Yet, despite the urgent need to halt the
Administration's assault on these workers, the House
Appropriations Committee rejected, by a party line vote of 29
to 31, a Democratic amendment that would have prevented the
Administration from rolling back the 40-hour workweek.
Last year, both the House and the Senate voted to stop the
Administration from taking away workers' rights to overtime
when the Department of Labor issued its initial proposal to
strip overtime protections away from 8 million workers. The
Senate twice adopted amendments offered by Senator Tom Harkin
to prohibit the Administration from taking away overtime pay.
Last October, the House voted to adopt the Obey-Miller Motion
to Instruct by a vote of 221 to 203.
Both the Harkin Amendment and the Obey-Miller Motion to
Instruct would have restricted the Administration's ability
to disqualify anyone from overtime protection, while
retaining virtually the only positive change in the initial
regulation--a long overdue and non-controversial increase in
the protective salary threshold to guarantee overtime rights
for low-income workers. Democrats support extending overtime
protections to more low-income workers, even though the
Administration's proposal fails to provide a true
inflationary adjustment to the salary threshold. (Moreover,
we now know that that far fewer workers would actually
benefit from this change than claimed by the Department of
Labor.)
Yet, despite passage of these measures in the Senate and
the House--in opposition to all the traditions of the
Congress--the Republican leadership stripped the Harkin
language from the final fiscal year 2004 omnibus
appropriations bill, allowing the Department of Labor to
proceed with its anti-worker regulation.
On July 14, the Committee on Appropriations had an
opportunity to preserve the hard-earned overtime rights for
working Americans by adopting the Democratic amendment. The
Democratic amendment was identical, in effect, to the earlier
measures approved by both the House and the Senate. It would
have prohibited the Department of Labor from implementing the
final rule to disqualify workers from overtime coverage. At
the same time, it would have allowed the expansion of
overtime rights for low-income workers earning up to $23,660
a year, precisely as proposed by the Department of Labor in
its final regulation.
The Democratic amendment would protect more than 6 million
workers in a broad range of occupations now at risk of losing
their overtime rights according to estimates made by the
Economic Policy Institute (EPI). Indeed, an even larger
number of workers are likely to be harmed by the
Administration rule because EPI examined only 10 of the
hundreds of occupational categories covered by the Bush anti-
worker regulation.
The Democratic amendment would protect:
2.3 million workers who lead teams of other
employees assigned to major projects--even if these team
leaders have no direct supervisory responsibilities for other
employees on the team. About 40 percent of employers with 50
or more employees routinely use work teams. Under the
Department of Labor's final regulation, however, we can
expect even more employers to take advantage of this new
exemption with enormous negative consequences for employees;
Nearly 2 million low-level working supervisors in
fast food restaurants, lodging and retail stores. Under the
Department of Labor's final regulation, these employees could
lose 100 percent of their overtime eligibility even though
only a small percentage of their time is spent on managerial
work. For example, low-paid Burger King assistant manager who
spends nearly all of his or her time cooking hamburgers and
serving customers, with no authority to hire or fire
subordinates, could lose all of his or her overtime pay.
Moreover, it will not be easier for employers to evade the
rules by converting hourly employees to exempt salaried
employees;
More than 1 million employees without a college or
graduate degree. These employees will now be exempt from
overtime pay as professional employees because employers will
be able to substitute work experience for a degree under the
Department of Labor's final regulation.
Moreover, the Department of Labor has not resolved the
question of whether training in the military can be
considered substitute work experience. Thus, despite Labor
Department denials, many veterans employed in engineering,
accounting, and technical occupations could lose overtime
pay. For example, the Boeing corporation observed, ``* * *
many of its most skilled technical workers received a
significant portion of their knowledge and training outside
of the university classroom, typically in a branch of the
military service * * *'';
30,000 nursery school and Head Start teachers.
These already low-paid employees, who currently receive
overtime pay because their jobs do not require them to
exercise sufficient discretion and judgment to be considered
professional employees, will lose the right to extra pay
under the Department of Labor's final regulation;
160,000 mortgage loan officers and hundreds of
thousands of additional workers in the financial services
industry. These employees will lose their overtime rights
because of a blanket industry exemption in the Department of
Labor final regulation for financial service employees who
work at such duties as collecting customer financial
information, providing information and advice about financial
products, or marketing financial products;
Nearly 90,000 computer employees, funeral
directors and licensed embalmers. These employees will become
exempt and lose their right to pay under the Department of
Labor's final regulation; and
Nearly 400,000 workers earning more than $100,000
annually. Under the Department of Labor final regulation,
these highly compensated employees will lose overtime pay
under a new blanket exemption if they perform only a single
exempt task ``customarily or regularly'', such as suggesting
discipline, promotion or assignment of other employees
perhaps as infrequently as twice a year. Over time, as
incomes grow, the number of employees bumped into this new
exclusion from overtime pay will increase.
The Department of Labor failed to hold a single public
hearing on one of the most controversial regulations in the
history of the Department, despite receiving 75,280 comments
on its proposals. Indeed, the Department of Labor even
provided information to employers in its initial regulation
on how to escape overtime pay requirements as part of a
concerted campaign to give employers dozens of new ways--both
obvious and subtle--to reclassify workers to cut costs.
Affected employers would have four choices concerning
potential payroll costs: (1) Adhering to a 40 hour work week;
(2) paying statutory overtime premiums for affected workers'
hours worked beyond 40 per week; (3) raising employees'
salaries to levels required for exempt status by the proposed
rule; or (4) converting salaried employees' basis of pay to
an hourly rate (no less than the federal minimum wage) that
results in virtually no (or only a minimal) changes to the
total compensation paid to those workers. Employers could
also change the duties of currently exempt and nonexempt
workers to comply with the proposed rule.
The Administration claims that its overtime regulation will
strengthen and expand overtime protections. The facts say
different. Even the Republican-led Senate voted 99 to 0 in
favor of the amendment offered by Senator Judd Gregg to
protect overtime rights in 55 job classifications--including
blue-collar workers, registered nurses, police officers, and
firefighters--because they had no confidence in the
Administration's claims.
The Administration claims that its overtime regulation will
reduce costly and lengthy litigation. However, three experts
who formerly administered the FLSA in the Department of Labor
during both Republican and Democratic administration reached
exactly the opposite conclusion,
Further, in our view, the Department has written rules that
are vague and internally inconsistent, and that will likely
result in a profusion of confusion and court litigation--
outcomes that the Department explicitly sought to avoid.
For example, the former Department of Labor officials
observed that,
The team leader provision in new Sec. 541.203(3) is an
entirely new regulatory concept that is also fraught with
ambiguity. This provision is not based on case law, but is
purportedly an attempt to reflect modern workplace practices.
. . . Furthermore, the regulations do not address the very
real possibility that team leaders may be working on a number
of different short- or long-term projects, simultaneously or
in succession,
[[Page H6976]]
some of which would be major and directly related to the
performance of management or general business operations and
some of which would not. Evaluating the team leader's primary
duty in that instance will be very difficult at best. Would
the employee, for example, move in and out of exempt status
from one week to the next? How this provision will operate in
practice can only be imagined, but one can surmise that
employers will seek to apply this provision to large numbers
of employees to whom the exemption was never intended to
apply.
Rather than providing more clarity to protect more workers,
the Administration's overtime regulation constituents an open
invitation to dispute. The Department of Labor deliberately
has replaced longstanding, objective criteria by which
employers and employees could clearly understand who
qualifies for overtime pay and who does not with ambiguous
concepts and criteria. These changes will require subjective
judgments by employers that no doubt will be made based on
the employers' economic interests to the detriment of
workers. Practically the only instances in which the Labor
Department ``clarified'' the rules are by declaring virtually
entire classes of workers--for example, financial services
workers, insurance claims adjusters, athletic trainers,
funeral directors and embalmers, and employees earning more
than $100,000--ineligible for overtime pay.
At a time when millions of families feel lucky just to have
a job, this Committee should have rejected the
Administration's proposed pay cut for 6 million American
families. By failing to adopt the Democratic amendment, the
Committee failed to uphold the values of working and middle
class Americans who simply want a fair day's pay for a hard
day's work.
David Obey.
Steny Hoyer.
Nita Lowey.
Rosa L. DeLauro.
Jesse L. Jackson, Jr.
Patrick J. Kennedy.
Lucille Roybal-Allard.
Mr. Chairman, the fact is that the only chance we have to improve
this bill is to send it to conference with the Senate, because without
going to conference, we cannot correct the shortcomings produced by the
subcommittee.
In spite of that, I intended to vote against the bill until the House
today adopted the Obey-Miller amendment. With the adoption of that
amendment, which is an attempt to restore overtime rights to some 5
million workers, this bill becomes at this point the only vehicle by
which we have a shot at restoring those overtime rights. So I will most
reluctantly vote to move this bill on to conference.
But I want to make clear to the majority that if the conference
report comes back with this provision stripped, and if the conference
report comes back without correcting some of the deficiencies that we
have laid out in the minority views, and we do not expect them all to
be corrected, but we certainly expect some to be corrected in a
legitimate give-and-take process, but if this overtime provision winds
up being stripped out of the bill, and if some of these shortcomings
are not corrected, then I want to make quite clear to the majority not
to expect me to vote for it when it comes back from conference, because
I will not do so.
This bill falls far short of where it needs to be to protect the
long-term interests of our children and our workers, and especially
those people without health care. And I would urge Members of the other
body to make enough changes when they consider the bill so that we have
a reasonable prospect in conference of actually producing a decent
bill.
I appreciate the support that we got today from every Member on this
side of the aisle and 22 Members on that side of the aisle on the
overtime provisions. I hope that Members will insist, now that they
voted that way, I hope that they will insist that that provision stays
nailed in the bill, unlike last year when the provision was removed by
the leadership.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank the gentleman for his cooperation.
It really has been a team effort in many ways, and I think this bill
does reflect, maybe not in total numbers of dollars, but certainly in
terms of what we had available, I think we have reflected the Members'
priorities pretty well across the board, both sides of the aisle, and
we have tried to reflect the needs of the American people.
I think the bill is very fair. It is very well balanced. We have had
the support of the minority in the subcommittee and the full committee
that reflects that. Obviously, many would like to have more money, but
we have to work with what we have. And given what was available, I
think we worked together to produce a very responsible bill, so I would
urge all of our Members to support this bill on final passage.
I think the membership can point to it with satisfaction; maybe not
with complete agreement, but satisfaction that it reflects as well as
possible the aspirations and priorities of Members given the amount of
money that was available to us through the budget process.
{time} 1800
Amendment Offered by Mr. Hayworth
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The pending business is
the demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) on which further proceedings were
postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 178,
noes 225, not voting 30, as follows:
[Roll No. 439]
AYES--178
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Boehlert
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Capito
Carson (OK)
Carter
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeLay
DeMint
Doolittle
Duncan
Edwards
Emerson
Everett
Feeney
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frost
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hart
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Hill
Hoekstra
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Isakson
Israel
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
LaTourette
Lewis (KY)
LoBiondo
Manzullo
Marshall
Matheson
McCotter
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moore
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Norwood
Otter
Paul
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Putnam
Ramstad
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sanders
Sandlin
Saxton
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Stearns
Stenholm
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thornberry
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Whitfield
Wolf
Wu
NOES--225
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Beauprez
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Cantor
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Case
Castle
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Ehlers
Emanuel
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gonzalez
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Houghton
Hoyer
Hyde
Inslee
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
[[Page H6977]]
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (NY)
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Linder
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Pickering
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Rahall
Regula
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shaw
Sherman
Sherwood
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tauscher
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Turner (OH)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weller
Wexler
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Woolsey
Wynn
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--30
Ballenger
Cannon
Cardoza
Delahunt
Gephardt
Goss
Greenwood
Kanjorski
Langevin
Lipinski
Lucas (OK)
McInnis
Meehan
Moran (KS)
Nethercutt
Peterson (PA)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rangel
Reyes
Ros-Lehtinen
Ryan (OH)
Schrock
Shuster
Tanner
Tauzin
Toomey
Towns
Turner (TX)
Young (AK)
Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry) (during the vote). Members
are advised that 2 minutes remain in this vote.
{time} 1827
Messrs. FATTAH, PEARCE and GUTIERREZ, Ms. KAPTUR, and Messrs. TIAHRT,
McCRERY, STRICKLAND and ISSA changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. BOEHLERT, ROGERS of Michigan, FROST, WELDON of Florida,
FOSSELLA, SANDLIN, JOHN and LAMPSON, Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon, and Messrs.
BURGESS, MOORE, HILL, WU, TOM DAVIS of Virginia and WELDON of
Pennsylvania changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will read the last three lines of
the bill.
The Clerk read as follows:
This Act may be cited as the ``Departments of Labor, Health
and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2005''.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, the LoBiondo amendment to Section 221 of
H.R. 5006, the ``Department of Labor, Health and Human Services, and
Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2005,'' would make
a change to Medicare Part A payment policy, and thus falls within the
sole jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means. Legislating on an
appropriation bill is a violation of House Rules XXI, and the Committee
opposes attempts to legislate on appropriation bills. However, in this
case, I have worked with Representatives LoBiondo, Lowey and Wamp to
draft the amendment being offered today to ensure that the Committee's
position is addressed. The Committee on Ways and Means has long been
involved in this issue and is interested in ensuring that any rule
relating to the classification of inpatient rehabilitation hospitals is
properly implemented and enforced. The amendment is being offered with
the understanding that it does not in any way prejudice the Committee
with respect to the appointment of conferees or its jurisdictional
prerogatives on this or similar legislation.
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I wish to express grave concern over a
clause in this bill that would seriously erode worker protections
against tuberculosis, TB, and bioterrorism. This provision prohibits
the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA, from fully
enforcing its respirator standard for workers at risk of exposure to TB
and other deadly infections. At a time when the Bush administration is
invoking daily, color-coded terrorist alerts, it makes absolutely no
sense to weaken the only standard we have to protect health care
workers against air-borne pathogens or air-borne ``weapons of mass
destruction.'' By prohibiting OSHA from enforcing the annual fit test
for workers' respirators or masks, that is exactly what is possible.
According to Dr. Margaret Hamburg, Vice President for Biological
Programs at the Nuclear Threat Initiative, biological agents that might
be used as biological weapons include small pox, pneumonic plague, and
drug-resistant TB. To undercut the only protection that front-line
health care workers would have to such agents--namely, their
respirators--is absolutely unconscionable.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that a letter on this critical
issue from the Director of Occupational Health and Safety at the
Service Employees International Union (SEIU) be included in the Record
at this point. I trust and hope my colleagues in the Senate will see
the wisdom of opposing any such effort to weaken workers' protections
against TB and bioterrorism.
An Open Letter to APIC Members
Dear APIC member:
I ran across your e-mail thread from my colleagues in the
occupational health and safety community. As I am not an APIC
member (yet), I hope that you are not offended by my taking
this liberty to communicate directly with you about a manner
of upmost importance to all of us who are concerned about
health care worker occupational health and safety.
The APIC leadership (with AHA) have been on a crusade to
undermine adequate TB and respiratory legal protections for
health care workers for some time now. They are proud of
their singular role in working with Congressman Roger Wicker
(R-MS), whose state coincidentally is surrounded by states
with some of the highest rates of TB, to kill the OSHA TB
rule late last year.
Not satisfied with that ``accomplishment'', APIC leadership
is now determined to gut the application of the OSHA
respirator standard that has been on the books for all other
chemical, biological and infectious disease agents, except TB
since 1998. The reason that the respirator standard didn't
apply to TB until now is because the separate OSHA TB
standard (that APIC had killed) would have covered
respiratory protection within the framework of a
comprehensive TB rule.
As someone trained as a microbiologist and industrial
hygienist working in the healthcare sector for the past 24
years, I must tell you that your APIC leadership is dead
wrong to oppose annual fit testing against TB and other
airborne biological hazards. I am not alone. Every labor
organization that represents health care workers also
supports annual fit testing, as does the Bush Administration,
the American Nurses Association, American Industrial Hygiene
Association and the 50,000 member American Public Health
Association.
Let's look at the facts:
(1) Last year TB rates had their smallest decline in years;
rates increased in twenty states.
(2) Without annual fit testing, respirator face seals will
erode over time, respirators will leak, and more healthcare
workers will experience TB conversions. Respirator
manufacturers recommend annual fit testing for their products
to work properly.
(3) The APIC leadership is misleading you when they say
that the Wicker amendment is supported by CDC. This is not
true. The official CDC position has never differed from
OSHA's position either verbally or in writing.
(4) The official position of the Bush Administration in
supporting annual fit testing, was articulated in the
December 30, 2003 Federal Register OSHA notice, stating that
fit testing is crucial to a proper face seal, and that over
time that 5% to 50% of all workers will lose a proper face
seal each year if annual fit testing is not performed.
(5) As far as the argument that there is ``no difference''
between a surgical mask vs. a properly fitted N95 respirator,
a study conducted by Nelson Laboratories in Salt Lake City
last year found that a surgical mask filtered out 61.9%-62.3%
of particles in the respirable 0.3 micron range vs. 97.9%-
99.7% for a properly fitted N95 respirator.
Many of you may recall the clamor of opposition against the
bloodborne pathogens standard in the late 1980s. Many
dentists claimed that if they wore gloves, that patients
wouldn't see them. Today the opposite is the case, while the
CDC reports that since the standard took effect, that
hepatitis B cases among health care workers have plummeted
from 17,000 a year to 400.
Today, as a result of the requirements under the bloodborne
pathogens standard, many infection control professionals have
more resources to do their job. The same could be the case if
we work together to protect health care workers from airborne
exposures to TB through annual fit testing; also conferring
protections against SARS, avian flue and airborne weapons of
mass destruction.
SEIU represents 1.7 million workers, with over half
employed in health care, including over 100,000 nurses and
20,000 physicians. Many of our members are APIC members who
vehemently disagree with the position of the current APIC
leadership. I know that many other APIC members believe that
their current leadership is not acting in the best interest
of their membership when they work so zealously in opposition
to these basic worker protections.
I respectfully suggest that APIC members learn the facts,
and work to support an APIC leadership that shares our joint
interests in protecting both workers and patients.
Sincerely:
Bill Borwegen, MPH,
Director, Occupational Health and Safety
Service Employees International Union.
[[Page H6978]]
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I support the fiscal year 2005 Labor, Health
and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Bill, but I would like
to state my opposition to the Weldon refusal clause provision.
The Weldon provision would exempt health care companies from any
federal, state or local government law that ensures women have access
to reproductive health services, including information about abortion.
If passed, this provision would have many negative effects.
It would override federal Title X guidelines that ensure women
receive full medical information. A fundamental principle of Title X,
the national family planning program, ensures pregnant women who
request information about all their medical options, including
abortion, be given that information, including a referral upon patient
request.
I am also concerned this bill does not include an increase in funding
for Title X. Each year approximately 4.5 million low-income women and
men receive basic health care through 4,600 clinics nation wide that
receive Title X funds. This program reduces unintended pregnancies and
makes abortion less necessary. Had funding for Title X kept pace with
inflation since 1980, with no additional increases, it would be funded
today at double its current budget.
While Title X is receiving flat funding from last year, H.R. 5006
gives abstinence-only programs an increase of $35 million. Unlike Title
X, abstinence-only programs do not provide clinical health services.
Additionally, research shows comprehensive sex-education programs,
which teach both abstinence and contraception, are the most effective.
There is no federal program that earmarks dollars for comprehensive sex
education.
I support a woman's right to choose whether to terminate a pregnancy
subject to Roe v. Wade.
Abortion is a very personal decision. While a woman's doctor, clergy,
friends, family and public officials may have an opinion, the ultimate
decision rests solely with her. It is vital for every woman to have
access to as much information as she needs in order to make this
decision.
While I support the bill, I oppose these provisions and amendments.
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today with concern for our public
education system. As a new school year begins on Long Island, many
parents are eager to find out if their children's schools will be
labeled failing or in need of improvement, assessments mandated by the
federal No Child Left Behind Act. I believe this is also an ideal time
for the administration and Congress to assess federal efforts to
support our nation's public schools.
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and No Child
Left Behind Act were landmark federal policies to ensure quality
education for children with disabilities and improve learning results.
Unfortunately, these well meaning efforts have been met with great
controversy on the local level due to immense funding inadequacies.
The monumental No Child Left Behind Act passed Congress in 2001. It
made a deal with America's public schools: in exchange for new
standards of excellence, the legislation promised new federal funding.
Unfortunately, the federal government has not held up its end of the
bargain. The FY05 Labor, Health and Human Service and Education
Appropriations Act alone shortchanges No Child Left Behind programs by
whopping $9.5 billion, making it increasingly difficult for schools to
meet new, higher standards.
In 1975, the federal government committed to pay 40 percent of the
cost of educating children with disabilities. Not once have they come
close to honoring this commitment. The FY05 Labor, Health and Human
Service and Education Appropriations Act, which closely follows the
President's funding request, provides $2.5 billion less than what was
promised for special education just last year. This keeps the federal
government's share at less than 20 percent. This is shameful because
fully funding IDEA would benefit every child in every classroom by
providing fiscal breathing room to school districts and local tax
relief to families.
The administration's support of our public schools is failing and the
legislation we are debating today is in clear need of improvement. The
Fiscal Year 2005 Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Act
will likely pass this chamber today. It is my hope that a House/Senate
conference committee will make substantial improvements in fulfilling
our promise to local schools by increasing funding.
Mrs. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I support the fiscal year 2005 Labor,
Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Bill, but I
would like to state my concern about the funding cuts for two important
programs, the Community Service Block Grant and the Social Services
Block Grant.
The Community Service Block Grant 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 those
living in poverty.
The Community Service Block Grant is a unique and essential resource.
It provides the necessary tools for employment and training, education,
housing, senior services, energy assistance, community development,
health, nutrition, Head Start and other programs to help families
escape and remain out of poverty.
Unfortunately, funding for this vital program has decreased since it
was funded at $650 million in 2002. This Labor, Health and Human
Services, and Education Appropriations bill would fund the Community
Service Block Grant at $627.5 million. I encourage my colleagues to
support restoring this program's funding in conference.
Funding for the Social Services Block Grant has also declined over
the past few years.
Created in 1981, the Social Services Block Grant contributes federal
funds to states for providing social services.
States have broad discretion over the funds, which are directed at
increasing self-sufficiency, preventing or remedying neglect and abuse
of children and adults and preserving families. The funds are used both
by local governments and nonprofit organizations to meet the specific
and unique needs of the local population.
In the 1996 welfare reform law, states agreed to a reduction of the
Social Services Block Grant authorization from its FY 95 high of $2.8
billion to $2.38 billion through FY 03. In exchange, Congress allowed
each state to transfer up to 10 percent of its Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families (TANF) funds into Social Services Block Grants.
In 1998, the maximum funding amount for the Social Services Block
Grant was further reduced to $1.7 billion, effective in FY 01. Today's
legislation appropriates the same amount, $1.7 billion, for FY 05.
I believe it is imperative to restore funding to the Social Services
Block Grant because it is essential we preserve and strengthen the
critical safety net it provides. With that being said, I appreciate
Chairman Regula's good work with limited resources and support passage
of the bill.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of H.R. 5006, the
Fiscal Year 2005 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education
Appropriations Act. While this bill contains many flaws, it is an
unfortunate reality that we must attempt to fund important government
functions within the budgetary constraints that the Administration's
policies have created.
Among the many cuts, there are a few welcome funding increases in
this bill. First, this bill contains an increase of $125 million in
LIHEAP funds, which is desperately needed to help my constituents keep
their homes warm during the upcoming winter. As energy costs rise and
the economy remains weak, more and more households need assistance to
survive the harsh Northern winter. I hope more funds for this
successful program are included in conference.
In addition, this legislation contains an increase of $219 million
for Community Health Centers, which provide primary and preventive
health care services in medically-underserved areas throughout the
country, including the Providence Community Health Centers in my
district. Without these facilities, numerous Americans would not have
access to vital health care.
H.R. 5006 increases the national Institutes of Health budget by $727
million to search for cures for spinal cord injuries, cancer,
Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, and numerous other ailments.
These funds bring us closer to treating deadly and painful diseases
affecting nearly every American family. I support an additional $500
million, as proposed in the Obey amendment, to keep pace with inflation
and fund this important research.
Unfortunately, the restrictive rule did not allow an opportunity for
the House to vote on the Obey amendment. This alternative would correct
many of the funding shortfalls for national priorities by fully funding
No Child Left Behind, Pell Grants, Perkins Loans, the Community Access
Program, and numerous other health, education, and job training
programs facing cuts under this bill. The Obey amendment would have
been fully offset by slightly reducing the tax break for those who earn
more than $1 million per year, a small sacrifice to improve the lives
of so many Americans.
I am delighted, however, that the Obey-Miller Overtime Amendment was
passed by the House. This amendment would overturn the Administration's
misguided overtime regulations that took effect on August 23rd, ending
guaranteed overtime pay for up to 6 million workers. This regulation is
an unprecedented assault on American workers and discourages businesses
to hire new workers. The Obey-
[[Page H6979]]
Miller Amendment would guarantee that supervisory and administrative
employees, including registered nurses, working foremen, salespersons,
law enforcement officers, and nursery school teachers, keep the
overtime pay they depend on. I hope that the conference agreement on
this appropriations bill will retain this important provision to
prevent the further erosion of workers' rights.
Despite the bill's shortcomings, I will be voting in favor of H.R.
5006. I commend the Ranking Member and Chairman, and the rest of the
Appropriations Committee, for their work within difficult constraints.
The funding level in this bill is a direct result of the fiscally
irresponsible policies of the Administration, which will result in a
projected record $422 billion deficit for fiscal year 2004. I expect
next year's deficit will be even higher. Deficits will continue to
increase until this Administration and this Congress realize that
cutting taxes for the wealthy during a time of extraordinary security
demands only exacerbates the budgetary crisis. Without discipline,
future generations will be saddled with the debt we are creating today.
Although the bill is not perfect, I urge my colleagues to join me in a
call for fiscal responsibility and support H.R. 5006, the Fiscal Year
2005 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations
Act.
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to increased
funding for `abstinence-only' programs under the Labor-HHS-Education
Appropriations bill.
Ideology, not science, has been driving America's response to the
devastating problem of teen pregnancy and STD/HIV infection. Funding
for restrictive abstinence-only programs are dramatically increasing.
All told, abstinence-only programs have received over half a billion
dollars in federal funds since 1997, and the Bush administration
requested an unprecedented increase to $273 million in fiscal year
2005.
This huge investment of taxpayer funds in abstinence-only programs
conflict with scientific and medical research: abstinence-only programs
have never been proven effective and may result in riskier behavior by
teenagers. Responsible sex education programs, on the other hand, have
demonstrated positive results such as delayed initiation of sex,
reduced frequency of sex, and increased contraceptive use.
Ideologically driven groups, not scientific or public health
organizations, have pushed the proliferation of abstinence-only
programs. In fact, current scientific research fails to show that
abstinence-only programs are effective.
In 2001, the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy found no
credible studies of abstinence-only programs showing any significant
impact on participants' initiation of or frequency of sex.
By denying adolescents complete information and by censoring
teachers, abstinence-only programs endanger our youth.
Abstinence-only programs can harm teens by putting them at risk of
pregnancy and STDs. Abstinence-only programs fail to provide
information about contraception beyond failure rates, and, in some
cases, provide misinformation. Without complete and accurate
information, some teens therefore may forgo contraceptive use,
jeopardizing their reproductive health.
The lack of responsible sex education puts teens at risk of pregnancy
and STDs, including HIV. One study that compared an abstinence-only
program with a more comprehensive ``safer-sex'' program found that
``only the safer-sex intervention significantly reduced unprotected
sexual intercourse.''
The recent explosion of federal funds for abstinence-only programs
has negatively influenced schools. Almost one-third of secondary school
principals surveyed reported that the federal abstinence-only funding
influenced their school's sex education curriculum.
Current research indicates that more comprehensive sex education
programs that discuss both abstinence and contraception have positive
effects.
In 2001, the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy concluded
that sex and HIV education programs that discuss both abstinence and
contraception delay the onset of sex, reduce the frequency of sex, and
increase contraceptive use.
Moreover, their review of studies dispelled many of the myths
attached to responsible sex education programs. In particular, the
study showed that sexuality and HIV education programs that include
discussion of condoms and contraception: do not hasten the onset of
sexual intercourse; do not increase the frequency of sexual
intercourse; and do not increase the number of sexual partners.
The National Academy of Sciences' Institute of Medicine concluded
that sex education and condom availability programs in schools do not
increase sexual activity among teenagers.
Teaching our children about abstinence is a critical part of a well-
rounded and effective sex education program. But abstinence by itself
is not sufficient. Young people deserve complete and accurate
information about their reproductive health, including abstinence,
pregnancy prevention, and STD/HIV prevention. Only when teens have
reliable information about their reproductive health can they make
informed and appropriate decisions.
Given the high stakes facing teens, the fact that almost half of all
teens aged 15 to 19 years old in the United States have had sex, and
the absence of research showing that abstinence-only programs are
effective, ``Just Say No'' efforts are misleading at best, and
dangerous at worst. Congress should enact policies that effectively and
responsibly address the current crisis in adolescent reproductive
health. Federal funds should be directed at responsible sex education
programs that provide teen with the information and skills they need to
protect themselves and that have demonstrated positive results.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to reiterate my opposition to increased funding
for `abstinence-only' programs under the Labor-HHS-Education
Appropriations bill and the blatant assault on a woman's right to
choose.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant support of the
Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2005.
I say reluctant, because while there are some good things in the
bill, it is lacking due to the fact that the House Republican
leadership has failed to reach a budget agreement with the Senate
Republican leadership. As a result, the bill before us has an
inadequate budget allocation for the important health and human
services programs it funds.
While Democrats have reluctantly supported appropriations bills this
year in order to move the process forward, we all recognize they are
woefully inadequate based on the needs of the country. Nevertheless, my
support of this bill is based on the fact that Chairman Ralph Regula
and Chairman Bill Young are to be commended for the work they have done
with the unrealistic budget limits they have been given, and the fact
that I appreciate Chairman Regula including in the bill and report
several important items I highlighted during our subcommittee hearings.
First, the bill contains an increase for the national folic acid
education program. Representative Jo Ann Emerson and I were the authors
of this program that was established by the Children's Health Act of
2000. Severe brain and spinal defects have dropped 27 percent in the
U.S. since the government, in 1998, began requiring makers of cereal,
pasta, bread and flour to fortify their foods with folic acid. However,
a national public and health professions education campaign designed to
increase the number of women taking folic acid daily is still
imperative to eliminate these birth defects.
Second, language was included commending the Secretary of Health and
Human Services for establishing an interagency committee on underage
drinking and moving forward with a national media campaign, to be
conducted by the Ad Council, to combat underage drinking. I feel
certain that the final bill will include funding for the second year of
this important national media campaign. These significant
accomplishments by the department and by the Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration acting as the lead agency, stem from a
bipartisan effort that I have been proud to lead with Representatives
Frank Wolf, Rosa DeLauro, Zach Wamp, and Tom Osborne and supported by
Senators Mike DeWine and Chris Dodd.
Also, a number of other issues have been addressed in our report,
including the migrant and seasonal head start program, farmworker
housing programs, a pending regulation in the Department of Labor
regarding personal protective equipment for employees, and newborn
screening initiatives. I ask the various departments to pay close
attention to the committee's directives on these important subjects and
the issues they raise based on the experiences of the many affected
constituent groups and the input from the administration during budget
oversight hearings.
In the end, however, this bill will be evaluated on the resources it
provides to the many deserving programs within our subcommittee's
jurisdiction. And unfortunately, due to the budget constraints I have
already mentioned, the bill in front of us shortchanges some of the
very programs and the very needs that so many witnesses told us about
in their testimony.
For example, Congress and the President made a commitment to our
nation's children though the No Child Left Behind legislation passed
with so much fanfare two years ago. Unfortunately, against the backdrop
of record school enrollments, unprecedented federal education
accountability requirements, and rising demand for college assistance,
the bill provides only a 3.6 percent increase for the Department of
Education's discretionary programs. No Child Left Behind is actually
cut $120 million below the Administration's request, and the bill
provides $9.5 billion less than the funding promised by the No Child
Left Behind authorization. While 4-year public colleges and
universities have experienced an
[[Page H6980]]
average 26 percent tuition increase in the last two years, the bill
freezes the maximum Pell Grant for low-income college students at
$4,050.
Training America's work force is the key to competing in a global
economy, and training is also essential to prevent the loss of American
jobs to competitors overseas. Despite a loss of 1.8 million private
sector jobs since President Bush took office, the bill provides $40
million less than last year for employment and training assistance
programs administered by the Department of Labor.
Health programs point out the real dilemma in our bill. Although the
bill does substantially increase funding for community health centers,
global disease detection, AIDS drug assistance, and chronic disease
prevention, a number of other programs are cut including rural health
outreach grants, health training programs in primary care medicine and
dentistry, the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant, and the
Preventive Health and Health Services Block Grant. Funding for the
National Institutes of Health is increased, but the 2.6 percent
increase is the smallest in 19 years and less than the 3.5 percent
increase estimated to cover inflation costs for biomedical research.
Democrats don't just criticize, however. We offered revisions to the
budget resolution that would have allowed this bill to make a greater
investment in education, health care, and medical research. When the
bill was considered by the subcommittee and the full Appropriations
Committee, we again offered amendments to add $7.4 billion to the bill
by reducing by 30 percent the 2005 tax cuts for people with incomes
over $1 million. In fact, polls consistently show that the American
public is far more interested in preserving important education and
health priorities than in tax cuts that benefit primarily the rich.
I agree with the common-sense approach to this problem that has been
consistently laid out by Ranking Member David Obey. Let's simply
reduce--not eliminate, but reduce--the tax break we give to
millionaires--those with adjusted incomes greater than $1 million. By
doing so we can increase Title I, add funding for No Child Left Behind
programs, maintain college affordability by raising Pell grants, shore
up our health safety net programs, rebuild our public health system to
respond to disease outbreaks and possible terrorist attacks.
But these fiscally responsible efforts by Mr. Obey and other
Democrats have been defeated by the Republican majority at each turn,
resulting in the bill we are considering today.
The bill before the House is governed by a rule that prevents us from
having these choices because the Republican leadership knows that given
the opportunity this House would vote overwhelmingly to adequately fund
this bill.
The Labor-HHS-Education bill, which is one of the most important
bills that comes out this House, contains the most deserving programs
administered by the federal government in support of the well-being of
our people. These programs are also cost-effective in providing worker
training and protection, helping to educate our children from Head
Start to Pell grants, and in contributing to a healthy populace through
our public health system and health safety net programs.
The bill in front of the House today is the best that can be done
under the circumstances. But it does not reflect the aspirations of
American society. I believe we can do more for America's children,
America's workers, and America's future. Although I will support this
bill today, I will continue to work with my colleagues on the
Appropriations Committee and in the House to look for opportunities
before we complete our work this year so that the future of America's
children and America's families will be bright.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 5006, the Labor/
HHS Appropriations Bill for FY 2005, and to inform members that this
bill is in compliance with the budget resolution for FY 2005 as applied
to the House by H. Res. 649.
H.R. 5006 provides $142.5 billion in new budget authority and $141.1
billion in new outlays for programs within the Departments of Labor,
Health and Human Services, Education, and related agencies. This
funding level represents an increase of $2.8 billion in BA and $3.9
billion in outlays over last year. That is a 2 percent increase over FY
2004 levels. This reflects the need to restrain the rate of increase
for non-defense, non-homeland security domestic discretionary programs
which provided the overall policy framework for this year's budget
resolution.
H.R. 5006 complies with the budget act because the spending levels it
contains do not exceed the subcommittee's 302(b) suballocation of new
budget authority. Additionally, the bill is in compliance with
requirements that it not exceed aggregate spending levels established
in the budget resolution. Finally, the bill also complies with
restrictions on advance appropriations.
Regarding this last point, the Budget Resolution for FY 2005 places a
total limit for advance appropriations in FY 2006 at $23.2 billion. The
bill before us today will consume the vast majority of those funds,
since it provides for $19.275 billion in FY 2006 advance
appropriations. All of the accounts for which advance appropriations
are made in this bill are listed as eligible within the budget
resolution. Since no advance appropriations have as yet been enacted,
the bill does not cause a breach of this limit. However, the House
should be aware that only $4 billion will remain available for advance
appropriations should this bill be enacted.
I commend the Committee on Appropriations for bringing us a bill that
funds many priority programs which Members care about while living
within our means in an era requiring tougher fiscal discipline. The
bill increases Department of Education funding by $2 billion over last
year, and includes a billion dollar increase for Special Education,
bringing funding for IDEA to its highest level in history. This is over
three times more funding than Special Education received in 1995, and
this is an accomplishment that we in the Budget Committee have helped
to bring about through past budget resolutions which assumed
substantial increases for special education.
Additionally, the bill continues the commitment that the House has
made to the National Institutes for Health, providing $727 million more
than last year. Worker retraining and dislocated worker assistance
programs are also restored and augmented, which should help us continue
to expand employment and ensure that Americans who want to work will be
able to find good jobs. This is a responsible bill which fulfills our
commitments to the public while living within the constraints of
difficult fiscal times.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. If there are no further amendments, under
the rule the Committee now rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Hastings of Washington) having assumed the chair, Mr. Thornberry,
Chairman pro tempore 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, pursuant to House Resolution 754, he reported the bill
back to the House with sundry amendments adopted by the Committee of
the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will
put them en gros.
The amendments were agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 388,
nays 13, not voting 32, as follows:
[Roll No. 440]
YEAS--388
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Clyburn
Coble
Cole
Collins
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
[[Page H6981]]
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Herger
Herseth
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
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
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Turner (OH)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (FL)
NAYS--13
Bartlett (MD)
Flake
Franks (AZ)
Hefley
Hensarling
Hostettler
Jones (NC)
Miller (FL)
Paul
Rohrabacher
Royce
Tancredo
Wilson (NM)
NOT VOTING--32
Ballenger
Brown (OH)
Cannon
Cardoza
Cox
Delahunt
Diaz-Balart, L.
Everett
Gephardt
Greenwood
Kanjorski
Langevin
Lipinski
Lucas (OK)
McInnis
Meehan
Moran (KS)
Nethercutt
Peterson (PA)
Quinn
Radanovich
Reyes
Ros-Lehtinen
Ryan (OH)
Schrock
Shuster
Tanner
Tauzin
Toomey
Towns
Turner (TX)
Young (AK)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington) (during the
vote). Members are advised there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1844
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 440, had I been
present, I would have voted ``yea.''
____________________