[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 19296-19406]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



  DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2002

  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Pursuant to the order of the House of today and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for consideration of the bill, H.R. 3061.

                              {time}  1326


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 3061) making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health 
and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies for the fiscal 
year ending September 30, 2002, and for other purposes, with Mr. 
Combest in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the bill 
is considered as having been read the first time.
  The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula).
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to thank the Members of the 
Subcommittee and of the Full Committee for their help in getting this 
bill to the floor. I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey) for working with us on a bipartisan basis.
  This is a far-reaching bill that touches the lives of every American, 
and I think we have had a spirit of bipartisanship in both the 
subcommittee and the full committee, with the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) in their roles 
as chairman and ranking minority members of the full committee.
  I also want to thank the staff of both committees. They have worked 
closely together to ensure that we have a good bill that does the 
greatest amount of good for the American people. And I want to say a 
special thanks to the associate staff of the members of our 
subcommittee. They have been very helpful in letting us know and 
letting the staff of our committee know what was important to their 
members, so that we have tried to incorporate in this bill things that 
are very positive in every way.
  I have said early on that the Bible says there are two great 
commandments, the first is to love your Lord and the second is to love 
your neighbor. This committee is the ``love your neighbor committee,'' 
because there is not a life in America that is not touched by what we 
do.
  We could spend a lot of time, but we do not have a lot of time, so I 
do want to highlight some of the important things in this bill that are 
very essential, very important to the American people.
  The fiscal year 2002 Labor, Health and Human Services appropriation 
bill

[[Page 19297]]

totals $123.371 billion. And I might say here that Chairman Young and 
Ranking Member Obey worked closely with OMB in arriving at the number 
we needed to do this bill in the best possible fashion.
  Also I want to say at the outset it is my understanding that the 
Office of Management and Budget will have a letter to us supporting 
what is in this bill, That is, the Administration.

                              {time}  1330

  It is the result of 2 months of subcommittee hearings in which we 
heard testimony from three Cabinet Secretaries, numerous agency heads, 
as well as 180 public witnesses. The bill provide $14 billion for the 
Department of Labor, which includes a $75 million increase for the very 
popular Job Corp program, $53 million for discretionary programs at the 
Department of Health and Human Services, including $393 million for 
bioterrorism protections.
  And I might mention at this point that we added $100 million over 
what we had originally planned on as a result of the events just 30 
days ago. So we have a very substantial sum to give the Centers for 
Disease Control in Atlanta to respond to bioterrorism concerns.
  We have an increase of $22.8 million for biomedical research 
activities at the National Institutes of Health. And, finally, the bill 
provides increases for the Department of Education, totaling $4.7 
billion above the President's request, and I might say it is in 
conformance with H.R. 1, which passed this House by a very sizable 
majority.
  Mr. Chairman, many in this Chamber as well as the general public have 
been awaiting the movement of this bill over the past months. The 
primary reason for its delay over the summer has been our interest in 
seeing the Committee on Education and the Workforce complete their work 
in authorizing comprehensive reform for our elementary and secondary 
education program, the President's number one domestic priority.
  Although the conference on this legislation is not yet complete, we 
have taken the format of the House passed version of H.R. 1 in crafting 
this bill. As many of you are aware, the bill received an increase in 
its allocation to address the priorities of education reform $4.2 
billion of the $4.7 billion increase in the original allocation is 
devoted to three areas of education funding: Title I funding for the 
disadvantaged, Special Education and Pell Grants. And I am pleased that 
we could increase Pell Grants because this helps those students who do 
not have the necessary resources to get an opportunity to get education 
beyond high school.
  Education programs for the disadvantaged based upon H.R. 1, the No 
Child Left Behind Act, are funded at $10.5 billion. While this funding 
level is a significant increase over last year, I want to highlight a 
major difference in the program over previous years. Under this bill 
and its underlying authorization, schools are now being held 
accountable to children and their parents for achieving success in 
reading and math. Gone are the days when Federal dollars flow to States 
and local education and counties with no accountability. The 
disadvantaged children of this country will no longer be permitted to 
be pushed along from grade to grade with little hope for their futures.
  As a former teacher and principal myself, I recognize the vital role 
of a good teacher in ensuring the success of a student. I appreciate 
the work of the authorizers in recognizing this as well in title II of 
H.R. 1. We have provided $3.175 billion in this bill for teacher 
quality programs. These programs include both training for teachers 
just entering the field and continuing education for those already 
teaching.
  In addition, we have provided $50 million for the Transition to 
Teaching/Troops to Teachers Program. I would especially highlight the 
Troops to Teachers Program, to which our First Lady Laura Bush is 
devoting a great deal of her time. This program will assist retiring 
members of our military by facilitating the necessary steps for teacher 
certification, enabling them to move into the field of teaching for 
their second careers. They bring to this field a vast amount of 
experience, both in working with people as well as experience and in 
many locations around the world. Our dedicated service men and women 
often have extensive knowledge and expertise in science and math, the 
very subjects that so many of our children are struggling with in the 
school experience.
  Further, these military personnel have attained a level of maturity 
and organization that would be of great benefit to our schools today. I 
personally am very enthused about this program and its potential for 
our Nation's leaders, and I am grateful to our First Lady for her 
leadership in attempting to make it a success.
  Next, we know how important the early years of learning are to 
promoting reading readiness. To assist our Nation's youngest children 
in obtaining these vital tools for reading, we are funding two new 
programs in the President's budget request, Reading First State Grants 
and Early Reading First. These programs are intended to enable children 
to derive the necessary tools for success in reading, including 
phonemic awareness, alphabetic knowledge and vocabulary. I know from my 
own experience as an elementary principal that you have to read before 
you can go into science, math and the other disciplines. Reading 
becomes fundamental.
  Consistent with H.R. 1, our bill eliminates 35 programs in the 
Department of Education, consolidating and streamlining them and 
granting maximum flexibility to States and local education agencies to 
use funds to best meet the needs of their students. Again, we will put 
the money where it helps children and not so much in administrative 
costs.
  Many Members have expressed their concerns about the level of Federal 
funding for Special Education. The fiscal year 2002 bill provides $7.7 
billion for grants to the States for Special Education. This level is 
the highest ever for Special Education. As I mentioned earlier, the 
House and Senate education committees have not yet completed their 
conference on H.R. 1 and the issue of how special education is funded 
in the future has been an issue for the conference.
  The Senate version of the bill included a provision to take funding 
for special ed out of discretionary spending and instead provide for it 
through mandatory spending. I want to emphasize that the proposal is 
the wrong way to approach this type of funding. We need to have 
oversight to make sure these programs are reaching the students that we 
want, and that the money is used wisely and carefully.
  We are aware of numerous problems with the program, and only when the 
funding remains on budget is it accountable to the people through 
annual review of the Congress through the appropriations process.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend the Secretary of Education for his 
announcement this past week of a special commission to examine the 
special education program and make recommendations for improving it. It 
is through this process that we can improve the program and more 
effectively fund the many needs of our Nation's children in need of 
special education services.
  Finally, we all recognize the importance of higher education in 
meeting the needs of our 21st century global economy. Higher education 
expenses continue to increase at a higher level than inflation, 
presenting a major barrier for low-income students.
  I am pleased to report that the bill includes an increase in funding 
for the Pell Grant programs which would bring the maximum grant level 
to $4,000, the highest in history.
  The tragic events of September 11 have changed the lives of us all. 
While we are now focusing on terrorism around the world, we must make 
every effort to protect our citizens at home. Through several accounts 
within the Department of Health and Human Services, we are working to 
prepare our public health agencies to respond to bioterrorism threats. 
We have provided a total of $393 million to address these needs.

[[Page 19298]]

  Here at home the health and well-being of our citizens, not just in 
the area of bioterrorism, but otherwise, must remain a priority for us 
all.
  The bill provides an increase of $22.8 million for biomedical 
research activities at the National Institutes of Health. This increase 
is the same programmatic increase requested by the President.
  During the course of our public witness hearings over 7 full days, a 
majority of our witnesses testified about diseases afflicting either 
themselves or a loved one. They appeared before our subcommittee 
seeking hope, hope for successful treatment and cures for these 
diseases. Our members have been touched by this testimony, and we are 
committed to providing funding so that the best and brightest 
researchers in our Nation, and I might say the most dedicated, may work 
to achieve the hope of so many of our citizens. Whether it is hope for 
my young constituent in North Canton, Ohio, who suffers from juvenile 
diabetes, or an older constituent in my district who in his middle 
years has received the devastating diagnosis of Parkinson's disease, 
funds for research are the hope we can provide.
  The countless scientific breakthroughs and studies we have already 
funded have given us a great deal of knowledge in how to prevent 
disease and illness. It is incumbent upon us to share this knowledge to 
improve the health of the Nation. Through the good work of the Centers 
for Disease Control and Prevention, we are getting the messages of 
prevention out.
  In total, the bill provides $4 billion directly to the Centers for 
Disease Control. Its work includes efforts to prevent chronic diseases 
such as diabetes, heart disease and stroke by promoting healthy 
lifestyles.
  Through the work of CDC's epidemic officers, we can bring important 
assistance and assurances to communities when disease outbreaks occur, 
as they did in my district this past spring. Students at a high school 
in my district contracted meningitis, a severe illness with potentially 
life-threatening consequences. The Centers for Disease Control, 
together with the Department of Health, worked to bring the outbreak 
under control and prevent its spread. The presence of CDC brought a 
sense of security to the community.
  Our Nation's community health centers, funded through the Health 
Resources and Services Administration, represent an important health 
care option for the underserved. A funding priority for the President, 
we are providing $1.3 billion for these centers, which is an increase 
of $150 million over last year's bill and $26 million over the 
President's request. These take the place in many areas of emergency 
rooms and provide a much better source of health care on an easy-to-
get-to basis.
  This bill supports our country's comprehensive effort to aggressively 
combat HIV/AIDS, an epidemic claiming 40,000 new victims each year. It 
provides $112 million for the Ryan White AIDS programs, which enable 
individuals to access needed medical care and support services. The 
bill provides $844 million for programs at the CDC which fund research, 
surveillance, as well as State and local efforts to prevent the spread 
of this disease. It continues to support the groundbreaking research 
funded by NIH that could lead to improved treatments and, hopefully, a 
cure one day.
  Through all these programs, this bill continues to support the 
Minority AIDS Initiative, which seeks to address the disproportionate 
impact of HIV/AIDS among racial and ethnic minorities.
  We have included a total of $40 million for abstinence only education 
programs. This amount is $10 million over the President's budget 
request and $20 million over last year.
  The training of pediatricians and pediatric specialists is an 
important priority. I am pleased to report that the bill funds 
Children's Graduate Medical Education at the full authorization level 
of $285 million.
  Following the President's lead, this bill commits substantial 
resources to deal with our Nation's substance abuse program. It 
provides over $2 billion, an increase of $121 million from the previous 
fiscal year. Some of these funds will support the development of new 
prevention and treatment models and improve the delivery of services to 
the homeless population. Over $1.7 billion will be allocated for State 
substance abuse block grants, which support alcohol and drug abuse 
prevention, treatment and rehabilitation services.
  The bill represents security in so many ways for so many people, 
including funding for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program at 
$2 billion, the highest level ever.
  In addressing the President's Faith-Based Initiative, I am pleased to 
report that we have funded two programs in the budget request: The Safe 
and Stable Families Program at $70 million and the Compassion Capital 
Fund at $30 million for a total of $100 million.
  The bill funds the Head Start Program at $6.4 billion, allowing for a 
continuation of the same level of services. It is a $276 million 
increase, and we are urging through report language that Head Start put 
more emphasis on education programs in their areas.
  This bill supports a number of efforts to improve the health and 
quality of life of older Americans. It provides a $10 million increase 
for programs designed to enhance the training of health professionals 
in geriatrics, so they can better understand and respond to the health 
needs of our aging population, and a number of other things that are 
important to seniors, foster grandparents and so on.
  The Department of Labor will receive a total of $14 billion in this 
bill to address growing needs in Workforce Investment Act job training 
as a result of our slowing economy. We provide $105 million over fiscal 
year 2001.

                             {time}   1345

  One compelling public witness who appeared before our committee 
addressed funding for Job Corps. This gentleman, now an employee of 
Roto Rooter in Cincinnati, told us of how his training at a Job Corps 
center and the job he now holds as a result has changed his life. He 
now has hope for his future when before he had none. I think we forget 
when we do these bills how they really touch the lives of people, and 
he was such a classic example of how important this program was to his 
future and what a great difference it has made.
  Independent agencies. We gave the Social Security Administration 
additional funds so that when people need help in understanding their 
Social Security situation, there will be enough staff to take care of 
them.
  We worked with the Institute of Museum and Library Services, again an 
important agency for the people of America. Libraries in communities 
across this Nation are windows of opportunity for so many young and 
elderly people alike.
  The bill before you is a balanced, bipartisan bill. Through the 
numerous programs I have just described and the many I have not had 
time to mention, the bill provides security and hope for our citizens 
in greatest need.
  I say to my colleagues, I ask for your support of passage of this 
bill. It is a good bill. It is a fair bill. It tries in a balanced way 
to address the multiplicity of needs, and it does show that we are a 
good neighbor, that this Nation cares about the quality of life for all 
its citizens.

[[Page 19299]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.001



[[Page 19300]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.002



[[Page 19301]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.003



[[Page 19302]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.004



[[Page 19303]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.005



[[Page 19304]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.006



[[Page 19305]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.007



[[Page 19306]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.008



[[Page 19307]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.009



[[Page 19308]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.010



[[Page 19309]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.011



[[Page 19310]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.012



[[Page 19311]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.013



[[Page 19312]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.014



[[Page 19313]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.015



[[Page 19314]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.016



[[Page 19315]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.017



[[Page 19316]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.018



[[Page 19317]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.019



[[Page 19318]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.020



[[Page 19319]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.021



[[Page 19320]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.022



[[Page 19321]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.023



[[Page 19322]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.024



[[Page 19323]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.025



[[Page 19324]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.026



[[Page 19325]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.027



[[Page 19326]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.028



[[Page 19327]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.029



[[Page 19328]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.030



[[Page 19329]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.031



[[Page 19330]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.032



[[Page 19331]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.033



[[Page 19332]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.034



[[Page 19333]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.035



[[Page 19334]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.036



[[Page 19335]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.037



[[Page 19336]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.038



[[Page 19337]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.039



[[Page 19338]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.040



[[Page 19339]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.041



[[Page 19340]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.042



[[Page 19341]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.043



[[Page 19342]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.044



[[Page 19343]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.045



[[Page 19344]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.046



[[Page 19345]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.047



[[Page 19346]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.048



[[Page 19347]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.049



[[Page 19348]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.050



[[Page 19349]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.051



[[Page 19350]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.052



[[Page 19351]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.053



[[Page 19352]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.054



[[Page 19353]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.055



[[Page 19354]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.056



[[Page 19355]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.057



[[Page 19356]]

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 11 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, Jim Dyer, Craig Higgins, Carol Murphy, Meg Synder, 
Susan Firth, Nicole Wheeler, Francine Mack-Salvador, Lori Rowley, David 
Reich, Cheryl Smith, Linda Pagelson, Lin Liu, David Pomerantz, Scott 
Lilly, Bob Bonner, Melody Clark, Christina Hamilton, Norm Suchar, Dayle 
Lewis, Scott Boule, Kristin Holman, Charles Dujon, Matt Braunstein, 
Chris Kukla and the associate staff on the majority side: What do all 
of those names have in common? They are the people who really put 
together this bill. Every Member of the House will have an opportunity 
to vote on this bill, and I think we can do that proudly, because I 
think it is a good bill. But the people who worked just as hard and, in 
fact, probably harder and the people who worked out many of the 
compromises that were needed to produce a bill which is truly a 
bipartisan bill were the people whom I just named. I want to express my 
appreciation to each and every one of them, because without them, we 
would not be able to deliver what we are delivering to the American 
people here today.
  In my view, Mr. Chairman, this bill ought to be named the Family 
Opportunity and Health Security Act of 2001, because this bill, more 
than any other bill that we deal with, provides opportunity for average 
working families to share in the goodness that this society provides. 
And it also provides for the improvement of the health of every single 
American and, in fact, probably every single person in the world who is 
within the reach of any kind of civilized medicine. I think we ought to 
be very proud of that.
  This is the second bipartisan bill that we have had on labor, health 
and education and social services in the last 7 years, and I hope that 
it is going to be the first of a long series of bipartisan bills in the 
future. This bill is the place that you go to measure congressional 
commitment to equal opportunity in education, to worker protection, 
worker fairness at the bargaining table. It is the place you go to see 
what our society will do to help those who are unlucky enough to be 
without health care or who have special problems in the health care 
area and need special help. It is the place where virtually every 
family goes to obtain advances in medical care. And it is the place 
where many people in this society go who live life on the underside to 
find some help and some relief from the pain and pressure of their 
daily problems. And I would say it is also the place where we go if we 
want to have some measure of the determination that is being applied, 
the human ingenuity that is being applied, in order to unlock the 
scientific mysteries of disease and its treatment and to protect public 
health. And each and every Member of this House can be proud to vote 
for this bill.
  The bill is $12 billion over last year and I make an apology for 
absolutely not one dollar. I wish it had been more, because the 
families in this country who are serviced by this bill need more help 
than this bill will provide. The bill is $7 billion above the 
President, and I am pleased about that.
  In the area of education, for the past 5 years this Congress has 
produced an education bill which provides about a 13 percent increase 
on average. The President's budget this year initially recommended that 
that increase be cut to 5.8 percent. This bill provides a 17 percent 
increase in funding for education. There is no more important long-term 
investment that we can make than that one.
  In the area of education, special education, Mr. Chairman, is the 
third largest item in this bill. It is funded at $375 million above the 
President's recommendation. We have $7.7 billion in the bill. In 2 
years we will have increased the Federal share of the cost of providing 
special education by 50 percent, and I hope we can increase it by 50 
percent again in the next 2 years.
  Title I is the main program that we use to try to provide extra 
educational help to the children who need it most, disadvantaged 
children who are at risk of dropping out and never making it, either in 
school or in society. This bill provides $10.5 billion, $1.4 billion 
over the President's request, $1.7 billion over last year. This is the 
largest increase in that program in the history of the program.
  Pell Grants. That is the main program by which we assist average 
working-class families in this country to send their kids to college. 
It is a real door-opener to higher education opportunity. We provide in 
this bill a $4,000 maximum grant for those who qualify, $150 over the 
President's request, $250 over last year. Every dollar is well spent 
and will be well received by the American people.
  The block grant for teacher training and class size reduction, $1 
billion over last year and $575 million over the budget recommendation.
  After-school centers, $154 million above the request. That program is 
in demand more than almost any I know in this bill, because as 
families' life-styles have changed, so have their needs to see to it 
that their children at all times will be in healthy, wholesome places. 
There is no more treacherous time for children from the age of 12 to 15 
than the after-school hours. That is when most of the juvenile crime is 
committed in this country and that is when we need the most supervision 
of kids, and this program, I hope, will be an ever-expanding program to 
help provide that supervision.
  In the area of health care, we are $1.3 billion above the President, 
$3.4 billion above last year. Community health centers, we are $26 
million above the President. That has also been a high priority item 
for the President himself. For Healthy Start, we are $102 million in 
this bill, $12 million again above the budget request.
  Centers for Disease Control, crucial in these times when we are 
concerned about public health, when we see the anthrax concerns in 
Florida, we are $265 million above last year, $430 million above the 
President's request. For bioterrorism, we have a 28 percent increase 
above last year and the President's budget and in a follow-on 
appropriation bill we will have substantially more money than we have 
in this bill for that same item.
  Mental health, $68 million above the President. There ought to be 
more. We have serious problems that are not being met in that area.
  Human services. The Low-Income Heating Assistance Program that helps 
keep low-income senior citizens warm in the wintertime so they do not 
have to choose between heating and eating, $300 million above the 
President's request. I wish it could be more. Head Start, $276 million 
above last year.
  In the area of the Labor Department, all of the personnel cuts in 
OSHA and Mine Safety have been eliminated. And we have added what I 
consider to be all too modest increases in other worker protection 
accounts. The international labor program that helps defend our workers 
and our country from the production of goods and services by slave 
labor and child labor abroad, we have restored fully the cuts that were 
recommended in the White House budget.
  Title VI, foreign language studies. As I said in Committee, when the 
Russians invaded Afghanistan a number of years ago, we did not have 
enough language specialists to respond in the correct language. So our 
information services responded in Farsi. That did not help anybody in 
Afghanistan. They may have understood it in Iran, but they did not 
understand it in Afghanistan. We missed the target a little bit. Since 
then, what has happened in that area? Almost nothing. That is why we 
have a 19 percent increase in this bill. As you know, we also had an 
increase in another bill for the same item that passed this House last 
week.
  All in all, this bill is far from perfect. I think given the needs of 
our society, we need more in education, in health care and in worker 
protection, but this is a very good bill given the circumstances in 
which we found ourselves in January. I very much appreciate the efforts 
made by the majority to make this a bipartisan bill. I very much 
appreciate the professionalism with which this bill has been approached 
by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the distinguished subcommittee 
chairman, and also the distinguished gentleman from Florida

[[Page 19357]]

(Mr. Young). He and I have many, many political differences. We do not 
have very many personal differences. We have disagreed many times but 
we have dealt with each other, I think, in a straight-shooting way. And 
I appreciate the fact that after some concern on this bill, we have 
brought a bill to this floor today under the rules of the House which 
treats everyone fairly and respectfully. And I think because of that, 
we are going to see a very large vote for this bill on both sides of 
the aisle.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the full committee. 
Again I want to emphasize how much help he and the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) in his role as ranking on the full committee have 
provided to us to make this bill the success that I think it is.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this very good 
appropriations bill for our educational systems, for our health 
systems, for our labor programs and all of the associated programs 
represented by this bill. I want to add my compliments to Chairman 
Regula. For years, Chairman Regula chaired the Subcommittee on the 
Interior and did an outstanding job. This is his first time to chair 
this very important subcommittee, and he and Ranking Member Obey have 
presented a bill that I think we can all be very, very proud of. The 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey) have explained much of the detail of the bill and I am not going 
to reiterate that.
  I would like our Members to know that they might be a little 
surprised to see the bipartisanship in this debate today, but it was 
nearly 4 months ago that Chairman Regula, Ranking Member Obey and I sat 
together and decided that we really ought to make this a good bill that 
represents the needs of America rather than anyone's political agenda. 
That is what we have done and that is what we present to you today. 
This is the second largest appropriations bill of our 13 regular bills, 
the first being national defense.

                              {time}  1400

  Each one equally is important. National defense and the defense 
appropriations provide what is needed to secure America; this bill 
provides what is needed to secure the people of America in their 
personal needs, their health needs, their educational needs. The 
subcommittee has done a really great job in bringing this bill before 
us.
  I wanted to compliment the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart). 
I listened attentively to her comments earlier today. She discussed an 
important issue. But I really appreciate and thank her for the 
statesmanlike way that she addressed not only the issue, but the way 
she addressed the legislative process. I think she is to be 
complimented for the way she has handled herself on this particular 
issue.
  It was important today to get this bill completed. It is the next to 
the last of the regular appropriations bills. The next one and the last 
one will be National Defense.
  Then we change direction and go to the conference reports. We plan 
today to have the first conference report of a regular bill, the 
Interior bill, on the floor; and we will move quickly to conferencing 
all of the other bills that have been passed by both the House and the 
Senate. And hopefully our Members can look forward to early dismissal 
on the part of appropriations bills.
  We will also be required to do another continuing resolution for 
approximately 1 week, which hopefully again we will do that this 
afternoon as well.
  With that, I would just like to again compliment the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Regula) for an outstanding job, the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey) for an outstanding job, and all the members of the 
subcommittee and the staff on both sides of the political aisle for 
producing a good bill for Americans, one we can all be proud of.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to rise initially, as I said in full committee, 
I have had the opportunity to serve on this subcommittee now for 18 
years. It has been led by some extraordinary Americans on both sides of 
the aisle. I started my service under Mr. Natcher. Bill Natcher of 
Kentucky was a legend in this institution. During the course of his 
service, he cast more consecutive votes than any person in history, a 
compliment to his sense of responsibility and his extraordinary self 
discipline. Succeeding him was Mr. Smith, and then the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), and then Mr. Porter. When the Republicans took 
control in 1995, John Porter succeeded to the chairmanship, and he did 
an extraordinary job in a bipartisan fashion.
  This bill, however, was not always treated in a bipartisan fashion, 
as we know, not, frankly, because of the appropriators or the chairman 
of the Committee on Appropriations, but because of the extrinsic forces 
that came on to the committee with reference to caps on spending that 
were totally unrealistic and therefore led to either the bill being 
considered in a partisan fashion or, in fact, 1 year not being 
considered at all on the floor of the House and ultimately being 
considered in an omnibus appropriations bill.
  But this year, this is a real bill; and it is a good bill. It is not 
a perfect bill. In fact, of course, we never pass perfect bills. But 
this bill is unique. It is in so many ways the people's bill, because 
it affects literally millions and millions, not only of Americans, but 
people around the world, who benefit from the research at NIH and who 
benefit from other facets of this legislation. But clearly the American 
people are advantaged by this bill.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is absolutely correct when he 
says there are insufficient resources in this bill. When you sit in 
markup on both sides of the aisle, liberals, conservatives, East, West, 
North and South, Members say there needs to be more in this program or 
that program. I am going to speak about a couple of them briefly.
  But this basically is a good bill; and I will support it, as the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is going to support it.
  I want to again say, as I do almost every time I stand, because I 
think it is important for the American public to know the kind of 
leadership we have on critically important committees, the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Young) is the epitome of fairness, integrity and 
bipartisanship. His view is on America's well-being, not on partisan 
gain. Those of us who serve with him are advantaged by doing so. I 
thank him for his leadership.
  The good news for our subcommittee is that the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Regula) falls into the same category of a person focused on 
America, on Americans, and the country's interests, not on partisan 
interests. Therefore, this advantages this bill and our country.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, let me mention a couple of issues, if I might, 
that I am very concerned about. The National Immunization Program at 
CDC receives a significant increase in this bill; and I thank the 
chairman of the subcommittee for that, an increase of $47.5 million 
over fiscal year 2001. But that is still only half the level that the 
Institute of Medicine recommended in its report last year for State 
operations and infrastructure and vaccine purchase.
  As the recent report on anthrax in Florida has proven to us, the 
threat of a biological attack on this Nation is a very real one. I just 
got off the phone doing a tape for radio with reference to yesterday's 
incident on a Metro train. As a result, we need to do all we can to 
ensure that our public health system is able to respond in the event of 
attack.
  I will say more about this when we mark up in conference. I know that 
there will be some emergency monies available for this objective as 
well at CDC.

[[Page 19358]]

  My understanding is the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Cleland, has 
suggested as much as a half a billion dollars increase in CDC to 
anticipate and deal with appropriate response in the event of a 
biological or chemical threat to the health of a city, a region, or our 
country.
  Let me discuss one additional issue, Mr. Chairman, briefly; and that 
is the Assistive Technology Act of 1989. I bring that up not because we 
will add more money to this bill for that objective, but because I am 
hoping in conference we can add some authorizing legislation. Obviously 
it must be done with agreement of the authorizers, both in the House 
and Senate. I understand that, and we are working with them.
  But if we fail to do so, nine States are going to lose assistance to 
make assistive technology available to those with disabilities so that 
they can be more able to participate fully in our society, whether it 
is jobs or in their home. I appreciate the chairman's concern about 
this and that he is working with us; and I appreciate the assistance of 
the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), with this 
effort as well.
  If we do not do something next year, nine States in 2002 will lose 
dollars; and 14 States will lose dollars in 2003 if we do not take 
action. I am hopeful we will do so, because this assistive technology 
is extraordinarily important to those challenged with disabilities to 
be fully incorporated into our society. That was the promise of the 
Americans with Disabilities Act which President Bush signed on July 26, 
1990; and it is an effort that we ought to make to ensure that that 
promise is fully met.
  Again, I thank the chairman of the full committee; and I thank the 
chairman of the subcommittee and our ranking member for working so 
diligently to make this bill within the resources available to us the 
best it could possibly be.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Boehner), one of the pride and joys of Ohio, our chairman of 
the Committee on Education and the Workforce, who has done an 
outstanding job of providing reforms that will make sure that no child 
is left behind.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, let me thank my colleague from Ohio for 
yielding and begin by congratulating the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Regula) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Young), and others who have worked so diligently over the 
last several months in putting together what truly is a bipartisan bill 
that we have on the floor today. All of us who have been here for any 
length of time know the difficulty this bill endures every year, and it 
is a real tribute to the three of you and the others involved in 
bringing this bill together.
  Like the House-passed education reform bill that preceded it, the 
bipartisan bill that we have on the floor today by our appropriations 
colleagues represents a reasonable and necessary compromise between 
Republicans and Democrats on education spending levels.
  The gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) and the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) deserve great credit for their work, which follows 
H.R. 1 closely and paves the way for reforms that will improve public 
education for millions of American children. Like H.R. 1, it calls for 
more funding to implement long overdue education reforms. Like H.R. 1, 
it targets funding toward key programs, such as title I, to reflect the 
Federal Government's original mission in education, and that is helping 
those students who need the help the most.
  It increases title I from the current $8.6 billion per year to $10.5 
billion, a down payment on our shared goal of closing the achievement 
gap between disadvantaged students and their peers.
  It triples funding for reading programs to $900 million to implement 
the President's Reading First initiative and helps schools implement 
programs based on scientific research.
  It increases funding for teachers program by $1 billion a year to 
implement and make sure that States and schools can put the best-
qualified teachers in each of our classrooms.
  It increases bilingual education from $460 million a year to $700 
million a year.
  It increases funding for Individuals With Disabilities Education Act 
(Part B) by $1.4 billion over last year's number. We should all 
recognize that the increases that we have given to IDEA over the last 6 
years have more than doubled funding for students with disabilities; 
and this increase that we have in this bill, I think, is a giant step 
forward in meeting our long-term obligation.
  The bill also increases Pell Grants by $1.7 billion over last year's 
level and increases the maximum award granted to $4,000 per student. In 
a time of a slow economy, this $4,000 in Pell Grants will help the 
neediest of our high school graduates get the kind of education and 
training they need.
  These funding increases should be complemented by the enactment of 
historic reforms that are at the core of the President's education 
plan. The new accountability that we see in the President's package 
will help us stem what has been going on in this town for a long time. 
New increases without accountability will simply amount to business as 
usual in Federal education policy, prolonging the status quo that 
Republicans and Democrats have pledged to jointly bring to an end.
  Thirty-five years of mediocrity have taught us that money alone will 
not close the achievement gap between disadvantaged students and their 
peers. The House-Senate Education conference will continue working to 
ensure that these significant funding increases are targeted toward 
children who need the most help, instead of toward new bureaucracy. 
They must be used to strengthen existing programs, such as title I, so 
that disadvantaged students are served, rather than to create new 
unproven programs that really do not address the primary goal.
  So I think we have a bill on the floor that mirrors H.R. 1. We expect 
our conference to be completed in the next several weeks. That and the 
completion of this bill, I think, will start us on a path where we can 
make sure that no child in America is left behind.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), the ranking minority member on the 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to start off by taking a moment 
to personally thank the members of the Committee on Appropriations for 
the inclusion of increased funding for Parkinson's disease research. We 
are now on the verge of discovering a cure for Parkinson's. This strong 
Federal commitment on both the Republican and Democratic side will 
bring us closer to that end, and I appreciate all those Members helping 
out.
  I do come before the floor today also in the spirit of bipartisanship 
that has been the rule of the day. In the wake of the cowardly and 
horrific attacks on our Nation on September 11, partisan wrangling is 
indeed frivolous.
  To ensure that the business of this Nation moves on without delay, I 
decided not to offer an amendment today that, though I think it is 
crucial for the importance of the health of millions of Americans, 
could potentially be controversial and slow down the legislative 
process.
  Had our Nation not been struck on that faithful day 1 month ago 
today, I would have offered an amendment to expand stem cell research. 
This amendment, which I would like to submit for the Record at this 
time, takes a cautious measured approach to realizing the full 
potential of promising research.
  Mr. Chairman, I include the amendment I had proposed for the Record.

  Amendment to H.R. 3061, as Reported Offered by Mr. Evans of Illinois

       At the end of section 510, add the following:

       (c) Human Embryonic Stem Cells.--
       (1) Findings.--The Congress finds as follows:
       (A) The President's decision to allow human embryonic stem 
     cell research to go forward on stem cell lines derived on or 
     before August 9, 2001, provides a crucial first step in 
     conducting basic research on stem cells.
       (B) Basic research on human embryonic stem cells is 
     essential to determine how

[[Page 19359]]

     stem cells proliferate, specialize, and differentiate.
       (C) Human embryonic stem cell research holds promise for 
     cures and improved treatments for a wide array of diseases 
     and injuries, including Alzheimer's disease, cardiovascular 
     disease, diabetes, Parkinson's disease, and spinal cord 
     injuries.
       (D) The National Academy of Sciences and leading biomedical 
     researchers agree that therapies for use by humans will not 
     result from stem cell lines derived from human embryos on or 
     before August 9, 2001, which have been grown with the use of 
     animal products that pose health risks to humans.
       (E) The President's policy must be revised if the Nation is 
     to realize human applications of stem cell research.
       (F) Given the promise of human embryonic stem cell 
     research, the Congress should act expeditiously to consider 
     Federal funding for this important research. If the Congress 
     fails to address this issue expeditiously, the National 
     Institutes of Health must be allowed to expand Federal 
     funding of human embryonic stem cell research beyond research 
     on stem cell lines derived on or before August 9, 2001.
       (2) In general.--Not later than August 9, 2003, the 
     Director of the National Institutes of Health shall issue 
     guidelines to authorize funding for research using stem cells 
     that were derived from human embryos after August 9, 2001, if 
     the applicant provides assurances satisfactory to the 
     Director of the following:
       (A) Date of derivation.--The research cannot be conducted 
     effectively using one or more stem cells that were derived 
     from a human embryo on or before August 9, 2001.
       (B) Conditions of derivation.--Any human embryonic stem 
     cell to be used in the research may be derived from an embryo 
     only if that embryo has been donated from an in-vitro 
     fertilization clinic in compliance with the following:
       (i) The human embryonic stem cell is not derived from the 
     embryo using Federal funds.
       (ii) The embryo from which the stem cell is derived is 
     created for the purpose of fertility treatment and is in 
     excess of the clinical need of the individuals seeking the 
     treatment.
       (iii) Before being asked to consider donating the embryo 
     for research purposes, the embryo's progenitors determine 
     that the embryo is in excess of their clinical need for 
     fertility treatment.
       (iv) Before being asked to consider donating the embryo for 
     research purposes, the embryo's progenitors are given the 
     option of donating the embryo to an infertile couple for 
     adoption.
       (v) The embryo is donated with the informed, written 
     consent of the embryo's progenitors (including a statement 
     that the embryo is being donated for research purposes).
       (vi) The decision of the embryo's progenitors to donate the 
     embryo is made free of any influence by any researcher or 
     investigator proposing to derive or use human embryonic stem 
     cells in research.
       (vii) Any compensation paid for the human embryonic stem 
     cell does not exceed the reasonable costs of transportation, 
     processing, preservation, quality control, and storage of the 
     cell.
       (3) Earlier stem cell lines.--This subsection does not 
     impose any restriction on funding for research using stem 
     cells that were derived from human embryos on or before 
     August 9, 2001.
       (4) Application.--Paragraph 2(A) shall not apply after 
     August 8, 2005.
       (5) Effective date.--The guidelines issued under paragraph 
     (2) shall take effect on August 9, 2003.

                              {time}  1415

  I believe the majority of my colleagues will find this compromise a 
prudent approach to this sensitive issue.
  The amendment acknowledges the President's policy as a good starting 
place and allows research to go forward only under this policy in the 
near future. The science is in its infancy and the President's policy 
may be ultimately sufficient to conduct the most basic stem cell 
research that will be the foundation of science for the years to come.
  But this policy will not suffice for the long term. Leading 
researchers and the National Academy of Sciences agree that it will not 
result in human therapies. This amendment would give Congress plenty of 
time to thoughtfully consider the issue of federal funding for 
embryonic stem cell research. However, if we fail to act in the next 
two years, NIH would be directed to incrementally expend embryonic stem 
cell research over a period of several years.
  While I will not offer this compromise amendment today, I wanted to 
take this opportunity to remind members how critical this issue is to 
the millions of Americans who stand to benefit from this exciting new 
research. I hope that I can count on my colleagues' support when we 
revisit this issue next year.
  I would also like to take a minute to personally thank the members of 
the Appropriations Committee for the inclusion of increasing funding 
for Parkinson's Disease research. We are on the verge of discovering a 
cure for Parkinson's Disease. This strong federal commitment will bring 
us closer to that end.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood), a member of the subcommittee who is very 
constructive in his work and offers many useful suggestions.
  Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time. I rise in strong support of H.R. 3061.
  Mr. Chairman, it has been a real pleasure for me to serve on the 
Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education of the 
Committee on Appropriations, which has produced this good bill that 
touches the lives of all Americans. The bill, which deserves our high 
praise and strong support, is the bipartisan product of the altruistic 
spirit and genuine compassion of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), 
the chairman of the subcommittee. As the chairman has often said, this 
clearly is the ``love thy neighbor'' bill.
  It is fitting that we come together today, 1 month after the 
dastardly attacks on our Nation, to provide America with the resources 
that we need to defend against the threat of bioterrorism and to aid 
working Americans who have lost their jobs.
  I am also glad that we have been able to fulfill the President's 
Reading First initiative. It is with education that we prepare for the 
future, and education begins with reading.
  I am particularly gratified that the bill provides a $1.4 billion 
increase in special education. My 20 years on the public school board 
in Tunkhannock, Pennsylvania, has shown me how much more difficult 
local spending decisions made by school boards were made by IDEA 
mandates without adequate Federal funding. So I am glad that we 
addressed that.
  Yesterday, the National Center for Health Statistics reported that 
America's life expectancy rose again last year. That report is a credit 
to the effort of Congress to support biomedical research and to improve 
treatments and cures for illnesses which afflict the American family. 
With this bill, we continue that effort.
  Although it is a very modest program, only $5.3 billion, the Rural 
Community Assistance Program and the Office of Community Services Rural 
Facilities is very vital. RCAP helps rural communities to apply for 
assistance and to improve their infrastructure to sustain safe, 
affordable water.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, while the terrorists on September 11 may 
have succeeded in bringing down our World Trade Towers and temporarily 
scarring the Pentagon, they only strengthened our resolve to get better 
prepared for bioterrorism and better educate our children.
  I want to commend in the strongest terms possible our chairman, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Regula), and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for their strong 
leadership with this bipartisan bill. It is certainly a step forward in 
better preparing our country educationally and better preparing our 
country against terrorism.
  On title I, a program to help educate our most vulnerable and needy 
poor children, we have a 20 percent, $1.7 billion increase to attach 
new reforms and testing to remediate and tutor these children. In Pell 
grants, this is a first-time Pell grant hit up to $4,000 for students 
going to college; and that is 57,000 more students who will be eligible 
to go to college. We also have a program called Transition to Teaching, 
working on our quality teaching in this country, which is the real key 
to success for all children.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for their help there.
  Head Start programs have a $276 million increase, about a 4 percent 
increase keeping up with inflation. It

[[Page 19360]]

will help early Head Start significantly more, with more children, for 
0 to 3. I hope we will continue to do more for Head Start in 
conference.
  Finally, on bioterrorism, we have a $301 million increase for 
stockpiling vaccines and for Federal, State, and local responses to 
help better prepare our forces for a bioterrorist attack. I would 
encourage this committee in the strongest terms that this is a first 
step. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) and I have 
bipartisan legislation for a $1.4 billion increase to better prepare 
this country on bioterrorism. I hope we will take those steps later on, 
maybe in the supplemental bill.
  Mr. Chairman, again, I applaud the leadership for this bill.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Keller).
  Mr. KELLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak in favor of the Pell grant 
increase in the Labor-HHS-Education appropriation bill.
  Started in 1972, the purpose of the Pell grant program is to 
financially assist students from low-income families who would not be 
able to attend college because of the financial burden it would place 
on the student and his family. For example, my mom was a single parent 
who raised three children on the modest salary of a secretary. We lived 
in a one-bedroom home growing up. I personally would not have been able 
to go to college if it was not for the Pell grant program. In fact, one 
in five college students today benefit from Pell grants.
  This year we will invest $10.5 billion in Pell grants, the largest 
investment in our country's history. College students will now be able 
to receive up to $4,000 a year, or $16,000 over a 4-year college 
career. This will fully cover the cost of tuition, fees and books at 
the University of Central Florida in Orlando. Now, all children, rich 
or poor, will have the opportunity to go to college.
  This investment will also help generate up to $85 billion a year in 
additional tax revenues because students earning a bachelor's degree 
make 75 percent more money on average than those with only a high 
school diploma. I want to personally commend and thank the chairman of 
the subcommittee, the chairman of the full committee, and the ranking 
member of the subcommittee for their historic leadership in providing 
this high-level Pell grant funding. They are truly friends to our 
millions of college students who depend on this aid to go to college.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Pell grants and ``yes'' 
on the Labor-HHS appropriation bill.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy 
in allowing me to speak in support of this bill.
  I join my colleagues in saluting the committee for the progress for 
education and health, especially for the IDEA special education grants. 
I understand why it was difficult to deal with issues of school 
modernization; but I am hopeful that before this Congress adjourns that 
we are able to assess that critical need.
  But I would like to address my particular attention to the issue of 
public broadcasting. The committee has found a way to provide $365 
million in advanced funding for the Corporation for Public 
Broadcasting. I think we have all been made aware, just in the course 
of this last month in our quest for information and news in the wake of 
September 11, what a critical role public broadcasting plays. A number 
of the Members of this Chamber looked last week again at some of the 
critical research videos that have been advanced that really provide 
broad public understanding of the events in the Middle East.


  But of critical importance to public broadcasting is the Federal 
mandate that all TV stations expand from traditional analogue to modern 
digital transmission by May 2003. This is a powerful new tool for 
public broadcasting, but without Federal assistance for digital 
conversion, many areas of the country could lose their public broadcast 
signals. One-third of the 347 member stations in the system are 
considered at risk.
  I appreciate the language in this bill providing for an additional 
$25 million for digitalization; however, this appropriation must be 
specifically authorized in subsequent legislation. I urge my colleagues 
to remain aware of this issue and authorize the appropriation in the 
future. We cannot afford to lose the connection that public broadcast 
provides between its groundbreaking educational, entertainment, and 
cultural productions in our communities everywhere. The committee has 
done its job, and I hope that Congress will follow through.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), also a member of the 
subcommittee.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
fiscal year 2002 Labor, Health and Human Services and Education 
appropriation bill. It is really a privilege for me to serve on this 
committee; and I personally want to thank our chairman, the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Regula), and our ranking member, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). I know of their commitment to the issues that we 
discuss in this committee; and I want to also thank the staff of the 
committee, both majority and minority, who really have been a pleasure 
to work with. Their cooperation has allowed us to consider what should 
have been the least contentious bill in years, and I do hope that some 
of the amendments that were in the planning will not be offered so that 
we can all stand together in support of this really good bill that 
serves people in this country, because I certainly do not want to be 
here discussing some of these amendments. I would rather be working on 
ways to provide for the defense of our citizens, of finding ways to 
stimulate the economy.
  This bill has provided for funding for so many programs that are 
needed by the American people. The bill significantly increases funding 
for the National Institutes of Health. We must continue to provide 
robust funding for medical research so that we can find the cures for 
disease.
  The bill also provides a large increase for the 21st Century Learning 
Centers After School Program. I remember when I first got on this 
committee and we had $1 million in the program, and now we are up to $1 
billion; and the lines are still long in every community of people who 
want to provide funding for after-school programs, so I want to thank 
again the chairman and the ranking member for their help in that area. 
The program gives millions of children a place to go after school where 
they can participate in meaningful activities.
  I just want to mention one other thing. I do hope as this bill moves 
through the process we can add some money for school modernization. It 
has been an issue I have been working on for a very long time, and it 
is so very important. I do hope we can invest in that critical area. 
There are so many schools in terrible condition, and we should do 
something to help local school districts fix this problem. This bill is 
a very big step in the right direction.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the bill; and I urge my colleagues to support 
it as well.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I am proud to join my good friend, the gentleman from 
Illinois, (Mr. Evans) who spoke just briefly a few minutes ago in 
addressing the important issue of stem cell research. The gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Evans) and I are deeply committed to pursuing ways 
to reevaluate the August 9 cutoff date of the number of stem cell lines 
that can be used for four simple reasons. First, research is needed. 
Nearly one-half of the American

[[Page 19361]]

population could benefit from stem cell research.

                              {time}  1430

  Two, in vitro fertilization. There are 400 in vitro fertilization 
clinics throughout the country helping hundreds of thousands of couples 
per year experience the joy of childbirth through in vitro 
fertilization. This process necessarily creates more embryos that can 
be used, so to relegate these potentially lifesaving cells to the trash 
heap instead of NIH laboratories after the arbitrary deadline of August 
9 is inconsistent and unfair to 135 million Americans.
  Third, current stem cell supply. Since August 9 we have learned that 
the 64 cell lines identified by NIH are not all robust and may not be 
safe because many researchers have mixed human cells with mouse.
  Finally, fourth, government oversight. Irrespective of the 
President's guidelines, the private sector in the United States, as 
well as the public and private sectors abroad, will continue to conduct 
research on stem cells that fall outside the parameters established by 
the Bush administration.
  We cannot let America fall behind in this research, and cannot deny 
our citizens the cures and treatments that may result from research 
conducted on cells derived after August 9. We must provide strong 
oversight to ensure that research is conducted by ethical means that do 
not force us to wrestle with similar moral questions in the near 
future.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the President for taking the first step, but I 
respectfully implore my colleagues to take the next. I look forward to 
working with Members in this endeavor.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi), the newly elected and soon-to-be whip of the 
Democratic Party.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding time to 
me, and for his excellent service in bringing this bill to the floor.
  I want to commend, certainly, our new chairman of the committee, the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), and our big chairman, the chairman of 
the full committee, for their extraordinary leadership. With all of 
them working together, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Regula) put us in position today to vote for a bill that is worthy of 
our support.
  One of the challenges, Mr. Chairman, that has been of particular 
prominence in the minds of all Americans since September 11 has been 
the threat of bioterrorism. On the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence, where I serve as the ranking Democrat, we have studied 
the threat posed by biological and chemical agents and our ability to 
respond.
  Great strides have been made in recent years, but we must strengthen 
the ability of the public health infrastructure to detect and contain 
an attack and treat its victims. This bill provides an increase of $60 
million to improve surveillance and strengthen our medical response.
  In addition, $20 million has been included for pilot projects to 
explore the feasibility of developing a Nationwide Health Tracking 
Network among all States to identify and track disease and related 
environmental factors. The CDC will use this and increased funding for 
its environmental health lab to rapidly assess human exposure to 
environmental toxins.
  I am pleased also that HIV care and treatment through Ryan White has 
been increased by $112 million, and HIV prevention at the CDC has been 
increased by $86 million.
  For the fourth year in a row, we have provided dramatic increases in 
biomedical research at the NIH. In addition to progress in the search 
for better treatments and eventually a vaccine for AIDS, these 
investments are yielding phenomenal progress in our understanding of 
the human body and how we are affected by our environment.
  Additional resources, thanks to our distinguished leadership, have 
been provided for child care, breast and cervical cancer treatment, 
drug treatment, bilingual education, worker safety, and many other 
important areas.
  This progress is promising, and I look forward to working with my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to address the unmet health, 
education, and labor needs that remain.
  I urge my colleagues to support the labor, health and human services, 
and education bill.
   Mr. Chairman, I comment Chairman Regula and Ranking Member Obey for 
their leadership on the Labor-HHS-Education Subcommittee. This is a 
difficult time for our Nation, and this can be a difficult bill to pass 
because it addresses important needs that we all feel passionate 
about--health care, education, and a strong work force. The 
Appropriations Committee has risen to this challenge and I am proud of 
the bipartisan bill that has been produced.
  One challenge has been particularly prominent in the minds of all 
Americans since the September 11th attacks is the threat of 
bioterrorism. On the Intelligence Committee, where I serve as the 
Ranking Democrat, we have studied the threat posed by biological and 
chemical agents and our Nation's ability to respond. Great strides have 
been made in recent years, but we must strengthen the ability of our 
public health infrastructure to detect and contain an attack, and treat 
its victims. This bill provides an increase of $60 million to improve 
surveillance and strengthen our medical response.
  In addition, $20 million has been included for pilot projects to 
explore the feasibility of developing a Nationwide Health Tracking 
Network among all States to identify and track disease and related 
environmental factors. The CDC will use this and increased funding for 
its environmental health lab to rapidly assess human exposure to 
environmental toxins, including biological and chemical agents.
  I am also pleased that HIV/AIDS care and treatment through the Ryan 
White Care Act has been increased by $112 million, and HIV prevention 
at the CDC has been increased by $86 million.
  As new infections remain steady and treatment advances reduce the 
number of AIDS deaths, more people than ever are living with HIV/AIDS 
and in need of treatment regimens that are costly, complicated, & 
lifelong.
  For the fourth year in a row, we have provided dramatic increases in 
biomedical research at the National Institutes of Health. In addition 
to progress in the search for better treatments and, eventually, a 
vaccine for AIDS, these investments are yielding phenomenal progress in 
our understanding of the human body and how we are affected by our 
environment.
  Additional resources have also been provided for child care, breast 
and cervical cancer screening, drug treatment, bilingual education, 
worker safety, and many other important areas. This progress is 
promising, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle to address the unmet health, education, and labor 
needs that remain. I urge my colleagues to support the Labor-Health and 
Human Services-Education Appropriations bill.
  These needs are especially critical for communities of color, where 
the majority of new AIDS cases are occurring, and I am particularly 
pleased that funding for the Minority HIV/AIDS Initiative is increased 
by $37 million. Greater access to voluntary counseling & testing, 
stronger linkages between prevention & treatment, improved access to 
AIDS drugs, and a reduction in new HIV infections worldwide are vital, 
and will require significantly more resources than we currently 
provide.
  We must continue to increase these resources, and commit ourselves to 
ensuring that the third decade of the AIDS epidemic is the last decade 
of the AIDS epidemic. The increases that are provided in this bill are 
an important step forward.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) is 
recognized for 1 minute.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, 1 month after September 11, 
Americans continue to contemplate the vulnerability of human life. So I 
think it is very fitting that we pass a bill today which does so much 
to preserve and prolong human life.
  The bill increases funding for medical research, and keeps within 
reach the goal of doubling funding for NIH within 5 years. It includes 
report language that reinforces Congress' commitment to fully fund the 
NIH Parkinson's disease research agenda for fiscal

[[Page 19362]]

year 2002. The bill reaffirms the President's commitment to stem cell 
research. The plan is far too limited, but it is a small step forward. 
I am pleased that it includes a substantial increase for education, 
although the bill should have funded the school repair and renovation 
program.
  I applaud the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young), the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Regula), and the ranking member, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), for forging this bill in a bipartisan spirit at a 
very difficult time. They set an example for the appropriations process 
this fall, and for American unity and resolve.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I have just two things. I would like to read from the 
Administration letter. It says: ``The Administration appreciates that 
the House has retained the current language provision concerning 
Federal funding for needle exchange programs and the Hyde language 
regarding the Federal funding of abortions.''
  So I want to make clear that this is the same language as has been in 
the past.
  I also want to point out that we do have now the statement of 
administration policy. It has been coordinated by OMB with all the 
agencies, and it is a good statement supporting the provisions of this 
bill. So it truly is a bipartisan bill. It has the support of the 
leadership on the other side of the aisle and it has the support of our 
leadership and the support of the White House.
  I would urge when we get to the final vote, that all the Members of 
this body support it. It is truly, as Mr. Natcher used to say, a 
people's bill.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, my goal in Congress has been the 
promotion of livable communities. A community that is safe, healthy and 
economically secure must make the education of our children a priority. 
The well-being of our families depends on the federal government 
adequately funding health, education and worker protection programs.
  Today's Labor-HHS Appropriations bill is a step in the right 
direction. It triples the President's proposed rate of new educational 
investment and significantly increases funding for health care and 
worker protection programs.
  The bill increases education funding by $7.0 billion over last year's 
level, and $4.7 billion over the President's request. Over the last 5 
years, the average annual rate of new educational investment has been 
13%. The Bush budget proposed to cut this rate in half to only 5.5%, 
but the bill passed today increases this to almost 17%--the highest in 
a decade. Today's bill increases Title 1 funding, special education 
funding and teacher training and class size reduction funding by over 
$1 billion. These vital funds will help schools to hire up to 20,000 
teachers to reduce class sizes and provide intensive, high quality and 
sustained professional development to as many as 825,000 teachers.
  I applaud the Appropriations committee for approving a bill that does 
so much for health care in America. The bill increases health programs 
in the Department of Health and Human Services by $3.4 billion, which 
is a 10% increase above last year's level. We can all celebrate the 
increase in funding for Head Start and bioterrorism preparedness.
  The bill restores proposed enrollment cuts in Head Start with an 
increase of $276 million over FY01 levels, preventing potential cuts of 
as many as 2,500 children from current Head Start enrollment levels. We 
must not neglect our children at this very important stage in their 
development. Our communities will also feel the security of an 
increased investment in the prevention of bioterrorism, a renewed 
threat to our nation. It is important, now more than ever, that we are 
prepared with the vaccines and drugs necessary to prevent exorbitant 
injury and loss of life in the event of a bioterrorist attack.
  I am particularly pleased that the bill will increased our commitment 
to fighting HIV/AIDS, and helping the victims of this terrible disease. 
The FY02 bill will increase Center for Disease Control AIDS prevention 
and tracking funds by $53 million, and provide $112 million more than 
the FY01 level for Ryan White grants.
  I am also encouraged by several of the labor provisions included in 
the bill. Funding for the Department of Labor is increased by 5%, 
rather than cut by 3% as was proposed by the Administration, providing 
growth in the major employment, training, and worker protection 
programs. Some of those improvements include the bill's restoration of 
the 180 employees that the White House budget proposed to cut from the 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).
  The bill increases Jobs Corps funding $75 million over last year, 
reversing the President's proposal to flat fund the program. It also 
restores funding to FY01 levels for the International Labor 
Organization, reversing the President's proposal to cut $76 million our 
of this program that works to prevent child and slave labor.
  I am pleased that the committee provides $365 million in advance 
funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. We all are aware 
of the value of public broadcasting and that value is even more 
apparent during our quest for information and news in the wake of the 
September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
  Of critical importance to Public Broadcasters is the Federal mandate 
that all public TV stations expand from traditional analog to modern 
digital transmission by May 2003. I appreciate the language in this 
bill providing an additional $25 million for digitalization. Without 
federal assistance for digital conversion, one-third of the 347 member 
stations the Public Broadcasting System are considered at risk of 
possibly losing their public television signal once the transition 
period ends and analog transmission is no longer possible.
  These are all important programs for advancing quality of life goals, 
and supporting all of our citizens. I urge support for this bill.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bipartisan 
agreement represented by H.R. 3061. The Labor, Health and Human 
Services and Education appropriations bill.
  I particularly want to applaud Chairman Regula and Ranking Member 
Obey on the yeoman's job they have done to bring this bill to the 
floor.
  This bill provides significant increases for education above the 
President's request, and restores and increases funding in many 
critical health programs above the original request as well. Among 
these, I am especially pleased that Healthy Start will receive a 13% 
increase.
  Our Minority HIV/AIDS initiative was not funded at its requested 
level of $540 million. The committee however did provide an increase of 
$37.3 million above last years funding, an increase of about 11%. For 
that increase, which is reflected across the board in all of the 
Departmental agencies, which have responsibility for HIV and AIDS, we 
are grateful. While it is short of what we determined would be needed, 
it has the potential to reach many infected and affected people within 
communities of color and other hard to reach populations, who have been 
disproportionately and devastatingly impacted by this disease.
  What we still have major concerns about is the language, which does 
not go far enough to ensure that this program funding will go to build 
capacity in the most severely impacted communities of color.
  We would ask that the leadership and those in the conference 
committee continue to work with us to ensure that the intent and the 
integrity of the Minority HIV/AIDS initiative--an initiative that would 
not only begin to bring the epidemic that exists in our communities 
under control, but also begin to repair and rebuild a now fragmented 
healthcare infrastructure. In the long run, this small amount of 
funding, with the appropriate targeting can greatly impact the health 
status not only of those special populations we seek to reach but the 
entire nation.
  We look forward to addressing the language issue, as it will 
determine how effective this funding will be.
  In the meantime, we again thank the Committee and the Subcommittee 
for their assistance and support.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the H.R. 3061, making 
appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, 
and Education and a number of related agencies for the fiscal year 
2002.
  I want to commend Chairman Regula and Ranking Democrat Obey and the 
Members of the Subcommittee on their fine, bipartisan work in crafting 
this bill. While I do not agree with every provision of the bill--no 
one does--I deeply appreciate the cooperation and restraint on both 
sides of the aisle that have brought use to consideration of the bill 
today.
  This bill supports programs and services that are among the most 
important to our constituents, both in ordinary times and in times of 
crisis.
  As we move forward from the dreadful attacks of September 11th, we 
must continue to support our children's education, the health and well-
being of our people, and the ability of our workforce to thrive in the 
economy of the 21st Century. At the same time, we must help those whose 
lives have been disrupted in the aftermath of the attacks and 
strengthen our long-neglected public health system to meet

[[Page 19363]]

future challenges, as the anthrax cases in Florida demonstrate.
  The bill would provide $14 Billion for the Department of Labor, 
including important increases in funding for the Job Corps, which has a 
successful site in my district, and the Employment Standards 
Administration (ESA) and Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 
which protect workers from exploitation and injury.
  The Department of Health and Human Services would receive $53 billion 
in discretionary appropriations, including important initiatives in 
countering bioterrorism, increases for biomedical research, disease 
control and prevention, and health services. The $150 million increase 
in funding for community health centers is particularly welcome. Also 
receiving increases are the child care block grant, Head Start, and 
other important social services programs, although I wish we could have 
done more for LIHEAP.
  The Education Department would receive $49 Billion, 17% above last 
year. The President and Members on both sides of the aisle recognize 
the crucial importance of reforming and funding better schools for our 
children. In many ways, our future depends on this. The increase in the 
Pell Grant to $4,000 is also to be applauded.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill. I might have put more money into 
it and distributed the funds a bit differently, but I am pleased to 
support it and urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3061, the 
Fiscal Year 2001 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education 
Appropriations bill. This legislation would provide $395 billion for 
the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and 
related agencies. I am especially pleased that this legislation would 
provide a 16 percent increase for education funding and 12 percent 
increase for biomedical research conducted through the National 
Institutes of Health (NIH).
  With regard to education, I am pleased that this bill would 
dramatically increase funding for education programs by providing $7 
billion over FY 2001 levels and $4.7 billion above the President's 
request. Over the last five years, the average annual rate of new 
educational investment has been 13 percent. This legislation would 
increase the education investment to 17 percent--the highest in a 
decade. While the bill does not include separate funding for the class-
size reduction initiative, I am pleased that the program was redirected 
into teacher quality state grants. Under this legislation, these state 
grants will receive a $1 billion increase to help schools reduce class 
size and provide professional development for teachers and other school 
employees. Additionally, the committee's inclusion of $975 million for 
the President's Reading First initiation will enable schools to bring 
proven, research-based reading programs to students in the critical 
early learning years. The $1 billion increase for 21st Century After 
School Centers will provide students with a quality after school 
program. And for students continuing on to higher education, the 
increase in the Pell Grant maximum grant to $4,000 will enable low-
income students to meet today's ever-increasing educational costs. 
Additionally, the bill wisely rejects proposed enrollment cuts to Head 
Start, preventing possible cuts for as many as 2,500 children from this 
critically important program.
  I am also pleased that the committee included a 50 percent increase 
in the federal share of special education costs. Over a two-year 
period, the funds will raise the federal share toward special education 
costs to 18 percent from 12 percent. In 1975, Congress passed Public 
Law 94-142, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 
which committed the federal government to fund up to 40 percent of the 
educational costs for children with disabilities. However, the federal 
government's contribution has never exceeded 15 percent, a shortfall 
that has caused financial hardships and difficult curriculum choices in 
local school districts. According to the Department of Education, 
educating a child with a disability costs an average of $15,000 each 
year. However, the federal government only provides schools with an 
average of just $833. While I believe the funding increase in this 
legislation represents a step in the right direction, I believe we must 
abide by our commitment to fund 40 percent of IDEA costs, and I am 
hopeful that we will consider greater funding increases in the next 
fiscal year.
  While the overall bill is a good one, there are many important 
programs that were level-funded or eliminated under this legislation. 
To that end, I look forward to working with my colleagues to continue 
funding for these programs at adequate levels, or in the case of school 
modernization, to work for its reinstatement. In total, though, this 
bill makes important investments in education, and will provide 
America's children with the resources they need to succeed and be 
productive members of our society.
  As a Co-Chair of the Congressional Biomedical Research Caucus, I am 
pleased that this legislation provides $22.9 billion for the National 
Institutes of Health (NIH), an increase of 12 percent or $2.6 billion 
more than last year's budget. This $22.9 billion NIH budget is our 
fourth payment to double the NIH's budget over five years. I am 
disappointed that this $22.9 billion does not provide the $3.4 billion 
that we believe is necessary to maintain our goal of doubling the NIH's 
budget over five years. Earlier this year, I organized a bipartisan 
letter in support of this $3.4 billion increase for the NIH. I 
understand that the Senate Labor, Health, and Human Services, and 
Education Fiscal Year 2002 Appropriations bill includes a $3.4 billion 
increase for the NIH. It is my hope that the conference committee will 
adopt this higher NIH budget.
  I am a strong supporter of maximizing federal funding for biomedical 
research through the NIH. I believe that investing in biomedical 
research is fiscally responsible. Today, only one in three meritorious, 
peer-reviewed grants which have been judged to be scientifically 
significant will be funded by the NIH. This higher budget will help 
save lives and provide new treatments for such diseases as cancer, 
heart disease, diabetes, Alzheimer's, and AIDS. Much of this NIH-
directed research will be conducted at the teaching hospitals at the 
Texas Medical Center. In 2000, the Texas Medical Center received $289 
million in grants from the NIH. I will continue to work to ensure the 
highest level of funding for the NIH.
  I am also pleased that this bill provides $393 million for countering 
bioterrorism, including $100 more above last year's budget. In light of 
the recent terrorism acts, I believe we all believe that this investing 
in our national public health system is necessary and prudent. This 
budget provides $301 million for the Public Health and Social Services 
Emergency Fund which would support programs at the Office of Emergency 
Preparedness. As the representative for the Texas Medical Center, which 
was recently affected by devastating flooding by Tropical Storm 
Allison, I can attest to the need for such funding. During this natural 
disaster, the Office of Emergency Preparedness was one of the first 
federal agencies to provide relief to our area and I applaud their 
efforts to immediately act to help during disasters. This $393 million 
budget will also provide $93 million in bioterrorism research at the 
NIH.
  In addition, I support the $4.1 billion budget for the Centers for 
Disease Control, a $214 million increase or 6 percent increase above 
last year's budget. The CDC is critically important to monitoring our 
public health and fighting disease. Of this $4.1 billion CDC budget, 
$1.1 billion will be provided to address HIV/AIDS programs and to 
combat tuberculosis. This CDC budget also provided $599 million to 
provide immunizations to low-income children. Immunizations have been 
shown to save lives and reduce health care costs. Investing in our 
children is a goal which we all share.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and vote for this 
important health, education and labor funding measure.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support 
for forward funding of the LIHEAP program. Due to the nature of winters 
in Chicago and the east coast we can now implement safe guards for all 
our citizens. As we approach the coming winter months, preparation by 
forward funding can eliminate overwhelming burdens placed on low income 
families. The city of Chicago alone, has seen tremendous fatality rates 
due to excessively hot summers and extremely cold winters. The 
Department of Justice estimates that home heating oil prices could be 
30% higher this winter from the previous winter and that natural gas 
prices could surge 40% higher. More than 150,000 of my constituents 
lives at or below the poverty level and with these circumstances are 
often faced with harsh and difficult decisions. Some of these citizens 
are forced to choose between medicine and cool air in the summer and 
between food and heath for their homes in the winter. According to the 
Roundtable Report to the Public Utilities Committee of the House of 
Representatives, the average winter bill for a typical family of four 
is 5.9% of their annual income. A family of four living at 125% of 
poverty pays between 20% to 37% of their annual income for winter 
heating cost. The low income families cannot afford to pay these high 
energy cost. Therefore, I am in strong support of Representative 
Quinn's amendment for an advance in the LIHEAP funding. We already know 
that many low income families will fall behind on their heating bills; 
however, we can offer an alternative by the passage of this amendment.
  I urge its consideration and passage.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, when my children were growing up and 
before they had

[[Page 19364]]

an understanding of the family budget, they would ask for things that 
we were sometimes unable to provide. They were usually extravagant 
things we simply could not afford. We didn't blame them for asking--
they were just kids--they didn't know better.
  What is our excuse? Is there a Member of the body who can't 
understanding the fiscal implications of declining Federal revenues 
combined with the cost of financing of a war?
  How many of us I wonder will file down here and dutifully cast our 
vote for this bloated, extravagant, piece of profligate spending and 
then go home to tell our constituents that we are appalled by the fact 
that the Social Security surplus has been blown.
  There is more than one kind of threat to the Nation--one stems from 
foreign terrorists and another from the fiscal irresponsibility of 
budget busting appropriations like this.
  The 12.6 percent increase in this bill is unconscionable. I am not 
saying that the hundreds of programs funded in this bill are not all 
individually wonderful. They will surely bring about a totally literate 
society while concurrently wiping out poverty in America as one would 
be led to believe by listening to the rhetoric supporting it. What I am 
saying is that they are not as important as providing for the common 
defense. This after all is the thing for which we have sole and 
paramount responsibility--it is not our main responsibility to be the 
Nation's school board or health care provider.
  And Mr. Chairman, I know it is hard to hear what I am going to say. 
It was hard to tell it to our kids but here it goes--we can't afford 
this bill. If we can't defeat it I hope the President will act as the 
adult here and veto the bill.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member wishes to add his strong 
support for H.R. 3061, the Labor, Health and Human Services and 
Education Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2002. This Member would 
like to commend the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], the 
Chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human 
Services and Education, and the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin 
[Mr. Obey], the ranking member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee 
on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education, for bringing this 
important bill to the House Floor today.
  In particular, this Member supports the additional $25,000,000 
provided to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting for digitalization. 
Public broadcasting has been issued a mandate to be on the air with a 
digital signal by 2003. By FY 2004 all stations will bear the 
additional costs of dual carriage of analog and digital signals. 
Nebraska ETV Network has worked closely with this Member and has 
informed me and shown evidence that they anticipate using the digital 
signal to offer multicating and interactive video that will enable the 
network to address even more needs of children and adult learners. The 
State of Nebraska has already committed significant resources to 
convert the nine-station Nebraska ETV Network to digital technology. 
The funding plan approved by Nebraska's legislature and governor to 
ensure the Network's compliance with the Federal mandate assumed a 
commitment from the Federal Government to help close the DTV funding 
gap. If we are to ensure that our local communities continue to receive 
the rich educational, cultural and informational programs and services 
offered by local public television stations, we must help them.
  On another issue, the Member would like to commend his colleagues for 
their continued support of efforts to improve the delivery of health 
services in rural areas. Specifically, H.R. 3061 provides $142 million 
for the National Health Service Corps, which plays a critical role in 
maintaining the health-care safety net by placing primary health-care 
providers in our nation's most underserved rural and urban communities. 
The measure also appropriates $1.319 billion for the Consolidated 
Health Centers program--$150 million more than fiscal year 2001. 
Community Health Centers (CHCs) provide primary and preventive care to 
medically underserved and uninsured people, including 5.4 million rural 
residents. Certainly, this Member commends this effort and encourages 
the expansion community health center services to address the needs of 
rural and underserved communities.
  This Member is especially pleased that the appropriations bill 
provides $35 million for the Medicare Rural Health Flexibility Program. 
Nebraska has been on the forefront of converting rural hospitals to 
critical access status. As of October 1, 2001, Nebraska has 53 Critical 
Access Hospitals which is the most in the country.
  Furthermore, H.R. 3061 appropriates $52 million to the Rural Health 
Outreach and Network Development and Research Grant Program and $27.6 
million to the Rural Telemedicine Grant program. These grants are 
available to rural communities working to provide health care services 
through new and creative strategies including telemedicine and trauma 
care services.
  Additionally, this Member would like to take this opportunity to 
explain his ``nay'' vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Schaffer], a vote taken with some reluctance but very 
careful consideration. Within this Member's home state of Nebraska, the 
number of children enrolled in special education programs has risen by 
3,700 students from 1995-1999, a nine percent increase. This Member has 
always supported fulfilling the commitment made by Congress made in 
1975, which this Member notes was prior to his service in U.S. House, 
to fund IDEA at 40 percent.
  Currently, the Federal Government is funding an average of 12.6 
percent of the per pupil expenditure for children with disabilities. 
The other 27.4 percent of our unfilled promise is a burden that state 
and local governments are having to include in their budgets. This 
Member has said for many years now that the one significant way that 
Congress can help decrease property taxes for his Nebraska constituents 
as well as to meet their other programmatic, construction or enhanced 
teacher salary priorities, is to keep the congressional promise to 
provide 40 percent of the costs of special education.
  Of course, it would be ideal to have the full 40 percent funding of 
IDEA in the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education 
Appropriations Act. However, the Schaffer amendment would have severely 
cut appropriations for disadvantaged children through Title I, 
vocational education and TRIO in order to offset the increase in IDEA 
funding. The underlying bill (H.R. 3061) provides a $1.4 billion 
increase for IDEA, which is $400 million above the President's request. 
Furthermore, this Member notes that over the past two years, funding 
for IDEA has been increased by $2.7 billion.
  Mr. Chairman, in closing, this Member urges his colleagues to support 
H.R. 3061.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in strong support of 
H.R. 3061, the FY02 Labor, HHS and Education spending bill.
  First, I want to thank Chairman Regula for his yeoman's work on this 
legislation. Each year, the spending bill for the Departments of Labor, 
HHS, and Education is among the most difficult to complete and this 
year is no exception.
  H.R. 3061 builds on investments in education which really began to 
take off in FY96. At the time, K-12 funding totaled $11.2 billion. 
Since then, K-12 funding has increased to $20 billion in FY01, and I am 
pleased to say that this investment continues even today.
  More important, H.R. 3061 reflects the bipartisan education 
priorities that passed the House as part of the No Child Left Behind 
Act, and it increases funding for programs, like IDEA and Title I, 
which haven't always received sufficient funding in the past.
  Since the enactment of IDEA, Congress has increased funding for State 
grants under this act from $251.7 million in FY1997 to $6.34 billion in 
FY2001, with the amount appropriated for State grants nearly tripling 
in just the last six years.
  Under the leadership of former Members Porter and Goodling, we have 
increased funding by more than $4 billion--175% increase in the Federal 
contribution.
  This year we will add an additional $1.4 billion, increasing the 
total to $7.7 billion. This is the highest level of Federal support 
ever provided for children with disabilities, with the level of Federal 
funding growing from 7 percent of the per pupil expenditure to 18 
percent.
  While this bill may not fully fund IDEA, I believe it takes a 
significant and responsible step in the right direction. More 
important, it gives the Education and the Workforce Committee the 
flexibility it needs to successfully reauthorize the program next year.
  H.R. 3061 also helps address the problem of overidentification of 
special needs children in IDEA by fully funding the President's request 
on the reading first and early reading first programs. This more than 
triples our current investment in reading instruction.
  We have seen tremendous increases in the number of students, and 
African American students in particular, diagnosed with learning 
disabilities and referred to special education. As former Chairman 
Goodling used to say, we will never get to full funding until we 
address this problem.
  If we are able to identify and intervene with these children--as 
proposed in reading first and early reading first--we take the first 
step in reducing the number of students who cannot read, reduce special 
education referrals, and pave the way to fully funding IDEA.
  On Title I, AID to disadvantaged children, H.R. 3061 appropriates 
$10.5 billion, an increase of $1.9 billion. This funding will support

[[Page 19365]]

the reforms in the No Child Left Behind Act, which will require 
additional funds to turn around failing schools and ensure all students 
are proficient in reading and math.
  Also critical to the successful implementation of the No Child Left 
Behind Act, the bill provides $400 million to help States develop and 
implement the annual reading and math assessments for students in 
grades 3-8. In so doing, H.R. 3061 puts a downpayment on our system of 
accountability--the heart of our education reform package.
  In conclusion, I want to again thank Chairman Regula and Chairman 
Young for their excellent work on this legislation. They have managed 
to produce a balanced bill that will help our country fundamentally 
change the way we educate our children for the better.

                              K-12 FUNDING
                        [In billions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Funding
                          Fiscal year                             level
-------------------------------------------------------------------\1\--

                            DEMOCRAT MAJORITY
1990..........................................................       8.5
1991..........................................................       9.7
1992..........................................................      10.7
1993..........................................................      10.7
1994..........................................................      11.0
1995..........................................................      11.3
Note.--Average year increase 6 percent.
Total spending, $61.9 billion.
32.9 percent overall increase 1990-1995.

                           REPUBLICAN MAJORITY
1996..........................................................      11.2
1997..........................................................      12.5
1998..........................................................      13.4
1999..........................................................      15.7
2000..........................................................      16.6
2001..........................................................      19.7
Note.--Average year increase 12.1 percent.
Total spending $89.1 billion.
75.9 percent overall increase 1996-2001.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes Goals 2000, School-to-Work, ESEA and VocEd.

  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the bill shall be 
considered for amendment under the 5-minute rule.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord 
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has 
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those 
amendments will be considered as read.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 3061

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the Departments of 
     Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and related 
     agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, and 
     for other purposes, namely:

                      TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

                 Employment and Training Administration

  Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I do have an amendment to offer. I had planned to offer 
a couple of amendments having to do with funding for IDEA, special 
education.
  But I have to say that within the constraints of the budget, the 
distinguished subcommittee chairman, my friend, the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Regula), has done an extraordinary job in raising funding for this 
critical program by $1.375 billion. I believe that is the greatest 
increase that we have had from this body since I have been here.
  It does not meet the objective of reaching 40 percent, or our 
mandate, within a specified period of 5 or even 10 years, but it 
recognizes, and certainly it is an extraordinarily commendable effort 
on the part of this subcommittee, and expresses the intent of this 
subcommittee chairman to meet this goal as quickly as possible.
  We do have opportunities on the horizon. IDEA will be up for 
reauthorization next year. It is my hope that we can combine the 
process of reauthorization with an effort to set this Congress on a 
path to meeting the 40 percent funding goal in a set period of time.
  I thank the chairman for his hard work in this area.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BASS. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I want to add to that that the minority 
also is extremely supportive of this increase, and there truly is 
bipartisan support for the program.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                    training and employment services

       For necessary expenses of the Workforce Investment Act, 
     including the purchase and hire of passenger motor vehicles, 
     the construction, alteration, and repair of buildings and 
     other facilities, and the purchase of real property for 
     training centers as authorized by the Workforce Investment 
     Act; the Women in Apprenticeship and Nontraditional 
     Occupations Act; and the National Skill Standards Act of 
     1994; $3,485,147,000 plus reimbursements, of which 
     $2,110,707,000 is available for obligation for the period 
     July 1, 2002, through June 30, 2003; of which $1,353,065,000 
     is available for obligation for the period April 1, 2002, 
     through June 30, 2003; and of which $20,375,000 is available 
     for the period July 1, 2002, through June 30, 2005, for 
     necessary expenses of construction, rehabilitation, and 
     acquisition of Job Corps centers: Provided, That $3,500,000 
     shall be for carrying out the National Skills Standards Act 
     of 1994: Provided further, That no funds from any other 
     appropriation shall be used to provide meal services at or 
     for Job Corps centers.
       For necessary expenses of the Workforce Investment Act, 
     including the purchase and hire of passenger motor vehicles, 
     the construction, alteration, and repair of buildings and 
     other facilities, and the purchase of real property for 
     training centers as authorized by the Workforce Investment 
     Act; $2,098,000,000 plus reimbursements, of which 
     $1,998,000,000 is available for obligation for the period 
     October 1, 2002, through June 30, 2003; and of which 
     $100,000,000 is available for the period October 1, 2002, 
     through June 30, 2005, for necessary expenses of 
     construction, rehabilitation, and acquisition of Job Corps 
     centers.


            community service employment for older americans

       To carry out title V of the Older Americans Act of 1965, as 
     amended, $440,200,000.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder 
of title I be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to 
amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the remainder of title I is as follows:


              federal unemployment benefits and allowances

       For payments during the current fiscal year of trade 
     adjustment benefit payments and allowances under part I; and 
     for training, allowances for job search and relocation, and 
     related State administrative expenses under part II, 
     subchapters B and D, chapter 2, title II of the Trade Act of 
     1974, as amended, $11,000,000, together with such amounts as 
     may be necessary to be charged to the subsequent 
     appropriation for payments for any period subsequent to 
     September 15 of the current year.
       In addition, for such purposes, $404,650,000, to become 
     available only upon the enactment of authorizing legislation.


     state unemployment insurance and employment service operations

       For authorized administrative expenses, $163,452,000, 
     together with not to exceed $3,236,886,000 (including not to 
     exceed $1,228,000 which may be used for amortization payments 
     to States which had independent retirement plans in their 
     State employment service agencies prior to 1980), which may 
     be expended from the Employment Security Administration 
     Account in the Unemployment Trust Fund including the cost of 
     administering section 51 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986, as amended, section 7(d) of the Wagner-Peyser Act, as 
     amended, the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, the Immigration 
     Act of 1990, and the Immigration and Nationality Act, as 
     amended, and of which the sums available in the allocation 
     for activities authorized by title III of the Social Security 
     Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 502-504), and the sums available 
     in the allocation for necessary administrative expenses for 
     carrying out 5 U.S.C. 8501-8523, shall be available for 
     obligation by the States through December 31, 2002, except 
     that funds used for automation acquisitions shall be 
     available for obligation by the States through September 30, 
     2004; and of which $163,452,000, together with not to exceed 
     $773,283,000 of the amount which may be expended from said 
     trust fund, shall be available for obligation for the period 
     July 1, 2002, through June 30, 2003, to fund activities under 
     the Act of June 6, 1933, as amended, including the cost of 
     penalty mail authorized under 39 U.S.C. 3202(a)(1)(E) made 
     available to States in lieu of allotments for such purpose: 
     Provided, That to the extent that the Average Weekly Insured 
     Unemployment (AWIU) for fiscal year 2002 is projected by the 
     Department of Labor to exceed 2,622,000, an additional 
     $28,600,000 shall be available for

[[Page 19366]]

     obligation for every 100,000 increase in the AWIU level 
     (including a pro rata amount for any increment less than 
     100,000) from the Employment Security Administration Account 
     of the Unemployment Trust Fund: Provided further, That funds 
     appropriated in this Act which are used to establish a 
     national one-stop career center system, or which are used to 
     support the national activities of the Federal-State 
     unemployment insurance programs, may be obligated in 
     contracts, grants or agreements with non-State entities: 
     Provided further, That funds appropriated under this Act for 
     activities authorized under the Wagner-Peyser Act, as 
     amended, and title III of the Social Security Act, may be 
     used by the States to fund integrated Employment Service and 
     Unemployment Insurance automation efforts, notwithstanding 
     cost allocation principles prescribed under Office of 
     Management and Budget Circular A-87.


        advances to the unemployment trust fund and other funds

       For repayable advances to the Unemployment Trust Fund as 
     authorized by sections 905(d) and 1203 of the Social Security 
     Act, as amended, and to the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund 
     as authorized by section 9501(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1954, as amended; and for nonrepayable advances to 
     the Unemployment Trust Fund as authorized by section 8509 of 
     title 5, United States Code, and to the ``Federal 
     unemployment benefits and allowances'' account, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2003, $464,000,000.
       In addition, for making repayable advances to the Black 
     Lung Disability Trust Fund in the current fiscal year after 
     September 15, 2002, for costs incurred by the Black Lung 
     Disability Trust Fund in the current fiscal year, such sums 
     as may be necessary.


                         program administration

       For expenses of administering employment and training 
     programs, $113,356,000, including $5,934,000 to administer 
     welfare-to-work grants, together with not to exceed 
     $48,507,000, which may be expended from the Employment 
     Security Administration Account in the Unemployment Trust 
     Fund.

              Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses for the Pension and Welfare Benefits 
     Administration, $109,866,000.

                  Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation


               pension benefit guaranty corporation fund

       The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation is authorized to 
     make such expenditures, including financial assistance 
     authorized by section 104 of Public Law 96-364, within limits 
     of funds and borrowing authority available to such 
     Corporation, and in accord with law, and to make such 
     contracts and commitments without regard to fiscal year 
     limitations as provided by section 104 of the Government 
     Corporation Control Act, as amended (31 U.S.C. 9104), as may 
     be necessary in carrying out the program through September 
     30, 2002, for such Corporation: Provided, That not to exceed 
     $11,690,000 shall be available for administrative expenses of 
     the Corporation: Provided further, That expenses of such 
     Corporation in connection with the termination of pension 
     plans, for the acquisition, protection or management, and 
     investment of trust assets, and for benefits administration 
     services shall be considered as non-administrative expenses 
     for the purposes hereof, and excluded from the above 
     limitation.

                  Employment Standards Administration


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses for the Employment Standards 
     Administration, including reimbursement to State, Federal, 
     and local agencies and their employees for inspection 
     services rendered, $367,650,000, together with $1,981,000 
     which may be expended from the Special Fund in accordance 
     with sections 39(c), 44(d) and 44(j) of the Longshore and 
     Harbor Workers' Compensation Act: Provided, That $2,000,000 
     shall be for the development of an alternative system for the 
     electronic submission of reports as required to be filed 
     under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 
     1959, as amended, and for a computer database of the 
     information for each submission by whatever means, that is 
     indexed and easily searchable by the public via the Internet: 
     Provided further, That the Secretary of Labor is authorized 
     to accept, retain, and spend, until expended, in the name of 
     the Department of Labor, all sums of money ordered to be paid 
     to the Secretary of Labor, in accordance with the terms of 
     the Consent Judgment in Civil Action No. 91-0027 of the 
     United States District Court for the District of the Northern 
     Mariana Islands (May 21, 1992): Provided further, That the 
     Secretary of Labor is authorized to establish and, in 
     accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3302, collect and deposit in the 
     Treasury fees for processing applications and issuing 
     certificates under sections 11(d) and 14 of the Fair Labor 
     Standards Act of 1938, as amended (29 U.S.C. 211(d) and 214) 
     and for processing applications and issuing registrations 
     under title I of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker 
     Protection Act (29 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.).


                            special benefits

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the payment of compensation, benefits, and expenses 
     (except administrative expenses) accruing during the current 
     or any prior fiscal year authorized by title 5, chapter 81 of 
     the United States Code; continuation of benefits as provided 
     for under the heading ``Civilian War Benefits'' in the 
     Federal Security Agency Appropriation Act, 1947; the 
     Employees' Compensation Commission Appropriation Act, 1944; 
     sections 4(c) and 5(f) of the War Claims Act of 1948 (50 
     U.S.C. App. 2012); and 50 percent of the additional 
     compensation and benefits required by section 10(h) of the 
     Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, as amended, 
     $121,000,000 together with such amounts as may be necessary 
     to be charged to the subsequent year appropriation for the 
     payment of compensation and other benefits for any period 
     subsequent to August 15 of the current year: Provided, That 
     amounts appropriated may be used under section 8104 of title 
     5, United States Code, by the Secretary of Labor to reimburse 
     an employer, who is not the employer at the time of injury, 
     for portions of the salary of a reemployed, disabled 
     beneficiary: Provided further, That balances of 
     reimbursements unobligated on September 30, 2001, shall 
     remain available until expended for the payment of 
     compensation, benefits, and expenses: Provided further, That 
     in addition there shall be transferred to this appropriation 
     from the Postal Service and from any other corporation or 
     instrumentality required under section 8147(c) of title 5, 
     United States Code, to pay an amount for its fair share of 
     the cost of administration, such sums as the Secretary 
     determines to be the cost of administration for employees of 
     such fair share entities through September 30, 2002: Provided 
     further, That of those funds transferred to this account from 
     the fair share entities to pay the cost of administration of 
     the Federal Employees' Compensation Act, $36,696,000 shall be 
     made available to the Secretary as follows: (1) for the 
     operation of and enhancement to the automated data processing 
     systems, including document imaging, and conversion to a 
     paperless office, $24,522,000; (2) for medical bill review 
     and periodic roll management, $11,474,000; (3) for 
     communications redesign, $700,000; and (4) the remaining 
     funds shall be paid into the Treasury as miscellaneous 
     receipts: Provided further, That the Secretary may require 
     that any person filing a notice of injury or a claim for 
     benefits under chapter 81 of title 5, United States Code, or 
     33 U.S.C. 901 et seq., provide as part of such notice and 
     claim, such identifying information (including Social 
     Security account number) as such regulations may prescribe.

       Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program

       For necessary expenses to administer the Energy Employees 
     Occupational Illness Compensation Act, $136,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That the Secretary 
     of Labor is authorized to transfer to any Executive agency 
     with authority under the Energy Employees Occupational 
     Illness Compensation Act, including within the Department of 
     Labor, such sums as may be necessary in fiscal year 2002 to 
     carry out those authorities: Provided further, That the 
     Secretary may require that any person filing a claim for 
     benefits under the Act provide as part of such claim, such 
     identifying information (including Social Security account 
     number) as may be prescribed.


                    black lung disability trust fund

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For payments from the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund, 
     $1,036,115,000, of which $981,283,000 shall be available 
     until September 30, 2003, for payment of all benefits as 
     authorized by section 9501(d)(1), (2), (4), and (7) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, and interest on 
     advances as authorized by section 9501(c)(2) of that Act, and 
     of which $31,558,000 shall be available for transfer to 
     Employment Standards Administration, Salaries and Expenses, 
     $22,590,000 for transfer to Departmental Management, Salaries 
     and Expenses, $328,000 for transfer to Departmental 
     Management, Office of Inspector General, and $356,000 for 
     payment into miscellaneous receipts for the expenses of the 
     Department of Treasury, for expenses of operation and 
     administration of the Black Lung Benefits program as 
     authorized by section 9501(d)(5) of that Act: Provided, That, 
     in addition, such amounts as may be necessary may be charged 
     to the subsequent year appropriation for the payment of 
     compensation, interest, or other benefits for any period 
     subsequent to August 15 of the current year.

             Occupational Safety and Health Administration


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses for the Occupational Safety and 
     Health Administration, $435,307,000, including not to exceed 
     $88,694,000 which shall be the maximum amount available for 
     grants to States under section 23(g) of the Occupational 
     Safety and Health Act, which grants shall be no less than 50 
     percent of the costs of State occupational safety and health 
     programs required to be incurred under plans approved by the 
     Secretary under section 18 of the Occupational Safety and 
     Health Act of 1970; and, in

[[Page 19367]]

     addition, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, the Occupational 
     Safety and Health Administration may retain up to $750,000 
     per fiscal year of training institute course tuition fees, 
     otherwise authorized by law to be collected, and may utilize 
     such sums for occupational safety and health training and 
     education grants: Provided, That, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 
     3302, the Secretary of Labor is authorized, during the fiscal 
     year ending September 30, 2002, to collect and retain fees 
     for services provided to Nationally Recognized Testing 
     Laboratories, and may utilize such sums, in accordance with 
     the provisions of 29 U.S.C. 9a, to administer national and 
     international laboratory recognition programs that ensure the 
     safety of equipment and products used by workers in the 
     workplace: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     appropriated under this paragraph shall be obligated or 
     expended to prescribe, issue, administer, or enforce any 
     standard, rule, regulation, or order under the Occupational 
     Safety and Health Act of 1970 which is applicable to any 
     person who is engaged in a farming operation which does not 
     maintain a temporary labor camp and employs 10 or fewer 
     employees: Provided further, That no funds appropriated under 
     this paragraph shall be obligated or expended to administer 
     or enforce any standard, rule, regulation, or order under the 
     Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 with respect to 
     any employer of 10 or fewer employees who is included within 
     a category having an occupational injury lost workday case 
     rate, at the most precise Standard Industrial Classification 
     Code for which such data are published, less than the 
     national average rate as such rates are most recently 
     published by the Secretary, acting through the Bureau of 
     Labor Statistics, in accordance with section 24 of that Act 
     (29 U.S.C. 673), except--
       (1) to provide, as authorized by such Act, consultation, 
     technical assistance, educational and training services, and 
     to conduct surveys and studies;
       (2) to conduct an inspection or investigation in response 
     to an employee complaint, to issue a citation for violations 
     found during such inspection, and to assess a penalty for 
     violations which are not corrected within a reasonable 
     abatement period and for any willful violations found;
       (3) to take any action authorized by such Act with respect 
     to imminent dangers;
       (4) to take any action authorized by such Act with respect 
     to health hazards;
       (5) to take any action authorized by such Act with respect 
     to a report of an employment accident which is fatal to one 
     or more employees or which results in hospitalization of two 
     or more employees, and to take any action pursuant to such 
     investigation authorized by such Act; and
       (6) to take any action authorized by such Act with respect 
     to complaints of discrimination against employees for 
     exercising rights under such Act:

     Provided further, That the foregoing proviso shall not apply 
     to any person who is engaged in a farming operation which 
     does not maintain a temporary labor camp and employs 10 or 
     fewer employees.

                 Mine Safety and Health Administration


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses for the Mine Safety and Health 
     Administration, $251,725,000, including purchase and bestowal 
     of certificates and trophies in connection with mine rescue 
     and first-aid work, and the hire of passenger motor vehicles; 
     including up to $1,000,000 for mine rescue and recovery 
     activities, which shall be available only to the extent that 
     fiscal year 2002 obligations for these activities exceed 
     $1,000,000; in addition, not to exceed $750,000 may be 
     collected by the National Mine Health and Safety Academy for 
     room, board, tuition, and the sale of training materials, 
     otherwise authorized by law to be collected, to be available 
     for mine safety and health education and training activities, 
     notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302; and, in addition, the Mine 
     Safety and Health Administration may retain up to $1,000,000 
     from fees collected for the approval and certification of 
     equipment, materials, and explosives for use in mines, and 
     may utilize such sums for such activities; the Secretary is 
     authorized to accept lands, buildings, equipment, and other 
     contributions from public and private sources and to 
     prosecute projects in cooperation with other agencies, 
     Federal, State, or private; the Mine Safety and Health 
     Administration is authorized to promote health and safety 
     education and training in the mining community through 
     cooperative programs with States, industry, and safety 
     associations; and any funds available to the Department may 
     be used, with the approval of the Secretary, to provide for 
     the costs of mine rescue and survival operations in the event 
     of a major disaster.

                       Bureau of Labor Statistics


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses for the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 
     including advances or reimbursements to State, Federal, and 
     local agencies and their employees for services rendered, 
     $397,696,000, together with not to exceed $69,132,000, which 
     may be expended from the Employment Security Administration 
     Account in the Unemployment Trust Fund; and $10,280,000, 
     which shall be available for obligation for the period of 
     July 1, 2002, through June 30, 2003, for Occupational 
     Employment Statistics.

                 Office of Disability Employment Policy


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses for the Office of Disability 
     Employment Policy to provide leadership, develop policy and 
     initiatives, and award grants furthering the objective of 
     eliminating barriers to the training and employment of people 
     with disabilities, $33,053,000, of which $2,640,000 shall be 
     for the President's Task Force on the Employment of Adults 
     with Disabilities.

                        Departmental Management


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses for Departmental Management, 
     including the hire of three sedans, and including the 
     management or operation, through contracts, grants or other 
     arrangements of Departmental bilateral and multilateral 
     foreign technical assistance, and $51,708,000 for the 
     acquisition of Departmental information technology, 
     architecture, infrastructure, equipment, software and related 
     needs which will be allocated by the Department's Chief 
     Information Officer in accordance with the Department's 
     capital investment management process to assure a sound 
     investment strategy; $383,568,000; together with not to 
     exceed $310,000, which may be expended from the Employment 
     Security Administration Account in the Unemployment Trust 
     Fund: Provided, That no funds made available by this Act may 
     be used by the Solicitor of Labor to participate in a review 
     in any United States court of appeals of any decision made by 
     the Benefits Review Board under section 21 of the Longshore 
     and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 921) where 
     such participation is precluded by the decision of the United 
     States Supreme Court in Director, Office of Workers' 
     Compensation Programs v. Newport News Shipbuilding, 115 S. 
     Ct. 1278 (1995), notwithstanding any provisions to the 
     contrary contained in rule 15 of the Federal Rules of 
     Appellate Procedure: Provided further, That no funds made 
     available by this Act may be used by the Secretary of Labor 
     to review a decision under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' 
     Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 901 et seq.) that has been 
     appealed and that has been pending before the Benefits Review 
     Board for more than 12 months: Provided further, That any 
     such decision pending a review by the Benefits Review Board 
     for more than 1 year shall be considered affirmed by the 
     Benefits Review Board on the 1-year anniversary of the filing 
     of the appeal, and shall be considered the final order of the 
     Board for purposes of obtaining a review in the United States 
     courts of appeals: Provided further, That these provisions 
     shall not be applicable to the review or appeal of any 
     decision issued under the Black Lung Benefits Act (30 U.S.C. 
     901 et seq.).


        assistant secretary for veterans employment and training

       Not to exceed $186,903,000 may be derived from the 
     Employment Security Administration Account in the 
     Unemployment Trust Fund to carry out the provisions of 38 
     U.S.C. 4100-4110A, 4212, 4214, and 4321-4327, and Public Law 
     103-353, and which shall be available for obligation by the 
     States through December 31, 2002. To carry out the Stewart B. 
     McKinney Homeless Assistance Act and section 168 of the 
     Workforce Investment Act of 1998, $24,800,000, of which 
     $7,300,000 shall be available for obligation for the period 
     July 1, 2002, through June 30, 2003.


                      office of inspector general

       For salaries and expenses of the Office of Inspector 
     General in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector 
     General Act of 1978, as amended, $52,182,000, together with 
     not to exceed $4,951,000, which may be expended from the 
     Employment Security Administration Account in the 
     Unemployment Trust Fund.

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

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


                          (transfer of funds)

       Sec. 102. Not to exceed 1 percent of any discretionary 
     funds (pursuant to the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended) which are appropriated for 
     the current fiscal year for the Department of Labor in this 
     Act may be transferred between appropriations, but no such 
     appropriation shall be increased by more than 3 percent by 
     any such transfer: Provided, That the Appropriations 
     Committees of both Houses of Congress are notified at least 
     15 days in advance of any transfer.
       This title may be cited as the ``Department of Labor 
     Appropriations Act, 2002''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to title I?
  Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the chairman of the subcommittee 
in a colloquy.
  I would ask the gentleman, in the bill language relating to H.R. 3621 
he stated that the funding is provided for school improvement programs, 
including the

[[Page 19368]]

rural education program as ``redesignated and amended by H.R. 1 as 
passed by the House of Representatives on May 23, 2001.''
  Is it the committee's intent, Mr. Chairman, that the funding for the 
rural education program follow the program structure and funding 
distribution as outlined in H.R. 1, title I, part (G), regarding rural 
schools?
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HILLEARY. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Yes, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct. The 
committee's intention is to provide funding for programs included in 
H.R. 1, the No Child Left Behind Act, as it was passed by the House 
this spring.
  Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for clearing up that 
ambiguity.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there other amendments to title I?


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Istook

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Istook:
       Page 18, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $3,072,000)''.
       Page 21, line 13, after the first dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $36,170,000) (increased by 
     $33,000,000)''.
       Page 22, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $33,000,000)''.
       Page 23, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $33,000,000)''.
       Page 39, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $17,708,000)''.

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, the effect of this amendment is to increase 
by $33 million the amount appropriated for abstinence education, as has 
been defined by this Congress in previous legislation.
  Let me first state, Mr. Chairman, that I appreciate that the 
gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) in this base bill has increased 
the funding for abstinence education. My regret is that it is not to a 
level that many of us consider satisfactory, but that should not remove 
our appreciation for the fact that it has been increased.
  We have had for many years, for decades, Mr. Chairman, Federal 
funding for so-called family planning or safe sex programs, as they are 
often called. But Mr. Chairman, that has not reversed the trend of 
increase in teen births out of wedlock.
  However, in recent years, Federal funding began in 1995 and private 
funding began in the couple of years before that, and in recent years 
we have seen a very different approach that has taken place; that is, 
promoting abstinence as the surest and only way to prevent sexually-
transmitted diseases, or to prevent the out-of-wedlock births among 
teenagers.
  Indeed, President George W. Bush, when he was campaigning, made the 
commitment to bring the level of Federal funding for abstinence 
education to the same level as we are spending on the family planning 
and safe sex programs. That is what this amendment does. By the $33 
million increase, it brings parity.
  What we mean by that is we follow the definition of this Congress to 
say that we are talking about the funding for education that has as its 
exclusive purpose teaching the social, psychological, and health gains 
to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity, and teaching that 
abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage is the expected 
standard for all school-aged children, and the only certain way to 
avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancies, to avoid sexually-transmitted 
diseases, and to avoid other associated health problems.
  Indeed, only with the advent of abstinence education have we seen in 
the last couple of years a reversal of the long-standing and deplorable 
trend in this country of increases in teenage unwed births.

                              {time}  1445

  Earlier this year, for the first time, grants were made to applicants 
by the Department of Health and Human Services, putting out the first 
20 million in competitive grants for this purpose. They were 
overwhelmed. It was the greatest tide of applications they have ever 
seen for any program. Over 359 entities across the country seeking some 
$165 million applied for a program that only had $20 million available 
to it.
  We need to increase the amount of money we are putting into 
abstinence education for the benefit of our kids, for the benefit of 
our Nation, which pays exorbitant costs with out-of-wedlock births and 
supporting the social problems that come from them, and we need to 
start reinforcing what we teach our children at home, what we teach our 
children at church, but too often is undercut by the messages sent by 
the Federal Government.
  Rather than defunding the Federal Government's programs relating to 
so-called safe sex, we are seeking parity. We are seeking equity which 
was what the commitment was by President Bush; and indeed, since the 
original budget was submitted by the Bush administration, the amount 
that we made available for this bill has gone up by some $2 billion 
which created the room to make this comparatively minor increase in 
abstinence education funding.
  The Office of Management and Budget has submitted, we have made it 
available to the Members, their letter supporting this increase in 
funding to abstinence education. Let us bring the account up from the 
40 million it has in the bill to 73 million which will be the effect of 
this amendment. It is money that we can easily afford to fund. It keeps 
the commitment certainly of Mr. Bush, but more importantly than that, 
it keeps in place the values that we teach our kids and says we want to 
reinforce them and not to be undercutting them.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I certainly move the adoption of this amendment 
that brings parity in the funding of these accounts and within the 
scope of a bill as large as this one is a comparatively minor 
adjustment.


                             Point of Order

  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) insist on his 
point of order?
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, yes, I do.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) proposes to amend portions of the bill not yet 
read. The amendment may not be considered en bloc under clause 2(f) of 
rule XXI because the amendment proposes to increase the level of budget 
authority in the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other Members seeking to be heard on the 
point of order?
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I wish to be heard.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, it is our understanding from the 
parliamentarian that it is necessary that the amendment be offered at a 
place in the bill where the first adjustment, the first offset is being 
made which is the point at which we have offered it in this bill.
  Furthermore, it is dollar for dollar the same as the amount that is 
contained in those sections of the bill involving any sort of transfer.
  I would ask the Chair to overrule the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there other Members who wish to be heard on the 
point of order? If not, the Chair will rule.
  To be considered en bloc pursuant to clause 2(f) of rule XXI an 
amendment must not propose to increase the levels of budget authority 
or outlays in the bill. Because the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) proposes a net increase in the level of 
budget authority or outlays in the bill as argued by the chairman of 
the subcommittee on appropriations, it may not avail itself of clause 
2(f) to address portions of the bill not yet read.
  For that reason, the point of order is sustained.

[[Page 19369]]




                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, would the Chair yield for a parliamentary 
inquiry?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, the inquiry is when the amounts are dollar 
for dollar the same as within the bill, upon reliance upon what 
documents can the Chair maintain that it is anything else than dollar 
for dollar the same amounts. If the Chair is referring to some 
extraneous document, I think we would like to be aware of that.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oklahoma has the burden of proof to 
show that his amendment and budget authority and outlays is neutral.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I offer the fact that on the face of the 
amendment, it is dollar for dollar the same. If there is anything that 
says it is not the same, then this body is entitled to know, that we 
might proceed in order and make sure that valid issues can be 
undertaken.
  The CHAIRMAN. Even if the gentleman's argument is correct, the 
outlays and budget authority must be neutral. The committee is arguing 
that, in fact, they are not. The Chair sustains the position of the 
committee.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, nobody has given what they purport to be a 
differing amount of budget authority or outlay.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has the burden of proof. If he has a CBO 
score, the Chair would be happy to receive it.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, as a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, if the Chair is referring to any document 
or source that purports that the BA is any different than the dollar 
for dollar that is in here, my parliamentary inquiry is upon what does 
the Chair rely?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is relying on assertions of the Committee on 
Appropriations. The burden of proof lies in the hands of the gentleman 
from Oklahoma.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, when the Chair says relying upon 
assertions, the only assertion that has been presented on the floor is 
the raising of the point of order contesting whether that is the case 
as opposed to a factual assertion that is the case. If the Chair is 
relying upon a factual assertion made by the committee or anyone else, 
that is what I seek to learn.
  The CHAIRMAN. If the gentleman wishes to challenge the assertions of 
the committee, he must have evidence from the CBO.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, the committee has not made an assertion. 
The committee has posed a question to the Chair. The Chair has said it 
has received an assertion but has not told us the source. It has not 
said that assertion came on the floor in a document, through something 
extraneous, through this regular order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The assertion of the subcommittee is from the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the subcommittee chairman.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
  Does that mean that any time that the presenter of a bill on the 
floor raises a point of order asking the Chair whether something is in 
order between budget authority and outlay, that the Chair will 
automatically assume that the point of order is well taken? That seems 
to be the position that has been asserted.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would restate that the gentleman has the 
burden of proof. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) has the 
burden of proof.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, so the burden of proof is not on the person 
raising the point of order? Is not that a shift of the burden of proof?
  The CHAIRMAN. In this particular case it is on the offerer of the 
amendment.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. Does the burden rest 
upon the person raising a point of order?
  The CHAIRMAN. The offerer of any amendment always has the burden of 
proof to show that; the burden of proof in showing that their amendment 
would be in order.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, does that mean that any person contesting 
any dollar amendment can always raise a point of order that it is not 
the same within budget authority and that point of order will 
automatically be sustained absent some outside authority?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would state that if it is a factual 
contention the offerer of the amendment must, in fact, provide the 
burden of proof.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I have contended that these are the same 
amounts, and you are saying that the factual assertion of a Member has 
no standing because of an arbitrary action.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is long-standing precedent of the House shown on 
page 802 of the manual that the offerer of the amendment has the burden 
of proof under clause 2 of rule XXI.
  Mr. ISTOOK. So, therefore, there is no burden of proof resting upon 
the person who raises a point of order under the Chair's ruling?
  The CHAIRMAN. When there is a factual contention the burden of proof 
is on the offerer of the amendment.
  Mr. ISTOOK. I thank the Chairman. We will reoffer the amendment as 
many times as are necessary to make sure that it is in order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title I?
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

           TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

              Health Resources and Services Administration


                     health resources and services

       For carrying out titles II, III, VII, VIII, X, XII, XIX, 
     and XXVI of the Public Health Service Act, section 427(a) of 
     the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act, title V and 
     sections 1128E and 1820 of the Social Security Act, the 
     Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986, as amended, the 
     Native Hawaiian Health Care Act of 1988, as amended, the 
     Cardiac Arrest Survival Act of 2000, and the Poison Control 
     Center Enhancement and Awareness Act, $5,691,480,000, of 
     which $35,000,000 from general revenues, notwithstanding 
     section 1820(j) of the Social Security Act, shall be 
     available for carrying out the Medicare rural hospital 
     flexibility grants program under section 1820 of such Act: 
     Provided, That of the funds made available under this 
     heading, $250,000 shall be available until expended for 
     facilities renovations at the Gillis W. Long Hansen's Disease 
     Center: Provided further, That in addition to fees authorized 
     by section 427(b) of the Health Care Quality Improvement Act 
     of 1986, fees shall be collected for the full disclosure of 
     information under the Act sufficient to recover the full 
     costs of operating the National Practitioner Data Bank, and 
     shall remain available until expended to carry out that Act: 
     Provided further, That fees collected for the full disclosure 
     of information under the ``Health Care Fraud and Abuse Data 
     Collection Program,'' authorized by section 1128E(d)(2) of 
     the Social Security Act, shall be sufficient to recover the 
     full costs of operating the program, and shall remain 
     available until expended to carry out that Act: Provided 
     further, That no more than $15,000,000 is available for 
     carrying out the provisions of Public Law 104-73: Provided 
     further, That of the funds made available under this heading, 
     $264,170,000 shall be for the program under title X of the 
     Public Health Service Act to provide for voluntary family 
     planning projects: Provided further, That amounts provided to 
     said projects under such title shall not be expended for 
     abortions, that all pregnancy counseling shall be 
     nondirective, and that such amounts shall not be expended for 
     any activity (including the publication or distribution of 
     literature) that in any way tends to promote public support 
     or opposition to any legislative proposal or candidate for 
     public office: Provided further, That $649,000,000 shall be 
     for State AIDS Drug Assistance Programs authorized by section 
     2616 of the Public Health Service Act: Provided further, 
     That, notwithstanding section 502(a)(1) of the Social 
     Security Act, not to exceed $116,145,000 is available for 
     carrying out special projects of regional and national 
     significance pursuant to section 501(a)(2) of such Act. For 
     special projects of regional and national significance under 
     section 501(a)(2) of the Social Security Act, $10,000,000: 
     Provided further, That such amount shall not be counted 
     toward compliance with the allocation required in section 
     502(a)(1) of such Act: Provided further, That such amount 
     shall be used only for making competitive grants to provide 
     abstinence education (as defined in section 510(b)(2) of such 
     Act) to adolescents and for evaluations (including 
     longitudinal evaluations) of activities under the grants and 
     for Federal costs of administering the grants: Provided 
     further, That grants shall be made only to public and private 
     entities

[[Page 19370]]

     which agree that, with respect to an adolescent to whom the 
     entities provide abstinence education under such grant, the 
     entities will not provide to that adolescent any other 
     education regarding sexual conduct, except that, in the case 
     of an entity expressly required by law to provide health 
     information or services the adolescent shall not be precluded 
     from seeking health information or services from the entity 
     in a different setting than the setting in which the 
     abstinence education was provided: Provided further, That the 
     funds expended for such evaluations may not exceed 3.5 
     percent of such amount.


               health education assistance loans program

       Such sums as may be necessary to carry out the purpose of 
     the program, as authorized by title VII of the Public Health 
     Service Act, as amended. For administrative expenses to carry 
     out the guaranteed loan program, including section 709 of the 
     Public Health Service Act, $3,792,000.


             vaccine injury compensation program trust fund

       For payments from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program 
     Trust Fund, such sums as may be necessary for claims 
     associated with vaccine-related injury or death with respect 
     to vaccines administered after September 30, 1988, pursuant 
     to subtitle 2 of title XXI of the Public Health Service Act, 
     to remain available until expended: Provided, That for 
     necessary administrative expenses, not to exceed $2,992,000 
     shall be available from the Trust Fund to the Secretary of 
     Health and Human Services.

               Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


                disease control, research, and training

       To carry out titles II, III, VII, XI, XV, XVII, XIX, and 
     XXVI of the Public Health Service Act, sections 101, 102, 
     103, 201, 202, 203, 301, and 501 of the Federal Mine Safety 
     and Health Act of 1977, sections 20, 21, and 22 of the 
     Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, title IV of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act, and section 501 of the 
     Refugee Education Assistance Act of 1980; including insurance 
     of official motor vehicles in foreign countries; and hire, 
     maintenance, and operation of aircraft, $4,077,060,000, of 
     which $175,000,000 shall remain available until expended for 
     equipment and construction and renovation of facilities, and 
     of which $137,527,000 for international HIV/AIDS shall remain 
     available until September 30, 2003, and in addition, such 
     sums as may be derived from authorized user fees, which shall 
     be credited to this account: Provided, That in addition to 
     amounts provided herein, up to $93,964,000 shall be available 
     from amounts available under section 241 of the Public Health 
     Service Act to carry out the National Center for Health 
     Statistics surveys: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     made available for injury prevention and control at the 
     Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to 
     advocate or promote gun control: Provided further, That the 
     Director may redirect the total amount made available under 
     authority of Public Law 101-502, section 3, dated November 3, 
     1990, to activities the Director may so designate: Provided 
     further, That the Congress is to be notified promptly of any 
     such transfer: Provided further, That not to exceed 
     $10,000,000 may be available for making grants under section 
     1509 of the Public Health Service Act to not more than 15 
     States.

                     National Institutes of Health


                       national cancer institute

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to cancer, $4,146,291,000.


               national heart, lung, and blood institute

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to cardiovascular, lung, and 
     blood diseases, and blood and blood products, $2,547,675,000.


         national institute of dental and craniofacial research

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to dental disease, 
     $339,268,000.


    national institute of diabetes and digestive and kidney diseases

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to diabetes and digestive and 
     kidney disease, $1,446,705,000.


        national institute of neurological disorders and stroke

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to neurological disorders and 
     stroke, $1,306,321,000.

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I had an amendment that I am going to withdraw because 
I appreciate the work done by the chairman and ranking member on this 
issue. But I think when we talk about health care, it is important to 
raise the point about an aspect of health care that is not getting the 
attention that it needs, and that I would hope that in conference 
committee the chairman and the ranking member could help us address it. 
Mr. Chairman, that deals with the crisis in dental care in the United 
States of America.
  I am more than aware of the overall crisis in health care. I strongly 
support a national health care program that would guarantee health care 
to every man, woman, and child. I think that we need to make 
fundamental changes in our health care system. But having said that, it 
is imperative to talk about something that is very rarely talked about. 
And that is all over the United States of America, we have children, we 
have adults, we have senior citizens, who simply cannot gain access to 
a dental office and get their teeth adequately dealt with.
  I held a hearing in Montpelier, Vermont several months ago; and I was 
stunned to learn in my own city of Burlington we have low-income 
children who have teeth rotting in their mouths who cannot gain access 
to a dental office.
  There are many reasons for the dental crisis. Number one, we do not 
have enough dentists in this country; and many of our dentists are 
getting old and are retiring. And we are not bringing enough younger 
people into the dental profession. Second of all, the kind of 
reimbursement rates we have for dental care on the Medicaid are 
inadequate. Thirdly, the dental clinics all over this country are not 
giving adequate support to dentistry.

                              {time}  1500

  So, Mr. Chairman, if I may ask the chairman of the committee, my 
friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), if he could give me some 
assurance that in conference committee we can pay more attention than 
we have to the dental crisis which exists among low-income people in 
this country.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I think the bill has been pretty sensitive 
to research; but I believe what the gentleman is addressing is the 
providing of dental care, and that really would, I think, be a Ways and 
Means jurisdiction more so than our committee.
  Mr. SANDERS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would respectfully 
suggest to my friend that there are provisions in this bill which 
provide grants through the Rural Outreach Grants Program, which include 
dental programs, although primarily it is not dental. But I would hope 
that at conference committee time an effort could be made to expand 
funding or add funding to that in order to make sure that low-income 
kids in this country do not continue to have teeth rotting in their 
mouths.
  Mr. REGULA. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I understand the 
problem. I dealt with the Bureau of Indian Affairs for many years, and 
they have probably as much in the way of dental problems as any group 
in our society. So I am sympathetic to it. However, it is a matter of 
where we get the resources to do that.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply respond by relating this 
story. I announced the opening of a dental clinic in a four-county area 
in my district last year. When I was at that clinic, one woman told me 
that she had a son who was very, very sick. Her husband was also very, 
very ill and could not work, so she was on Medicaid. She desperately 
needed a dentist to take the braces off that child's teeth. She could 
not find one, even though she had called over 30 dentists. As a result, 
she held the kid down, while the father took the braces off with a pair 
of pliers.
  In my view, that should not happen to any American. I am for anything 
anywhere that can increase dental care providers and services, and I 
will do anything that is possibly within our reach to try to deal with 
the problem. Unfortunately, as the gentleman says, most of what needs 
to be done is within the Medicaid area, over which this committee does 
not have jurisdiction.
  Mr. SANDERS. Reclaiming my time once again, Mr. Chairman, I thank the

[[Page 19371]]

gentleman from Wisconsin for his comments.
  I will withdraw my amendment, Mr. Chairman, with the hope that all of 
us can focus on a major crisis that exists all over this country, 
perhaps most clearly in rural America, and with the hope that we can 
work together to begin effectively addressing this.
  Mr. QUINN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I thank 
the gentleman from Ohio for allowing me the opportunity to talk just 
for a few minutes about the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, 
otherwise known as LIHEAP. I want to thank the subcommittee for the 
$1.7 billion in regular and the $300 million in emergency 
appropriations for LIHEAP in this bill. This is a generous increase 
over the President's request, and I believe it will make a significant 
difference in the lives of many poor people this winter.
  The amendment I would have submitted, but which I will withdraw and 
have withdrawn, would have made advance appropriations for $2 million 
for LIHEAP for fiscal year 2003, guaranteeing the State LIHEAP 
administrators a firm figure upon which to plan their advances for next 
winter. Although there is language in the 2002 budget resolution 
allowing advance appropriations for LIHEAP, the Committee on Rules this 
past week did not grant a waiver and the amendment was ruled out of 
order.
  We all know that these LIHEAP funds are most efficiently used when 
the State LIHEAP administrators know how much money they are going to 
get before they open up their programs. Winter heating programs need to 
be prepared for in August before the appropriations have been made. We 
seem to fight this battle and have the discussion each year. Winter 
heating seasons, particularly when the appropriations process has been 
delayed beyond the beginning of the fiscal year, need to begin before 
the funding generally arrives.
  Mr. Chairman, advance appropriations would allow the LIHEAP 
administrators to know prior to the beginning of the fiscal year what 
resources they will have to work with. They could therefore plan for a 
certain amount of money, determine how many applicants they will be 
able to help, stretch each dollar to its maximum extent, and provide a 
measure of reassurance for households who very well may have to choose 
between heat and food.
  This is of particular concern this year. I would like to remind my 
colleagues that the LIHEAP cases were up 30 percent last winter, but 
most States were only able to help about 15 percent of their 
applicants. In the emergency appropriations bill passed this summer, 
there was $300 million in LIHEAP funding. This money should have been 
distributed immediately to help the families with children and the 
elderly who were unable to pay for their heating bills from last 
winter.
  The Department of Health and Human Services has signed off on the 
money; but because OMB has not released the funding, these people are 
in even worse situation than they were this past summer. Still behind 
in their bills, still cut off, some of them, from heat, gas, and 
electricity, and winter is at our doorstep.
  I would like to urge the House to press for the release of these 
emergency LIHEAP funds by OMB immediately and also to allow advance 
appropriations for this vital and important program next year.
  I want to thank the chairman, on behalf of the Northeast-Midwest 
coalition here in the House, made up of States in our region, Members 
of both parties, for his attention to this matter.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. QUINN. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I would simply say there has been no 
greater advocate for the LIHEAP program than my friend from New York, 
and I appreciate his efforts and I appreciate his remarks. His 
compliments were directed toward the chairman of the subcommittee; but 
I think also it is fair to say that the ranking member and the chairman 
have worked closely together, and I appreciate his acknowledgment of 
the generosity of the bill as it is with regard to LIHEAP. I would 
reiterate that the bill includes the highest funding level ever 
provided for the LIHEAP program at $2 billion.
  So I thank the gentleman for his efforts. I am sure he will persevere 
in the particular idea which he had for us today.
  Mr. QUINN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman 
very much. We appreciate the cooperation we received from both sides of 
the aisle in the subcommittee and the full committee.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word to engage in 
a colloquy with my colleague from California.
  Mr. Chairman, I had intended to offer an amendment designed to 
correct an inequity in current law which penalizes students who attend 
low-cost colleges. Since 1973, the Federal Pell Grant program has 
helped nearly 80 million low- and middle-income students pay for 
college. At just one community college in my district, Glendale 
Community College, about 3,500 students receive Pell grants each year. 
And while their tuition may be less than $1,000 for an academic year, 
the full cost of attendance for a 9-month academic year is estimated to 
be over $5,600; and that is for a student living at home with parents 
or relatives.
  Unfortunately, these students and others at community colleges in 
California do not receive the full Pell grant award. At these colleges, 
books can often surpass the cost of tuition; and add to that other 
costs and fees of higher education, and there is an enormous burden on 
the lowest-income students. The tuition sensitivity provision unfairly 
penalizes these students in States like California, which have kept 
tuition low by strong State support for higher education. These are the 
poorest students at the least expensive schools.
  My colleagues might be wondering why they have not heard of the 
tuition-sensitivity provision. The answer is that right now this rule 
only affects California students. However, as the Pell grant increases, 
the tuition-sensitivity rule will limit financial aid to students in 
other States, like Texas, North Carolina, Arkansas, Arizona, New 
Mexico, and Oklahoma, just to name a few.
  By repealing the tuition-sensitivity trigger, we assure fairness and 
equity; we incentivize States to support higher education, not back 
away from funding. I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McKeon), for all his work on this issue and his 
willingness to work together in the reauthorization process. He has 
done an extraordinary job for the students of California.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCHIFF. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, my good friend and 
neighbor from California, for yielding; and I appreciate the 
opportunity to discuss this very important issue.
  I want to assure my friend that I am very much aware of the Pell 
grant tuition-sensitivity provisions in current law that limit the 
ability of California's lowest-income community college students from 
receiving the maximum Pell grant award. As the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness, which has jurisdiction 
over higher-education issues, I have long been a strong supporter of 
addressing the tuition-sensitivity provision.
  The tuition-sensitivity provision in the Higher Education Act 
precludes students, as the gentleman said, from the lowest-cost 
institutions, like those attending California community colleges, from 
receiving their full Pell grant eligibility. This affects almost 
180,000 students from the California community college system alone.
  I want to assure my friend that he has my full commitment to work 
diligently to find a solution to this problem. I am eager to work with 
him and others as we move into the reauthorization of the Higher 
Education Act in the next Congress to ensure that all students have 
access to quality education.

[[Page 19372]]


  Mr. SCHIFF. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague 
for all his effort on behalf of the students in California and around 
this country. I very much look forward to working with him. I also want 
to thank the chairman and the ranking member for their consideration 
today.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there other amendments to title II?
  If not, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


         national institute of allergy and infectious diseases

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to allergy and infectious 
     diseases, $2,337,204,000: Provided, That the Director may 
     transfer up to $25,000,000 to International Assistance 
     Programs, ``Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, Malaria, and 
     Tuberculosis,'' to remain available until expended.


             national institute of general medical sciences

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to general medical sciences, 
     $1,706,968,000.


        national institute of child health and human development

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to child health and human 
     development, $1,088,208,000.


                         national eye institute

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to eye diseases and visual 
     disorders, $566,725,000.


          national institute of environmental health sciences

       For carrying out sections 301 and 311 and title IV of the 
     Public Health Service Act with respect to environmental 
     health sciences, $557,435,000.


                      national institute on aging

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to aging, $873,186,000.


 national institute of arthritis and musculoskeletal and skin diseases

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to arthritis and 
     musculoskeletal and skin diseases, $440,144,000.


    national institute on deafness and other communication disorders

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to deafness and other 
     communication disorders, $334,161,000.


                 national institute of nursing research

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to nursing research, 
     $116,773,000.


           national institute on alcohol abuse and alcoholism

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to alcohol abuse and 
     alcoholism, $379,026,000.


                    national institute on drug abuse

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to drug abuse, $900,389,000.


                  national institute of mental health

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to mental health, 
     $1,228,780,000.


                national human genome research institute

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to human genome research, 
     $423,454,000.


      national institute of biomedical imaging and bioengineering

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to biomedical imaging and 
     bioengineering, $39,896,000.


                 national center for research resources

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to research resources and 
     general research support grants, $966,541,000: Provided, That 
     none of these funds shall be used to pay recipients of the 
     general research support grants program any amount for 
     indirect expenses in connection with such grants: Provided 
     further, That $97,000,000 shall be for extramural facilities 
     construction grants, of which $5,000,000 shall be for 
     beginning construction of facilities for a Chimp Sanctuary 
     system as authorized in Public Law 106-551.


                  john e. fogarty international center

       For carrying out the activities at the John E. Fogarty 
     International Center, $56,021,000.


                      national library of medicine

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to health information 
     communications, $273,610,000, of which $4,000,000 shall be 
     available until expended for improvement of information 
     systems: Provided, That in fiscal year 2002, the Library may 
     enter into personal services contracts for the provision of 
     services in facilities owned, operated, or constructed under 
     the jurisdiction of the National Institutes of Health.


       national center for complementary and alternative medicine

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to complementary and 
     alternative medicine, $99,288,000.


       national center on minority health and health disparities

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to minority health and health 
     disparities research, $157,204,000.


                         office of the director

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For carrying out the responsibilities of the Office of the 
     Director, National Institutes of Health, $232,098,000, of 
     which $53,540,000 shall be for the Office of AIDS Research: 
     Provided, That funding shall be available for the purchase of 
     not to exceed 29 passenger motor vehicles for replacement 
     only: Provided further, That the Director may direct up to 1 
     percent of the total amount made available in this or any 
     other Act to all National Institutes of Health appropriations 
     to activities the Director may so designate: Provided 
     further, That no such appropriation shall be decreased by 
     more than 1 percent by any such transfers and that the 
     Congress is promptly notified of the transfer: Provided 
     further, That the National Institutes of Health is authorized 
     to collect third party payments for the cost of clinical 
     services that are incurred in National Institutes of Health 
     research facilities and that such payments shall be credited 
     to the National Institutes of Health Management Fund: 
     Provided further, That all funds credited to the National 
     Institutes of Health Management Fund shall remain available 
     for one fiscal year after the fiscal year in which they are 
     deposited.


                        buildings and facilities

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the study of, construction of, and acquisition of 
     equipment for, facilities of or used by the National 
     Institutes of Health, including the acquisition of real 
     property, $311,600,000, to remain available until expended, 
     of which $26,000,000 shall be for the John Edward Porter 
     Neuroscience Research Center: Provided, That notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law, single contracts or related 
     contracts, which collectively include the full scope of the 
     project, may be employed for the development and construction 
     of the first and second phases of the John Edward Porter 
     Neuroscience Research Center: Provided further, That the 
     solicitations and contracts shall contain the clause 
     ``availability of funds'' found at 48 CFR 52.232-18: Provided 
     further, That the Director may transfer up to $75,000,000 to 
     International Assistance Programs, ``Global Fund to Fight 
     HIV/AIDS, Malaria, and Tuberculosis,'' to remain available 
     until expended.

       Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration


               substance abuse and mental health services

       For carrying out titles V and XIX of the Public Health 
     Service Act with respect to substance abuse and mental health 
     services, the Protection and Advocacy for Mentally Ill 
     Individuals Act of 1986, and section 301 of the Public Health 
     Service Act with respect to program management, 
     $3,131,558,000.

               Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality


                    healthcare research and quality

       For carrying out titles III and IX of the Public Health 
     Service Act, and part A of title XI of the Social Security 
     Act, $168,435,000; in addition, amounts received from Freedom 
     of Information Act fees, reimbursable and interagency 
     agreements, and the sale of data shall be credited to this 
     appropriation and shall remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That the amount made available pursuant to section 
     926(b) of the Public Health Service Act shall not exceed 
     $137,810,000.

                  Health Care Financing Administration


                     grants to states for medicaid

       For carrying out, except as otherwise provided, titles XI 
     and XIX of the Social Security Act, $106,821,882,000, to 
     remain available until expended.
       For making, after May 31, 2002, payments to States under 
     title XIX of the Social Security Act for the last quarter of 
     fiscal year 2002 for unanticipated costs, incurred for the 
     current fiscal year, such sums as may be necessary.
       For making payments to States or in the case of section 
     1928 on behalf of States under title XIX of the Social 
     Security Act for the first quarter of fiscal year 2003, 
     $46,601,937,000, to remain available until expended.
       Payment under title XIX may be made for any quarter with 
     respect to a State plan or plan amendment in effect during 
     such quarter, if submitted in or prior to such quarter and 
     approved in that or any subsequent quarter.


                  payments to health care trust funds

       For payment to the Federal Hospital Insurance and the 
     Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds, as 
     provided under section 1844 of the Social Security Act, 
     sections 103(c) and 111(d) of the Social Security Amendments 
     of 1965, section 278(d) of

[[Page 19373]]

     Public Law 97-248, and for administrative expenses incurred 
     pursuant to section 201(g) of the Social Security Act, 
     $81,924,200,000.


                           program management

       For carrying out, except as otherwise provided, titles XI, 
     XVIII, XIX, and XXI of the Social Security Act, titles XIII 
     and XXVII of the Public Health Service Act, and the Clinical 
     Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988, not to exceed 
     $2,361,158,000, to be transferred from the Federal Hospital 
     Insurance and the Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance 
     Trust Funds, as authorized by section 201(g) of the Social 
     Security Act; together with all funds collected in accordance 
     with section 353 of the Public Health Service Act and section 
     1857(e)(2) of the Social Security Act, and such sums as may 
     be collected from authorized user fees and the sale of data, 
     which shall remain available until expended: Provided, That 
     all funds derived in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 9701 from 
     organizations established under title XIII of the Public 
     Health Service Act shall be credited to and available for 
     carrying out the purposes of this appropriation: Provided 
     further, That $18,200,000 appropriated under this heading for 
     the managed care system redesign shall remain available until 
     expended: Provided further, That the Secretary of Health and 
     Human Services is directed to collect fees in fiscal year 
     2002 from Medicare+Choice organizations pursuant to section 
     1857(e)(2) of the Social Security Act and from eligible 
     organizations with risk-sharing contracts under section 1876 
     of that Act pursuant to section 1876(k)(4)(D) of that Act: 
     Provided further, That, for the current fiscal year, not more 
     than $680,000,000 may be made available under section 
     1817(k)(4) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395i(k)(4)) 
     from the Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control Account of the 
     Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund to carry out the 
     Medicare Integrity Program under section 1893 of such Act.


      health maintenance organization loan and loan guarantee fund

       For carrying out subsections (d) and (e) of section 1308 of 
     the Public Health Service Act, any amounts received by the 
     Secretary in connection with loans and loan guarantees under 
     title XIII of the Public Health Service Act, to be available 
     without fiscal year limitation for the payment of outstanding 
     obligations. During fiscal year 2002, no commitments for 
     direct loans or loan guarantees shall be made.

                Administration for Children and Families


  payments to states for child support enforcement and family support 
                                programs

       For making payments to States or other non-Federal entities 
     under titles I, IV-D, X, XI, XIV, and XVI of the Social 
     Security Act and the Act of July 5, 1960 (24 U.S.C. ch. 9), 
     $2,447,800,000, to remain available until expended; and for 
     such purposes for the first quarter of fiscal year 2003, 
     $1,100,000,000, to remain available until expended.
       For making payments to each State for carrying out the 
     program of Aid to Families with Dependent Children under 
     title IV-A of the Social Security Act before the effective 
     date of the program of Temporary Assistance to Needy Families 
     (TANF) with respect to such State, such sums as may be 
     necessary: Provided, That the sum of the amounts available to 
     a State with respect to expenditures under such title IV-A in 
     fiscal year 1997 under this appropriation and under such 
     title IV-A as amended by the Personal Responsibility and Work 
     Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 shall not exceed the 
     limitations under section 116(b) of such Act.
       For making, after May 31 of the current fiscal year, 
     payments to States or other non-Federal entities under titles 
     I, IV-D, X, XI, XIV, and XVI of the Social Security Act and 
     the Act of July 5, 1960 (24 U.S.C. ch. 9), for the last 3 
     months of the current fiscal year for unanticipated costs, 
     incurred for the current fiscal year, such sums as may be 
     necessary.


                   low income home energy assistance

       For making payments under title XXVI of the Omnibus Budget 
     Reconciliation Act of 1981, $1,700,000,000.
       For making payments under title XXVI of the Omnibus Budget 
     Reconciliation Act of 1981, $300,000,000: Provided, That 
     these funds are for the unanticipated home energy assistance 
     needs of one or more States, as authorized by section 2604(e) 
     of the Act and notwithstanding the designation requirement of 
     section 2602(e) of such Act: Provided further, That these 
     funds are hereby designated by Congress to be emergency 
     requirements pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985: Provided 
     further, That these funds shall be made available only after 
     submission to Congress of a formal budget request by the 
     President that includes designation of the entire amount of 
     the request as an emergency requirement as defined in the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.


                     refugee and entrant assistance

       For making payments for refugee and entrant assistance 
     activities authorized by title IV of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act and section 501 of the Refugee Education 
     Assistance Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-422), $450,224,000: 
     Provided, That funds appropriated pursuant to section 414(a) 
     of the Immigration and Nationality Act for fiscal year 2002 
     shall be available for the costs of assistance provided and 
     other activities through September 30, 2004: Provided 
     further, That up to $10,000,000 is available to carry out the 
     Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000.
       For carrying out section 5 of the Torture Victims Relief 
     Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-320), $10,000,000.


   payments to states for the child care and development block grant

       For carrying out sections 658A through 658R of the Omnibus 
     Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (The Child Care and 
     Development Block Grant Act of 1990), $2,199,987,000 shall be 
     used to supplement, not supplant state general revenue funds 
     for child care assistance for low-income families: Provided, 
     That $19,120,000 shall be available for child care resource 
     and referral and school-aged child care activities: Provided 
     further, That, in addition to the amounts required to be 
     reserved by the States under section 658G, $272,672,000 shall 
     be reserved by the States for activities authorized under 
     section 658G, of which $100,000,000 shall be for activities 
     that improve the quality of infant and toddler care: Provided 
     further, That $10,000,000 shall be for use by the Secretary 
     for child care research, demonstration, and evaluation 
     activities.


                      social services block grant

       For making grants to States pursuant to section 2002 of the 
     Social Security Act, $1,700,000,000: Provided, That 
     notwithstanding subparagraph (B) of section 404(d)(2) of such 
     Act, the applicable percent specified under such subparagraph 
     for a State to carry out State programs pursuant to title XX 
     of such Act shall be 10 percent.


                children and families services programs

                        (including rescissions)

       For carrying out, except as otherwise provided, the Runaway 
     and Homeless Youth Act, the Developmental Disabilities 
     Assistance and Bill of Rights Act, the Head Start Act, the 
     Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, the Native American 
     Programs Act of 1974, title II of Public Law 95-266 (adoption 
     opportunities), the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 
     (Public Law 105-89), the Abandoned Infants Assistance Act of 
     1988, part B(1) of title IV and sections 413, 429A, 1110, and 
     1115 of the Social Security Act, and sections 40155, 40211, 
     and 40241 of Public Law 103-322; for making payments under 
     the Community Services Block Grant Act, section 473A of the 
     Social Security Act, and title IV of Public Law 105-285, and 
     for necessary administrative expenses to carry out said Acts 
     and titles I, IV, X, XI, XIV, XVI, and XX of the Social 
     Security Act, the Act of July 5, 1960 (24 U.S.C. ch. 9), the 
     Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981, title IV of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act, section 501 of the Refugee 
     Education Assistance Act of 1980, section 5 of the Torture 
     Victims Relief Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-320), sections 
     40155, 40211, and 40241 of Public Law 103-322, and section 
     126 and titles IV and V of Public Law 100-485, 
     $8,275,442,000, of which $43,000,000, to remain available 
     until September 30, 2003, shall be for grants to States for 
     adoption incentive payments, as authorized by section 473A of 
     title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 670-679) and 
     may be made for adoptions completed in fiscal years 2000 and 
     2001; of which $620,000,000 shall be for making payments 
     under the Community Services Block Grant Act; and of which 
     $6,475,812,000 shall be for making payments under the Head 
     Start Act, of which $1,400,000,000 shall become available 
     October 1, 2002, and remain available through September 30, 
     2003: Provided, That to the extent Community Services Block 
     Grant funds are distributed as grant funds by a State to an 
     eligible entity as provided under the Act, and have not been 
     expended by such entity, they shall remain with such entity 
     for carryover into the next fiscal year for expenditure by 
     such entity consistent with program purposes: Provided 
     further, That the Secretary shall establish procedures 
     regarding the disposition of intangible property which 
     permits grant funds, or intangible assets acquired with funds 
     authorized under section 680 of the Community Services Block 
     Grant Act, as amended, to become the sole property of such 
     grantees after a period of not more than 12 years after the 
     end of the grant for purposes and uses consistent with the 
     original grant.
       Funds appropriated for fiscal year 2002 under section 
     429A(e), part B of title IV of the Social Security Act shall 
     be reduced by $6,000,000.
       Funds appropriated for fiscal year 2002 under section 
     413(h)(1) of the Social Security Act shall be reduced by 
     $15,000,000.


                   promoting safe and stable families

       For carrying out subpart 2 of part B of title IV of the 
     Social Security Act, $305,000,000. In addition, for such 
     purposes, $70,000,000 to carry out such subpart.


       payments to states for foster care and adoption assistance

       For making payments to States or other non-Federal entities 
     under title IV-E of the Social Security Act, $4,885,600,000;
       For making payments to States or other non-Federal entities 
     under title IV-E of the Social Security Act, for the first 
     quarter of fiscal year 2003, $1,754,000,000.

[[Page 19374]]



                        Administration on Aging


                        aging services programs

       For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided, the 
     Older Americans Act of 1965, as amended, and section 398 of 
     the Public Health Service Act, $1,144,832,000.

                        Office of the Secretary


                    general departmental management

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided, for general 
     departmental management, including hire of six sedans, and 
     for carrying out titles III, XVII, and XX of the Public 
     Health Service Act, and the United States-Mexico Border 
     Health Commission Act, $333,036,000, together with 
     $5,851,000, to be transferred and expended as authorized by 
     section 201(g)(1) of the Social Security Act from the 
     Hospital Insurance Trust Fund and the Supplemental Medical 
     Insurance Trust Fund: Provided, That of this amount 
     $50,000,000 shall be available for minority AIDS prevention 
     and treatment activities; and $25,000,000 shall be available 
     for an Information Technology Security and Innovation Fund 
     for Department-wide activities involving cybersecurity, 
     information technology security, and related innovation 
     projects: Provided further, That no funds shall be obligated 
     for minority AIDS prevention and treatment activities until 
     the Department submits an operating plan to the House and 
     Senate Committees on Appropriations.


                      office of inspector general

       For expenses necessary for the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act 
     of 1978, as amended, $35,786,000: Provided, That, of such 
     amount, necessary sums are available for providing protective 
     services to the Secretary and investigating non-payment of 
     child support cases for which non-payment is a Federal 
     offense under 18 U.S.C. section 228: Provided further, That, 
     for the current fiscal year, not more than $130,000,000 may 
     be made available under section 1817(k)(3)(A) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395i(k)(3)(A)) from the Health Care 
     Fraud and Abuse Control Account of the Federal Hospital 
     Insurance Trust Fund for purposes of the activities of the 
     Office of Inspector General with respect to the Medicare and 
     Medicaid programs.


                        office for civil rights

       For expenses necessary for the Office for Civil Rights, 
     $28,691,000, together with not to exceed $3,314,000, to be 
     transferred and expended as authorized by section 201(g)(1) 
     of the Social Security Act from the Hospital Insurance Trust 
     Fund and the Supplemental Medical Insurance Trust Fund.


                            policy research

       For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided, 
     research studies under section 1110 of the Social Security 
     Act and title III of the Public Health Service Act, 
     $2,500,000: Provided, That in addition to amounts provided 
     herein, funds from amounts available under section 241 of the 
     Public Health Service Act may be used to carry out national 
     health or human services research and evaluation activities: 
     Provided further, That the expenditure of any funds available 
     under section 241 of the Public Health Service Act are 
     subject to the requirements of section 205 of this Act.


     retirement pay and medical benefits for commissioned officers

       For retirement pay and medical benefits of Public Health 
     Service Commissioned Officers as authorized by law, for 
     payments under the Retired Serviceman's Family Protection 
     Plan and Survivor Benefit Plan, for medical care of 
     dependents and retired personnel under the Dependents' 
     Medical Care Act (10 U.S.C. ch. 55), and for payments 
     pursuant to section 229(b) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 429(b)), such amounts as may be required during the 
     current fiscal year.


            public health and social services emergency fund

       For expenses necessary to support activities related to 
     countering potential biological, disease and chemical threats 
     to civilian populations, $300,619,000: Provided, That this 
     amount is distributed as follows: Centers for Disease Control 
     and Prevention, $231,919,000, of which $52,000,000 shall 
     remain available until expended for the National 
     Pharmaceutical Stockpile; and Office of Emergency 
     Preparedness, $68,700,000.

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 201. Funds appropriated in this title shall be 
     available for not to exceed $37,000 for official reception 
     and representation expenses when specifically approved by the 
     Secretary.
       Sec. 202. The Secretary shall make available through 
     assignment not more than 60 employees of the Public Health 
     Service to assist in child survival activities and to work in 
     AIDS programs through and with funds provided by the Agency 
     for International Development, the United Nations 
     International Children's Emergency Fund or the World Health 
     Organization.
       Sec. 203. None of the funds appropriated under this Act may 
     be used to implement section 399L(b) of the Public Health 
     Service Act or section 1503 of the National Institutes of 
     Health Revitalization Act of 1993, Public Law 103-43.
       Sec. 204. None of the funds appropriated in this Act for 
     the National Institutes of Health and the Substance Abuse and 
     Mental Health Services Administration shall be used to pay 
     the salary of an individual, through a grant or other 
     extramural mechanism, at a rate in excess of Executive Level 
     II.
       Sec. 205. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be 
     expended pursuant to section 241 of the Public Health Service 
     Act, except for funds specifically provided for in this Act, 
     or for other taps and assessments made by any office located 
     in the Department of Health and Human Services, prior to the 
     Secretary's preparation and submission of a report to the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the Senate and of the House 
     detailing the planned uses of such funds.


                          (transfer of funds)

       Sec. 206. Not to exceed 1 percent of any discretionary 
     funds (pursuant to the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended) which are appropriated for 
     the current fiscal year for the Department of Health and 
     Human Services in this Act may be transferred between 
     appropriations, but no such appropriation shall be increased 
     by more than 10 percent by any such transfer: Provided, That 
     the Appropriations Committees of both Houses of Congress are 
     notified at least 15 days in advance of any transfer.
       Sec. 207. The Director of the National Institutes of 
     Health, jointly with the Director of the Office of AIDS 
     Research, may transfer up to 3 percent among institutes, 
     centers, and divisions from the total amounts identified by 
     these two Directors as funding for research pertaining to the 
     human immunodeficiency virus: Provided, That the Congress is 
     promptly notified of the transfer.
       Sec. 208. Of the amounts made available in this Act for the 
     National Institutes of Health, the amount for research 
     related to the human immunodeficiency virus, as jointly 
     determined by the Director of the National Institutes of 
     Health and the Director of the Office of AIDS Research, shall 
     be made available to the ``Office of AIDS Research'' account. 
     The Director of the Office of AIDS Research shall transfer 
     from such account amounts necessary to carry out section 
     2353(d)(3) of the Public Health Service Act.
       Sec. 209. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be 
     made available to any entity under title X of the Public 
     Health Service Act unless the applicant for the award 
     certifies to the Secretary that it encourages family 
     participation in the decision of minors to seek family 
     planning services and that it provides counseling to minors 
     on how to resist attempts to coerce minors into engaging in 
     sexual activities.
       Sec. 210. None of the funds appropriated by this Act 
     (including funds appropriated to any trust fund) may be used 
     to carry out the Medicare+Choice program if the Secretary 
     denies participation in such program to an otherwise eligible 
     entity (including a Provider Sponsored Organization) because 
     the entity informs the Secretary that it will not provide, 
     pay for, provide coverage of, or provide referrals for 
     abortions: Provided, That the Secretary shall make 
     appropriate prospective adjustments to the capitation payment 
     to such an entity (based on an actuarially sound estimate of 
     the expected costs of providing the service to such entity's 
     enrollees): Provided further, That nothing in this section 
     shall be construed to change the Medicare program's coverage 
     for such services and a Medicare+Choice organization 
     described in this section shall be responsible for informing 
     enrollees where to obtain information about all Medicare 
     covered services.
       Sec. 211. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no 
     provider of services under title X of the Public Health 
     Service Act shall be exempt from any State law requiring 
     notification or the reporting of child abuse, child 
     molestation, sexual abuse, rape, or incest.
       Sec. 212. (a) Except as provided by subsection (e) none of 
     the funds appropriated by this Act may be used to withhold 
     substance abuse funding from a State pursuant to section 1926 
     of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300x-26) if such 
     State certifies to the Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     by May 1, 2002 that the State will commit additional State 
     funds, in accordance with subsection (b), to ensure 
     compliance with State laws prohibiting the sale of tobacco 
     products to individuals under 18 years of age.
       (b) The amount of funds to be committed by a State under 
     subsection (a) shall be equal to 1 percent of such State's 
     substance abuse block grant allocation for each percentage 
     point by which the State misses the retailer compliance rate 
     goal established by the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services under section 1926 of such Act.
       (c) The State is to maintain State expenditures in fiscal 
     year 2002 for tobacco prevention programs and for compliance 
     activities at a level that is not less than the level of such 
     expenditures maintained by the State for fiscal year 2001, 
     and adding to that level the additional funds for tobacco 
     compliance activities required under subsection (a). The 
     State is to submit a report to the Secretary on all fiscal 
     year 2001 State expenditures and all fiscal year 2002 
     obligations for tobacco prevention and compliance activities 
     by program activity by July 31, 2002.
       (d) The Secretary shall exercise discretion in enforcing 
     the timing of the State obligation of the additional funds 
     required by the

[[Page 19375]]

     certification described in subsection (a) as late as July 31, 
     2002.
       (e) None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be used 
     to withhold substance abuse funding pursuant to section 1926 
     from a territory that receives less than $1,000,000.
       Sec. 213. (a) In order for the Centers for Disease Control 
     and Prevention to carry out international HIV/AIDS and other 
     infectious disease, chronic and environmental disease, and 
     other health activities abroad during fiscal year 2002, the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized to--
       (1) utilize the authorities contained in subsection 2(c) of 
     the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956, as 
     amended, subject to the limitations set forth in subsection 
     (b), and
       (2) enter into reimbursable agreements with the Department 
     of State using any funds appropriated to the Department of 
     Health and Human Services, for the purposes for which the 
     funds were appropriated in accordance with authority granted 
     to the Secretary of Health and Human Services or under 
     authority governing the activities of the Department of 
     State.
       (b) In exercising the authority set forth in subsection 
     (a)(1), the Secretary of Health and Human Services--
       (1) shall not award contracts for performance of an 
     inherently governmental function; and
       (2) shall follow otherwise applicable Federal procurement 
     laws and regulations to the maximum extent practicable.
       Sec. 214. The Division of Federal Occupational Health may 
     utilize personal services contracting to employ professional 
     management/administrative and occupational health 
     professionals.
       Sec. 215. Of the funds appropriated for the National 
     Institutes of Health for fiscal year 2002, $2,875,000,000 
     shall not be available for obligation until September 30, 
     2002.
       This title may be cited as the ``Department of Health and 
     Human Services Appropriations Act, 2002''.

  Mr. REGULA (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the remainder of title II be considered as read, printed 
in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Weldon of Florida

  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Weldon of Florida:
       At the end of title II, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following section:
       Sec. 2__. Of the amounts made available in this title under 
     the heading ``Health Resources and Services Administration--
     health resources and services'', $60,000,000 of the amount 
     made available for carrying out part A of title XXVI of the 
     Public Health Service Act is transferred and made available 
     under such heading for the State AIDS Drug Assistance 
     Programs authorized by section 2616 of such Act, in addition 
     to other amounts available under such heading for such State 
     AIDS Drug Assistance Programs.

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) reserves a 
point of order on the amendment.
  The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, my amendment shifts $60 million 
from title II of the Ryan White CARE Act to title I of the Ryan White 
CARE Act.
  What my amendment does is to recognize that fully funding of the AIDS 
Drug Assistance Program, or ADAP, should receive highest priority. This 
is a question of life-sustaining drugs versus programs and other 
services for those with AIDS. One thing we do know, programs and 
services are of little use if AIDS patients do not have access to life-
sustaining drugs.
  We have all been visited by those who run the ADAP programs in our 
States expressing concerns about the shortfall in funding for this 
critical program. We know that last year hundreds of AIDS patients were 
unable to access basic lifesaving medication not in Africa, but here in 
the United States.
  As I have shared on this floor before, as a practicing physician 
prior to coming to Congress in 1995, I provided medical care to 
hundreds of HIV/AIDS patients. I was one of only two physicians in my 
community that took care of more than 400,000 people who provided care 
for AIDS patients, and I know how critical access to life-sustaining 
drugs can be.
  After Medicaid, ADAP is the single most important Federal program for 
Americans living with AIDS and HIV. ADAP is the component of title II 
of the Ryan White CARE Act that provides AIDS medications to Americans 
living with HIV that have no other source of medical coverage.
  According to the National Organizations Responding to AIDS, or NORA, 
the Federal-State partnership in title II ADAP has significantly 
contributed to the decline in AIDS deaths since 1995. NORA, which is 
comprised of 175 organizations concerned about AIDS, recommends that a 
$124 million increase over last year's ADAP appropriation is necessary 
to ensure that every American infected with AIDS is provided access to 
life-saving AIDS medications.
  The House appropriations bill funds about half of this shortfall.
  The ADAP working group wrote: ``We will absolutely be in very serious 
difficulties if this appropriation isn't raised.''

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. Chairman, a lack of the needed $60 million above what is 
currently in the House bill means more than 5,000 Americans with HIV, 
on top of those already on the waiting list for ADAP, will not have 
access to the important life-sustaining combination drug therapies.
  Allowing Americans with HIV to stand on waiting lists for access to 
HIV medications is simply not acceptable. Every State, territory, 
congressional district, and individual living with HIV with no other 
access to AIDS medication is dependent on ADAP. Women and those in 
minority communities living with HIV-AIDS disproportionately rely on 
ADAP for their AIDS medications.
  My amendment closes the $60 million shortfall in ADAP. Unlike ADAP, 
title I is limited and only serves 51 cities across the country. One of 
those cities, San Francisco, receives twice the amount per AIDS case as 
every other city in the country. While title I services provide support 
for some AIDS patients, not all of these services have the same life-
saving impact as ADAP.
  Also, while the majority of the programs funded through title I Large 
Cities Program are worthwhile, many of them are not as critical as the 
ADAP program. Also of concern is the fact that the Senate recently 
asked the HHS Inspector General to review some of the very questionable 
programs that these funds are being used to support. I have received 
some of these reports on these questionable programs, and I think any 
reasonable person would conclude that ADAP should receive higher 
priority.
  It is clear to me that with the shift in funding, there is plenty of 
room to accommodate important title I programs likes Primary Care, 
while shifting $60 million to purchasing life-sustaining drugs. I urge 
my colleagues to vote in support of my amendment. The failure to shift 
this funding will leave 6,400 individuals, primarily women and 
minorities, waiting in line for life-sustaining AIDS drugs.
  Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) insist on 
his point of order?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that this amendment is 
really in the form of a limitation; and, therefore, it should be coming 
at the end of the bill. I think I would be within my rights if I made a 
point of order at this point. But out of courtesy to the gentleman and 
in order to save time, I will withdraw the reservation.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is withdrawn.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, let me simply say that I oppose the amendment of the 
gentleman from Florida for one very simple reason: it is very easy for 
any individual Member to second guess what this Committee has done and 
come to the floor and say we should have put $10 million here rather 
than having put $10 million there. I have seen many a Member come to 
the floor;

[[Page 19376]]

and no matter how high we have had an individual account, some have 
said to me, frankly, no matter what the committee puts in, I will offer 
an amendment to add $10 million or $20 million because that way they 
get their day in court.
  Mr. Chairman, I suggest in this instance we should not do that. The 
gentleman is trying to take $60 million out of an account that has 
received a $15 million increase. He is trying to put the money into an 
account that has received a $60 million increase. This account has 
already been increased four times as much as the account that the 
gentleman is trying to take money out of.
  Secondly, the treatment grants that the gentleman seeks to cut in 
fact under this amendment are being cut below last year's level. I do 
not believe that we ought to do that. I would urge Members of the House 
to respect the many hours of hearings that we have held on these 
subjects. These are all judgment calls. I respect the gentleman's right 
to offer the amendment, but I would urge that Members stick with the 
committee.
  There will be amendments today that I am very much in favor of 
personally, but which I will oppose because we have an understanding 
that we are going to try to resist all amendments from either side of 
the aisle in order to keep the delicately balanced bipartisan bill, 
which it is at this point; and I would not want to begin to unravel 
that. Besides, substantively I believe the gentleman is in error in 
seeking to make the reduction that he is in this account. I would urge 
defeat of the amendment.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for not 
insisting on his point of order.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not plan on asking for a recorded vote on this 
amendment because I understand there is a very delicate balance here; 
and I have another amendment that I will probably ask for a recorded 
vote on. But I just raise the point to say that the accounts where I am 
trying to move money out of, there is one particular account where I 
think there has been a fair amount of money spent very unwisely; and 
the account that I am trying to put this money into I think is a very 
good use of the limited resources that we have. That is why I seek to 
offer the amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate that. That 
again illustrates what Will Rogers said when he said when two people 
agree on everything, one of them is unnecessary.
  The gentleman's opinion may very well be the sound one; ours may very 
well be the sound one. But in this instance, this bill is the unanimous 
product of the Committee; and I think we have made the best judgment 
about where the money ought to go under the circumstances, and I would 
urge that we not cut this program. This treatment program would be cut 
below last year's level; and given the problem that we have with this 
issue, I do not think that we ought to be doing that.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is not going to ask for a recorded vote, 
but just to reiterate what he recognizes, too, this is a delicately 
balanced bill. We tried to balance all of the priorities. This is a 
good example of it.
  The Ryan White program serves a lot of people. This amendment would 
cut out services to about 11,000 people; and it does focus on the big 
cities. I think what the gentleman is expressing concern for is right. 
It is just that we do not have enough money to do everything that we 
would like to do. I congratulate the gentleman for his concern and for 
the other areas that he sees as underserved by ADAP.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment to take money from primary care services delivered by Title I 
and move it to the drug purchasing ADAP program. Delivering drugs to 
the people who need them requires the strong infrastructure established 
under Title I. Without that infrastructure, we will have a bigger pool 
of money with which to buy drugs, but fewer people able to take 
advantage of these life-saving medications. The amendment will merely 
provide a windfall to the pharmaceutical companies that manufacture 
these drugs while hurting the people who need them.
  The AIDS cocktail involves a complex daily drug regimen. To be 
effective, drugs must be taken in a consistent manner following every 
instruction exactly. Failure to do so can result in the medication 
becoming ineffective in a person. In addition, these medications can 
have severe side effects, including liver problems, dramatically 
increased cholesterol, and diabetes. People taking these medications 
need access to the primary care and support services provided by Title 
I to ensure proper compliance and effective treatment for any side 
effects.
  Title I benefits the majority of people living with HIV in this 
country. More than 75% of Americans with HIV reside in the 51 areas 
that receive Title I funding. Without this funding, the public health 
systems in these areas will face a major challenge that they are unable 
to meet. The Ryan White CARE Act was created to prevent such a 
situation. Also, the CARE Act was designed to provide comprehensive 
medical services to people with HIV. This amendment will undermine that 
goal by focusing on only one aspect of treatment.
  AIDS medications have been remarkably successful and allowed people 
to live much longer with a better quality of life. However, this 
success also means that more people than ever are living with HIV and 
AIDS in the US and require the services delivered through Title I of 
the CARE Act. Many who are HIV-positive also have other pressing health 
concerns, such as Hepatitis C, mental disorders and substance abuse 
problems. To deal with these challenges, people rely on the overall 
health infrastructure provided by Title I and cannot be helped by 
merely receiving AIDS drugs.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the Weldon Amendment.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Weldon 
amendment. This misguided amendment is the very essence of robbing 
Peter to pay Paul. While I support the worthy goal of increasing the 
appropriation for the Aids Drug Assistance Program, I cannot do so at 
the expense of Title I of the Ryan White program.
  No one can argue with Dr. Weldon that ADAP funding must be 
significantly increased. ADAP is a vital program that is severely 
underfunded. But his answer is truly perverse. He attacks the very 
infrastructure needed to deliver these important services. If he 
slashes funding for Title I, he will only make it harder for people 
living with HIV and AIDS to receive the medication they need under 
ADAP.
  Let's look at what Title I does. Title I directs funding to the 
metropolitan areas that are home to about 74 percent of all individuals 
diagnosed with AIDS in the United States. The areas eligible for Title 
I funding are magnets for individuals from all of the surrounding areas 
who are in need of the critical primary care and supportive services 
provided under this program. Whether it's primary health care, dental 
care, substance abuse treatment, legal services, transitional housing, 
transportation, or nutritional care, Title I provides the bedrock 
safety net that people living with HIV and AIDS depend on. The bottom 
line is that people will die without these services.
  If Dr. Weldon wants to increase funding for ADAP, as he should, the 
answer is not to attack Title I. The answer is to increase the total 
appropriation. Despite a request for flat funding from the President, I 
am pleased that the committee provided for a modest increase in Ryan 
White funding. However, the need is far greater still. Title I alone 
would require a 30 million dollar increase just to keep pace with 
inflation. With the modest 17 million dollar increase provided, 
services will already have to be scaled back and needs will go unmet. 
To further cut 60 million dollars from this program would be simply 
devastating.
  Indeed, ADAP is significantly underfunded, as well. But the success 
of the ADAP program, which has kept thousands of people alive, makes 
the need for Title I money all the greater. As people live longer, they 
rely on the services provided by Title I. This amendment might 
temporarily plug one hole, but it would create a much larger one 
elsewhere. Vote against this dangerous amendment.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to 
the amendment of the gentleman from Florida.
  The gentleman's amendment proposes to take $60 million in funding 
from Title I of the Ryan White CARE Act and transfer it to the AIDS 
Drug Assistance Program.
  While both of these are critical components of the Ryan White CARE 
Act, we cannot support moving money from one critical program in the 
CARE Act to another critical program.

[[Page 19377]]

Our nation's response to the HIV/AIDS crisis must be comprehensive and 
integrated. While the ADAP program needs additional funds, these 
additional resources should not come from money approved for other 
bipartisan-supported CARE Act programs, such as Title I, which provides 
relief to metropolitan areas--like New York and Chicago--that are 
disproportionately affected by HIV/AIDS. Title I funds support 
comprehensive HIV health care and treatment and essential services for 
low-income uninsured and underserved persons living with HIV/AIDS.
  Title I provides funds to the most impacted cities for the delivery 
of critical medical and support service and medications. We cannot take 
medical services away to provide the increase for ADAP. Funding for the 
needed increase for ADAP must come from another source, not a medical 
and support service delivery program.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).
  The amendment was rejected.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike 
the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to call attention to the need for an 
additional $5 million for fiscal year 2002 to the Department of Labor's 
International Bureau of Labor Affairs, also known as ILAB, for programs 
that promote workplace-based HIV-AIDS education and prevention programs 
and the well-being of children orphaned by HIV-AIDS in developing 
countries.
  More than 36 million people are living with HIV-AIDS worldwide, and 
more than 10 million children in sub-Saharan Africa alone have lost 
their parents to this disease. The number of AIDS orphans could climb 
to more than 40 million by 2010. Mr. Chairman, 40 million orphans in 
Africa is equal to the number of children east of the Mississippi River 
in this country. This amount of money equates to less than 13 cents per 
year per orphan to improve their lives and help make them productive 
members of their society.
  The global HIV-AIDS pandemic is an extremely serious issue that 
demands our continued attention, and one way to address the crisis is 
to promote workplace-based education and prevention programs. The ILAB 
has undertaken an innovative program to address HIV-AIDS through the 
workplace as part of its efforts to promote safer, healthier, and more 
productive work environments.
  ILAB has already launched a workplace pilot project in the Republic 
of Malawi in southern Africa. Increased funding will enable ILAB to 
expand workplace HIV-AIDS education and prevention programs into other 
developing countries. It will also enable a joint initiative with the 
Department of Labor's International Child Labor Program to develop 
programs aimed at children affected by HIV-AIDS.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a relatively simple transfer of dollars. The 
funding for this program comes from the account that contains Job 
Corps, which receives $75 million more than requested, more than double 
for fiscal year 2002. This is more than Job Corps can reasonably manage 
within 1 year, and so we are asking that $15 million be considered. It 
is only a general funds transfer if it is considered in conference, but 
it is very important that the intended destination is discussed during 
floor statements today.
  The Congressional Budget Office indicated that a $15 million decrease 
and $5 million increase was the only way this would work with 
management and Department outlays. We certainly know that there is a 
serious and strategic need. This international HIV-AIDS workplace 
education program has developed a strategic plan for workplace-based 
HIV-AIDS education focusing on the following three components: 
prevention education stressing behavioral responsibility, gender 
issues, and concepts relating to care and support; workplace policy 
development addressing issues of stigma and discrimination; and 
capacity building activities for government, employers, and labor to 
strengthen the response to this crisis.
  In the year 2000, IHWEP launched a workplace education pilot project 
in the Republic of Malawi, implemented by the nongovernmental 
organization Project HOPE, which is based in Millwood, Virginia.
  A task force cochaired by Senators Frist and Kerry have deemed the 
issue of AIDS orphans a high priority. These young people are heads of 
households now that they have no parents; and it provides them with 
care, vocational training, as well as microfinance opportunities. It 
aims to enable child-headed households to develop an income-generating 
skill and reduce the likelihood that they will resort to working in 
areas where their health and safety may be compromised.
  Mr. Chairman, I would sincerely ask that the conference committee 
consider this request. It is of grave need.
  Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, today I rise to thank the gentleman from Florida 
(Chairman Young) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey), for their leadership on this complex and difficult 
appropriations bill; and particularly to express my appreciation for 
the increase of $10 million to the State Survey and Certification 
program funded under the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
  The State Survey and Certification program provides States with money 
to conduct inspections of facilities serving Medicare and Medicaid 
beneficiaries, and fund the Nursing Home Oversight Improvement Program. 
The need for adequate funding of these two programs has become 
painfully clear when we are reminded that 5,283 nursing homes, one out 
of three nursing homes, were cited for an abuse violation in the last 2 
years.
  At a time when the Department of Health and Human Services has 
estimated almost half of all 65-year-olds will use a nursing home at 
some point during their lives, this is unacceptable and immoral. Today 
there are 1.5 million people who live in nursing homes, and this figure 
is expected to rise to 6.6 million by the year 2050. Our loved ones 
should not be made to fear inadequate care and abuse when entering a 
nursing home for the first time.
  Additional funding for this program is sorely needed. This additional 
funding that we will agree to today will be distributed to the States 
to cover survey and complaint visit workloads.
  When the daughter of someone living in a nursing home notices that 
her mother is not receiving adequate care, she should immediately call 
her State Department of Health to report a complaint or evidence of 
abuse. However, in my home State of Oklahoma, as in many other States, 
these complaints are not investigated in a timely manner.

                              {time}  1530

  The State Department of Health simply does not have adequate funding 
to hire and train enough inspectors to investigate all of the 
complaints submitted. And most family members are left without any 
other possible recourse, unable to afford home health care or staying 
home from work to care for their loved one themselves. How, then, can 
we justify pouring Federal money into these facilities as so much of 
our taxpayer dollars do flow into nursing homes when the government 
cannot ensure the safety of the residents?
  To ensure their safety, we must continue to increase funding to CMS's 
State survey and certification program. An increase of only $10 million 
for fiscal year 2002 is a good start but is certain not to address the 
many needs that will expand in years to come.
  Again, I thank the chairman and ranking member for their work on this 
issue and for increasing funding to this important program by $10 
million. Nevertheless, I ask that you continue to work for increased 
funding of this vitally important program in the conference committee 
and in future fiscal years. Knowing the commitment of both of these 
gentlemen to this important issue, I know that they will work with me 
to see that this is done.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to thank the gentleman for his

[[Page 19378]]

interest in this program. I know he has been most interested in seeing 
that we appropriate as much money as possible for the inspection of 
nursing homes and I appreciate his leadership on this issue.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and engage 
Chairman Regula in a colloquy.
  Mr. Chairman, in H.R. 3061, the elementary school counseling program 
is funded in this bill at $30 million, which is last year's 
appropriations level. The counseling program is the only Federal 
program designed to increase student access to qualified school-based 
mental health professionals. It is a vital program and particularly 
relevant and timely in the wake of the World Trade Center tragedies and 
the increasing violence levels in our schools.
  Mr. Chairman, experts tell us that the psychiatric consequences of 
traumas of this kind, social traumas of this kind, may not show up for 
weeks or months in the form of post-traumatic stress disorder or other 
serious mental and emotional problems. I am particularly concerned 
about the effects this will have on our children. As the gentleman may 
well remember, the National Institute for Mental Health, following the 
Oklahoma City bombing, did a great in-depth study and it demonstrated 
that it took months, if not years, for the development of mental health 
problems in children not directly affected by the traumatic event.
  Mr. Chairman, I am concerned that our schools are not adequately 
equipped to address the mental health needs of our students. Even 
before September 11, our Nation was experiencing an urgent need for 
school-based mental health services, and this is certainly evidenced by 
problems such as bullying, aggressive behavior, substance abuse and 
violence in the schools. We know that. We have all been familiar with 
it.
  I would like to particularly point out to the chairman and to our 
colleagues here that back in January of this year, Dr. David Satcher, 
the Surgeon General, released a report on youth violence which 
identified mental health services as a necessary component of effective 
programs to prevent youth violence.
  Mr. Chairman, children spend a large percentage of their time in 
school. Teachers and other professionals have the chance to identify 
potential problems and get children the help they need. Mental health 
programs in a school environment make good sense. With a small increase 
in funding for school-based mental health services, we will see 
dramatic, far-reaching effects.
  To conclude, I would like to state to the chairman, clearly there are 
many objective reasons to assert the need for increased funding. 
Indeed, other programs in this bill have increased funding, including a 
new mentoring program which is funded at the same level as the 
counseling program. I would simply like to ask the chairman if he could 
work in conference to increase funding for this program to ensure that 
the mental health needs of our Nation's children are appropriately 
addressed. Again, let me say, this is a cost-effective investment. 
Providing mental health services now will avert far more significant 
problems and far more costly problems in the future.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. I thank the gentlewoman for her comments and assure her 
that I will work in conference to increase funding for the elementary 
school counseling program.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. I thank the chairman. I appreciate his attention and 
this colloquy.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to first associate myself with the remarks 
of the gentlewoman from New Jersey whose leadership in the area of 
mental health parity has been well known and whose work in this area is 
something I applaud greatly.
  It is also a great pleasure for me, Mr. Chairman, to rise in strong 
support of this bipartisan bill. Before I get into the substance of 
this legislation, I would like to commend both our chairman, Chairman 
Regula, as well as our ranking member, our Democratic leader on this 
committee, our ace-in-the-hole, David Obey, for the fantastic work that 
he has done to make this a very open and inclusive process.
  Also, Mr. Chairman, as a new member of the committee, I would like to 
acknowledge the work of the staff who have managed to put a very 
difficult piece of legislation into proper order. I especially want to 
thank Cheryl Smith and David Reich and Christina Hamilton all for their 
good work as well as to acknowledge my own staff member, Matt 
Braunstein, for the great work he has done in offering his enthusiasm 
and dedication to this effort.
  On the issues, Mr. Chairman, I would like to be noted for speaking up 
as the gentlewoman from New Jersey has just done in the area of mental 
health. Right now, according to the World Health Organization, mental 
illnesses are the second most disabling family of diseases in 
industrialized nations, trailing only cardiovascular diseases. 
According to the Surgeon General, more than 54 million Americans, about 
20 percent, have a mental disorder in any given year, although fewer 
than 8 million even seek treatment. This is obviously because of 
insurance barriers as well as the overwhelming stigma that continues to 
exist when it comes to diseases of the brain, which are somehow not 
equated to diseases of the rest of the body for some strange reason.
  Mr. Chairman, it is my opinion that the mental health and emotional 
stability of our country represents the next big public health 
challenge that we have as a Nation, especially in the wake of the 
September 11 attack. It is for these reasons that I have been so 
honored to work with our colleagues on this bill to see that we had a 
$20 million increase in the mental health block grant. This is 
especially important, because it is consistent with President Bush's 
New Freedom Initiative as well as the Supreme Court's Olmsted decision 
which talks about community-based services for those in need.
  There is also, Mr. Chairman, an initiative which I cosponsored with 
Ranking Member Obey to have a $5 million set-aside for the seniors 
mental health initiative. Senior citizens are growing in this country 
as a percentage of our overall population. Yet our country is not 
prepared to meet the unique challenges of our senior citizen population 
as it grows. As it was said, 20 percent of our population experiences 
mental disorders and it is not surprising that much of this occurs 
within our senior population, given the enormous depression that they 
face with loss of loved ones and with loss of their own health. They 
need the assistance and support to cope with these challenges, and I 
hope this initiative will begin the way towards this problem.
  Mr. Chairman, in addition to these initiatives in the area of mental 
health, I want to acknowledge a few other areas in the bill that I 
strongly support. Among them is the area of family literacy. Mr. 
Chairman, we know with the 21st Century Learning Centers that we are 
able to address the needs of as many as 8 million ``latchkey'' children 
who are left alone unsupervised. The 21st Century Learning Centers give 
them a place to go as well as a place to grow, and that is why I am so 
pleased that we are able to increase the funding for this program, 
thereby allowing school districts like mine in Rhode Island, like 
Pawtucket, Providence and Central Falls, to all be able to continue 
their after-school programming.
  In addition to family literacy, the Even Start program, which is also 
about family literacy, is being well funded in this program. Even Start 
is about making sure that parents are able to read and write, because 
if the parent is able to read and write, their children have a much 
better crack at being able to read and write themselves. That is why 
adult literacy should really be viewed as family literacy, because when 
you help the parents, you certainly help the children as well. That is 
why I am so supportive of

[[Page 19379]]

this committee's work to increase this funding by $10 million.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, I think that we did a great job increasing 
funds for IDEA, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 
particularly part C. This is the toddler's program. This is the area 
where if we invest early, we gain a great deal of return for our 
investment down the road.
  For all these reasons, I support this important bill and ask that its 
adoption be supported unanimously by this House of Representatives.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I had an amendment at the desk which I intend to 
withdraw out of appreciation for the way in which Chairman Regula and 
Ranking Member Obey have preserved the Porter initiative to combat 
obesity and overweight in the American population.
  Originally Mr. Porter, our former colleague, for the first time 
placed $125 million in the 2001 budget for a program directed against 
obesity and overweight in children. My amendment would have sought full 
funding. I am very appreciative that the chairman and ranking member 
have kept this initiative from being defunded by placing $85 million in 
the 2002 budget.
  This is a major legacy of our former colleague, John Porter. It is 
something he worked on for some years and in his last year I worked 
with him. This initiative marks the first time the Congress has given 
more than token funding to the most serious, widespread health problem 
in the United States today, and that is overweight and obesity. Fifty 
percent of Americans are either overweight or are obese.
  At the time that this matter was on the floor last year, Chairman 
Porter engaged in a colloquy with me on this provision. In that 
colloquy, to quote briefly from it, I asked the chairman if he would 
agree that some of the $125 million in this Labor-HHS bill be spent on 
the activities specified in the LIFE bill legislation. That was my 
legislation, Mr. Chairman, Lifetime Improvement in Food and Exercise.
  Chairman Porter answered: I support the LIFE bill and believe that 
some of the $125 million in additional funding I have included in this 
appropriation bill for the CDC should be directed toward the 
initiatives of the LIFE legislation.
  The major difference in the LIFE legislation is that it applies 
beyond children to Americans of all ages. Americans of all ages, of all 
races, of all backgrounds and educational groups are experiencing this 
epidemic in obesity and overweight.
  I am pleased that the funding for the education part of this 
initiative has already begun. The LIFE bill would also promote training 
by health professionals to recognize the signs of obesity and then to 
recommend prevention activities and actual strategies so that people 
engage in exercise and other activities designed to mitigate this 
extraordinary problem we have in our country.
  The importance of this initiative springs from the fact that it is 
the major contributor to some of the most serious preventable diseases 
in the American population, everything from high cholesterol and Type 
II diabetes to arthritis and cancer. The fact that there has been a 100 
percent increase in obesity among children in the last 15 years ought 
to itself make us all pause. It means that these children are on their 
way to death early unless somehow we can put our country on a different 
path, a path where people get out and walk, a path where there is less 
in fatty foods and caloric foods and more in the kind of ordinary, 
everyday exercise that can mean the difference now between life and 
death.
  I am very appreciative but not very surprised that the Chair and the 
ranking member of this committee would understand that to get this kind 
of funding finally and then to have it evaporate in a single year would 
have done a disservice to this very serious health problem. I am very 
appreciative for what they have done. I would like to work with them in 
future years so that we can, in fact, get this matter up to full 
funding. That way we will see it save much in Medicare and Medicaid, 
not to mention the health care bill of Americans in general.

                              {time}  1545

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there additional amendments to title II?


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Weldon of Florida

  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Weldon of Florida:
       At the end of title II, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following section:
       Sec. 2__. Of the amounts made available in this title under 
     the heading ``Centers for Disease Control and Prevention--
     disease control, research, and training'', $40,000,000 of the 
     amount made available for communicable disease activities 
     (HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and sexually transmitted diseases) 
     is transferred and made available under the heading ``Health 
     Resources and Services Administration--health resources and 
     services'' for child-health activities under title V of the 
     Social Security Act (relating to the Maternal and Child 
     Health Services Block Grant), in addition to other amounts 
     available under such Health Resources heading for such child-
     health activities.

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, my amendment addresses the 
silent epidemic that is hitting our Nation's children at an alarming 
rate. Autism is the most prevalent developmental disorder in America. A 
couple of decades ago, autism struck a few children out of every 
10,000. Today it hits as many as 1 in 250. Over 500,000 Americans are 
autistic.
  My amendment increases funding for the Maternal and Child Health 
Block Grant program by $40 million. This will provide States with 
funding for early diagnosis and intervention for children with autism 
and other developmental disorders. Early diagnosis and intervention is 
critical in helping these children reach their greatest potential.
  For point of reference, it is important to note that the number of 
Americans suffering from autism is more than half the total number of 
Americans living with HIV and AIDS. However, you would not know this 
from looking at the budgets of CDC and NIH. Last year, the CDC spent 
$12 per person for every person with autism. Conversely, CDC spent 
about $800 per person for every person with HIV-AIDS.
  Children are diagnosed with autism through no fault of their own, and 
we spend almost nothing to figure out why they are autistic.
  We have an opportunity to provide $40 million for autism early 
intervention. My amendment shifts $40 million from CDC's HIV prevention 
account to the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant. Even with the 
adoption of my amendment, CDC's HIV prevention budget receives an $80 
million increase.
  I am concerned about some of the activities that are being funded by 
the CDC. If the CDC can fund questionable activities, it says to me 
there is too much money in that account. I believe that shifting $40 
million of the $120 million increase to assist lower income families 
would be a better use of these funds.
  What type of questionable programs am I talking about? I ask Members 
to weigh these activities against helping lower income parents with 
their autistic children.
  Some of the questionable programs receiving taxpayer assistance 
include recently in St. Louis, Missouri, the mayor had to get $50,000 
worth of offensive billboards pulled down. Why? Because they were too 
offensive for the community. They were paid for with CDC's HIV 
prevention funds.
  On August 21, there was a workshop where people could come and learn 
about sex techniques and share stories about their sexual experiences 
and turn-ons. This was funded through the CDC with funds from Stop AIDS 
Project, San Francisco.
  On August 23, there was a GUYWATCH in San Francisco, a program for 
homosexuals under the age of 25 where they can come and ``meet other 
young guys.''
  Also several television ad campaigns across the country funded with 
Federal

[[Page 19380]]

tax dollars have been pulled because they offended most viewers. If 
people want to sponsor and attend such programs, that is their 
business. However, if they want to use taxpayer dollars for it, I think 
we need to look into it and weigh it against other priorities.
  Most reasonable people would say we have other more important 
priorities. Prior to coming to Congress in 1995, I treated hundreds of 
AIDS patients. I was one of only two physicians in my community of more 
than 400,000 who took care of these AIDS patients. I have been at the 
bedside of dying AIDS patients. I have gotten up in the middle of the 
night to provide medical care for them. I have compassion for them and 
their needs.
  I would not be offering this amendment if I did not feel the cause 
required it. I believe that a $80 million increase rather than a $120 
million increase should be more than enough for this program. I 
encourage my colleagues to support the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin insist on his point 
of order?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, as was the case with the gentleman's previous 
amendment, I think it is drafted in such a way that it makes it clear 
it is a limitation, and therefore ought to be offered at the end of the 
bill. So I think the point of order would hold if I were to insist upon 
it.
  Again, I would simply at this point reserve my reservation and I move 
to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me simply say to the gentleman, he has 
talked to me about his concern about providing additional funding for 
autism. I very much agree with that; and, as a matter of fact, I agree 
with some of the comments he just made about some of the wasteful uses 
of some of the funds in the program that he is discussing cutting. 
About 4 years ago, I made a similar objection myself.
  I would urge the gentleman to withdraw the amendment, with the 
assurances that both the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and I and the 
rest of the conferees will try in conference to gain additional 
financial support for programs directed at autism, and a number of 
others, for that matter.
  I think the gentleman is correct in bringing it to our attention. I 
hesitate to support the proposal as the gentleman is offering it, 
because in addition to the limitations on the AIDS program that he is 
talking about, we would also be reducing funding that would go for 
dealing with diseases such as TB. That almost got out of the bottle a 
few years ago. I do not want to see that happen again.
  I would just urge the gentleman to respect the agreement that the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and I have to oppose all amendments, 
no matter how meritorious we might find parts of them. We would both be 
happy to work with the gentleman in conference to try to accomplish 
what the gentleman is trying to accomplish.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his 
comments and his willingness to work with me on this issue. His points, 
I think, are very well taken.
  I personally have been very grieved over the years that I have worked 
here to see the tremendous amount of money that we spend on HIV and the 
relatively minimal amount of money we spend on autism. Actually the 
number of people with HIV and AIDS is about twice the number of autism, 
but if you look at the people who are actually falling into the AIDS 
category, it is about the same for both diseases. What is particularly 
grievous is that many private insurance companies do not cover the care 
that these kids need.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I agree that this is a concern. I had a 
conversation with the sponsor of the amendment, and I understand the 
need for this funding. We have a tough time balancing off all the 
different problems that afflict us in terms of disease and research. I 
do want to talk to the NIH folks and see if we could get a little more 
urgency on the part of NIH in doing research. Of course, we will also, 
in the conference, see if we cannot get some additional funding for 
this program.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, my first order of business is to rise to support this 
legislation and to acknowledge the chairman of this committee, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young); and the ranking member of the full 
committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey); and the 
subcommittee chair, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula); as well the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking subcommittee member on 
this legislation.
  Allow me, Mr. Chairman, to first acknowledge that this is a 
monumental piece of legislation, so I rise to emphasize the issues that 
are important not only to Texas, but to my home community.
  The increase in the education funding is of crucial concern in the 
fact that I just attended this past week a high school that had 3,042 
students in one school. We are in need of assisting the education of 
our children, to create for them an opportunity, and I applaud the 
increase of the education funding generally.
  We as well face an increasing epidemic in HIV-AIDS, particularly 
African-American and Hispanic women, the rising numbers, and the 
increase in dollars in the Ryan White treatment dollars will help reach 
in underserved communities as well as serve those who have been exposed 
or who are subject to the AIDS epidemic.
  We have had an energy explosion or a concern with our energy needs, 
and the funding for LIHEAP is a very important addition.
  Might I also say that I rise in support of the substance abuse and 
mental health funding as well. The increase that this committee has 
provided, along with the increased dollars for Medicare grants to 
States, is very important to the State of Texas. Even as we speak, 
there is a dispute in Texas as to whether public hospitals can be held 
liable for serving the indigents, who happen to be immigrants who may 
not be documented.
  We know that our responsibility is to care for the ill. We want to 
use Federal funds responsibly. Texas needs those dollars, and as well 
we use our local funds to serve those who come to our doors who need 
good health care. We know that there is no grounds to hold these public 
hospitals liable, and we hope to resolve that matter very quickly.
  I rise as well to indicate my concern with the issues of September 
11, as so many of us have done, but to put particular emphasis on the 
children.
  Tomorrow, the Congressional Children's Caucus, that I chair and that 
the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) co-chairs, will hold a 
briefing on a very important issue; and that is the impact of September 
11 on the children of those who died, a guardian, single parent, two 
parents, that may have been lost.
  I was intending to offer two amendments to indicate the importance of 
focusing on the needs of those children. Right now we do not even have 
an accounting of those children. We know that there are about 500 
children of police and fire parents who were lost, 500 children being 
impacted. We know that in one city in New Jersey, 25 dads were alleged 
to have been lost.
  I had intended to offer an amendment of $375 million to fund the 
promoting safe and stable families. The primary goal of promoting safe 
and stable families is to prevent the unnecessary separation of 
children from their families.

[[Page 19381]]

We know that those children who lost parents cannot be reunited with 
their parents, their birth parents, but Congress can assist these 
children in obtaining appropriate living arrangements by targeting 
critical adoption services.
  My other amendment was to add $20 million in grants to the States for 
adoption incentive programs to be able to help move those adoptions 
along faster.
  I had intended also to put into this legislation the language of H. 
Con. Res. 228, a bipartisan sense of Congress bill supported by 
Republicans and Democrats to move to the front of the line those 
children who suffered the loss of a parent, a guardian, or two parents 
in the September 11 tragedy.
  I want to applaud the organizations today who appeared at the Lincoln 
Memorial, child survival organizations, focusing on the loss and impact 
1 month after this terrible impact of the children.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. Chairman, I would hope that this Congress, and certainly I know 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has been a great champion of 
children and mental health needs, would support the idea of moving 
these children up so that they could utilize the Federal benefits that 
they might be eligible for and that this Congress would be sensitive to 
the needs of the terrible loss of September 11 with children as our 
concern.
  I am not going to offer these amendments, because I would like to 
work with the leaders of this particular bill and work with them 
through the conference that the dollars that have been allotted, that 
they will be certainly available for these children as they are made 
eligible.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentlewoman is addressing what 
is a serious problem. This is just one of the many fall-outs of 
September 11. There will be more yet to come, and I think we need to be 
sensitive to it. Probably as time flows along, the problems that the 
gentlewoman is discussing will become even more evident. It is an 
authorizing problem, as the gentlewoman realizes, and I am sure that 
the gentlewoman's amendment will be before the authorizing committee 
for a hearing. But we are well aware of it. Any portion that we deal 
with here, we have tried to put adequate funding in.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I 
would simply like to close, Mr. Chairman, by saying that there will be 
an important briefing tomorrow where we will hear from parents who are 
taking care of children who have lost one parent. I believe this bill 
is a strong bill, but it is very important that we look at those needs 
that impacted the children pursuant to the September 11 terrible 
tragedy.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to reject the spirit that animates both this 
rule and the larger debate we will hold here regarding Labor/HHS 
appropriations. While I appreciate the image of bi-partisanship this 
open rule suggests, the actions of the rules committee allowing the 
Gentlelady from Pennsylvania to offer her controversial amendment casts 
a shadow over that image.
  For the leadership to allow this controversial school spending 
provision as a ride to this spending package with full knowledge that 
the parties had previously agreed to waive the layover on the bill is 
the essence of divisiveness, and gives all too clear an indication as 
to the divisive directions the Leadership wishes to drive this country.
  The Chairman of the committee has been quoted as saying that the 
structure for this rule ``goes back to agreements that were struck 
several months ago.'' Mr. Chairman, I submit to you that this is 
precisely the wrong reason to go forward in this fashion. These are new 
times we live in, and we are faced with daunting struggles in the weeks 
ahead. Bipartisanship does not connote a carte blanche for those in 
authority to abuse their position. The work is supposed to invoke a 
spirit of cooperation that ought to animate our proceedings, conduct, 
and consciousness in this different time. This rule does not achieve 
this lofty, yet attainable goal.
  In pursuit of this goal I will offer two amendments to this bill. The 
first calls for increased funding the Promoting Safe and Stable 
Families program under subpart 2 of part B of Title IV of the Social 
Security Act. The primary goals of Promoting Safe and Stable Families 
are to prevent the unnecessary separation of children from their 
families, and ensure permanency for children by reuniting them with 
their parents, by adoption or by another permanent living arrangement.
  The children who have lost their parents or guardian in the September 
11, 2001 tragedies cannot be reunited with their birth parents, but the 
Congress can assist these children in obtaining the appropriate living 
arrangements by targeting critical adoption services. These children 
are in need of foster care assistance, adoption assistance, medical, 
nutritional and psychological care. These service are needed now.
  Under this amendment, states could determine the specific needs of 
children and families affected by these attacks, and use these funds to 
address those needs expeditiously, within the broad parameters of the 
existing program.
  The second amendment increases by $20,000,000 the grants to the 
States for adoption incentive payments as authorized by Section 473 A 
of Title IV of the SSA (42 USC 670-679) and may be made for adoptions 
completed in FY 2001 and 2002.
  Unlike the rider to this appropriations bill, these amendments are 
timely and promote both the immediate needs of children and families 
affected by the tragedies of September 11 and the spirit of cooperation 
our nation desperately needs.
   Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3061, the Labor Health and 
Human Services and Education Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2002.
  On October 2, the President sent a letter to the Republican and 
Democratic leaders of the House and Senate and the chairman and ranking 
member of the House and Senate Appropriations committees in which he 
stated that he supported the bipartisan agreement to set FY 2002 
discretionary spending levels at $686 billion. Mr. Chairman, this is 
the first time in several years that the Labor, Health and Human 
Services and Education Appropriation bill reached a bipartisan 
agreement in the committee and with the administration.
  I want to applaud the Chairman and Ranking member for their hard work 
on this bill.
  The Labor Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations Act 
for Fiscal Year 2002 will touch the lives of many American citizens 
including our children. This legislation provides critical funding for 
Fiscal Year 2002 for a host of programs that improve the lives. At a 
time when our nation has been shaken through tragedy, this legislation 
is yet another sign of our strength and resolve to go forward with the 
American way of life.
   Mr. Chairman, I want to point out some of the key provisions of this 
bill, which I believe to be critical during these difficult times.
   Mr. Chairman, the bill language calls for $375,000,000 to fund the 
Promoting Safe and Stable Families program under subpart 2 of part B of 
Title IV of the Social Security Act. The primary goals of Promoting 
Safe and Stable Families are to prevent the unnecessary separation of 
children from their families, and ensure permanency for children by 
reuniting them with their parents, by adoption or by another permanent 
living arrangement.
  The children who have lost their parents or guardian in the September 
11, 2001 tragedies cannot be reunited with their birth parents, but the 
Congress can assist these children in obtaining the appropriate living 
arrangements by targeting critical adoption services. These children 
are in need of foster care assistance, adoption assistance, medical, 
nutritional and psychological care. These services are needed now.
  Congress should target additional funds towards addressing the 
specific child welfare needs of children and families affected by the 
September 11 attacks.
  The types of services that are offered under the Promoting Safe and 
Stable Families program are very broad. Those services include family 
preservation, family support, family reunification, adoption promotion 
and support. Further, states have wide discretion in the use of these 
funds.
  Therefore, states could determine the specific needs of children and 
families affected by these attacks, and use these funds to address 
those needs expeditiously, within the broad parameters of the existing 
Promoting Safe and Stable Families program.
  I encourage the adoption of report language in the bill that would 
urge the head of each federal agency responsible to put the highest 
possible priority on delivery, and to the maximum extent possible, to 
do so within 60 days

[[Page 19382]]

of the date of the determination of the death of the child's parent or 
guardian.
  Also, Mr. Chairman, this legislation provides additional funding for 
the fight against HIV/AIDs in developing countries. During the August 
recess, I lead a congressional delegation to Guatemala and Honduras, 
along with the Global Health Council and USAID. There, I visited health 
clinics and centers that are working to reduce malnutrition and improve 
the health of children in their communities. While I was impressed by 
the resourcefulness and commitment of our friends and neighbors as they 
work to care for the most vulnerable children, such progress will not 
continue without continued support from the U.S. Mr. Chairman, I am 
pleased that this legislation allows the transfer up to $75,000,000 to 
International Assistance programs through the ``Global Fund to Fight 
HIV/AIDs, Malaria, and Tuberculosis.'' Mr. Chairman, these funds are to 
remain available until expended.
   Mr. Chairman, this bill provides additional funding the Low Income 
Home Energy Assistance program in the amount of $300,000,000. The funds 
provided in this bill for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance program 
are needed because of the increase in unemployed Americans. Low-income 
households are having an increasingly difficult time paying their home 
energy bills. Last year, Mr. Chairman, the number of households 
receiving energy assistance increased by 30% from 3.9 million to almost 
5 million. Twelve states reported increases of more than 40%.

Explanation of Report Language: Page 42 of the Bill Promoting Safe and 
                            Stable Families

       The bill language calls for $375,000,000 to fund the 
     Promoting Safe and Stable Families program under subpart 2 of 
     part B of Title IV of the Social Security Act. The primary 
     goals of Promoting Safe and Stable Families are to prevent 
     the unnecessary separation of children from their families, 
     and ensure permanency for children by reuniting them with 
     their parents, by adoption or by another permanent living 
     arrangement.
       The children who have lost their parents or guardian in the 
     September 11, 2001 tragedies cannot be reunited with their 
     birth parents, but the Congress can assist these children in 
     obtaining the appropriate living arrangements by targeting 
     critical adoption services. These children are in need of 
     foster care assistance, adoption assistance, medical, 
     nutritional and psychological care. These services are needed 
     now.
       Congress should target additional funds towards addressing 
     the specific child welfare needs of children and families 
     affected by the September 11 attacks.
       The types of services that are offered under the Promoting 
     Safe and Stable Families program are very broad. Those 
     services include family preservation, family support, family 
     reunification, adoption promotion and support. Further, 
     states have wide discretion in the use of these funds.
       Therefore, states could determine the specific needs of 
     children and families affected by these attacks, and use 
     these funds to address those needs expeditiously, within the 
     broad parameters of the existing Promoting Safe and Stable 
     Families program.
       The report language in the bill should urge the head of 
     each federal agency responsible to put the highest possible 
     priority on delivery, and to the maximum extent possible, to 
     do so within 60 days of the date of the determination of the 
     death of the child's parent or guardian.

                    Explanation of the Amendment: #1

       Explanation: this amendment increases by $20,000,000 the 
     grants to the States for adoption incentive payments as 
     authorized by Section 473A of Title IV of the SSA (42 U.S.C. 
     670-679) and may be made for adoptions completed in FY 2001 
     and 2002.
       The offset is provided by reducing $20,000,000 from the 
     Community Services Block Grant Act.
       The additional $20,000,000 is targeted to assist the states 
     with adoptions initiated after September 11, 2001 and where 
     the child lost a parent as a result of the attack on America.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there additional amendments to title II?
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                   TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION


                    education for the disadvantaged

       For carrying out title I of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965, as redesignated and amended by H.R. 1 
     of the 107th Congress, as passed by the House of 
     Representatives on May 23, 2001, and section 418A of the 
     Higher Education Act of 1965, $12,547,900,000, of which 
     $5,667,700,000 shall become available on July 1, 2002, and 
     shall remain available through September 30, 2003, and of 
     which $6,758,300,000 shall become available on October 1, 
     2002 and shall remain available through September 30, 2003, 
     for academic year 2002-2003: Provided, That $8,037,000,000 
     shall be available for basic grants under section 1124: 
     Provided further, That $1,684,000,000 shall be available for 
     concentration grants under section 1124A: Provided further, 
     That $779,000,000 shall be available for targeted grants 
     under section 1125.


                               impact aid

       For carrying out programs of financial assistance to 
     federally affected schools authorized by title VI of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as 
     redesignated and amended by H.R. 1 of the 107th Congress, as 
     passed by the House of Representatives on May 23, 2001, 
     $1,130,500,000, of which $982,500,000 shall be for basic 
     support payments under section 8003(b), $50,000,000 shall be 
     for payments for children with disabilities under section 
     8003(d), $35,000,000 shall be for construction under section 
     8007, $55,000,000 shall be for Federal property payments 
     under section 8002, and $8,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended, shall be for facilities maintenance under section 
     8008.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Schaffer

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Schaffer:
       In title III under the heading ``education for the 
     disadvantaged'', after the first dollar amount insert 
     ``(reduced by $50,000,000)''.
       In title III under the heading ``school improvement 
     programs'', after the first dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $410,000,000)''.
       In title III under the heading ``bilingual and immigrant 
     education'', after the first dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $240,000,000)''.
       In title III under the heading ``special education'', after 
     the first dollar amount insert ``(increased by 
     $1,100,500,000)''.
       In title III under the heading ``vocational and adult 
     education'', after the first dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $154,000,000)''.
       In title III under the heading ``higher education'', after 
     the first dollar amount insert ``(reduced by $183,000,000)''.
       In title III under the heading ``education research, 
     statistics, and improvement'', after the first dollar amount 
     insert ``(reduced by $63,500,000)''.

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order, because we have 
not seen the amendment as yet.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, could we have a copy of the amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will distribute copies.
  The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) is recognized for 5 
minutes on his amendment.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I offer is one that 
moves a little over $1 billion to the IDEA program, the Individuals 
With Disabilities in Education Act. This is a provision that almost all 
of us in the Congress, Mr. Chairman, have spoken about at one time or 
another and have professed our support for increasing this line item to 
eventual full funding.
  Back in the 1970s when the IDEA statute was established by the 
Congress, the statute called for 40 percent funding at the Federal 
level, and that was a promise and a commitment that we made. Just over 
6 years ago, that funding level was down as far as 12 percent, and this 
Congress in recent years has tried to bump that percentage up. Today, I 
believe we are around 13 or 14 percent.
  This amendment would make a substantial jump in the right direction, 
but still leave us woefully short of the 40 percent obligation that 
this Congress has committed to and to which school districts around the 
country are expecting us to provide funding.
  Since we have not done that, Mr. Chairman, what occurs is the 
mandates associated with the Individuals with Disabilities in Education 
Act cause every school administrator in the country to effectively 
steal funds from other important priorities within their budgets, to 
steal funds from funds that might be used, for example, for teacher pay 
raises, maybe for capital construction, for investments in technology, 
for new computers, to reduce class sizes. A number of priorities that 
might be identified by local administrators and local officials go 
unrealized because of the expensive Federal mandates associated with 
this law and the paltry percentage of Federal funding that is put 
forward to meet those mandates. Again, far under, far below the 40 
percent promised by this Congress.
  On three separate occasions in recent years, this House passed 
resolutions, sense of Congress resolutions expressing our support for 
full funding of IDEA. While we continue to say and vote and speak 
throughout the course of our campaigns, throughout the course of our 
business here on the floor that we are in favor of full funding of 
IDEA, we just do not seem to do it.
  Well, this amendment is one that tests our sincerity. It is one that 
shows the world that we are serious about the promises that we have 
made and that

[[Page 19383]]

in the end, schoolchildren matter more than the size and the comfort of 
bureaucracies here in Washington, D.C. This amendment moves $1.1 
billion from seven or eight different line items in the remainder of 
title III, and it does so in a way that still leaves in more funds than 
even the administration has requested. In no case are the funds taken 
from any line item in a way that will render them underfunded according 
to the request made by the Government itself, by the administration, by 
those who represent the bureaucracy of our country.
  This is an important undertaking, Mr. Chairman, once again, not only 
because of the growing need for IDEA resources and funds and those 
individuals who are directly affected by the programs, but, as I say, 
because our failure to fully fund our obligation and our commitment 
and, at the same time, leave the expensive mandates in place, causes 
all children and all schools to suffer; and that is why I offer the 
amendment. That is why I look forward to the broad-based bipartisan 
support that I expect based on previous comment and testimony on the 
amendment. I, on that basis, urge the adoption of the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) insist on his 
point of order?
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this amendment to 
increase IDEA funding by more than $1 billion. Year after year we pass 
resolutions asserting Congress's commitment to fully fund the 
Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act. Many of our fellow 
colleagues join with me at this podium and assert our responsibility to 
live up to our promise to our school districts. We declare that the 
Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act is the highest priority 
among Federal elementary and secondary education programs, the highest 
priority. Yet year after year, we increase funding for other programs 
that are less vital to our local school districts.
  My home State of Kansas can expect to see about one-fourth of the 
promised $69 million this year for IDEA mandates. Anyone who has spoken 
with school officials in their district knows that this is inadequate. 
While school districts are forced to rob Peter in order to pay Paul to 
meet IDEA mandates at the expense of both children with and without 
disabilities, Congress has increased funding for Department of 
Education programs that I consider are not vital to our children's 
education.
  I do not know how many Members have toured special education 
facilities. I have. I have toured Levy Special Education Center in 
Wichita, Kansas, and seen the special education children. I have met 
with special education teachers and listened to their frustration about 
the lack of funding, combined with the burden of increased paperwork.
  Twenty-five years ago with the passage of IDEA, the Federal 
Government mandated that our local school systems educate all children, 
even those with severe mental and physical disabilities. IDEA has 
placed an extreme financial burden on our public schools which could be 
partially alleviated by keeping our commitment to fully fund the 40 
percent of the program, the 40 percent originally promised. To not do 
so we are completely ignoring the needs of our local school districts.
  I challenge my fellow colleagues to live up to our responsibility and 
support the effort today to put more money in IDEA. I encourage my 
colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. GOODE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), 
the chairman of the subcommittee, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey), the ranking member, for all that they have done for IDEA. They 
have increased funding significantly in this bill, but more is needed. 
So I am very happy to rise in support of the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer).
  In the fifth district of Virginia, school superintendents and school 
board members have addressed the issue of funding for special education 
more than any other school issue. These additional funds would bring so 
much more flexibility to jurisdictions in the fifth district of 
Virginia and across the United States. I hope it will be the pleasure 
of this body to support this amendment and to help IDEA funding get 
closer to the 40 percent.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, reluctantly, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I 
think that the IDEA program is an excellent one; and I know that the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman of the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce, had this discussed when they did H.R. 1. 
He said that we need to withhold until it is reauthorized. It will be 
up for reauthorization next year. I think there will probably be 
refinements made in the program that will enable it to even better 
serve those who are in need.
  I want to point out that the committee was very sensitive to this. We 
increased the amount by $1.37 billion; it is a 22 percent increase over 
last year. The total is $7.739 billion. We were, in fact, $375 million 
over the President's request on the IDEA program.
  So it is not a lack of sensitivity; and, of course, this tends to 
free up money that goes into the regular school program. I think adding 
money is not necessarily going to enhance the experience of the 
children in the IDEA program; it simply would free up money for the 
general school program that is now taken out of the regular school 
budget.
  I have to say that the offsets here, I believe, have a substantial 
impact. It first takes money from the education for the disadvantaged, 
and in the President's statement he points out that there is a real 
need in this field as part of title I so that the students can profit 
from the efforts that will be taken under title I.
  Likewise, it takes out money from immigrant education; and, again, if 
these individuals are going to be members of our society, they need an 
ability to get education through our system. Otherwise, they will be on 
the welfare rolls.
  The school improvement programs, again, are something that are 
affected by the offsets in this program, and I think the one that I am 
concerned particularly about is vocational and adult education. We are 
finding a lot of people are having to refine their job opportunities 
because they are laid off from a factory; they are laid off from all 
different types of things. It is almost a daily occurrence to read in 
the newspaper where 5,000 are laid off by a major industry. These 
people need the ability to get new skills to participate in our economy 
in this Nation so that they can pay their mortgages, send their 
children to school, to universities and colleges.
  To take money out of vocational and adult education I think is a 
misdirected priority at the moment, given what is happening in the 
economy. We need to give people the opportunity to participate in the 
economy, and the issues here that are being used to pay for this 
additional funding, which will go to the schools' budgets and not 
necessarily change the experience of any children in the IDEA program, 
is not as high a priority in my judgment as providing for the education 
for disadvantaged, as providing for vocational and adult education, and 
higher education.

                              {time}  1615

  We have increased the Pell Grants to help young people get a chance 
to get a college education.
  We are living in a far more sophisticated society than was true many 
years ago. Therefore, people who want to participate effectively in our 
economy need higher education; they need retraining, as offered by 
vocational and adult education.
  So I think, looking at the total sum of the priorities, that this is 
a balanced bill. I hope that the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce next year will take a look at this program in the 
reauthorization process and make sure

[[Page 19384]]

it is even more effective than it is now in meeting the needs of the 
children that are part of the IDEA program.
  For this reason, I would urge the Members to reject this amendment.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. First of all, Mr. Chairman, I would like to 
thank the chairman and the ranking member for all their work on this 
fine piece of legislation. They have put in a lot of time and hours, 
and they have listened to a lot of Members with respect to this very 
complicated piece of legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe this is a wise amendment, and it is for this 
reason: In 1975, Congress passed a very important piece of legislation. 
That legislation is what we call special education, the Individuals 
with Disabilities Act.
  But at that time, that legislation said the Federal Government would 
fund 40 percent of special education and the States would cover the 
rest of it. Well, Mr. Chairman, that has not occurred. We are, at best, 
funding 12 to 15 percent of special education, a Federal mandate on our 
local schools which now, since those days, has become the largest 
unfunded Federal mandate on our local school districts.
  In the State of Wisconsin, from which I come and which I represent, 
we have a revenue cap. What that means in States like Wisconsin and 
other States across the country with the revenue cap, that means $1 
that is used to chase an unfunded Federal mandate is $1 that is taken 
away from every other resource allocation made by a local school 
district. It is $1 taken away from all of these other programs.
  It suffocates local control, it artificially props up property taxes, 
and it disallows us from having the ability at home in our districts, 
in our school districts, in our LEAs, from making the resource 
decisions to cater our needs and problems per the problems of our 
school districts.
  So with that in mind, Mr. Chairman, I think it is very important that 
this Congress works very, very hard to try and meet that unfunded 
Federal mandate, because if we do so, our school districts can address 
all of these issues. They can address bilingual education, they can 
address all of the programs that are being used to pay for in this 
amendment. It will be up to the school districts.
  These programs are important programs. This amendment does keep the 
funding of these programs at or above the President's request. So I 
think it is a very reasonable and commonsense amendment.
  I just think it is very important, Mr. Chairman, that we finally 
recognize that Washington all too often penalizes our local decision-
making. It forces unfunded mandates on our schools, and in States 
especially where we have revenue caps it basically makes a choice 
between higher property taxes or not or between taking money out of 
every other education program in a school district or putting it into 
special education.
  We should not have to force school districts into that kind of 
decision-making. A vote for this amendment is a vote to elevate the 
percentage of special education from Washington from 15 percent to 21 
percent, basically even half of the mandate, not even far enough. But 
it is a vote for local control, it is a vote for local resource 
allocation.
  With that, I thank the chairman and the ranking member for all of 
their work on this. I just think it is important that we make a 
statement on behalf of local control. This is a great way of doing so.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for 
yielding to me.
  I appreciate those last remarks. It is within that context that I 
want to address some of the comments that the chairman made.
  Mr. Chairman, without a doubt, we are moving $1.1 billion away from 
programs that are funded over and above the request of our President. 
Now, the characterization of these being cuts is one that I flatly 
dispute, because these programs are still receiving increases over and 
above what they are budgeted in the current fiscal year. In fact, we 
are, in many of these programs, increasing still above what the 
President had requested.
  As to whether doing so causes some kind of harm or endangers 
students, I just do not think our President would do that. I think our 
President has suggested a funding level that is reasonable and just, 
and took into full consideration the impact that his funding increases 
would have on America's children.
  The President did suggest on several occasions his support for moving 
toward full funding of IDEA. Although our promise to the American 
people, to America's schoolchildren, their teachers, their 
administrators, was that we would fund this Federal mandate at 40 
percent, my amendment increases the amount the committee has suggested 
by $1 billion. That only gets us to 21 percent. We still have a long 
way to go to maintain the promises that we have made. I hope we can do 
that. But we are not hurting anyone in accomplishing the fulfillment of 
our obligations.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out or reiterate, 
since the President has been mentioned here, that we are $375 million 
above the President's request for IDEA, and this represents a 22 
percent increase in this fund. So it is not as if we were not sensitive 
to the needs in IDEA.
  But also, we were sensitive to the needs of the unemployed, of the 
economically handicapped and disadvantaged, and immigrant education. So 
it is a matter of balance here. We have tried to balance out all of 
these things in allocating the resources in the bill. I hope that the 
Members will support the bill and vote against this amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin indicated that 
he wanted to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and I for what 
we have done in the bill. I think the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) 
and I would rather have less thanks and more support.
  I have two things I would like to say, Mr. Chairman. First of all, 
with respect to the duty that I think individual Members owe the 
Committee, and vice versa. When the Committee produces a bill, there is 
a report, a printed report. The bill is printed. The House has several 
days' notice before the bill comes to the floor.
  Yet, in contrast, I have seen at least four amendments offered today 
on which the Committee has essentially been blindsided. Individual 
Members keep amendments in their pockets until the last possible 
moment. Then they bring them to the floor with no notice to the 
Committee, so that we might work with them to fashion an amendment that 
might be acceptable to both sides.
  It just seems to me if committees are expected to exhibit certain 
respect for individual Members, I think individual Members owe that 
same respect to the Committee. I would urge Members to respond 
accordingly.
  Secondly, let me point out that this is one of those amendments that 
I suspect no matter what we had put in this bill for IDEA, we would 
have been told, oh, it is not enough. This Committee is one-upped every 
time we turn around.
  I want to read to the Members. People have suggested that the 
Administration is in support of this amendment. That is most definitely 
not true. I want to read a statement from the Secretary of Education:
  ``We believe that solutions to these challenges; namely, in IDEA, 
should be addressed within the context of a thorough review of IDEA and 
as part of a comprehensive package of reforms.'' In other words, they 
do not think that we should be providing large amounts of money without 
reforms to the program.

[[Page 19385]]

  I want to point out what this amendment does. This amendment cuts 
title I. We hear about how much IDEA is not reaching all the children 
that it is supposed to reach. I recognize that. It would cost $17 
billion to fully fund IDEA. It would cost $27 million to fully fund 
title I, because title I is only reaching one-third of the children who 
are eligible for service. Yet, this bill would cut that program to 
finance a program which is already $375 million above the President.
  I would point out that on IDEA, since 1996, this Committee has raised 
the funding for that program from $2.3 billion to $7.7 billion. That is 
not bad. That is not bad.
  I would point out that only one-third of eligible kids in title I are 
now served. Why do we not have an amendment on the floor raising that 
to $27 billion? It seems to me it would be just as equitable.
  I want to point out also that there are 8,200 schools in this country 
who have low-income kids at least 35 percent of their enrollment, low-
income kids who do not get a dime in title I money. If we are going to 
start talking about inadequacies, we ought to raise that program, too.
  I do not see why we ought to cut vocational education, why we ought 
to cut title I, why we ought to cut bilingual education when we have 
3.6 million kids in this country who need to understand how to read 
English and speak English. I do not know why we should cut education 
research when there is still so much debate in this country about how 
children learn. It would be nice if all of us could get off our biases 
and get into some facts. The way we do that is with additional 
education research.
  So I would say the amendment, in terms of what it wants to increase, 
is fine. But the source of money for that increase I think is ill-
advised, to put it kindly. In my view, the Committee has struck a 
reasonable balance. There are people in the Senate, there are people in 
the Senate in my party who want to see IDEA increased far above this 
level, and who also want to see title I fully funded over the next 4 
years so we pay for 100 percent of eligibility.
  Is anybody here willing to put that $27 billion on the table? This 
Committee has tried to be responsible. We have held down the 
gentleman's wish list on that side of the aisle and our wish list on 
this side of the aisle.
  I would much prefer that we be able to provide every dollar for IDEA 
that is suggested in this amendment, but not at the expense of title I, 
not at the expense of vocational education, not at the expense of 
educational research, not at the expense of TRIO programs.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Obey was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would urge Members again to recognize that 
we have hammered out over a 7-month period a bipartisan bill which does 
not meet anybody's idea of what is pluperfect, but represents a 
reasonable compromise between all of us. I urge Members to stick with 
that judgment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  THE CHAIRMAN. An insufficient number has apparently arisen. . . .
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order that a quorum is 
not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will count for a quorum.
  Evidently a quorum is not present.
  Pursuant to the provisions of clause 6, rule XVIII, the Chair 
announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of 
time within which a vote by electronic device, if ordered, will be 
taken on the pending question following the quorum call.
  The call was taken by electronic device.
  The following Members responded to their names:

                             [Roll No. 376]

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kerns
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins (OK)
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

[[Page 19386]]



                              {time}  1652

  The CHAIRMAN. Four hundred twelve Members have recorded their 
presence. A quorum is present, and the Committee will resume its 
business.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair did not finally announce that a recorded vote 
had been refused. Therefore, under the circumstances, the gentleman's 
request is pending. The Chair will count for a recorded vote.
  A sufficient number has arisen.
  A recorded vote is ordered. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 76, 
noes 349, not voting 5, as follows:


                             [Roll No. 377]

                                AYES--76

     Akin
     Armey
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Chabot
     Cox
     Culberson
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Doolittle
     Flake
     Forbes
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Goode
     Graham
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones (NC)
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     Largent
     Manzullo
     McInnis
     Miller, Gary
     Myrick
     Norwood
     Paul
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rehberg
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Simmons
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sununu
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Weldon (FL)

                               NOES--349

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins (OK)
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Blunt
     Kingston
     Meeks (NY)
     Miller (FL)
     Velazquez

                              {time}  1701

  Mr. HALL of Texas changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, this particular bill gives us an opportunity obviously 
to talk about many important issues, and the issue of AIDS obviously is 
very important. I want to bring to the attention of the House that 
those of us who live in rural areas are beginning to see an increased 
rise of AIDS in our areas, and the resources we have now allocated to 
this horrific disease are skewed more to urban areas. I am not 
proposing an amendment, I just want to bring to the committee's 
attention that the Ryan White program, which is a very good resource, 
is skewed to large populations.
  Those of us who live in smaller communities, 50,000 and less, have 
far more difficulty in being able to get those resources. I ask the 
chairman if we could look for opportunities in the report language to 
be more fair in the distribution of those resources.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. CLAYTON. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, we have recognized the problem; and we have 
increased those programs, as the gentlewoman has probably noticed. It 
has been a difficult issue to balance out all of the demands that 
confront us in this bill. We have tried to be fair in beefing up that 
program.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I am very appreciative of what the 
gentleman has done. I am only saying as a rural-urban allocation, those 
of us who live in rural communities do not benefit from the program in 
the same way. I urge the gentleman to work with us during the 
conference report language to correct some of that disparity.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman would continue to yield, 
we are aware of that; and will work with the gentlewoman.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), 
the subcommittee chairman, and the gentleman from Florida (Chairman 
Young) in support of the bill. I appreciate the funding for the 
Community Access Program which was placed in the bill, the CAP program.
  The Census Bureau estimates that for a second year running there has 
been a decline in the number of uninsured Americans, with 39 million 
Americans without health insurance. As the Census Bureau also reports, 
the slowing economy, higher levels of unemployment, and the uncertain 
future could cause significant growth in the number of uninsured 
Americans.
  The CAP program is used to support a variety of programs to improve 
access for all levels of care, for the uninsured and the underinsured. 
CAP helps fill the gaps in our health safety net by improving 
infrastructure and communication among agencies to ensure that care is 
continuous.

[[Page 19387]]

  With better information, agencies can provide preventive, primary, 
and emergency clinical health services in an integrated and coordinated 
manner. Each community designs a program which best addresses the needs 
of the uninsured and underinsured and the providers in their community.
  For example, in Florida in Broward County, they use CAP funds to form 
an informational health line and referral system to publicize health 
care prevention and points of access for health care services. They 
purchased new software so that various providers could improve 
eligibility determinations for public services.
  Chicago, Illinois, focused on a CAP grant which institutes disease 
management best practices because of the county's disproportionately 
high mortality rates from diabetes and cancer. The CAP program has 
worked, and is able to reach more than 300,000 residents in Chicago.
  Mr. Chairman, in its two short years in existence, this program is 
very successful; 75 communities around the country have received these 
funds. I thank the chairman of the full committee and the ranking 
member, and also the subcommittee for including this provision in the 
bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there additional amendments to title III?
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                      school improvement programs

       For carrying out school improvement activities authorized 
     by titles I-B, E and G, II, III-A, IV, V and VII-A of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as 
     redesignated and amended by H.R. 1 of the 107th Congress, as 
     passed by the House of Representatives on May 23, 2001; the 
     Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act; the Civil Rights 
     Act of 1964; section 10105, part B of title IX and part A of 
     title XIII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965; and part B of title VIII of the Higher Education Act of 
     1965; $7,673,084,000, of which $2,178,750,000 shall become 
     available on July 1, 2002, and remain available through 
     September 30, 2003, and of which $1,960,000,000 shall become 
     available on October 1, 2002, and shall remain available 
     through September 30, 2003, for academic year 2002-2003.


                            indian education

       For expenses necessary to carry out, to the extent not 
     otherwise provided, title III, part A of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965, as redesignated and amended 
     by H.R. 1 of the 107th Congress, as passed by the House of 
     Representatives on May 23, 2001, $123,235,000.

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder 
of the bill through title V be considered as read, printed in the 
Record and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the remainder of the bill through title V is as follows:


                   bilingual and immigrant education

       For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided, 
     bilingual, foreign language and immigrant education 
     activities authorized by title III-A of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965, as redesignated and amended 
     by H.R. 1 of the 107th Congress, as passed by the House of 
     Representatives on May 23, 2001, $700,000,000.


                           special education

       For carrying out the Individuals with Disabilities 
     Education Act, $8,860,076,000, of which $3,516,885,000 shall 
     become available for obligation on July 1, 2002, and shall 
     remain available through September 30, 2003, and of which 
     $5,072,000,000 shall become available on October 1, 2002, and 
     shall remain available through September 30, 2003, for 
     academic year 2002-2003: Provided, That $9,500,000 shall be 
     for Recording for the Blind and Dyslexic to support the 
     development, production, and circulation of recorded 
     educational materials.


            rehabilitation services and disability research

       For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided, the 
     Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Assistive Technology Act of 
     1998, and the Helen Keller National Center Act, 
     $2,942,117,000, of which $60,000,000 shall remain available 
     through September 30, 2003: Provided, That the funds provided 
     for title I of the Assistive Technology Act of 1998 (``the AT 
     Act'') shall be allocated notwithstanding section 105(b)(1) 
     of the AT Act: Provided further, That each State shall be 
     provided $50,000 for activities under section 102 of the AT 
     Act: Provided further, That $40,000,000 shall be used to 
     support grants for up to three years to States under title 
     III of the AT Act, of which the Federal share shall not 
     exceed 75 percent in the first year, 50 percent in the second 
     year, and 25 percent in the third year, and that the 
     requirements in section 301(c)(2) and section 302 of that Act 
     shall not apply to such grants.

           Special Institutions for Persons With Disabilities


                 american printing house for the blind

       For carrying out the Act of March 3, 1879, as amended (20 
     U.S.C. 101 et seq.), $13,000,000.


               national technical institute for the deaf

       For the National Technical Institute for the Deaf under 
     titles I and II of the Education of the Deaf Act of 1986 (20 
     U.S.C. 4301 et seq.), $55,376,000, of which $5,376,000 shall 
     be for construction and shall remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That from the total amount available, the 
     Institute may at its discretion use funds for the endowment 
     program as authorized under section 207.


                          gallaudet university

       For the Kendall Demonstration Elementary School, the Model 
     Secondary School for the Deaf, and the partial support of 
     Gallaudet University under titles I and II of the Education 
     of the Deaf Act of 1986 (20 U.S.C. 4301 et seq.), 
     $95,600,000: Provided, That from the total amount available, 
     the University may at its discretion use funds for the 
     endowment program as authorized under section 207.


                     vocational and adult education

       For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided, the 
     Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act and 
     the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act and title VIII-D 
     of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, 
     $2,006,060,000, of which $1,191,310,000 shall become 
     available on July 1, 2002 and shall remain available through 
     September 30, 2003 and of which $808,750,000 shall become 
     available on October 1, 2002, and shall remain available 
     through September 30, 2003: Provided, That of the amount 
     provided for Adult Education State Grants, $70,000,000 shall 
     be made available for integrated English literacy and civics 
     education services to immigrants and other limited English 
     proficient populations: Provided further, That of the amount 
     reserved for integrated English literacy and civics 
     education, notwithstanding section 211 of the Adult Education 
     and Family Literacy Act, 65 percent shall be allocated to 
     States based on a State's absolute need as determined by 
     calculating each State's share of a 10-year average of the 
     Immigration and Naturalization Service data for immigrants 
     admitted for legal permanent residence for the 10 most recent 
     years, and 35 percent allocated to States that experienced 
     growth as measured by the average of the 3 most recent years 
     for which Immigration and Naturalization Service data for 
     immigrants admitted for legal permanent residence are 
     available, except that no State shall be allocated an amount 
     less than $60,000: Provided further, That of the amounts made 
     available for the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act, 
     $9,500,000 shall be for national leadership activities under 
     section 243 and $6,560,000 shall be for the National 
     Institute for Literacy under section 242.


                      student financial assistance

       For carrying out subparts 1, 3, and 4 of part A, section 
     428K, part C and part E of title IV of the Higher Education 
     Act of 1965, as amended, $12,410,100,000, which shall remain 
     available through September 30, 2003.
       The maximum Pell Grant for which a student shall be 
     eligible during award year 2002-2003 shall be $4,000: 
     Provided, That notwithstanding section 401(g) of the Act, if 
     the Secretary determines, prior to publication of the payment 
     schedule for such award year, that the amount included within 
     this appropriation for Pell Grant awards in such award year, 
     and any funds available from the fiscal year 2001 
     appropriation for Pell Grant awards, are insufficient to 
     satisfy fully all such awards for which students are 
     eligible, as calculated under section 401(b) of the Act, the 
     amount paid for each such award shall be reduced by either a 
     fixed or variable percentage, or by a fixed dollar amount, as 
     determined in accordance with a schedule of reductions 
     established by the Secretary for this purpose.


             federal family education loan program account

       For Federal administrative expenses to carry out guaranteed 
     student loans authorized by title IV, part B, of the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965, as amended, $49,636,000.


                            higher education

       For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided, 
     section 121 and titles II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, and VIII of 
     the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, section 1543 of 
     the Higher Education Amendments of 1992, and the Mutual 
     Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961; 
     $1,908,151,000, of which $5,000,000 for interest subsidies 
     authorized by section 121 of the Higher Education Act of 
     1965, shall remain available until expended: Provided, That 
     $10,000,000, to remain available through September 30, 2003, 
     shall be available to fund fellowships for academic year 
     2003-2004 under part A, subpart 1 of title VII of said Act, 
     under the terms and conditions of part A, subpart 1: Provided 
     further, That $1,000,000 is for data collection and 
     evaluation activities for programs under the Higher Education 
     Act of 1965, including such activities needed to comply with 
     the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993.

[[Page 19388]]




                           howard university

       For partial support of Howard University (20 U.S.C. 121 et 
     seq.), $242,474,000, of which not less than $3,600,000 shall 
     be for a matching endowment grant pursuant to the Howard 
     University Endowment Act (Public Law 98-480) and shall remain 
     available until expended.


         college housing and academic facilities loans program

       For Federal administrative expenses authorized under 
     section 121 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, $762,000 to 
     carry out activities related to existing facility loans 
     entered into under the Higher Education Act of 1965.


  historically black college and university capital financing program 
                                account

       The total amount of bonds insured pursuant to section 344 
     of title III, part D of the Higher Education Act of 1965 
     shall not exceed $357,000,000, and the cost, as defined in 
     section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, of such 
     bonds shall not exceed zero.
       For administrative expenses to carry out the Historically 
     Black College and University Capital Financing Program 
     entered into pursuant to title III, part D of the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965, as amended, $208,000.


            education research, statistics, and improvement

       For carrying out activities authorized by the Educational 
     Research, Development, Dissemination, and Improvement Act of 
     1994, including part E; the National Education Statistics Act 
     of 1994, including sections 411 and 412; title II-B and C, 
     title IV-A and title VII-A of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965, as redesignated and amended by H.R. 1 
     of the 107th Congress, as passed by the House of 
     Representatives on May 23, 2001, $445,620,000: Provided, That 
     $77,500,000 of the funds provided for the national education 
     research institutes shall be allocated notwithstanding 
     section 912(m)(1)(B-F) and subparagraphs (B) and (C) of 
     section 931(c)(2) of Public Law 103-227.

                        Departmental Management


                         program administration

       For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided, the 
     Department of Education Organization Act, including rental of 
     conference rooms in the District of Columbia and hire of two 
     passenger motor vehicles, $427,212,000.


                        office for civil rights

       For expenses necessary for the Office for Civil Rights, as 
     authorized by section 203 of the Department of Education 
     Organization Act, $79,934,000.


                      office of inspector general

       For expenses necessary for the Office of Inspector General, 
     as authorized by section 212 of the Department of Education 
     Organization Act, $38,720,000.

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 301. No funds appropriated in this Act may be used for 
     the transportation of students or teachers (or for the 
     purchase of equipment for such transportation) in order to 
     overcome racial imbalance in any school or school system, or 
     for the transportation of students or teachers (or for the 
     purchase of equipment for such transportation) in order to 
     carry out a plan of racial desegregation of any school or 
     school system.
       Sec. 302. None of the funds contained in this Act shall be 
     used to require, directly or indirectly, the transportation 
     of any student to a school other than the school which is 
     nearest the student's home, except for a student requiring 
     special education, to the school offering such special 
     education, in order to comply with title VI of the Civil 
     Rights Act of 1964. For the purpose of this section an 
     indirect requirement of transportation of students includes 
     the transportation of students to carry out a plan involving 
     the reorganization of the grade structure of schools, the 
     pairing of schools, or the clustering of schools, or any 
     combination of grade restructuring, pairing or clustering. 
     The prohibition described in this section does not include 
     the establishment of magnet schools.
       Sec. 303. No funds appropriated under this Act may be used 
     to prevent the implementation of programs of voluntary prayer 
     and meditation in the public schools.
       Sec. 304. Not to exceed 1 percent of any discretionary 
     funds (pursuant to the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended) which are appropriated for 
     the Department of Education in this Act may be transferred 
     between appropriations, but no such appropriation shall be 
     increased by more than 3 percent by any such transfer: 
     Provided, That the Appropriations Committees of both Houses 
     of Congress are notified at least 15 days in advance of any 
     transfer.
       This title may be cited as the ``Department of Education 
     Appropriations Act, 2002''.

                       TITLE IV--RELATED AGENCIES


                      armed forces retirement home

       For expenses necessary for the Armed Forces Retirement Home 
     to operate and maintain the United States Soldiers' and 
     Airmen's Home and the United States Naval Home, to be paid 
     from funds available in the Armed Forces Retirement Home 
     Trust Fund, $71,440,000, of which $9,812,000 shall remain 
     available until expended for construction and renovation of 
     the physical plants at the United States Soldiers' and 
     Airmen's Home and the United States Naval Home: Provided, 
     That, notwithstanding any other provision of law, a single 
     contract or related contracts for development and 
     construction, to include construction of a long-term care 
     facility at the United States Naval Home, may be employed 
     which collectively include the full scope of the project: 
     Provided further, That the solicitation and contract shall 
     contain the clause ``availability of funds'' found at 48 CFR 
     52.232-18 and 252.232-7007, Limitation of Government 
     Obligations.

             Corporation for National and Community Service


        domestic volunteer service programs, operating expenses

       For expenses necessary for the Corporation for National and 
     Community Service to carry out the provisions of the Domestic 
     Volunteer Service Act of 1973, as amended, $324,450,000: 
     Provided, That none of the funds made available to the 
     Corporation for National and Community Service in this Act 
     for activities authorized by part E of title II of the 
     Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 1973 shall be used to 
     provide stipends or other monetary incentives to volunteers 
     or volunteer leaders whose incomes exceed 125 percent of the 
     national poverty level.

                  Corporation for Public Broadcasting

       For payment to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, as 
     authorized by the Communications Act of 1934, an amount which 
     shall be available within limitations specified by that Act, 
     for the fiscal year 2004, $365,000,000: Provided, That no 
     funds made available to the Corporation for Public 
     Broadcasting by this Act shall be used to pay for receptions, 
     parties, or similar forms of entertainment for Government 
     officials or employees: Provided further, That none of the 
     funds contained in this paragraph shall be available or used 
     to aid or support any program or activity from which any 
     person is excluded, or is denied benefits, or is 
     discriminated against, on the basis of race, color, national 
     origin, religion, or sex: Provided further, That in addition 
     to the amounts provided above, $25,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended, shall be for digitalization, 
     pending enactment of authorizing legislation.

               Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service


                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses necessary for the Federal Mediation and 
     Conciliation Service to carry out the functions vested in it 
     by the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947 (29 U.S.C. 171-
     180, 182-183), including hire of passenger motor vehicles; 
     for expenses necessary for the Labor-Management Cooperation 
     Act of 1978 (29 U.S.C. 175a); and for expenses necessary for 
     the Service to carry out the functions vested in it by the 
     Civil Service Reform Act, Public Law 95-454 (5 U.S.C. ch. 
     71), $39,482,000, including $1,500,000, to remain available 
     through September 30, 2003, for activities authorized by the 
     Labor-Management Cooperation Act of 1978 (29 U.S.C. 175a): 
     Provided, That notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, fees charged, 
     up to full-cost recovery, for special training activities and 
     other conflict resolution services and technical assistance, 
     including those provided to foreign governments and 
     international organizations, and for arbitration services 
     shall be credited to and merged with this account, and shall 
     remain available until expended: Provided further, That fees 
     for arbitration services shall be available only for 
     education, training, and professional development of the 
     agency workforce: Provided further, That the Director of the 
     Service is authorized to accept and use on behalf of the 
     United States gifts of services and real, personal, or other 
     property in the aid of any projects or functions within the 
     Director's jurisdiction.

            Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission


                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses necessary for the Federal Mine Safety and 
     Health Review Commission (30 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), $6,939,000.

                Institute of Museum and Library Services

         Office of Library Services: Grants and Administration

       For carrying out subtitle B of the Museum and Library 
     Services Act, $168,078,000, of which $11,081,000 shall be for 
     projects authorized by section 262 of such Act, 
     notwithstanding section 221(a)(1)(B).

                  Medicare Payment Advisory Commission


                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses necessary to carry out section 1805 of the 
     Social Security Act, $8,000,000, to be transferred to this 
     appropriation from the Federal Hospital Insurance and the 
     Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds.

        National Commission on Libraries and Information Science


                         salaries and expenses

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

[[Page 19389]]



                     National Council on Disability


                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses necessary for the National Council on 
     Disability as authorized by title IV of the Rehabilitation 
     Act of 1973, as amended, $2,830,000.

                     National Labor Relations Board


                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses necessary for the National Labor Relations 
     Board to carry out the functions vested in it by the Labor-
     Management Relations Act, 1947, as amended (29 U.S.C. 141-
     167), and other laws, $221,438,000: Provided, That no part of 
     this appropriation shall be available to organize or assist 
     in organizing agricultural laborers or used in connection 
     with investigations, hearings, directives, or orders 
     concerning bargaining units composed of agricultural laborers 
     as referred to in section 2(3) of the Act of July 5, 1935 (29 
     U.S.C. 152), and as amended by the Labor-Management Relations 
     Act, 1947, as amended, and as defined in section 3(f) of the 
     Act of June 25, 1938 (29 U.S.C. 203), and including in said 
     definition employees engaged in the maintenance and operation 
     of ditches, canals, reservoirs, and waterways when maintained 
     or operated on a mutual, nonprofit basis and at least 95 
     percent of the water stored or supplied thereby is used for 
     farming purposes.

                        National Mediation Board


                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the 
     Railway Labor Act, as amended (45 U.S.C. 151-188), including 
     emergency boards appointed by the President, $10,635,000.

            Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission


                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses necessary for the Occupational Safety and 
     Health Review Commission (29 U.S.C. 661), $8,964,000.

                       Railroad Retirement Board


                     Dual benefits payments account

       For payment to the Dual Benefits Payments Account, 
     authorized under section 15(d) of the Railroad Retirement Act 
     of 1974, $146,000,000, which shall include amounts becoming 
     available in fiscal year 2002 pursuant to section 
     224(c)(1)(B) of Public Law 98-76; and in addition, an amount, 
     not to exceed 2 percent of the amount provided herein, shall 
     be available proportional to the amount by which the product 
     of recipients and the average benefit received exceeds 
     $146,000,000: Provided, That the total amount provided herein 
     shall be credited in 12 approximately equal amounts on the 
     first day of each month in the fiscal year.


          federal payments to the railroad retirement accounts

       For payment to the accounts established in the Treasury for 
     the payment of benefits under the Railroad Retirement Act for 
     interest earned on unnegotiated checks, $150,000, to remain 
     available through September 30, 2003, which shall be the 
     maximum amount available for payment pursuant to section 417 
     of Public Law 98-76.


                      limitation on administration

       For necessary expenses for the Railroad Retirement Board 
     for administration of the Railroad Retirement Act and the 
     Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act, $97,700,000, to be 
     derived in such amounts as determined by the Board from the 
     railroad retirement accounts and from moneys credited to the 
     railroad unemployment insurance administration fund.


             limitation on the office of inspector general

       For expenses necessary for the Office of Inspector General 
     for audit, investigatory and review activities, as authorized 
     by the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, not more 
     than $6,042,000, to be derived from the railroad retirement 
     accounts and railroad unemployment insurance account: 
     Provided, That none of the funds made available in any other 
     paragraph of this Act may be transferred to the Office; used 
     to carry out any such transfer; used to provide any office 
     space, equipment, office supplies, communications facilities 
     or services, maintenance services, or administrative services 
     for the Office; used to pay any salary, benefit, or award for 
     any personnel of the Office; used to pay any other operating 
     expense of the Office; or used to reimburse the Office for 
     any service provided, or expense incurred, by the Office.

                     Social Security Administration


                payments to social security trust funds

       For payment to the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance 
     and the Federal Disability Insurance trust funds, as provided 
     under sections 201(m), 217(g), 228(g), and 1131(b)(2) of the 
     Social Security Act, $434,400,000.


               special benefits for disabled coal miners

       For carrying out title IV of the Federal Mine Safety and 
     Health Act of 1977, $332,840,000, to remain available until 
     expended.
       For making, after July 31 of the current fiscal year, 
     benefit payments to individuals under title IV of the Federal 
     Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, for costs incurred in the 
     current fiscal year, such amounts as may be necessary.
       For making benefit payments under title IV of the Federal 
     Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 for the first quarter of 
     fiscal year 2003, $108,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended.


                  supplemental security income program

       For carrying out titles XI and XVI of the Social Security 
     Act, section 401 of Public Law 92-603, section 212 of Public 
     Law 93-66, as amended, and section 405 of Public Law 95-216, 
     including payment to the Social Security trust funds for 
     administrative expenses incurred pursuant to section 
     201(g)(1) of the Social Security Act, $21,270,412,000, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That any portion 
     of the funds provided to a State in the current fiscal year 
     and not obligated by the State during that year shall be 
     returned to the Treasury.
       In addition, $200,000,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2003, for payment to the Social Security trust 
     funds for administrative expenses for continuing disability 
     reviews as authorized by section 103 of Public Law 104-121 
     and section 10203 of Public Law 105-33. The term ``continuing 
     disability reviews'' means reviews and redeterminations as 
     defined under section 201(g)(1)(A) of the Social Security 
     Act, as amended.
       For making, after June 15 of the current fiscal year, 
     benefit payments to individuals under title XVI of the Social 
     Security Act, for unanticipated costs incurred for the 
     current fiscal year, such sums as may be necessary.
       For making benefit payments under title XVI of the Social 
     Security Act for the first quarter of fiscal year 2003, 
     $10,790,000,000, to remain available until expended.


                 limitation on administrative expenses

       For necessary expenses, including the hire of two passenger 
     motor vehicles, and not to exceed $35,000 for official 
     reception and representation expenses, not more than 
     $7,035,000,000 may be expended, as authorized by section 
     201(g)(1) of the Social Security Act, from any one or all of 
     the trust funds referred to therein: Provided, That not less 
     than $1,800,000 shall be for the Social Security Advisory 
     Board: Provided further, That unobligated balances at the end 
     of fiscal year 2002 not needed for fiscal year 2002 shall 
     remain available until expended to invest in the Social 
     Security Administration information technology and 
     telecommunications hardware and software infrastructure, 
     including related equipment and non-payroll administrative 
     expenses associated solely with this information technology 
     and telecommunications infrastructure: Provided further, That 
     reimbursement to the trust funds under this heading for 
     expenditures for official time for employees of the Social 
     Security Administration pursuant to section 7131 of title 5, 
     United States Code, and for facilities or support services 
     for labor organizations pursuant to policies, regulations, or 
     procedures referred to in section 7135(b) of such title shall 
     be made by the Secretary of the Treasury, with interest, from 
     amounts in the general fund not otherwise appropriated, as 
     soon as possible after such expenditures are made.
       From funds provided under the first paragraph, not less 
     than $200,000,000 shall be available for conducting 
     continuing disability reviews.
       In addition to funding already available under this 
     heading, and subject to the same terms and conditions, 
     $433,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2003, 
     for continuing disability reviews as authorized by section 
     103 of Public Law 104-121 and section 10203 of Public Law 
     105-33. The term ``continuing disability reviews'' means 
     reviews and redeterminations as defined under section 
     201(g)(1)(A) of the Social Security Act, as amended.
       In addition, $100,000,000 to be derived from administration 
     fees in excess of $5.00 per supplementary payment collected 
     pursuant to section 1616(d) of the Social Security Act or 
     section 212(b)(3) of Public Law 93-66, which shall remain 
     available until expended. To the extent that the amounts 
     collected pursuant to such section 1616(d) or 212(b)(3) in 
     fiscal year 2002 exceed $100,000,000, the amounts shall be 
     available in fiscal year 2003 only to the extent provided in 
     advance in appropriations Acts.
       From funds previously appropriated for this purpose, any 
     unobligated balances at the end of fiscal year 2001 shall be 
     available to continue Federal-State partnerships which will 
     evaluate means to promote Medicare buy-in programs targeted 
     to elderly and disabled individuals under titles XVIII and 
     XIX of the Social Security Act.


                      office of inspector general

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For expenses necessary for the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act 
     of 1978, as amended, $19,000,000, together with not to exceed 
     $56,000,000, to be transferred and expended as authorized by 
     section 201(g)(1) of the Social Security Act from the Federal 
     Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal 
     Disability Insurance Trust Fund.
       In addition, an amount not to exceed 3 percent of the total 
     provided in this appropriation may be transferred from the 
     ``Limitation on Administrative Expenses'', Social Security 
     Administration, to be merged with this account, to be 
     available for the time and

[[Page 19390]]

     purposes for which this account is available: Provided, That 
     notice of such transfers shall be transmitted promptly to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate.

                    United States Institute of Peace


                           operating expenses

       For necessary expenses of the United States Institute of 
     Peace as authorized in the United States Institute of Peace 
     Act, $15,000,000.

                      TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 501. The Secretaries of Labor, Health and Human 
     Services, and Education are authorized to transfer unexpended 
     balances of prior appropriations to accounts corresponding to 
     current appropriations provided in this Act: Provided, That 
     such transferred balances are used for the same purpose, and 
     for the same periods of time, for which they were originally 
     appropriated.
       Sec. 502. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current 
     fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
       Sec. 503. (a) No part of any appropriation contained in 
     this Act shall be used, other than for normal and recognized 
     executive-legislative relationships, for publicity or 
     propaganda purposes, for the preparation, distribution, or 
     use of any kit, pamphlet, booklet, publication, radio, 
     television, or video presentation designed to support or 
     defeat legislation pending before the Congress or any State 
     legislature, except in presentation to the Congress or any 
     State legislature itself.
       (b) No part of any appropriation contained in this Act 
     shall be used to pay the salary or expenses of any grant or 
     contract recipient, or agent acting for such recipient, 
     related to any activity designed to influence legislation or 
     appropriations pending before the Congress or any State 
     legislature.
       Sec. 504. The Secretaries of Labor and Education are 
     authorized to make available not to exceed $20,000 and 
     $15,000, respectively, from funds available for salaries and 
     expenses under titles I and III, respectively, for official 
     reception and representation expenses; the Director of the 
     Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service is authorized to 
     make available for official reception and representation 
     expenses not to exceed $2,500 from the funds available for 
     ``Salaries and expenses, Federal Mediation and Conciliation 
     Service''; and the Chairman of the National Mediation Board 
     is authorized to make available for official reception and 
     representation expenses not to exceed $2,500 from funds 
     available for ``Salaries and expenses, National Mediation 
     Board''.
       Sec. 505. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
     no funds appropriated under this Act shall be used to carry 
     out any program of distributing sterile needles or syringes 
     for the hypodermic injection of any illegal drug.
       Sec. 506. (a) It is the sense of the Congress that, to the 
     greatest extent practicable, all equipment and products 
     purchased with funds made available in this Act should be 
     American-made.
       (b) In providing financial assistance to, or entering into 
     any contract with, any entity using funds made available in 
     this Act, the head of each Federal agency, to the greatest 
     extent practicable, shall provide to such entity a notice 
     describing the statement made in subsection (a) by the 
     Congress.
       (c) If it has been finally determined by a court or Federal 
     agency that any person intentionally affixed a label bearing 
     a ``Made in America'' inscription, or any inscription with 
     the same meaning, to any product sold in or shipped to the 
     United States that is not made in the United States, the 
     person shall be ineligible to receive any contract or 
     subcontract made with funds made available in this Act, 
     pursuant to the debarment, suspension, and ineligibility 
     procedures described in sections 9.400 through 9.409 of title 
     48, Code of Federal Regulations.
       Sec. 507. When issuing statements, press releases, requests 
     for proposals, bid solicitations and other documents 
     describing projects or programs funded in whole or in part 
     with Federal money, all grantees receiving Federal funds 
     included in this Act, including but not limited to State and 
     local governments and recipients of Federal research grants, 
     shall clearly state: (1) the percentage of the total costs of 
     the program or project which will be financed with Federal 
     money; (2) the dollar amount of Federal funds for the project 
     or program; and (3) percentage and dollar amount of the total 
     costs of the project or program that will be financed by non-
     governmental sources.
       Sec. 508. (a) None of the funds appropriated under this 
     Act, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds 
     are appropriated under this Act, shall be expended for any 
     abortion.
       (b) None of the funds appropriated under this Act, and none 
     of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are 
     appropriated under this Act, shall be expended for health 
     benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion.
       (c) The term ``health benefits coverage'' means the package 
     of services covered by a managed care provider or 
     organization pursuant to a contract or other arrangement.
       Sec. 509. (a) The limitations established in the preceding 
     section shall not apply to an abortion--
       (1) if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or 
     incest; or
       (2) in the case where a woman suffers from a physical 
     disorder, physical injury, or physical illness, including a 
     life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from 
     the pregnancy itself, that would, as certified by a 
     physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an 
     abortion is performed.
       (b) Nothing in the preceding section shall be construed as 
     prohibiting the expenditure by a State, locality, entity, or 
     private person of State, local, or private funds (other than 
     a State's or locality's contribution of Medicaid matching 
     funds).
       (c) Nothing in the preceding section shall be construed as 
     restricting the ability of any managed care provider from 
     offering abortion coverage or the ability of a State or 
     locality to contract separately with such a provider for such 
     coverage with State funds (other than a State's or locality's 
     contribution of Medicaid matching funds).
       Sec. 510. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act 
     may be used for--
       (1) the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research 
     purposes; or
       (2) research in which a human embryo or embryos are 
     destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of 
     injury or death greater than that allowed for research on 
     fetuses in utero under 45 CFR 46.208(a)(2) and section 498(b) 
     of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 289g(b)).
       (b) For purposes of this section, the term ``human embryo 
     or embryos'' includes any organism, not protected as a human 
     subject under 45 CFR 46 as of the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, that is derived by fertilization, parthenogenesis, 
     cloning, or any other means from one or more human gametes or 
     human diploid cells.
       Sec. 511. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act 
     may be used for any activity that promotes the legalization 
     of any drug or other substance included in schedule I of the 
     schedules of controlled substances established by section 202 
     of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812).
       (b) The limitation in subsection (a) shall not apply when 
     there is significant medical evidence of a therapeutic 
     advantage to the use of such drug or other substance or that 
     federally sponsored clinical trials are being conducted to 
     determine therapeutic advantage.
       Sec. 512. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be obligated or expended to enter into or renew a contract 
     with an entity if--
       (1) such entity is otherwise a contractor with the United 
     States and is subject to the requirement in section 4212(d) 
     of title 38, United States Code, regarding submission of an 
     annual report to the Secretary of Labor concerning employment 
     of certain veterans; and
       (2) such entity has not submitted a report as required by 
     that section for the most recent year for which such 
     requirement was applicable to such entity.
       Sec. 513. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to promulgate or adopt any final standard under 
     section 1173(b) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320d-
     2(b)) providing for, or providing for the assignment of, a 
     unique health identifier for an individual (except in an 
     individual's capacity as an employer or a health care 
     provider), until legislation is enacted specifically 
     approving the standard.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to the open portion of the bill 
through title V?
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

TITLE VI--EXTENSION OF MARK-TO-MARKET PROGRAM FOR MULTIFAMILY ASSISTED 
                                HOUSING

     SEC. 601. SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This title may be cited as the ``Mark-to-
     Market Extension Act of 2001''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this 
     title is as follows:

TITLE VI--EXTENSION OF MARK-TO-MARKET PROGRAM FOR MULTIFAMILY ASSISTED 
                                HOUSING

Sec. 601. Short title and table of contents.
Sec. 602. Purposes.
Sec. 603. Effective date.

 Subtitle A--Multifamily Housing Mortgage and Assistance Restructuring 
                     and Section 8 Contract Renewal

Sec. 611. Definitions.
Sec. 612. Mark-to-market program amendments.
Sec. 613. Consistency of rent levels under enhanced voucher assistance 
              and rent restructurings.
Sec. 614. Eligible inclusions for renewal rents of partially assisted 
              buildings.
Sec. 615. Eligibility of restructuring projects for miscellaneous 
              housing insurance.
Sec. 616. Technical corrections.

   Subtitle B--Office of Multifamily Housing Assistance Restructuring

Sec. 621. Reauthorization of Office and extension of program.
Sec. 622. Appointment of Director.
Sec. 623. Vacancy in position of Director.

[[Page 19391]]

Sec. 624. Oversight by Federal Housing Commissioner.
Sec. 625. Limitation on subsequent employment.

          Subtitle C--Miscellaneous Housing Program Amendments

Sec. 631. Extension of CDBG public services cap exception.
Sec. 632. Use of section 8 enhanced vouchers for prepayments.
Sec. 633. Prepayment and refinancing of loans for section 202 
              supportive housing.
Sec. 634. Technical correction.

     SEC. 602. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this title are--
       (1) to continue the progress of the Multifamily Assisted 
     Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997 (referred to in 
     this section as ``that Act'');
       (2) to ensure that properties that undergo mortgage 
     restructurings pursuant to that Act are rehabilitated to a 
     standard that allows the properties to meet their long-term 
     affordability requirements;
       (3) to ensure that, for properties that undergo mortgage 
     restructurings pursuant to that Act, reserves are set at 
     adequate levels to allow the properties to meet their long-
     term affordability requirements;
       (4) to ensure that properties that undergo mortgage 
     restructurings pursuant to that Act are operated efficiently, 
     and that operating expenses are sufficient to ensure the 
     long-term financial and physical integrity of the properties;
       (5) to ensure that properties that undergo rent 
     restructurings have adequate resources to maintain the 
     properties in good condition;
       (6) to ensure that the Office of Multifamily Housing 
     Assistance Restructuring of the Department of Housing and 
     Urban Development continues to focus on the portfolio of 
     properties eligible for restructuring under that Act;
       (7) to ensure that the Department of Housing and Urban 
     Development carefully tracks the condition of those 
     properties on an ongoing basis;
       (8) to ensure that tenant groups, nonprofit organizations, 
     and public entities continue to have the resources for 
     building the capacity of tenant organizations in furtherance 
     of the purposes of subtitle A of that Act; and
       (9) to encourage the Office of Multifamily Housing 
     Assistance Restructuring to continue to provide participating 
     administrative entities, including public participating 
     administrative entities, with the flexibility to respond to 
     specific problems that individual cases may present, while 
     ensuring consistent outcomes around the country.

     SEC. 603. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       Except as provided in sections 616(a)(2), 633(b), and 
     634(b), this title and the amendments made by this title 
     shall take effect or are deemed to have taken effect, as 
     appropriate, on the earlier of--
       (1) the date of the enactment of this title; or
       (2) September 30, 2001.

 Subtitle A--Multifamily Housing Mortgage and Assistance Restructuring 
                     and Section 8 Contract Renewal

     SEC. 611. DEFINITIONS.

       Section 512 of the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and 
     Affordability Act of 1997 (42 U.S.C. 1437f note) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(19) Office.--The term `Office' means the Office of 
     Multifamily Housing Assistance Restructuring established 
     under section 571.''.

     SEC. 612. MARK-TO-MARKET PROGRAM AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Funding for Tenant and Nonprofit Participation.--
     Section 514(f)(3)(A) of the Multifamily Assisted Housing 
     Reform and Affordability Act of 1997 (42 U.S.C. 1437f note) 
     is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Secretary may provide not more than 
     $10,000,000 annually in funding'' and inserting ``Secretary 
     shall make available not more than $10,000,000 annually in 
     funding, which amount shall be in addition to any amounts 
     made available under this subparagraph and carried over from 
     previous years,''; and
       (2) by striking ``entities), and for tenant services,'' and 
     inserting ``entities), for tenant services, and for tenant 
     groups, nonprofit organizations, and public entities 
     described in section 517(a)(5),''.
       (b) Exception Rents.--Section 514(g)(2)(A) of the 
     Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 
     1997 (42 U.S.C. 1437f note) is amended by striking 
     ``restructured mortgages in any fiscal year'' and inserting 
     ``portfolio restructuring agreements''.
       (c) Notice to Displaced Tenants.--Section 516(d) of the 
     Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 
     1997 (42 U.S.C. 1437f note) is amended by striking ``Subject 
     to'' and inserting the following:
       ``(1) Notice to certain residents.--The Office shall notify 
     any tenant that is residing in a project or receiving 
     assistance under section 8 of the United States Housing Act 
     of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f) at the time of rejection under this 
     section, of such rejection, except that the Office may 
     delegate the responsibility to provide notice under this 
     paragraph to the participating administrative entity.
       ``(2) Assistance and moving expenses.--Subject to''.
       (d) Restructuring Plans for Transfers of Prepayment 
     Projects.--The Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and 
     Affordability Act of 1997 (42 U.S.C. 1437f note) is amended--
       (1) in section 524(e), by adding at the end the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(3) Mortgage restructuring and rental assistance 
     sufficiency plans.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the owner 
     of the project may request, and the Secretary may consider, 
     mortgage restructuring and rental assistance sufficiency 
     plans to facilitate sales or transfers of properties under 
     this subtitle, subject to an approved plan of action under 
     the Emergency Low Income Housing Preservation Act of 1987 (12 
     U.S.C. 1715l note) or the Low-Income Housing Preservation and 
     Resident Homeownership Act of 1990 (12 U.S.C. 4101 et seq.), 
     which plans shall result in a sale or transfer of those 
     properties.''; and
       (2) in the last sentence of section 512(2), by inserting 
     ``, but does include a project described in section 
     524(e)(3)'' after ``section 524(e)''.
       (e) Addition of Significant Features.--Section 517 of the 
     Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 
     1997 (42 U.S.C. 1437f note) is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (c) (except that the striking of 
     such subsection may not be construed to have any effect on 
     the provisions of law amended by such subsection, as such 
     subsection was in effect before the date of the enactment of 
     this Act);
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraph (7), by striking ``(7)'' and inserting 
     ``(1)''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) Addition of significant features.--
       ``(A) Authority.--An approved mortgage restructuring and 
     rental assistance sufficiency plan may require the 
     improvement of the project by the addition of significant 
     features that are not necessary for rehabilitation to the 
     standard provided under paragraph (1), such as air 
     conditioning, an elevator, and additional community space. 
     The Secretary shall establish guidelines regarding the 
     inclusion of requirements regarding such additional 
     significant features under such plans.
       ``(B) Funding.--Significant features added pursuant to an 
     approved mortgage restructuring and rental assistance 
     sufficiency plan may be paid from the funding sources 
     specified in the first sentence of paragraph (1)(A).
       ``(C) Limitation on owner contribution.--An owner of a 
     project may not be required to contribute from non-project 
     resources, toward the cost of any additional significant 
     features required pursuant to this paragraph, more than 25 
     percent of the amount of any assistance received for the 
     inclusion of such features.
       ``(D) Applicability.--This paragraph shall apply to all 
     eligible multifamily housing projects, except projects for 
     which the Secretary and the project owner executed a mortgage 
     restructuring and rental assistance sufficiency plan on or 
     before the date of the enactment of the Mark-to-Market 
     Extension Act of 2001.''; and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (6) of subsection (b) the 
     following:
       ``(c) Rehabilitation Needs and Addition of Significant 
     Features.--''.
       (f) Look-Back Projects.--Section 512(2) of the Multifamily 
     Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997 (42 
     U.S.C. 1437f note) is amended by adding after the period at 
     the end of the last sentence the following: ``Notwithstanding 
     any other provision of this title, the Secretary may treat a 
     project as an eligible multifamily housing project for 
     purposes of this title if (I) the project is assisted 
     pursuant to a contract for project-based assistance under 
     section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 renewed 
     under section 524 of this Act, (II) the owner consents to 
     such treatment, and (III) the project met the requirements of 
     the first sentence of this paragraph for eligibility as an 
     eligible multifamily housing project before the initial 
     renewal of the contract under section 524.''.
       (g) Second Mortgages.--Section 517(a) of the Multifamily 
     Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997 (42 
     U.S.C. 1437f note) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ``no more than the'' 
     and inserting the following: ``not more than the greater of--
       ``(i) the full or partial payment of claim made under this 
     subtitle; or
       ``(ii) the''; and
       (2) in paragraph (5), by inserting ``of the second 
     mortgage, assign the second mortgage to the acquiring 
     organization or agency,'' after ``terms''.
       (h) Exemptions From Restructuring.--Section 514(h)(2) of 
     the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act 
     of 1997 (42 U.S.C. 1437f note) is amended by inserting before 
     the semicolon the following: ``, or refinanced pursuant to 
     section 811 of the American Homeownership and Economic 
     Opportunity Act of 2000 (12 U.S.C. 1701q note)''.

     SEC. 613. CONSISTENCY OF RENT LEVELS UNDER ENHANCED VOUCHER 
                   ASSISTANCE AND RENT RESTRUCTURINGS.

       Subtitle A of the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and 
     Affordability Act of 1997 (42 U.S.C. 1437f note) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new section:

[[Page 19392]]



     ``SEC. 525. CONSISTENCY OF RENT LEVELS UNDER ENHANCED VOUCHER 
                   ASSISTANCE AND RENT RESTRUCTURINGS.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall examine the 
     standards and procedures for determining and establishing the 
     rent standards described under subsection (b). Pursuant to 
     such examination, the Secretary shall establish procedures 
     and guidelines that are designed to ensure that the amounts 
     determined by the various rent standards for the same 
     dwelling units are reasonably consistent and reflect rents 
     for comparable unassisted units in the same area as such 
     dwelling units.
       ``(b) Rent Standards.--The rent standards described in this 
     subsection are as follows:
       ``(1) Enhanced vouchers.--The payment standard for enhanced 
     voucher assistance under section 8(t) of the United States 
     Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f(t)).
       ``(2) Mark-to-market.--The rents derived from comparable 
     properties, for purposes of section 514(g) of this Act.
       ``(3) Contract renewal.--The comparable market rents for 
     the market area, for purposes of section 524(a)(4) of this 
     Act.''.

     SEC. 614. ELIGIBLE INCLUSIONS FOR RENEWAL RENTS OF PARTIALLY 
                   ASSISTED BUILDINGS.

       Section 524(a)(4)(C) of the Multifamily Assisted Housing 
     Reform and Affordability Act of 1997 (42 U.S.C. 1437f note) 
     is amended by adding after the period at the end the 
     following: ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Secretary shall include in such budget-based cost increases 
     costs relating to the project as a whole (including costs 
     incurred with respect to units not covered by the contract 
     for assistance), but only (I) if inclusion of such costs is 
     requested by the owner or purchaser of the project, (II) if 
     inclusion of such costs will permit capital repairs to the 
     project or acquisition of the project by a nonprofit 
     organization, and (III) to the extent that inclusion of such 
     costs (or a portion thereof) complies with the requirement 
     under clause (ii).''.

     SEC. 615. ELIGIBILITY OF RESTRUCTURING PROJECTS FOR 
                   MISCELLANEOUS HOUSING INSURANCE.

       Section 223(a)(7) of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 
     1715n(a)(7)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``under this Act: Provided, That the 
     principal'' and inserting the following: ``under this Act, or 
     an existing mortgage held by the Secretary that is subject to 
     a mortgage restructuring and rental assistance sufficiency 
     plan pursuant to the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and 
     Affordability Act of 1997 (42 U.S.C. 1437f note), provided 
     that--
       ``(A) the principal'';
       (2) by striking ``except that (A)'' and inserting ``except 
     that (i)'';
       (3) by striking ``(B)'' and inserting ``(ii)'';
       (4) by striking ``(C)'' and inserting ``(iii)'';
       (5) by striking ``(D)'' and inserting ``(iv)'';
       (6) by striking ``: Provided further, That a mortgage'' and 
     inserting the following ``; and
       ``(B) a mortgage'';
       (7) by striking ``or'' at the end; and
       (8) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(C) a mortgage that is subject to a mortgage 
     restructuring and rental assistance sufficiency plan pursuant 
     to the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability 
     Act of 1997 (42 U.S.C. 1437f note) and is refinanced under 
     this paragraph may have a term of not more than 30 years; 
     or''.

     SEC. 616. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS.

       (a) Exemptions From Restructuring.--
       (1) In general.--Section 514(h) of the Multifamily Assisted 
     Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997 (42 U.S.C. 1437f 
     note) is amended to read as if the amendment made by section 
     531(c) of Public Law 106-74 (113 Stat. 1116) were made to 
     ``Section 514(h)(1)'' instead of ``Section 514(h)''.
       (2) Retroactive effect.--The amendment made by paragraph 
     (1) of this subsection is deemed to have taken effect on the 
     date of the enactment of Public Law 106-74 (113 Stat. 1109).
       (b) Other.--The Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and 
     Affordability Act of 1997 (42 U.S.C. 1437f note) is amended--
       (1) in section 511(a)(12), by striking ``this Act'' and 
     inserting ``this title'';
       (2) in section 513, by striking ``this Act'' each place 
     such term appears in subsections (a)(2)(I) and (b)(3) and 
     inserting ``this title'';
       (3) in section 514(f)(3)(B), by inserting ``Housing'' after 
     ``Multifamily'';
       (4) in section 515(c)(1)(B), by inserting ``or'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (5) in section 517(b)--
       (A) in each of paragraphs (1) through (6), by capitalizing 
     the first letter of the first word that follows the paragraph 
     heading;
       (B) in each of paragraphs (1) through (5), by striking the 
     semicolon at the end and inserting a period; and
       (C) in paragraph (6), by striking ``; and'' at the end and 
     inserting a period;
       (6) in section 520(b), by striking ``Banking and''; and
       (7) in section 573(d)(2), by striking ``Banking and''.

   Subtitle B--Office of Multifamily Housing Assistance Restructuring

     SEC. 621. REAUTHORIZATION OF OFFICE AND EXTENSION OF PROGRAM.

       Section 579 of the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and 
     Affordability Act of 1997 (42 U.S.C. 1437f note) is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following 
     new subsection:
       ``(a) Repeals.--
       ``(1) Mark-to-market program.--Subtitle A (except for 
     section 524) is repealed effective October 1, 2006.
       ``(2) OMHAR.--Subtitle D (except for this section) is 
     repealed effective October 1, 2004.'';
       (2) in subsection (b), by striking ``October 1, 2001'' and 
     inserting ``October 1, 2006'';
       (3) in subsection (c), by striking ``upon September 30, 
     2001'' and inserting ``at the end of September 30, 2004''; 
     and
       (4) by striking subsection (d) and inserting the following 
     new subsection:
       ``(d) Transfer of Authority.--Effective upon the repeal of 
     subtitle D under subsection (a)(2) of this section, all 
     authority and responsibilities to administer the program 
     under subtitle A are transferred to the Secretary.''.

     SEC. 622. APPOINTMENT OF DIRECTOR.

       (a) In General.--Section 572 of the Multifamily Assisted 
     Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997 (42 U.S.C. 1437f 
     note) is amended by striking subsection (a) and inserting the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(a) Appointment.--The Office shall be under the 
     management of a Director, who shall be appointed by the 
     President from among individuals who are citizens of the 
     United States and have a demonstrated understanding of 
     financing and mortgage restructuring for affordable 
     multifamily housing.''.
       (b) Applicability.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to the first Director of the Office of 
     Multifamily Housing Assistance Restructuring of the 
     Department of Housing and Urban Development appointed after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, and any such Director 
     appointed thereafter.

     SEC. 623. VACANCY IN POSITION OF DIRECTOR.

       (a) In General.--Section 572 of the Multifamily Assisted 
     Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997 (42 U.S.C. 1437f 
     note) is amended by striking subsection (b) and inserting the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(b) Vacancy.--A vacancy in the position of Director shall 
     be filled by appointment in the manner provided under 
     subsection (a). The President shall make such an appointment 
     not later than 60 days after such position first becomes 
     vacant.''.
       (b) Applicability.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to any vacancy in the position of Director of the 
     Office of Multifamily Housing Assistance Restructuring of the 
     Department of Housing and Urban Development which occurs or 
     exists after the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 624. OVERSIGHT BY FEDERAL HOUSING COMMISSIONER.

       (a) In General.--Section 578 of the Multifamily Assisted 
     Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997 (42 U.S.C. 1437f 
     note) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 578. OVERSIGHT BY FEDERAL HOUSING COMMISSIONER.

       ``All authority and responsibilities assigned under this 
     subtitle to the Secretary shall be carried out through the 
     Assistant Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban 
     Development who is the Federal Housing Commissioner.''.
       (b) Report.--The second sentence of section 573(b) of the 
     Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 
     1997 (42 U.S.C. 1437f note) is amended by striking 
     ``Secretary'' and inserting ``Assistant Secretary of the 
     Department of Housing and Urban Development who is the 
     Federal Housing Commissioner''.

     SEC. 625. LIMITATION ON SUBSEQUENT EMPLOYMENT.

       Section 576 of the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and 
     Affordability Act of 1997 (42 U.S.C. 1437f note) is amended 
     by striking ``2-year period'' and inserting ``1-year 
     period''.

          Subtitle C--Miscellaneous Housing Program Amendments

     SEC. 631. EXTENSION OF CDBG PUBLIC SERVICES CAP EXCEPTION.

       Section 105(a)(8) of the Housing and Community Development 
     Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5305(a)(8)) is amended by striking 
     ``through 2001'' and inserting ``through 2003''.

     SEC. 632. USE OF SECTION 8 ENHANCED VOUCHERS FOR PREPAYMENTS.

       Section 8(t)(2) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 
     (42 U.S.C. 1437f(t)(2)) is amended by inserting after 
     ``insurance contract for the mortgage for such housing 
     project'' the following: ``(including any such mortgage 
     prepayment during fiscal year 1996 or a fiscal year 
     thereafter or any insurance contract voluntary termination 
     during fiscal year 1996 or a fiscal year thereafter)''.

     SEC. 633. PREPAYMENT AND REFINANCING OF LOANS FOR SECTION 202 
                   SUPPORTIVE HOUSING.

       (a) In General.--Section 811 of the American Homeownership 
     and Economic Opportunity Act of 2000 (12 U.S.C. 1701q note) 
     is amended by striking subsection (e).
       (b) Effectiveness Upon Date of Enactment.--The amendment 
     made by subsection (a) of this section shall take effect upon 
     the date of the enactment of this Act and the provisions of 
     section 811 of the American Homeownership and Economic 
     Opportunity Act of 2000 (12 U.S.C. 1701q note), as amended

[[Page 19393]]

     by subsection (a) of this section, shall apply as so amended 
     upon such date of enactment, notwithstanding--
       (1) any authority of the Secretary of Housing and Urban 
     Development to issue regulations to implement or carry out 
     the amendments made by subsection (a) of this section or the 
     provisions of section 811 of the American Homeownership and 
     Economic Opportunity Act of 2000 (12 U.S.C. 1701q note); or
       (2) any failure of the Secretary of Housing and Urban 
     Development to issue any such regulations authorized.

     SEC. 634. TECHNICAL CORRECTION.

       (a) In General.--Section 101(a) of Public Law 100-77 (42 
     U.S.C. 11301 note) is amended to read as if the amendment 
     made by section 1 of Public Law 106-400 (114 Stat. 1675) were 
     made to ``Section 101'' instead of ``Section 1''.
       (b) Retroactive Effect.--The amendment made by subsection 
     (a) of this section is deemed to have taken effect 
     immediately after the enactment of Public Law 106-400 (114 
     Stat. 1675).

  Mr. REGULA (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the remainder of the bill through page 102, line 2, be 
considered as read, printed in the Record and open to amendment at any 
point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.


                Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Traficant

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to offer 
amendment No. 6 from the end of the bill at this point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Traficant:
       Page __, after line __, insert the following new section:
       Sec. __. No funds appropriated in this Act may be made 
     available to any person or entity that violates the Buy 
     American Act (41 U.S.C. 10a-10c).

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a straight limitation. 
None of the funds appropriated in the act may be made available to any 
person or entity that has violated the Buy American Act.
  Mr. Chairman, the House should pay attention to something that 
concerns me, and the appropriators especially. A notice has been posted 
that the windows of the Capitol will have installed a protective 
covering because of the September 11 terrorist attack and the increased 
focus on terrorism. The company that made the product that will be 
installed on the Capitol windows is from Belgium.
  One of the big contracts given for the rebuilding of the Pentagon is 
to a French company; and I might remind Members when we had a problem 
with Khadafi, France would not let us use their air space or their 
airports. Our military has bought boots from China, and probably most 
of the flags Members see waving throughout America as a symbol of 
American patriotism were made in Chinese sweatshops.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment makes sense. But I believe the leaders of 
the Committee on Appropriations should start looking at procurement. We 
certainly do not have to be an isolationist Nation or protectionist 
Nation; but on military procurement, especially, I think we should 
almost demand American products in the end that someday we may face a 
nation who we depend on for a product that may not be all that friendly 
to us.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, we are prepared to accept this amendment on 
our side.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the chairman, who 
is my neighbor. The subcommittee has done a tremendous job.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Stearns

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Stearns:
       At the end of title V, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following section:
       Sec. 5__. Of the amounts otherwise made available in this 
     Act to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting for fiscal 
     year 2002, $12,000,000 is transferred and made available 
     under the account for the Public Health and Social Services 
     Emergency Fund as an additional amount to support activities 
     of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order.

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment. Basically 
it tries to help the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that 
relates to biological disease and chemical threats to the civilian 
population and it essentially takes about 3 percent from the Public 
Broadcasting Corporation and moves it over to the Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention.
  Just this last week, our headline news has had two frightening what-
ifs, particularly in Florida. Three individuals have come in contact 
with a manufactured form of anthrax. Of course, one person lost his 
life. Americans, of course, felt this, as a collective body, sort of a 
shiver upon hearing about this news. Early this week, we saw the case 
in the D.C. Metro where somebody sprayed the crowd, unsuspecting crowd. 
It turns out that about 35 people on the train, they had to evacuate. 
This whole process of what could happen if anthrax is used in our 
country in a large population is a great concern. And so I think the 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention should have sufficient funds 
to study this. I do not believe the CDC has had sufficient funds, and 
so this is a very small amount, about 3 percent, from the Public 
Broadcasting Corporation. We take from them and give to CDC, 
particularly for biological disease and chemical threat prevention 
studies. I think it is a modest amount.
  Mr. Chairman, on this debate can I control the balance of my time?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman must use his time or yield it back.
  Mr. STEARNS. Let me conclude by saying that perhaps all of you saw 
recently in the newspaper that the FCC now has allowed the Corporation 
for Public Broadcasting to advertise as a means of getting more 
revenues to their budget. Surely if PBS is going to use tax dollars to 
support itself, a small amount could be contributed to the Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention, because really public broadcasting has 
now asked the FCC if we can start to advertise to get revenue, much 
like private corporations. So the Public Broadcasting System is out 
there doing the same thing that the private corporations are going to 
do. The FCC is going to allow it, they are going to be able to 
advertise to collect revenue, and these revenues will go to help 
support the Public Broadcasting System, and I think this is good. I 
think the Public Broadcasting System should have a certain amount of 
revenues from advertising. However, I do not think they need to 
continue to be on the public dole, that the government has to support 
them with taxpayer-supported money.
  So I think this is a small effort to say we need to help the Centers 
for Disease Control and Prevention and, more importantly, have them 
take this money and use it to study things like the proliferation of 
anthrax and to prepare this Nation for some of the pitfalls that might 
occur because of that.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Stearns 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin insist on the point 
of order?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that the point in the 
bill at which this amendment would be in order has already been passed 
and so clearly, under the House rules, the gentleman's amendment is not 
in order at this time. However, as a courtesy to him and in an effort 
to save time, I will not insist on the point of order. I would simply 
move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman does not insist on the point of order and 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is not what it appears to

[[Page 19394]]

be. It is a trojan horse amendment. We all are aware of the terrorism 
problem that has befallen this country and the world. This amendment, 
in essence, pretends to do something significant about it when, in 
fact, what it does about it is something that is minuscule and not at 
all long lasting. What this amendment really is is a subterranean 
attack on public television all over America.
  The public television stations of this country are required by an FCC 
mandate to move to digital technology. This bill provides the money, at 
least the Federal share of the money, to help them do that. What this 
amendment would do is to cut in half the Federal money which is being 
provided in order to enable those stations to fulfill that Federal 
mandate. And what it does is it pretends that it is going to have a 
significant impact on programs run by the Centers for Disease Control 
by transferring $12 million to that agency.
  In fact, this bill already contains $232 million for that agency, a 
28 percent increase over last year, and by the time we have finished 
with the antiterrorism supplemental, there will be probably at least 
another $1 billion and maybe as much as $2 billion, not million but 
billion, for the very same purpose that this amendment purports to add 
money for this evening.
  So I would suggest the real way, the real way, the effective way to 
deal with the problem of terrorist attacks on this country in the form 
of biological or chemical agents is to support the committee bill and 
to support the follow-on supplemental which will be provided to this 
House before the appropriation process is finished under the agreement 
that we have reached with the White House.
  I would urge, under those circumstances, that Members not be deceived 
into thinking that this is a significant effort to deal with that 
problem. It is minuscule compared to the funding that will be needed 
and will be provided by Members on both sides of the aisle. And so I 
would urge rejection of the amendment, unless, of course, you want to 
insist on a Federal mandate without paying for it.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I rise in opposition to this amendment because we have already added 
$100 million to the CDC on bioterrorism. Their total account is almost 
$400 million. In addition, the Secretary of Health and Human Services 
has been assured that CDC will receive a portion of the money in the 
$20 billion that we appropriated as a result of the events of September 
11. So I think there is going to be a lot of money flowing to CDC for 
bioterrorism. In addition, we beefed up the public health account.
  Now, public broadcasting, and it is public broadcasting, I do not 
always agree with what they do, but they have been required by FCC to 
go to digital. And, of course, eventually the public, as they purchase 
new television sets, will likewise be able to receive digital 
programming which will, of course, improve the quality of the 
broadcasting. While I may not be enthused about some of the things the 
Corporation for Public Broadcasting does, I think it is our 
responsibility since it is the FCC which is a Federal agency that has 
made this order, and since it is public broadcasting, to support them 
as this appropriation does.
  If I thought there was a shortage in CDC, I would perhaps have a 
different approach. But, again, we have enormously beefed up the CDC 
money, plus the fact that they are going to get a very sizable sum from 
the $20 billion that we have already put in for emergency funding for 
national security.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me point out that the President will send 
to this Congress tomorrow a request for $2 billion, not 12 million 
dollars but $2 billion to combat disease-related potential attacks from 
any source.
  I would urge the House not to fall into the trap of using our concern 
over the incident that happened a month ago to screw up every other 
program that the government is engaged in. I mean, that is essentially 
what would happen if this amendment is adopted with respect to our 
obligation to help finance the mandate that the Federal Government 
created with respect to digitalization.
  If the Members want to support a real effort to help CDC prepare this 
country, they will support that $2 billion request. They will not cut 
in half what we are trying to do here for digitalization for public 
television in order to create the appearance that we have done 
something significant which, in fact, would be a thimbleful in an ocean 
in terms of its impact.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, that is correct. I am 
advised by our leadership, also, that there will be a $2 billion 
request by the Administration in additional emergency funding for the 
Centers for Disease Control to deal with bioterrorism, and that is a 
lot of money. I do not believe we should cripple the ability of the 
Corporation for Public Broadcasting to move into the 21st century in 
their ability to transmit to the public effectively. Obviously the FCC 
would not have made this requirement if it were not an important 
element of their ability to serve the public.
  I, therefore, oppose the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) 
will be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Sanders

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Sanders:
       At the end of title V, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following section:
       Sec. 5  . None of the funds made available in this Act for 
     the Department of Health and Human Services may be used to 
     grant an exclusive or partially exclusive license pursuant to 
     chapter 18 of title 35, United States Code, except in 
     accordance with section 209 of such title (relating to the 
     availability to the public of an invention and its benefits 
     on reasonable terms).

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio reserves a point of order.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment to lower 
the cost of prescription drugs in this country. It is tripartisan and 
is cosponsored by the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) 
and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  When I first introduced a version of this amendment in 1996, it 
received 180 votes. Last year, however, it passed 313-109. There is a 
lot of support for this amendment in this body. I offer it tonight 
again in the hope that the Senate will agree favorably to it and begin 
to lower the price of prescription drugs developed with the taxpayers' 
money through the National Institutes of Health. This amendment is 
supported by organizations representing millions of American citizens, 
including Families USA, the Alliance for Retired Americans, the 
National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, and Public 
Citizen.
  Mr. Chairman, over the years, the taxpayers of this country have 
contributed billions of dollars to the National Institutes of Health 
for research into new and important drugs, and that research money has 
paid off. It has worked. Between 1955 and 1992, 92 percent of drugs 
approved by the FDA to treat cancer were researched and developed by 
the NIH. Today, many of the most widely used drugs in this country 
dealing with a variety of illnesses were developed through NIH 
research, and that is very good news for all of us.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield back the balance 
of his time if we said that we would accept the amendment?

[[Page 19395]]


  Mr. SANDERS. If the gentleman would let me finish my statement, I 
have 2 more minutes. And he is going to accept it. I am happy to hear 
that.

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, what if we will not accept it if the 
gentleman finishes his speech?
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I will read fast. It will be done in a 
minute-and-a-half.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman and ranking member agreeing 
to accept the amendment. But the point here is that the bad news, by 
and large, is that those drugs that were developed at taxpayer expense 
were given over to the pharmaceutical industry with no assurance that 
American consumers would not be charged outrageously high prices. The 
pharmaceutical companies constitute the most profitable industry in 
America, yet while their profits sore, millions of Americans cannot 
afford the prescription drugs they desperately need because of the high 
prices they are forced to pay. That is bad. But what is even worse is 
that many of these same drugs were developed with taxpayer dollars.
  Imagine a situation where taxpayers contribute to develop a drug, and 
then the person who paid taxes to develop that drug cannot afford to 
buy it. That is an outrage.
  There are many crises in terms of the high cost of prescription drugs 
in this country. This amendment deals with one narrow aspect of that 
problem. If taxpayers in America are going to contribute billions to 
develop drugs, then when those drugs are marketed by the pharmaceutical 
industry they must be sold at a reasonable price; and that is what this 
amendment does.
  I could list, but I will not, the many, many drugs that receive 
Federal assistance that are now sold for outrageously high prices. It 
is time for the United States Congress to stand up to represent the 
taxpayers and consumers of this country and support this amendment.
  Let me simply conclude by mentioning with gratitude that last year 
over 300 Members of this House overwhelmingly supported this amendment. 
I am very delighted and proud that the chairman and the ranking member 
are prepared to accept it and that I hope that we can go on tonight.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I am pleased that the amendment will be approved because I am a 
cosponsor of this amendment. I compliment the gentleman for bringing 
this to the floor.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Paul) for his strong support.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there further discussion on the amendment?
  Does the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) insist on his point of 
order?
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, we withdraw our reservation and are 
prepared to accept the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the bill?


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Istook

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Istook:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:

                TITLE VII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 701. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are 
     revised by increasing the amount made available in the second 
     sentence under the heading ``Health Resources and Services'' 
     for special projects of regional and national significance 
     under section 501(a)(2) of the Social Security Act, reducing 
     the aggregate amount made available under the heading 
     ``Disease Control, Research, and Training'', and reducing the 
     aggregate amount made available under the heading ``Payments 
     to States for the Child Care and Development Block Grant'', 
     by $33,000,000, $16,000,000, and $17,000,000, respectively.

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, this deals with the matter that was offered 
earlier during the debate on this bill to make available an additional 
$33 million for Abstinence Education Grants.
  The offset, of course, is different from what it was before. It is 
now under the Disease Control, Research, and Training program, which, 
among other things, provides funding for combatting sexually 
transmitted diseases, as well as other diseases.
  Mr. Chairman, this is in response to the great crisis that we have 
had for decades regarding teen pregnancy, teen sexual activity, unwed 
births, and the tremendous catastrophic effect that it has had on 
America and on millions and millions of lives in America. For decades, 
since the 1970s, Mr. Chairman, we have been funding so-called safe sex 
programs, family planning programs, things using a euphemism for 
telling kids it is okay to have sex, as long as you are careful about 
it.
  What has been the result during that time? Mr. Chairman, as Federal 
funding for these programs went up, teenage pregnancies and unwed 
births went up along with it. The more we sent a mixed message that 
says it is okay to have sex out of wedlock, it is okay, kids, just be 
safe about it, the more we undercut what Mom and Dad tell their kids, 
the more we undercut what they are taught at church, the more we found 
that we got more of the problem.
  But only when first in private funding and then, in 1995, in Federal 
funding, did we start funding the abstinence programs that taught kids 
about waiting until marriage and upholding values, only then have we 
started to see this number come down in teenage unwed births.
  That is what this is about, Mr. Chairman. We started funding that in 
1995 at the rate of $50 million a year, and then, in the last year, we 
began adding to that at a rate of $70 million a year. To the chairman's 
credit, the bill in front of us would bring that number to $90 million, 
but it does not bring it to parity with what we have been spending to 
promote so-called safe sex, family planning. ``It is okay to do it as 
long as you try to be careful,'' and teenagers are not able to be 
careful that way, Mr. Chairman.
  This is bringing parity, as the President has proposed. As we have 
the supportive letter from OMB to support that, this is bringing parity 
to the funding, saying that we ought to be spending at least as much on 
the message of abstinence as we are on the other message.
  We defined what we meant by abstinence. Teaching that has as its 
exclusive purpose the social, psychological, and health gains to be 
realized by abstaining from sexual activity. Teaching that abstinence 
from sexual activity for teens outside marriage is the expected 
standard, and it is the only way to prevent unwanted pregnancy and the 
only way to prevent sexually transmitted diseases that have exploded 
along with the explosion of teen pregnancies.
  Mr. Chairman, this is just saying let us have parity. This does not 
attack the programs that we have been funding for years, but it does 
say that it is about time that the average American, the typical 
American, the normal values of everyday people in this country, receive 
the same emphasis from their government as we have put on other things.
  I ask Members to join me, Mr. Chairman, in supporting this amendment; 
in supporting the $33 million which we calculated and the President 
calculated would bring parity. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I have got to 
tell you, it is probably still about $15 million short of that parity, 
but I am not asking for a higher number.
  We asked early on in this session for this amount, this $73 million 
for the grants on top of the $50 million that goes to the States to do 
this. And there is huge demand for it. When the first grants were 
awarded this year under the grant program, only $20 million was 
available. Applicants applied for seven times that amount. The 
Department of Health and Human Services

[[Page 19396]]

was overwhelmed with the number of applications. They have never had 
such a response to a new program as they had for this.
  Mr. Chairman, we need to put this funding in place. We have the 
hundreds of billions of dollars in this bill. We have the extra 
billions that were added in just the last week or two. It is not asking 
too much to say that we ought to be active in seeking the abstinence 
education.
  Mr. Chairman, I move adoption of the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman insist on his point of order?
  Mr. OBEY. No, I do not, Mr. Chairman.
  I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, the account that the gentleman is asking that 
we increase has been increased in this bill by 100 percent. The account 
that the gentleman would cut in order to finance the increase that he 
is asking for is the account that funds infectious disease control 
efforts at CDC; it is the account that funds the disease detectives who 
are right now at this very moment searching for anthrax; it is the 
account that funds breast and cervical screening; it is the account 
that funds TB control; it is the account that funds sexually 
transmitted diseases; and, in addition to that, the gentleman cuts the 
Child Care Block Grant account.
  Now, I would point out that with respect to the item that the 
gentleman seeks to increase, he seeks to increase the funding that we 
are providing for abstinence programs. I fully support those programs. 
I voted for them in the past, and I have helped the gentleman get the 
funding for them. I would point out that the increase that the 
gentleman has gotten in this bill for those family planning programs is 
twice as high as the increase that we have provided in this bill for 
the traditional family planning programs.
  So the gentleman has already gotten the better part of the deal. Now 
he is asking us to fund yet another increase. And I have no problem 
with that increase. I have no problem with it whatsoever. If the 
gentleman wants to cut back some tax cuts in order to pay for it, or if 
he wants to find some other reasonable accounts to cut, fine, I am all 
for it. But I am not for funding a greater than 100 percent increase in 
this account by reducing the other accounts before us.
  I find it ironic that the previous amendment is trying to increase 
the activities that the gentleman is trying to cut with this amendment. 
This committee is being whipsawed. One minute we are being hit from the 
northeast, and the next minute we are being hit from the southwest.
  We are in the center with this bill. We have got a bipartisan 
compromise, we have got reasonable increases for all of these programs, 
and I would urge that in the interests of maintaining the balance in 
this bill, that we oppose the gentleman's amendment.
  If we can find some other way in conference to increase funding for 
this in a balanced way, I have no sweats about that. But I am certainly 
not interested in funding this increase at the expense of the decreases 
that I have just described.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition because in part it takes money 
from very important programs, Child Care Development Block Grants. We 
are all concerned about child care. We have heard earlier today 
statements about the impact of September 11 on children, and that is 
just part of the needs that face this Nation.
  Likewise, we have just had a discussion on the importance of the 
Center for Disease Control for research and training, again a response 
to the impact of events over the recent time.
  I would want to point out that I do not quarrel with what the 
gentleman's goals are, and I think this program should be increased, 
and we recognize that. We went $10 million more than the President 
requested in his budget. We went $20 million more than last year.
  It is not that we are ignoring this program. It is not that we do not 
think it has great potential. I talked to a lady in my district who is 
working with this program, and she pointed out to me a number of 
effective things that are being done in the schools. But I think it 
needs to be developed incrementally.
  I believe that the money that we have put in, working to improve the 
program, will accomplish the goals; and I would hope that in the future 
we will have more evidence, such as what I have heard from one of my 
constituents, that will persuade us that we should have another sizable 
increase in the future.
  But obviously if we are $10 million over the President and $20 
million over last year, we are recognizing the value of this program, 
and when I have to balance this off against the Centers for Disease 
Control and all the items that the gentleman from Wisconsin mentioned 
that are part of the Child Care Development Block Grant, it just does 
not balance out in terms of equities.
  We have tried to have a balanced bill here. We have tried to 
recognize all the different programs that are important. I think in 
adding $10 million over the President, $20 million over last year's 
budget, we are being fair in what is available for this program.
  I would urge Members to vote against this amendment.

                              {time}  1745

  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), my friend and colleague; but 
I would begin my brief remarks on this bill by commending the chairman 
and the ranking member for their very sincere commitment to abstinence 
education and acknowledging the increases in the current bill, $20 
million over last year, as the chairman said, and $10 million even over 
the President's request.
  But I, nevertheless, rise today in support of that noble, right, 
pure, and true belief that we as a people should reconsider our 
approach to family planning and to sex education and treatment in 
America today. The truth is that we have a problem. Mr. Chairman, 3 
million teenagers a year are catching sexually transmitted disease. The 
United States has, Mr. Chairman, the highest teenage pregnancy rate of 
all developed countries in the world, despite billions of dollars spent 
over decades in traditional methods of birth control. Mr. Chairman, 1 
million teenagers become pregnant each year, and one-third of those 
pregnancies end tragically in abortion.
  Not only do we have a problem, Mr. Chairman, but we have a solution. 
Abstinence education, as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the 
chairman of the subcommittee, just reflected passionately works. We 
know that it works. From the district that I serve in Indiana, we have 
seen church organizations and civic organizations come together to 
promote abstinence as an alternative. Here in Washington, D.C. where 15 
percent of girls become sexually active in the eighth grade, according 
to statistics, there is a program known as the Best Friends Foundation, 
which has reduced that number to 5 percent in real terms. In the 
District of Columbia, 27 percent of girls age 15 to 19 become pregnant 
each year, but among the Best Friends girls in that age range, only 2.5 
percent have ever become pregnant. Abstinence, as the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) says and as the chairman and the ranking member 
reflect, abstinence works and we ought to be making a serious and 
concerted commitment.
  Another example: in Rochester, New York, the Not Me Not Now program 
achieved remarkable results over a 4-year period. First intercourse 
incidents among 15-year-olds dropped from 47 percent to 32 percent, and 
among 17-year-olds it dropped from 54 percent to 40 percent. Mr. 
Chairman, these are real gains; these are real improvements. But we 
have a real need, despite the outstanding work of the committee on this 
important piece of legislation. I, along with the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), believe that we can

[[Page 19397]]

and should do more; that, in fact, by adding $33 million to the annual 
title V SPRANS Community Abstinence Education program, we will do much 
to meet what is a real need in America today.
  The title V program received 359 applications last year in its first 
year of operation in funding abstinence programs around America. That 
was the largest number of applications for a single new grant program 
that anyone at HHS can even remember. It would have required $165 
million in authorization to fund all of the applicants. This modest 
increase of $73 million still will not meet the need; but it will move 
us closer to a new vision, a balanced vision when it comes to sex 
education in America today.
  So again, with great respect to the chairman and to the ranking 
member for their commitment to abstinence education, which I 
acknowledge today, Mr. Chairman, is real and is heartfelt and is 
genuine; and with appreciation for the increased commitment to 
abstinence education in this bill I, nevertheless, very respectfully 
stand with the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) and others to say 
that we can and should do more.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, abstinence education. With all due respect to the good 
intentions of the author of the amendment, as far as this amendment and 
the priority-setting that produced this amendment on the floor of 
Congress today, I think the whole matter is a true embarrassment.
  The Pentagon held a memorial service this morning. It had a memorial 
service for the men and women that we lost on September 11. Their loved 
ones were not killed because of inadequate abstinence education; they 
were killed because of major security breaches in our airports, and it 
is high time that this Congress do something about it. Across our 
country, millions of Americans have honored the victims of September 11 
with a moment of silence. Well, this House has acted with more than a 
moment; it has had a month of silence and inaction on the security 
issue that lies at the heart of this tragedy. We can talk about the 
pros and cons of abstinence education all night long, and I guess some 
would like to do that, but when are we going to talk about effective 
measures to ensure abstinence for terrorism?
  I think that it is long past time to stop wasting our time talking 
about safe sex and start talking about safe flight. In the 30 days that 
have now passed since four airplanes were hijacked and crashed, the 
Congress has failed utterly to provide for airline security. This 
inaction borders on indifference, and it is a disgrace. If four crashes 
were not enough to make this body respond, what in the world will? Can 
we not devote at least as much time to this issue that every family in 
America is concerned about tonight as we devote to talking about 
abstinence?
  One week after this attack, and this is part of a series of problems; 
it is not just this amendment, one week after this attack, what was 
this House doing? We were debating a family court in the District of 
Columbia. Two weeks after this attack, we were establishing National 
Character Counts Week. Three weeks after this tragedy, we were 
considering the farm bill and approving the Virgin River Dinosaur 
Footprint Preserve. This week, we are looking at Fast Track trading 
authority, more tax breaks for corporations, and abstinence.
  When in the world is this Congress going to deal with what Americans 
are really concerned about: Will my wife get home safe tonight? Can the 
kids come home for Thanksgiving? Those are the issues that we ought to 
be establishing as our priorities.
  We will not decrease terrorism by hoping that terrorists abstain from 
further attacks. We will not be able to trade our way into the hearts 
of the Taliban, and we will not make our families safer by spending 
millions of dollars on abstinence education instead of substituting 
skilled federal law enforcement on our airlines to search the bags and 
be there when we go through the screening process instead of some 
minimum-wage worker who could not get a job anywhere else. And of all 
times, on a day when we are more and more concerned about Anthrax, to 
fund this increased abstinence education by cutting the Centers for 
Disease Control borders on insanity in terms of the priorities of this 
Congress.
  It has been 30 days, 30 days since September 11; and while most 
Americans would have said, if asked, and if they had been here on the 
floor of this Congress, do something about airline security, do 
something about bioterrorism, and leave all of this other stuff alone. 
This Congress is not doing it. This leadership will not permit us to 
debate the issue of aviation safety and the needs on bioterrorism 
tonight in this Congress because there is a hard-line idealogical 
commitment that if we add one worker to the federal workforce, even if 
they are to screen our bags, even if they are to screen the passengers, 
that that is somehow a bad thing.
  Mr. Chairman, I think we need to put a stop to the old way of dealing 
with these problems and the old ideologies and recognize that we have a 
new world after September 11. It is time to reject those old ways. The 
failure to discuss airline security results from those old ways that 
some refused to abandon.
  Mr. Chairman, at 4:28 this afternoon, another headline out: ``FBI 
Issues Terrorist Strikes Warning,'' which says that either inside or 
outside the United States, during the next several days, we may face 
additional terrorist attacks. Whether they are through Anthrax or 
through airlines, this Congress ought to be dealing with these security 
issues are a top priority.
  The fact that our National Guard, and now our border guards, are 
being pulled off the border and put into the airports, the fact that 
this is happening results from the inaction of this Congress. The 
failure of this Congress to act, which caused one Member of the other 
body, Senator McCain from Arizona, to say it last night, this in his 
words ``a farce''; and today is a continuation of that farce, resulting 
from our failure to deal with this security priority tonight.
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say that the last time I checked, the item 
before this Congress at the moment was the Labor-HHS bill. I totally 
and thoroughly disagree with the gentleman's characterization of the 
activity of this Congress. Twenty-four hours a day, 7 days a week for 
the last 30 days we have been working very hard to deal with the issues 
that he says we are ignoring.
  Back to the bill. I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Regula) and to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for their 
consideration in increasing spending for a very crucial issue, which is 
abstinence-until-marriage funding. I do not know of too many things 
from a security standpoint that is any more important than the health 
of our young people today. As we look at ways to increase the funding 
which will improve health conditions for our young people, I appreciate 
their concern, their approval of the funds; and I hope if this is not 
the right place, I am sure that my colleagues will find the right place 
to do this.
  In North Carolina we have a law that we worked very, very hard in a 
bipartisan fashion to pass; and that law says that we will have in our 
health education curriculum that abstinence until marriage is the 
expected standard of behavior. Young people, teenagers in particular, 
are very, very bright. They respond to proper leadership and good 
examples. If we tell them that this promiscuous behavior is going to 
happen, they cannot make the right choices, and then offer them 
contraceptives which have a 20 percent failure rate, we have not done 
our duty. We have not protected our young people. But if we say to 
them, abstinence until marriage is the healthy way to 100 percent 
provide protection from sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted 
pregnancies, then I say to my colleagues, we have done our job.
  So I want to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) and the

[[Page 19398]]

gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey) for their attention to this matter. I commend the amendment, I 
support it very strongly, and I would love to work with my colleagues 
in any way to make sure we make this happen. By the way, the President 
in a recent letter does support funding at the $73 million level.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Istook amendment. 
The Labor-HHS bill contains many programs that are very important to 
the American people. At this time of crisis and increased concern about 
the public welfare, we have a greater obligation than ever before to 
prioritize. The chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member 
have made an extraordinary effort to bring this good, balanced bill to 
the floor, and I thank them.
  The Istook amendment, I believe, undermines the bipartisan commitment 
we have made to move this bill without unnecessary conflicts. It would 
increase funding for a single health education grant program by $33 
million. Funding began 1 year ago at $20 million, and the chairman's 
mark already increased a promised $30 million by an additional $10 
million. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) wants to go from this 
$40 million program, a 100 percent increase over last year, to $73 
million. Not only would this increase eclipse that of any other program 
in the bill, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) offsets the cost 
of this excessive increase by cutting funds for the CDC, the Child Care 
Development Block grant. His cuts in CDC would force the CDC to make 
reductions in these areas: infectious diseases, chronic diseases, STDs, 
breast and cervical cancer. Which should we choose?

                              {time}  1800

  I will repeat it again, it means cuts in infectious diseases, chronic 
diseases, STDs, breast and cervical cancer. This is outrageous and 
irresponsible.
  Equally disturbing, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) proposes 
to cut the child care development block grant. These funds are 
desperately needed to ensure that children receive quality child care, 
especially low-income families.
  I want to make this clear to my colleagues: I know how important this 
program is to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook). In fact, 
despite my strong reservations about the effectiveness of teaching 
abstinence only until marriage, I have worked with my colleague, I have 
worked with the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) in designing these 
community-based grants, because I believe abstinence is an important 
message for our youth. We have worked together.
  However, with the tremendous needs, Mr. Chairman, as a result of 
September 11, and I feel so privileged to serve on a committee that can 
meet these needs, and we cannot even find enough money for CDC. I know 
my good chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), would like to 
do more. So now is not the time, in my judgment, to allocate a three-
fold increase, and that means 200 percent, to one health education 
program.
  Even if our Nation was not in the state of emergency, a drastic 
increase in this program is premature because it has only been in place 
1 year. As part of our agreement, and the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Istook) and I had an agreement with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey) and our former chair, Mr. Porter, to include rigorous evaluation 
in this program, an evaluation which would include a range of sexuality 
programs, not just abstinence-only programs, has not even begun.
  Finally, our funding needs for CDC bioterrorism, the public health 
emergency fund, worker training, unemployment insurance, mental health 
counseling, to name just a few, are just enormous. They are great. 
While we each continue our interest and advocacy for particular 
programs, seeking an increase of this magnitude I feel is inappropriate 
at this time. So let us give this program some time before providing an 
even larger funding increase, especially considering our budgetary 
restraints.
  I want to thank the Members again. I hope my colleagues will vote no 
on this Istook amendment, and I want to appreciate the good work of our 
Chair, the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula), for bringing us 
together working on a bipartisan agreement.
  I really feel that it is unfortunate that one of our members of the 
subcommittee chooses to violate the agreement and ask for a 200 
percent, 200 percent increase in this program, which has not been 
evaluated. It will not be evaluated until 2005.
  I would be delighted to work with my colleague to make sure that we 
continue to look at this program very carefully.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to be associated with the comments and 
remarks of my colleague, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), 
and really every Member that has risen in opposition to the Istook 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, since the September 11 attacks, the objectives of our 
Nation have changed dramatically. We are focused on combatting 
terrorism, enhancing intelligence, and upgrading our public health 
system. Each of these efforts costs money and deserves additional 
funding.
  The Istook amendment would give $33 million, a three-fold increase, 
to a narrowly-focused program that puts teens at risk and is rooted in 
wishful thinking. Abstinence-only education works only when it is 
combined with comprehensive sexuality education. Evidence shows that 
comprehensive sexuality education helps delay sexual relations among 
young people, and increases contraceptive use among those who become 
sexually active.
  Telling independent-minded teenagers what not to do and depriving 
them of information they might use to decide is a recipe for unplanned 
pregnancies and sexually-transmitted diseases.
  Ninety-three percent of Americans support teaching sexuality 
education. We should follow the numbers and reject the Istook 
amendment.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I think it is very important that we give 
credit where credit is due. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and 
the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) earlier mentioned that they 
have helped get this program off the ground. Despite this opposition to 
this amendment, they deserve credit for that. I want to acknowledge 
that publicly.
  However, as the gentleman from Wisconsin said when someone else was 
speaking earlier, I would rather have their support than their praise. 
I would like to have the gentlewoman's support now, not just her praise 
for getting the program under way but her support at this time, as 
well.
  I hear people argue, well, we really cannot afford this extra $33 
million. Mr. Chairman, this is in a bill with discretionary spending, 
not even counting the mandatory, discretionary spending of $123 
billion, $11 billion more than last year, and $6.8 billion over the 
President's request. It has a half-a-dozen accounts in it that are more 
than $100 million over the President's request. It has over a dozen 
accounts in it that are more than $100 million over last year's amount.
  Then we are told, on one of the major problems of our time, with 
teenage pregnancies and sexually-transmitted diseases, with 3 million 
young Americans each year getting sexually-transmitted diseases, 3 
million teens, we are told with all this money in the bill, it is a 
good idea, but we really cannot afford it.
  Give me a break. It is a question of where our priorities are. Do 
Members want to fund the things that reinforce America's values? Do 
Members want to fund the things that are having the

[[Page 19399]]

first success in three decades in combatting teenagers who are involved 
sexually, get disease, get pregnant, drop out of school, turn to 
alcohol, turn to drugs, do not get their education, cannot support 
themselves, go on public assistance, raise kids in that environment? Is 
that what we want?
  Mr. Chairman, if we had more of these abstinence education programs, 
we would not need all the other billions of dollars in this bill. Yet, 
I hear people say, it is a good idea, but we really cannot afford it, 
despite all the other billions of dollars in the bill. The real 
question is getting our priorities straight.
  We had $2 billion that was added to this piece of legislation in the 
last week. Of course we can afford this.
  The President's support? This is the letter dated September 24 from 
his office, the Executive Office of the President, Office of Management 
and Budget: ``The President remains strongly committed to funding 
parity between abstinence education and teen contraception. With this 
in mind, the administration would support efforts in Congress to 
increase funding to $73 million for abstinence education activities 
under the administration's title V special programs of regional and 
national significance within the Health and Human Services 
Department.''
  That is what this amendment does. The President has talked to us 
about getting parity. That is what this amendment is about. In a bill 
with all these billions of dollars, we do not have $33 million to put 
into this high priority; $33 million that prevents disease, that 
prevents children being raised in poverty?
  I heard someone say, well, we have not done enough evaluations on 
these abstinence education programs. These family planning programs, 
title X programs, we have had since 1971, for 30 years; they have never 
been evaluated. We spend over $200 million a year on them. We have not 
evaluated them. But we are told that is a reason for not promoting 
abstinence education, when teen pregnancy rates have only started 
coming down once these programs got under way.
  It is time we put more support into them. I would like to have the 
support, not just the verbal support but the support in votes, of 
people that have indeed helped to get this program under way. It needs 
a little bit of nurture and nourishment right now. The demand is huge 
in the United States. They are overwhelmed with applicants for these 
grants. They cannot fill that demand.
  Let us save some kids. Let us help people not get into this cycle of 
disease and poverty. Let us support this amendment. I move its 
adoption, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that further debate 
on the pending amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Istook) and any amendments thereto be limited to 40 minutes, to be 
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself, the 
opponent. We could have less.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I would simply 
ask if we could get an idea how many Members actually have a burning 
desire to speak on this. Then we might be able to shrink it to less 
than that, which I think everybody would appreciate.
  Mr. REGULA. We have no further speakers on this side.
  Mr. OBEY. There are three on this side. Would it be acceptable to 
have 3 minutes apiece?
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, strike my original unanimous consent 
request.
  I ask unanimous consent that further debate on the pending amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) and any amendments 
thereto be limited to 20 minutes, to be equally divided and controlled 
by the proponent and myself, the opponent.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield my 10 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), who has worked a long, long 
time on one of the issues involved in this amendment.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member and 
the distinguished chairman of the committee for their work and for the 
bipartisan bill that they have brought forward. Mr. Chairman, this is 
never an easy bill for a ranking member and a chairman to work out, so 
I salute them, and I recognize the work that has gone into this.
  But I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook). Let me tell the Members why. The amendment 
cuts the Centers for Disease Control. It is the account, not an account 
but the account that funds the CDC's disease detectives who are right 
now looking for anthrax in Florida.
  It speaks to the dollars that are spent for controlling infectious 
diseases: tuberculosis control, research into birth defects and 
childhood disabilities, and asthma treatment and prevention.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to zero in on another area of this budget, and 
what this amendment would essentially cut and really hurt, and really 
hurt. That is the issue of breast and cervical cancer screening.
  In the last Congress, if there was one thing that I worked harder on 
than anything else with my Democratic and Republican colleagues, it was 
to come up with a bill that would take care of those women that are 
underinsured or not insured at all, because when the CDC screened for 
breast and cervical cancer, that was one part of it, but the part that 
the Congress had never finished, had never done, was the next chapter. 
That was that once there was detection, that we would help them.
  We cannot afford to have that effort go down the drain. Mr. Bliley 
was the chairman of the committee. There were over 300 cosponsors to 
that bill. It was a great bipartisan effort. Everyone embraced it. They 
understood that we could in fact take the next step and make a 
difference for women and their families in this country. I think it is 
one of the great accomplishments of the last Congress.
  This amendment hurts that. It does not have to be the case. The 
gentleman's amendment is not bragging about how much the 100 percent 
increase over last year is already taken care of in the bipartisan 
bill, going from $20 million to $40 million.
  Maybe that is not my top priority, what the gentleman is doing, but I 
salute him for what he cares about. But do not do this at the cost of 
the anthrax cases that we need to look into, breast and cervical cancer 
screening, and the care of women that absolutely need it and depend 
upon it.
  There is tuberculosis control. These are all things that the American 
people rise up and say, good job, Congress.
  Vote against the amendment. It hurts. It is not necessary, and it is 
wrong.

                              {time}  1815

  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I simply want to point out, Mr. Chairman, that the account that is 
the offset of this is an account that has received an increase of $1.1 
billion. It has received an increase in excess of the President's 
request. We are not sacrificing anything of value to make sure that we 
provide for abstinence education and fund it accordingly.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Hostettler).
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this 
amendment and wish to commend my colleague, the gentleman from Oklahoma 
(Mr. Istook), for his constant support on this issue. This amendment 
does not seek to address the constitutionality or morality questions 
inherent in the abstinence education debate. Rather, this amendment 
seeks to promote the health and safety of our children.
  Each year, three million teens contract sexually transmitted 
diseases; and nearly one million become pregnant. These statistics, Mr. 
Chairman, are simply appalling. However, as appalling as these 
statistics are, we must

[[Page 19400]]

note that these rates have declined in recent years. According to the 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, abstinence programs have 
played a role in the decline in teenage birth rates, which have dropped 
by 22 percent since 1991. As the CDC states, ``Many initiatives have 
focused on the prevention of pregnancy through abstinence and many 
teenagers have heard this message.''
  Currently, the Federal Government spends more than $5 billion per 
year on HIV/AIDS, STD, and unintended pregnancy prevention combined.
  Most of these dollars go towards the provision of services such as 
screening, pregnancy tests, free contraceptives and condoms and 
referrals. About $15 million goes towards promoting ``safe sex'' 
messages and education.
  Federally funded abstinence education programs receive only about $80 
million per year, practically all of it promoting the fact that sexual 
abstinence is the only method to be completely safe for preventing 
unwanted pregnancies and diseases.
  The need to support abstinence education is significant. More than 
700 State and community-based abstinence education programs are funded 
through title V. Much of this money is provided to volunteer 
organizations that have annual budgets of less than $20,000. A small 
grant of $2,500 or $5,000 means they can purchase some curriculum, some 
videotapes, maybe a combination VCR/TV, and devote instructors to serve 
and educate kids about how sex can wait and that many of the 
consequences of early sexual activity are incurable and deadly.
  Mr. Chairman, Federal abstinence education funding is making a 
difference in my home State of Indiana. For example, the Peers 
Educating Peers, or PEP program educates adolescents about sexual 
health in nearly 20 Indiana counties serving more than 10,000 
adolescents per year. PEP uses high school role models to educate 
junior high school age students about refusal skills, open 
communication, and responsible decision-making.
  PEP has demonstrated its effectiveness as teen birth rates have 
dropped an average of 43 percent in the five counties where the program 
has been operating the longest.
  Because of a SPRANS, or Special Projects of Regional and National 
Significance grant, the PEP program will expand their successful 
program to Evansville in my congressional district where the teen birth 
rate is 40 births per thousand, the second highest birth rate in 
Indiana.
  This amendment, which would increase funding for abstinence 
education, makes both common sense and public health sense. It makes 
common sense because abstinence education works, and I have already 
highlighted the success of programs like PEP in Indiana.
  It makes public health sense because Federal abstinence education 
funding goes towards prevention of sexual activity, just like public 
health messages like ``wash your hands,'' ``do not smoke,'' or ``do not 
drink and drive'' prevents communicable diseases, long-term disease, 
accidents and death.
  Finally, it puts the money where it is needed. The CDC reports that 
about half of our children are sexually abstinent and about half of our 
children have become sexually active. If those are the proportions, 
according to CDC, then let Federal support reflect those proportions.
  This amendment to increase abstinence funding is a good first step to 
achieve a fair distribution of resources based on the needs of young 
people.
  As President Bush has stated, ``For children to realize their dreams, 
they must learn the value of abstinence. We must send them the message 
that of the many decisions they will make in their lives, choosing to 
avoid early sex is one of the most important. We must stress that 
abstinence is not just about saying no to sex; it is about saying yes 
to a happier, healthier future.''
  I urge my colleagues to support the proposed amendment and provide 
increased funding for abstinence education.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes and 45 seconds to the 
distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, this is, I am sure, a sincere amendment; 
but it probably sets a record for ill timing. Because on the day where 
I just walked out of the cloak room and I saw CNN running a headline 
that the FBI is warning that we should be on the highest alert for 
terrorist attacks, on a day when the country is extremely concerned 
about our ability to deal with bioterrorism, we have a Member amendment 
on the floor of the House to cut money out of the CDC people whose job 
it is to find out if there is dangerous bacteria in our environment.
  I cannot imagine a worse timed amendment, but I think there is a 
bigger problem with what we are considering on the floor of the House 
than just that. The fact of the matter is our House is on fire, and we 
are dealing with all these ideological issues. We should be dealing 
with the security of the United States of America now that we are 30 
days past this tragedy.
  Let me tell my colleagues why that is of concern. When my colleagues 
and I get on a plane next Friday or tomorrow to go back to our 
districts, did my colleagues know that almost all of the bags that go 
into the belly of the airplane we get on will not be screened for 
explosive devices? Over 90 percent of the bags that are going to be in 
the luggage compartment of the plane we get on on Friday will not have 
been screened for bombs.
  Now, what are we doing about that problem today? Nothing, not a 
single thing for a month after this terrorist attack. We have not done 
a dang thing on this issue.
  What have we done? We gave $15 billion to the airlines. Have we done 
anything to require employees to walk through magnetometers so they 
cannot carry bombs on to airplanes. We have not done anything.
  The fact of the matter is these ideological concerns are trumping the 
security interest of the United States. We have got a bill to deal with 
airline security so that the people who guard the magnetometers will 
have some modicum of training, will get maybe a little more than 
minimum wage.
  Many people think they ought to be Federal employees. I think they 
ought to be Federal employees like FBI, like Marshals, like fire 
department. But these ideological concerns are keeping even a vote on 
the floor of this House to do anything like that. I just hope that, 
number one, this amendment will fail; and I hope that the leadership of 
this House will bring to the floor of the House in quick order, 
starting at about noon tomorrow, some security bills so this House can 
vote on them because that ought to be the order of the day.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment does not take money out of 
the accounts for bioterrorism. I rise in support of the Istook 
amendment because I believe we should honor the President's pledge to 
increase funding for abstinence education to a level equal for funding 
for title X abortion counseling programs.
  Mr. Chairman, over the past few decades, we have been subjected to 
the propaganda of the safe sex and the abortion lobbies. They would 
have us believe that more contraceptives are the answer to the problems 
of sexually transmitted disease and teen pregnancy despite evidence to 
the contrary. We need to start teaching our young people the truth. Sex 
outside of marriage is risky business, and it has physical and 
emotional consequences. There is no substitute for abstinence when it 
comes to avoiding problems associated with premarital sex.
  We need to stop lying to our Nation's youth and stop assuming that 
promiscuity is an inherent part of adolescent life. Instead, through 
absence education, programs which have proven to be successful, we need 
to promote their health and safety. We need to encourage them to 
exercise self-control. We need to teach them about the benefits of 
saving sex until marriage. If we believe that children can exercise 
self-control to avoid smoking, what about premarital sex?
  Our Nation's children deserve more than free contraception and 
abortion

[[Page 19401]]

counseling. Our Nation's children deserve our love and our commitment 
that we will help them seek the best future for themselves, a future 
that is free of the emotional and the physical pitfalls that accompany 
premarital sex.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Istook amendment to 
increase the funding for abstinence programs.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney)
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to say to my colleague who is presenting this 
motion that, in fact, he has already done well what he purports to 
represent. He has increased the amount of his package well over what it 
was last year. The base bill does that, and he can feel that he has had 
an accomplishment there. But when we talk about priorities, and I 
understand that is a priority of his, and as I said he has addressed 
it, America's priority right now is security.
  If you walk down any street, any main street in my district or anyone 
else's district, people are talking about security. They want to make 
sure that they are safe in their homes, safe in their neighborhoods, 
their children are safe in their schools, that our water is safe, that 
our transportation is safe.
  They are also talking about security of their income. Thousands and 
thousands of people have lost their employment as a result of what went 
on September 11; and those are issues which should, in fact, be a 
priority of this country.
  We have done nothing about them since September 11. We had an 
opportunity when we bailed out the airline industry, excessively in my 
opinion, when they could only identify $2 billion worth of losses 
occasioned by the activities of September 11, but got $5 billion. We 
had an opportunity then to do something for people that became 
unemployed, to make sure they had health care for their families, to 
make sure they had an adequate income so they could sustain themselves 
and their families and their communities. We had an opportunity then to 
do something about security on our airlines, in particular, as well as 
other places.
  The CDC does need money so it can make sure we are safe from anthrax 
and other problems like that. We need to know that the pilots are 
secure in their cockpit and that our luggage is getting checked. We 
need to know our water is safe and that we are being protected. These 
are going to be costly matters.
  When you talk about the American people's priorities, rather than be 
debating on what we have been debating here, excessively over this 
bill's base amounts, we would better spend our time addressing what 
people want, a job or employment security or income security, a way to 
know they will have health care coverage for their family in a time of 
need, and a way to know that when they travel they will be safe.
  Mr. Chairman, I suggest that that is what this Congress should have 
been doing over the past several weeks. It is a disgrace that we have 
not been doing it. We should get on to that business now. That is 
America's priority.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) has 3\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 2 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman from Wisconsin have the 
right to close?
  The CHAIRMAN. That is correct.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we are here because we need to be here, because we are 
trying to take care of the things that we are responsible to take care 
of, not only the security of the United States of America but the 
welfare of its people. That is why we have this bill on the floor. Yes, 
we could spend all of our time talking about foreign affairs; but if we 
did, we would not be trying to have normalcy. And, yes, it is normal 
that we get on the floor of this House, we have debates, we have 
disagreements, and we have bills such as the annual appropriation bill 
for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education.
  If we did not have that, then things such as the Centers for Disease 
Control and public health programs would not have their funding and 
where would the welfare of the Nation be?
  Right now the congressional authorizations for these measures expires 
unless we take action such as passing this bill. So of course we should 
be here. We should be talking about the issues that are timeless and 
timely, and this is among them.
  We have, Mr. Chairman, according to the Centers for Disease Control 
that is charged with, among other things, trying to stop the sexually 
transmitted diseases which this amendment addresses. According to CDC 
and the Institute of Medicine, 12 million new cases are reported each 
year of sexually transmitted diseases, one-fourth of them among 
teenagers.

                              {time}  1830

  It is 89 percent of all reported diseases that constitute the top 10 
in the whole U.S. of all diseases. Twenty-nine percent of those were 
infected with chlamydia, which causes sterility. Young women often do 
not find out until they reach their childbearing years they are not 
able to have kids now because they got involved in teenage sex, they 
got chlamydia, now they cannot have kids. Twenty-two percent had 
herpes, 32 percent had HPV, human papilloma virus, which causes 80 
percent of all genital cancers.
  The Institute of Medicine concluded public awareness and knowledge 
regarding STDs is dangerously low. It is unfocused. The 
disproportionate impact on young people has not been measured.
  That is what we are trying to get at, Mr. Chairman. We are trying to 
make sure that kids get the message that ``safe sex'' does not stop 
these sexually transmitted diseases. They happen with or without use of 
contraceptives, with or without use of condoms or other devices trying 
to prevent pregnancy. The only sure message is to say, ``wait until you 
are married.''
  That is what abstinence education is about. It is the best course; it 
is the safest course. And this Congress needs to get on course, not 
giving it just minor funding within a huge bill, with huge increases in 
so many other programs, with more than twice as much being spent to 
promote these safe sex programs, as they are called, as to promote 
abstinence.
  Let us bring some equality into this. This amendment is what the Bush 
administration says is what we need to bring parity. I think they may 
have underestimated it. I think we probably need about $15 million more 
for parity, but I am not arguing that point, Mr. Chairman. I am arguing 
equal treatment, a level playing field, so that there is some 
reinforcement from Washington, D.C. and from groups that we help to 
fund to get the message out and reinforce what we teach our kids at 
school: wait until marriage.
  It is the best course and the safest course. I move adoption of the 
amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Harman).
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak against the Istook 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, it is clear that the offsets to this amendment will 
hurt our counterterrorism effort, something most of us, all of us, feel 
passionately about. It is also unfortunate that an issue on which 
everyone agrees, the need to prevent teen pregnancy, is presented in 
this amendment in an ideological form that splits us and hurts 
achieving the goal.
  As a mother of two daughters and two sons, I know that abstinence-
only education does not work. What does work? One, basic accurate 
information on the risks of teen pregnancy; two, education on types of 
and proper use of

[[Page 19402]]

contraception; and, three, the message that abstinence is the only 100 
percent effective way to prevent teen pregnancy.
  Preventing teen pregnancy still matters, even in the post-September 
11 world, but this amendment is the wrong solution. Vote ``no.''
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, we have had some 14 amendments on this side of the 
aisle that we have discouraged from offering today. I do not believe we 
have offered a single one from this side of the aisle. I would urge 
that we have the same response from all quarters of the House.
  When, in fact, we measure accurately the amount of money in title I 
which is aimed at teenagers, the resulting numbers will demonstrate 
that we spend at least as much on abstinence directed to teenagers as 
we provide in direct family planning services of the traditional 
variety aimed at teenagers. The gentleman has already achieved parity, 
and this bill gives him twice as large an increase in the programs he 
is for as we have in the other traditional family planning programs.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment. Let us keep this 
bill together and get out of here at a reasonable time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, 
I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) 
will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  Are there further amendments?


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Istook

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Istook:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title, insert the 
     following:)
       Sec.   (a) None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to implement, administer, or enforce Executive Order 
     13166.
       (b) The limitation established in subsection (a) shall not 
     apply to an agency that is subject to Executive Order 12866 
     after it has complied with the requirements of such Executive 
     Order, which has been issued pursuant to law.

  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I might mention that I am certainly 
amenable to any unanimous consent request to limit total debate time on 
this measure.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment states that until the Office of 
Management and Budget issues a cost-benefit analysis of a series of 
Federal regulations, those regulations are to be held in abeyance. They 
are what is commonly called ``limited English proficiency'' 
regulations.
  What is all this about? It is about an executive order that was 
issued last August and regulations that were issued pursuant to it 
mandating that not only Federal agencies but also State and local 
agencies, businesses, nonprofit groups, anybody who has received any 
funds to administer or handle or be involved with a Federal program 
must make all vital documents, it says, available in multiple 
translations; basically into any language group involving 3,000 people 
or more.
  Mr. Chairman, there are over 200 language groups in the United States 
involving 3,000 people or more. If we are required to translate 
everything into each one of these languages, the average cost for 
billions of pages is $40 a page per language. Multiply $40 per page by 
over 200 languages, by billions of documents, and my colleagues can 
begin to see the nature of this problem, the huge unfunded mandate that 
this puts on businesses and on local governments. In fact, nine or 10 
States officially have petitioned for these not to go into effect 
because of the unfunded mandate.
  After all, Mr. Chairman, there are some large language groups; and we 
have plenty of efforts to try to accommodate them. This amendment does 
not restrict anyone from trying to accommodate a language group or to 
make something available in another language. It simply removes the 
Federal mandate that we have to do so in this unlimited number of 
languages. It lets common sense prevail instead. It follows what the 
U.S. Supreme Court ruled just April of this year is the law of the 
land: there is no right to force somebody to translate civil documents 
or civil activities for you.
  Now, if an individual is charged in a court proceeding, yes, they 
will make sure they have a translation as a defendant. But we are not 
talking about that. There is no right, constitutional or statutory. 
Yet, usurping the powers of this Congress, of this body, this executive 
order and the regulations issued under it are putting that burden on 
people all over the country.
  Imagine being called up for a violation of Federal law because you 
did not provide a translation, for example, into western Farsi, with a 
million people in the United States speaking it; or because you did not 
provide a translation into Kabuverdianu, that has hundreds of thousands 
of people that speak it. My colleagues can pick whatever language they 
want, I am not going to pick on any of them, but with over 200 
languages, to be told, well, if there are more than 3,000 people 
affected, you have to translate all vital documents, anything that this 
person might need, any documents made generally available to the 
public.
  Mr. Chairman, we have thousands of informational brochures, bits of 
information, guidance that go to people constantly. How much are we 
going to pay for this? We ought to wait until we have the cost-benefit 
analysis from the Office of Management and Budget. That is their job. 
They ought to be doing it. We should not go into this thing blind.
  I realize there will be some people, Mr. Chairman, who talk about 
constituents they have that are not proficient in English. I understand 
that. But that does not mean that we go out and put this mandate out 
there to try to solve the problem.
  The American Medical Association has said these will cause doctors to 
stop seeing Medicare patients and Medicaid patients because they cannot 
afford the cost of paying for a translator. The regulations even say it 
is not good enough if they have a family member come with them to the 
doctor to do a translation. Oh no, that is not permissible. The doctor 
has to go out and hire a translator at hundreds of dollars an hour that 
costs more than he is reimbursed, usually something about $30 or $40, 
more than he is reimbursed for seeing the patient in the first place. 
That is why the AMA, as well as so many States, wants us to pull back 
on this.
  Let us make a common-sense test. Let us apply the law under an 
earlier executive order that says OMB is going to do cost-benefit 
analyses when we have legislation that is this far-reaching.
  I move the adoption of the amendment, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that further debate 
on the pending amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Istook), and any amendments thereto, be limited to 20 minutes, to be 
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself, the 
opponent.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, could I ask 
that the gentleman amend that to 12 minutes per side?
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I will agree to 24 minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
original request and to amend it so that further debate on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), and any 
amendments thereto, be limited to 24 minutes, to be equally divided and 
controlled by the proponent and myself, the opponent.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?

[[Page 19403]]

  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) and the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) each will control 12 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula).
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 12 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey) will control the time.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time; and once again I want to take the opportunity to commend our new 
chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), for his first Labor-HHS 
bill on the floor; the ranking member of this subcommittee and the full 
committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey); and the chairman of 
the full committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), for their 
great leadership in crafting this legislation and bringing it to the 
floor.
  I rise in defense of the committee position and in opposition to the 
Istook amendment. Mr. Chairman, this guidance which is contain in the 
bill does not create any new requirements or place any new mandates on 
recipients of Federal funds. It simply clarifies the Department's long-
standing policy so that recipients have clear, concise, and 
constructive information about their responsibilities under title IV.
  This information helps grantees be sure that they are in compliance 
with the law, as it has been in effect for over 30 years. This guidance 
is intended to be flexible and recognizes that there are no one-size-
fits-all solutions. The guidance on limited English proficiency also 
clarifies that recipients only have to undertake reasonable steps to 
ensure meaningful access and that recipients are not required to take 
steps that would incur unreasonable costs or burdens.

                              {time}  1845

  This amendment ignores the positive impacts of limited English 
proficiency. They ignore the Department of Justice's reasonable 
direction. Many limited-English proficiency persons work in some of the 
lowest paid jobs, are more subject to abusive employment situations, 
and need more help with complicated government bureaucracies.
  For example, a Cambodian refugee worked as a landscaper to support 
his family of five children. After he was laid off, he made repeated 
attempts to file an unemployment claim. He could not communicate with 
his State agency, and often received contradictory information. For 
most of the winter, he was without income and unemployment insurance 
compensation.
  The costs of providing assistance to persons who have limited English 
speaking abilities does not have to be expensive. In California, the 
limited-English speaking population is estimated to be over 3 million 
people. Since 1973, we have had a State law with more specific 
interpretation of translation requirements than title IV, which this 
guidance addresses; and this law has not created a burdensome financial 
strain on the State of California's Department of Social Services. That 
department spends a total of $648,312 to staff an internal team of 13 
employees to translate documents into Spanish, Chinese, Cambodian, 
Russian and Vietnamese; and not that much more in outside contracts for 
vendors for translation into other languages.
  This is a very small cost for an $18 billion social service budget. 
This guidance simply fulfills the goal that Secretary Chao expressed in 
her welcoming ceremony remarks, making sure that no worker gets left 
behind.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Istook 
amendment and defend the committee's position.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Regula).
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise in opposition to this 
amendment. The committee understands the concerns raised by the 
amendment, but now is not the time to proceed with this amendment. I 
understand that this executive order is under review by the 
administration.
  Furthermore, the committee report accompanying the bill recommends 
that both Secretary Chao at the Department of Labor and Secretary 
Thompson at the Department of Health and Human Services, quote, 
``carefully review the guidance and revisit its implications, impacts 
and consequences both practically and fiscally.''
  I think we should give the administration time to address this in the 
regular order and not adopt the amendment of the gentleman to shut off 
funds. I might add that the administration will be able to address it 
with a subsequent executive order once they have had time to review it. 
I think out of courtesy we owe the administration time to review the 
implications of this order. Therefore, I think the amendment would be 
premature and should be rejected.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Regula), this amendment does give them time. It just says until they do 
their job, the rest of the country should not be put under this 
incredible burden.
  Right now there are groups that are being pursued by HHS, pursued by 
Federal agencies for supposed noncompliance with these regulations. We 
ought to say you do not go after agencies pursuing these regulations 
until we do that cost-benefit analysis. That is exactly what the 
amendment does.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Doolittle).
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, Executive Order 13-166 issued by 
President Clinton is unwise, illegal and unconstitutional; and I urge 
the Bush administration to rescind it forthwith. We would be doing them 
a favor to avoid all of their complex review by simply adopting the 
Istook amendment.
  We cannot possibly impose on counties and cities and local 
jurisdictions, States, and indeed on the Federal agencies the policy 
inherent in this executive order which on its face is unreasonable. 
There are 6,800 languages in the world today, many of these present in 
the United States. Even the U.N. only has six official languages; and 
here in the absence of congressional action, we already have the 
Federal agencies setting forth the requirements of this executive order 
and beginning to implement them.
  For example, regulations applying Executive Order 13-166 have already 
been issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, the 
Department of Transportation, the Department of the Treasury, the 
Department of Justice, the Department of Labor, the Corporation for 
National Community Service, General Services Administration, Consumer 
Products Safety Commission, the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration, the National Council on Disability, the National 
Science Foundation, and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
  Mr. Chairman, we need to bring this to a halt now. We can do 
something reasonable. In the absence of this executive order, something 
reasonable is already set in place. But requiring all of our States and 
localities to struggle to spend money they do not have, to produce 
materials in any language any person requests up to I suppose 6,800 
languages, is unreasonable and outrageous on its face.
  The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) is to be commended for this 
amendment. We should have done this long ago, but I guess this is our 
first opportunity since it has come up on this appropriations bill. I 
urge Members to support his amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Gonzalez).
  Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. 
The first thought that comes to my mind, are we debating the same 
executive order? I have heard allegations and assertions made from the 
other side that truly are misrepresentative.
  What we are talking about with this executive order, and the whole 
basis of

[[Page 19404]]

the executive order was accountability and responsibility of those who 
are providing services and receiving Federal dollars in providing those 
services to make sure that they effectively deliver those services. 
This is what it is all about.
  The other thing, the other matter that really stands out is where 
have we been. The census tells us much of what is going on in this 
country. While individuals are perfecting their ability to speak 
English, while we have these clustered groups of individuals from 
different countries, they still require services in a language that 
they would understand for their benefit. That is why we are providing 
it.
  Mr. Chairman, prior to this amendment we were arguing abstinence and 
how we teach it, how we promote it. If my colleagues had their way, 
they would basically be espousing abstinence in a language never 
understood by the individual that Members seek to assist. This is what 
is so crazy about this whole debate.
  There are other matters I think which have been misrepresented. The 
Sandoval case does not stand for the proposition that Americans do not 
have a legal right to have everything in a particular language. It 
simply states an individual citizen does not have a right to bring a 
cause of action, but that the Federal Government does.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez) and I met with the members 
and representatives of the American Medical Association who had certain 
concerns. Once we discussed it and they understood the intent of the 
executive order, it was something that was acceptable. It was something 
that was doable.
  We are making it impossible by scaring individuals out there that 
they will never be able to comply with the intent of this executive 
order. That is an unfair characterization.
  The executive order and the implementing guidance that follow it 
stress the importance of complying with title VI of the Civil Rights 
Act without unduly burdening the fundamental mission of the agency. 
That is the standard. This goes contrary to the whole motive behind it. 
Do not stand in the way now with misrepresentations. Face the facts. 
Face the reality of our society, and let us deliver those services in a 
meaningful way.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me first mention, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Gonzalez) may or may not have read the executive order and all of the 
regulations that have been issued pursuant to it from a number of 
agencies. I have read them, and they get frightening in their impact.
  Rather than being a reasonable effort to try to communicate with 
people that may be receiving Federal services, it puts an affirmative 
burden on groups that participate in a Federal program, such as the 
police department or county health center, whatever it may be. It puts 
an affirmative burden on them to take all documents that they make 
available to the public, as well as everything that may relate to an 
individual, and translate it into what becomes an unlimited number of 
languages. That is where the unlimited expense comes from.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Tancredo).
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, Executive Order 13-166 is essentially 
another attempt to construct an even higher level of the Tower of 
Babel. Not only is that executive order an unfunded mandate, it is 
incredibly wrong-headed.
  To encourage non-English speakers to stay outside the mainstream of 
America and thereby indirectly condemn them to a life of impoverishment 
is essentially despicable. As the population of non-English speakers 
increases, so too will the pressure to divide this Nation along 
language lines. It will also contribute to the increased balkanization 
of the Nation. We do none of these folks a favor by encouraging their 
exclusion from the majority society.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge support of the Istook amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute 55 seconds to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez).
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, contrary to what is being said, if what 
the gentleman was saying is accurate, I will be there for the 
gentleman.
  When the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez) and I met with the 
medical association, we discovered what they were being told was not 
practical and it was not correct.
  We are not saying that we ought to consider those 200 languages. That 
is not practicable. We are not saying if there is one person who is 
Spanish speaking they ought to be responsive to them. That is not what 
the law says. If Members look at the law, it is very specific. The law 
says specifically that the size of the limited English proficient 
population that is served needs to be considered. So allow the 
administration that opportunity.
  Secondly, it says the frequency of the visits in terms of the 
hospitals. Most important, it also talks about the severity. If the 
person has tuberculosis, cancer, and it is serious, there has to be a 
real need to make sure that that person understands if it is a life-or-
death situation, so depending on the severity of the case and the 
numbers of the population.
  Mr. Chairman, I will again tell the gentleman that I will be with him 
if they start forcing agencies to do it in the number of languages that 
the gentleman says. That is not the intent. In addition, this is not 
new. It is the 1964 civil rights legislation. What this does is allows 
the Government, in this case the administration, an opportunity to 
establish the guidelines that allow them to put it into effect. It is 
nothing to get all bent out of shape over and to raise all of those 
contrary items because that is not the case. If it is, I promise the 
gentleman that I will be there for him in ensuring that the 
administration does not do that.
  In addition, let me state that it is going to be very important that 
as we look at this, that we also consider the seriousness of the 
situation. I had a case of a person who was told in English that they 
were positive for AIDS, and that person understood positive as 
everything being okay.

                              {time}  1900

  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like the gentleman to be aware that the guidelines issued by 
the Department of Justice on the same day as this executive order, and 
the executive order expressly incorporated the DOJ guidelines, I quote 
from the DOJ's document they titled Commonly Asked Questions and 
Answers Regarding Executive Order 13166:
  ``Programs that serve a few, or even one LEP person are still subject 
to the title VI obligation.''
  If there is even one person that speaks some language other than 
English and wants things translated, the Department of Justice says 
that one person is enough to invoke this requirement. That is not 
common sense. That is not meeting a major public demand. That is going 
way overboard, when they require this multitude, these millions if not 
billions, of pages to be translated into an unlimited number of 
languages.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute and 55 seconds to the 
gentleman from Guam (Mr. Underwood).
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, this issue has been posed as one where we are going to 
subject the Federal Government and State and local governments and 
everyone else to a multitude of languages. I think we heard the number 
6,800, all the remaining languages in the world that have speakers 
represented in this country.
  I speak one of those very small languages. I think we number about 
100,000 in the entire world, and about 50,000 inside the continental 
United States and I can assure everyone that under these guidelines, I 
have no ability to force anybody to produce documents in the Chamorro 
language. This is simply about access and the protection of civil 
rights. This is what this is all about.

[[Page 19405]]

  We have lots of limited English proficient people in this country. 
Instead of spending our time trying to deny them access to health care, 
instead of putting forth more barriers to their exercise of their civil 
rights, we ought to be contemplating how to facilitate that while they 
are learning English, while they acquire the kind of English that is 
necessary to survive in this society. This is not about a right to use 
a certain language. This is about a time-honored, court-tested 
provision emanating from the 1964 Civil Rights Act which says that when 
national origin and the language that you use, if that can be used as a 
way to impede your access to the resources of this country, then the 
government is required to take a look at those processes in order to 
allow you that access. This is what this is about. It is about access.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, it has taken a lot of time to review that executive 
order and these regulations. I would submit, Mr. Chairman, that were 
this actually something that had been part of the civil rights acts 
adopted in the 1960s, it would not have taken until August of 2000 for 
someone to notice and start saying, now we have this new requirement. 
Because that is what happened, August 8 of 2000, when former President 
Clinton issued the executive order, had the guidelines of the Justice 
Department that were issued the same day incorporated into them, and 
set in motion a whole series of midnight actions. Most of the Federal 
agencies that adopted these did so on January 17, just before 
Inauguration Day. That is an inherited problem for the current 
administration and one they still have not come to grips with.
  This simply says, do not put your multibillion-dollar unfunded 
mandate burden on the rest of the country until you get the cost-
benefit study done on this. That is what you are supposed to do on 
major new initiatives and that is what this was, a major new 
initiative.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 55 seconds to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Honda).
  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, what I have is going to take a little bit 
more than the time allotted. It is interesting in this country, in 
America, we talk about diversity and understanding. We also talk about 
inclusion rather than exclusion. This amendment is exclusionary. What 
the executive order does from 1964, as the gentleman had explained, was 
that this is fine-tuning, and people need direction.
  As an administrator myself, when I take a law, an administrative 
regulation, the right to be able to extend it even further is our 
prerogative. That is probably what that department did when you read 
that memo. That is all about service. That is about client service. We 
in this office, we in our jobs, we understand client service and we 
want to extend ourselves the best that we can.
  The real point of this in terms of language is comprehension. If you 
do not have comprehension, you are not going to be able to take 
medicine properly. You are not going to be able to understand things 
properly. As an educator, comprehensive input is key.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this 
amendment for two reasons. First of all, in a former life, I was a 
small businessperson who did contract work with the Federal Government. 
The imposition of this on small business would just be devastating.
  Secondly, and this is probably the best reason to support this 
amendment. English is the language of commerce in our country. To 
encourage people to not learn English does a great disservice to them. 
That is exactly what this executive order does. It tells people, ``You 
don't have to learn English, because we'll communicate with you in your 
language.'' That just is not fair to them. If they are not conversant 
in English, they are not using the language which is the language of 
commerce in this country. As is so often the case when we try to help 
people, we really hurt them. What this does to those who are not fluent 
in English is really hurt them because we discourage them from learning 
English.
  This is a very good amendment and it is especially good for those for 
whom English is not their primary language because they need to be 
encouraged to learn English, not discouraged from learning English 
because it is the language of commerce in this country. And the sooner 
they learn it, the better they will do in this country. It is unfair of 
us to discourage them from learning it.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) has 2\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 1\3/4\ 
minutes remaining and the right to close.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, when these regulations were issued, when the executive 
order was issued and then regulations were issued by Federal agencies, 
we heard from a number of States, Michigan, that asked, quote, the 
policy should be held in abeyance until, at the very least, a cost-
benefit analysis is conducted and adequate additional funding is 
provided.
  New Jersey complained that they would have to be translating things 
into at least nine different languages and wrote, ``It is respectfully 
requested that the published Department of Labor policy be temporarily 
suspended pending a cost-benefit analysis.''
  That is the normal way of proceeding. That is not the way we are 
proceeding. Right now, people are being placed at risk because they are 
being told, ``You're not complying with this law.'' At the very time 
that people are concerned about bringing America together, we are being 
told that you have to translate what you do into a multitude of other 
languages as a condition of being involved in any sort of Federal 
program. That is not right. That is going to cause a huge amount of 
resentment.
  There was a columnist that wrote in the New York Times, just wait 
until an Hispanic shopkeeper is told they have to translate what they 
do into Farsi. This hits everyone, Mr. Chairman, no matter what may be 
your primary language. But it is right that we need to ask people to 
focus on what brings us together. We spend billions of dollars that are 
supposed to be helping people to learn English. Are we not going to 
reinforce that with a policy that says we are not going to put billions 
of extra upon ourselves to translate things into you rather than 
helping you to learn English? That is a much better policy.
  It is great to be bilingual, trilingual, however many languages you 
may be able to speak. But let us keep us unified. This is not the time 
to balkanize America and to say, you have to spend billions of dollars, 
private money and public money, translating everything you do into a 
multitude of dozens or scores of different languages.
  We need to support the amendment, Mr. Chairman. We need to bring 
common sense into place. And until common sense is brought into place, 
until we have a cost-benefit analysis and they amend these proposals, 
we should not be imposing them upon the country.
  I move the adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Istook 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to oppose Mr. Istook's 
amendment to impede the implementation of the Executive order to 
``Improve Access to Services for Persons with Limited English 
Proficiency.''
  The Executive order is about fairness. Individuals with limited 
English proficiency should not be blocked from accessing vital services 
paid for by their, and their families', tax dollars.
  The Executive order simply gives guidance on how the Federal 
Government and Federal Government contractors can comply with existing 
civil rights law that bars discrimination based on national origin.
  Until this Executive order was issued, existing civil rights law to 
protect limited English proficient persons went largely ignored.
  The Executive order is reasonable, flexible, and accommodating to 
small contractors and

[[Page 19406]]

government agencies. It recognizes that only critical services, 
directly affecting health and livelihoods, are required to be 
translated. Implementing the Executive order makes sense.
  Imagine what would happen if someone with weak English skills who has 
a communicable disease, like small pox or tuberculosis, is unable to 
understand the advise of health professionals. A public health hazard 
could ensue, harming many more people.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope my colleagues will join me in opposing the 
Istook amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute and 10 seconds to the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).
  Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, we are all products of our own past, I suppose. 
I came to this country not understanding a word of English and I am 
still working on my limited English proficiency. But when I was in the 
fourth grade, my dentist, Dr. Sadao, my doctor, Dr. Linnertz, would say 
to me, ``David, let me tell you something and then you translate it for 
your mother. And then your mother can tell you and then you can tell 
me.''
  To me, my mother spoke perfectly fine English and so did Dr. Linnertz 
and so did Dr. Sadao. What we are really talking about are all those 
people out there who do not have a little fourth-grade David to 
translate for them. I want to ask the gentleman from Oklahoma who he 
proposes to leave behind: My mother? Another little old lady from 
somewhere else in the world?
  I would like to read something into the Record: ``I believe that 
every right implies a responsibility, every opportunity an obligation, 
every possession a duty.'' Those are the words of John D. Rockefeller. 
I tell children all the time, you have got to learn the king's English. 
But if you are asking children to learn the king's English, for God 
sakes you cannot leave their parents behind. You cannot leave their 
grandparents behind.
  I would like the folks on the other side of this argument to say, who 
are you leaving behind? Who will you cut out of the ability to 
participate in our self-governing democratic society?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  There is an executive order which the gentleman from Oklahoma does 
not like. A Republican President, a Republican White House, is now 
reviewing that executive order. Let us have the Congress get out of the 
way and give him time to do it before we jump to conclusions.
  As the gentleman has indicated, when you are in a doctor's office and 
you need help, you do not have time for an English lesson.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Istook 
amendment.
  This abstinence-only amendment is a narrow and unrealistic approach 
to addressing adolescent sexuality. We're not saying that our young 
people should not be encouraged to abstain from sexual activity. We're 
just saying they also need to be informed about how to protect 
themselves from unintended pregnancy, HIV/AIDS, and other STDs.
  The truth is, comprehensive sexuality education programs expose young 
adults to important information that they will not learn from an 
abstinence-only program.
  To date, there is no real evidence that can defend the effectiveness 
of abstinence-only programs. Without such evidence, we cannot justify 
spending additional dollars on a program that's already well funded.
  However, family planning and comprehensive sexuality education 
programs have clearly shown their effectiveness and ability to help 
curb teen pregnancy.
  Let's protect our Nation's future by providing teens with the 
educational tools they need to be responsible.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the Istook amendment.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the Istook amendment 
calling for a $33 million increase in abstinence-only education.
  First, everyone should understand one thing--this program is already 
receiving a 100 percent increase in its funding over last year. That is 
without the Istook amendment.
  To put that in perspective--the President's number one priority 
during his campaign (besides tax cuts) was education--and that receives 
a 17 percent increase.
  So, make no mistake about it, the Congress is already spending large 
sums on the abstinence-only program, and we won't know the 
effectiveness and results of the program until the congressionally 
mandated report comes due in 2005.
  What we do know is that publicly funded family planning has a 
significant effect on teen pregnancy. Each year, family planning 
services prevent an estimated 386,000 teenagers from becoming pregnant.
  Title X funding plays a critical role in the lives of teens across 
America--in preventing unwanted pregnancy and in providing needed 
services to young people. Through title X teens receive gynecological 
exams, screening for breast and cervical cancer, STD treatment, HIV 
testing, contraceptive care, and counseling.
  These services are desperately needed since we know that more than 
750,000 teenagers become pregnant each year, and 80 percent of those 
pregnancies are unintended. We know that nearly 4 million teenagers 
acquire a sexually transmitted disease by age 24; and that an average 
of two young people are infected with HIV every hour of every day.
  It takes a comprehensive approach to address these problems and that 
is why more than 120 national organizations support comprehensive sex 
education including: American Academy of Pediatrics, American College 
of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Medical Association, 
American Public Health Association, National Education Association, 
National Medical Association, National School Boards Association, and 
Society for Adolescent Medicine.
  Americans overwhelmingly support sex education--more than 8 in 10 
Americans favor comprehensive sex education that includes information 
about contraception.
  I urge my colleagues to heed their call and to continue to push for 
comprehensive education. This is not the time to increase funding even 
more than we already have for an untested program that is so limited in 
scope.
  I urge my colleagues to reject the Istook amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, 
I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) 
will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Simpson) having assumed the chair, Mr. Combest, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3061) 
making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human 
Services, and Education, and related agencies for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 2002, and for other purposes, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________
                              {time}  1915