Congressional Record, Volume 150 Issue 135 (Saturday, November 20, 2004)

[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 135 (Saturday, November 20, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H10099-H10208]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 4818, CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Pursuant to House Resolution 866, I call up the
conference report on 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, and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 866, the
conference report is considered read.
(For conference report and statement, see Book II of proceedings of
the House of Friday, November 19, 2004.)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
might consume.
Mr. Speaker, the bill we bring to the floor today is a conference
report on the omnibus appropriations bill which includes nine bills
that were not concluded prior to the end of the fiscal year. The good
news is that the House had passed every one of our bills but one. And
the other good news is that this bill concludes the appropriations
business for fiscal year 2005.
I compliment the Committee on Appropriations on both sides of the
aisle. I compliment the Members of the House for having moved all of
our bills expeditiously; but this will conclude our business, and now
the 109th Congress can start fresh, with a new budget resolution,
hopefully, and a new appropriations process.
The bill that we are discussing today has already been discussed in
great detail during consideration of the rule. The bill itself has been
available for more than 14 hours for Members to review, and there is a
10-page summary on all of the desks that is available so Members can
look at the highlights of the bill.
Considering the fact that we had to include nine bills here, and some
extraneous material, this is a pretty good bill. It is a clean bill. It
is a lean bill. It is within the budget limitations set by the House
and set by the President; and so I would just hope, Mr. Speaker, that
we can conclude this work and move on to whatever is next.

[[Page H10100]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20NO04.001

[[Page H10101]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20NO04.002

[[Page H10102]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20NO04.003

[[Page H10103]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20NO04.004

[[Page H10104]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20NO04.005

[[Page H10105]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20NO04.006

[[Page H10106]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20NO04.007

[[Page H10107]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20NO04.008

[[Page H10108]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20NO04.009

[[Page H10109]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20NO04.010

[[Page H10110]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20NO04.011

[[Page H10111]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20NO04.012

[[Page H10112]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20NO04.013

[[Page H10113]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20NO04.014

[[Page H10114]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20NO04.015

[[Page H10115]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20NO04.016

[[Page H10116]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20NO04.017

[[Page H10117]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20NO04.018

[[Page H10118]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20NO04.019

[[Page H10119]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20NO04.020

[[Page H10120]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20NO04.021

[[Page H10121]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20NO04.022

[[Page H10122]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20NO04.023

[[Page H10123]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20NO04.024

[[Page H10124]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20NO04.025

[[Page H10125]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20NO04.026

[[Page H10126]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20NO04.027

[[Page H10127]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20NO04.028

[[Page H10128]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20NO04.029

[[Page H10129]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20NO04.030

[[Page H10130]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20NO04.031

[[Page H10131]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20NO04.032

[[Page H10132]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20NO04.033

[[Page H10133]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20NO04.034

[[Page H10134]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20NO04.035

[[Page H10135]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20NO04.036

[[Page H10136]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20NO04.037

[[Page H10137]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20NO04.038

[[Page H10138]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20NO04.039

[[Page H10139]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20NO04.040

[[Page H10140]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20NO04.041

[[Page H10141]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20NO04.042

[[Page H10142]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20NO04.043

[[Page H10143]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20NO04.044

[[Page H10144]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20NO04.045

[[Page H10145]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20NO04.046

[[Page H10146]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20NO04.047

[[Page H10147]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20NO04.048

[[Page H10148]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20NO04.049

[[Page H10149]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20NO04.050

[[Page H10150]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20NO04.051

[[Page H10151]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20NO04.052

[[Page H10152]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20NO04.053

[[Page H10153]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20NO04.054

[[Page H10154]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20NO04.055

[[Page H10155]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20NO04.056

[[Page H10156]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20NO04.057

[[Page H10157]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20NO04.058

[[Page H10158]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20NO04.059

[[Page H10159]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20NO04.060

[[Page H10160]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20NO04.061

[[Page H10161]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20NO04.062

[[Page H10162]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20NO04.063

[[Page H10163]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20NO04.064

[[Page H10164]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20NO04.065

[[Page H10165]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20NO04.066

[[Page H10166]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20NO04.067

[[Page H10167]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20NO04.068

[[Page H10168]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20NO04.069

[[Page H10169]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20NO04.070

[[Page H10170]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20NO04.071

[[Page H10171]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20NO04.072

[[Page H10172]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20NO04.073

[[Page H10173]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20NO04.074

[[Page H10174]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20NO04.075

[[Page H10175]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20NO04.076

[[Page H10176]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20NO04.077

[[Page H10177]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20NO04.078

[[Page H10178]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20NO04.079

[[Page H10179]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20NO04.080

[[Page H10180]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20NO04.081

[[Page H10181]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20NO04.082

[[Page H10182]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20NO04.083

[[Page H10183]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20NO04.084

[[Page H10184]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20NO04.085

[[Page H10185]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20NO04.086

[[Page H10186]]

Highlights of the Final FY05 Spending Bills

The final spending package fully complies with the spending
targets agreed to by the Congress and the Administration,
totaling $821.9 billion in FY05 Discretionary spending. This
represents a freeze or zero percent growth in non-defense
discretionary. Total discretionary spending in the bill is
$388.4 billion. All additional spending is paid for by an
across the board cut of .80% in all non-defense and non-
homeland security spending, $300 million rescission in non-
war, non-emergency defense funds, $283 million from
limitations on expenditures from the Crime Victims Fund. All
figures listed below are subject to a .80% reduction. The
bill drops provisions relating to overtime regulations and
the Administration's competitive sourcing initiative.
``This is a lean and clean package that adheres to the
budgetary limits agreed to by the Congress and the President.
We have resisted many requests for additions to the package
that would have busted the budget by billions of dollars. The
bill also is free of controversial legislative riders. The
only provisions that were included had bipartisan, bicameral
support,'' said C.W. Bill Young, Chairman of the House
Appropriations Committee.

Agriculture

Bill Highlights: In total, the bill provides nearly $17
billion in total discretionary resources. This level
represents an increase of $393 million over the President's
request and nearly $123 million over the FY04 enacted level.
FY 04 Funding Level: $16.84 billion ($69.746 billion total
mandatory).
FY 05 President's Request: $16.57 billion ($66.370 billion
total mandatory).
FY 05 Bill: $16.96 billion ($66.294 billion total
mandatory).
Protecting Human Health and Safety:
Food Safety and Inspection Service is increased by $44
million over last year, for a total of $824 million, $15
million below the President's request.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service activities are
funded at $98 million above last year for a total of $820
million, and a decrease of $14 million below the President's
request. This includes an increase of $33 million for an
animal identification system.
Food and Drug Administration is funded at $1.462 billion,
$76 million above last year and $33 million below the
President's request. This includes the full amount requested
for the medical device program.
Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) detection and
prevention activities are increased $20 million, the same as
the President's budget request.
Fulfilling Commitments to Important Food and Nutrition
Programs:
Child Nutrition Programs (Mandatory) are funded at $11.8
billion, $365 million above last year and $406 million above
the President's request.
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants,
and Children (WIC) is funded at $5.3 billion, $666 million
above last year and $190 million above the President's
request.
Food Stamp Program (Mandatory) is funded at $35.2 billion,
an increase of $4.2 billion above last year and $1.5 billion
above the President's request.
Food for Peace Program (PL 480) Title II is funded at a
program level of $1.18 billion, a decrease of $2.5 million
below the President's request and last year's level.
Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP) is funded at
$108 million, an increase of $9 million above last year and
the President's request.
Supporting Farmers, Ranchers, and Rural America:
Farm Service Agency salaries and expenses are funded at
President's request of $1.008 billion, an increase of $25
million above last year, to continue delivery of farm
programs.
Agricultural Research Service is funded at $1.299 billion,
an increase of $153 million above last year's level and $133
million above the President's request. Funding of $122
million is included for construction of the National Centers
for Animal Health.
Conservation Operations activities are increased by $127
million over the President's request, bringing FY05 funding
to $837 million, and a decrease of $11 million below last
year.
Rural Community Advancement Program (RCAP) is funded at
$716 million, a decrease of $37 million below last year and
an increase of $174 million above the President's request.
Included in the increase is an additional $111 million for
rural water and waste grants above the President's request.

fy05 commerce justice state

Funding Levels:
FY05 Funding: $40.0 billion.
FY05 President's Request: $39.6 billion.
FY04 Funding: $37.6 billion.
Provides a total of $20.6 billion for the Department of
Justice, $975 million above FY04 and $804 million above the
President's request, including the following:
$5.22 billion for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, an
increase of $625 million above FY04 and $100 million above
the President's request. This funding provides enhanced
training, information technology, and staff (1,194 new
positions) to improve intelligence and counterterrorism
capabilities, while continuing to fight white-collar and
violent crime.
$1.65 billion for the Drug Enforcement Administration, an
increase of $69 million above FY04 and $8 million below the
President's request.
$758 million for the United States Marshals Service, an
increase of $32 million above FY04 and $14 million above the
request, to meet protection requirements of the Federal
judiciary and to enhance fugitive apprehension activities.
$890 million for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms
and Explosives, an increase of $63 million above FY04 and $21
million above the President's request.
Provides $3 billion for assistance to State and local law
enforcement for crime fighting initiatives, $906 million
above the President's request and $132 million below FY04
including:
$634 million for the Edward Byrne Justice Assistance Grants
program (as authorized by H.R. 3036); $384 million for
juvenile delinquency prevention and accountability programs,
$387 million for violence against women prevention and
prosecution programs, $110 million to eliminate DNA analysis
backlogs, $139 million for law enforcement technologies, and
$305 million to reimburse States for criminal alien detention
costs.
Department of Commerce and Related Agencies receives $6.7
billion, $761 million above FY04 and $645 million above
President's request including:
$1.54 billion for the Patent and Trademark Office to reduce
the growing backlog and increase quality of patent
processing, $322 million above FY04 and $21 million above the
request.
$3.94 billion for the National Oceanic Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), $239 million above FY04 and $567
million above the request, including $791 million for the
National Weather Service, the full request, to improve
forecasting.
$709 million for the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST), including $109 million for the
Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program.
$755 million for the Census Bureau, including $146 million
for the American Community Survey (ACS).
Federal Judiciary: Provides $5.16 billion for the Federal
Judiciary, $315 million above FY04, to process increased
workload, including an all-time high number of criminal cases
and bankruptcy filings, and for supervision of an increasing
number of offenders by probation officers.
State Department and the Broadcasting Board of Governors
receives $8.8 billion, $704 million above FY04 (excluding
supplemental appropriations).
Includes $1.6 billion to continue worldwide security
improvements and replacement of vulnerable embassies.
Provides $4.2 billion for Diplomatic and Consular Programs
to fund the operating costs of the Department, which is $165
million above FY04, to respond to diplomatic requirements in
Haiti, Libya, and Afghanistan; strengthen visa adjudication
and border security, and increase public diplomacy activities
in the Arab and Muslim world.
Provides $1.67 billion for Contributions to International
Organizations and International Peacekeeping Activities to
fund anticipated assessments for the UN and other
international organizations.
Provides $600 million for International Broadcasting to
expand broadcasting to the broader Middle East.
Provides $60 million for the National Endowment for
Democracy, $20 million above the FY04 level.
Other Items of Interest:
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Bill includes $281
million, $7 million above FY04.
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Bill includes
total budget authority of $913 million, $102 million above
FY04 and the same as the request.
Legal Services Corporation (LSC) Bill includes total budget
authority of $335 million, the same as last year.
Small Business Administration (SBA) Bill provides $580
million for the SBA, and supports a record 7(a) business loan
program level to help America's small businesses access
capital.

fy 2005 energy and water development appropriations

Funding Levels: The Chairman's mark provides a total of
$28.0 billion in new discretionary spending authority for the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers-Civil, the Department of
Interior including the Bureau of Reclamation, the Department
of Energy, and several Independent Agencies. This bill is
$734.5 million above fiscal year 2004 and $49.6 million above
the President's budget request.
Corps of Engineers: The conference report supports a
vigorous Civil Works program. The recommendation of $4.7
billion is $125 million over fiscal year 2004.
Bureau of Reclamation: The Chairman's mark provides funding
necessary to maintain, operate, and rehabilitate Bureau
projects throughout the western United States and protect the
considerable Federal investment in western water
infrastructure. Funding for the Bureau of Reclamation is $1
billion, $40 million over last year's level.
Department of Energy: The recommendation of $23 billion for
the Department of Energy is $145 million under the
President's request and $1 billion above fiscal year 2004.
The Committee funds the Yucca Mountain repository at last
year's level of $577 million and does not include the
proposed authorization language to reclassify the fees paid
into

[[Page H10187]]

the Nuclear Waste Fund or the radiation standard language.
The Power Marketing Administrations are funded at $210.5
million, the same as the President's request and $1.2 million
below last year. Reimbursable purchase power and wheeling
activities are maintained at the fiscal year 2004 levels.
The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), which
includes the nuclear weapons program, defense nuclear
nonproliferation, naval reactors and the office of the
administrator, is funded at $8.8 billion, an increase of $156
million over last year. Funding of $6.5 billion is provided
for Weapons Activities; $1.42 billion for Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation programs;

Foreign Operations

FY04 Enacted: $17.5 billion.
FY05 President's Request: $21.4 billion.
FY05 Bill: $19.8 billion.
Addressing the AIDS Pandemic: Provides a total of $2.3
billion in global assistance to combat HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis
and malaria, $99 million above the President's request and
$690 million more than FY04. Within this $2.3 billion, $858
million is provided for bilateral assistance through the
Child Survival and Health Programs Fund and $1.385 billion is
provided to the Global AIDS initiative. $600 million in
global assistance is anticipated in the Labor-HHS
appropriations bill, bringing total funding to $2.9 billion,
$99 million above the president's request and the highest
level in history.
An Innovative Approach to Foreign Assistance:
The bill provides record level funding the President's
signature foreign assistance initiative, the Millennium
Challenge Corporation. Total funding is $1.5 billion, $500
million above last year.
Supporting the Global War on Terror: The bill provides
significant increases in security assistance to our allies in
the global war on terrorism. It also increases resources for
our anti-narcotic programs abroad.
Provides $73 million increase for Foreign Military
Financing for Israel to assist in their security and counter-
terror efforts. Total funding is $2.2 billion, the same as
the President's request. Also fully funds the President's
$360 million request for economic assistance to Israel.
The bill provides an increase of $350 million, for a total
of $400 million to train and equip the new Afghan National
Army.
A new base program of $300 million for military assistance
for Pakistan as they assist us in hunting terrorists along
the Afghan border.
Fully funds the President's $1.3 billion request for
Foreign Military Financing for Egypt. Also fully funds the
President's $535 million request for economic assistance to
Egypt.
International Narcotics Control is funded at $329 million,
$89 million above last year and $30 million below the request
and fully funds the President's request for Mexico and
Afghanistan.
The Andean Counter drug Initiative is funded at $731
million, the same as the President's request.
Other Items of Interest:
Provides $403 million in humanitarian and refugee
assistance for Sudan. Including $93 million as an emergency
appropriation, $75 million of which is for logistical and
equipment support of the Africa Union Security Force. $95
million in humanitarian assistance was provided earlier this
year in the FY05 Defense appropriations bill.
Includes $800 million for refugee programs, $50 million
more than the President's request and $14 million more than
last year's level.
Provides $441 million for bilateral international family
planning programs, and $25 million for the UNFPA. Retains
current law on restrictions and prohibitions on assistance.
Peace Corps is funded at $320 million, $12 million above
FY04 and $81 million below the President's request.
Total funding of the Agency for International Development
(USAID) is $4.2 billion, $221 million above the request and
$254 million less than FY04.
The U.S. contribution to the multilateral development banks
are funded at a level of $1.2 billion, $264 million less than
the request and $154 million less than last year.
The Global Environment Facility (GEF) is funded at $108
million, $13 million below the President's request and $31
million below last year.

HIGHLIGHTS OF FY05 INTERIOR CONFERENCE REPORT
[Budget Authority--dollars in billions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2004 Enacted FY 2005 Request FY 2005 Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
20.5 19.7 20.0*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Includes an across-the-board cut of 0.594%.

The 2005 recommended level is $469 million below the 2004
enacted level and $359 million above the 2005 requested
level.

Bill Highlights* Change from 2004 (in millions)
$1.7 billion for National Park Operations...........................+98
3.0 billion for the Indian Health Service..........................+105
1.9 billion for BIA Operation of Indian programs....................+62
$653 million for BIA education....................................+12.4
$2.6 billion for Wildland firefighting and National Fire Plan......+168
$500 million supplemental for urgent wildfire suppression........... 0
$1.4 billion for the National Forest System.........................+34
$949 million for the U.S. Geological Survey.........................+11
$167 million for Federal land acquisition........................... -3
$580 million for Fossil Energy R&D..................................-93

*Does not reflect an across-the-board recission of 0.594%.
Major Emphasis: Maintains ongoing base programs; provides
the largest park base increase ever for the National Park
Service; and continues responsible wildland fire suppression
and hazardous fuels funding as in FY2004.
Major Initiatives:*
Provides $573 million for National Park backlog
maintenance.
Provides $64 million for the Everglades restoration effort.
Cumulative funding since 1993 is $1 billion.
Provides $231 million for Indian trust reform, $22 million
above the 2004 level.
Provides $2.6 billion for the National Fire Plan; $1.9
billion for the Forest Service, and $743 million for the
Department of the Interior. Includes an $89 million increase
for wildfire suppression and a $53 million increase for
hazardous fuels reduction efforts, above 2004 enacted levels.
The conference agreement includes an additional $500 million
for urgent wildfire suppression activities available under
special circumstances.
Provides funding for NEA at $123 million, $2 million above
FY04 for the New American Masterpieces initiative and $16
below the request, and $140 million for the NEH, $5 million
above FY04 and $22 million below the request.
Agency Funding:*
Department of Interior--Total funding is $10 billion, $140
million above FY04 and $17 million above the request.
BLM is funded at $1.8 billion, $61 million above non-
emergency FY04 funding and $3 million below the request.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is funded at $1.3 billion,
$3 million above FY04 and $15 million below the request.
Bureau of Indian Affairs is funded at $2.3 billion, $29
million above FY04 and $76 million above the request.
Indian Health Service--Total funding is $3 billion, 105
million over FY04 and $60 million above the request.
U.S. Forest Service--Total funding is $4.3 billion, $107
million above non-emergency FY04 funding (almost all of the
increase is in fire programs) and $60 million above the
request.
Smithsonian--Total funding is $624 million, $28 million
above FY04 and $4 million below the request.

*Does not reflect an across-the-board rescission of 0.594%.

fy05 legislative branch spending

FY04: $3.527 billion.
FY05 Bill: $3.575 billion.
FY05 Request: $3.969 billion.

FY05 LEGISLATIVE BRANCH FUNDING
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY04
Agency (millions) FY05
------------------------------------------------------------------------
House of Reps................................. $1,008 $1,048
Capitol Police................................ 220 232
CBO........................................... 34 35
Architect of Capitol.......................... 403 352
Library of Congress........................... 523 550
GPO........................................... 135 121
GAO........................................... 458 471
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other Items of Interest:
Maintains current staffing levels for all legislative
branch agencies.
Fully funds COLA for staff and the establishment of a staff
fitness in the Rayburn garage.

fy05 labor, hhs, education

Bill Funding:
FY04 Comparable: $139.424 billion.
FY05 Budget Request: $142.324 billion.
FY05 Conference Report: $143.309 billion ($493.3 billion
including mandatory spending).
The bill's funding level represents a 2.79% growth from
fiscal year 2004.
Protecting Priority Education Programs:
Overall, the bill provides a $1.4 billion increase for the
Department of Education, bringing it to a total of $57
billion. Special Education Grants are funded at $11.5
billion, $415 million below the request and $607 above FY04.
This is the highest level in history and over three times the
amount provided in 1995.
Title I--Program is funded at $12.8 billion, $500 million
below the budget request and $500 million above last year, to
provide aid to states and school districts to help
educationally disadvantaged children achieve the same high
state academic performance standards as all other students.
Reading Programs--Funds reading programs at $1.2 billion,
which will enable states to eliminate the reading deficit
through scientific research-based reading programs, $62
million above FY04.
Improving Teacher Quality--The bills provide $2.94 billion,
$10 million above the budget request and last year's level,
for professional development programs to provide states and
school districts with tools to improve teacher quality Math
and Science Partnerships are funded at $180 million, an
increase of $31 million over last year to increase the number
of teachers trained in the fields of math and science.
Education Block Grant--The bill includes a restoration of
the title V education block grant to $200 million, $96
million below the

[[Page H10188]]

fiscal year 2004 request and $180 million above the House
bill.
State Assessments--The bill includes $415 million, $25
million over fiscal year 2004, to cover the cost of
developing annual state assessments of students' reading and
math skills. States will be responsible for selecting and
designing their own assessments.
Maximum Pell Grant awards are maintained at $4050 million
and the program is increased by $458 million over last year.
Impact Aid is funded at $1.24 billion, $24 million over
last year's level and the budget request.
Head Start is increased $124 million over last year's
level, bringing total FY05 funding to $6.9 billion. This
funding level will allow Head Start to maintain current
service levels while ensuring that quality improvements and
training elements are fully implemented.
TRIO funding is increased to $843 million, an increase of
$11 million above the fiscal year 2004 level and the
President's request. The bill also increases GEAR UP funding
to $309 million, also an increase of $11 million above the
fiscal year 2004 level and the President's request.

Medical Research and Health Programs

Centers for Disease Control funding is $4.5 billion, $167
million above last year and $320 million above the budget
request.
Community Health Centers are expanded--fourth year of the
President's proposed expansion of health services to the
uninsured. Total funding $1.7 billion, $131 million over last
year.
National Institutes of Health--continues our commitment to
curing disease through support of NIH research at $28.6
billion, $800 million more than last year.
International HIV/AIDS, TB and Malaria programs are funded
at $624 million, the same as the President's request.
Ryan White AIDS program is increased by $45 million over
FY04 with total funding of $2.1 billion.
Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) is
funded at $2.2 billion, an increase of $84 million over last
year.
Faith- and Community-Based Initiatives are increased
including the Compassion Capital Fund at $55 million.
Abstinence Education--Provides $105 million for the
discretionary abstinence education program, an increase of
$30 million over FY04.
Social Security--Provides a 6% increase to the Social
Security Administration to improve service delivery of Social
Security benefits and accelerate the time it takes to process
disability claims.

Supporting Job Training Programs and Dislocated Workers

Job Corps operations is funded at $1.559 billion, which
provides an increase of $19 million for Center operations
over last year.
Dislocated Worker Assistance is funded at $1.479 billion,
adding $95.3 million over the budget request.
Community College Initiative--fully funds the President's
$250 million program that will train workers for high growth/
high demand industries by funding partnerships of employers,
local workforce investment boards, and community colleges.
Prisoner Re-Entry Initiative--provides $20 million in
support and job training for ex-offenders.

fy05 transportation & treasury

In total, the bill provides more than $89.9 billion in
total budgetary resources, $495 million below the FY04 level.
Discretionary spending is $25.8 billion, $112 million below
the President's request and $2.5 billion below the FY04
level.
Boosts Highway Spending: Federal-aid highways spending is
$35.5 billion. This is an increase of $1.9 billion over the
President's request and the FY04 enacted level.
Supports Aviation: A total of $13.6 billion is provided to
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)--$219 million below
the fiscal year 2004 enacted level and $335 million below the
President's request. This includes a $289 million increase
for FAA's operations (total operations funding is $7.7
billion), $3.5 billion for the Airport Improvement Program
and $102 million for Essential Air Service. The bill includes
$9.5 million above the request for the hire and training of
additional air traffic controllers. The bill also extends the
current provisions of war risk insurance, including current
premium price caps, for one additional year.
Capital Investments in Transit: Transit program spending
totals $7.708 billion, including over $1.4 billion for new
fixed guideway systems.
Supports National Anti-Drug Efforts: Provides $468.5
million to the Office of National Drug Control Policy,
including:
$228 million for the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas
program, $20 million above the President's request.
$120 million for the National Youth Anti-Drug Media
Campaign.
$80 million for the Drug-Free Communities program.
Provides for Continuing Amtrak Operations: The bill
provides $1.217 billion for Amtrak, $300 million over the
President's budget request. Also continues current reforms
for Amtrak, including the submission of a financial plan and
quarterly reports to the Congress on the implementation of
that plan, and directs DOT to undertake a valuation of all
Amtrak's capital assets.
Agency Funding:
Department of Treasury is funded at $11.2 billion, $122
million above FY04 and $393 million below the President's
request.
The Internet Revenue Service is funded at $10.3 billion,
$134 million above FY04 and $356 million below the request.
The bulk of the increases is for the tax enforcement
activities of the IRS.
Federal Election Commission is funded at the budget request
of $52 million, $2 million above FY04 and the Election
Assistance Commission is funded at $14 million.
Other provisions:
Maintains both current law requiring contraceptive coverage
under FEHBP (except in certain circumstances) and current law
prohibiting the use of funds under FEHBP to pay for an
abortion, except where the life of the mother is endangered
or in case of rape or incest.
Provides pay parity between civilian and military federal
employees.

fy05 va-hud

FY04 Bill (Discretionary): $90.8 billion.
FY05 President's Request (Discretionary): $92.1 billion.
FY05 Bill (Discretionary): $93.5 billion.
Taking Care of Veterans:
Provides total resources of $30.3 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--a
total of $1.2 over the budget request and $1.9 billion above
last year.
Does not contain additional fees proposed by the President.
Total budgetary resources for all activities of the
Veteran's Administration including retirement and medical
benefits are increased by $4.3 billion over last year and
$1.2 billion over the request.
Science and Space:
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is funded at $5.5
billion, $62 million below last year and $278 million below
the request. Includes $4.3 billion for research, $3 million
over last year; $175 million for research equipment, $20
million over last year; and $848 million for education and
human resources, $91 million below last year.
NASA is funded at $16.2 billion, $822 million above last
year and $44 million below the request. The agreement give
NASA almost total funding flexibility, but requires NASA to
report to the Congress within 60 days on how they will adjust
program values to cover increased costs associated with the
Hubble servicing/repair mission and shuttle return-to-flight
activities. This flexibility is unprecedented and gives the
Administrator broad latitude to implement the President's
vision for Space within the funds provided in the bill.
Protecting the Environment:
The Environmental Protection Agency is funded with an
emphasis on state grants, particularly in the areas of clean
water and safe drinking water.
Provides $8.1 billion for the EPA, $299 million above the
President's request and $278 million above FY04. This
includes funding of $2.3 billion for Environmental Programs
and Management, $33 million below last year's level and $3
million below the request.
The Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Fund is funded to
the budget request of $850 million, $5 million above FY 2004
and the Clean Water State Revolving Fund is funded at $1.1
billion, at the President's request.
Funds state environmental program grants at $1.2 billion,
about equal to the FY04 level.
Overall, State and Tribal Assistance Grants are funded at
$3.6 billion, $273 million below FY04 and $373 million over
the request.
Funds Superfund at $1.3 billion, the same as last year's
level.
Addressing Critical Housing Needs: The Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is funded at $37.3
billion, $618 million below last year's level and $521
million above the President's request. Includes a provision
to synchronize funding for public housing operations to a
calendar year resulting in saving of $994 million.
Funding for Section 8 programs is split into two accounts
to provide better accountability and oversight.
Tenant-Based Rental Assistance (Section 8 vouchers) is
funded at $14.9 billion, $697 million over last year and
$1.77 billion over the request. This includes $13.46 billion
for Section 8 voucher renewals, $742 million, or 6 percent
over last year, and $1.67 billion over the request. This is
in addition to the 15 percent increase the program received
last year. Section 8 is treated as a budget or dollar based
system like all other discretionary programs. Does not
include Administration's proposed authorization legislation
to alter income targeting and tenant rent contributions.
Project-Based Rental Assistance (project-based contracts)
is funded at $5.34 billion, $270 million over last year and
$10 million below the request.
Public and Indian Housing programs are funded at $5.8
billion, which reflects a one-time $994 million reduction in
Operating Subsidies due to synchronization of the program to
a calendar year funding cycle. Includes $2.6 for the Capital
Fund, $144 million for HOPE VI, and $627 million for the
Native American Housing Block Grant, a 3 percent reduction
from last year.
HOME Investments Partnership is funded at $1.9 billion.
Includes $1.3 billion for Homeless programs, $284 million
for Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA), $747
million for Elderly Housing, and $240 million for Housing for
Persons with Disabilities.
Other Items of Interest: The Corporation for National and
Community Service is funded at $578 million, $3 million below
last year

[[Page H10189]]

and $64 million below the President's request. This supports
a volunteer level of 70,000.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I will reserve my comments on the contents of this bill
for a later point in the proceedings; but right now, I would simply
like to say two things.
First of all, I want to express my great admiration and appreciation
for the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) who handled the rule on this
bill. It was the last time he will do so in this House. Martin Frost
has provided his district, his State, the country, and this institution
with a superb record of public service. I honor him for it. They could
not beat him on the square, so they had to rig the reelection lines;
but he has served his district with great dignity, with great ability.
His mentor, when he first came here, Dick Bolling, would be very proud
of him; and I know we are all proud of him.
I also would like to say with respect to the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Young), the chairman of the committee, the budget resolutions
usually come to this floor, they are vague, they have large generic
numbers; but after they are passed, then the appropriations legislation
has to translate those resolutions into reality and into specifics. At
that point, we get many Members who have voted for those budget
resolutions then writing us letter after letter after letter on the
committee demanding that we increase funding for this program or that
program or another. They do it for LIHEAP. They do it for NIH. They do
it for health programs, for agriculture. The gentleman from Florida
(Chairman Young) has the job of cutting through that hypocrisy; and he
has tried to do so many, many times.
Bill Young to me epitomizes what the American dream is all about.
Bill Young grew up in hardscrabble circumstances in Pennsylvania. He
rose from serious poverty. He became the first Republican to serve in
that State senate in Florida. He was the only Republican serving the
first year he went there, and he has thrived and prospered; and now he
is completing his service as the chairman of the Committee on
Appropriations.
I simply want to say, representing the minority, that Bill has
recognized that when you are a chairman of a committee, you have a
different responsibility than you do when you are an individual Member
of this House. You have separate and sometimes conflicting obligations
to your country, to the Congress itself, to your committee, to your
district, to your State and to your party, in that order.
The gentleman from Florida has always tried to exercise those
responsibilities. He has done it with charm and grace and fairness, and
I would simply say that the fact that he will no longer be chairman of
the committee after this year is a greater loss to the House itself
than it is to him, and I think we all owe him a round of applause for
his stewardship.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time for the moment.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a
unanimous consent request to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh).
(Mr. WALSH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the bill and our
chairman.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Burton) for the purpose of a colloquy.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me time, and I rise to ask the chairman of the Committee on
Appropriations to engage me in a brief colloquy.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to do that.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the
time.
As the gentleman may recall, at the close of the 107th Congress, four
paragraphs were slipped into the Homeland Security bill which unfairly
restricted the ability of families with vaccine-injured children from
seeking legal recourse. Thanks to the gentleman's support, those
provisions were quickly repealed, without prejudice, in H.J. Res. 2,
the fiscal year 2003 Consolidated Appropriations bill.
Nevertheless, the inclusion of these special-interest provisions in
the dark of night was a black eye for the Congress and left the
families of vaccine-injured children highly suspicious of the
motivations of many of their elected officials.
As the grandfather of a child with autism, an affliction that I
personally believe was caused by mercury-containing thimerosal in
vaccines, I vowed to remain vigilant against any attempt to insert
similar provisions in any other bill that makes its way through the
Congress. To that end, I would respectfully ask the chairman to
reassure me that the Omnibus Appropriations bill before us contains no
such provisions.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I
thank the gentleman for his inquiry, and I can assure the gentleman
from Indiana that this bill contains no provision that would impede the
right of families with vaccine-injured children from having their day
in court.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I also have one other comment.
I would like to ask the chairman for his assurance that no provisions
of this bill pertain to reforming the National Vaccine Injury
Compensation Program. We still need to do work on that, but it should
not be done in this bill.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to
yield, again, I appreciate the gentleman from Indiana's personal and
deeply felt concerns, and I can assure him that nothing in the bill
before the House alters, changes or reforms the structure, rules,
procedures, or operation of the National Vaccine Injury Compensation
Fund.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Young) has done a heck of a job. I thank him very much.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend
my remarks later in the proceedings and to include immediately after my
remarks charts and other extraneous material.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished minority whip.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from
Wisconsin, our ranking member, who does such an extraordinary job on
the Committee on Appropriations in focusing us on our priorities as a
Nation.
Mr. Speaker, initially I want to rise and say that the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Young), our chairman, is like Sara Lee, nobody doesn't
like Bill Young, and that goes for everybody on our side of the aisle.
I want to say some nice things, and let me take just one second, but
I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, during the consideration of the rule that
I perceive Bill Young as one of the fairest, most decent, and most
positive leaders in this House. It is an honor to serve with him. I
will tell my colleagues, as an opponent of term limits, I think the
fact that Bill Young is leaving as chairman of the committee is another
compelling argument against term limits. His talent, his fairness, his
vision will be missed as our chairman. Thankfully, he will still be on
our committee, giving us his sound counsel and leadership.

{time} 1445

And, Bill, I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart for the
example you have set for all of us of what it means to be an American,
working together on behalf of our country and not on behalf of our
party, on either side. I thank you for that, sir.
Mr. Speaker, here we are yet again this year considering an end-of-
session omnibus appropriations bill not because of our Chairman Young
but because of the disagreements, frankly, within his party. This is
the fourth in the last 5 years and the eighth time in 10 years since
our Republican friends regained the House majority that we have not
passed appropriation bills as they should have been passed.

[[Page H10190]]

This clearly is not how our appropriations process should work, with
this House rolling nine separate appropriation bills into one and
giving the Members just a few hours to review it. My chairman said 14
hours. The distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture
is reviewing the bill right now. It is, I judge, at least two feet
tall, right in front of her. I do not know whether the camera panned to
that, but it is an extraordinary document.
It epitomizes this failed 108th Congress in which Republicans failed
to enact the budget, failed to enact an energy plan, failed to enact a
transportation bill, failed to enact welfare reform, failed to enact
higher education reauthorization, and failed to enact a patients' bill
of rights.
Now, despite this dreadful appropriations process, there are many
good provisions, as Chairman Young has said, in this bill. Not only
that, I am going to vote for this bill.
For example, there are more than $90 million to support an African
Union peacekeeping force intended to end genocide in Darfur, Sudan. We
must act on that. This bill also maintains the Federal commitment to
election reform, providing $14 million for the new Election Assistance
Commission. And we again recognize the dedicated service of our Federal
civilian employees by providing a 3.5 percent pay raise, which is
consistent with the pay increase for our men and women in uniform. Our
staffs, hopefully, will all receive that as well. These funds also
allow FDA employees to move from substandard workplaces into modern,
state-of-the-art facilities.
Finally, let me say that I am disappointed, however, that the A-76
outsourcing, supported by the majority of this House and the majority
of the Senate, was nevertheless dropped out of the conference report.
This will put Federal employees at greater risk.
Let me conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying that I am disappointed that
we once again failed to reimburse small airports in the Washington,
D.C., area. The Republicans and ourselves say we are on the side of
small business. These airports have been disadvantaged by the actions
of the terrorists and by our security concerns closing them down. We
should have made them whole in this bill. We did not. I hope that in
the future we will.
Again, I thank Bill Young for his leadership and for his service.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller).
(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to
revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman
for yielding me this time; and, as we all understand, the Committee on
Appropriations plays the cards that they are dealt. In this instance,
they have been dealt a set of cards with a great big deficit and not
much room to work.
I want to thank the Committee on Appropriations for the effort they
have made to bring this bill together, and I want to thank the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) for his stewardship of this
committee.
I must say, however, that I am deeply disappointed in the figures for
education. From kindergarten to college, this legislation disappoints
America's children, its families and its educators.
In title I education, we see a reduction of almost 50 percent or a
little over 50 percent of the money that the President asked for that
is not in this legislation.
In special education, where we have constantly pledged that we were
going to move toward full funding, and in fact provide full funding,
this year we see now we have backtracked on the effort that was being
made, because almost $600 million is cut out of that request for an
additional $1 billion.
There are after-school funding cuts, and some 85,000 students will
lose their Pell Grants and tens of thousands of others will because of
the eligibility reconfigurations by the administration. A bad bill from
kindergarten to college.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).
(Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report,
and I want to associate myself with all the remarks with regard to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young). No Member in this history of this
Congress has ever done a better job with appropriations than Mr. Young.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this conference report.
Division B of this Omnibus bill is the conference report on the fiscal
year 2005 Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary Appropriations Act,
which represents the work of the subcommittee that I chair.
I would like to thank my colleague, Mr. Serrano, for his support
throughout this process. He helped us to get a strong bill through the
House, with a vote of 397 to 18.
I would also extend my thanks to our Senate counterparts Chairman
Gregg and Senator Hollings.
Within a very tight allocation, we were able to provide funding for a
variety of critical national priorities.
The bill includes $20.6 billion for the Department of Justice, $975
million above fiscal year 2004 and $804 million above the budget
request to address terrorism, drugs, violence and white collar crime.
The bill addresses recommendations of the 9/11 Commission by enhancing
the FBI's personnel and retirement authorities to attract and retain
critical intelligence staff and provides an increase of $625 million to
improve training and information technology and provide additional
agents, analysts, translators, and support staff.
For Federal law enforcement overall, the conference report represents
a 6.2 percent increase over last year to strengthen counterterrorism
and crimefighting capabilities.
The conference agreement provides $3 billion for State and local law
enforcement, $906 million above the administration's request, including
$634 million for Byrne Justice Assistance grants, $305 million for
State Criminal Alien Assistance, $110 million to addresses critical DNA
backlogs, $387 million for violence against women prevention, and $384
million for juvenile justice.
The conference report includes $913 million for the Securities and
Exchange Commission, $102 million above last year, to provide the
necessary resources to protect investors from corporate abuse.
For the State Department, we have provided $8.7 billion, $693 million
above last year, including $1.6 billion, the full requested level for
worldwide embassy security upgrades. It also includes $1.28 billion for
public diplomacy programs including international broadcasting,
focusing on expanded programs for the Arab and Muslim world.
For the Department of Commerce, the conference report provides $6.7
billion for the Department of Commerce and other trade agencies, $761
million above last year. Increases will result in more accurate
economic statistics, improved weather forecasting, better management of
the Nation's fisheries, and more accurate and timely census data. The
bill also includes a 4.5 percent increase for the Nation's trade
agencies to negotiate, enforce and verify free and fair trade
agreements.
For the Federal judiciary, the conference report provides $5.16
billion, $315 million above last year. This includes funding to process
all-time high numbers of criminal and bankruptcy cases, and to fund the
judiciary's security requirements.
Overall, Mr. Speaker, this conference agreement represents a sound
and fair resolution of the multitude of issues that we faced in
conference, and it does so in a fiscally responsible manner. I urge my
colleagues to support this conference report.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the members of my subcommittee staff who
have put in very long hours to produce the FY 2005 C-J-S appropriations
bill. All members of the staff have worked long, hard hours to produce
a bill that I believe will help our country.
I would like to particularly thank Mike Ringler, clerk of the
subcommittee, who has led the subcommittee through the House
Appropriations process. I would also like to thank Christine Kojac,
John Martens, and Anne Marie Goldsmith for their tireless efforts.
Their work is much appreciated.
I also would like to thank the detailee, Jonathan Mattiello, who has
also lent his support to the bill.
In my personal office, I would like to thank Dan Scandling, Janet
Shaffron, J.T. Griffin, Samantha Stockman, and Neil Siefring for their
efforts and work with the subcommittee.
From the minority staff, I would like to thank David Pomerantz, Lucy
Hand, Linda Pagelsen, and Rob Nabors who have worked with my staff in a
bipartisan manner to produce this bill.
Thank you all very much.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi), the minority leader, who has some scathing
remarks she wants to utter about the chairman of the committee.

[[Page H10191]]

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from
Wisconsin for yielding me this time and in jest describing the remarks
I wanted to make. I want to join him, I know he is a friend of the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young). The two of them have worked
together, despite their differences on some issues, in a very courteous
and constructive way for this House.
Mr. Chairman, I want to convey to you not only my personal
congratulations and appreciation for your very distinct leadership on
this committee but that of all the House Democrats. As a former member
of the Committee on Appropriations, I saw firsthand the fairness, the
intelligence, and the humor that you brought to the chairmanship. Our
Congress was greatly served by your leadership, by your demeanor, by
your friendship to each and every Member, and by the respect that you
gave us all on the committee. You were a model of bipartisanship where
you could be, where it was possible to be, and I think you always gave
us the opportunity for that bipartisanship.
I want to again congratulate you, wish you well in whatever the
arrangement of chairs is on the Republican side, and to say not only to
you but to Mrs. Young, thank you for the attention you have paid to our
men and women in uniform, to our troops in battle and when they come
back. Again, congratulations. Thank you, my friend, Mr. Young.
I hope that bought you enough time. I have plenty more to say about
you.
I will just make one comparison. When Mr. Livingston came in as the
Chair of the Committee on Appropriations, my colleagues on the
committee will remember he brought, some would call it a machete, but I
think it was called something else in Louisiana, and he was swinging
this blade around, and that was how we started the term. It was
humorous to some, frightening to others, a mystery to most.
In any event, when Mr. Young came, it was a much less menacing
beginning and a much more fruitful, I think, opportunity for us all to
work together. No offense to Mr. Livingston, but your approach and
friendship was much more inviting. So, again, Mr. Young, thank you so
much for your service and for your leadership. We are all in your debt.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the distinguished majority whip.
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for
yielding me this time, and I just wanted to stand up today and talk
about what a great job I think this committee has done, given the tough
assignment before the election to come back after our break and to
bring these remaining bills into place at the budget number that the
House had worked with, without a budget agreed to with the Senate. I
think it is a remarkable accomplishment that both the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) should
be praised for. The committee has worked hard.
I certainly join in the remarks that I have heard on the floor this
morning about the great leadership that the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Young) has brought to the committee for the last 6 years, the
challenges, the lines of people that want to talk to him that, in the
case of a bill like this, just want one more thing in the bill that
maybe was not an issue that the appropriators should be dealing with.
So I rise in tremendous admiration, respect and appreciation for Mr.
Young, for his leadership of this committee, and also for this product
that is on the floor today and give my appreciation to both he and Mr.
Obey for that job.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Thomas) for the purpose of a colloquy.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, I understand section 222 of the Transportation,
Treasury and Postal title provides the Committee on Appropriations with
proper access to IRS facilities for oversight purposes but not the
ability to examine individual tax returns, data, or information and
that it is the intent of the Committee on Appropriations that all
access to taxpayer information would remain governed by the disclosure
and privacy rules of section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code. Is that
correct?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. THOMAS. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct. The
Committee on Appropriations needs access to IRS field facilities to do
our oversight work. That work does not require the Committee on
Appropriations to review individual tax returns under section 6103, but
it does require access to the facilities.
Mr. THOMAS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, with that clarification,
I want to rise strongly in support of this omnibus bill.
But, more strongly, Mr. Speaker, I want to rise in admiration of the
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. All of us think we have
difficult jobs around here. Some of us have impossible jobs. And
heading that list is the gentleman from Florida, who has done a
magnificent job, and I want to thank him not only for this bill but for
the service he has rendered over the years.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), for the purpose of a colloquy.
Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this
time, and I just wanted in this colloquy to read a statement that was
inadvertently deleted from the conference report regarding Waukegan
Harbor.
``The Conferees recognize the progress achieved over the last year by
the parties involved in the Waukegan Harbor project. However, it is
important that this fiscal year the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
finishes its requirements so next year dredging of the Inner Harbor may
begin, such as finishing the Comprehensive Dredging Management Plan,
the National Environmental Protection Act requirements, and Plans and
Specifications. All of these requirements must be completed for
dredging work to begin on the Inner Harbor. Once final dredging is
concluded, the Harbor can be considered for delisting as an Area of
Concern by the International Joint Commission. The Conferees urge the
Chicago District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to continue
working towards a final resolution of cleaning of the Harbor.''
Is that the Chairman's understanding.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KIRK. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Yes, Mr. Speaker, this language was to have
been included in the conference report and inadvertently was not. But
the gentleman is correct.
Mr. KIRK. I thank the chairman.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield for purposes of a unanimous-consent
request to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
(Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, had time permitted, I would have asked the
following question of the Chairman of the Committee, the Gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Young):
Given that earlier this week the Majority insisted that Congress
increase the debt limit by $800 billion, and that this bill includes an
across-the-board cut of everything from cancer research to highway
funding, why does this bill, specifically section 108 of Division J,
appropriate $2 million to purchase a Presidential yacht, the Sequoia?
At a time when we are sending American men and women to war in Iraq
without the necessary body armor and equipment, why in the world are we
spending taxpayer money on a Presidential yacht?
The background of this issue deserves some elaboration.
Division J of H.R. 4818 appropriates $2 million for the Secretary of
the Navy to purchase the Presidential yacht Sequoia. President Jimmy
Carter ordered that this yacht be sold to eliminate signs of an
``imperial presidency''. It is unclear whether the purpose of
purchasing the yacht, a national historic landmark, is to provide a
yacht for the President, or to bail out the current owner of the
vessel, or to donate the vessel to a maritime museum. When the Navy
previously owned the vessel, it cost $800,000 a year to keep the vessel
running safely and securely.
The Sequoia was built in 1925; President Herbert Hoover was the first
President to use the yacht. It was used by all Presidents until

[[Page H10192]]

Jimmy Carter became President. President Nixon used the Sequoia
approximately 100 times--including the evening on which he decided to
resign the Presidency. The yacht is owned by Gary Silversmith, a lawyer
and collector of presidential memorabilia, who purchased the vessel in
2000 for $1.9 million. In recent years, the Sequoia has been available
for charter on the Potomac for $10,000 per day.
A nonprofit group, the Presidential Yacht Sequoia Foundation, has
been raising money to make the privately owned vessel ``public.''
According to an April 17, 2003, Washington Times article, Bill Codus,
vice president of the foundation, said that the foundation had the ear
of certain Members of the Congress for future appropriations, but he
understood if, during tough economic times, the yacht is not at the top
of Congress' list. He specifically stated: ``We have to be patient. A
lot is going toward defense now, and we understand that.''
This body ought not to be patient with a frivolous expenditure of $2
million to buy a yacht that the Federal Government does not need and
which, in fact, was once sold by the Government as excess property.
This $2 million could be put to much better use by the U.S. Coast Guard
to help buy a high speed cutter to interdict drug runners and illegal
immigration in the U.S. coastal waters, for example.
There are, no doubt, numerous other such unwarranted expenditures
buried in this bill which should be excised--nontheless, I will vote
for the conference report: it is better than the ``C.R.'', and I
consider an ``aye'' vote necessary to keep the Government functioning.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the very distinguished
majority leader.

{time} 1500

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I do not know if I am sad or happy that I am coming to the floor
today to talk about this bill because this is the last bill that the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) will handle as chairman of the
Committee on Appropriations. It is sad that he is no longer going to be
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations because for the last 6
years he has done a stellar job under very difficult circumstances.
As the gentleman knows, when the committee is trying to put an
appropriation bill together, in the end it is very difficult. There is
incredible pressure on the chairman. But the gentleman is a man of
incredible patience because he has put up with me, has incredible
stamina, and big, big shoulders because he has carried big, big
responsibilities, particularly in light of the fact that after 9/11
much tougher issues have come before the gentleman because of 9/11. He
has the respect of the entire House. Actually, he has the respect of
this entire Congress, both the House and the Senate, and certainly the
President of the United States and the American people.
Mr. Speaker, we greatly appreciate the service of the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Young). We are very excited that he is continuing to serve
in the House and on appropriations.
I come in support of this bill, and I want to reflect on a couple of
things. This has been an interesting week on the same subject, raising
the debt limit on the United States and bringing the government
appropriations, the government spending bills, here to the floor today.
Most of the debate centered around philosophy, economic philosophy on
where this country should go.
I was amused in watching the debate on the debt limit and on this
bill, the comments from the other side of the aisle. They have many
ideas about fiscal responsibility, fiscal restraint, how to lead us
into the future. Part of their understanding of history is a little
off. I lived through that same period of time. The other side of the
aisle takes credit for the balanced budget and the surplus in the 1990s
because they passed higher taxes and more spending in 1993. And they
point to what happened in the late 1990s when we actually balanced the
budget for the first time in, I do not know, 30, 40, 50 years, and we
were in a surplus.
The problem in 1993 was business as usual. I remind the body that in
1993 the Democrats had the majority of the House, had the majority of
the Senate, had the President of the United States. They could do
anything they wanted to, and they did. So their philosophy was the
policy of the United States. It was very interesting if raising taxes
and increasing spending, taking money out of the economy so you are not
creating jobs or not creating an economy that can sustain this
government, it was the right way to go, then why did their subsequent
budgets and all of their economists project that there were going to be
growing deficits as far as the eye could see?
If they were very strong in their philosophy, they would have had
their economists look at their philosophy and understand if they raise
taxes and they increase the size of government by increasing spending,
then we could predict out into the future that deficits would go away,
you would balance the budget and you would create surpluses. At no time
in the 40 years that the Democrats controlled this body did they ever,
ever present a budget that balances or did they ever present a budget
that predicted a balance. So to take credit for balancing the budget in
the 1990s, which we did, and having surpluses holds no water
whatsoever.
What actually happened was the Republicans came into the majority in
1995. In 1996 we did what we are doing here today. We did not just
freeze nondefense discretionary spending; we cut nondefense
discretionary spending. Our philosophy is if you cut taxes, the economy
grows; and if the economy grows and there are more jobs created, there
is more revenue to the government. That is exactly what happened in
1981 when we cut taxes and we froze spending in 1981 under Ronald
Reagan. They should have taken credit for that because they were in the
majority in 1981. Unfortunately, in 1982 they started spending again.
In 1987 we were able to freeze spending again because the economy
dictated it and tried to cut taxes again. They should have taken credit
for that because they were in the majority. But right before that and
right after that they started spending again.
The best part about this debate is if Members really listen to what
they are saying, and they criticize this bill, they have said there is
not enough spending in this bill. This bill actually freezes
nondefense, non-homeland security, the first time we have done that
since 1996; and I am very proud that we held the line and made Congress
make choices and set priorities because it fits our philosophy. You cut
taxes, grow the economy, more revenue for the government. You hold down
spending and let those revenues catch up, sooner or later we are going
to get to balance. That is exactly what we did in the Balanced Budget
Act of 1997.
By the way, I was also amused in the opening of the Clinton Library,
Bill Clinton took credit for that. He vetoed it twice. He never
proposed it; he vetoed it twice, and finally he signed it because he
insisted over and over again that we were going to balance the budget,
not by raising taxes but by increasing the economy and holding down
spending. We can do it again. It is much more difficult now that we are
at war. At no time has this country ever balanced the budget while we
were at war because we will spend whatever it takes to win this war and
protect our troops. So it is going to be difficult to balance the
budget, particularly if we do not raise taxes.
What they really want and what they are so mad about is we are
lowering taxes when they want to increase them so they can continue to
spend more and increase the size of government. But we are not doing
that, and we are not doing it as exhibited in this bill. This is part
of our philosophy. This is a part of where we want to lead the country.
We have been cutting taxes. In fact, this House has cut taxes every
year for the last 10 years that we have been in the majority, and we
will continue to cut taxes because we believe American families should
keep more of what they earn so they can spend it and invest it and
thereby grow the economy. And we will continue fiscal restraint and
hold down spending, as difficult as it is, so we will get to a balanced
budget because we are the only ones that have the credibility because
we have done it before. We did it in the 1990s, we can do it again, and
we will because our budgets have a projected balanced budget over the
next 4 or 5 years. Actually, if we could do that. If we could implement
some of the policies we want to, we will get to it faster.
The crux of the matter is when we bring a balanced budget amendment
to the Constitution to the floor of this

[[Page H10193]]

House, they will be the first ones to vote against it because they know
what it means.
Mr. Speaker, make no mistake about it, there are two philosophies.
They presented their philosophy in the election; we presented our
philosophy in the election. With all due respect, the American people
chose. The American people chose, so we are going to continue down this
road of fiscal responsibility.
Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of the bill that the chairman has
presented. I am very proud of the fact that we actually froze spending
for the first time in a long time. I am very pleased to support this
bill and urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 14 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, this is a sad bill. There are countless good reasons to
vote against it. In fact, this bill is a poster child for institutional
failure. That is true for several reasons. First of all, because the
nine appropriation bills which are wrapped into this early Thanksgiving
turkey should have been dealt with by the House months ago.
Secondly, it is totally inadequate to meet the Nation's needs in
education, health care, and the environment. It falls so far short from
meeting our investment obligations for the future that it could only be
brought to the floor by the majority party after the election.
Third, there are things that have been added in this omnibus bill
which have never been voted on by anybody. Some of them are reasonable;
some of them certainly are not. An example, Republicans chose to take
this opportunity to slip a number of anti-environmental provisions into
this bill which I will list in full in my extended remarks.
Fourth, the Republicans have taken out several provisions that were
supported by the majority of this body and should have been retained. I
will again expand more fully on them in my extended remarks, but those
provisions include eliminating the contracting-out provision, the
bipartisan Chabot-Andrews amendment prohibiting road building in the
Tongass National Forest, provisions to ease the economic embargo on
Cuba, the Sanders cash-balance pension plan amendment, the MILC
reauthorization bill which the President twice claimed to favor, and
they also stripped out the language which would have protected 6
million workers from being chiseled on their overtime rights.
Another troubling feature of this bill is that it misleads people
into thinking that funding for the programs in this bill is more
generous than it actually is because it applies an across-the-board cut
to the accounts in this bill, but it does not show the impact of those
cuts on individual programs.
I have often quoted my friend Archie the cockroach and I am moved to
do so once more in commenting on this action by the committee. Archie
said once that ``man always fails because he is not honest enough to
succeed. There are not enough men continuously on the square with
themselves and with other men. The system of government does not matter
so much; the thing that matters is what men do with any kind of system
they happen to have.''
The problem we have today is there are all kinds of papers floating
around this floor that profess to describe what is the funding provided
for each of the programs provided in this bill, but they significantly
overstate the amount of money in those accounts because the effect of
the across-the-board cut is not counted.
I would also say that this bill is not here in a lame duck session
because of any delaying action by the minority party. The record shows
that the minority party has procedurally cooperated with the majority
to bring all these bills to the floor. Of the 12 appropriation bills
brought to the floor before the election, eight were expedited by
unanimous consent agreements from the minority; four of the bills not
considered under unanimous consent agreement were completed in a single
day while the Labor-Health-Education bill took only two days.
Despite that procedural cooperation, even though they control both
Houses of Congress and the White House, Republicans could not enact
these bills. Why? Well, it was not because the majority party could not
compromise with the minority; it was because the majority party could
not compromise with itself. Why was that? Because rank-and-file members
of the majority party, especially in the Senate, did not want to act on
these bills with inadequate funding for education, health, science and
environmental protection until they were safely past the election.

{time} 1515

This bill shows some examples. This bill slashes funding for the EPA
by $335 million. The biggest cut, $259 million, comes from the Clean
Water State Revolving Fund, even though surveys have shown that we will
confront a $388 billion investment deficit in that program alone over
the next 20 years.
This Congress just finished doubling the NIH budget over the past 5
years, but NIH in the long run is heavily dependent upon basic initial
research done by agencies like the National Science Foundation.
Congress is on record supporting the need to double NSF funding, and
yet the bill cuts funding for the NSF by $107 million below last year.
This is the most Luddite provision in the bill.
Support for housing and community development block grant funding is
so pitiful I cannot even talk about it. One of the most reckless
actions is a $332 million cut to the FAA after the bill's across-the-
board cut is taken into account. FAA will lose staff, including safety
inspectors and air traffic controllers, and forgo needed safety
technology improvements, all at a time when clogged and overcrowded
airways make the skies dangerous.
But perhaps the most serious neglect of our responsibilities is
reflected in what this bill does on education. Unbelievably, it cuts
the President's request for title I education funding, the prime mover
of education reform, by $607 million, almost 50 percent. It falls $482
million below the President's request for special education. It cuts
funding for after-school programs by $25 million below the request and
below last year's level, denying 1.3 million kids the educational
opportunities they were promised in No Child Left Behind.
Flu vaccine. This Congress has still managed once again to cut the
President's request for flu vaccine, by a small amount admittedly, but
it is still $800,000 below the President's request.
On low-income heating assistance, despite the fact that the increased
costs are expected to be 28 percent for home heating oil this year,
this bill provides only half that increase in funding. That means a
real reduction in assistance provided to the most vulnerable people in
our society.
Let there be no doubt that if Democrats were running this place, this
bill would look far different. In June, we had a vote on a bill that
detailed our Democratic priorities, H. Res. 685. If that bill were
before us today, we would be providing an additional $3 billion for
homeland security, police, fire and emergency services, an additional
$5.7 billion to strengthen education, an additional $2.3 billion to
fully fund veterans health care and improve housing for military
families and an additional $1.3 billion to improve health care by
expanding community health centers, rural health clinics, mental and
child health programs.
If today we were voting on the Democratic priority package rather
than this bill, we would be providing $1.5 billion more for title I,
serving an additional 500,000 low-income children so that they can meet
the high standards of No Child Left Behind; we would be providing $1.2
billion more to serve the special education needs of 6.9 million
children with disabilities; and we would be providing $2.2 billion more
for Pell grants, increasing the maximum Pell grant to $4,500.
Based on the debate yesterday on the debt ceiling and on the majority
leader's comments just a few moments ago, I know that some people on
the other side of the aisle would claim that the Democrats' proposals
to increase these investments in education, health, science and the
environment would add to the deficit, but that is simply not the case.
If the Democrats' priority plan were before us tonight, this
legislation would actually reduce the deficit by $5 billion because our
priorities package would limit the jumbo-sized tax cuts for persons
making over $1 million a year to the same amount provided to

[[Page H10194]]

other less fortunate Americans. It would redirect $14 billion of the
money saved to crucial additional investments and would use the other
$5 billion for deficit reduction. This bill would be at the same time
more fiscally responsible and more humane than the bill brought before
us tonight.
So Democrats have demonstrated what our priorities are. We have done
everything we possibly can to improve the warped priorities of the
majority budget, but the majority has rejected and defeated those
efforts. At this point, we are at the end of the calendar, and we are
out of options. We need to move on. At this point our choice is simply
to continue to vote ``no'' as a protest for the misshapen priorities in
the bill or to grudgingly vote ``yes'' because this bill is $4 billion
closer to meeting our responsibilities than Congress would be if we
turned this bill down and we had to live with a continuing resolution.
So, Mr. Speaker, I will reluctantly vote for this bill, but I will
certainly not be leading the cheers because this body should have been
able to do much better. I know the chairman of the committee and the
various subcommittee chairmen have by and large done their best with
what resources have been made available to them. That limitation has
been imposed upon them by their own party leadership and by the White
House. This bill could have been made much more humane and much more
socially responsible by a relatively small adjustment.
$14 billion more for our top domestic priorities as we have in the
Democratic priority package is a lot of money, but it pales in
comparison to the $280 billion that this Congress passed out in tax
cuts this year alone with so much of it aimed at high-end taxpayers.
For only 5 percent of that amount that was provided in tax actions this
year, so much of which has gone to the most privileged and well-off
among us, we could have made responsible investments in the future and
had bipartisan agreements in support of these bills long before the
election.
One more point. In response to the majority leader's reshaping of
history, to put it kindly, let me state what the facts are with respect
to the national debt. The last President to balance a budget was Bill
Clinton. The last President to balance a budget over his full term of
office was President Truman. The last time I looked, they were both
Democrats. The facts are also these: since 1946 at the end of World War
II, under Democratic and Republican administrations alike and under a
Democratic Congress for all of those years, from 1946 to 1979, the
Nation's debt as a percentage of our total national income declined
from 126 percent to 25 percent. In other words, we cut it by more than
75 percent. Then President Reagan came to power and he doubled that to
50 percent. Bill Clinton came to power and again brought that debt
down.
In contrast to just a few years ago when Bill Clinton left office, in
large part because of the actions of this Congress and this President,
economists today are predicting deficits as far as the eye can see.
That is why Democrats sought to improve investments in this bill, not
in a free-lunch way, but by engaging on our own pay-as-you-go
proposition in order to see to it that even as we increased crucial
investments in the economy, we still were trying to keep some money
available for deficit reduction. If the majority party were doing that,
this bill would be a lot more palatable today.
Mr. Speaker, I will, as I said, reluctantly vote for this bill, but
this bill is no great product. As the press finds out more and more
about what the impact is on various programs, I think the Congress is
going to wish that we spent considerably more time dealing with this in
a rational manner.
Some examples of how the Omnibus would be different if Democratic
priorities were being voted on today rather than the Republican
majority's plan:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue H. Res 685--Democratic priorities FY 2005 Republican omnibus
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Health care for veterans......... +$1.3 billion over the Republican -$235.1 million below the House
budget resolution to fully fund Republican budget resolution.
veterans' medical care at levels
advocated on a bipartisan basis by
the House Veterans' Affairs
Committee.
Investments in education......... +$5.7 billion over the President's -$779 million below the President's
request. request.
Title I.......................... +$1.5 billion over the President's -$607 million below the President's
request to support reading and math request.
instruction for 500,000 additional
low-income children.
Child Care and After-School +$300 million over the President's $25 million below the President's
Learning. request to double the number of request and last year's level.
children receiving quality after-
school care in five years.
Special Education................ +$1.2 billion over the President's -$482 million below the President's
request to meet the promise the House request.
Republicans themselves made on
special education funding.
Pell Grants...................... +$2.2 billion over the President's -$468 million below the President's
request to increase the maximum Pell request, freezing the maximum Pell
Grant by $450 to $4,500 for more than Grant at $4,050.
5 million low-income students. The
average public 4-year college tuition
has increased $1,400 (36 percent)
since 2001.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public health
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Infectious diseases and +$100 million over the President's Provides only $9 million over the
immunizations. request to protect the public against President's request.
infectious diseases (like SARS, West
Nile Virus, tuberculosis, and AIDS)
and for child and adult immunization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Health care and medical research
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Core health ``safety net'' +$400 million over the President's -$32 million below the President's
programs. request for community health centers, request, including -$103 million for
rural health clinics, mental and community health centers and -$12
child health programs. million for mental health programs.
NIH research..................... +$500 million over the President's $170 less than the President's
request for health research in areas request.
such as liver cancer, SARS, breast
cancer, Parkinson's disease, and
Alzheimer's disease.
National nursing shortfall....... +$35 million over the President's Provides only $4 million over the
request for the ``Nurse Reinvestment President's request.
Act'' authorization.
Dental care...................... +$50 million over the President's No funding included.
request for dental services in rural
and other underserved areas.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clean water standards and environmental protection
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land protection and preservation. +$325 million over the President's -$62 million below the President's
request for conservation programs request.
covered by the bipartisan commitment
reached in 2001.
Water infrastructure............. +$500 million over the President's -$259 million below the FY 2004
request for the Clean Water State levels.
Revolving Fund.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basic services in rural communities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Community assistance for refugees +$50 million over the President's Provides only $11 million over the
request for States and local President's request.
communities to offset the cost of the
dramatic influx of refugees
anticipated as result of the
Administration's commitment to permit
resumption of refugee flow to pre-
September 11 levels.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The best that can be said about this bill is that if it passes, it
will provide $4 billion more than a Continuing Resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
First I would like to make this announcement, that following the vote
on this omnibus appropriations bill, there will be a vote on a
continuing resolution. The CR that we are operating under today expires
at midnight tonight. So in order for us to have time to move this bill
from the House to the Senate and go through the enrolling process and
get it transmitted to the President's office and give the President
time to review it and OMB time to

[[Page H10195]]

review it, we thought we should do a CR just to make sure that there
were no difficulties. We will take that CR up right after we pass this.
As my colleagues have heard, because of term limits on the Republican
side of the House, this chairman will be term-limited at the end of
this Congress and will not be chairing the Full Appropriations
Committee. But I wanted to say as I depart this post that it has been a
real honor to serve in this capacity. It has been a tremendous
challenge. There have been days when I almost wished I was back in the
minority. But nevertheless it has been a good work.
The gentleman from Wisconsin has been the ranking member during the 6
years that I have chaired the committee. He and I have had some very
strong differences, but we have also had some very strong agreements.
Regardless of whether we agreed or disagreed, whether we were happy or
unhappy with the situation, we were able to conduct the business of the
House, I think, with respect for the institution.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. I would simply like to say that I have enjoyed very much
the relationship between both of us. But I have enjoyed nothing in that
relationship more than in the days after 9/11 when the gentleman and I
worked so closely with each other, visiting all of the security
agencies in town to discover what they needed. We worked arm in arm
providing $40 billion when it was needed and seeing to it in the
process that congressional prerogatives were protected. It was a great
bipartisan experience. I wish that we had been allowed to continue that
on many more fields of endeavor.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I appreciate the gentleman's comments. I want
him to know, I am not going anywhere. I plan to be back with all our
appropriations bills as we proceed.
I would like to call attention to all of the members of the
Appropriations Committee on both sides because this is a working
committee. I know that in some cases the committee is really admired
and respected and appreciated. In other cases we are probably sort of
hated on occasion, but nevertheless we have the responsibility of
adopting legislation that is must-pass legislation. Without the
appropriations bills, the government does not function. The committee
has worked really well, and I am proud of the committee. I am proud of
the members. I am proud of the staff. We have great staff. I want to
call particular attention to, and there are too many to refer to
everybody by name today, but the front office staff, the main staff
headed by the clerk of the committee, Jim Dyer, and his very, very able
assistants, John Blazey, and Therese McAuliffe and Dale Oak, and I do
not know of anybody who knows more about the numbers in these bills
than Dale Oak, and John Scofield and Doug Gregory who is the man who I
rely on considerably to make sure that I am in touch with everything
that is happening to the best of our ability. We have a really great
staff and they work together very well.
The gentleman from Wisconsin has a very great staff on the minority
side. We do our very best to make sure that we do not have any
surprises for them, and they have been very good about not having any
surprises for us. We are open and honest with each other and that is, I
think, important to the type of work that we are responsible to do.
Mr. OBEY. I intend at some point to insert in the Record the names of
all of the staff, including associate staff, but I just want the House
to appreciate the fact that many members of that staff have been
working on this bill for 2 and 3 days without sleep. I do not think the
public or the Members understand that, but their dedication to this
place is phenomenal.

House Committee on Appropriations Staff Listing--(September 20, 2004)

Front Office--H-218 Capitol--52771

Jim Dyer, Dale Oak, John Blazey, Therese McAuliffe, Di
Kane, Sandy Farrow, John Howard, Jane Porter, Theo Powell.

Communications--H-218 Capitol--65828

John Scofield.

Editor--B-301A Rayburn--52851

Larry Boarman, Cathy Edwards.

Computer--B-305 Rayburn--52718

Vernon Hammett, Tim Buck, Carrie Campbell, Jay Sivulich,
Linda Muir.

Surveys & Investigations--283 Ford--53881

Rob Pearre, Mike Welsh.

Agriculture--2362-A Rayburn--52638

Martin Delgado, Maureen Holohan, Leslie Barrack, Joanne
Perdue, (Detailees: Tom O'Brien, Mike Gregoire).

Commerce-Justice-State--H-309 Capitol--53351

Mike Ringler, Christine Kojac, John Martens, Anne Marie
Goldsmith, (Detailee: Jonathan Miettallo).

Defense--H-149 Capitol--52847

Kevin Roper, Betsy Phillips, Doug Gregory, Alicia Jones,
Paul Juola, Steve Nixon, Leslie Albright, Greg Lankler, Paul
Terry, Sarah Young, Kris Mallard, Kevin Jones, Sherry Young,
Callie Michael.

District of Columbia--H-147 Capitol--67500

Joel Kaplan, Clelia Alvarado.

Energy & Water Dev--2362-B Rayburn--53421

Kevin Cook, Dennis Kern, Scott Burnison, Tracey LaTurner,
(Detailee: Timothy Winchell).

Foreign Operations--HB-26 Capitol--52041

John Shank, Alice Hogans, Rob Blair, Rodney Bent, Lori
Maes.

Homeland Security--B-307 Rayburn--55834

Michelle Mrdeza, Stephanie Gupta, Jeff Ashford, Tom
McLemore, Terry Tyborowski, Kelly Wade, (Detailees: Ben
Nicholson, Brian Dunlop).

Interior--B-308 Rayburn--53081

Debbie Weatherly, Loretta Beaumont, Chris Topik, Greg
Knadle, Andria Oliver, (Detailee: Darren Benjamin).

Labor-HHS-Ed--2358 Rayburn--53508

Craig Higgins, Susan Firth, Meg Thompson, Sue Quantus,
Francine Salvador, Nicole Kunko, (Detailee: Timothy
Monteleone).

Legislative--H-147 Capitol--67252

Liz Dawson, Chuck Turner, (Detailee: Kathy Rohan).

Military Const--B-300 Rayburn--53047

Carol Murphy, Walter Hearne, Mary Arnold, (Detailee: Eric
Elsmo).

Transportation--2358 Rayburn--52141

Rich Efford, Dena Baron, Cheryle Tucker, Leigha Shaw,
(Detailee: Kristen Jones).

VA-HUD--H-143 Capitol--53241

Tim Peterson, Jennifer Miller, Doug Disrud, Tad Gallion,
Tammy Hughes.

Minority--1016 Longworth--53481

Rob Nabors, Mark Murray/Foreign Ops, Cheryl Smith/Labor,
Education, David Reich/HHS, Soc. Sec., William Stone, Tom
Forhan/Legis/Mil Con, Mike Stephens/Interior/EPA, NSF, Martha
Foley/Agric/DC, Michelle Burkett/VA-HUD-NASA, Beverly Pheto/
Homeland, Christina Hamilton, Linda Pagelsen/Justice-
Judiciary, David Pomerantz/Commerce-State, Mike Malone/Trans-
Treas, David Morrison/Defense, David Helfert/Press, Dixon
Butler/Energy & Water, Bob Bonner/CIS, FLETC/Postal, MARAC,
SLSDC, Paul Carver, Lesley Turner, Chris Fitzgerald, Mandy
Swann, Heather Wilson, Beth Houser, (Detailees: Bill Gnacek/
Laura Hogshead/Amy Lazor).

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I appreciate the gentleman's comments. I wanted
to make particular mention of the staff for the Energy and Water
subcommittee. I think everybody understood that Energy and Water was
not going to be in this bill, that there were great difficulties in
Energy and Water, and so it was going to be on a long-term CR.

{time} 1530

Senator Stevens and I were determined that that was not going to
happen, and we worked really hard with the House, both sides of the
House, both sides of the Senate. We were finally able to get agreement
to include the energy and water in this package. So this bill includes
everything. That is why it is so big. It is nine bills. That is why the
stack is so high.
But the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development staff only had 2
days to prepare this legislation and to write it and to read it and to
get it fit into the bill. And these 2 days they went 48 hours without a
break, without sleep, with an occasional snack and something to drink.
But they really worked hard because they were only given 2 days to get
their work done.
As we conclude the business of the Congress, as we conclude the
appropriations business, I wish that I was able under the House rules
to say what a great honor it is to work with the chairman of the
Appropriation Committee in the Senate. Senator Stevens, while he is a
tough negotiator and he takes really good care of Alaska, he is a good,
honest guy, and he is good to work with, and I appreciate him very
much.
And Senator Byrd, it is an experience to work with Senator Byrd as
the ranking member. He is such a distinguished gentleman and is very
knowledgeable about what it is that we do here.

[[Page H10196]]

So as we close the session and close this bill, I want to wish
everybody a very safe and happy return to their homes and Thanksgiving,
Christmas, Hanukkah, New Year's, and whatever other celebrations that
we might have between now and the time we come back together. And I
would like everyone, as they recognize all of these holidays and they
remember and they enjoy their family times together, to think about our
troops. Think about our Americans who are deployed overseas in harm's
way and their families and just give them a little extra prayer for
their safety and a successful completion of their mission.
Mr. Speaker, God bless everybody in this institution.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the economic prosperity of the
1990s fueled a drive to increase the levels of employment-based
immigration. Both the Congress and the Federal Reserve Board expressed
concern that a scarcity of labor could curtail the pace of economic
growth. This resulted in an increase of the supply of foreign temporary
professional workers through FY 2003. The number of petitions approved
for H-1B workers escalated in the 1990s and peaked in FY 2001 at
331,206 approvals. Since then, the H-1B annual numerical limit has
reverted back to 65,000. That limit was reached on the first day of FY
2005. The bill before us today includes provisions to address that
problem. I want to thank Senator Kennedy for his work on these
provisions.
Before discussing these provisions, I want to emphasize that I
believe American companies should hire American workers first. When
they cannot meet their employment needs by hiring American workers,
however, they should have access to foreign workers.
The H-1B provisions in this bill would exempt H-1B applicants with a
masters or higher degree from a U.S. institution of higher education
from the annual H-1B cap. This exemption would be limited to 20,000 per
year. It also would strengthen labor protections under the H-1B
program. It would reinstate and make permanent the attestation
requirements for H-1B dependent employers. Employers would be required
to attest that they have not displaced a U.S. worker 90 days before or
90 days after the hiring of an H-1B worker. It would require an
employer to pay 100 percent of the prevailing wage. Current law only
requires 95 percent. It would require a government survey to determine
the prevailing wage to provide at least four levels of wages
commensurate with experience, education, and the level of supervision.
Currently, only two wage levels are used.
I am pleased that we have provisions that would strengthen
enforcement protections under the H-1B program. These provisions would
authorize the Secretary of the Department of Labor, DOL, to conduct
random investigations if the Secretary has reasonable cause to believe
that an employer has committed a violation. It also would reinstate
DOL's authority to investigate complaints alleging an employer's
violation of the law.
We also have provisions that would increase H-1B visa fees from
$1,000 to $1,500 for business with more than 25 employees This would
provide greatly needed additional funds for job training activities. It
also would provide additional scholarships for computer science,
technology, and science programs. I want to point out though that it is
an empty victory if our American children are trained to do jobs and
then are unable to find employment.
Finally, we obtained provisions that would provide needed
strengthening of labor protections under the L Visa program to plug
loopholes that are being used to bypass the cap restriction of the H-1B
program. These provisions would prohibit the subcontracting of L-1
workers, and they would toughen eligibility restrictions by requiring
L-1 workers to be continuously employed with the company for at least 1
year prior to obtaining an L visa.
While I would support provisions of this legislation with these
provisions contained therein, I remain concerned about the need to hire
American workers first. We must work together to ensure that American
companies make an effort to save American jobs for American workers. I
received a letter from the American Engineering Association that I want
to bring to your attention. According to the American Engineering
Association, ``American tech workers are facing record unemployment and
losing their jobs to outsourcing.'' The Association claims also that,
``Bringing in foreigners to take tech jobs undermines engineering as a
profession and discourages young people from pursuing this path.''
As I look forward to the 109th Congress, I envision a new approach to
immigration reform. Instead of piecemeal reforms of our broken
immigration system, such as this fix for some of the problems in the H-
1B and L visa programs, we need bipartisan, bicameral support for
comprehensive immigration reform. Effective immigration reform must
provide a certain path to legalization for workers from around the
world who are already living and working in the United States; repeal
and replace employer sanctions with stiffer penalties for employers who
take advantage of workers' immigration status to exploit them and
undermine labor protections for all workers; reform, not expand,
temporary worker programs; and reform the permanent immigration system
so that those who play by the rules are not penalized by unconscionably
long waiting periods. I intend to pursue such reform in the 109th
Congress by reintroducing my Comprehensive Immigration Fairness Act.
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, on November 20, 2004, the House took up
consideration of and passed H.R. 4818, the Consolidated Appropriations
Act for 2005. Division K of H.R. 4818 contains the Small Business
Reauthorization and Manufacturing Assistance Act of 2004. Since the act
was incorporated directly into the Consolidated Appropriations Act for
2005, no committee report accompanies the legislation. As chairman, I
am submitting for insertion in the Record, the attached explanation of
the Small Business Reauthorization and Manufacturing Assistance Act of
2004. I would expect the Administrator, in implementing the provisions
of this act, to accord the enclosed explanation the same weight in
defining congressional intent that the Administrator would give to a
report after a mark-up prior to floor action or the language in a
conference report. This expectation is particularly apt in this
circumstance because the provisions were negotiated and agreed to in
cooperation with my counterpart in the United States Senate.

Joint Explanatory Statement of Division K of H.R. 4818 Filed by
Chairman Manzullo

Section 101. Express loans
Section 7(a)(25)(B) authorizes the Administrator to create
pilot loan programs. In exercising that authority, the
Administrator created an ``Express Loan Pilot Program.'' The
program authorizes lenders to use their own forms in
submitting requests to the Administrator for the issuance of
guarantees. Two significant restrictions are imposed by the
``Express Loan Pilot Program:'' the guarantee cannot exceed
50 percent of the loan and the maximum loan amount is
$250,000.
Section 101 codifies, with a few significant differences,
the provisions of Pub. L. No. 108-217, which addressed the
Express Loan Program. The two most significant changes are
the permanent authorization of the Express Loan Program by
creating a new paragraph (31) in Sec. 7(a) of the Small
Business Act and the statutory increase in the size of such
loans to $350,000.
Section 101 defines an ``express loan'' as any lender
authorized by the Administrator to participate in the Express
Loan Program. Congress expects that the Administrator will
establish by rule the standards needed to qualify as an
Express Lender.
Section 101 defines an ``express loan'' as one in which the
lender utilizes, to the maximum extent practicable, its own
analyses of credit and forms. Congress fully expects that the
conditions under which express loans are made will not vary
significantly from those conditions that currently exist
under the ``Express Loan Pilot Program.'' Nevertheless,
Congress understands that the Administrator may wish to
revise the standards and operating procedures associated with
``express loans.'' Nothing in the statutory language should
be interpreted as prohibiting the Administrator from imposing
these additional requirements that are otherwise consistent
with the statutory language.
Section 101 codifies the existing concept of the
Administrator's ``Express Loan Pilot Program.'' In other
words, the ``Express Loan Program'' is one in which lenders
utilize their own forms and get a guarantee of no more than
50 percent.
Section 101 restricts the program, including the increased
loan amount of $350,000, to those lenders designated as
express lenders by the Administrator. Designation as an
express lender does not limit the lender to making express
loans if the lender has been authorized to make other types
of loans pursuant to Sec. 7(a) of the Small Business Act.
Although a lender may only seek status as an express lender,
this section was included to ensure that the Administrator
not limit the ability of an express lender to seek other
lending authority from the Administrator. Nor is the
Administrator permitted to change its standards for
designating an express lender in a manner that only
authorizes the lender to make express loans. To the extent
that the lending institution wishes to offer a full range of
loan products authorized by Sec. 7(a) and is otherwise
qualified to do so, the Administrator shall not restrict that
ability on the lender's status as an express lender.
Section 101 prohibits the Administrator from revoking the
designation of any lender as an express lender that was so
designated at the time of enactment. This prohibition does
not apply if the Administrator finds the express lender to
have violated laws or regulations or the Administrator
modifies the requirements for designation in a way that the
express lender cannot meet those standards. Congress does
not expect that the Administrator will impose new
requirements for express lenders that prohibit them from
making loans under other loan programs authorized by the
Small Business Act for which they have approval from the
Administrator.

[[Page H10197]]

Congress, at the request of the Small Business
Administration, determined that it was appropriate to expand
the size of ``express loans'' to $350,000. Any change in the
size of an express loan now will require action by Congress.
Congress is concerned that the Administrator will take
regulatory actions that unduly favor express lending over
other types of lending authorized by Sec. 7(a) of the Small
Business Act. As such, Congress incorporated a provision
prohibiting the Administrator from taking any action that
would have the effect of requiring a lender to make an
express loan rather than a conventional loan pursuant to
Sec. 7(a). Any significant policy change in the operation of
the lending programs authorized by Sec. 7(a) of the Small
Business Act requires notification to the House and Senate
Small Business Committees. Furthermore, the statutory
language on notification goes beyond that which is required
pursuant to Sec. 7(a)(24) of the Small Business Act.
Section 102. Loan guarantee fees
Section 103 increases the loan guarantee amount to a
maximum of $1.5 million. Given the fact that borrowers are
getting an additional increment in loan guarantees, the
sponsors determined that it would be appropriate to require
an additional 0.25 percent fee for the amount of guarantee in
excess of $1 million. Thus, on the amount of the guarantee
between $1 million and $1.5 million, the upfront fee
authorized pursuant to Sec. 7(a)(18) of the Small Business
Act increases from 3.5 percent to 3.75 percent but only for
that portion of the loan guarantee in excess of $1 million.
This is consistent with typical commercial lending practices
of charging fees that are commensurate with the lenders'
exposure to risk.
Section 102 also raises the fee collected by the
Administrator from banks of the unpaid balance of deferred
participation loans. To avoid situations such as those that
occurred at the end of calendar year 2003 in which the
Administrator was required to drastically reduce lending and
impose other restrictions on the program, Congress determined
that it would be appropriate for the Administrator to have
some discretion in setting the fee paid by lenders on the
unpaid balance. The total amount of the fee cannot in, any
year, exceed 0.55 percent of the unpaid balance. Congress
expects the Administrator to use this authority only when
needed to drive the cost, as that term is defined in the
Federal Credit Reform Act, of the loan program to zero, i.e.,
not need an appropriation. Any use of this discretion to
raise the fee beyond the current level of 0.5 percent should
trigger the notification provisions in Sec. 7(a)(24) of the
Small Business Act. As a further oversight tool, Congress
expects that the Administrator would satisfy any relevant
committee's request for information on the utilization of
this discretion.
Finally, Congress determined that the Administrator also be
given the authority to lower fees charged to borrowers and
lenders if the subsidy cost becomes negative, i.e., the fees
will actually take in more money to the government than it
costs to operate the Sec. 7(a) loan program. Congress adopted
an approach that the Administrator should it undertake a fee
reduction first consider reducing the fees set forth in
clauses (i)-(iii) of subsection 7(a)(1 8)(A) and then reduce
fees on lenders. As a further restriction on the discretion
of the Small Business Administration, the fees that were
charged to borrowers on the date of enactment of this
conference report may not be raised. Congress adopted this
language to ensure that any fee increases to borrowers
beyond the statutory limits requires the action of
Congress.
Section 103. Increase in guarantee amount and, institution of
associated fee
Access to capital is vital to the growth of small
businesses. Particularly for manufacturers and high
technology research and development businesses, typical
amounts of capital available under the existing loan limits
authorized by Sec. 7(a) of the Small Business Act often are
inadequate. Given the importance of capital to grow small
businesses, Congress determined that it would be appropriate
to permanently increase the amount of the loan guarantee from
$1 million to $1.5 million. No additional changes were made
in the overall statutory cap of a gross $2 million loan.
Thus, the Administrator will be able to guarantee up to $1.5
million of a $2 million loan rather than the current limit of
$1 million. Congress expects that this will increase the
number of lenders willing to make loans to small
manufacturers who face significant global competition.
Section 104. Debenture size
Congress raised all of the loan limitations for qualified
state and local development companies (``CDCs'') because they
had not been raised in many years and the long-term financing
needs of small businesses were not being met by loans that
did not exceed the thresholds for loans made pursuant to
Sec. 7(a) of the Small Business Act. Raising the loan
limitations has two effects. First, it signifies the
recognition that Title V of the Small Business Investment Act
and Sec. 7(a) of the Small Business Act has very different
purposes in mind. Second, an increase in the threshold allows
more effective economic development projects to be funded by
CDCs.
Congress believes that the increases to $1,500,000 for
regular projects, $2,000,000 for public policy goal projects,
and $4,000,000 for small manufacturers will provide
significant new financial inputs to small businesses in
general and to small manufacturers in particular.
While all small businesses whose primary industrial
classification is in North American Industrial Classification
sectors 31, 32, and 33 (the sectors for manufacturing), not
all small business concerns in those sectors are considered
small manufacturers. Congress adopted a requirement that
small manufacturers should be limited to those small business
concerns that have all of their production facilities are
located in the United States. Congress does not intend that
small business concerns that have manufacturing facilities
situated outside of the United States should be denied
assistance under programs operated by the Small Business
Administration. However, special benefits should be afforded
to those manufacturers whose production facilities are
located in the United States. Finally, the definition in
Sec. 106 is identical to the definition in this section
thereby avoiding any potential interpretive concerns about
what the legislature meant when it used the same term in
different sections of legislation.
Section 105. Job requirements
The Administrator has promulgated regulations, pursuant to
Sec. 501 of the Small Business Investment Act mandating that
a loan made by a CDC must create or save one job for each
$35,000 in guarantee. This standard has not been revised
since it was adopted in 1990. The standard clearly does not
reflect inflation or the dramatic increases in productivity
that has led to higher wages for all employees. Congress
determined that the standard should be revised to take
account of the changes in the economy during the past 14
years. Therefore, 105 statutorily raises the job creation
standard to one job for every $50,000 in guarantees.
Manufacturing requires greater capital investment than
other businesses. Such investment may lead to higher
productivity for small manufacturers and therefore fewer jobs
created per investment. Congress does not want to prejudice
the ability of CDCs to fund projects that would assist small
manufacturers. Section 106 establishes a standard that
authorizes CDC loans to small manufacturers if the project
creates one job for each $100,000 of guarantee.
CDCs do not need to meet job creation standards for
individual loans if the loan is used to further one of the
public policy objectives in Sec. 501(d). Section 105 modifies
that requirement slightly by exempting a particular project
from the job creation standards if the project was meeting a
public policy objective and if the CDC's overall loan
portfolio creates one job for $50,000 in guarantees.
Since the basic premise of loans made pursuant to Title V
of the Small Business Investment Act is to encourage economic
development, Congress concluded that it made sense to
establish a different standard for job creation in
economically-depressed areas or places with unusually high
wage requirements. Congress believes that CDCs should be
provided more leeway in creating jobs in economically-
depressed areas and Alaska and Hawaii. As a result, CDC loans
in these areas only need to meet a more lenient job creation
standard of one job per $75,000 of guarantee in certain
areas.
Given the importance of small manufacturing to economic
development, Congress excluded loans to small manufacturers
from the calculations needed to determine whether a CDC's
loan portfolio meets the overall job creation standard of one
job per $50,000 of guarantee or the $75,000 standard for
high-wage and economically depressed areas. Congress intends
that the public policy goals set forth in Sec. 501 should be
accomplished without reference to job creation for small
manufacturers. Section 105 also authorizes the Administrator
to waive any of the standards when appropriate. Congress
expects that the Administrator will promulgate regulations
specifying when the job creation standards will be waived.
Two restrictions are imposed on the Administrator's
discretion. First, the Administrator may not waive the
requirements concerning small manufacturers. Second, the
Administrator may not mandate a job creation standard with a
number lower than that set forth in Sec. 105 but does have
the liberty to set a higher dollar guarantee per job
standard. These restrictions ensure that the Administrator
does not undermine the ability of CDCs to lend to small
manufacturers.
Section 106. Report regarding national database of small
manufacturers
Institutions of higher education can play a vital role in
reviving small manufacturers. Universities must purchase
large amounts of standard manufactured products (often on an
annual basis--such as furniture for dormitory rooms). They
also often purchase very sophisticated tools and laboratory
equipment that small manufacturers may produce. Congress
believes that some mechanism should be in place so that
institutions of higher education can identify suppliers from
the universe of small manufacturers. While not an ideal
system, a database similar to PRO-NET represents a useful
model for making institutions of higher education aware of
the capabilities of small manufacturers. PRO-NET is a
database operated by the federal government in which the
capabilities of numerous small businesses are outlined.
Contracting officers use PRO-NET to find small businesses
capable of providing goods and services. Section 106
requires the Administrator and the Association of Small
Business Development Centers to study the

[[Page H10198]]

viability of creating a PRO-NET-like database that all
institutions of higher education can use to identify small
manufacturers (the definition is identical to the
definition in Sec. Sec. 104-05) capable of providing their
procurement needs. The bill also requires a report to
Congress on the viability and cost to establish such a
database.
Section 107. International trade
All Sec. 7(a) loans can be used to refinance existing debt
except for international trade loans. Congress determined
that the restriction did not make sense especially since
businesses harmed by unfair international competition will be
more competitive if their debt service payments are lower.
Therefore, Congress authorized businesses otherwise eligible
for an international trade loan to use it for refinancing of
debt but only to the extent that the Administrator determines
the applicant's existing debt is not structured with
reasonable terms and conditions. Congress expects that the
Administrator examine the interest rate being charged
relative to the interest rates generally available for
similar businesses to determine whether the terms and
conditions are not reasonable.
To obtain an international trade loan, the applicant must
demonstrate that the business either is engaged in or
adversely affected by international trade. To avoid the
necessity of having to prove adverse effects if other
government agencies already reached that conclusion in the
same industry as the borrower, Congress mandated that the
Administrator must accept as conclusive proof of injury a
finding by the Secretary of Commerce issued pursuant to
chapter 3 of Title II of the Trade Act of 1974 or any
determination by the International Trade Commission. If an
applicant is in an industry for which the Commission or the
Secretary has made an injury finding, Congress concluded that
it would be pointless to require the small businesses so
suffering to go through the additional expense of presenting
new evidence to the Administrator of injury.
Congress intends that the utilization of the findings by
the Secretary or the Commission is not a limiting factor if a
small business can present other evidence of injury. For
example, the Commission or Secretary may not find that an
industry was injured or that no claims were made to either
agency. Nothing in Sec. 107 prevents a small business from
presenting of evidence of specific injury to his or her
business. The Administrator then would be required to rule on
the adequacy of the proof, and if sufficient evidence was
found of injury, make a loan under Sec. 7(a)(16).
Section 107 also provides for an increase in the size of
international trade loans. Given the nature of international
trade, Congress typically has mandated that loan caps be
$250,000 higher than those for conventional Sec. 7(a) loans.
This section maintains that practice and increased the cap
for international trade loans based on the increase in the
guarantee fees for conventional loans.
Section 121. Program authorization levels
This section amends Sec. 20 of the Small Business Act and
provides for authorization of appropriations. Congress
selected authorization levels with sufficient room to allow
for expected growth and expansion of programs authorized by
the Small Business Act and Small Business Investment Act.
Congress also determined that an authorization of
appropriations not elsewhere provided should apply to all of
the Small Business Investment Act.
Finally, Congress concluded that the existing standing
authorization of appropriations only for carrying out title
IV of the Small Business Investment Act was illogical.
Section 121 amends Sec. 20 to provide for an authorization of
appropriations not elsewhere provided for carrying out both
the Small Business Act and all titles of the Small Business
Investment Act.
Section 122. Addition reauthorizations
The Small Business Development Center (SBDC) program's
authorization levels are set forth in Sec. 21 of the Small
Business Act. Congress provided modest authorization
increases for the SBDCs to take account of necessary growth
in providing services to entrepreneurs. In addition, Congress
also extended the authority of SBDCs to provide drug-free
workplace counseling. This authority would have lapsed
without the change. The extension of authority will give the
SBDC grantees sufficient time to coordinate their actions
with the grantees under the revised drug-free workplace
program.
Given the SBDCs expertise in providing assistance to
entrepreneurs, Congress established a program authorizing
grants to SBDCs that are willing to offer advice in
communities that are economically challenged due to business
or government facility down-sizing or closing. Congress
expects that this assistance will first be offered to
communities suffering from plant closings, then to
communities suffering from government office closings, and
finally to base realignments. To the extent that other bases
are closed in future years, Congress expects that legislation
concerning such closures will provide additional assistance
to the surrounding communities and that assistance provided
under Sec. 122 should be utilized in other areas that do not
receive the directed assistance associated with base
closures.
Section 123. Paul D. Coverdell Drug-Free Workplace Program
authorization provisions
Congress recognizes that small businesses need drug free
workplaces. Drug-free workers boost productivity and reduce
the costs of health care coverage and absenteeism. As a
result, Congress reauthorized the program for two years at
the five million dollar level. In addition, to ensure that
funding is maximized to eligible intermediaries that
specialize in providing drug-free workplace assistance to
small businesses, Congress adopted a limitation on the amount
of funds that can be awarded to SBDCs for carrying out the
purposes of the Paul D. Coverdell Program. Furthermore,
Congress, again in an effort to maximize limited dollars,
restricts the use of funds for administrative purposes to
five percent of the total made available to grantees. Nothing
in this limitation restricts the drug-free workplace advice
that SBDC grantees are authorized to provide in their normal
course of operations.
Section 124. Grant provisions
Congress recognized that improvements in coordination
between the activities of drug-free workplace eligible
intermediaries and SBDCs might improve delivery of services
to small businesses. As a result, Congress established a
grant program within the Paul D. Coverdell Drug-Free
Workplace Program to promote cooperation between eligible
intermediaries and SBDC grantees. Congress expects that the
Administrator award the two-year grants to those applicants
that best demonstrate the capacity to deliver advice in a
coordinated manner between SBDCs and eligible intermediaries.
Section 125. Drug-free communities coalitions as eligible
intermediaries
Congress recognizes that there are numerous entities that
receive grants under chapter 2 of the National Narcotics
Leadership Act of 1988 but are not currently authorized to
participate as eligible intermediaries under the Paul D.
Coverdell Drug-Free Workplace Program. This section makes
these National Narcotics Leadership Act grantees, which could
provide valuable insight into establishing drug-free
workplaces, eligible to receive awards under the Paul D.
Coverdell Drug-Free Workplace Program. Inclusion of new
additional parties should not be interpreted as directing the
Administrator to favor them over others that apply for grants
under the Paul D. Coverdell Drug-Free Workplace Program.
Section 126. Promotion of effective practices of eligible
intermediaries
To ensure that the Paul D. Coverdell Drug-Free Workplace
Program operates optimally, Congress mandates that the
Administrator provide best practices to eligible
intermediaries. The Administrator should use all of its
available outreach resources, including SBDCs, Women Business
Centers, and district offices to ensure that eligible
intermediaries are kept apprised of best practices.
Congress also believes that the performance of eligible
intermediaries should be assessed and measured. Such
evaluations will be useful to Congress when it considers what
changes, if any, need to make the program even more
effective. This section establishes the procedures for
collecting data needed to evaluate the efficacy of the
program.
Section 127. Report to Congress
This section requires the Administrator to use the data
collected under Sec. 126 and report to Congress on the
efficacy of the program and dissemination of drug-free
workplace information. Congress expects the relevant
committees to examine the report and make necessary
legislative changes as a result to ensure optimal operation
of the Paul D. Coverdell Drug-Free Workplace Program.
Section 131. Lender examination and review
Current practice authorizes SBIC licensees to pay for
examination and reviews conducted by the Administrator.
Congress determined that the same principles should apply to
lenders authorized to make government-guaranteed loans under
Sec. 7(a). This section grants the Administration the
authority to charge for examinations and reviews. The section
also requires that the fees be directed to lender oversight
activities including the payment of salaries and expenses of
Administration personnel involved in such functions. This
authority does not imply that the fees may be directed to the
reimbursement of other functions of the Administration.
Section 132. Gifts and co-sponsorship of events
Gifts and co-sponsorships play a useful role in the Small
Business Administration's performance of its outreach
function to small businesses. Congress determined that even
broader language than is currently permitted was necessary to
ensure the Administration's continued ability to obtain gifts
and seek co-sponsorships. In particular, Congress recognized
that in many instances the Administration does not receive
gifts but rather contributions are made by a co-sponsoring
entity to an Administration event, such as small business
forum. In other instances, the SBA uses gifts to pay for
promotional materials, such as cards that are handed out in
district offices to promote an event. This section clarifies
and broadens the existing authority of the Small Business
Administration to obtain gifts and co-sponsorships in order
to expand the agency's outreach. To ensure appropriate
clarity, Congress added the term ``recognition events''
which would include Small Business Week and sponsorship of
dinners during that period. The section also requires the
Administration to recognize the co-sponsors of such events
but only to the extent of their contributions. No
endorsements of the co-sponsors products or services are
permitted.
In order to ensure that conflicts of interest do not arise
in the solicitation or acceptance

[[Page H10199]]

of gifts, Congress requires the General Counsel to determine
whether a conflict of interest exists. If a determination
that a conflict of interest exists, the General Counsel is
empowered to prohibit the solicitation or acceptance.
Finally, the language clarifies that the Administrator may
delegate the approval of co-sponsorships to the Deputy
Administrator, Associate Administrators, and Assistant
Administrators. No personnel located in district or regional
offices are permitted to approve co-sponsorships. Congress
adopted this restriction to ensure close cooperation with the
General Counsel of the Administration.
Congress also requires that the Inspector General audit the
use of such gifts and co-sponsorships. This avoids potential
abuses of the program through independent oversight of an
official whose investigations cannot be impeded by the
Administrator or Administration personnel. Congress wanted
additional assurances (beyond the Inspector General audit)
that the Small Business Administration achieved a proper
balance between this new expanded authority and
accountability. As a result, a sunset date of 2006 was added
in order to properly monitor this new authority before
considering making this language permanent in the Small
Business Act.
Section 141. Service Corps of Retired Executives
Currently, the Administrator has the discretion whether to
permit the Service Corps of Retired Executives (SCORE) to
maintain offices at the headquarters of the Administration
and pay employees of SCORE. Congress determined that the
vitality of SCORE should not be subject to whims of the
Administrator and therefore require that the Administrator
maintain SCORE's offices at the Administration's headquarters
and continue to pay for the salaries of SCORE personnel.
Congress notes that this will not require any increased
appropriation since these services and expenses are currently
included in the Small Business Administration's budget.
Section 142. Small Business Development Center Program
Congress remains concerned that SBDCs were and may continue
to be revealing the name of businesses that seek their advice
to Administration employees for functions unrelated to the
financial auditing or client surveys needed to oversee the
operations of the SBDC grantees. Congress believes that such
behavior is intolerable. This section prohibits the
disclosure of client information (including the name,
address, telephone and facsimile numbers, and e-mail address)
of any concern or individual receiving assistance from a SBDC
grantee or its subcontractors (who operate service centers
that business owners can utilize to obtain advice) unless the
Administrator is ordered to make such disclosure pursuant to
a court order or civil or criminal enforcement action
commenced by a federal or state agency. Congress expects that
SBDC grantees will only respond to formal agency requests,
such as civil investigative demands, and subpoenas.
Congress also recognizes that the Administrator has
significant management responsibilities to ensure that
federal taxpayer dollars are wisely used by grantees and are
in compliance with the law, regulations, and the cooperative
agreements signed by SBDC grantees. Congress authorizes the
SBDC grantees to provide client names for the purposes of
financial audits conducted by the Administrator or
Inspector General and for client surveys to ensure that
the SBDC grantees are satisfying certain aspects of their
grant agreements. Congress recognizes that client surveys
may be misused and impose restrictions on their use. Until
regulations are in place to ensure that SBDC grantee
client's privacy is protected to the maximum extent
practicable given the management oversight responsibility
of the Administrator, Congress requires client surveys to
be approved by the Inspector General and any approval
incorporated into the semi-annual report made to Congress.
This section also makes a technical change in wording of
the SBDC program. It renames the certification program as an
accreditation program. The change was made because
institutions are accredited not certified. Since the program
determines the quality of SBDCs, it makes sense to have them
accredited not certified. An identical change is made in
20(a)(1)(D)-(E).
Section 143. Advisory Committee on Veterans Business Affairs
Congress has determined that the federal government must
provide better assistance and support to veterans in their
efforts to form and expand small businesses. In 1999, as part
of this effort, Congress established an Advisory Committee on
Veterans Business Affairs. Its responsibilities included
providing advice to Congress and the Small Business
Administration on policy initiatives that would promote
entrepreneurship by veterans. The responsibilities of this
advisory board were to be taken over by the National Veterans
Business Development Corporation on October 1, 2004. Congress
determined that the Advisory Committee's role was
sufficiently beneficial that it should not be subsumed within
the National Veterans Business Development Corporation. As a
result, Congress authorized an extension of the Advisory
Committee as a separate entity to continue its functions
through September 30, 2006.
Section 144. Outreach grants for veterans
The Administration is authorized to provide outreach grants
to help disabled veterans start and expand small businesses.
Congress determined that the outreach grants should not be
limited to disabled veterans. This section extends the
authority to provide outreach programs to veterans and
reservists.
Section 145. Authorization of appropriations
To express Congress' concern about adequate efforts to
assist veterans, Congress determined that the Small Business
Administration's Office of Veterans Affairs should have a
separate authorization. This section provides for that
separate authorization for fiscal years 2005 and 2006.
Section 146. National Veterans Business Development
Corporation
A ruling by the Department of Justice concluded that the
National Veterans Business Development Corporation was a
federal agency for all purposes and thus subject to, among
other things, federal administrative, personnel, and
procurement laws. Congress, when it created the corporation,
never intended that it would be considered a federal agency.
The legislation mandated sufficient fundraising by the
corporation that would eliminate the need for federal
funding. While that fundraising continues, Congress
determined that its original intent concerning the status of
the corporation should be honored. This section makes it
clear that the corporation is to be considered and treated as
a private entity and not an agency or instrumentality of
the federal government.
Section 147. Small Business Manufacturing Task Force
Manufacturing jobs in the United States have declined since
their historic peak in 1979 and that loss has accelerated in
recent years. Small business manufacturers constitute over 98
percent of our nation's manufacturing enterprises. It is
impossible to overstate the role of small manufacturers
within the overall manufacturing industry and our nation's
economy. The House and Senate Small Business Committees have
placed a high priority on trying to resuscitate the small
business industrial base because economic security in the
United States cannot occur in a purely post-industrial
economy.
Section 147 establishes a Small Business Manufacturing Task
Force within the Small Business Administration, charged with
ensuring that the Administration is properly addressing the
particular needs of small manufacturers. Specifically, the
Small Business Manufacturing Task Force will: (a) evaluate
and identify whether existing programs and services are
sufficient to serve small manufacturers' needs, or whether
additional programs or services are necessary; (b) actively
promote the SBA's programs and services that serve small
manufacturers; and (c) identify and study the unique
conditions of small manufacturers, and develop and propose
policy initiatives to support and assist them. This section
also instructs the Small Business Manufacturing Task Force to
submit a report of its findings and recommendations to the
President and the Senate and House Small Business Committees
not later than 12 months after the effective date of the bill
and annually thereafter. In carrying out their obligations
under this section, Congress expects that the Task Force will
consult with other agencies that have manufacturing
responsibilities, such as the Department of Commerce.
Section 151. Streamlining and revision of HUBZone eligibility
requirements
The Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone)
program was designed to direct portions of federal
contracting dollars into areas of the country that in the
past have been out of the economic mainstream. HUBZone areas,
which include qualified census tracts, poor rural counties,
and Indian reservations, often are out-of-the-way places that
the stream of commerce passes by, and thus tend to be in low
or moderate income areas also characterized by comparatively
high unemployment. These areas can also include certain rural
communities and tend generally to be low-traffic areas that
do not have a reliable customer base to support business
development. As a result, businesses have been reluctant to
move into these areas and expend the necessary funds to
develop the infrastructure for creation of jobs. It simply
has not been profitable, without a customer base, to keep
those businesses operating.
The HUBZone program seeks to overcome these problems by
providing the means for Federal procurement activities to
become customers for small businesses that locate in
HUBZones. While a small business works to grow, expand its
payroll, and establish a solid base of commercial or other
customers, federal business opportunities can be of vital
importance. Federal prime and subcontracts can become an
important source of revenue for a HUBZone small business, and
prime contracts in particular can help stabilize revenues,
establish valuable past performance record, and maintain
future profitability.
In past years, the HUBZone program has encountered issues
relating to the statutory requirement that a HUBZone firm be
entirely owned and controlled by individual U.S. citizens.
This requirement means that all HUBZone applicants need to
be owned by human beings directly and not human beings
organized as business entities. However, many small
business owners and small business investors prefer to
take advantage of

[[Page H10200]]

various corporate forms in order to limit the personal
liability for themselves and their families. Exceptions
for Alaska Native Corporations, Indian tribal governments,
and community development corporations were added by the
Small Business Act reauthorization legislation in 2000.
Even with those changes, the presence of a corporate
entity or a limited liability company with an ownership
stake in a small business would have automatically
disqualified an otherwise eligible firm from participation
in the HUBZone program. Small agricultural cooperatives,
which already maintain presence in rural HUBZones, would
have faced similar restrictions. These rules unnecessarily
impede the flow of capital to the very areas that need it
the most and create compliance conflicts with other small
business procurement programs.
Section 151 addresses this problem through streamlining and
revision of the eligibility requirements for HUBZone small
businesses to include small businesses that are 51 percent
owned by United States citizens, as well as to include small
businesses which are small agricultural cooperatives or are
owned and controlled by small agricultural cooperatives.
In addition, HUBZone firms owned by the Indian tribes have
been facing peculiar challenges due to statutory requirements
that they must hire a certain percentage of its workforce
performing a federal contract or subcontract from Indian
reservations or adjacent areas. These requirements, while
motivated by the desire to spur economic development of the
tribes, over time had the unintended consequence of putting
tribally-owned firms at a disadvantage in comparison with all
other HUBZone concerns by imposing a geographic restriction
on the kinds of contracts that tribally-owned HUBZone firms
could perform. Geographic restrictions also impeded business
synergies between tribally-owned HUBZone firms and Alaskan
Native Corporations. To remedy this disparity, Section 151 is
providing tribally-owned HUBZone concerns the option of
qualifying for the program based on locating in, and hiring
workers from, either Indian reservations or any other
HUBZones on the same terms as available to other HUBZone
firms. Congress notes that the Indian tribes, as owners of
the HUBZone firms, will be receiving expanded economic
benefits from new contracting opportunities.
Section 152. Expansion of qualified areas
Congress observes that the HUBZone area qualifications are
also in need of improvement. Paradoxically, economically
distressed rural communities in states with high
unemployment--among the neediest of needy areas--currently do
not qualify for the HUBZone program because rural areas
currently must qualify in relation to the statewide
unemployment average. As an example, in calendar year 2003,
Alaska had a statewide unemployment rate of 8.0 percent. To
qualify as a HUBZone area, it was necessary for an Alaskan
rural community to have an 11.2 percent unemployment rate.
But, in 25 of the 50 states, a rural community could have
qualified as a HUBZone with an unemployment range of 7.8
percent or less.
Section 152 addresses this problem by modifying the
definition of a ``qualified nonmetropolitan county'' to
provide the option of comparing the unemployment statistic
for that area to the statewide average or to the national
average. The new statutory HUBZone definition should give the
Small Business Administration flexibility to address both
national and state-wide unemployment disparities without
hurting the states that have comparatively low
unemployment overall, but with pockets of serious
unemployment.
Congress recognizes the drastic economic ramifications of
military base closures and that the HUBZone program can
uniquely harness the strength and the creativity of the
private sector by providing incentive for small businesses to
relocate to areas suffering such ramifications. According to
congressional research, more than 300 military bases closed
or realigned between 1988 and 2003 and more than 50 percent
of these bases were located outside of a designated HUBZone.
Therefore, Congress intends that, upon the later of the
enactment of this act or the date of final closure, existing
as well as future military base closure areas be designated
as HUBZones for a period of five years in order to
reinvigorate the productive capacity of such areas and
leverage existing local customers and a skilled workforce.
Congress believes that new businesses and new jobs created
through the HUBZone small firms mean new life for areas
affected by base closure.
Additionally, Congress notes the existence of numerous
complaints that the current definition of HUBZone qualified
areas based on census income data, in conjunction with the
definition of HUBZone qualified redesignated areas, fail to
provide adequate time to recoup a return on investment. These
concerns appear justified. Congress observes that the HUBZone
program is relatively young, and the federal government is
not even close to meeting its statutory prime contracting
goal of 3 percent. Because the HUBZone program was enacted
into law in 1997, the initial HUBZone areas were designated
on the basis of the 1990 Census. However, the federal
government conducted another census in 2000. As a result,
many areas were redesignated after only 3 years of the
program's existence. The statute currently grandfathers the
redesignated areas into the program for 3 years.
Congress notes that, at the time of the last redesignation,
the small business community received comparatively few
benefits from the HUBZone program despite the substantial
workforce recruitment, compliance, and business development
efforts that must be expended by each of the HUBZone firms.
These small businesses, which made business decisions to
pursue the HUBZone strategy by locating in a HUBZone,
adjusting their ownership structure, and recruiting HUBZone
residents are in danger of being penalized for the federal
government's slow initial implementation of the HUBZone
program. Further, anecdotal evidence indicates that it may
take a long time for a new firm to secure a federal contract,
and that multiple-order contracts commonly envision task
orders over a number of years. In these circumstances, a 3-
year grandfather clause would appear not to provide
sufficient time for a small business to generate a return on
the HUBZone investment. By comparison, companies under the
8(a) program can maintain such a designation for 9 years, and
a general small business designation can be maintained
indefinitely. Therefore, Congress imposes a moratorium on
HUBZone area redesignations by providing for an extension of
the redesignation period until the conclusion of the 2010
Census. No certified HUBZone firm shall be decertified as a
result of either the redesignation process based on the 2000
Census data or any revised unemployment data subsequent to
December 21, 2000, the date of passage of enactment of the
HUBZone in the Native America Act. It is the intent of
Congress to have the Small Business Administration reinstate
any HUBZone firm previously decertified based on these two
criteria.
Congress also finds that, concurrently with the moratorium,
a study on the effectiveness of the HUBZone area definitions,
including the redesignation period, must be conducted by the
Office of Advocacy of the United States Small Business
Administration. The Office of Advocacy is chosen to conduct
this study for its particular expertise in small business
procurement, rural small business development, and general
small business matters. Congress directs the Office of
Advocacy to examine the impact and effectiveness of the
HUBZone definitions on small business development and jobs
creation, and expect that the Office of Advocacy will
periodically consult with congressional small business
committees on matters concerning this study. Findings and
recommendations of the study must be reported to
congressional small business committees by May 1, 2008.
Section 153. Price evaluation preference
With regards to the application of existing HUBZone price
preferences to international food aid procurements conducted
by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA),
Congress concludes that the preferences as they currently
stand are hindering the goals of U.S. foreign humanitarian
food assistance programs. This view is supported by extensive
consideration of market data from the Kansas City auction
office of the USDA Farm Service Agency, the structure of
auction tenders and other auction processes, as well as data
supplied by the industry. It appears that there is a risk of
various unintended and undesirable consequences to applying
the current HUBZone mandate to international food aid
acquisitions. In particular, it appears that, in the context
of food aid tender auctions, the claimed job gains fostered
by the current price preference are offset by job losses in
other communities, the non-HUBZone small businesses
attempting to compete may experience undue harm, and the
competitive supplier base may atrophy. In turn, this may
undermine USDA's capacity to secure adequate foodstuffs for
malnourished persons and increase the costs to the food aid
programs without realizing adequate jobs creation and
business development benefits.
The HUBZone price preference alternative adopted in this
act (a 5 percent price evaluation preference on 20 percent of
the contract) would alleviate these potentially damaging
effects on the U.S. food aid system. Congress believes that
this approach would preserve the HUBZone program's goal of
providing HUBZone-eligible companies with a meaningful
opportunity to compete while ensuring that the USDA has an
adequate capacity of supply from which to draw to deliver
emergency food aid in catastrophic situations. This approach
would also eliminate the current HUBZone program's
application problem which directly penalizes non-HUBZone
small businesses due to the nature of the food aid auctions.
The potential for job losses in other communities would be
limited. Importantly, this approach also reflects the
cornerstone of America's efforts to provide food assistance
to the world's neediest people through competitive markets.
According to President Dwight D. Eisenhower and
congressional architects of the Small Business Act, an
overarching purpose of small business procurement programs is
to assure a vibrant, competitive supplier base for the
federal government. Price preferences are employed to further
this purpose, and should be structured accordingly. Congress
notes that, in general, price preferences have been a
valuable tool for encouraging a more robust supplier base.
Nevertheless, Congress believes that, in these very special
circumstances, it is important to encourage competition by
keeping multiple vendors actively bidding in our food
assistance programs to secure the lowest cost procurement
and emergency supply chains in

[[Page H10201]]

the case of humanitarian crisis. This approach builds on
the current small business 10 percent set-aside by an
additional 20 percent allocation of every tender to small
businesses and HUBZone applicants. It guarantees full and
open competition, including competition pursuant to the
Small Business Act, in food aid procurement tenders to
assure that U.S. food aid programs do not suffer
consequences inconsistent with the intent of the price
preference program. The approach in this legislation
safeguards the dual interests of a vibrant small business
presence in federal procurements and robust food aid
programs.
Section 154. HUBZone authorizations
Congress notes that the federal government has failed to
meet its statutory HUBZone contracting goals every single
year these goals have been in effect. Continuous, dedicated
authorization of the HUBZone program is essential to continue
the effort to bring economic opportunities to the HUBZone
areas. Therefore, Congress extends the current authorization
of appropriations of $10,000,000 for the SBA's HUBZone
program through Fiscal Year 2006.
Section 155. Participation in federally funded projects
Section 155 removes the burdensome paperwork requirements
for additional certification by firms seeking to perform any
State, or political subdivision projects that utilize federal
dollars if they are currently certified, or otherwise meet
the applicable qualification requirements, for participation
in any program under Sec. 8(a) of the Small Business Act.
This change will: (1) provide federally certified Sec. 8(a)
small businesses with access to all State and local projects
funded in whole or in part by the federal government; (2)
eliminate the burden of requiring Sec. 8(a) small businesses
to get certifications from the State or local government or
both in addition to their federal certification under
Sec. 8(a); and, (3) decrease certification costs and
eliminate time delays associated with the burden of receiving
additional state or local government certifications for
businesses authorized to participate in program established
by Sec. 8(a) of the Small Business Act.
Section 161. Supervisory enforcement authority for small
business lending companies
This section creates a new Sec. 23 of the Small Business
Act. It gives the Administrator specific enforcement and
supervisory authority over Small Business Lending Companies
(SBLCs) and Non-Federally Regulated SBA Lenders as those
terms are defined in Sec. 162 of this conference report. The
vast majority of lenders authorized to make loans pursuant to
the Small Business Act have their lending and other
activities overseen and regulated by federal financial
regulators, including loans and corporate transactions
related to their general lending practices. The Administrator
makes no effort at regulating lending institutions except for
their authority to make Sec. 7(a) loans.
In contradistinction, there are a few institutions that are
authorized to make loans pursuant to Sec. 7(a) of the Small
Business Act that are not typical lending institutions. SBLCs
(except for two which are wholly-owned by national banks) are
subsidiaries of industrial corporations and thus not subject
to any regulation by financial regulators, other than certain
filings made with the Securities and Exchange
Commission. Non-federally regulated SBA lenders have some
state oversight but the extent varies according to state
law. The only authority that the Administrator has with
respect to these lenders is the ability to prohibit them
from making loans pursuant to Sec. 7(a). The Administrator
has no authority to take other regulatory action, similar
to that available to banking regulators, to protect the
public and the federal treasury. Congress concurs with the
Administrator's request that greater authority is needed
to regulate SBLCs and Non-Federally Regulated SBA Lenders.
The basic approach adopted by Congress enables the
Administrator to supervise the soundness and safety of
institutions authorized to make loans pursuant to Sec. 7(a)
but are not otherwise subject to the strict oversight imposed
by federal financial regulators. Congress concurs with the
Administrator's request that specific enforcement and
supervisory authority are needed. These authorities include
the power to: issue cease and desist orders, impose civil
money penalties, mandate capital standards, and remove
officers and directors who are acting in an unsafe and
unsound manner. The power and authority tracks closely the
powers granted to the Administrator with respect to
regulation of SBICs and their officers and employees. In some
cases, Congress differentiated regulatory powers applicable
to SBLCs and those applicable to Non-Federally Regulated
Lenders. Nothing in this section grants the Administrator the
authority to be extended to overall corporate management of
the parent that owns a SBLC.
Congress provides for the Administrator to issue capital
directives mandating maintenance of certain capital
standards, including the requirement to increase its level of
capital. The section also authorizes the Administrator to
issue cease and desist orders by the SBLC or Non-Federally
Regulated Lender. To ensure that the capital directive is
used sparingly and only in appropriate circumstances, the
Administrator is required to promulgate regulations on
capital directives and may only delegate the authority to the
Associate Administrator for Capital Access.
The Administrator also is empowered to suspend or remove
officials that have management responsibility for the
entity's lending pursuant to Sec. 7(a) of the Small Business
Act. No authority, explicit or implied, is authorized to
remove or suspend officials that do not have management
responsibilities with respect to Sec. 7(a) lending. Thus,
Congress expects that the Administrator take action not to
suspend the Chief Executive Officer of General Electric
Corporation but only its SBLC subsidiary.
Prior to the issuance of any order under this section
except for a capital directive, the Administrator is required
to provide any target of the order a hearing pursuant to
Sec. Sec. 554, 556, and 557 of the Administrative Procedure
Act. The section delegates the responsibility of conducting
the hearing to administrative law judges but the final
responsibility on determining whether an order should issue
rests with the Administrator based on the record developed at
the adjudication. The approach is similar to that used by
independent federal regulatory agencies such as the Federal
Communications Commission or Federal Trade Commission. Those
agencies use administrative law judges to conduct hearings
and the commissioners use that record as the basis for their
legal and policy determination. This bifurcation of the
hearing from the decisionmaker ensures that the hearing will
be fair and provide an opportunity for the target of an order
to make the best possible case before an impartial fact-
gathering tribunal.
The Administrator is authorized to issue orders prior to a
hearing if extraordinary circumstances exist and the order is
needed to protect the financial or legal position of the
United States. The Administrator only should use the power to
issue orders without a hearing only under those circumstances
in which an agency issues a rule without notice and comment,
i.e., a truly exigent circumstance, see, e.g., NRDC v. Evans,
316 F.3d 904, 912 (9th Cir. 2002); Utilities Solid Waste
Group v. EPA, 236 F.3d 749, 754 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (good cause
to forgo notice and comment applies only in emergency
circumstances), or when a federal court would issue an ex
parte temporary restraining order (but in order to preserve
and protect the federal government rather than the status
quo). Cf. Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of
Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers, 415 U.S. 423, 439 (1974)
(noting that ex parte restraining orders necessary evil to
protect status quo). The section then provides that the
procedures for holding a hearing, including the notice
requirement, be commenced within 2 days after the issuance of
the order. Congress believes that this comports with the
fundamental fairness exhibited by federal courts when issuing
an ex parte temporary restraining order.
Congress' approach defines final agency action for purposes
of a challenge to the issuance of an order by the
Administrator and authorizes that a challenge may be
commenced in federal court within 20 days after issuance of a
final order. For purposes of fundamental fairness to
individuals, Congress also believes that interim relief in
federal court is appropriate for a stay of an order issued
prior to hearing until the hearing itself is completed. Both
of these provisions were added out of an abundance of
caution. Although Congress believes that federal court
jurisdiction challenging the Administrator's action may
constitute a ``federal question'' pursuant to Sec. 1331 of
the Title 28, United States Code, Congress determined that
explicit authority to challenge the Administrator's orders in
federal court removes any question that this decision has
been remitted solely to the discretion of the agency and is
not subject to review under Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821
(1985).
This section authorizes a court to appoint a receiver for
the entities subject to regulation pursuant to this section.
The receiver is entitled to take possession of assets of the
SBLC or Non-Federally Regulated SBA Lender. Congress intends
this authority to extend only to the SBLC or Non-Federally
Regulated Lender's portfolio of loans or other instruments
guaranteed by the Administrator including any debentures,
participating debt, or securities issued pursuant to the
Small Business Investment Act.
Congress believes that suspension, revocation, or cease and
desist is an extraordinary remedy. Each requires an extremely
high burden of proof related to willful misconduct that may
present a difficult case for the Administrator to prove.
Therefore, the bill also provides the Administrator with the
authority to seek court-imposed civil penalties for the
failure to file reports required by the Administrator. Such
penalties shall issue when the failure to file is willful and
not due to neglect. The failure to file required reports for
more than two reporting periods is, in the opinion of
Congress, sufficient, but not the only evidence of willful
neglect. Congress expects the Administrator to promulgate
regulations outlining the factors that determine willful
neglect for the purposes of civil penalties (as an aid to the
entities regulated pursuant to Sec. 23). These regulations
also must contain standards for exempting SBLCs and Non-
Federally Regulated Lenders from the civil penalty provisions
as well as the procedures used for determining whether the
institution qualifies.

[[Page H10202]]

Section 162. Definitions relating to small business lending
companies
Almost all of the lenders authorized by the Administrator
to issue guaranteed loans pursuant to Sec. 7(a) are lending
institutions regulated by a federal financial regulator.
However, there are a few institutions that make guaranteed
loans that are not subject to federal financial regulatory
oversight or regulation by a state banking authority. The
Administrator classifies these institutions generically as
``small business lending companies.'' However, that universe
actually consists of two separate entities--small business
lending companies (not financial institutions) and financial
institutions not subject to any agency authorized to review
the safety and soundness of depositary institutions. Since
Sec. 161 adds a new Sec. 23 granting the Administrator power
to regulate these entities, Sec. 162 adds two new subsections
to the definitions in the Small Business Act defining small
business lending companies and non-federally regulated SBA
lenders.
Section 201. Amendment to definition of equity capital with
respect to issuers of participating securities
Congress determined that changes were needed in the
definition of equity capital with respect to any company that
issues participating securities. Such companies,
participating securities SBICs, commit to invest an amount
equal to the outstanding face value of participating
securities solely in equity capital. Equity capital refers to
common or preferred stock or a similar instrument, including
subordinated debt with equity features. Equity capital issued
by participating securities SBICs previously provided for
interest payments to be made to the Administration contingent
upon--and limited to--the extent of earnings on equity
capital. However, since the inception of the Participating
Security SBIC program, the majority of SBICs have not
realized sufficient profits with which to meet their
financial obligations to the federal government. This has
resulted in serious financial loss for the federal
government. In order to mitigate these losses, the definition
of equity capital has changed so that participating security
SBICs do not have to realize profits on their investments in
order to make payments to the Administration. If a
participating security SBIC is experiencing overall losses on
their investments but has other sources of funds such as
invested excess funds, royalty payments, licensing fees and
the like, Congress intends that these funds may be used to
meet their obligations to the Administration.
Section 202. Investment of excess funds
This section provides SBICs with additional flexibility for
handling funds prior to investments in small businesses by
allowing SBICs to invest such funds in additional types of
securities. Currently, SBICs holding cash, prior to investing
in a small business, are only permitted to invest directly in
obligations of the United States, obligations guaranteed by
the United States, or in certificates of deposit maturing
within one year or savings accounts that are in institutions
insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or the
Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation. This section
modifies the current restriction by permitting SBICs to
invest in securities, mutual funds, or instruments, which
themselves invest solely in the obligations that are
currently permitted. For instance, Congress expects that
SBICs will be able to invest in mutual funds that, in turn,
invest in the government-backed obligations already
authorized for investment in SBICs. Congress believes that
this modification will provide SBICs with greater flexibility
and a wider range of short-term investment options.
Section 203. Surety Bond Amendments
Section 203(a) clarifies that the current $2 million limit
on surety bonds applies to the bond guarantee and not the
contract size. Congress adopted this clarification to
prohibit contracting officers from determining that small
businesses would not qualify for an Administration-backed
surety bond for a contract worth less than $2 million even
though it was part of a bundle of contracts that exceeded $2
million. For example, a small business might be denied a
surety bond if the small business had a contract for $1.5
million, but that contract was part of a $12 million bundle
of contracts that had been awarded simultaneously.
Section 203(b) requires that an audit of each participating
surety shall occur every three years instead of annually.
This reduction in the frequency of audits will save
participating sureties time and money and allow them to
allocate these resources to more productive uses. In
addition, this will enable the Administrator to focus on more
critical elements since the sureties already provide reports
on a periodic basis that would identify problems during the
interregnum between audits.
Currently certain sureties designated by the Administrator
may issue, monitor, and service surety bonds issued pursuant
to Title IV of the Small Business Investment Act. This
authority ceased to be operative on September 30, 2003 (but
has been extended for short periods of time on a temporary
basis). Congress determined that the authority for this
program should be made permanent. Section 203(b) makes that
change by repealing 207 of the Small Business Reauthorization
and Amendment Act of 1988.
Section 204. Effective Date of Certain Fees
Loans made pursuant to Title V of the Small Business
Investment Act do not require any appropriation. Fees charged
to borrowers and CDCs absorb the costs associated with the
issuance of such loans. When the zero-subsidy for the program
was instituted, Congress made the fee authority temporary to
see whether the program could survive without an
appropriation. The program has succeeded admirably and
Congress does not expect that an appropriation to fund loans
made by CDCs will be made for the foreseeable future. As a
result, Congress determined it was pointless to continue, as
temporary, the Administrator's authority to charge fees for
loans made pursuant to Title V of the Small Business
Investment Act. Section 204 grants the Administrator
permanent authority to charge fees.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in strong support of the
Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2005, which is included as Division
D of this consolidated appropriations legislation. This conference
agreement provides important funding for programs designed to support
the global war on terrorism, the battle against HIV/AIDS and other
infectious diseases, and to support the national interests of the
United States. It provides new funding of $93 million to help address
the humanitarian disaster in Sudan, including $75 million to support an
African Union security force to help end the violence that is plaguing
the people of Darfur.
This portion of the conference report contains $19.7 billion in new
discretionary budget authority for fiscal year 2005, excluding $93
million in emergency spending to meet the very real emergency in
Darfur. This is still $1.6 billion below the President's request, but
represents an increase of $318 million above the level passed by the
House. The primary reason for the increase is a conference decision to
fund the President's highest priority in this bill, the Millennium
Challenge Corporation, at a level of $1.5 billion.
We had many challenges in dealing with the Senate bill and reaching a
final agreement, but I think we were successful in crafting a bill that
is balanced and promotes United States foreign policy objectives.
The Millennium Challenge Corporation will be an important innovation
in the way we deliver foreign assistance. It will reinforce and reward
efforts in developing countries to strive for poverty reduction by
emphasizing a country's commitment to fighting corruption and investing
in its people. It was our appropriation bill last year that
incorporated the authorization creating the MCC. The President can
continue to count on me as a strong supporter.
In addition, we provide important military assistance and counter
narcotics funding for our allies in the global war on terrorism,
including: an increase of $350 million, for a total of $400 million, to
train and equip the new Afghan National Army; an increase of $90
million for law enforcement and counter narcotics programs in
Afghanistan, to help reduce record opium harvests; a new base program
of $300 million for military assistance for Pakistan to help us in
hunting terrorists along the Afghan border; and an increase of $73
million, for a total of $2.22 billion, for our closest alley in the
Middle East, the State of Israel.
The conference agreement includes full funding for these increases,
both through new budget authority and, in the case of Pakistan, the use
of $150 million in transfer authority.
In addition, the conference agreement includes $2.3 billion for
combating HIV/AIDS and related diseases, an increase of $690 million
over last year and $93 million over the President's request. Together
with $624 million recommended by the Subcommittee on Labor/HHS, over
$2.9 billion will be available for HIV/AIDS programs in fiscal year
2005.
The conference agreement includes a contribution of $338 million for
the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. The figure for
the Global Fund has gotten a lot of attention, and I want to set the
record straight. The $338 million that the conference included in $238
million over the President's request. I hope everyone keeps in mind
that in order to meet our budget target we had to cut $1.6 billion from
the President's request for foreign assistance. Given such a challenge,
I'm personally very satisfied that we are able to find bicameral,
bipartisan support for such a significant contribution.
My colleagues should know that the U.S. contribution is limited by
law to one-third of all contributions to the Global Fund. Because other
countries, particularly some European countries, did not step up to the
plate last year, $88 million of our money intended for the Global fund
could not be spent. We've included bill language to direct those funds
back to the Global Fund; otherwise they would not be available for that
purpose. When the challenge of AIDS is so large, we must put every
dollar to work.
Finally, the Fund has grown tremendously in its three years. It
currently has over 200 grants under management for billions of dollars.
The funding included in the conference agreement provides enough--
again, assuming

[[Page H10203]]

other countries contribute their share--to cover the ongoing and
renewal costs of these grants.
The Fund needs to take the next several months to make sure it's
strong enough to fulfill its mandate efficiently and transparently. The
conference agreement includes guidance for steps the Fund should take,
such as making sure funds are disbursed only on the basis of proven
results.
This conference agreement also provides $950 million for other health
activities aside from HIV/AIDS. This amounts to an increase of $130
million over the President's request and a $31 million increase over
last year.
The conference agreement also provides $404 million in assistance for
Sudan, including Darfur. I visited Darfur a few months ago with Mr.
Jackson of Illinois, and we returned convinced that no long-term
solution can be found for that troubled region without security. The
African Union observers and protection mission in Darfur is a step in
the right direction, and $75 million of this assistance is specifically
intended to support and sustain that mission. Our bill is explicit in
providing that no funds from these accounts can be made available for
the government of Sudan in Khartoum until it acts in good faith to find
a lasting peace in Darfur. The rest of the funding will remain
available for humanitarian assistance for the people of Sudan.
We continue an emphasis in agreement on helping developing countries
build their capacity to participate in the international trading
system. The conference agreement provides $507 million for trade
capacity building, the same amount as last year. It also includes $20
million specifically intended to help the countries of Central America
develop the labor and environmental standards that will help facilitate
implementation of the Central American Free Trade Agreement, which I
hope Congress can make a reality in the coming session.
The conference agreement also responds to emerging needs, such as the
provision of $85 million in assistance for Haiti. This legislation also
funds the export finance agencies that help promote U.S. investment
overseas and create jobs in the United States export sectors. It
provides over $250 million for these agencies, including the Export-
Import Bank, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, and the Trade
and Development Agency, which is offset by $311 million in collections.
The narcotics industry has become a source of funding for terrorists,
especially in countries like Colombia and Afghanistan. As part of the
war on terror, the conference agreement fully funds the President's
request for the Andean Counterdrug initiative at a level of $731
million, for anti-narcotics, interdiction, development programs, and
rule of law and institution building programs in Colombia, Bolivia,
Peru and Ecuador.
Under the general anti-narcotics account, the conference report fully
funds anti-narcotics and law enforcement programs in Afghanistan at a
level of $90 million, and in Mexico at a level of $40 million.
To support continuing United States leadership in the world for
providing humanitarian responses to refugee crises, the conference
agreement provides $800 million for refugee programs, $50 million more
than the President's request.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I believe this balanced conference
agreement provides important support for our most critical national
security needs while substantially increasing funding to respond to the
global HIV/AIDS pandemic. It also enhances our support for our overseas
development assistance and humanitarian assistance activities. It meets
the high priority needs of the President in these areas, and
accommodates Congressional concerns as well. It is a conference
agreement that I think all members of this body should support.
Before I yield, Mr. Speaker, I want provide special thanks to my full
committee chairman, Bill Young of Florida, for his help and support to
the Foreign Operations Subcommittee over the past 6 years. He is
leaving as committee chairman, but remains a valued member of our
committee, and I look forward to working with him closely in the
future.
I also want to pay tribute to the ranking minority member of the full
committee, Mr. Obey, and my ranking minority member, Nita Lowey. They
both have been extremely helpful in this process, and I very much
appreciate the House Foreign Operations bill, and in reaching a
conference agreement. I also appreciate all the members of the
Subcommittee who contributed so much to this final agreement.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the language in this Omnibus bill
that significantly restricts a woman's access to health care services.
This year, 2,500 Washington State residents traveled across America to
march for this right protected by the U.S. Constitution. As the 108th
Congress comes to an end, I am disappointed to be faced again with an
omnibus piece of legislation containing political poison pills that
attack constitutional liberties.
I regret that Congress must pass this appropriations bill to keep our
Government running yet simultaneously approve a bill that encroaches on
a woman's right to make private medical decisions with her doctor.
Embedded in this legislation is a Federal Refusal Clause which creates
an impossible situation for women in my State that are protected by
local pro-choice laws--laws that these citizens time after time
support--which ensure women access to reproductive health information
and services.
This provision would break contracts that Washington State has with
Medicaid providers to prohibit the local healthcare facilities
participating in Medicaid from referring patients to abortion
services--even when medically necessary, even upon patient request and
even though law entitles it. This provision is a blow to the right of a
woman and her doctor to make private healthcare decisions and I urge my
colleagues to correct this outrage.
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my statement be included at the
appropriate place in the Record in its entirety and request permission
to revise and extend my remarks.
Mr. Speaker, as other members on the Democratic side of the aisle
have stressed, the Republican majority has allowed us only a handful of
hours to examine the content of this mammoth bill, which numbers in the
thousands of pages, before holding a vote on final passage. This rushed
vote on the omnibus appropriations bill for fiscal year 2005 represents
more than a serious disservice to the American people. It signifies a
disgraceful denigration of our role as elected representatives and a
serious blow to our democratic form of government.
Although I therefore lack any time to sift through, let alone examine
carefully, the lion's share of provisions in this omnibus measure, I
have seen two labor clauses which cause me the gravest of concerns.
First, this conference report reverses a provision--which passed both
the House and the Senate with clearcut bipartisan support--to ensure
that workers who put in overtime hours get paid overtime wages. The
Republican leadership in Congress has therefore joined with the Bush
Administration in pilfering the pockets of hard-working Americans and
their families. By taking away the right of millions of American
workers to earn overtime pay, the Republican leadership is also turning
back the clock more than half a century. They do so to the detriment of
hardworking women and men and their families across this nation.
Secondly, 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
enforcing any part of 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 is
senseless 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 either an initial as
well as an annual fit test for workers' masks, that is exactly what is
possible. According to Dr. Margaret Hamburg, Vice President for
Biological Programs at the Nuclear Threat Initiative, drug-resistant TB
is a biological agent that might be used as a weapon, in addition to
small pox, pneumonic plague, and others. To undercut the only
protection that front-line health care workers would have against such
agents--namely, their respirators--is worse than irresponsible and
reckless. It is entirely without conscience. Mr. Speaker, I hope my
colleagues in the 109th Congress will see the wisdom of reversing this
provision, which seriously undermines workers' protections against TB
and bioterrorism.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge the Conferees
and Appropriators to strike the language contained in Section
508(d)(1), language that was offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania
as a violation of the House Rule against legislating in an
appropriations measure.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, this provision severely undermines the
right of States to enforce their laws.
If this bill passes and a State or local government fails to comply
with the Weldon provision, they essentially put at risk the following:
All of their state Medicaid funding.
All their S-CHIP money.
All their Head Start money.
All their child care development block grant money.
All their social services block grant money.
Simply put, it restricts states' autonomy and right to self-
governance and undermine 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.
This provision has a broad and draconian enforcement mechanism. It
would deny federal funds to a state or local government that attempts
to ensure women have full access to

[[Page H10204]]

reproductive health services and information. In fact, the proposal is
worded so that even federal programs could be stripped of their funds
if they were to comply with existing federal laws requiring women have
full access.
Moreover, it interferes with state and local governments'
responsibility to set the parameters of their own Medicaid programs. It
blocks federal, state and local governments' attempts to improve
women's access to full reproductive health services.
Rights 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 at least tell her that she is eligible
to get such coverage and where to get it. If this provision passes,
states will not be able to enforce this requirement and Medicaid HMOs
could simply refuse to cover this woman's abortion and not tell her
that she can get coverage elsewhere.
It even interferes with, and possibly overrides, current federal
laws, such as the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act,
which ensure that women in life-threatening circumstances receive the
medical care they need.
Right now, if a woman comes into the emergency room of a hospital
with an incomplete miscarriage, which can threaten her life, under
EMTALA, the hospital must stabilize her. If stabilizing requires
completing that abortion, they have to do it no matter what their
religious beliefs. If Weldon passes, the hospital could claim that it
is ``discrimination'' to force them to do this. So, this provision
could essentially overrule EMTALA depending on how it is interpreted
and we don't know how it will be interpreted.
Mr. Speaker, I strenuously urge my colleagues in the House to fight
this onerous, dangerous provision that is a backdoor attempt to
overturn Roe v. Wade.
Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Appropriations
conferees for including in the conference report nearly $100 million to
improve flu vaccine production capacity and technology, and, if
necessary, to allow the government to purchase vaccine.
This allocation will help us make sure we don't repeat the mistakes
of this year. This investment in flu vaccines means that the Congress
learned a lesson from this year's crisis and is taking steps so it
doesn't happen again.
This year's shortage is resulting in long lines for the flu shot and
widespread fear among the elderly and other vulnerable populations that
they will be stricken with the flu virus.
As the sponsor of the Flu Protection Act, along with Senator Bayh in
the other body, I also want to thank Congressman Shimkus and all of the
29 bipartisan cosponsors of the Flu Protection Act for their work on
this issue.
We have our work cut out for us. Next year, we need to implement all
of the provisions of the Flu Protection Act, and ensure that we improve
our ability to prevent an avoidable public health disaster.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my displeasure with
the current state of the appropriations bills.
First, I regret that we are using an omnibus bill to finish the
appropriations process for FY 2005. It is not a good procedure, under
any circumstances, when we are required to vote on a bill with
insufficient time for review, especially a bill as important as
appropriations for most of government funding other than Defense and
Homeland Security.
My most serious concern with the omnibus is the appropriation for the
National Science Foundation, (NFS), which is $227 million below the
President's request for FY 2005. The amount is even $60 million lower
than last year's appropriation--before accounting for the .83 percent
across-the-board cuts, meaning the cut is actually larger than $60
million--primarily in the critical areas of research and education, and
even reduces the support for basic research. In the last 20 years this
has happened only twice, and I am sorry to see that this year we will
make it a third.
While I understand the need to make hard choices in the face of
fiscal constraint, I do not see the wisdom in putting science funding
far behind other priorities. We have cut NSF despite this omnibus bill
spending more money for the 2005 fiscal year, so clearly we could find
room to grow basic research while maintaining fiscal constraint. But
not only are we not keeping pace with inflationary growth, we are
actually cutting the relative size basic research comprises of the
overall budget.
NSF has been praised as a model of administrative efficiency--over 95
percent of its funds go directly to support education and research
programs. Former OMB director, Mitch Daniels, praised NSF as a model of
administrative efficiency and called NSF one of the ``true centers of
excellence in this government'' for its low overhead costs and
efficient use of tax dollars. Furthermore, NSF has earned a reputation
as the premiere basic research institution with only 4 percent of the
total federal research and development budget. I am concerned about the
kind of message that we are sending by cutting funding at agencies that
succeed so well with already lean budgets, while rewarding those less
efficient agencies by increasing their funding.
This decision shows dangerous disregard for our nation's future, and
I am both concerned and astonished that we would make this decision at
a time when other nations continue to surpass our students in math and
science and consistently increase their funding of basic research. We
cannot hope to fight jobs lost to international competition without a
well-trained and educated workforce. If we want to remain competitive
in the international marketplace, we must provide funding that
stimulates innovation and supports education. Within our borders, NSF
supports technological innovation that has been, and remains crucial to
the sustained economic prosperity that America has enjoyed for several
decades. This innovation is made possible, in large measure, by NSF
support of basic scientific research, particularly in the physical
sciences. Research at NSF not only underpins physical science research,
but lays the foundation for work in the health science and medicine as
well. Reducing this funding is extremely short-sighted.
While I strongly oppose the reduced budget for the National Science
Foundation, I recognize that the omnibus contains many important pieces
of legislation that are necessary to pass. Therefore, under protest, I
will vote for the bill, but my vote does not in any way represent my
approval for the funding cuts to the NSF.
Ms. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report.
I'd like to take a few moments to focus on the foreign operations
section, which I strongly support and which I believe represents the
very best of bipartisan cooperation in the pursuit of a sound and
effective foreign policy.
Despite representing a cut of $1.9 billion below the President's
request, the conference agreement will accomplish many good things. It
increases the President's request for international HIV/AIDS programs
by about $100 million, and by about $700 million over last year's
level. It provides a total of $400 million for basic education, which
is a $75 million increase above last year. Since Chairman Kolbe and I
began working together, we have quadrupled funding for basic education,
and I am pleased the Senate agreed to include the House-passed level
for this valuable priority.
The Millennium Challenge Corporation will receive $1.5 billion, which
is $500 million above last year. We have also restored cuts proposed by
the President to USAID's core programs for health, the environment,
democracy building, and economic growth. This is the second consecutive
year that Congress has had to restore the administration's cuts, and I
hope the administration will take notice. Congress has no intention of
cutting our core programs in Africa and Latin America to make room for
new initiatives.
The agreement fully funds our commitments to Israel and other Middle
Eastern countries and provides increases for new programs designed to
mitigate conflicts. I am pleased that we have extended the loan
guarantee program for Israel by 2 years, which will enable Israel to
take full advantage of the authority already granted by Congress. I am
also pleased that the statement of managers expresses concern about the
need for more vigorous oversight of the United Nations Relief and Works
Agency, and requests a report on oversight measures from the State
Department.
The agreement also provides significant funding for both Pakistan and
Afghanistan as we continue our partnership in fighting the war on
terrorism. As reconstruction proceeds in Afghanistan, it is
increasingly clear that the $1 billion in this bill will have to be
augmented by as much as an additional $1 billion in supplemental funds.
I hope that we will have the opportunity to provide these funds after
the New Year--we have a responsibility to our own national security,
and to the people of Afghanistan, to get the reconstruction job done
right.
We have increased funds for both Sudan and Haiti because of the
serious humanitarian crises in both countries. For Haiti, we have
provided $85 million, which is $58 million above the request. For
Sudan, the bill contains the $311 million included in the House-passed
bill plus an additional $93 million specifically for the Darfur
emergency. This funding, which should have come in the form of a
mandatory transfer from the billions of unspent Iraq reconstruction
funds, will instead be provided as new, emergency funding. I am simply
baffled that, despite bipartisan support for this transfer, the
administration has fought tooth and nail against it. While I am pleased
the funds have been provided, I am surprised that we have not taken
advantage of the authority to use already-appropriated funds for this
clearly important purpose.
Once again, I am disappointed with the disposition of the outstanding
issues surrounding international family planning. While I am pleased
that the conference agreement provides $441 million for our bilateral
family planning programs, these programs are still subject to the
senseless global gag rule policy.

[[Page H10205]]

We have also failed to rationalize restrictions on funding the United
Nations Population Fund, which as received no U.S. support since 2001.
I am pleased that we have clearly stipulated that any fiscal year
2005 funds blocked from UNFPA will go to bolster our bilateral family
planning programs. I am deeply disappointed that the administration has
only allowed us to provide half of the fiscal year 2004 funds meant for
UNFPA for family planning. I support anti-trafficking initiatives, but
urge the President to actually request them for the upcoming fiscal
year, instead of simply announcing that he will take them from other
programs.
One last issue I feel compelled to address is the potential cut-off
of economic assistance to a number of countries based on their failure
to sign so-called Article 98 agreements. The House bill contained
language extending the reach of current law by cutting off Economic
Support Fund assistance to the government of countries that have not
signed agreements exempting U.S. troops from the jurisdiction of the
International Criminal Court. Current law cuts off military assistance
to countries with no signed Article 98 agreements, but also gives the
President broad waiver authority.
The conference agreement contains a narrow waiver for non-NATO
allies, but no waiver for the remainder of the world. The ultimate
result is the potential cutoff of economic assistance to Jordan,
Cyprus, Lebanon, Ecuador, Kenya, South Africa, Angola, and other
countries.
I understand and share the concerns many of my colleagues have about
the International Criminal Court. But I also do not believe that these
concerns should be the cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy.
Jordan is not only our most reliable partner in the Arab world, the
country now serves as the primary staging point for much of our Iraq
reconstruction effort. The new Iraqi police force upon which so much
depends is now being trained in Jordan. Threatening a cutoff of
economic assistance simply flies in the face of common sense. Our
program in Cyprus has been in place for many years and funds efforts to
help end the conflict there--a key U.S. foreign policy goal. In other
countries, our efforts include a wide range of programs relating to
drug trafficking, dealing with environmental problems, and providing
economic advisors. It seems shortsighted to discard these goals because
of concerns over the poorly organized and ineffective ICC.
Personally, I believe this provision should have been dropped--I
opposed it when it was offered during House consideration of the bill.
However, if a waiver must be included, it should have included all
countries and not simply NATO and major non-NATO allies. This would
allow the administration to let aid flow unimpeded to key countries in
Latin America and Africa that might otherwise be forgotten. As it
stands now, many of these programs are likely to be curtailed or
halted.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to express my concern with the Weldon
refusal clause provision included in the LHHS section of the bill. For
over 30 years, there have been Federal laws that allow doctors, nurses,
and hospitals to refuse to provide abortion services because of their
religious beliefs.
However, just as the law protects religious or moral objections, it
protects the rights of patients--ensuring that women have access to
accurate and complete medical information when making decisions about
their own health. The Weldon provision would unravel these
protections--gutting the patient protections included in the Title X
family planning program, which require that all legal options are
presented to a woman; denying rape and incest survivors access to legal
abortion services, which is a longstanding provision in current law,
and overriding State constitutional patient protections.
I am very disappointed that my and my colleagues' efforts to strip
this provision from the final bill did not prevail. This will hurt
women all around our country, and it is shameful.
In closing, I want to thank Chairman Kolbe for his hard work on this
bill, and express my deep appreciation of this close working
relationship we have enjoyed. I think it is clear from the bipartisan
way in which this bill was written--from the very first day--that we
both share a strong commitment to our Nation's foreign assistance
programs, and that we both understand that foreign assistance, along
with diplomacy and defense, is a pillar of U.S. national security
strategy. Chairman Kolbe and his staff--John Shank, Alice Grant, Rodney
Bent, Rob Blair, Lori Maes, and Sean Mulvancy--have been wonderful
partners in this process.
And I would like to thank the minority staff--Mark Murray and Beth
Tritter--for their work as well.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, protecting and preserving our environment is
one of the most important jobs I have, but I don't think we as a
Congress are doing very well at it.
The conference report before us today includes funding for hundreds
of important and beneficial programs and projects. Unfortunately, it
also contains provisions that will weaken several significant land and
water protections.
When the House passed the Interior Appropriations Act in June, we
included a pro-environmental provision that would block new
roadbuilding in the Tongass National Forest. The amendment passed
because environmentalists came together with fiscal conservatives to
end a long-standing subsidy for the logging industry while protecting
the rainforest. Doing so just made sense. I am disappointed that this
important provision is absent from the conference report before us
today.
What is included, however, is language that reduces judicial review
on Tongass timber sales by placing a 30-day statute of limitations on
challenging those sales in court, making it much more difficult for the
public to participate in the process.
In addition, the conference report waives National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) review of nearly 1,000 expiring Federal-lands grazing
permits, which will further discourage agencies from complying with
environmental laws and could lead to continued degradation of sensitive
public lands.
While I intend to support this legislation, I want to reiterate my
disappointment that this Congress has missed another opportunity to
craft policy that is both fiscally and environmentally responsible.
Congress can and must do a better job protecting our environment. We
simply will not have a world to live in if we continue our neglectful
ways.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, as we conclude our work today on the omnibus
fiscal year 2005 spending bills, I wanted to take a few moments to
recognize publicly the work of our Appropriations chairman for the past
six years, the Honorable Bill Young of Florida. Like so many members
here in the House I greatly admire and respect my friend Bill Young. He
is truly both a gentleman and leader of this body and his work as
chairman can only be categorized as outstanding.
The Appropriations Committee must find ways to fund the many programs
authorized by the committees of the Congress. It is an awesome and
challenging job requiring a person of skilled leadership abilities to
accomplish. Our chairman is such a person who in his own quiet but fair
manner finds ways to solve the problems around here. The reason is that
warmth, fairness and skill he brings with him every day in coming here
to work.
I support the omnibus legislation, H.R. 4818, we have before us now.
It is a tribute to Chairman Young and his many talents that we are able
to debate and pass this bill today.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to explain my vote in favor of
H.R. 4818, the massive omnibus appropriations act, which incorporates
the nine unfinished spending bills into a single package.
I reluctantly supported this legislation. On the positive side, it
includes millions of dollars I requested for important projects in
southwest Oregon. For example, the bill includes $2 million for the
North Bend Airport Air Traffic Control Tower; $475,000 for the Port of
Brookings Harbor Boardwalk Expansion and $418,250 for the Port of
Brookings Harbor Seafood Processing Plant; $60,000 for Coos and Curry
County METH Reduction and $150,000 for Coos County Law Enforcement
Technologies; $265,000 for the Benton County Health Services in Monroe
for facilities and equipment; and $200,000 for the Springfield Public
Schools, Schools Plus Program.
It provides a significant investment in our Nation's roads, bridges,
and water infrastructure. For southwest Oregon, the bill includes $5
million for the Courthouse District Transportation Improvements in
Eugene; $2 million for the Lane Transit District Bus and Bus
Facilities; $3 million for the Coburg/I-5 Interchange Improvements; and
Wastewater Improvement Funds, including $150,000 for Sweet Home,
$300,000 for Coburg, and $250,000 for Coquille.
I am pleased the bill restores at least some funding for the dredging
of small ports in my district, though more funding is needed. Despite
the fact that these small ports are the economic lifeblood of coastal
communities in my district, President Bush had proposed to zero out
funding for these ports in his budget.
I was also pleased that H.R. 4818 boosts funding for veterans' health
care by $1.9 billion over last year and by $1.2 billion above the level
requested by the President. Though, as I will discuss in a minute,
veterans need and deserve more.
And, I am pleased the bill falls within the spending cap set by the
President. Our Nation cannot continue to run up hundreds of billions of
dollars in debt every year. Reversing the dangerous accumulation of
debt will require discipline on both spending and taxes.
While I supported the bill, I want to note for the record my
disappointment with the inadequate funding levels in several important
areas. These areas could have been funded at higher levels even within
the spending cap

[[Page H10206]]

set by the President if lower priority items, such as the President's
plan to send spacecraft to Mars or military and economic aid to dozens
of countries, were reduced or eliminated.
For example, I am concerned that the bill cuts funding for the Small
Business Administration by 19 percent below its current funding level.
Small businesses are the primary employers and innovators in our
economy. I cannot understand why the House Republican leadership
elected to slash support for small businesses in this bill.
As I mentioned, while funding for veterans' health care was increased
in this bill, I am concerned that the funding level still falls $1.3
billion below the level requested on a bipartisan basis by the House
Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
I am disappointed that H.R. 4818 underfunds the education programs
under the No Child Left Behind Act by $9.6 billion. Title I, Head
Start, IDEA, and after-school programs, among others, are underfunded.
Thousands of children will be left behind by the funding levels in this
bill.
Older students won't make out much better. H.R. 4818 freezes the
maximum award for Pell grants for the second year in a row, despite the
fact that college tuition has risen 36 percent since 2001.
Finally, I think it is outrageous that the House Republican
leadership stripped a variety of important provisions that were adopted
on a bipartisan basis by the House and, in some cases, the Senate as
well. For example, the House leadership cut a provision to protect
overtime pay for millions of American workers. And, a provision to
allow Americans to safely reimport cheaper drugs from overseas was
eliminated at the behest of the pharmaceutical industry.
So, again, I will support this bill, but I will not do so
enthusiastically.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today during this
special Saturday session to discuss the omnibus appropriations we are
now hurriedly trying to pass. While I commend the conferees and
appropriators for completing the extraordinarily difficult task of
agreeing to the language of this legislation pertaining to the nine
appropriations, it is vitally important that all necessary programs are
funded at the appropriate levels. This august body is nevertheless
charged with the responsibility to prioritize in the most efficient
manner possible and with the needs of the American people in mind. Each
Member of this body comes from a district that has its own particular
needs and requirements, and it is our sworn duty to ensure that our
constituents are served.
As we all know, this omnibus bill is a mixed blessing because while
many programs will receive greater funding, many others will lose the
level of funding they received in previous years. Under the agriculture
portion of this omnibus we are appropriating $85.3 billion. This number
is $1.3 billion (1.5 percent less than the fiscal year 2004 level,
which means that many valuable programs will face cuts or losses. But I
also want to make note to the credit of the conferees that the funding
level is $2.3 billion (4 percent more than the Bush administration's
request and $2.1 billion (2 percent more than the original version that
came from the House of Representatives.
Of that total, $68.3 billion (80% is mandatory spending for nutrition
programs, such as food stamps and crop-support programs. There are two
programs in particular that are of great value, both to my constituents
and the Nation: the WIC program and the School Meals Program.
The omnibus has allocated $5.3 billion to the WIC program, which
supports the Women, Infants and Children program. I am pleased to see
that this is $665 million (14% more than the fiscal year 2004 level and
$370 million (7.5 percent more than the original House bill.
The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and
Children, WIC, is a health and nutrition program with a successful
record for improving the diet of infants, children, and pregnant,
postpartum and breastfeeding women who are at risk for nutrition-
related illness. The main focus of the WIC program is to educate
mothers on the proper nutrition for babies and young children. The
target population is low-income women who are pregnant, breastfeeding
or have recently given birth, and children up to the age of 5.
This is a commonsense, simple approach to instill good nutrition into
mothers and children at an early age. The purpose of WIC is to provide
nutrition education and food assistance to those categories of people
who have been found to be the most vulnerable to the effects of
malnutrition and to achieve optimal nutritional status for children
prior to starting school.
Income eligibility for WIC is at 185% of the poverty line, allowing
women who can afford to take care of their children a unique
opportunity to learn about nutrition and pass those skills and
nutrients along to their child. This past year, in my State of Texas,
there were 1,132,467 women who met the eligibility requirements of WIC.
Out of that number, 80 percent, or 901,658 participated in the WIC
program, demonstrating its huge success and appeal.
In my position as a legislator, I often hear criticism of government
programs that don't instantly solve problems with taxpayer money. WIC
is a direct benefit to mothers with young children, providing them with
nutrition education, access to public health care system, (i.e.,
prenatal care, child health, family planning, immunizations) and
supplemental nutritious foods. This combination is a positive cycle
toward a lifetime of healthy living, which will continue to be passed
on for generations. Having a community with healthy, immunized children
is a public good.
The other program I want to address today is the school lunch
program, which $11.8 billion is allocated to under the agriculture
appropriations in the omnibus bill. Unfortunately, this is $364 million
(3 percent less than the current level of funding. Again to be fair
though this appropriation is $405 million (3.5% more than the
President's request and $401 million (3.5% more than the House bill had
originally offered.
According to the American School Food Service Association, both WIC
and the school lunch program provide a link to literacy and support the
Nation's educational goals. Teachers, parents, children and
administrators can all attest how hard it is for a child to concentrate
in a classroom on an empty stomach.

Schools have an important role to play in the development of healthy
children. The school lunch program needs to be adequately funded so
that all children who are with 185 percent of the poverty line can get
a healthy, nutritious meal at school. Until we are able to do this, we
cannot expect all children to learn and engage properly in a classroom.
The school lunch program doesn't just address those that are eating
too little, but also those that indulge too much. The American School
Food Service has stated that the most effective place to begin
addressing overweight and obesity is by teaching children to make
healthy life choices. Obesity has become a leading health problem in
our Nation's schools. Childhood obesity rates have tripled over the
past 20 years, resulting in children suffering from early onset of
traditionally adult diseases such as hypertension, diabetes, and heart
disease.
As reiterated by Dr. Susan Finn, chair of the American Council for
Fitness and Nutrition, it is not a ``black list of foods'' that we must
eliminate in children's diets to create a better balance, but teaching
children to recognize health options and learn to enjoy them. The
school lunch program gives our educational system a prime opportunity
to do so.
I am proud to be here today to pass this bill, and ensure the success
of these two programs. As chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus,
I have always been committed to America's children. Our children are
our Nation's greatest strength and resource. Marian Wright Edelman,
president of the Children's Defense Fund said, ``If we don't stand up
for children, then we don't stand for much.'' Today on this floor I
want all of us to reaffirm our commitment to the welfare of all of
America's children.
Transportation is a vital issue in my district in Houston as I know
it is all throughout America. I am satisfied to know that this omnibus
agreement provides a total of $58.9 billion in budgetary resources for
the Transportation Department, $559 million (1 percent) more than
current funding and $485 million (1 percent) more than originally
requested. I am also satisfied that the amount in the conference
agreement in $48.1 billion more than in the House-passed bill, because
most of the $58.9 billion in transportation funding recommended by the
House Appropriations Committee was removed by points of order during
the debate and had now been restored.
As a body we must insist on proper funding for our long-term
transportation needs because it is of such vital interest to our
Nation. Investments in our Nation's surface transportation
infrastructure create millions of family-wage jobs and billions of
dollars of economic activity. Each $1 billion of Federal funds creates
47,500 jobs and $6.1 billion in economic activity. In addition, this
investment in transportation infrastructure will increase business
productivity by reducing the costs of producing goods in virtually all
industrial sectors of the economy. Increased productivity results in
increased demand for labor, capital, and raw materials and generally
leads to lower product prices and increased sales.
Because so much is literally riding on transportation services for
the 21st century we must insist on a balanced surface transportation
program that serves the mobility needs of our country in a manner
consistent with key democratic principles, including: economic growth,
intermodalism, security, safety, continuity, equal opportunity,
protecting our human and natural environment, rebuilding our transit
and highway systems, encouraging alternative transportation,
encouraging smart

[[Page H10207]]

growth, encouraging advanced technology solutions, and protecting the
rights of workers in transportation industries. While I am satisfied
with the current funding level I look forward to the day when we can
pass a comprehensive and equitable transportation agreement that serves
the 21st century transportation needs of the American people.
I want to spend some time discussing the appropriations made under
the section covering the Veterans Affairs, VA, Housing and Urban
Development, HUD, Independent Agencies appropriations bill. The
conference agreement includes $93.5 billion in discretionary funding
under this section, which is $2.7 billion (3 percent) more than the
fiscal year 2004 discretionary level and $1.4 billion (1 percent) more
than the administration's request. Unfortunately, not all the needs
within this section were fulfilled and too many people will be left to
feel this burden.
I am saddened to say that our Nation's housing programs were hardest
hit by this omnibus. The agreement provides $37.3 billion for the
Housing and Urban Development Department. Sadly, this total is a full
$618 million less than the fiscal year 2004 level but thankfully $521
million more than the administration's pitiful request for housing.
Every year our housing needs grow greater, not less; therefore, I find
it implausible that our funding for housing programs would in fact go
down. Too many people in my district in Houston and in fact throughout
the country are in need of housing assistance, and now as we near the
holidays we are prepared to leave these people out in the cold. I call
for all in this body to make the commitment to housing because in many
ways it is the backbone of the American family and our way of life.

Being from Houston, home of the Johnson Space Center, I am also very
concerned by the level of funding given to NASA. The agreement provides
$16.2 billion for the National Aeronautical and Space Administration,
NASA, $822 million more than the fiscal year 2004 appropriation but a
full $44 million less than the President's request. As a Nation, we
must reaffirm our full commitment to science and space exploration. The
discoveries made through NASA endeavors have many practical
applications as well as helping us to answer questions about our past.
Truly, our Nation would be less complete without the marvels and
innovations that NASA has produced throughout its history. I also want
to make note of the reduction in funding for the National Science
Foundation, NSF, which under the agreement appropriates $5.5 billion,
but is $62 million less than the fiscal year 2004 level and $278
million less than the President's request. Again, as a Nation we must
strive to move forward, not backward in the areas of innovation and
discovery. Our Nation's greatness was built on the hard work of its
people, but it was also greatly aided by the work of our science
community.
Another vital section of this omnibus is the one regarding Labor,
Health and Human Services, HHS, and Education departments and related
agencies. Truly the well being of so many Americans is affected by the
funding levels set in these provisions. We owe it to our constituents
young and old alike to ensure that their needs are addressed in this
portion of the omnibus.
The economic prosperity of the 1990s fueled a drive to increase the
levels of employment-based immigration. Both the Congress and the
Federal Reserve Board expressed concern that a scarcity of labor could
curtail the pace of economic growth. This resulted in an increase of
the supply of foreign temporary professional workers through fiscal
year 2003. The number of petitions approved for H-1B workers escalated
in the late 1990s and peaked in fiscal year 2001 at 331,206 approvals.
Since then, the H-1B annual numerical limit has reverted back to
65,000. That limit was reached on the first day of fiscal year 2005.
The bill before us today includes provisions to address that problem. I
want to thank Senator Kennedy for his work on these provisions.
Before discussing these provisions, I want to emphasize that I
believe American companies should hire American workers first. When
they cannot meet their employment needs by hiring American workers,
however, they should have access to foreign workers.
The H-1B provisions in this bill would exempt H-1B applicants with a
masters or higher degree from a U.S. institution of higher education
from the annual H-1B cap. This exemption would be limited to 20,000 per
year. It also would strengthen labor protections under the H-1B
program. It would reinstate and make permanent the attestation
requirements for H-1B-dependent employers. Employers would be required
to attest that they have not displaced a U.S. worker 90 days before or
90 days after the hiring of an H-1B worker. It would require an
employer to pay 100 percent of the prevailing wage. Current law only
requires 95 percent. It would require a governmental survey to
determine the prevailing wage to provide at least four levels of wages
commensurate with experience, education, and the level of supervision.
Currently, only two wage levels are used.
I am pleased that we have provisions that would strengthen
enforcement protections under the H1-B program. These provisions would
authorize the Secretary of the Department of Labor, DOL, to conduct
random investigations if the Secretary has reasonable cause to believe
that an employer has committed a violation. It also would reinstate
DOL's authority to investigate complaints alleging an employer's
violation of the law.
We also have provisions that would increase H1-B visa fees from
$1,000 to $1,500 for businesses with more than 25 employees. This would
provide greatly needed additional funds for job training activities. It
also would provide additional scholarships for computer science,
technology, and science programs. I want to point out though that it is
an empty victory if our American children are trained to do jobs and
then are unable to find employment.
Finally, we obtained provisions that would provide needed
strengthening of labor protections under the L Visa program to plug
loopholes that are being used to bypass the cap restriction of the H1-B
program. These provisions would prohibit the subcontracting of L-1
workers, and they would toughen eligibility restrictions by requiring
L-1 workers to be continuously employed with the company for at least 1
year prior to obtaining an L visa.
While I am going to vote for this bill with these provisions in it, I
remain concerned about the need to hire American workers first. We must
work together to ensure that American companies make an effort to save
American jobs for American workers. I received a letter from the
American Engineering Association that I want to bring to your
attention. According to the American Engineering Association,
``American tech workers are facing record unemployment and losing their
jobs to outsourcing.'' The Association claims also that, ``Bringing in
foreigners to take tech jobs undermines engineering as a profession and
discourages young people from pursuing this path.''
As I look forward to the 109th Congress, I envision a new approach to
immigration reform. Instead of piecemeal reforms of our broken
immigration system, such as this fix for some of the problems in the H-
1B and L visa programs, we need bipartisan, bicameral support for
comprehensive immigration reform. Effective immigration reform must
provide a certain path to legalization for workers from around the
world who are already living and working in the United States; repeal
and replace employer sanctions with stiffer penalties for employers who
take advantage of workers' immigration status to exploit them and
undermine labor protections for all workers; reform, not expand,
temporary worker programs; and reform the permanent immigration system
so that those who play by the rules are not penalized by unconscionably
long waiting periods. I intend to pursue such reform in the 109th
Congress by reintroducing my Comprehensive Immigration Fairness Act.
Health and Human Services Programs are essential to all Americans and
indeed to our Nation as a whole. I am satisfied that this agreement
appropriates a total of $375.3 billion for the Health and Human
Services Department, including $304.5 billion in fiscal year 2005
appropriations, $68.1 billion in advance fiscal year 2006
appropriations, and $2.8 billion from trust funds. We can never allow
the well being of the people to be short changed, especially when we
are addressing their health care needs.
Unfortunately, I am less than satisfied and in fact disturbed by the
lack of total funding for education programs. The agreement
appropriates a total of $59.7 billion for the Education Department,
including $44.6 billion in fiscal year 2005 funds, and $15 billion in
advance fiscal year 2005 funds. The agreement's total for the Education
Department is $1.4 billion (2 percent more than the fiscal year 2004
appropriation but $306 million less than the administration's request.
Not fully funding our children's education, which in my mind is already
dramatically underfunded, is troubling. Too many children fall through
the cracks of our educational system every year and instead of finding
ways to support them, we instead choose to ignore them once again. I
will always fight for the children of my district and in fact for all
the children of America because their future is tied to ours and our
present actions do not bode well for our Nation.
Again, I will admit that in any large Appropriation measure many
programs will be left underfunded because it is impossible to fund
everything we desire. But that cannot become a defense against short
changing our Nation's priorities such as education, housing, and
transportation. We all bear a responsibility to our constituents to
take the proper time and consider all the options to ensure that their
most vital needs are being met. We as a body may not always agree, but
we do stand together on the principle of protecting the welfare of the
American people, and I for one will

[[Page H10208]]

stand in this Chamber for as long as is needed to ensure that honorable
principle.
The fiscal year 2005 appropriations process was indeed a tough fight,
but it is vitally important for Members to understand that portions of
the tax revenue should be given back to the constituents. For Houston,
TX, I am happy to report the following awards:
In the Labor, HHS portion of this bill, the Donald Watkins Memorial
Foundation will receive $340,000. This is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit
community-based organization established as a direct response to the
rising number of persons living with HIV/AIDS, PLWHA.

The Houston Area Urban League will receive $300,000 to aid in its 35-
years-old mission of assisting the poor and disenfranchised achieve
social and economic equality with the Communities to Work program.
The Houston Independent School District will receive $770,000 to do
its work in early-childhood education. These dollars will enable HISD
to address the critical need of developing an infrastructure suitable
for implementing and operating a program that will deliver an
integrated continuum of services to young children and their families.
The Thurgood Marshall Scholarship will receive $400,000 to facilitate
the following goals: developing student and faculty leadership;
advancing the position of Public HBCUs by providing access to best
practices in development and education; increasing technology,
operations, communications and staff and student expertise;
strengthening minority professional involvement with students in the
areas of community service and career development; and targeting
increased outreach activities of Public HBCUs historical service to
disadvantaged students high school guidance counselors and students to
assure that those in need are aware of and have access to the
opportunities available at Public HBCUs.
The Center for Research on Minority Health at the University of
Texas' M.D. Anderson Cancer Center will receive $500,000 to aid in the
focus on cancer and other health issues that disproportionately affect
ethnic minorities and the medically underserved. While the CRMH
currently works with minority and underserved populations in the
Houston area, its activities will ultimately serve as a model for other
communities nationwide.
Mr. Speaker, because these projects as well as the others that I
received in the Transportation and the VA, HUD portions of the bill
have been so severely cut as a result of the Republican tax cut scheme,
I vote ``yes'' on passage with great reluctance.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time.

Announcement by the Speaker pro tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The Chair would remind all
Members that it is improper under the House rules to refer to Senators
in either a positive or negative fashion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the conference report.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question
will be postponed.

____________________