[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 17641-17650]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5006, DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH 
AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS 
                               ACT, 2005

  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 754 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 754

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 5006) making appropriations for the 
     Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and 
     Education, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 2005, and for other purposes. The first reading 
     of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order 
     against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate 
     shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour 
     equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. After 
     general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule. Points of order against 
     provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of 
     rule XXI are waived except: sections 219(b), 221, and 506. 
     Where points of order are waived against part of a section,

[[Page 17642]]

     points of order against a provision in another part of such 
     section may be made only against such provision and not 
     against the entire section. During consideration of the bill 
     for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may 
     accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the 
     Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in 
     the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that 
     purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed 
     shall be considered as read. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
     may have been adopted. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Terry). The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Pryce) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I 
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 754 is an open rule which provides for 
1 hour of general debate equally divided between the gentleman from 
Ohio and the gentleman from Wisconsin on H.R. 5006, the fiscal year 
2005 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education and Related 
Agencies appropriations bill.
  The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill 
and against provisions in the bill except as specified in this 
resolution.
  After general debate, any Member wishing to offer an amendment may do 
so as long as it complies with the regular rules of the House.
  The bill shall be read for amendment by paragraph, and the rule 
authorizes the Chair to accord priority in recognition to Members who 
have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record.
  Finally, the rule permits the minority to offer a motion to recommit 
with or without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, we have before us today a funding package that fulfills 
our promises to hard-working Americans and their families. Before I 
summarize the main components of this package, it is worth taking a 
big-picture view of the context in which we consider this incredibly 
important legislation today.
  Mr. Speaker, my colleagues in this Chamber and all Americans 
listening to this debate today need no reminder that the world has 
changed dramatically since the terrorist attacks on our Nation. While 
we hang our flags a little higher and wear our stars and stripes a 
little more often these days, we do so in part as a response to the 
tragedy that took place on our soil on September 11.
  The war against terror has brought us many new challenges; namely, 
how best to protect our homeland and keep it safe from future acts of 
terrorism. That is not an easy job. Yet each day that goes by without 
an act of terror in America's neighborhoods offers us reassurance that 
we are doing what is necessary to protect our Nation from harm, and 
each day monumental steps are being taken an ocean away in Iraq, 
Afghanistan and elsewhere to nab terrorist cells and offer citizens of 
these nations new opportunities to live their lives free of fear and 
full of promise.
  Mr. Speaker, as I see it, we cannot have a discussion about domestic 
priorities without taking a look at the bigger picture, without 
recognizing up front that we do, in fact, live in a different world 
today, and that we have sizable commitments to fulfill that we did not 
have a few years ago.
  Like so many of my colleagues, I hear quite a bit from my 
constituents back home about the need to balance spending priorities. 
In fact, many of the candidate surveys I filled out this year for 
reelection specifically asked, ``If elected, how do you intend to 
balance domestic priorities with fighting the war on terror and 
protecting the homeland?'' In 100 words or less, I might add. Now, that 
is a tall order.
  But really, that is a very fair question and one that we in Congress, 
especially Members who sit on our Committee on Appropriations, must 
take very seriously.
  So my purpose here today is to assure the American people that while 
we have incredible demands, expectations and commitments to fulfill as 
we continue to fight the war on terror and protect our homeland, we 
remain equally determined to fund critical initiatives here in the 
United States in a fiscally responsible manner.
  Today I am privileged to be the first to give my colleagues the lay 
of the land as to how this Congress intends to fulfill its promises to 
Americans across the country in the areas of education, health and 
labor.
  I am proud to report that the gentleman from Florida, the gentleman 
from Ohio and their colleagues on the Committee on Appropriations have 
produced a funding plan that reflects our priorities, meets our goals, 
and, most importantly, places the greatest amount of funding in the 
areas where we need it most.
  Since the beginning of the 108th Congress, we have made tremendous 
progress in strengthening our Nation's education system. This House has 
moved forward measures to ensure our schools have the tools they need 
to meet President Bush's call for high standards and accountability, 
and while making remarkable progress, our work is not yet done.
  The legislation before us today recognizes the important role 
education programs play in the lives of children with special needs by 
funding special education grants at the highest level in history, at 
over $11 billion. My friends watching in my home State of Ohio will be 
pleased to know that since fiscal year 2003, money directed to our 
State for special education programs has increased by 25 percent.
  This legislation also recognizes the critical role that teachers play 
in the education of our Nation's students. We all remember those 
teachers who inspired us to learn and to succeed. We want to give every 
teacher tools to inspire their students. That is why this bill provides 
nearly $3 billion for grants to States to administer professional 
development programs for their teachers.
  Of course, educating our Nation's children is a shared 
responsibility, at a Federal, State and a local level.

                              {time}  1045

  And I think my colleagues would agree with me that the Federal 
Government is fulfilling its role in dedicating funds to strengthen our 
Nation's education system.
  When we talk about education, often our first thoughts are about the 
millions of American children who deserve to have good teachers, small 
classrooms, up-to-date textbooks, and a safe environment in which to 
learn. And while we can give our children the best of each of those 
things, if the child does not have his health, these things mean 
nothing. Same goes for adults who go to work every day to provide for 
their families. Without their health, productivity decreases, paychecks 
stop coming, and families struggle.
  Good health is really the backbone to living a quality life. The 
Federal Government, through partnerships with State, local, and private 
entities, have made significant investments in medical research and 
health programs for years now. A few years ago, Congress fulfilled its 
commitment to doubling the budget of the National Institutes of Health, 
the medical research arm of the Federal Government. This truly was a 
remarkable goal and an even more remarkable achievement to meet such a 
goal. Since then, Congress has not rested on its laurels. We continue 
to provide significant increases in funding for NIH, as indicated by 
the $700 million increase in funds over last year's level. This brings 
NIH funding to a record high of $28.5 billion.
  We all know that investments in research yield new treatments, but 
those treatments are only meaningful if they are accessible to those 
who need them. The legislation before us today recognizes the unique 
role that community health centers play in neighborhoods across 
America. These centers help ensure that the neediest in our communities 
have access to health care services.

[[Page 17643]]

  President Bush and this Congress are committed to increasing Federal 
support for community health centers. This bill expands the President's 
Community Health Center initiative to increase the role of community 
health centers in our neighborhoods by funding the program at $1.8 
billion, an increase of $200 million over last year.
  Mr. Speaker, I also want to take a moment to highlight one other 
critical health-related program included in this package. That is the 
Children's Hospital Graduate Medical Education program. This program, 
funded at $303 million, helps our Nation's children's hospitals train 
future pediatricians. It is a wonderful program that has been increased 
significantly in funding based on annual evaluations since its very 
inception. I want to give a special thanks to both the chairman and the 
ranking member for supporting this critical program again this year.
  Last but not least, this legislation makes clear Congress' support 
for job training programs and assistance for dislocated workers. The 
worker-training portion of the bill restores funding for core job 
training to over $1.5 billion and provides another $1.5 billion to 
assist displaced workers. Mr. Speaker, the best part of this package is 
that it recognizes that we have limited resources to spend, yet still 
meets America's needs with those resources. It demonstrates that 
funding America's priorities can be both generous and responsible.
  Before closing, I would like to once again express my appreciation to 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Young) for their tremendous leadership as they have worked 
tirelessly this year to assure that Congress spends generously but 
wisely. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and approve the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for 
yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, appropriation bills are the truest 
expression of Congress' priorities. All year long we may claim to 
support after-school programs and child care assistance or provide 
expanded job-search assistance to the 1.2 million unemployed Americans. 
All year long we may have expressed opposition to the new Labor 
Department overtime rules. Today is the day we match the deeds to 
words.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill before us, H.R. 5006, the fiscal year 2005 
Appropriations Act for the Department of Labor, Health and Human 
Services, and Education, shortchanges a wide range of programs 
important to the people we serve.
  Now, why are these programs being shortchanged? To meet our homeland 
security or our defense needs? To pay down our historic $422 billion 
deficit? No. Programs are being shortchanged to pay for tax cuts that 
the Congressional Budget Office found go disproportionately to the 
wealthiest Americans.
  Schools are shortchanged under H.R. 5006. And those who supported the 
No Child Left Behind Act should have a problem with the fact that this 
measure shortchanges our schools to the tune of $9.5 billion.
  The promises made when No Child Left Behind was signed into law over 
2\1/2\ years ago may be a faint memory to those who supported the bill, 
but let me assure you that school superintendents, principals, 
teachers, and parents have not forgotten.
  While I was pleased to see the bill raises funding levels for special 
education and title I funding by $1 billion each, this is a far cry 
from what has been promised.
  The elimination of 22 education programs under H.R. 5006 warrants 
attention. Among them are the Dropout Prevention Program, Teaching 
American History grants, Foreign Language assistance, and the Arts in 
Education program, which encourages the integration of arts into 
classroom instruction.
  There is a human toll to cutting these programs. A 60 percent cut to 
the Perkins loan program will result in 53,000 students losing college 
assistance. A freeze in the level of Federal support for after-school 
programs may force communities to close their centers. In my district, 
this year, the Rochester school board had to make the painful decision 
to cut their budget by over $7 million. The children in Rochester did 
not have the option this summer to take summer school, and now their 
after-school programs are in jeopardy.
  Turning to the Health and Human Services section of the bill, I am 
troubled by cuts to public health and our critical health care safety 
net programs. The bill terminates the Healthy Communities Access 
program, which is a vital grant program supporting local efforts that 
take care of the health of the uninsured. It is wrong to eliminate this 
important program, especially given the fact that, according to the new 
census figures, the number of uninsured Americans has swelled to 45 
million.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit herewith for the Record a report issued by the 
U.S. Census Bureau which provides further details regarding this issue:

       Estimates derived from SIPP data answer such questions as: 
     What percentage of households move up or down the income 
     distribution over times? How many people remain in poverty 
     over time? How long do people without health insurance tend 
     to remain uninsured?

                      Income in the United States


                               highlights

       Real median household money income remained unchanged 
     between 2002 and 2003 at a level of $43,318, following two 
     consecutive years of decline. Median income remained 
     unchanged for all types of family and nonfamily households 
     (such as married-couple household and single individuals) 
     between 2002 and 2003.
       Real median household income remained unchanged for non-
     Hispanic White, Black, and Asian households between 2002 and 
     2003. Households with Hispanic householders (who can be of 
     any race) experienced a real decline in median income of 2.6 
     percent between 2002 and 2003.
       The most commonly used measure of household income 
     inequality, the Gini index, did not change between 2002 and 
     2003. The share of aggregate income received by the lowest 
     quintile declined from 3.5 percent to 3.4 percent, as did the 
     real income level delineating the 20th percentile of 
     household income, from $18,326 to $17,984 (a 1.9 percent 
     decline in real terms). The 80th percentile of household 
     income increased 1.1 percent, from $85,941 to $86,867 in real 
     terms.
       The real median earnings of men who worked full-time, year-
     round remained unchanged between 2002 and 2003 at $40,668. 
     The real median earnings of the comparable group of women 
     declined by 0.6 percent to $30,724. Reflecting the fall in 
     the earnings of women, the female-to-male earnings ratio 
     declined from 0.77 to 0.76 between 2002 and 2003. The last 
     time the female-to-male earnings ratio experienced an annual 
     decline was between 1998 and 1999.
       Compared with 1967, the first year for which household 
     income statistics are available, real median household income 
     is up 30 percent. Over this period, median income tended to 
     rise and fall along with the business cycle. median income 
     peaked in 1999, was unchanged in 2000, declined over the next 
     2 years (by a cumulative 3.3 percent), and was unchanged in 
     2003.


                        race and hispanic origin

       Real median household income remained unchanged for most 
     race groups between 2002 and 2003. For example, the median 
     incomes of non-Hispanic White households, Black households, 
     and Asian households remained unchanged. Hispanic households 
     experienced a decline in median income of 2.6 percent.
       Black households had the lowest median income. Their 2003 
     median money income was about $30,000, which was 62 percent 
     of the median for non-Hispanic White households (about 
     $48,000).
       Median money income for Hispanic households was about 
     $33,000 in 2003, which was 69 percent of the median for non-
     Hispanic White households.
       Asian households had the highest median income among the 
     race groups. Their 2003 median money income was about 
     $55,000. 117 percent of the median for non-Hispanic White 
     households.


              american indian and alaska native population

       Because of the relatively small population of this racial 
     group, the sampling variability of their income data is 
     larger than for the other racial groups and may cause single-
     year estimates to fluctuate more widely. To reduce the 
     chances of misinterpreting changes in income or comparisons 
     of income with other groups, the Census Bureau uses 2-

[[Page 17644]]

     year-average medians for measuring changes in the income of 
     American Indians and Alaska Natives over time, and 3-year-
     average medians when comparing the income of this group with 
     other racial groups.
       The 3-year-average (2001-2003) median income for American 
     Indian and Alaska Native households was higher than the 
     median for Black households; not different from the median 
     for Hispanic households; and lower than the medians for non-
     Hispanic White households and Asian households.
       Comparison of 2-year moving averages (2001-2002 and 2002-
     2003) shows that the median income for American Indian and 
     Alaska Native households who chose that race alone or in 
     combination with another increased by 4.0 percent over that 
     period for single-race American Indian and Alaska Native 
     households, median income remained statistically unchanged.


                                nativity

       Native households had a real median income in 2003 
     ($44,347) that was not different from that in 2002. Foreign-
     born households experienced a real decline of 3.5 percent to 
     $37,499. Households maintained by a foreign-born house-holder 
     who was not a citizen of the United States experienced their 
     third consecutive annual decline in real median household 
     income, down 5.6 percent from 2002 to $32,806. The real 
     median income of house-holds maintained by a foreign-born 
     householder who was a naturalized citizen remained unchanged 
     at $46,049.
       Median income was $44,347 for native households, 18 percent 
     higher than the median for all foreign-born households 
     ($37,499), and 35 percent higher than for noncitizen foreign-
     born households ($32,806).


                                 region

       Real median money income of house-holds did not change 
     between 2002 and 2003 in three of the four regions, while 
     income in the South declined 1.5 percent to $39,823. the 
     South had the lowest income of any region. In 2003, the 
     median income of households in the Northeast was $46,742; in 
     the Midwest, it was $44,73; and in the West, it was $46,820.


                               residence

       Real median income remained unchanged between 2002 and 2003 
     for households inside metropolitan areas overall and outside 
     metropolitan areas, while the real median income of 
     households in central cities of metropolitan areas declined 
     by 1.4 percent of $37,174. This is the third consecutive year 
     that households in central cities of metropolitan area 
     experienced a decline.


                           income inequality

       The Gini index indicated no change in household income 
     inequality between 2002 and 2003. The 2003 Gini index (0.464) 
     was higher than in 1995 although the individual annual 
     changes in that period were not statistically significant.
       Between 2002 and 2003, the real income of the household at 
     the 20th income percentile (that is, the income percentile 
     (that is, the income delineating the lowest 20 percent of 
     households) declined 1.9 percent from $18,326 to $17,984, and 
     the income of the household at the 80th income percentile 
     increased 1.1 percent from $85,941 to $86,867 (the income 
     levels denoting the 40th and 60th percentiles did not 
     change). In addition, the share of aggregate income received 
     by the lowest household income quintile declined from 3.5 
     percent to 3.4 percent. The shares of all other quintiles 
     were unchanged--in 2003, the second quintile received 8.7 
     percent, the third quintile 14.8 percent, the fourth quintile 
     23.4 percent, and the fifth quintile 49.8 percent.


                      work experience and earnings

       Of the 80.6 million men aged 15 and over who worked in 
     2003, 73.0 percent worked full-time, year-round, unchanged 
     from 2002. Of the 71.4 million women in the same age group 
     who worked in 2003, 58.7 percent worked full-time, year-
     round, also unchanged from 2002.
       The real median earnings of men who worked full-time, year-
     round in 2003 ($40,668) did not change from 2002, while those 
     of their female counter-parts declined by 0.6 percent, to 
     $30,724. The decline in women's real earnings between 2002 
     and 2003 was the first since 1995. Reflecting the decline in 
     the real earnings of women, the female-to-male earnings ratio 
     for full-time, year-round workers fell from 0.77 to 0.76 
     between 2002 and 2003. The last time the female-to-mail 
     earnings ratio experienced an annual decline was between 1998 
     and 1999.

             Health Insurance Coverage in the United States


                               highlights

       The number of people with health insurance coverage 
     increased by 1.0 million in 2003, to 243.3 million (84.4 
     percent of the population).
       An estimated 15.6 percent of the population or 45.0 million 
     people, were without health insurance coverage in 2003, up 
     from 15.2 percent and 43.6 million people in 2002.
       The percentage and number of people covered by employment-
     based health insurance fell between 2002 and 2003, from 61.3 
     percent and 175.3 million to 60.4 percent and 174.0 million.
       The percentage and number of people covered by government 
     health insurance programs increased between 2002 and 2003, 
     from 25.7 percent and 73.6 million to 26.6 percent and 76.8 
     million, driven by increases in the percentage and number of 
     people covered by Medicaid (from 11.6 percent and 33.2 
     million to 12.4 percent and 35.6 million) and Medicare (from 
     13.4 percent and 38.4 million to 13.7 percent and 39.5 
     million).
       The proportion of children who were without health 
     insurance did not change, remaining at 11.4 percent of all 
     children, or 8.4 million, in 2003. With an uninsured rate at 
     19.2 percent, children in poverty were more likely to be 
     uninsured than all children.
       The uninsured rate and number of uninsured increased from 
     2002 to 2003 for non-Hispanic Whites (from 10.7 percent and 
     20.8 million to 11.1 percent and 21.6 million), but not for 
     Blacks or Asians. Although the number of uninsured increased 
     for Hispanics (from 12.8 million to 13.2 million), their 
     uninsured rate was unchanged at 32.7 percent.
       The historical record is marked by a 12-year period from 
     1987 to 1998 when the uninsured rate (12.9 percent in 1987) 
     either increased or was unchanged from on year to the next. 
     After peaking at 16.3 percent in 1998, the rate fell for two 
     years in a row to 14.2 percent in 2000, before the latest 
     period of annual increases to 15.6 percent in 2003.


                            type of coverage

       Most people (60.4 percent) were covered by a health 
     insurance plan related to employment for some or all of 2003, 
     but the proportion declined from the previous year. This 
     decline essentially explains the fall in total private health 
     insurance coverage, from 69.6 percent in 2002 to 68.6 percent 
     in 2003.
       The percentage of people covered by health insurance 
     provided by the government increased between 2002 and 2003. 
     Medicaid coverage rose by 0.7 percentage points to 12.4 
     percent in 2003. Medicare coverage also rose in 2003, by 0.2 
     percentage points to 13.7 percent. Among the entire 
     population, 26.6 percent had government insurance, including 
     Medicare, Medicaid, and military health care (3.5 percent).


                        race and hispanic origin

       In 2003, the uninsured rate for Blacks was unchanged at 
     about 19.5 percent, and the rate for Asians unchanged at 
     about 18.7 percent. The uninsured rate rose for non-Hispanic 
     Whites--from 10.7 percent to 11.1 percent. Among Hispanics, 
     the uninsured rate was unchanged at 32.7 percent, whereas the 
     number of Hispanics without coverage increased from 12.8 
     million to 13.2 million in 2003.
       The 3-year averages of the uninsured rates by race and 
     Hispanic origin (2001-2003) show that people who reported 
     American Indian and Alaska Native had an uninsured rate that 
     was lower than the uninsured rate for Hispanics (32.8 
     percent) but higher than those of the other race groups. 
     Comparison of 2-year moving averages (2001-2002 and 2002-
     2003) shows that the uninsured rate for American Indians and 
     Alaska Natives did not change.


                                nativity

       The uninsured rate increased in 2003, from 12.8 percent to 
     13.0 percent for the native population, and from 33.4 percent 
     to 34.5 percent for the foreign-born population. Among the 
     foreign born, the uninsured rate for noncitizens also 
     increased, from 43.3 percent to 45.3 percent, while the 
     uninsured rate for naturalized citizens was unchanged at 17.1 
     percent. The proportion of the foreign-born population 
     without health insurance (34.5 percent) was about two and a 
     half times that of the native population (13.0 percent) in 
     2003. Among the foreign born, noncitizens were more likely 
     than naturalized citizens to lack coverage--45.3 percent 
     compared with 17.1 percent.


                            economic status

       The likelihood of being covered by health insurance rises 
     with income. Among people in households with annual incomes 
     of less than $25,000 in 2003, 75.8 percent had health 
     insurance; the level increased with income up to 91.8 percent 
     for those with incomes of $75,000 or more. Compared with 
     2002, the coverage rate was unchanged for those with 
     household incomes more than $75,000, whereas rates fell for 
     those in each lower category of household income.
       Of those 18 to 64 years old in 2003, full-time workers were 
     more likely to be covered by health insurance (82.5 percent) 
     than part-time workers (76.2 percent) or nonworkers (74.0 
     percent). The uninsured rate for those working full-time 
     increased from 16.8 percent in 2002 to 17.5 percent in 2003. 
     The comparable rates for those working part-time or not 
     working did not change.


                  children's health insurance coverage

       The percentage and number of children (people under 18 
     years old) without health insurance did not change between 
     2002 and 2003, at 11.4 percent and 8.4 million, respectively. 
     The likelihood of health insurance coverage varied among 
     children by poverty status, age, race, and Hispanic origin. 
     Children in poverty were more likely to be uninsured than the 
     population of all children in 2003--19.2 percent compared 
     with 11.4 percent.
       Children 12 to 17 years old were more likely to be 
     uninsured than those under 12--12.7 percent compared with 
     10.6 percent. While 21.0 percent of Hispanic children did not 
     have any health insurance in 2003, the comparable rates among 
     children for whom a single race was reported were 7.4 percent 
     for non-Hispanic White children, 14.5 percent for Black 
     children, and 12.4 percent for Asian children.

[[Page 17645]]




                                 region

       The South was the only region to show an increase in the 
     percentage of people without health insurance in 2003, up 
     from 17.5 percent in 2002 to 18.0 percent. The uninsured 
     rates for other regions did not change in 2003--12.9 percent 
     for the Northeast, 12.0 percent for the Midwest, and 17.6 
     percent for the West.


                               residence

       The uninsured rates increased between 2002 and 2003 inside 
     metropolitan areas overall (from 15.3 percent to 15.6 
     percent) and for people living in the suburbs (from 13.1 
     percent to 13.5 percent), while the uninsured rates for 
     people in central cities of metropolitan areas (19.5 percent) 
     and outside metropolitan areas (15.5 percent) did not change 
     in 2003.

  Mr. Speaker, it is also wrong to freeze funding for Title X Family 
Planning services or for prenatal care for mothers and medical 
treatment for uninsured children, which this bill does.
  Most importantly, this bill does nothing to address the recently 
announced, just last week, over the holiday, the 17 percent hike to 
Medicare premiums, which is the largest premium increase in the 40-year 
history of Medicare. For seniors living on fixed incomes, there is no 
room in their budgets to pay another $11.60 for doctors' visits per 
month.
  At a time when seniors in Medicare are preoccupied with questions of 
the prescription drug law, the news of a premium increase only 
compounds their concern and frustration with the Medicare program. 
Medicare is not being reformed; it is being eviscerated.
  Another troubling aspect of the bill is the inclusion of a provision 
offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) that could have 
a devastating effect on women's ability to receive the full range of 
reproductive health services, including abortion care and even simple 
information about their medical options. Talk about unconstitutional.
  Under the Weldon amendment, health care companies are granted the 
right to exempt themselves from any Federal, State, or local law that 
assures women have access to abortion services and information. This is 
another gag rule. This sweeping ``refusal'' policy, otherwise known as 
a ``backdoor gag rule on doctors,'' is not restricted to just the 
actual abortion services, but also would allow companies not to pay for 
abortions, or even referrals for patients to see another doctor.
  Once again, we are asking professionals not to be able to give to 
their patients the information they deserve and they need. It not only 
undermines the rights of women but also bestows power on insurance 
companies to choose whether or not to comply with the law. This is a 
precedent that should worry all of us and one that we have seen before 
that has been struck down. I know that this provision will be struck in 
conference and, if not, certainly in the courts.
  It also says that should that information be given, the community can 
lose all of its Federal money. I do not know exactly how extensive that 
is. Does that mean all Medicare, Medicaid, nutrition money, highway 
money, school money, everything else that comes in from the Federal 
Government to the community will be cut off because a woman has been 
told her rights? Surely nobody in this House would want that.
  Now, let me address some unfinished business from last year's 
appropriation debate: unemployment and overtime. This is really a 
tragedy, Mr. Speaker, for the millions of unemployed who are losing 
their homes, their cars, and are unable to keep their children in 
college. Millions of unemployed Americans today lost their jobs because 
of trade policies or outsourcing or the stalled economy, and they have 
not found replacement jobs. They have had to survive without the 
unemployment assistance for a year, something this country has never 
done before.
  The news that 144,000 jobs were created in August was no solace, 
since our economy is still 1.2 million jobs short of where it was in 
2000. At this rate, the current administration will be the first in our 
history to see fewer non-farm jobs created at the end of 4 years.
  A 10 percent cut to farm offices is certainly not helpful. And 
funding Job Corps at a paltry $1.5 billion and providing only $25 
million for community college training initiatives are also troubling 
decisions.
  In addition to training, today's unemployed, over a fifth of whom are 
the long-term unemployed, need Congress to extend the unemployment 
insurance. I have constituents, as do all of my colleagues, who have 
exhausted all their regular and extended unemployment and still have 
not been able to secure a job. Unemployment insurance, which expired 
last November, must be extended and more needs to be done for America's 
dislocated workers.
  Finally, I want to turn to a subject of keen interest to working 
Americans, access to overtime compensation. This week, for the 122nd 
year, Americans came together to commemorate Labor Day, a day when we 
celebrate the contributions that workers have made to the strength and 
the prosperity of our country. Alas, this year there is no cause for 
celebration for America's workers.
  Today, they are simply struggling to support their families on wages 
that have not kept pace with inflation. They strain to cover exploding 
health care premiums, and they try to avoid joining the ranks of the 
1.4 million workers who lost coverage last year alone. And they worry 
that their jobs are the next to be shipped off to Mexico or China. Now, 
with the enactment of the Labor Department's new overtime rules, they 
have a whole new source of stress. Today, they worry they are among the 
6 million workers who stand to lose access to overtime pay under the 
new rules.
  My colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), will offer an 
amendment to block enforcement of the final overtime rule with one 
exception. It would allow an increase to the salary threshold for low-
wage workers from $8,060 to $23,600. Last year, this body approved, by 
a vote of 221 to 203, a similar measure that would have stopped the 
Department of Labor from rolling back the 40-hour workweek. As we all 
know, at the insistence of this administration, that provision was 
stripped out from the final fiscal year 2004 omnibus appropriations 
bill, even though it had passed both Houses.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Congressional Record a list of people 
who are losing their overtime work, which include firefighters, police 
sergeants, nurses, licensed practical nurses, nursery school teachers, 
oil and gas pipeline workers, steel workers, teachers, and on and on.

  The Republican-Led Senate Voted 99:0 To Protect Overtime Rights for 
  Workers in 55 Job Categories Because They Had No Confidence in the 
                        Administration's Claims

     Any work paid on an hourly basis
     Blue collar workers
     Any work provided overtime under a collective bargaining 
         agreement
     Team Leaders
     Computer programmers
     Registered Nurses
     Licensed practical nurses
     Nurse midwives
     Nursery school teachers
     Oil and gas pipeline workers
     Oil and gas platform workers
     Refinery workers
     Steel workers
     Shipyard and ship scrapping workers
     Teachers
     Technicians
     Journalists
     Chefs
     Cooks
     Police Officers
     Firefighters
     Fire sergeants
     Police sergeants
     Emergency medical technicians
     Paramedics
     Waste disposal workers
     Day care workers
     Maintenance employees
     Production line employees
     Construction employees
     Carpenters
     Mechanics
     Plumbers
     Iron Workers
     Craftsmen
     Operating engineers
     Laborers
     Painters
     Cements masons
     Stone and brick masons
     Sheet metal workers
     Utility workers
     Longshoremen
     Stationary engineers
     Welders
     Boilermakers
     Funeral directors
     Athletic trainers

[[Page 17646]]

     Outside sales employees
     Inside sales employees
     Grocery store managers
     Financial services industry workers
     Route drivers
     Assistant retails managers

  Mr. Speaker, we do not do enough in this bill, and we really must.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes 
to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the rule. There is a 
campaign of disinformation that is being waged against the overtime pay 
reforms put in place by the Department of Labor late last month, and I 
would like to speak to that.
  The administration has guaranteed overtime protection for 6.7 million 
working Americans, and it is a reform that was needed and it was 
overdue. We have not seen millions of workers lose their overtime pay. 
In fact, we have watched as 1.3 million additional Americans have 
gained their right to claim overtime pay.
  The previous system was outdated, it was unfair, and the Bush 
administration deserves credit for reforming the system, even though 
they knew the political interests aligned against the President would 
try to frame it as a negative.
  The old status quo was a 54-year-old regulation. That is what the 
critics are claiming was fair. Under that regulation, someone earning 
as little as $8,060 would be classified as a white collar employee and 
prevented, prevented, from receiving overtime pay. No more, Mr. 
Speaker. This new policy is worker-friendly, it is fair, and I support 
the rule.

                              {time}  1100

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago we heard one of the speakers 
on the majority side of the aisle talk about this bill in terms of 
being a bill which meets our promises. I am not quite sure what bill 
she was referring to, but it certainly could not have been this one 
because this bill is a monument to broken promises and is an 
embarrassment to the institution, in my view, if this institution 
pretends that it cares about making the long-term investments in our 
economy and in our kids that are necessary.
  If you take a look at what this bill does not produce, this bill 
falls $9.5 billion below the promises in the No Child Left Behind Act 
of just 3 years ago for Title I alone, which is the major program by 
which we attack poor education systems for disadvantaged children. For 
Title I alone, this bill is $7 billion short of the promises laid out 
in the No Child Left Behind Act.
  Special education: Both political parties posed for political holy 
pictures in terms of how much we are going to try to do for handicapped 
children, and yet this bill provides $2.5 billion less than the 
Republicans promised in their own budget of just 1 year ago.
  Then if we look at Pell grants, I was so flabbergasted, I practically 
fell onto the floor when I saw the President of the United States speak 
to the Republican convention and talk about his determination to 
increase Pell grants, when, in fact, the majority has frozen Pell 
grants for 2 years in a row, and this bill is part of that freezing 
process. So Pell grants have been frozen while tuition has gone up at 
the average 4-year university by almost 17 percent in that same time 
period.
  In the Department of Labor, we have almost a million and a half fewer 
private sector jobs than we had 4 years ago, and yet this legislation 
cuts help for people making a job search through State agencies by 10 
percent.
  The Community Access Program, which attempts to provide access to 
decent health care for poor people, is eliminated. The After School 
Center Program, which is an effort to see to it that kids do not go 
home to an empty nest after they finish the school day and can still 
receive some meaningful instruction, that program is frozen. NIH, 
National Institutes of Health, which do the basic research on all 
disease: smallest increase in 19 years. Now these cuts are not 
necessitated, as was indicated on the majority side, because we are at 
war; these cuts are necessitated because the majority has decided that 
their top priority is to provide people who make a million dollars a 
year with a $127,000 tax cut next year. That is why these squeezes are 
made necessary.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask the House to vote against the 
previous question on the rule so that we can offer an amendment that 
would shave those tax cuts for millionaires from $127,000 to a mere 
$89,000. I do not know how they will be able to get along with a mere 
$89,000 tax cut, the poor devils, but they are just going to have to do 
it. We are going to try to shave that tax cut for the most well-off 
people in this society so we can continue to meet our obligation to the 
least well-off people in our society.
  What is at stake, in my view, is whether or not this Congress is 
willing to slowly shred the safety net for the middle class, or whether 
we are going to continue to build that safety net. I want to be able to 
offer an amendment which will restore $5.5 billion more to education, 
which will invest $200 million more in workforce training, invest an 
additional $1.6 billion to provide more assistance to the 45 million 
people without health care, and make a series of other adjustments that 
will make this a far more progressive and humane bill. The only way we 
can do that is if we defeat the motion on the previous question on the 
rule. I would urge the House to do just that when the opportunity comes 
in just a few moments.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume 
to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the dean of the delegation 
from the great State of Ohio and the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time. I want to highlight some of the positive things about this bill.
  This bill distributes over $142.5 billion, and it does things for 
people. It is aimed at helping people, and I think we can be proud as a 
Congress for what we are doing here. It funds over 500 discretionary 
programs, and every one of those programs is important to people in 
this Nation. But, importantly, also, it stays within the subcommittee's 
302(b) allocation and the constraints that were established in the 
budget resolution. It would be easy to go over because these programs 
are something that are very sensitive, but I think we have tried very 
hard, and we had a bipartisan effort in the subcommittee, to meet the 
needs and aspirations without exceeding the budget.
  We did this with a lot of hearings, 23 days of hearings. We heard 
from 33 different agencies, and we had over 100 public witnesses. One 
of the things that we have done in our subcommittee is give the public 
an opportunity to be heard on how these programs affect them and what 
is important to them.
  The bill only goes up a little over 2 percent above last year's 
level, and obviously we had to make some very tough priority choices in 
order to stay within the constraints of the budget resolution which 
gave us a little bit over 2 percent.
  A policy decision we made was to focus on education, and we put $342 
million more into education programs than was requested in the 
President's budget. The bill reflects the priorities of Members of the 
House. For example, the original budget proposed to cut vocational 
education State grants by $200 million. We not only restored the $200 
million, but added $20 million above last year because we recognized 
that vocational education is extremely important as people need to have 
training and retraining. We think of vocational education as only at 
the high school level, but we have a lot of adult education programs 
that give individuals an opportunity to get skills for new job 
opportunities that come their way.
  We increase the funding for student aid in higher education in 
certain areas not requested by the administration, and we restored 
other programs that were proposed for termination. I think

[[Page 17647]]

overall the bill reflects the priorities of the Members of this House 
on both sides of the aisle in the field of education. Obviously, it 
would be nice to have a lot more, but we have to work within the 
constraints of the budget.
  An area of great interest to our Members is special education, IDEA, 
and we added a billion dollars to this program above last year that 
brings the total to over $11 billion. In Title I, we added a billion 
dollars over last year for a total of $13.3 billion. In addition to aid 
to education, this bill expands funding for training and adjustment 
services for workers that are dislocated due to plant closures and mass 
layoffs. It reflects the fact that we have somewhat of a changing mix 
of the employment opportunities in our society.
  This bill also provides $50 million for the President's new Community 
College/Community-Based Job Training Initiative. These types of 
institutions, because they are sort of a hands-on opportunity, have 
provided a lot of great help to people. I know in my own district we 
have a vocational or trade school that is post-high school 2 years. It 
offers skills in about 45 different curricula offerings, and 
enrollments just leaped to a very high level, and the important thing 
is that they have an excellent record in placing their graduates, their 
2-year graduates, in jobs. So we want to support that type of thing in 
this bill.
  Another area that is of interest to people are the community health 
centers, because it keeps people out of emergency rooms that really 
need that access. It provides medical help to the people that are 
without means. I think expansion of the community health center service 
is very important. We support the proposal of the President in his 
budget.
  Through NIH, we support medical research. This is an agency that 
gives hope to people, hope that there will be a cure. I think the 
measure of the success is testimony by Dr. Zerhouni that every 5 years 
life expectancy goes up a year in the United States. That is a 
tremendous record. We try to continue the support. We have more than 
doubled NIH in the last 5 years, and we added $700 million to this 
year's bill.
  Also we recognize that preparedness is very important in today's 
world of terrorism and uncertainty, so we have given the Federal, State 
and local public health officials the ability to respond to terrorism, 
to meet whatever emergencies arise in the public health system. One of 
the things that has been our goal is to make the whole public health 
system seamless, starting with the Centers for Disease Control and with 
the State public health and the local public health, so the ability to 
communicate when there is an emergency is done almost instantly. 
Secretary Thompson has given great leadership, I think, in focusing an 
information center in HHS that allows a quick response whenever there 
is a critical problem. Because of the importance of all this, we added 
$188 million above the 2004 level.
  We added $398 million to the Centers for Disease Control. Because we 
have a freer flow of people around the world: SARS, the West Nile 
virus, hepatitis, influenza, and other emerging global disease threats. 
And the watchdog, the protection for all of us, is done effectively by 
the Centers for Disease Control. They are on the cutting edge. 
Recognizing that, we put an increase in $29 million over 2004 to deal 
with some of these threats to all of us.
  I could say a lot more about the bill and will in the general debate, 
but I think overall the bill, given the constraints that we had in 
terms of the allocation, we have done a fair job. I think fair in the 
sense that it reflects not a partisan outlook, but reflects the feeling 
of the members of the subcommittee and the full committee and the 
Members of this House, many of whom testified on various things. We 
tried to make a balanced bill that would give the best possible service 
to the American people in terms of their education, in terms of their 
health, job retraining, and basically I suppose one could describe this 
bill as the epitome of hope. It gives hope that there will be cures 
found by NIH, hope that people will get new skills so they can be 
reemployed, and hope that their children will have better education 
opportunities than they have, and we have tried to respond to that 
desire on the part of the American people.
  I urge Members to support this rule and to support the bill when we 
get to it. I think it is a fair and balanced approach to the challenges 
that confronted our subcommittee.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

                              {time}  1115

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished 
gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I thank the chairman and 
ranking member of this committee for the work that they have done, as 
well as the full committee, because I know that they have worked, as we 
would say, against all odds. But I think when we come to the floor of 
the House, it is appropriate to tell the truth and to really 
acknowledge why this bill does not deserve in its present form the 
support of those of us who believe in comprehensive health care and 
recognizing the valiant work of Americans who work every day to make 
the engine of this country run.
  First of all, this bill suffers because this administration and this 
Congress have made a decision that those who make a million dollars, 
those who make millions of dollars a year, are far more important with 
giving them, the 1 percent richest of America, the biggest tax cut that 
they will ever have. In fact, part of the reason why we are suffering 
in this legislation is because there is this idea that we should make 
these tax cuts permanent, permanent in the light of soaring costs in 
the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, young men and women losing their lives 
and not having the resources that they need in health care and jobs 
when they come home, those who do come home, and then those families 
whose young ones have lost their lives not having the resources in 
order to survive.
  This is a bill that suffers a lot. First of all, it immediately 
squeezes the middle class. How does it do that? By eliminating for the 
first time in history the rights to overtime. Overtime has been 
somewhat of a sacred understanding that when you go the extra mile, you 
are paid in many instances. This bill does not affirm that because, of 
course, it affirms the Labor Department's regulations. I hope that we 
all will support the Obey-Miller amendment in order to restore the 
rights of overtime.
  This bill does not affirm what we call access to health care by 
minorities. Hispanic males and African American females were in the 
highest obesity at-risk groups when data was evaluated by race and 
gender. African American men are at least 50 percent more likely to 
develop lung cancer than white men. African American men are twice as 
likely to be diagnosed for prostate cancer as white men. We have a 
problem in the lack of access to health care and disparity in health 
care. None of the resources in this bill focus particularly on that 
concern. In fact, the Centers for Disease Control loses money.
  Job-training programs lose money. But more importantly, the whole 
idea of promoting good health care for the uninsured loses its momentum 
in this legislation. For example, the NIH gets its smallest increase 
over the years. The NIH is involved in research that helps improve 
health conditions. And, of course, we have a problem with respect to 
community health centers in promoting more of those in our community. 
Access to health care is a key to good health care, particularly for 
those who are uninsured.
  I will offer two amendments that deal with the inequities in health 
care in particular, adding dollars to lupus research and also adding 
dollars for research in hepatitis C, which impacts minorities and 
veterans to a high degree.
  I would say that this legislation is lacking in a lot of ways. It is 
lacking in its caring attitude. It is lacking in the recognition that 
there are great needs among populations that have been underserved. It 
is lacking in the fullest amount of funding to allow the utilization, 
to close the gap between health care. And, of course, it is lacking in 
the

[[Page 17648]]

understanding of the 44 million that are uninsured. I would hope that 
we would come to grips with the fact that health care is very much a 
part of the American dream. It is a part of equality and justice. Until 
we have justice in health care, until we have justice in labor rights, 
our country is not meeting its promise.
  I hope that my colleagues will vote enthusiastically for the Obey-
Miller amendment to restore overtime rights, and I hope they will 
support my amendments on adding additional funds for lupus research and 
as well as adding additional funds to find the cure and do research in 
hepatitis C.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), a champion and leader in the 
area of education.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise in support of the underlying legislation and the rule 
which is before us because it includes many things which I support, 
community health centers, the Ryan White AIDS program, and programs and 
activities at the CDC and the NIH, but mostly because the bill reflects 
our priority for the schools and students across the country. In the 
past 9 years, this Congress has provided record increases to our 
Nation's education programs, more than doubling discretionary spending 
to the U.S. Department of Education. As we all know, in recent years 
these increases have been coupled with widespread reforms that will 
ensure that every child in the classroom is learning.
  In January of 2001, the No Child Left Behind Act was signed into law, 
and we are now beginning to see the benefits of these bold policies. In 
the past couple of months, many States have reported the number of 
schools in need of improvement is actually decreasing. In fact, in my 
home State of Delaware, 128 of our 173 schools have met adequate yearly 
progress, up from 75 in the last school year. This is remarkable news, 
and educators across the country are to be commended for their 
dedication to meeting the rigors of No Child Left Behind.
  No Child Left Behind provides the road map for reform, and our past 
appropriations acts have given the funding to help make it possible. 
Title I alone has increased over $3 billion in the past 3 years and 
programs encompassed by the No Child Left Behind Act have nearly 
doubled over the same time period. Today's bill builds upon our 
impressive record by providing increases to IDEA, State assessments, 
teacher quality, Impact Aid and the Institution of Education Sciences, 
to name only a few.
  As time progresses, the facts grow clearer that No Child Left Behind 
is the right thing for our students and that the Federal Government is 
providing the resources needed. There is no evidence to show that the 
law is an unfunded mandate, and we should all stand proud on our record 
of supporting all education programs.
  I would be remiss if I did not take time here today to discuss 
embryonic stem cell research as well. As many of my colleagues know, I 
have been leading the House effort with my colleague from Colorado (Ms. 
DeGette) to expand the current Federal policy in order to realize the 
true hope that science holds for millions of patients who suffer 
nationwide. We have organized letters, met with the Nation's premier 
scientists, visited the Harvard Stem Cell Institute and Children's 
Hospital in Boston where leading research is taking place, and have 
introduced bipartisan legislation that would expand the policy while 
remaining consistent with the President's ethical concerns.
  Times have changed and science has moved forward from the President's 
thoughtful decision, and there are now over 150 new stem cell lines 
nationwide that have been derived with improved technology and are 
genetically diverse. We must reevaluate this policy. Unfortunately, now 
is not the time to do so. This issue must be decided on science, not 
politics. We must have a thorough debate in the House and in the U.S. 
Senate on the state of the research and how to move the policy forward 
while ensuring that research is conducted ethically.
  Mr. Speaker, I plan to press forward with this issue in the coming 
months. It is too important to ignore.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I 
want to call a vote for the previous question and urge a ``no'' vote.
  If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to 
the rule that will make in order an amendment that was submitted to the 
Rules Committee yesterday by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Ranking 
Member Obey) but, sadly, was rejected. The amendment would increase 
funding for a number of vital programs and services that are 
insufficiently funded in the bill.
  The programs and services provided in H.R. 5006 touch the lives of 
almost every American. The bill funds activities ranging from education 
for preschoolers from low-income families, to college tuition 
assistance, and to home-delivered meals for the elderly. It also 
provides for job training, worker protection, and funding for medical 
research. But as critical as these programs are to our citizens, the 
leadership has drastically underfunded them. The Obey substitute will 
help restore funding to a number of the most important of these 
programs.
  I want to point out that this amendment is fully paid for. It offsets 
the increased costs of the programs by slightly scaling back the 2001 
and 2003 tax cuts for those with incomes above $1 million. Under this 
amendment, their average tax cut would go from $127,000 to $89,000, 
still a very substantial tax cut. I think most people making that kind 
of money are willing to accept this modest cut, especially since it 
will help improve the quality of life for so many less-privileged 
Americans and help America.
  Mr. Speaker, all Members of this House need to be very concerned 
about the lack of adequate funding for the critical programs and 
services in this bill, whether it is health care, education, medical 
research, services for the elderly, low-income energy assistance. The 
list is long. The Obey amendment would help correct the funding 
deficiencies in the bill and would do so, as I said, with no additional 
cost to the deficit.
  I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to vote ``no'' on the 
previous question so that we can vote on the Obey amendment. A ``no'' 
vote will not stop the House from taking up the Labor-HHS bill. It will 
not affect the open-amending process provided for in the rule. But a 
``yes'' vote will prevent the House from considering this important 
amendment.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Today we have a unique opportunity to tell the American people what 
their government is doing with their money. While this Congress remains 
fully committed to fighting the war on terror and protecting our 
homeland, we remain just as focused on meeting the needs of Americans 
here at home. That is what we are doing today.
  This carefully crafted package reflects the Federal Government's 
commitment to ensuring that children with special needs and the 
teachers who inspire them to learn have the tools they need in school 
to succeed. This package also reflects the government's commitment to 
ensuring that critical agencies like the National Institutes of Health 
can conduct medical research to better treat illnesses and making 
certain that those treatments get into the hands of the Americans who 
need them. This package also reflects the government's commitment to 
seeing that men and women looking for new jobs receive the helping hand 
and training that they need to bring home a paycheck.

[[Page 17649]]

  Mr. Speaker, the authors of this appropriations package, my good 
friend from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and his committee, were asked to do a 
very tough job this year, to balance spending priorities. Once again, 
they have met this challenge by producing a carefully crafted product 
that provides considerable increases for vital programs and services 
while preserving our commitment to spending taxpayers' dollars wisely.
  I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying 
legislation.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:

 Previous Question for H.Res. 754--Rule on H.R. 5006 Fiscal Year 2005 
                   Labor/HHS/Education Appropriations

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       ``Sec. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     resolution, the amendment printed in section 3 shall be in 
     order without intervention of any point of order and before 
     any other amendment if offered by Representative Obey of 
     Wisconsin or a designee. The amendment is not subject to 
     amendment except for pro forma amendments or to a demand for 
     a division of the question in the committee of the whole or 
     in the House.
       Sec. 3. The amendment referred to in section 2 is as 
     follows:
       In title I, under the heading ``Employment and Training 
     Administration, Training and Employment Services'', after 
     ``$2,649,728,000'' insert ``(increased by $125,858,000)'', 
     after $1,642,442,000'' insert ``(increased by 
     $125,858,000)'', and after ``$1,178,192,000'' insert 
     ``(increased by $38,000,000)''.
       In title I, under the heading ``State Unemployment 
     Insurance and Employment Service Operations'', after each 
     appearance of ``$141,934,000'' insert ``(decreased by 
     $137,000)'', and after ``$3,440,914,000'' insert ``(increased 
     by $87,995,000)''.
       In title I, under the heading ``Departmental Management, 
     Salaries and Expenses'', after ``$264,653,000'' insert 
     ``(increased by $74,317,000)''.
       In title II, under the heading ``Health Resources and 
     Services Administration, Health Resources and Services'', 
     after ``$6,305,333,000'' insert ``(increased by 
     $403,000,000)'', after ``$32,500,000'' insert ``(increased by 
     $7,500,000)'', and after ``$278,283,000'' insert ``(increased 
     by $17,000,000)''.
       In title II, under the heading ``Centers for Disease 
     Control and Prevention, Disease Control, Research, and 
     Training'', after ``$4,228,778,000'' insert ``(increased by 
     $100,000,000)''.
       In title II, under the heading ``National Cancer 
     Institute'', after``$4,870,025,000'' insert ``(increased by 
     $63,486,000)''.
       In title II, under the heading ``National Heart, and Blood 
     Institute'', after ``$2,963,953,000'' insert ``(increased by 
     $38,639,000)''.
       In title II, under the heading ``National Institute of 
     Dental and Craniofacial Research'', after ``$394,080,000'' 
     insert ``(increased by $5,137,000)''.
       In title II, under the heading ``National Institute of 
     Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases'', after 
     ``$1,726,196,000'' insert ``(increased by $22,503,000)''.
       In title II, under the heading ``National Institute of 
     Neurological Disorders and Stroke'', after ``$1,545,623,00 '' 
     insert ``(increased by $20,149,000)''.
       In title II, under the heading ``National Institute of 
     Allergy and Infectious Diseases'', after ``$4,440,007,000'' 
     insert ``(increased by $54,622,000)''.
       In title II, under the heading ``National Institute of 
     General Medical Sciences'', after ``$1,959,810,000'' insert 
     ``(increased by $25,548,000)''.
       In title II, under the heading ``National Institute of 
     Child Health and Humane Development'', after 
     ``$1,280,915,000'' insert ``(increased by $16,698,000)''.
       In title II, under the heading ``National Eye Institute'', 
     after ``$671,578,000'' insert ``(increased by $8,755,000)''.
       In title II, under the heading ``National Institute of 
     Environmental Health Sciences'', after ``$650,027,000'' 
     insert ``(increased by $8,474,000)''.
       In title II, under the heading ``National Institute on 
     Aging'', after ``$1,055,666,000'' insert ``(increased by 
     $13,762,000)''.
       In title II, under the heading ``National Institute of 
     Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases'', after 
     ``$515,378,000'' insert ``(increased by $6,719,000)''.
       In title II, under the heading ``National Institute of 
     Deafness and Other Communication Disorders'', after 
     ``$393,507,000'' insert ``(increased by $5,130,000)''.
       In title II, under the heading ``National Institute of 
     Nursing Research'', after ``$139,198,000'' insert 
     ``(increased by $1,815,000)''.
       In title II, under the heading ``National Institute on 
     Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism'', after ``$441,911,000'' insert 
     ``(increased by $5,761,000)''.
       In title II, under the heading ``National Institute on Drug 
     Abuse'', after ``$1,012,760,000'' insert ``(increased by 
     $13,203,000)''.
       In title II, under the heading ``National Institute of 
     Mental Health'', after ``$1,420,609,000'' insert ``(increased 
     by $18,519,000)''.
       In title II, under the heading ``National Human Genome 
     Research Institute'', after ``$492,670,000'' insert 
     ``(increased by $6,423,000)''.
       In title II, under the heading ``National Institute of 
     Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering'', after 
     ``$297,647,000'' insert ``(increased by $3,880,000)''.
       In title II, under the heading ``National Center for 
     Research Resources'', after ``$1,094,141,000'' insert 
     ``(increased by $136,907,000, of which $122,644,000 shall be 
     for extramural facilities construction grants)''.
       In title II, under the heading ``National Center for 
     Complementary and Alternative Medicine'', after 
     ``$121,116,000'' insert ``(increased by $1,579,000)''.
       In title II, under the heading ``National Center on 
     Minority Health Disparities'', after ``$196,780,000'' insert 
     ``(increased by $2,565,000)''.
       In title II, under the heading ``John E. Fogarty 
     International Center'', after ``$67,182,000'' insert 
     ``(increased by $876,000)''.
       In title II, under the heading ``National Library of 
     Medicine'', after ``$316,947,000'' insert ``(increased by 
     $4,132,000)''.
       In title II, under the heading ``Office of the Director'', 
     after ``$359,645,000'' insert ``(increased by $14,719,000)''.
       In title II, under the heading ``Substance Abuse and Mental 
     Health Services Administration, Substance Abuse and Mental 
     Health Services'', after ``$3,270,360,000'' insert 
     ``(increased by $40,000,000)''.
       In title II, under the heading ``Low-Income Home Energy 
     Assistance'', after ``$200,000,000'', after 
     ``$1,900,000,000'' insert ``(increased by $200,000,000)''.
       In title II, under the heading ``Refugee and Entrant 
     Assistance'', after ``$491,336,000'' insert ``(increased by 
     $32,000,000)''.
       In title II, under the heading ``Payments to States for the 
     Child Care and Development Block Grant'', after 
     ``$2,099,729,000'' insert ``(increased by $100,000,000)''.
       In title II, under the heading ``Children and Families 
     Services Programs'', after ``$8,985,663,000'' insert 
     ``(increased by $110,000,000)'', after ``$6,898,580,000'' 
     insert ``(increased by $80,000,000)'' and after 
     ``$710,088,000'' insert ``(increased by $30,000,000)''.
       In title II, under the heading ``Administration on Aging, 
     Aging Services Programs'', after ``$1,403,479,000'' insert 
     ``(increased by $70,000,000)''.
       In title II, in the first paragraph under the heading 
     ``Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund'', after 
     ``$1,842,247,000'' insert ``(increased by $16,000,000)'', and 
     after ``$1,187,760,000'' insert ``(increased by 
     $16,000,000)''.
       In title II, in the third paragraph under the heading 
     ``Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund'', after 
     ``$60,000,000'' insert ``(increased by $40,000,000)''.
       In title II, under the heading ``Education for the 
     Disadvantaged'', after ``$15,535,735,000'' insert 
     ``(increased by $1,727,686,000)'', after ``$7,849,390,000'' 
     insert ``(increased by $1,727,686,000)'' after 
     ``$7,037,592,000'' insert ``(increased by $233,636,000)'', 
     after each appearance of ``$2,469,843,000'' insert 
     ``(increased by $633,182,000)'', and after ``$80,000,000'' 
     insert ``(increased by $227,686,000)''.
       In title II, under the heading ``School Improvement 
     Programs'', after ``$5,641,401,000'', and after 
     ``$4,031,016,000'' insert ``(increased by $425,000,000)''.
       In title II, under the heading ``Special Education'', after 
     ``$12,176,101,000'' insert ``(increased by $1,200,000,000)'', 
     and after ``$6,560,447,000'' insert ``(increased by 
     $1,200,000,000)''.
       In title II, under the heading ``Student Financial 
     Assistance'', after ``$14,755,794,000'' insert ``(increased 
     by $2,200,000,000)'', and after ``$4,050'' insert 
     ``(increased by $450)''.
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following new section:
       Sec. . In the case of taxpayers with adjusted gross income 
     in excess of $1,000,000, for the tax year beginning in 2005 
     the amount of tax reduction resulting from enactment of the 
     Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 and 
     the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 
     shall be reduced by 30 percent.

  Mr. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, 
and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.

[[Page 17650]]

  Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes 
the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered, on the question of 
the adoption of the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 209, 
nays 190, not voting 34, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 424]

                               YEAS--209

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--190

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Clyburn
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--34

     Andrews
     Ballenger
     Bilirakis
     Boehlert
     Brady (TX)
     Cannon
     Chandler
     Clay
     Conyers
     Culberson
     Engel
     Flake
     Grijalva
     Hobson
     John
     Jones (OH)
     Kleczka
     Kolbe
     Lampson
     Lewis (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McInnis
     Mollohan
     Nethercutt
     Norwood
     Owens
     Payne
     Putnam
     Ryan (OH)
     Schrock
     Simmons
     Tauzin
     Udall (CO)
     Young (AK)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson) (during the vote). Members are 
advised 2 minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1152

  Mr. DOOLEY of California and Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida changed 
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________