[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 135 (Saturday, November 20, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H10087-H10096]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 4818, 
 CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005 AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION 
  OF H.J. RES. 114, MAKING FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE 
                FISCAL YEAR 2005, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 866 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 866

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (H.R. 4818) making appropriations for foreign 
     operations, export financing, and related programs for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other 
     purposes. All points of order against the conference report 
     and against its consideration are waived. The conference 
     report shall be considered as read.
       Sec. 2. Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order without intervention of any point of order to consider 
     in the House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 114) making 
     further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2005, 
     and for other purposes. The joint resolution shall be 
     considered as read for amendment. The previous question shall 
     be considered as ordered on the joint resolution to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
     debate on the joint resolution equally divided and controlled 
     by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
     on Appropriations; and (2) one motion to recommit.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration 
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  (Mr. PUTNAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, it is a beautiful Saturday morning all 
across America and people are waking up and taking their morning 
coffee, reading the paper, getting the kids off to soccer practice, and 
slipping into the woods to do a little hunting.
  As I say, on this glorious Saturday morning, people are going about 
their lives and doing the things that they do, enjoying time with their 
family and their business, and they are undoubtedly thinking to 
themselves, as they find out that Congress is in session on a Saturday, 
that it is about time those guys did some work.
  It is an important issue indeed that finds us here doing the people's 
business this weekend as we wrap up a very productive 108th Congress. 
The omnibus package that is here before us today, this rule, H. Res. 
866, provides for consideration of H.R. 4818, making appropriations for 
foreign operations, export financing, and related programs for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2005.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule waives all points of order against the 
conference report and against its consideration. Section 2 of the 
resolution provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 114 under a closed 
rule and provides for one hour of debate in the House, equally divided 
and controlled by the chairman and

[[Page H10088]]

ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. All points 
of order against consideration of the joint resolution are waived. 
Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit H.J. Res. 114.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation represents a tremendous amount of work 
on the part of our appropriators, working in conjunction with the 
authorizing committees on a bipartisan, bicameral basis. It is 
important to note, Mr. Speaker, that this omnibus represents the work 
of nine different subcommittees on appropriations. There are nine 
different bills combined in there, but it is not because of the work of 
the House that that is the case. The House has passed all but one of 
those bills, and, unfortunately we find ourselves here at the end of 
the 108th Congress passing them en blanc as a result of issues not 
related to the House, as the chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), and the ranking 
member of that committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), have 
done a tremendous job of making sure that the House appropriation train 
runs on time.
  This legislation includes funding for the majority of our agencies 
and departments, along with very important infrastructure 
appropriations and needs. It is vital that we pass this to ensure the 
smooth and continued operation of the Federal Government. The final 
spending package fully complies with the spending targets agreed to by 
the Congress and the administration, totaling $821.9 billion in fiscal 
year 2005 discretionary spending.
  Mr. Speaker, it is important to note and to reinforce the fact that 
this fully complies with the spending targets laid out by this Congress 
and represents a freeze, or zero percent growth, in nondefense 
discretionary spending. Total discretionary spending in this bill is 
$388.4 billion. All additional spending is paid for by an across-the-
board cut of 0.83 percent in all nondefense and nonhomeland security 
spending, a $300 million recession in nonwar, nonemergency defense 
funds, and $283 million from limitations on expenditures from the Crime 
Victims Fund.
  Mr. Speaker, discretionary funding in the fiscal year 2001 budget, 
the last budget of the last administration, was 15 percent. Fifteen 
percent. Mr. Speaker, for the past 4 years, we have been able to hold 
the line on discretionary spending. This year's freeze demonstrates 
this Congress' commitment to fiscal responsibility during a time when 
our men and women in uniform are in harm's way.
  In our restraint, however, we continue to make provisions for those 
who rely on America's promises. The bill provides a record level of 
resources for veterans health, including a total of over $30 billion 
for the Veterans Health Administration; $19.5 billion for medical 
services; $4.7 billion for medical administration; $3.7 billion for 
medical facilities; and $385 million for medical research. In addition, 
the bill does not contain additional fees or surcharges for America's 
veterans.
  The bill also provides a significant boost in the manpower and 
resources of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The bill includes 
over $5 billion for the FBI, an increase of over $625 million above 
last year, and $100 million above the President's request. This funding 
provides enhanced training, information technology, and staff to the 
tune of over 1,100 new positions for the FBI to improve intelligence 
and counterterrorism capabilities, while continuing to fight white 
collar and violent crime.
  The package we consider today prioritizes our Nation's needs in a 
fiscally responsible manner, and I urge my colleagues to support both 
the rule and the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding me this time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, for months now, Republicans have held hostage 
some of the foremost priorities of the American people. Key national 
level needs like education, veterans health care, and highway 
construction have all been put on the back burner. The hard legislative 
choices and spending decisions that had to be made were delayed so that 
Republicans could ensure their success at the polls.
  Well, now that the election is over, we have returned to Washington 
to finally finish our budget for fiscal year 2005, and I am certain 
that my Republican friends will come down to the floor, pat each other 
on the back, and proclaim this giant $388.4 billion spending bill a 
great success that finishes their work for the year.
  But, Mr. Speaker, this bill does not even come close to accomplishing 
what our constituents expect from this Congress. Republicans in this 
House just returned from the campaign trail where they promised to 
create more jobs and more economic opportunity. They promised they 
would do all they could to keep our homeland safe. They promised they 
would work hard to provide Americans with affordable health care and 
lower prescription drug prices, and they promised they would balance 
the budget.
  However, their record tells a very different story.
  This Congress has failed to act on job creation. There is a 1.6 
million private sector job deficit in this country, yet Republicans 
have failed to pass a long-term highway bill that would create more 
than a million new jobs, and they have failed to end tax breaks for 
companies that ship jobs overseas.
  This Congress has failed to provide adequate resources for our 
national security. This Congress has failed to provide resources for 
our national security. Not only have Republicans failed to give our 
police and firefighters the resources they need, they have failed to 
secure our borders and ports and failed to complete action on the 
critical recommendations of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission.
  This Congress has failed to provide quality, affordable health care 
for Americans. Republicans have failed to hold down the price of 
prescription drugs, failed to reduce the number of uninsured, and 
failed to give Americans the right to import lower-priced prescription 
drugs from abroad.
  This Congress has failed to keep America fiscally sound. Republicans 
repeatedly refuse to enact sensible measures to pay for any new 
spending or tax cuts enacted. Their policies and mismanagements have 
sent the budget deficit skyrocketing from $159 billion in fiscal year 
2002 to a record $422 billion today, and just this week forced Congress 
to raise the debt limit by $800 billion, saddling our children with a 
massive debt that they cannot afford.
  Our work is nowhere near done, Mr. Speaker. It is shameful 
Republicans are rushing to finish our final spending bills and leave 
town without taking these very serious and very important matters under 
consideration. Perhaps while Republicans are enjoying their 
Thanksgiving vacation they will take a moment to give thanks that they 
do not have to face the electorate for 2 more years. I do not think the 
American people would approve of this do-nothing Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart).
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my 
distinguished colleague from Florida for yielding me this time.
  I stand in strong support of the rule that brings forth this Omnibus 
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2005. It is really an historic piece 
of legislation when one thinks about the fact or realizes that it 
achieves a freeze, or a zero percent growth, in nondefense 
discretionary spending. That is an historic accomplishment, an 
extraordinary accomplishment, while these nine appropriation bills 
included in this great omnibus package fund the needs and the many 
great actions that day in and day out the men and women that work for 
the Federal Government carry out. So I strongly support the rule and 
the underlying legislation.
  I think it is just and appropriate also, Mr. Speaker, that we take 
just an instant to commend and thank a great American patriot, a 
Floridian, who has served as chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations of this House for the last 6 years, my friend, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).
  When I arrived here as a freshman Member 12 years ago, he immediately 
began to teach me many extraordinary

[[Page H10089]]

things with that friendship that he shares with all of us here in the 
House. I am in awe of someone who has reached such great heights in 
this Congress and yet never ceased to be that friend to his colleagues, 
to all of his colleagues, and to his constituents. And so the great 
State of Florida has had a great representative for these years not 
only in this House but especially in these 6 years in the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  It is with a sense of gratitude as well as admiration that I say to 
Chairman Young, thank you for what you have done, not only in this 
piece of legislation, this historic piece of legislation, but in all of 
your years of service in this House, sir. Thank you.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New 
York (Ms. Slaughter).
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time, and I rise to express my great regrets about the inclusion 
of the Weldon-authored provision that undermines the rights of a State 
to enforce its own laws.
  If this bill passes, and I am sure it will, that means that from now 
on State and local governments failing to comply with the Weldon 
provision put at risk all of their State Medicaid funding, all their 
SCHIP funding, all their Head Start money, all their child care 
development block grant money, and all their social services block 
grant money. In short, anything that comes to the State or local 
government from the Labor-HHS bill. How is that for coming down with a 
pretty heavy hand?

                              {time}  1130

  Simply put, it restricts the States' autonomy and right to self-
governance and undermines States' ability to enforce their own 
constitutional protections.
  If a State chooses to enforce its own laws and require an HMO to 
provide abortion counseling or services, it will pay a very heavy 
price. None of us, I believe, are going to want to explain to the 
senior citizens that the nutrition programs are over, that Medicare is 
gone, that the Social Security check will not be there, denying the 
Federal funds for State and local governments that attempts to ensure 
that a woman has full access to reproductive health services and 
information. Information. Once again, the land of the free and the home 
of the brave is going to control the information going to its citizens.
  In fact, the way the proposal is worded, even Federal programs could 
be stripped of their funds if they were to comply with this law. 
Moreover, it interferes with State and local governments' 
responsibility to set the parameters of their Medicaid programs, 
something that they are very concerned about. And I know that New York, 
which I represent, is very concerned about the cost of Medicaid.
  Right now, if a woman is raped and receives her health care from 
Medicaid, States can force all HMOs that participate in Medicaid to 
either pay for her abortion or tell her that she is eligible to get 
that coverage and where she can get it. If this provision passes, the 
States will not be able to enforce this requirement and Medicaid HMOs 
can simply refuse to cover the woman's abortion and not give her any 
information that she can get coverage elsewhere. I am sure that is what 
the intent is.
  It even interferes with, and possibly overrides, current Federal 
laws, such as the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, 
which ensures that women in life-threatening circumstances receive the 
medical care they need.
  Suppose a woman comes into the emergency room of a hospital with an 
incomplete miscarriage which can threaten her life. Under present law, 
the hospital must stabilize her. If stabilizing requires completing the 
abortion, they have to do it no matter what their religious belief. But 
when Weldon passes, the hospital can say it is discrimination to force 
them to do this and so the woman can just die.
  I call on my colleagues to understand what is happening here. I know 
when the women in America find out what is happening here, there is 
going to be great outrage.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Burton).
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell Members a 
little bit about the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bill Young). Bill has 
been a friend of mine for over 20 years. When my wife was ill with 
cancer and she was in Germany and was going through treatment, he 
assisted me in making sure that I was able to get to her and spend time 
with her before she passed away, so I have undying gratitude to Bill 
for his kindness toward me over the years.
  The last few days I talked to him about a problem in the Marianas, in 
Guam, Saipan, American Samoa and elsewhere in the South Pacific about 
people who are dying from diabetes because they do not have enough 
dialysis machines over there. The gentleman from Florida told me he 
would do everything that he could to help get dialysis machines to 
those people. He tried to get the money into the appropriations bill; 
but, unfortunately, at the last minute it could not be done. So I 
approached him today on the floor and I said these people are dying, 
they are American citizens, and he said I am going to do everything I 
can to make sure that they get the equipment necessary to preserve and 
protect their lives. He was even going to go to the Pentagon to help 
find a way to get the equipment over there.
  I would like to say to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) on 
behalf of my family and on behalf of people of Guam, Saipan, American 
Samoa and elsewhere who are not in this bill, I believe they will get 
the help they need because he said he is going to go that extra mile to 
get it done.
  Mr. Speaker, I know that the gentleman from Florida is leaving the 
chairmanship of the Committee on Appropriations, so I would like to say 
that I appreciate the work he has done for not only me but for people 
all around the world.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I know it is late in the process, but I 
regret that this omnibus appropriations bill is wholly short on funding 
for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance program, otherwise known as 
LIHEAP. I am compelled to speak on this issue because of the very real 
national crisis facing residents of the Northeast and the Midwest in 
the weeks and months ahead.
  Mr. Speaker, this omnibus bill provides a total funding for LIHEAP of 
$2.2 billion. That is approximately $800 million of the level needed to 
ensure that this program has the same purchasing power as when it was 
created in 1982.
  According to the Center For Budget and Policy Priorities, across this 
country Americans will see a 24 percent increase in the price of home 
heating. Heating oil is going up 32 percent, propane 22.3 percent, and 
natural gas 12.1 percent. Our most vulnerable Americans depend on this 
program to protect them in the harsh winter months.
  Regrettably, the LIHEAP level of funding in this omnibus 
appropriations bill does not give them that protection. Millions of 
them will be left out in the cold.
  Mr. Speaker, I tried, without success, to amend the conference report 
in the Rules Committee to increase LIHEAP funding by approximately $800 
million. I hope Members of this body, as they return home for the 
holidays, will remember that they had a chance to address this issue 
and they were denied that opportunity.
  Mr. Speaker, there probably are some good things in this omnibus. 
Time will tell. This appropriations bill was brought before the 
Committee on Rules at 9 a.m. this morning. It is a huge bill, as 
Members see. It probably weighs more than I do, and it will take some 
time for all of us to sift through the paper. But it frustrates me that 
those without a powerful lobby or special interest PAC oftentimes are 
forgotten. This place is about priorities and choices, and this omnibus 
bill fails to make LIHEAP the priority it needs to be.
  Mr. Speaker, the sun is shining on American corporations that choose 
to take advantage of a special tax loophole by incorporating in the 
Caribbean Islands. But here at home, in particular my home State of 
Massachusetts, it is going to be a cold, dark winter for many seniors 
and low-income families. People in America should

[[Page H10090]]

never have to choose between paying for their prescription drugs and 
heating their homes, and people in America should never have to choose 
between heating their homes and putting food on the table. Yet because 
of our lack of action, those are the choices that too many Americans 
will have to make this winter. We could have and we should have done 
better.
  Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) for his 
many years of service in this Congress. We are all very proud to have 
served with him. I wish the gentleman well.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I certainly share the gentleman's concern about the 
situation that people up north find themselves in. It is a situation, 
to be honest, that is somewhat unfamiliar to me, having been raised in 
Florida and never having seen snow until I was 30. But I understand the 
plight. I am proud of the work that the appropriators have done, 
undoubtedly from the Northeast and around the country, who share the 
gentleman's concern at funding LIHEAP at $2.2 billion, an increase of 
$84 million over last year. They are certainly doing everything they 
can to make sure that the winters in Boston are a little bit less cold 
and a little bit less dark.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, first I rise to say good-bye to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost). Good-bye for now, and to thank him 
for all of his contributions to the people of this Nation and to all of 
us in this body. He has been the ultimate Energizer Bunny. I have never 
seen such steady, good energy in anybody in my life. I thank the 
gentleman, and I want him to know he will be missed.
  Next, I rise in opposition to the anti-choice, anti-woman provisions 
in H.R. 4818. This is a misguided measure which is very dangerous for 
our health care system as a whole. Let me be clear, this provision is 
nothing more than a payoff to the religious right. The majority party 
has made it quite clear that winning an election is worth sacrificing 
the health of American women.
  This bill robs women of their right to access comprehensive health 
care. No matter how Members look at it, this provision goes one step 
further by making it impossible for women to exercise their 
reproductive choices and once again subjects them to the wrath of the 
anti-choice movement.
  The current state of our health care system is weakening by the day. 
Many of our constituents are experiencing increased premiums with 
others being dropped by their health plans altogether. This provision 
would effectively strip States of their right to enforce laws that were 
designed to protect women's health. Instead of putting patient access 
to care in further jeopardy, we should be figuring out how to improve 
access to quality health care. Not only is this a direct assault on 
women's health and the authority of health care providers; it is a slap 
in the face to State and local governments that have implemented 
policies that put a woman's health ahead of bad politics.
  We cannot fall for this outrageous antic of the anti-choice 
community. We cannot let them twist another health care issue into a 
political one. That is why I implore my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to vote against this extremely harmful measure.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Weldon), a distinguished physician.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman for 
bringing this important rule to the floor. I would also like to join in 
the chorus of others commending the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young). 
He has been an outstanding chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. 
I guess this is the gentleman's last bill as full committee chairman. I 
thank the gentleman for being a friend and a mentor to me, and I am 
certainly glad we are going to continue to have the gentleman on the 
committee.
  Several Members have risen to criticize the included Weldon language 
in this bill, and I want to clarify that this is the Weldon-Hyde 
language. This is a continuation of the Hyde policy of conscience 
protection.
  The reason I sought to include this provision in the bill is my 
experience as a physician, and I still see patients, is that the 
majority of nurses, technicians and doctors who claim to be pro-choice 
who claim to support Roe v. Wade always say to me that they would never 
want to participate in an abortion, perform an abortion, or be 
affiliated with doing an abortion. This provision is meant to protect 
health care entities from discrimination because they choose not to 
provide abortion services.
  The measure was adopted during the full committee consideration, and 
those who opposed it had an opportunity to call for a vote in committee 
and on the floor, and they did not. This provision is intended to 
protect the decisions of physicians, nurses, clinics, hospitals, 
medical centers, and even health insurance providers from being forced 
by the government to provide, refer, or pay for abortions. This is a 
reasonable Federal policy, one that was overwhelmingly approved by this 
very body by a vote of 229-189. The policy simply states that health 
care entities should not be forced to provide elective abortions, a 
practice to which a majority of health care providers object, and I can 
tell Members from personal experience, and which they will not perform 
as a matter of conscience.
  Forty-five States and the Federal Government protect the right of 
health care providers to decline participation in abortions, and 
abortion advocates are working to abolish these legal protections in 
the courts and through the regulatory process. Abortion advocates have 
launched a campaign to force hospitals and health care entities to 
provide, refer, and pay for abortions. Abortion advocates argue that 
the term ``health care entity'' only covers individuals and not 
institutions. Abortion advocates argue that because an entity receives 
Federal funds they are required to provide abortions.
  By twisting the law, they have successfully used the court and State 
and local governments to violate the objections to abortions of health 
care entities and providers. Let me give some examples of what I am 
talking about. In July 2002, an Alaskan court forced a community 
hospital to provide elective late-term abortions contrary to its policy 
and the sentiment of the community.

                              {time}  1145

  In New Jersey, abortion advocacy groups urged the State of New Jersey 
to require a Catholic health system to build an abortion clinic on its 
premises to serve what they stated was a right of access to abortion.
  This year the State of New Mexico refused to approve a hospital lease 
because the community-owned hospital declined to perform elective 
abortions.
  This provision makes two simple changes in the existing law to 
prevent discrimination. It explicitly clarifies existing law to state 
that a health care entity includes a hospital, a health professional, a 
provider-sponsored organization, a health maintenance organization, a 
health insurance plan or any other kind of health care facility. It 
goes on further to state that existing law protects health care 
entities from discrimination based on three kinds of participation in 
abortion: performing, training and referring. This amendment 
strengthens existing law, and it is appropriate language for us to have 
in the bill.
  This provision only applies to health care entities that refuse to 
provide abortion services. Furthermore, the provision only affects 
instances when a government requires that a health care entity provide 
abortion services. Therefore, contrary to what has been said, this 
provision will not affect access to abortion, the provision of 
abortion-related information or services by willing providers or the 
ability of States to fulfill Federal Medicaid legislation.
  The right of conscience is fundamental to our American freedoms. We 
should guarantee this freedom by protecting all health care providers 
from being forced to perform, refer or pay for elective abortions. This 
is a good provision. I encourage all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' 
on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying bill.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous

[[Page H10091]]

consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).
  (Ms. LOFGREN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Weldon 
amendment language that will reduce health care for women.
  Mr. Speaker, once again the Republican majority is trying to pass 
major legislation detrimental to women written in the still of the 
night. They know they can't get this legislation passed in the light of 
day when the American public is watching and listening, so they 
stealthily add it to a huge omnibus bill at midnight. And now we're 
debating this on a Saturday morning as most of America is just getting 
up on a weekend before Thanksgiving. We're about to vote on this major 
bill without a proper national debate.
  Mr. Speaker, this is no simple piece of legislation that merely 
extends current law as its author claims. This is sweeping new 
legislation that would allow any individual physician, health care 
professional, hospital, HMO, health insurance plan or any other kind of 
health care facility, organization, or plan from providing, paying for, 
or even referring a patient for abortion services. There isn't even an 
exception for the health and safety of women, even in cases of life-
threatening emergencies, rape or incest.
  Worse yet is the draconian enforcement provision. If a state chooses 
to enforce its own law protecting women's health, that state will lose 
all of its federal funds for health and human services--funds for 
Medicaid, SCHIP, Head Start, child care services, and the list goes on.
  Whatever happened to a Republican party and its support for states' 
rights and, more importantly, their compassion for all Americans?
  This provision is outrageous--both procedurally and substantively and 
by itself provides sufficient reason to vote no on the entire bill.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I am deeply grateful to the gentleman for yielding me 
this time, for his tireless service to our country, for his friendship, 
and I wish him and his wife Kathy all the best in the future.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Weldon-Hyde provisions. On 
this Saturday morning, millions of American women are going about their 
business, hopefully enjoying leisure time with their families and 
friends, preparing for Thanksgiving, completely unaware that their 
Congress, their leaders are stripping them of access to a 
constitutional right to reproductive health care. Physicians and 
hospitals, let us be clear, already have the right under the conscience 
clause to refuse to perform abortions. The Weldon-Hyde provision would 
allow HMOs or other health insurance companies--HMOs and health 
insurance companies--to decide for any reason whatsoever it will no 
longer pay for, provide information or make referrals for abortion 
services, even if the woman's life is in danger and she is a victim of 
rape or incest or even if the physician as a matter of his conscience 
wants to perform this medical service.
  Under this bill, it would be impossible for a State to ensure that 
poor women who are victims of rape or incest can access Medicaid-
covered abortions in these narrow circumstances. This bill allows any 
health care entity to ignore all Federal, State and local laws 
pertaining to abortion services, information and referrals. While, 
again, there are no Federal laws that require any individual or 
hospital to provide abortions, there are Federal laws that women should 
be informed of their legal options, and this bill could overturn those 
options.
  This bill is a gag clause denying women even necessary information to 
make informed decisions. Will Rogers used to say, ``No man's house is 
safe. The legislature is in session.'' Women of child-bearing age, your 
body is not safe as long as this Republican-dominated Congress is in 
session.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the distinguished chairman of the 
subcommittee who has played a key role in putting this bill together.
  (Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4818. We have put 
a lot of thoughtful deliberation into these bills, and we are pleased 
to get this job done. By taking into consideration the priorities of 
the President and the Members of this House, we have produced a bill 
that meets the needs of all Americans, 280 million. Let me share with 
you the funding we have provided in a few of the programs in the Labor, 
Health and Human Services and Education appropriations bill. I might 
say there are 500 programs in that bill, but I think there are some 
worth highlighting.
  First is education. It is essential to the preservation of democracy, 
and an investment in education is an investment in people. Mr. Speaker, 
Federal education spending has more than doubled since fiscal year 
1996, from $23 billion to nearly $57 billion today. The bill supports 
teachers and students by increasing funding for title I by $500 
million. Title I provides additional resources to low-income schools to 
help principals, teachers and students close education achievement 
gaps.
  Yesterday, we voted to reauthorize IDEA. Many of my colleagues speak 
with me about the financial demands of special education and the needs 
of the children in their local school districts. We hear from parents 
about the need to support adequate special education funding to ensure 
their special needs children receive a quality education. In this bill, 
funding for special education totals over $11 billion, a $607 million 
increase over fiscal year 2004, a 380 percent increase since 1996.
  Secondly, health care is a critical part of our Nation's economic 
development. To assist in protecting the health of all Americans and 
provide essential human services, the bill provides the Department of 
Health and Human Services over $64 billion for fiscal year 2005. Mr. 
Speaker, similar to the Department of Education, we have more than 
doubled funding for health and human services since fiscal year 1996.
  Funding for NIH, that is the place where they do the research on 
health needs, is increased by $800 million, bringing its total budget 
to $28.6 billion. As a result of our commitment to the National 
Institutes of Health, our citizens are living longer and better lives.
  Health centers operating at the community level provide regular 
access to high-quality, family-oriented comprehensive primary and 
preventive health care, regardless of ability to pay, and improve the 
health status of underserved populations living in inner city and rural 
areas. By the end of fiscal year 2004, it is estimated that these 
facilities around the country will have served more than 13 million 
patients. Funding is increased in this bill.
  Children's hospitals are the training grounds for pediatricians and 
pediatric specialists. Again, $303 million to educate these people to 
serve the children of this Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, our society is judged not only by the care we provide to 
our young but also how we treat the elderly. This bill provides over 
$1.4 billion to the Administration on Aging to enhance health care, 
nutrition and social supports to seniors and their family caregivers.
  The bill also includes $21 million for a Homeless Veterans 
Reintegration Program to operate employment programs that reach out to 
our homeless veterans.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, first let me say I rise in strong opposition to 
this outrageous Weldon provision that is neatly tucked away in this 
very expansive spending bill.
  But, first, I just want to thank the gentleman from Texas for his 
leadership, for his service and for his friendship. I want to wish him 
well as he enters this new chapter of his life. Thank you again so much 
for your leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, this refusal clause will allow health insurance 
companies, hospitals and other corporations to impose policies barring 
any physician or other health care provider from performing abortions 
or even from offering referrals. Once again, here is another effort to 
turn the clock back on women's rights. It will gut the longstanding 
title X regulatory requirement that pregnant women who request 
information about all of their medical options, including abortion, be 
given that information and be given a referral upon request.
  Mr. Speaker, this refusal clause is dangerous, it is ill-conceived, 
and it

[[Page H10092]]

will deny untold numbers of women their constitutional right to choose. 
This is a dangerous time for women around this country. The neo-con 
agenda is on the march. Women's lives are at stake. Is this the 
beginning of the end of constitutionally protected health care for 
women? It is really a dark day for women throughout the land, and we 
must fight back.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from San Diego, California (Mr. Cunningham), a 
decorated war hero and outspoken supporter of all men and women in 
uniform.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, but I want to 
talk about the education section in the bill.
  I had doubts when John Porter left this committee if we had someone 
that could do as good a caring job, and that job turned out to be the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and his chairmanship of this 
committee. I was talking to the Deputy Director of Intelligence 
yesterday and had just got here as the gavel went down on the special 
education vote. I would have voted for that.
  But I also want to thank the committee. If you take a look at the 
special education needs in this country, they are growing all the time. 
The increases in this bill for special education itself are at their 
highest level, $57 billion, $11.5 billion above last year.
  I would also like to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) in 
that particular committee. The gentleman from Wisconsin is an arm-
wrestling opponent, but he does a good job, and I want to thank him for 
the education portion of this bill.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me first of all 
acknowledge the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) and 
thank him for his work and his service to this body, which will always 
be remembered.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to take an opportunity very briefly again, I 
think I have done it before, to thank the appropriators and to thank in 
particular the chairman and the ranking member of the full committee 
and their respective chairs and ranking members on what I believe is 
the general intent to try to work to ensure that America's people 
receive the benefit of their investment in this Nation. It is not an 
easy task. Unfortunately, what happens is that the philosophies outside 
of the appropriators comes into the play of trying to be fair.
  Let me make it also very clear that, unlike some of the editorials 
and commentary as we debate this morning, there are many in our rural 
and urban centers that are looking for these Federal dollars as their 
only lifeline of survival. I do not like the denigration of this 
process because I know that there are constituents where I live that 
cannot survive if they do not have the opportunities of these dollars 
for HIV fights, for educational fights, for housing fights.

                              {time}  1200

  So the problem with what we see here today is, in addition to the 
fact that this bill was not given to members to be able to protect the 
interests of Americans, we have the problem of amendments that are 
cutting away at the choice of hospitals to do good health care as it 
relates to individuals who need abortions and who are looking for the 
health services to be adequate and complete.
  In this bill, I saw funding for a vaccine fund, but I do not know if 
we answered the question why we had a poisoned vaccine or a vaccine 
that we could not use for millions of Americans who needed the flu 
shot.
  In this bill, we know that we have not met the needs of homeless 
Americans. As thousands march in Washington, DC, for the homeless, we 
do not have those dollars that we need.
  I am grateful for the dollars that are helping me fight HIV/AIDS in 
my community and educational opportunities. But the question is, do we 
have the moneys to do comprehensive immigration reform? We have H-1Bs, 
but do we have dollars to protect American jobs? Do we have dollars for 
a comprehensive immigration reform? Do we have dollars to assist the 
African Union with peacekeeping troops in Africa so that the Sudanese, 
those in Darfur and around the area, are not being brutalized every 
single day? Do we have the policies that would provide for the health 
care for veterans and provide the dollars that I need and many of us 
need in our districts in our veterans' hospitals? Do we have the 
dollars for the returning veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan, to 
provide them with better quality of life and do we have the dollars for 
their families?
  I would only say, as I conclude, Mr. Speaker, that this bill needed 
more attention, more time, and more cohesion. I would ask my colleagues 
to reconsider the time that was given for adequate study of the 
omnibus. Because of the Weldon amendment and other legislative poison 
pills, I vote ``no'' on the rule.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  (Mr. MORAN of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate all of my good 
friends and female colleagues for speaking out on the Weldon-Hyde 
provision that is in this bill. But I think it is important also to 
show that this issue is not just related. It is not just a woman's 
issue. It is about our mothers, wives, daughters, sisters, and it is a 
bad provision. It is a discriminatory provision, and it undermines the 
U.S. Constitution that guarantees reproductive rights for all women. 
And that is the purpose of it. We are supposed to be the people's body, 
and yet this undermines what the vast majority of the American people 
believe in.
  Seventy-six percent of the public opposes exempting hospitals from 
providing medical services to which they object on religious grounds, 
and yet this is the purpose of this provision which we are about to 
make law. Eighty-nine percent of the public opposes allowing insurance 
companies to refuse to pay for medical services on religious grounds. 
This Federal refusal clause is a sweeping new exemption from current 
laws and regulations pertaining to abortion services and information.
  It undermines Roe V. Wade. It is very important. Not just foot in the 
door. It is getting the whole body of very radical opinion in the door, 
undermining what the vast majority of the American people believe in. 
It would change existing law to say that a Federal, State, or local 
government may not require any constitutional or individual health care 
provider to provide, pay for, or refer for abortions. It is so 
ambiguous that virtually any kind of action taken by a Federal, State, 
or local government could be banned. It is wrong. It should not be in 
this omnibus appropriations bill, and the public needs to know that 
there are many people who object to it very strongly.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I am delighted to see that the work of the appropriators has been so 
well received as it relates to transportation needs and defense needs 
and continuing our support for international issues and the fight 
against AIDS and malaria and tuberculosis, the investments that they 
have made in basic medical research. I am glad to see that their work 
is so highly regarded that the focus of the opposition is limited to a 
single issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Baird).
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas and his entire staff for their 
tireless and diligent efforts on behalf of this body and this Nation. 
They have done an outstanding job.
  Mr. Speaker, here is the bill. I hesitate to lift it. I think it is 
an OSHA violation. This is it. It became available to us at 12:15 last 
night. It is less than 12 hours later, and we are going to be voting on 
this in a very short time. Something is wrong with our democracy.
  In 1993, the Republican House minority made these statements: A bill 
that

[[Page H10093]]

cannot survive a 3-day scrutiny of its provisions is a bill that should 
not be enacted. Proper consideration must be given to important 
legislation even in the closing days of a session. The world's most 
powerful legislature cannot in good conscience deprive its memberships 
of a brief study of a committee report prior to final action.
  You have done that. You said it must not be done, and you do it 
repeatedly.
  I have about 30 seconds left. Let me yield that time to any Member on 
this floor who can in good conscience honestly answer two questions: 
Have they read this document well enough to have confidence they know 
what is in it, and can they tell the American people why we must act 
today instead of waiting 3 days?
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The gentleman has presented two rhetorical questions, and I will 
respond to one. It is a pleasure to be here with the distinguished 
gentleman from Washington, a man who represents a very technologically 
savvy constituency and a very environmentally concerned constituency. 
And that tremendous pile of paper was available on the Web last night 
at 12:15 that would have taken advantage of the skills that are out 
there as well as saving a few trees.
  This is an important work. And I might also ask how long it took for 
the gentleman to read cover to cover all of the nine bills that had 
already passed this House in due time?
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. 
Ginny Brown-Waite).
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, one of the major 
issues that are of importance to the majority of my constituents is how 
well we treat the veterans. And it is very important to point out that 
in this bill there is $19.5 billion for medical services, $4.7 billion 
for medical administration, $3.7 billion for medical facilities, and 
$385 million for medical research. What does this mean? What it means 
is that we are taking good care of our veterans.
  It is important, too, to remember that there are no increased fees as 
was originally proposed. What this means is something that is very 
important to veterans in not just my district but every single 
district.
  There are other programs in here which are very well funded, such as 
the National Institutes of Health. They received a bump-up, and 
certainly we all know that they are working on very many diseases.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New 
York (Mrs. Maloney).
  (Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I first rise to thank the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Frost) for his many years of service to this body. He worked 
selflessly for the people of Texas. He led the Democrats as the head of 
the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and as the ranking 
member on the Committee on Rules with great distinction. He was 
outstanding, a mentor to many of us, and we will miss him deeply. But 
wherever the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) and Kathy go, I know they 
will continue to work for the people of Texas and for the United States 
of America.
  I also thank the appropriators, especially the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), ranking member, and the chairman. And I would 
like to really thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), who I 
understand this is the end of his term, for his steadfast help to New 
York after 9/11. He has been there through our darkest hours. I even 
remember on 9/12 calling him and saying that the police and fire needed 
phones, and he shipped them down to New York that day. He has done a 
great deal of support for New York in a bipartisan way, and my 
constituents and city are deeply grateful to him and the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). We thank them and we will miss him.
  Mr. Speaker, I also rise in very strong opposition to the anti-woman, 
the refusal law, the Weldon gag rule which will undermine and roll back 
a woman's constitutional right to choose. I would like my colleagues to 
put this in perspective. This is the 209th action striking at and 
chipping away at a woman's constitutional right to choose since the 
Republicans took control of this body; and I find it outrageous the way 
that they are disregarding the State, local, and Federal law.
  I will end by saying that women will suffer, our health care system 
will suffer, and the Constitution will suffer. I urge my colleagues to 
vote against expanding this provision to hospitals and clinics.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), who also serves on the Committee on 
Appropriations and has worked very hard toward this final product.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. It is good to see the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam) on the 
Committee on Rules, managing the bill.
  I also recognize the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) 
for 6 awesome, fair, reasonable, very effective years as the chairman 
of the Committee on Appropriations. I cannot think of a better 
gentleman in the House than the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), and 
he has goodwill from every corner from this place and all across the 
country for so many of the right reasons, and I am grateful for his 
leadership. I am also grateful that he is going to continue working on 
the Committee on Appropriations in the days ahead.
  We are here today before Thanksgiving finishing all of the years' 
appropriations work because the staff on the majority and minority side 
did a lot of work while we were gone being reelected, and I am 
grateful. My 8 years on the Committee on Appropriations have seen these 
things slide beyond Thanksgiving, even into the next Congress, which 
this year we should be proud we are not allowing to happen.
  And it is complicated. We have honored the President's request to 
hold the line on spending. It was a big issue, and we have spent too 
much in previous years. This year we actually can take pride knowing we 
are meeting the responsibilities and not spending too much and holding 
the line on excess riders.
  I know there are some differences today over individual aspects of 
this bill, but, overall, it is a fairly clean product, considering the 
history of this body. Both sides, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), and the professional 
staff can take a lot of pride in knowing that we have got a good work 
product here and we are meeting the responsibilities of the government.
  We are doing it in a timely manner, compared to other years. While we 
are 6 weeks into it, the fact is this is early compared to previous 
years. I am very proud of that work.
  I am grateful, most importantly, to the staff. There is a changeover 
when term limits set in, and some staff may leave. I am not going to 
mention names but just say this staff on the Committee on 
Appropriations, minority and majority side, deserve a lot of credit. It 
is a 24/7 job, and they do an outstanding job for the country, and I am 
grateful.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking the gentleman for 
yielding me this time and for his great service to this body, to the 
people of the United States. And let me express my regret that he will 
not be yielding time in the future.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill comes before us is an omnibus bill because we 
did not take all the bills, vote on them on the floor, and the Senate 
did not do it either. This bill has some real inadequacies in its 
appropriation. In what promises to be a very cold winter, an inadequate 
LIHEAP appropriation; a $10 million cut in housing for people with 
AIDS, as if that scourge is going away from us; and a lot of other 
inadequacies in funding.
  What I want to focus on is a major policy change that has been 
referred to by several other speakers, the so-called Weldon gag rule. 
This Federal refusal clause would allow not just hospitals but 
insurance companies, HMOs, to order their doctors not to perform 
abortions, not to refer people to abortions, not to tell people about 
abortion as an option. So whose conscience are we protecting? The board 
of directors

[[Page H10094]]

of the insurance company? The doctors? The patients?
  This is an outrage, because it will mean that women who want to have 
abortions, that women who might want to have abortions, that doctors 
who think they ought to tell women about their options are told to shut 
up. By Federal law they cannot do this, because we care about limiting 
access to a constitutional right, because that is the real purpose of 
this.

                              {time}  1215

  The proposal would preclude State and local governments with 
oversight authority from enforcing basic health care certifications and 
licensing requirements in the area of abortion; and in deciding whether 
to approve a hospital merger, for instance, they could not say no if 
this would decrease the availability of abortion services or even 
referral services in an area. Under the bill, States would be precluded 
from requiring that health care companies provide even referrals for 
abortion services as a condition for participating in the Medicaid 
program.
  Now, this invasion of States rights, this invasion of the conscience 
of the women, this invasion of the conscience of the doctors is very 
deliberate. It is because the people who wrote this clause do not want 
people to have the freedom to decide for themselves, do not want them 
to be able to avail themselves of their constitutional rights.
  This is not a conscience protection clause. This is a gag rule, and 
it ought to be defeated.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Sherman).
  (Mr. SHERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, first, on the choice issue, I want to 
commend those other speakers who have stood here and pointed out how 
this bill will lead to the death of women who are suffering from 
partial miscarriages and will lead to the partial death of our 
federalist system as we deny States the right to protect women in their 
own hospitals.
  Three process issues. Frist, we never debated VA-HUD on this floor. 
Offering amendments to appropriations bills is about the most 
significant thing rank-and-file Members get to do on this floor, and it 
illustrates the total irrelevancy of the rank-and-file of both sides 
when we take that important function away and nobody seems to care. It 
is all about leadership. And as to VA-HUD, we were not even given the 
right to pass amendments that could be stripped out in conference.
  Second, as the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) pointed out, we 
were not given a chance to read this bill. Why are we not given 3 days 
to read it and then we can vote on it? Why? Because we want all of 
Thanksgiving week off; not just 2 days, the whole week. Hey, we are 
going to get 2 months off because we do not want to do our work. We do 
not want to read that boring bill. We are going to go home without 
reading it, but we want to rubber stamp it first.
  Finally, and both parties deserve criticism over decades on this one, 
fiscal management. There is no corporation or major institution in this 
country that does not decide on its annual budget a month or two before 
the fiscal year begins. Do my colleagues think General Motors waits 
until February to figure out its budget? We should have done this bill 
in August.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would just point out that this bill is within budget and that the 
House has done its work in hearing and passing the individual spending 
bills, and whatever inadequacies there may be in this process would not 
be a result of this half of the legislative branch.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Colorado (Ms. DeGette).
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for 
yielding me this time.
  A lot of mischief can come from a bill that is a $388.4 billion bill, 
14.75 inches thick, I measured it, which was filed sometime after 
midnight. I will guarantee my colleagues not one Member, including the 
gentleman from Florida, read this bill, even on the Internet.
  One of the worst pieces of mischief that is included in this bill 
that we know of so far, there is probably a lot more, is the so-called 
Weldon gag rule. This rule, far from constituting a simple conscience 
clause as proponents claim, will amount to a broad noncompliance permit 
for companies that want to refuse to abide by the law. The bill could 
restrict States' autonomy and their right to self-governance, undermine 
States' abilities to enforce their own constitutional protections, 
block States' abilities to set the parameters of their own Medicaid 
programs, override Federal title X guidelines that ensure women receive 
full medical information, interfere with State and local governments' 
responsibility to oversee hospital mergers, set health care licensing 
and certification standards, interfere with, and even possibly 
override, current Federal laws like the Emergency Medical Treatment and 
Active Labor Act, which ensure that women in life-threatening 
circumstances receive the medical care they need and, just as 
importantly, deny low-income women key information about and referrals 
to abortion services.
  This is wrong. It is the wrong way to do it. It is the wrong way to 
debate it; and as far as I know, given this massive spending bill that 
no one has read, as far as I am concerned, it is just the tip of the 
iceberg. Vote ``no'' on the rule, vote ``no'' on the bill.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished minority leader.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) 
for yielding me this time and for his leadership. He has brought many 
rules to the floor over the course of many sessions of Congress. Our 
country, this Congress, and the American people have all been well 
served, especially the people of Texas who took great pride in his 
leadership, the dean of the Texas delegation, a diligent and, when it 
comes to the Committee on Rules, that is part of what one has to be, a 
diligent and very astute and wise leader for the House Democrats on 
that committee.
  The gentleman's service here will be long remembered. We will all be 
positively impacted for a long time to come, and I want to thank the 
gentleman and congratulate him for his service to our country.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Weldon amendment, an 
extraordinary sneak attack on women's rights and a disgraceful display 
of ideology over health.
  This amendment is a radical change in policy that the House has not 
passed this session and that the Senate has never considered, debated, 
or voted on. Republicans slipped it into the appropriations in the dark 
of night when they thought no one was looking. It is entirely outside 
the scope of this omnibus spending bill, yet it is part of a must-pass 
bill at the insistence of House Republican leaders.
  This language makes a mockery of Roe v. Wade. Under this provision, a 
woman will not know where her right to choose will be honored or where 
it will be denied.
  This was first advertised to me as an expansion of the conscience 
clause which we all respect, as a person who served under the 
leadership of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) on the Labor-HHS 
committee and with our distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), I knew full 
well the importance of the conscience clause to Catholic doctors or 
other faith doctors, but particular mention was always made of Catholic 
doctors. It was said to me that this was merely an expansion of that 
from the doctors to the hospitals, Catholic hospitals. But, I say to my 
colleagues, it is so very much more than that. We all respect a 
conscience clause, but this goes well beyond that.
  If a hospital, a health insurance company, or a doctor opposes Roe v. 
Wade, they could simply ignore it. They could simply ignore it. This is 
the law of the land; a constitutional right could simply be ignored. 
The Weldon amendment

[[Page H10095]]

is essentially a domestic gag rule, restricting access to abortion 
counseling, referral, and information. Health care companies should not 
be able to prevent doctors from giving medically necessary information.
  This language, again, makes a mockery of existing State and local 
laws, including many State constitutions. Under the Weldon amendment, 
any law or regulation currently on the books to protect access to 
reproductive health services is at risk. The term ``discrimination'' in 
this amendment is so vague that it could be used against any Federal, 
State, or local government effort to provide reproductive health 
services.
  This language makes a mockery of title X. The title X family planning 
program provides much-needed reproductive health services that reach 
millions of low-income, uninsured individuals; and it really is sad 
because we all want to reduce the number of abortions in our country. 
That is a goal that we all share, and reproductive family planning is 
one way to do that.
  But under this amendment, clinics could participate in title X 
programs without providing a full range of reproductive health 
services. Federal dollars should not be used to deny the federally 
protected right to choose. Let me repeat that. Federal dollars should 
not be used to deny the federally protected right to choose.
  Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, but Republicans are gutting it 
step by step.
  The Weldon amendment will have a major and harmful impact on women's 
health. This sweeping new exemption from current laws and regulations 
should not be the law of the land, and it certainly should not be a 
part of the omnibus appropriations bill.
  The Republican assault on women's rights must be stopped. I urge my 
colleagues to oppose the Weldon amendment.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Smith), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, in 1973, Congress passed the 
Church Amendment to protect the conscience rights of hospitals and 
health care providers from being forced into involvement with abortion. 
The amendment provides that the receipt of Federal funds in various 
health programs will not require hospitals or individuals to 
participate in abortions if they object based on moral or religious 
convictions. It also forbade hospitals in these programs to make, 
willingness or unwillingness to perform abortions a condition of 
employment.
  Since 1973, and I think many Members know this, various conscience 
protections, many of which deal specifically with abortion, have been 
enacted into law. Unfortunately, over the years, gaps in the protection 
of existing law have been exploited by pro-abortion organizations which 
have now undertaken a nationwide campaign to require all health care 
providers to participate in abortion. That campaign has met with some 
success, and there are a number of those which I will put into the 
Record, including trying to compel Catholic hospitals as a condition of 
a merger and acquisition to provide abortions. In one case in my own 
State, they compelled a $2 million settlement that had to go into a 
trust that paid for abortions. That's outrageous. To counteract this 
extreme campaign--to force health care providers to participate in 
abortion--Federal conscience law when signed by President Bush, will 
now be strengthened.
  The principle of the Hyde amendment was that no one should be forced 
to participate in abortions in any way, and that needs to be affirmed. 
That is what this Weldon-Hyde amendment will do. The addition of 
conscience protection to the Hyde amendment remedies current gaps in 
Federal law and promotes the right of conscientious objection by 
forbidding federally funded government bodies to coerce the consciences 
of health care providers who respect fundamentally the right to life 
and basic human rights for the unborn.

          The Campaign To Force Hospitals to Provide Abortion

       Forty-five States and the Federal Government protect the 
     right of health care providers to decline involvement in 
     abortion. Pro-abortion groups seek to abolish these legal 
     protections:


                        abortion access project

       Operating in 24 States, the project's goal is ``increasing 
     access to abortion services by expanding . . . the number of 
     hospitals offering abortion services.'' The project admits 
     that its tactics include ``pressuring hospitals'' and it does 
     so through both political and legal pressure.
       The ``Hospital Access Collaborative'' division reports on 
     the State projects' legal and regulatory interventions 
     challenging mergers. See www.abortionaccess.org/AAP/
campaigns/hospital/hospital.htm (accessed 09/07/03).


     american civil liberties union--reproductive freedom project: 
            ``Religious refusals and reproductive rights.''

       The ACLU has published a report and advocacy kit aimed at 
     requiring all hospitals, including Catholic hospitals, to 
     provide abortions. The report argues: ``When . . . 
     religiously affiliated organizations move into secular 
     pursuits--such as providing medical care or social services 
     to the public or running a business--they should no longer be 
     insulated from secular laws. In the public world, they should 
     play by public rules.'' ACLU, ``Religious Refusals and 
     Reproductive Rights,'' January 2002, page 11, www.aclu.org/
 Reproductive Rights/ReproductiveRights.cfm?ID=10516&c=30 
     (accessed 09/10/03).


      george gund foundation, pro-choice resource center and aclu 
             reproductive freedom project national meeting

       ``Much of the debate focused on strategy, with participants 
     wonder whether it was better to work toward improving and 
     narrowing conscience clauses or to fight to eliminate them 
     altogether . . . Although reproductive rights activists 
     should still work to improve conscientious exemptions, [ACLU 
     executive director Ira Glaser] said, their ultimate goal 
     should be getting rid of them.'' See ``Conscientious 
     Exemptions and Reproductive Rights,'' Executive Summary, page 
     10, www.prochoiceresource.org/about/CERR_Body.pdf (accessed 
     09/07/03).
       In one session at the national meeting, the group analyzed 
     a same conscience protection which ``allowed hospitals, their 
     staffs, or `any other person' to opt out of providing 
     abortions, sterilizations, and contraception if they objected 
     to such services.'' The participants decided ``the measure 
     couldn't be fixed and should be opposed at all costs.'' Id. 
     at page 11.


                Maryland NARAL Hospital Provider Project

       ``The goal of the Hospital Provider Project is to increase 
     access to abortion services by requiring Maryland hospitals 
     to provide abortion . . .'' www.mdnaral.org/initiatives.htm 
     (accessed 04/05/2002).


                Planned Parenthood Federation of America

       ``While everyone has the right to their [sic] opinions 
     about reproductive health care, including . . . abortion, it 
     is important to remember that the conscience that matters 
     most belongs to the patient . . . Health care providers who 
     object to providing certain services still have an obligation 
     to respect the rights of their patients and to enable them to 
     access the health care they need.'' 
     www.plannedparenthood.org/articles/exemptions.html (accessed 
     09/12/03).


                       pro-choice resource center

       ``Through its Spotlight Campaign, PCRC [Pro-Choice Resource 
     Center] organizes regional meetings to build a network of 
     opposition to `conscience' or patient abandonment clauses 
     that allow doctors, pharmacists and entire hospital systems 
     to deny women access to services like abortion . . .'' See 
     www.prochoiceresource.org/programs/rg_meet.html (accessed 09/
     05/03).
       ``Right now, so-called `conscience' clause laws are in 
     place in 45 or 50 States, allowing doctors, pharmacists, 
     clinics, hospitals, managed care plans and even employers to 
     refuse to provide, or to pay for, abortion . . . The 
     MergerWatch program is taking action to expose and overturn 
     these `conscience' clauses.'' See. www.prochoice 
     resource.org/programs/spot.html (accessed 09/05/03).


                            current threats

       Unfortunately, gaps in the protections of existing laws 
     have been exploited by proabortion organizations, which have 
     undertaken a nationwide campaign to require all health care 
     providers to participate in abortion. That campaign has met 
     with some success. Novel legal and administrative strategies 
     have resulted in:
       Forcing a private community hospital to open its doors for 
     late-term abortions,
       Denying a certificate of need to an outpatient surgical 
     center that declined involvement in abortion, after an 
     abortion rights coalition intervened in the proceedings,
       Forcing a private non-sectarian hospital to leave a cost-
     saving consortium, because the consortium abided by a pro-
     life policy in its member hospitals,
       Dismantling a hospital merger, after abortion advocates 
     approached a State attorney general to challenge the merger,
       Pressuring a hospital to place $2 million in trust for 
     abortions and sterilizations before allowing the hospital to 
     consolidate,
       Attempting to require a Catholic hospital to build an 
     abortion clinic and pay for abortions,
       Threatening a Catholic-operated HMO with loss of State 
     contracts because it declines to provide abortions,
       Prohibiting hospitals from ensuring that the property they 
     sell is not used for abortions.


[[Page H10096]]


  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time; but I would like to 
take a moment, if I may, to speak on a more personal note.
  This will be my last speech before the House and the last rule that I 
will manage. First, let me say that serving on the Committee on Rules 
has been the highlight of my congressional career, and although I will 
not miss attending our midnight and 7 a.m. meetings, I will miss the 
committee, its members, and the good work we tried to do every week.
  It has been my distinct honor to have served in this great body for 
26 years. During my time here, I have had the privilege to work 
alongside some of the most talented and dedicated Members that this 
body has ever known. I want to thank them, my colleagues, for their 
constant efforts on behalf of this great Nation, and I want to thank 
them for their friendship. I also want to thank my constituents for 
their trust and support. I have always tried to serve my constituents 
as honestly and diligently as I could, and although my time here has 
come to an end, I do hope in some way that I may have been able to give 
a little something back to the people and to the country that has given 
me so much.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I certainly tip my hat to the distinguished ranking 
member of the Committee on Rules. The gentleman has served on that 
committee for 26 years, and I certainly wish him and his family all the 
best.
  Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to bring the debate on this rule over 
this critically important continuation of the Federal Government to a 
close. I want to thank our great Floridan, the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Young), for what he and his staff, his great committee, have done 
in meeting the needs and prioritizing the needs of this Nation.
  As a Nation and as a State, we are indebted to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Young) for the leadership and service he has provided. As 
a Congress, we are indebted to him for the patience and honor and 
dignity and demeanor that he has brought to these ever-so-difficult 
times. No one can understand the burdens that are placed on the 
chairman, and he has always handled them so well.
  As we debate the issues contained within this omnibus and what it 
means for this Nation going into the Thanksgiving week, it is important 
that we keep in mind as we celebrate that uniquely American holiday 
that the safety and comfort that is provided for us by the men and 
women who are funded by this bill and the infrastructure that takes us 
to be with family and friends is provided by investments made in this 
bill. And as we give thanks to the Almighty for our family and our 
friends and for the blessings, it is important to take the opportunity 
to give thanks for the blessings of just being an American and the 
liberty and freedom that that means and the people who provide it for 
us who are in uniform, who are in law enforcement and who benefit 
greatly by the priorities in this bill.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Putnam

  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Putnam:
       At the end of the resolution add the following:
       Sec. 3. Upon the adoption of this resolution, the House 
     shall be considered to have adopted House Concurrent 
     Resolution 528.

  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the amendment and on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution, as 
amended.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8, rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

                          ____________________