[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 17863-17913]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 754 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 5006.

                              {time}  1400


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 5006) making appropriations for the Departments of 
Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies 
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes, 
with Mr. Thornberry (Chairman pro tempore) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole rose 
earlier today, a request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) had been postponed and the 
bill was open from page 104, line 1, through page 105, line 16.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, no further amendment to 
the bill may be offered except:
  Pro forma amendments offered at any point by the chairman or ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their designees 
for the purpose of debate;
  Amendments 1 and 3;

[[Page 17864]]

  Amendment 6, which shall be debatable for 30 minutes;
  An amendment by Mr. Stark regarding Centers for Medicare and Medicaid 
Services, which shall be debatable for 20 minutes;
  An amendment by Mr. Neugebauer, regarding NIMH grants;
  An amendment by Mr. Hayworth regarding totalization agreements with 
Mexico, which shall be debatable for 30 minutes;
  An amendment by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey regarding participation by 
Federal employees in conferences;
  An amendment by Mr. Oberstar regarding fatal chronic illness;
  An amendment by Mr. Ramstad regarding SAMHSA;.
  An amendment by Mr. Brown of Ohio regarding Centers for Medicare and 
Medicaid Services;
  An amendment by Mrs. Wilson of New Mexico regarding Head Start;
  An amendment by Mr. King of Iowa regarding section 505 of the Illegal 
Immigration Reform and Responsibility Act;
  An amendment by Mr. John regarding mosquito control;
  An amendment by Mr. Kildee regarding education funding, which shall 
be debatable for 20 minutes; and
  An amendment by Ms. Bordallo regarding Medicaid funding.
  Each amendment may be offered only by the Member named in the request 
or a designee, or the Member who caused it to be printed in the Record 
or a designee, shall be considered as read, shall not be subject to 
amendment, except pro forma amendments offered by the chairman or 
ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their 
designees for the purpose of debate, and shall not be subject to a 
demand for division of the question.
  Except as otherwise specified, each amendment shall be debatable for 
10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
opponent. An amendment shall be considered to fit the description 
stated in this request if it addresses in whole or in part the object 
described.


                Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Hayworth

  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Hayworth:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used by the National Labor Relations Board to exert 
     jurisdiction over any organization or enterprise pursuant to 
     the standard adopted by the National Labor Relations Board in 
     San Manuel Indian Bingo and Casino and Hotel Employees & 
     Restaurant Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC and 
     Communication Workers of America, AFL-CIO, CLC, Party in 
     Interest, and State of Connecticut, Intervenor, 341 NLRB No. 
     138 (May 28, 2004).

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
amendment, and I would ask the gentleman from Ohio if he intends to 
claim the time in opposition to the amendment. If he does not, then I 
would like to claim the time.
  Mr. REGULA. No, I am not. I am going to support the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) 
reserves a point of order.
  The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) is recognized for 15 
minutes on his amendment.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, in May of 2004, the National Labor Relations Board 
overturned 30 years of its own precedent and ruled that it has 
jurisdiction over tribal government enterprises located on tribes' own 
sovereign lands. Where tribal law has governed relations between tribes 
and their employees, the National Labor Relations Board seeks to 
replace that law with its regulatory authority in this area. This 
decision by the NLRB is a frontal assault on tribal sovereign rights.
  The National Labor Relations Act expressly exempts States, cities, 
and local governments from its coverage; and the NLRB has ruled that 
territorial governments, such as Puerto Rico and Guam, are also exempt 
from its jurisdiction. But the National Labor Relations Board 
incorrectly decided that it should exercise its own jurisdiction over 
tribal governments on their own lands. If this unfair decision stands, 
the only governments that will be subject to NLRB jurisdiction will be 
tribal governments.
  There is a basic misunderstanding here, Mr. Chairman. The NLRB 
misunderstands that tribal governments, like State governments, rely 
upon government-owned enterprises to generate revenue to support 
governmental purposes, such as reservation law enforcement and fire 
services, and programs for the health, education and welfare benefit of 
tribal members. Consistent with the policy behind the NLRA exemptions 
for governments, private parties such as labor unions should not be 
able to hold government-owned enterprises hostage where disagreements 
arise.
  Ironically, the NLRB specifically ruled against the San Manuel Band 
of Mission Indians, a tribe based in Southern California, that has 
enacted into its tribal law a tribal labor relations ordinance with 
greater, let me repeat this, with greater labor union rights than the 
National Labor Relations Act. In fact, the tribe has a collective 
bargaining agreement with the Communication Workers of America. The 
heavy-handed, activist NLRB overlaid an incompatible legal regime where 
a tribal one, agreed to on a government-to-government basis with the 
State of California, was in place and was, in fact, working. Now, San 
Manuel and other tribes have conflicting laws and great uncertainty 
about which law applies.
  I strongly support the tribes in their efforts to protect their 
sovereign rights. Congress should reaffirm these rights and make clear 
that tribes are exempt from the NLRA, which was the view of the 
National Labor Relations Board until this misguided decision was 
promulgated.
  There are certainly sound policy reasons for such a fix. Tribes are 
sovereign governments that exercise jurisdiction over their own 
territory. Although some Federal laws compel tribes to deal with other 
sovereigns, such as States, on a government-to-government basis, this 
NLRB decision would force tribes to deal with private entities, labor 
unions, for the first time, contrary to long-established Federal Indian 
policy.
  But until Congress can consider a permanent solution to this problem, 
this amendment, Mr. Chairman, would have the effect of calling a 
temporary time out to allow this body to more thoroughly consider a 
more substantive solution, to avoid additional confusion among the 
tribes and to limit unnecessary conflict between tribes and labor 
unions.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment enjoys broad-based support from across 
the width and breadth of Indian Country. The National Congress of 
American Indians, the oldest and largest intertribal organization in 
the United States, and the National Indian Gaming Association strongly 
support this amendment. The San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, along 
with many other tribes, also have weighed in with strong support for 
this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a question of sovereignty. We dare not 
equivocate nor abdicate the role of Congress in dealing with 
government-to-government relationships and the sovereignty that tribes 
enjoy. Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, I would urge all to vote in favor of 
this amendment because it is a vote that supports sovereignty for 
Indian nations and a vote for the fundamental rights of the first 
Americans to maintain their status of sovereignty and their rights as 
sovereign governments.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey) seek to control the time in opposition?
  Mr. OBEY. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is 
recognized for 15 minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee),

[[Page 17865]]

ranking member on the subcommittee with jurisdiction.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, as a Member with a lifelong and established 
record of being an advocate for protecting the sovereign rights of 
Indian tribes, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  Since first becoming aware of the unfavorable administrative ruling 
of the National Labor Relations Board that determined it has 
jurisdiction to regulate the labor practices of on-reservation tribal 
enterprises under the National Labor Relations Act, I, along with my 
Democratic colleagues, the gentlewoman from California (Minority Leader 
Pelosi), the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), and others have been 
participating in ongoing, sincere discussions between tribal 
representatives and representatives of labor.
  The purpose of these discussions is to work out a permanent 
legislative solution that honors the principles of tribal sovereignty 
and Labor's traditional role of collective bargaining.
  The amendment offered today by my dear friend, the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), undermines the ongoing discussions we have had, 
because this temporary fix would harm the amicable relationship between 
the parties involved and would possibly destroy our efforts to seek a 
permanent legislative solution that is mutually satisfactory to all 
parties.
  I have met with the various parties in my own office. They are in an 
active discussion trying to seek a permanent solution. I am convinced 
that this temporary solution will interfere with those negotiations to 
reach that which the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) and I share 
in common, some solution and some balance to this very important 
principle embodied in our Constitution of retained sovereignty and 
collective bargaining.
  I am convinced, or I would not be standing here, that we will get a 
solution satisfactory to both sides on this issue.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I have a great deal of respect for my colleague from 
Michigan, and it is an honor to cochair with my colleague the Native 
American Caucus in this body, and listening to his rationale in 
response, quite candidly, is a bit confusing because on more than one 
occasion we have stood united on this basic point, that sovereignty is 
nonnegotiable. Yet the foundation of his argument is that an amicable 
relationship exists between some in this House and some in organized 
labor and some in the tribes; and if they only have the time, they can 
work this out. Mr. Chairman, I find that rationale one that just does 
not pass muster.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Boehner), my friend.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, let me thank my colleague for the time and 
let me congratulate him on his amendment. I think his amendment is a 
reasonable solution to a growing problem and deserves our support.
  Simply put, it reverses a jurisdictional land grab by the National 
Labor Relations Board that would reverse 30 years of policy and 
precedent which held that jobs on reservations are not subject to the 
Federal labor board's jurisdiction because tribes are sovereign 
nations.
  Until recently, the NLRB held that the National Labor Relations Act 
did not extend jurisdiction over tribal activities that were located on 
Native American lands, consistently holding for years that tribes are 
units of government and exempt from Federal labor law. If tribal 
activities occurred off Native American lands, the NLRB had 
discretionary jurisdiction under the National Labor Relations Act, 
which it would assert if it was appropriate. Yet, earlier this year, 
the NLRB took the unusual step of ruling that it had the authority to 
settle a labor dispute on Native American land.
  In this case, the NLRB held that it has discretionary jurisdiction 
over all tribal activities whether located on or off Native American 
land, which it would now assert on a case-by-case basis. Now, this is a 
critical blow to tribal sovereignty, and I believe that the effect of 
the gentleman's amendment would be to stay this decision by the NLRB. 
Those conversations that are under way can continue to see if there is 
some way to come to some agreement on this; but to let this decision 
stand I think is a mistake, and I think the gentleman's amendment has 
an awful lot of merit.

                              {time}  1415

  The Federal Government has passed numerous laws to enhance tribal 
self-determination and give Native Americans the ability to govern 
themselves from intrusive Federal interference. It is simply irrational 
for Congress to declare that tribes should govern themselves and then 
take away their ability to do so. Restoring this fundamental right, I 
think, is the right thing to do.
  The amendment before us simply reverses the erroneous NLRB decision 
and restores tribal sovereignty, and I urge my colleagues to support 
the amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank my 
colleague from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for yielding me this time.
  I find it very interesting that we hear a lot from the other side 
today about sovereignty, and they are all very excited about it, as if 
they have just discovered it. It is interesting to hear about 
sovereignty from the other side, because where were they when we were 
trying to get sovereignty included in homeland security? Where were 
they when we were trying to get sovereignty included into all of the 
other issues, like the environment? Where were they when we tried to 
get sovereignty into the welfare reform bill, and tribes had to go 
through States rather than have that money disbursed to them directly, 
as they should under the trust responsibility?
  There have been many votes that have been cast on this floor, and I 
would venture to say most of these votes, because they are brought up 
by the majority, I think give the true explanation as to what this 
debate is all about. We have seen more votes that are antisovereignty 
votes on this floor in the last several years than the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Kildee), who has been here for over 20 years, has ever 
recalled.
  So when some of my friends on the other side call into question the 
commitment of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), when it was 
that gentleman who was the author of the IGRA legislation that provided 
for sovereignty, I find that suspect. When people talk about, oh, it is 
sovereignty, and yet where were they when it came to the meetings that 
took place so that we could get a resolution of this issue?
  My colleagues, I do not think this is so much about sovereignty as it 
is election-year politics. That is what this is about, make no mistake 
about it. If there was a true interest in getting this issue resolved, 
this issue could be resolved.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Regula), the chairman of the subcommittee.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I just want to rise in support of the 
amendment. The decision on sovereignty will not be made today, it was 
made a couple hundred years ago when our forefathers decided they 
wanted to take these lands, and in the process they granted the Indian 
tribes sovereignty.
  Sovereignty is the issue, and the gentleman's amendment does respect 
the sovereignty of the tribes that they received in the early years of 
this Nation.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to inform the House of something that I 
think is very important. Over the last year, Mr. Chairman, we have 
watched the horrors of Darfur unfold before our very eyes. President 
Bush and Secretary

[[Page 17866]]

Powell, the Congressional Black Caucus, and Members on both sides have 
focused on this issue and using every tool possible to save life.
  Today the United States took the historic step of calling what is 
occurring in Darfur, Sudan, genocide. In his testimony this morning 
before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Secretary of State Colin 
Powell stated: ``We concluded that genocide has been committed in 
Darfur and that the Government of Sudan and the jinjaweid bear 
responsibility, and genocide may still be occurring. We believe, in 
order to confirm the true nature, scope and totality of the crimes our 
evidence reveals, a full-blown and unfettered investigation needs to 
occur. Sudan is a contracting party to the Genocide Convention and is 
obligated under the Convention to prevent and punish acts of genocide. 
To us, at this time, it appears Sudan has failed to do so.'' And then 
he went on to say what the position is.
  I want to thank President Bush, and I want to thank Secretary Powell, 
and I want to thank the people in the State Department for calling this 
genocide and to doing everything they can to stop the genocide that is 
taking place in Sudan.
  Remember Rwanda? Nobody would say anything about Rwanda. This 
administration has said it is genocide, and I say, God bless President 
Bush and God bless Secretary Powell.
  Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Congressional Record the full remarks 
of Secretary Powell before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee:

                          The Crisis in Darfur

                     (By Secretary Colin L. Powell)

       Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for the 
     opportunity to testify on the situation in Darfur. Let me 
     start by reviewing a little history.
       The violence in Darfur has complex roots in traditional 
     conflicts between Arab nomadic herders and African farmers. 
     The violence intensified during 2003 when two groups--the 
     Sudan Liberation Movement and the Justice and Equality 
     Movement--declared open rebellion against the Government of 
     Sudan because they feared being on the outside of the power 
     and wealth-sharing agreements in the north-south 
     negotiations. Khartoum reacted aggressively, intensifying 
     support for Arab militias, the so-called jinjaweid. The 
     Government of Sudan supported the jinjaweid, directly and 
     indirectly, as they carried out a scorched-earth policy 
     towards the rebels and the African civilian population.
       Mr. Chairman, the United States exerted strong leadership 
     to focus international attention on this unfolding tragedy. 
     We first took the issue of Sudan to the United Nations (UN) 
     Security Council last fall. President Bush was the first head 
     of state to condemn publicly the Government of Sudan and to 
     urge the international community to intensify efforts to end 
     the violence. In April of this year, the United States 
     brokered a ceasefire between the Government of Sudan and the 
     rebels, and then took the lead to get the African Union (AU) 
     to monitor that ceasefire.
       As some of you are aware, I traveled to the Sudan in 
     midsummer and made a point of visiting Darfur. It was about 
     the same time that Congressman Wolf and Senator Brownback 
     were here, as well as Secretary General Kofi Annan. In fact, 
     the Secretary General and I were able to meet and exchange 
     notes. We made sure that our message to the Sudanese 
     government was consistent.
       Senator Brownback can back me up when I say that all of us 
     saw the suffering that the people of Darfur are having to 
     endure. And Senator Corzine was just in Darfur and can vouch 
     for the fact that atrocities are still occurring. All of us 
     met with people who had been driven from their homes--indeed 
     many having seen their homes and all their worldly 
     possessions destroyed or confiscated before their eyes--by 
     the terrible violence that is occurring in Darfur.
       During my visit, humanitarian workers from my own Agency--
     USAID--and from other Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), 
     told me how they are struggling to bring food, shelter, and 
     medicines to those so desperately in need--a population of 
     well over one million.
       In my midsummer meetings with the Government of Sudan, we 
     presented them with the stark facts of what we knew about 
     what is happening in Darfur from the destruction of villages, 
     to the raping and the killing, to the obstacles that impeded 
     relief efforts. Secretary General Annan and I obtained from 
     the Government of Sudan what they said would be firm 
     commitments to take steps, and to take steps immediately, 
     that would remove these obstacles, help bring the violence to 
     an end, and do it in a way that we could monitor their 
     performance.
       There have been some positive developments since my visit, 
     and since the visit of Senator Brownback, Congressman Wolf, 
     and the Secretary General.
       The Sudanese have met some our benchmarks such as engaging 
     in political talks with the rebels and supporting the 
     deployment of observers and troops from the AU to monitor the 
     ceasefire between Khartoum and the rebels. Some improvements 
     in humanitarian access have also occurred through the 
     government continues to throw obstacles in the way of the 
     fullest provision of assistance.
       The AU Ceasefire Commission has also been set up and is 
     working to monitor more effectively what is actually 
     happening in Darfur. The general who is in charge of that 
     mission, a Nigerian general by the name of Okonkwo, is 
     somebody that we know well. He is the same Nigerian general 
     who went into Liberia last year and helped stabilize the 
     situation there.
       The AU's mission will help to restore sufficient security 
     so that these dislocated, starving, hounded people can at 
     least avail themselves of the humanitarian assistance that is 
     available. But what is really needed is enough security so 
     that they can go home. And what is really needed is for the 
     jinjaweid militias to cease and desist their murderous raids 
     against these people--and for the Government in Khartoum to 
     stop being complicit in such raids. Khartoum has made no 
     meaningful progress in substantially improving the overall 
     security environment by disarming the jinjaweid militias or 
     arresting its leaders.
       So we are continuing to press that Government and we 
     continue to monitor them. We continue to make sure that we 
     are not just left with promises instead of actual action and 
     performance on the ground. Because it is absolutely clear 
     that as we approach the end of the rainy season, the 
     situation on the ground must change, and it must change 
     quickly. There are too many tens upon tens of thousands of 
     human beings who are at risk. Some of them have already been 
     consigned to death because of the circumstances they are 
     living in now. They will not make it through the end of the 
     year. Poor security, inadequate capacity, and heavy rains 
     (which will not diminish until late September) continue to 
     hamper the relief effort.
       The UN estimates there are 1,227,000 Internally Displaced 
     Persons (IDPs) in Darfur. In July, almost 950,000 IDPs 
     received some form of food assistance. About 200,000 Sudanese 
     refugees are being assisted by UNHCR and partner 
     organizations in Chad. The World Food Program (WFP) expects 
     two million IDPs will need food aid by October.
       U.S. Government provision of aid to the Darfur crisis in 
     Sudan and Chad totaled $211.3 million as of September 2, 
     2004. This includes $112.9 million in food assistance, $50.2 
     million in non-food assistance, and $36.4 million for 
     refugees in Chad, $5 million for refugee programs in Darfur, 
     and $6.8 million for the African Union mission.
       The. U.S. also strongly supports the work of the AU 
     monitoring mission in Darfur. In fact, 23 initiated the 
     Mission through base camp set-up and logistics support by a 
     private contractor. The Mission is staffed with 125 AU 
     monitors now deployed in the field and has completed 
     approximately 20 investigations of cease-fire violations. The 
     AU monitoring staff is supported by a protection force of 
     305, made up of a Rwandan contingent of 155 (they arrived on 
     August 15) and a Nigerian contingent of 150 (they arrived on 
     August 30). Recognizing the security problems in Darfur, the 
     UN and the U.S. have begun calling for an expanded AU mission 
     in Darfur through the provision of additional observers and 
     protection forces. Khartoum appears to have signaled a 
     willingness to consider an expanded mission.
       I am pleased to announce, Mr. Chairman, that the State 
     Department has identified $20.5 million in FY04 funds for 
     initial support of this expanded mission. We look forward to 
     consulting with the Congress on meeting additional needs.
       As you know, as we watched through the month of July, we 
     felt more pressure was required. So we went to the UN and 
     asked for a resolution. We got it on July 30.
       Resulution 1556 demands that the Government of Sudan take 
     action to disarm the jinjaweid militia and bring jinjaweid 
     leaders to justice. It warns Khartoum that the Security 
     Council will take further actions and measures--UN-speak for 
     sanctions--if Sudan fails to comply. It urges the warring 
     parties to conclude a political agreement without delay and 
     it commits all states to target sanctions against the 
     jinjaweid militias and those who aid and abet them as well as 
     others who may share responsibility for this tragic 
     situation. Too many lives have already been lost. We cannot 
     lose any more time. We in the international community must 
     intensify our efforts to help those imperiled by violence, 
     starvation and disease in Darfur.
       But the Government of Sudan bears the greatest 
     responsibility to face up to this catastrophe, rein in those 
     who are committing these atrocities, and save the lives of 
     its own citizens. At the same time, however, the rebels have 
     not fully respected the ceasefire. We are disturbed at 
     reports of rebel kidnappings of relief workers. We have 
     emphasized to the rebels that they must allow unrestricted 
     access of humanitarian relief

[[Page 17867]]

     workers and supplies and cooperate fully, including with the 
     AU monitoring mission.
       We are pleased that the Government of Sudan and the rebels 
     are currently engaged in talks in Abuja, hosted by the AU. 
     These talks are aimed at bringing about a political 
     settlement in Darfur. The two sides have agreed on a protocol 
     to facilitate delivery of much-needed humanitarian assistance 
     to rebel-held areas, and are now engaged in discussions of a 
     protocol on security issues. We are urging both sides to 
     intensify negotiations in order to reach a political 
     settlement.
       At midsummer, I told President Bashir, Vice President Taha, 
     Foreign Minister Ismail, the Minister of Interior and others, 
     that the United States wants to see a united, prosperous, 
     democratic Sudan. I told them that to that end we are fully 
     prepared to work with them. I reminded them that we had 
     reached an historic agreement on June 5--an agreement between 
     the Government of Sudan and the Sudan People's Liberation 
     Movement (SPLM). That agreement covered all the outstanding 
     issues in the north-south process.
       Since then, the parties have been engaged in final 
     negotiations on remaining details. However, the parties are 
     stuck on the specifics of a formal ceasefire agreement and 
     have not yet begun the final round of implementation 
     modalities. Special Envoy Sumbeiywo met recently with the 
     parties, but could not resolve the remaining ceasefire-
     related issues. Khartoum appears unwilling to resume talks at 
     the most senior level, claiming it must focus on Darfur. That 
     would be fine if its focus were the right focus. But it is 
     not. The SPLM is more forward leaning, but still focused on 
     negotiating details. We believe that a comprehensive 
     agreement would bolster efforts to resolve the crisis in 
     Darfur by providing a legal basis for a political solution 
     (decentralization) and by opening up the political process in 
     Khartoum.
       President Bashir has repeatedly pledged to work for peace, 
     and he pledged that again when we met in midsummer. But 
     President Bush, this Congress, Secretary General Annan and 
     the international community want more than promises. We want 
     to see dramatic improvements on the ground right now. Indeed, 
     we wanted to see them yesterday.
       In the meantime, we are doing all that we can. We are 
     working with the international community to make sure that 
     all of those nations who have made pledges of financial 
     assistance meet those pledges. In fact, the estimated needs 
     have grown and the donor community needs to dig deeper. 
     America has been in the forefront of providing assistance to 
     the suffering people of Darfur and will remain in the 
     forefront. But it is time for the entire international 
     community to increase their assistance. The U.S. has pledged 
     $299 million in humanitarian aid through FY05, and $11.8 
     million to the AU mission, and we are well on the way to 
     exceeding these pledges.
       SYG Annan's August 30 report called for an expanded AU 
     mission in Darfur to monitor commitments of the parties more 
     effectively, thereby enhancing security and facilitating the 
     delivery of humanitarian assistance. The report also 
     highlighted Khartoum's failure to rein in and disarm the 
     jinjaweid militia, and noted that the Sudanese military 
     continued to take part in attacks on civilians, including 
     aerial bombardment and helicopter strikes.
       We have begun consultation in New York on a new resolution 
     that calls for Khartoum to cooperate fully with an expanded 
     AU force and for cessation of Sudanese military flights over 
     the Darfur region. It also provides for international 
     overflights to monitor the situation in Darfur and requires 
     the Security Council to review the record of Khartoum's 
     compliance to determine if sanctions, including on the 
     Sudanese petroleum sector, should be imposed. The resolution 
     also urges the Government of Sudan and the SPLM to conclude 
     negotiations on a comprehensive peace accord.
       And finally there is the matter of whether or not what is 
     happening in Darfur is genocide.
       Since the U.S. became aware of atrocities occurring in 
     Sudan, we have been reviewing the Genocide Convention and the 
     obligations it places on the Government of Sudan.
       In July, we launched a limited investigation by sending a 
     team to refugee camps in Chad. They worked closely with the 
     American Bar Association and the Coalition for International 
     Justice and were able to interview 1,136 of the 2.2 million 
     people the UN estimates have been affected by this horrible 
     violence. Those interviews indicated:
       A consistent and widespread pattern of atrocities 
     (killings, rapes, burning of villages) committed by jinjaweid 
     and government forces against non-Arab villagers;
       Three-fourths (74%) of those interviewed reported that the 
     Sudanese military forces were involved in the attacks;
       Villages often experienced multiple attacks over a 
     prolonged period before they were destroyed by burning, 
     shelling or bombing, making it impossible for villagers to 
     return.
       When we reviewed the evidence compiled by our team, along 
     with other information available to the State Department, we 
     concluded that genocide has been committed in Darfur and that 
     the Government of Sudan and the jinjaweid bear 
     responsibility--and genocide may still be occurring. Mr. 
     Chairman, we are making copies of the evidence our team 
     compiled available to this committee today.
       We believe in order to confirm the true nature, scope and 
     totality of the crimes our evidence reveals, a full-blown and 
     unfettered investigation needs to occur. Sudan is a 
     contracting party to the Genocide Convention and is obliged 
     under the Convention to prevent and to punish acts of 
     genocide. To us, at this time, it appears that Sudan has 
     failed to do so.
       Article VIII of the Genocide Convention provides that 
     Contracting Parties ``may call upon the competent organs of 
     the United Nations to take such action under the Charter of 
     the United Nations as they consider appropriate for the 
     prevention and suppression of acts of genocide or any of the 
     other acts enumerated in Article III.''
       Today, the U.S. is calling on the UN to initiate a full 
     investigation. To this end, the U.S. will propose that the 
     next UN Security Council Resolution on Sudan request a UN 
     investigation into all violations of international 
     humanitarian law and human rights law that have occurred in 
     Darfur, with a view to ensuring accountability.
       Mr. Chairman, as I said the evidence leads us to the 
     conclusion that genocide has occurred and may still be 
     occurring in Darfur. We believe the evidence corroborates the 
     specific intent of the perpetrators to destroy ``a group in 
     whole or in part''. This intent may be inferred from their 
     deliberate conduct. We believe other elements of the 
     convention have been met as well.
       Under the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment 
     of the Crime of Genocide, to which both the United States and 
     Sudan are parties, genocide occurs when the following three 
     criteria are met:
       Specified acts are committed: (a) killing; (b) causing 
     serious bodily or mental harm; (c) deliberately inflicting 
     conditions of life calculated to bring about physical 
     destruction of a group in whole or in part; (d) imposing 
     measures to prevent births; or (e) forcibly transferring 
     children to another group;
       These acts are committed against members of a national, 
     ethnic, racial or religious group; and
       They are committed ``with intent to destroy, in whole or in 
     part, [the group] as such''.
       The totality of the evidence from the interviews we 
     conducted in July and August, and from the other sources 
     available to us, shows that:
       The jinjaweid and Sudanese military forces have committed 
     large-scale acts of violence, including murders, rape and 
     physical assaults on non-Arab individuals;
       The jinjaweid and Sudanese military forces destroyed 
     villages, foodstuffs, and other means of survival;
       The Sudan Government and its military forces obstructed 
     food, water, medicine, and other humanitarian aid from 
     reaching affected populations, thereby leading to further 
     deaths and suffering; and
       Despite having been put on notice multiple times, Khartoum 
     has failed to stop the violence.
       Mr. Chairman, some seem to have been waiting for this 
     determination of genocide to take action. In fact, however, 
     no new action is dictated by this determination. We have been 
     doing everything we can to get the Sudanese government to act 
     responsibly. So let us not be preoccupied with this 
     designation of genocide. These people are in desperate need 
     and we must help them. Call it a civil war. Call it ethnic 
     cleansing. Call it genocide. Call it ``none of the above.'' 
     The reality is the same: there are people in Darfur who 
     desperately need our help.
       I expect that the government in Khartoum will reject our 
     conclusion of genocide anyway. Moreover, at this point 
     genocide is our judgment and not the judgment of the 
     International Community. Before the Government of Sudan is 
     taken to the bar of international justice, let me point out 
     that there is a simply way for Khartoum to avoid such 
     wholesale condemnation. That way is to take action.
       The government in Khartoum should end the attacks, ensure 
     its people--all of its people--are secure, hold to account 
     those who are responsible for past atrocities, and ensure 
     that current negotiations are successfully concluded. That is 
     the only way to peace and prosperity for this war-ravaged 
     land.
       Specifically, Mr. Chairman, the most practical contribution 
     we can make to the security of Darfur in the short-term is to 
     increase the number of African Union monitors. That will 
     require the cooperation of the Government of Sudan.
       In the intermediate and long term, the security of Darfur 
     can be best advanced by a political settlement at Abuja and 
     by the successful conclusion of the peace negotiations 
     between the SPLM and the Government of Sudan.

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman

[[Page 17868]]

for yielding me this time, and I rise in opposition to the Hayworth 
amendment. I think it is unfortunate, as the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Kildee) pointed out, that this amendment is offered here. This 
amendment will not stop the impact of the NLRB ruling, it will simply 
stop the enforcement of that act, so those who want to seek to organize 
under the act will go forward, and we will find out about penalties for 
noncompliance or the results of the actions much later, some years from 
now, if this amendment passes.
  But I think it is also important to note the gentleman sort of 
belittled the efforts of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), 
myself, the leaders of the tribes, the leaders of the AFL-CIO sitting 
down together to work this out. And yet he cites that the California 
arrangement was basically the subject of negotiations where, in fact, 
the tribes, the labor unions, and Governor Schwarzenegger came up with 
an arrangement that some say is stronger than the current National 
Labor Relations Act.
  The point is these are good-faith negotiations. We have had several 
meetings. Many people were surprised that either of those organizations 
would walk into the same room to sit down and discuss this, but they 
recognized the problem here. The problem, unlike State governments, is 
that you have tens of thousands of workers and potentially many tens of 
thousands of workers working in Indian gaming facilities, who, if they 
are not properly treated, if they are mistreated, not saying they will 
be, they are not enrolled members of the tribe, and they really have no 
recourse. They have no recourse to that activity. They cannot vote 
against the mayor, they cannot recall the city council, they cannot 
organize their fellow citizens because they are not members of that 
tribe.
  As my colleague knows, in many of these instances, the size of the 
tribe may be a couple hundred people. Obviously, they cannot run a 
casino because the workforce there is several thousand of those 
individuals. So I do not think it is a matter of national policy. And 
the Indians have recognized this in our discussions, that you would 
leave people without some recourse to an ability to organize. That is 
why they have recognized, at least in these discussions, that we should 
go forward and try to see whether or not we can develop a system that 
honors sovereignty and is a parallel system to provide for the 
protection and the recognition of these workers.
  That is, in effect, what we are doing now. And I did not quite 
understand the previous exchange, because the suggestion is somehow 
that this is make-work. I hope not, because I, obviously, and many of 
the people in that room are very prominent people and very busy people. 
I hope we are not wasting our time.
  Now, what has happened since this amendment appeared, those meetings 
have all been canceled. So I think it has been destructive to that 
process.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from 
Arizona.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding, and this 
would make the point. In terms of the negotiations in California, were 
they not, in fact, conducted on a government-to-government basis?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). Time of the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller) has expired.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to my friend, the 
gentleman from California.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman 
for yielding me this time, and I am sorry, but I will have to ask him 
to repeat the question.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield to me for 
that purpose.
  The gentleman talked about the California situation and the 
negotiations that went on in the gentleman's home State. I would just 
simply ask: Were not those negotiations conducted with sovereign tribal 
entities negotiating with the State of California on a government-to-
government basis?
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Reclaiming my time, which the 
gentleman yielded to me, Mr. Chairman, I would respond that, actually 
the chairman of the San Manuel Tribe will say no; that that was not the 
case. But I would tend to agree with the gentleman. Exactly.
  That is what we are trying to do here as representatives of the 
Federal Government, recognizing the doctrine of sovereignty and 
protecting that with the tribes.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Which is exactly my point.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute, and I would simply make the 
point in response that what we are dealing with here today, contrary to 
the comments of my friend from Rhode Island, sovereignty was not 
created in the wake of IGRA. Indeed, a part of the Indian Gaming 
Regulatory Act was a government-to-government negotiation between 
sovereign tribes and the respective States.
  Now, with reference to what has gone on and what has been described 
as productive negotiations, yes, indeed, tribes met with several union 
officials in attempts to negotiate. Our understanding is essentially 
the negotiations went nowhere. And, Mr. Chairman, the tribes are in no 
position to negotiate because of this NLRB ruling. This amendment is an 
immediate solution for now, and it will fix this problem, offering a 
time out, until a final solution can be crafted.
  Sovereignty is not conditional. We cannot accept it in some 
instances, but then, when it somehow is politically inconvenient, 
ignore it in others. That is why this amendment should be passed, and I 
ask my colleagues to join me in this.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey) continue to reserve his point of order on this amendment?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Brown).
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, the gentleman 
from Wisconsin, for yielding me this time.
  For the first time, under the San Manuel decision, workers at Indian 
casinos, Indians and non-Indians alike, enjoy the full protection of 
the NLRA's right to organize and right to engage in collective 
bargaining. The right to organize and collectively bargain, those 
rights are internationally recognized ILO human rights.
  Many tribes have established tribal labor ordinances pursuant to 
State gaming compacts. Basic labor rights, including the right to free 
association, the right to collective bargaining, and labor rights that 
are reflected in both the NLRA and many tribal labor ordinances, are 
the rights that we insist on in international trading with our 
international trading partners, including underdeveloped nations.
  We insist that labor rights be enforced in international trade 
agreements. We include provisions in trade agreements to protect those 
rights. We debate those rights on the House floor. We insist upon that, 
yet this amendment denies those rights to workers in the United States.
  This amendment leaves workers with no enforceable right to organize 
or to engage in collective bargaining. So we are saying to other 
countries, do it there, but in our own country we are not preserving 
and protecting those labor rights, the rights to organize and the 
rights to bargain collectively.
  Rather than pass this amendment, Mr. Chairman, we should be working 
with both tribal and labor representatives to discuss solutions to the 
potential conflict between workers' rights and tribal sovereignty. The 
Hayworth amendment pits workers' rights against tribal rights. 
Ultimately, it damages both.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  It is interesting to listen to my friend, the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Brown), try to characterize this amendment, when I think more 
accurately we would characterize this as a choice. And this is the 
choice to make

[[Page 17869]]

in this Chamber, and, Mr. Chairman, especially for those who say time 
and again they are friends of sovereignty.
  Are we, in fact, going to respect the provisions in Article I, 
section 8 of our Constitution that grants sovereign rights and 
sovereign immunity to Indian tribes in that document of limited and 
specified powers, or are we going to make a change for political 
convenience, for political alliances?
  And I understand it may be very uncomfortable for some in this 
Chamber, but are we basically going to say, Mr. Chairman, that the 
rights of union negotiations supersede the rights of sovereignty?
  Make no mistake, Mr. Chairman, in this Chamber, at this time, this 
decision will be made. And I would offer for all to note that we should 
never suborn sovereignty for political convenience. We dare not make 
that mistake. Support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).
  Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Hayworth 
amendment. Tribal nations have established commercial gaming 
enterprises because of the economic prospects and to improve the living 
conditions of their tribal members. Before gaming, many of these tribes 
had little or no economic development and next to nothing on their 
lands to provide a foundation of commerce.
  If you had come to Las Vegas when my family came to Las Vegas over 4 
decades ago, you would have found similar circumstances. A remote place 
in the Nevada desert with virtually no economic activity. My community 
looked to gaming, and now Las Vegas has one of the most vibrant 
economies in the United States. The key to Las Vegas' success is a 
strong relationship between labor and management. As a result, our 
casino workers have good-paying jobs, good benefits, good working 
conditions. Workers at tribal gaming facilities deserve the same.
  The National Labor Relations Board ruled it has jurisdiction at 
casinos operated by American Indian tribes. This decision ensures that 
the rights of all workers in this country, including those working on 
tribal lands, are protected. Las Vegas is a shining example of why such 
an atmosphere of respect between employees and employers strengthens 
the entire community.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment which is one-
sided and jeopardizes ongoing discussions between those parties 
impacted by the ruling. Rather than resolving the situation, this 
amendment may only cause deterioration in efforts to come to mutually 
beneficial solutions. The NLRB has ruled and this Congress should not 
overturn that ruling.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller).
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, there is a little bit 
of having it both ways. The gentleman from Arizona says he respects the 
California compacting process; yet in the 106th and 107th Congress, we 
debated this amendment when he wanted to prohibit the State of 
California or any entity negotiating a compact with the Indians from 
even discussing labor rights. I am a little bit confused here about 
what it is.
  The gentleman does not like the negotiations that were going on 
because he likes what California is doing, but now we see in fact this 
amendment is not just about what happened with the National Labor 
Relations Act, because he has been trying to prevent the tribes or 
States from engaging in any discussion on terms and conditions of 
employees. This was long before.
  The gentleman does not come here with some pure heart. The gentleman 
is subsuming what those compacts could be about; and this Congress, 
recognizing sovereignty, passed legislation to allow for that 
compacting to take place. That is what the law is, that those 
arrangements take place between the governors and the tribes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, while I respect my colleague from Arizona, 
I do not think this is the right time or right vehicle to consider this 
issue. As we have seen time and time again, the Native American Caucus 
has been unified on amendments and bills that benefit Indian Country. 
Today that is not the situation.
  Mr. Chairman, as Members know, I have been a long supporter of both 
tribal sovereignty and workers rights, as have many in this body. But 
the amendment we are considering now could have far-reaching 
implications on these issues and should not be acted upon in a hasty 
fashion.
  Several States, such as California and New York, have previously 
worked out agreements with Native American tribes on this very issue. 
Currently, similar negotiations are underway to find a more permanent 
solution for all of Indian Country.
  Even if the Hayworth amendment is passed today and becomes law, it is 
not a permanent fix. We will be back here again next year debating the 
same issue. We should be looking for a permanent solution, and we 
should allow all parties to continue to work out an agreement and not 
move this amendment today.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining, the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) has 1 minute remaining, and the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has the right to close.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  It is very simple at the end of day. I listened with interest to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), who would not let me 
answer a question. It had nothing to do with my advocacy of any policy, 
simply the notion that negotiations take place on a government-to-
government basis.
  Now, much has been made of the National Labor Relations Act and the 
National Labor Relations Board; but many in this Chamber, friends who 
unfortunately line up on the other side of this issue today, often cite 
the document that trumps all of these organizations, the United States 
Constitution, article 1, section 8, that Congress shall have the power 
to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States 
and with the Indian tribes.
  Sovereignty is not situational. The Constitution of the United States 
trumps the National Labor Relations Act. It trumps any treaty, and 
tribes, as sovereign governments, should have the freedom to determine 
if this should go forward. Support this amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, a few years ago I endured efforts to recall me because 
I steadfastly supported the principle of tribal sovereignty, and I do 
not regret that. I think I took the right position. But I am opposed to 
this amendment because of something that happened in Wisconsin several 
years ago. One of the tribes in my district contracted out for the 
operation of a casino to a private operator. That private operator had 
some very strange rules. One of the rules when women were hired was 
very blunt: Put out or get out. It was an outrageous way to deal with 
female employees, but we had no way to reach into that situation and 
protect those women workers because the State compacts did not provide 
protection under such circumstances.
  I do not ever want that to happen again to any woman working anywhere 
in my State or any other State in the Union. That is why I believe that 
the correct vote on this amendment is to vote against this amendment 
because the last time I looked, the United States Constitution 
guarantees equal protection under the law to every citizen; and I am 
not about to suggest that in cases of casinos, for instance, on or off 
reservation, that the people who work for those casinos are not going 
to be entitled to the protection which they need in order to experience 
decent working conditions.
  I think a Congress that cannot protect women in those circumstances 
is a

[[Page 17870]]

Congress that is impotent, and I do not believe Congress ought to be 
impotent in those situations, so I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Hayworth) will be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Kildee

  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Kildee:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the 
     following new section:
       Sec. ___. None of the funds appropriated under this Act may 
     be used by the Secretary of Education to administer or pay 
     any special allowance under section 438(b)(2)(B) of the 
     Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087-1(b)(2)(B)) 
     pursuant to the provisions of section 682.302(e)(2) of the 
     regulations of the Department of Education (34 CFR 
     682.302(e)(2)).

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
today, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) and the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Wicker) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple. At a time when students and 
families are struggling with skyrocketing tuition, we are squandering 
an opportunity to generate more student aid. This fiscal year alone, 
nearly $1 billion in special student loan subsidies will be paid by the 
Federal Government to lenders rather than used for financial aid for 
students. This subsidy results from an obscure provision in the Higher 
Education Act and its regulations which provide lenders a 9.5 percent 
rate of return on certain student loans.
  This rate of return is excessive when we consider that lenders are 
guaranteed approximately a 3.5 percent rate on other student loans. The 
9.5 percent guarantee was established in the high interest rate year of 
1980. Congress intended for it to be phased out of existence beginning 
in 1993; but through a regulatory loophole, the guarantee has 
continued. Both the New York Times and the L.A. Times have reported on 
this loophole. The Government Accountability Office will soon issue a 
report which calls for the Department of Education to correct its 
regulations on this matter.
  This special subsidy has caused a loss of financial opportunity for 
students. Students are bearing the brunt of rising college costs and 
shrinking grant aid. Today we have an opportunity to correct this 
problem. Despite this issue being addressed in the last Presidential 
budget, no action has taken place. Since this subsidy has not been 
eliminated, it has now tripled in the past 3 years.
  It has been publicly announced in our hearings in the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce and in the press that we will not authorize 
the Higher Education Act this year. This essentially prevents Congress 
from addressing this issue in the normal fashion. This amendment is the 
only recourse left to us today. The amendment ends the special subsidy 
for new loans which are funded with proceeds from bonds which have been 
refunded or transferred.
  Today, Mr. Chairman, we have an opportunity to curtail the biggest 
use of this provision to date. I urge Members join me in supporting 
this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Boehner).
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Kildee amendment.
  In February of this year, President Bush called on Congress to end 
the 9.5 percent floor interest rate subsidy paid to some lenders in the 
student loan program. The 9.5 percent floor was supposed to be phased 
out beginning in 1993, but through a bureaucratic move by the Clinton 
administration Department of Education, the practice has continued.
  We followed the President's lead earlier this year when we introduced 
the College Access and Opportunity Act and called for the elimination 
of these 9.5 percent loans, which in my view and the administration's 
view and the view of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) are being 
abused by some lenders in order to get an extra subsidy on the student 
loans that they process.
  I would welcome the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) to the 
efforts we have put forward throughout this year to eliminate the 9.5 
percent floor, and urge my colleagues to support the gentleman's 
amendment.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), a cosponsor of the amendment.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Kildee) for his leadership on this issue. I am very pleased to 
hear that this amendment is going to be accepted, because I think it is 
a bipartisan amendment. Its goal is to save the taxpayer money, money 
that could be better spent both towards reducing the deficit and 
investing in education programs like Pell grants and other programs 
which will help provide greater student loans to many needy students 
out there.
  As Members have heard, this 9.5 percent loan scheme has been in place 
for some time, but only recently have we seen many people taking 
advantage of it and really abusing it. According to GAO's preliminary 
findings, it will cost the taxpayer $1 billion this year. If we do not 
close it now, it will cost the taxpayer even more down the road. These 
are dollars that could be invested in other forms of support in the 
area of education.

                              {time}  1445

  I do want to note that the budget submitted by the Bush 
administration this year, the fiscal year 2005 budget, assumed that we 
as a Congress would address this issue. So I very much hope that as 
this appropriation bill goes to the Senate, that we stick with this 
provision and this position, because if we do not and this is removed 
from the bill, it will end up costing the taxpayers billions of dollars 
going forward.
  I am very pleased to hear that this has been accepted, but I do want 
to underline the importance of addressing this right now, because as a 
result of our action to close these loopholes, those that have been 
taking advantage of it may be encouraged to try and take even greater 
advantage of it until it is actually shut down. So if we do not shut it 
down in the next few months, we are going to see a further run on the 
taxpayer and further loss of valuable resources that we could spend and 
invest in other very important education initiatives.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Kildee) will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Tancredo

  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:


[[Page 17871]]

       Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Tancredo:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. ___. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be used to pay the salaries and 
     expenses of personnel to carry out the provisions of section 
     1011 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and 
     Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-173).

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
today, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) and the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Regula) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  My amendment is very simple and straightforward. It would essentially 
prevent the implementation of section 1011 of the prescription drug 
bill passed by Congress earlier this year. That section, as the Members 
may recall, is a controversial provision of the law that provides $1 
billion to cover the health care costs of illegal aliens in the 
country.
  Let me quickly add that what this amendment does not do, because 
oftentimes we submit an amendment of this nature and there are all 
kinds of claims made about what dire things would happen if it were to 
pass. This amendment restricts health care to no one. It has nothing to 
do with provision of health care. Health care will still, of course, be 
provided to people because of EMTALA, because of the requirement of the 
Federal Government.
  Right now we spend upwards of $61 billion a year, Federal dollars, 
going to hospitals for Medicaid reimbursement. That, by the way, does 
not cover Medicare payments, but just in Medicaid alone, $61.2 billion. 
The provisions of EMTALA said that if you accept Federal dollars, you 
must provide service to people on any basis if they need it. They 
cannot be refused medical attention for emergency care.
  This does not change that in any way, shape or form. The services 
will still be provided. But recently promulgated rules designed to 
implement the section fall short of establishing any meaningful 
accountability measures for the money, and, more importantly, they do 
not require information-sharing with homeland security officials to 
ensure that illegal aliens are deported after their condition 
stabilizes. As a result, the same illegal aliens could conceivably 
receive medical care at taxpayers' expense over and over and over 
again.
  It is also important to note that many of the States incurring the 
heaviest costs for treating illegal aliens have helped create their own 
problems. In many cases they have taken steps to make themselves 
magnets for illegal immigrants, whose health care costs they are now 
burdened with, by permitting them to obtain driver's licenses, enroll 
in higher education at instate rates, obtain public services through 
the use of consular ID cards. All of these things, of course, attract 
more people to come who are, in fact, in the country illegally, and 
then their health care costs become a burden to the taxpayer.
  The sad irony is that many of the Americans who are being asked to 
cough up the $1 billion to fund health care for these illegal aliens do 
not have health insurance themselves. This giveaway is bad for 
taxpayers, sends the wrong message to illegal aliens and Americans 
alike, and comes at far too high a price. It was wrong when we passed 
it. It is wrong today.
  Mr. Chairman, we have more pressing needs in this country than 
providing a patients' bill of rights for illegal aliens. I hope Members 
will support my amendment and save American taxpayers $1 billion.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would forbid the use of CMS funds to 
administer the undocumented alien program funded in last year's 
Medicare Modernization bill. I am reluctant to get into this debate 
because it is the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 
and last year's Medicare bill included funding for this new program 
intended to provide relief to hospitals in jurisdictions with large 
numbers of undocumented aliens.
  I think the goal here might be to prevent these undocumented aliens 
from having health care, but the truth of the matter is the hospitals 
are going to pay the price. They are not going to turn anybody away 
that comes to the door that needs medical treatment. And if they cannot 
get reimbursed from CMS, they are going to have to eat it. The 
hospitals have to do a lot of this as it is with charity patients and 
so on, and I do not think it is fair to use an amendment like this to 
put an additional burden on hospitals. While it may seem to preclude 
undocumented aliens from getting health care, the truth is they are 
going to get it, and instead of being reimbursed, the hospitals are 
going to have to eat it and, in effect, pass it on to the rest of their 
clients.
  This was defeated as a proposal to overturn the program by 331-88 
last May on H.R. 3722. I understand the feelings of the gentleman from 
Colorado, but the truth of the matter is I do not think it is a burden 
we want to shove off on hospitals, and they already have enough outlays 
for charity patients, for charity work, and let us not add one more set 
of problems to them.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I agree with the gentleman when he says that this will not prevent 
anyone from obtaining services, and it is not my intent to prevent 
anyone from obtaining services. That is really not the purpose of this. 
Hospitals, yes, they will provide the services. They must under EMTALA. 
It is absolutely accurate to say that the burden falls somewhere, 
taxpayers, somewhere along the line, he is right.
  To me it is just peculiar, to say the least, that we actually take 
part of the law and identify a program for $1 billion for services for 
people who have broken the law. That is the peculiar aspect of this. If 
we had to add $1 billion to the $34.6 billion that we give hospitals in 
order to care for the poor, if that is the place to do it, that is the 
place to do it. It is this odd identifying in law a provision for 
services for people who have broken the law, other than incarceration 
services.
  It is also odd, I would say, that there are really only two groups of 
people in this country that can obtain free medical health care, health 
services, at any time they want, and that is people who are 
incarcerated and people who are here illegally. What a strange 
situation.
  I just believe that the $1 billion should be reallocated. There are 
better uses, or at least better placement of it, than in this bill. 
That is my only purpose.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time, and I come to rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado.
  Once again, what we are looking at here is something that tries to 
deal with the symptoms of illegal immigration. It does not actually 
deal with the problem that we have of illegal immigration. But in this 
case we are really not talking about going after illegal immigrants at 
all. We are going after hospitals. We are going after health care 
providers. We are going after the people that are providing the health 
care, that are providing emergency services for these people, and we 
are saying we are going to punish those particular people.
  This is an antihospital amendment. There is no other way to describe 
it. It is just an antihospital amendment. If this amendment passes, we 
are punishing the overburdened and undercompensated hospitals, which I 
happen to have a lot of them in my district because we have a lot of 
the illegal immigration in Arizona. And so the costs in Arizona are 
tremendous. This is targeted directly against the hospitals in

[[Page 17872]]

places like Arizona and along the border there.
  If the Federal Government mandates that hospitals treat those that 
are brought to their doors, and they do, then the problem is you need 
to reform that law, EMTALA as it is called. If you want to deal with 
the problem, reform that. Otherwise the Federal Government needs to be 
responsible for the mandate that it has created by saying that 
hospitals must serve anybody who shows up in their emergency room, must 
serve them. That is the way it probably should be, in my opinion. I do 
not think we want hospitals saying, we are going to turn you away, and 
we are going to deal with this other person. But if you want to reform 
it, that is where you need to reform it.
  We have hospitals in my district that are going bankrupt. They cannot 
offer medical services because they are not being reimbursed. One of 
our two major hospitals in Tucson has closed their trauma one center 
largely because the other hospital is overburdened with trauma one care 
right now, and it is largely because of this problem, and this, of 
course, would put an even greater burden on them and hurt them even 
more. They are disappearing through no fault of their own. They are 
complying with the law. They are dealing with the care for people that 
need this care.
  This is the wrong approach. I urge rejection of this amendment.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I would just conclude by saying that I certainly agree with the last 
gentleman and his reference to the fact that this does not solve any 
illegal immigration problem. It is not designed to do that. That is not 
the purpose. It is designed to correct what I believe to be a terrible 
flaw in the law. We should never, ever put in law that we are, in fact, 
taking taxpayer money and providing services for people who have broken 
the law. That is a bad precedent. If you want to add the money, put it 
into the already $61 billion that we give hospitals for the purpose of 
treating folks who are in need. That is all I am saying. It has got 
nothing to do with immigration.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to 
Congressman Thomas G. Tancredo's amendment to the Labor-HHS-Education 
Appropriations bill, H.R. 5006. This amendment would prohibit the use 
of funds to pay the salaries and expenses of personnel to carry out the 
section of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and 
Modernization Act of 2003, that deals with federal reimbursement for 
emergency health services furnished to undocumented aliens.
  The effect of this amendment would be to require physicians and other 
health care providers to become part-time border patrol agents. 
According to the American Medical Association (AMA), withholding 
necessary care on the basis of a person's immigration status would 
violate the Hippocratic Oath. The AMA also has expressed concern over 
the fact that discouraging undocumented individuals from seeking 
medical care for problems that might cause harm to others, such as 
communicable diseases, could have very negative effects on existing 
public health efforts.
  I share the concerns of the AMA. The fear of deportation inevitably 
would prevent some undocumented immigrants from seeking care for 
communicable diseases until they are extremely ill, at which point they 
might have already exposed many people to their diseases.
  Today's health care delivery system is very fast-paced, and, in an 
emergency situation, the urgency of providing life-saving care takes 
precedence over anything else. Requiring hospitals to collect 
immigration data would divert time and attention from caring for 
patients. Hospitals do not have the expertise or the resources to 
interrogate and investigate patients in the pressured environment of an 
emergency room.
  It also would divert funds that could be used to provide health care 
services for some of America's estimated 44 million uninsured patients. 
A substantial portion of these funds would have to be used to establish 
and implement an expensive new immigration enforcement program for our 
already underfunded, overburdened community hospitals.
  This legislation would weaken federal Emergency Medical Treatment and 
Active Labor Act (EMTALA) obligations by redefining the circumstances 
under which hospitals are required to treat patients who are 
undocumented immigrants. Such a policy would create a dangerous 
situation for all patients because physicians would be required to 
impose differing standards of care based on whether they determine a 
patient to be in the country legally or not. By necessity, emergency 
department professionals must be afforded the latitude necessary to 
provide treatment based solely on which treatment is medically 
appropriate for the patient and without regard to immigration status.
  It is in the best interests of all patients, documented and 
undocumented alike, that medical staff be permitted to focus their 
attention on caring for patients and providing necessary medical 
treatment rather than on assisting the federal government in enforcing 
the immigration laws of this country. I urge you therefore to vote 
against this amendment.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
  The amendment was rejected.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Stark

  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Stark:
       Page 105, after line 16, insert the following new section:
       Sec. 519. The amount otherwise provided by this Act for 
     ``DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES--Office of the 
     Secretary--General Departmental Management'' is hereby 
     reduced by $84,500.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
earlier today, the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) and the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) each will control 10 minutes.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio reserves a point of 
order on the amendment.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark).
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, this is probably the lowest-priced amendment to be 
offered to this bill, but what it does basically is takes away $84,500 
from the Secretary of HHS's management budget. The purpose of the 
amendment is to establish firmly the rights of Congress in regard to 
getting information from the administration.
  Very quickly, during the course of drafting and debating the Medicare 
bill that dealt with prescription drugs, the head of CMS Mr. Scully 
threatened improperly the actuary for CMS and caused this actuary to 
withhold information from the House of Representatives which would have 
indicated that the drug bill would not cost $400 billion, but more like 
$530 or $540 billion. That is a $140 billion difference. It may very 
well have affected the way many of us might have voted on that bill. It 
was substantial information. This information was not classified, and 
it comes under a bill that started back in 1912 when then Senator 
LaFollette indicated that we should have this information in the normal 
course of our proceedings available to us. According to GAO, who has 
recently suggested that the point of this legislation be enacted, never 
in the history of that legislation since 1912 has anybody violated this 
law until now. And it was GAO who said that the recourse for violating 
the law, for preventing a member of the administration from giving us 
information relative to our business, should be that the salary of the 
Administrator of CMS was improperly paid during the time from the point 
he gagged his subordinate until the end of his term when he resigned in 
December.

                              {time}  1500

  So quite simply said once again, it is uncontrovertable that the law 
was broken by Mr. Scully, that the remedy is that he should not have 
the salary that he was paid during the period in which the information 
was withheld from us, and it indeed runs to the prerogative of this 
House to receive the information that is necessary for us to do our 
business in the normal course of legislating. And the Secretary can get 
the

[[Page 17873]]

$84,500 back if he wants to go after Mr. Scully for it, and it is 
highly symbolic, but I think it is imperative that we establish our 
rights to receive information, either side of the aisle, or from any 
administration in the future.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve a point of order, and 
I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am not sure I understand the objective of this 
amendment, reducing the Office of the Secretary by $84,500 in general 
departmental management. Here we are talking about a Department with a 
$60 billion, $60 billion, budget, and to manage that Department 
efficiently and effectively, we gave a reasonable amount in the bill. 
And I think it would be a great mistake because the programs that are 
part of Health and Human Services are very important to people, and if 
we start debilitating the ability of the Office of the Secretary to 
manage these agencies well and these programs well, we are not hurting 
the head of the agency, we are hurting the people who would be 
benefiting from the programs.
  And for this reason I think it is a big mistake, because already, in 
constructing a bill and because of the constraints, we had a limited 
amount of additional funding under the Budget Act, and it would be a 
serious mistake to constrain them even more. And to penalize the 
Department for a mistake by Tom Scully, and he is no longer there, is 
not right. It is penalizing the people, tens of thousands of people, 
that benefit tremendously from the Health and Human Services programs, 
and to in any way erode the ability to manage these programs on behalf 
of people I think is a big mistake. And I would, therefore, be strongly 
in opposition to this proposal.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Brown).
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Stark) for yielding me this time.
  I rise in support of the Stark amendment. This whole Tom Scully issue 
is a sorry page in a sordid chapter in congressional history. Think 
about this whole process of the Medicare bill passing this Congress if 
this new law that seniors, most seniors I know, think was foisted on 
them, this bill written by the drug industry and the insurance 
industry.
  The vote to pass Medicare was taken in the middle of the night. The 
debate started at midnight. The vote was taken at 3 o'clock. The roll 
call, unprecedented in congressional history, was kept open for 2 hours 
and 55 minutes until Republican leadership could twist arms all over 
this House floor back in the cloakroom; waking up the President in the 
middle of the night; trying to change Republican votes; trying to 
literally bribe at least one Republican Member of Congress, who talked 
about it on radio the next day; the millions of dollars in campaign 
contributions that were used to pass this Medicare bill. Tens of 
millions of dollars went to President Bush's reelection from the drug 
industry and the insurance. Tens of millions of dollars went into 
Republican leadership campaign coffers from the drug industry and 
insurance industry. And then to top off this sordid chapter in 
congressional history, Mr. Scully, the gentleman, a good public 
servant, but the gentleman that was negotiating on behalf of seniors, 
on behalf of taxpayers, was negotiating this bill, and he was lining 
himself up for a job soon after the bill was signed by President Bush, 
a job representing and lobbying for drug companies and for insurance 
companies. What is wrong with this?
  This amendment needs to be passed to at least undo part of this very 
sordid chapter in congressional history.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would feel a lot better about this issue 
if the Republican leadership in the Congress decided to do something 
when they first heard that Tom Scully, who was the Administrator of the 
agency, Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, threatened to fire 
the actuary if he gave Congress the accurate information about how much 
the Medicare bill would cost. We were told in the Congress that it was 
going to cost $400 billion. It turned out it was $600 billion. And the 
actuary knew about it, and Mr. Scully said to him if he told the 
Congress, he was going to fire him.
  I hear no sense of outrage from the Republican leadership of the 
Congress, of the House. I hear no sense of outrage from Republican 
Members who voted for this bill because they thought it would only be 
$400 billion and would have voted against it if they had known the true 
facts.
  The Government Accountability Office has issued its findings to the 
investigation in this matter, and they said what Mr. Scully did was 
improper, and he should not be paid. So under the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark), we would take out $84,500 
from the appropriations bill in order to make the point of protest as 
to what happened. That is not a lot of money given the scope of this 
appropriations bill, but I would feel more comfortable in deferring to 
the chairman of the subcommittee if he and other leaders on the 
Republican side of the aisle had at least expressed some outrage on 
behalf of this institution that we were treated the way we were.
  So I support the Stark amendment at least to do something about this 
issue.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I have one more speaker, but I did want to repeat that, as far as 
this gentleman is concerned, the issue here, I know the dollars are not 
significant, but I rather suspect that the laws that were violated were 
written by the Republican Party when it was in the minority, and I do 
not think it is an issue that is partisan. I really believe this is an 
issue that does not deal with anything other than the very most basic 
facts which we need to carry out our duties here. And, yes, the $84,500 
is symbolic, but it is the only recourse that we have under the law. 
The law was clearly broken. It seems to me that we should demand that 
it be taken and leave it to the Secretary to collect the $84,500 in any 
manner that he sees fit.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Pallone).
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I think this amendment is very important 
and should be supported.
  There has to be some consequence of the Medicare Administrator giving 
the wrong information to Congress about such an important bill and 
knowing full well that he was giving that wrong information to 
Congress. I mean, keep in mind that Mr. Scully was told by Mr. Foster 
what the actual cost would be, and knowing full well that information, 
and knowing that if that accurate information had been given to this 
body, we would never have passed the bill, but he still refused to give 
it and actually sought to even penalize Mr. Foster, or threatened him, 
if the accurate information was given to us.
  The Department has said that they are not going to ask Mr. Scully for 
the money back for his salary. Mr. Scully has said that he has no 
intention of returning it to the government. So there is simply no 
penalty for giving inaccurate, false information to this body that they 
know to be false. That is a terrible thing, no consequences. How can we 
operate as a body when the actuary's information is not given to us, 
and there is no consequence for that even though the GAO says it is 
wrong?
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, the Stark Amendment takes direct aim at 
part of the Bush Administration's pattern of cover ups, clandestine 
policy making, and concealment of critical information from the 
Congress. I urge all my colleagues to support it.
  We had Dick Cheney's secret energy task force. We've seen military 
records concealed. We had no-bid contracts for Halliburton. We've seen 
government reports doctored--like the one on minority health 
disparities. And we've seen more games played with numbers during this 
Administration than you'd get from an Enron accountant. Tax cuts--
they're free! (Yet

[[Page 17874]]

we've got the largest deficits on record.) Employment--it's up! (Yet, 
we still have 1.2 million fewer jobs now than when the recession 
started and more workers than ever looking for work.) The uninsured--
we're covering them! (Yet, 5.2 million Americans have been added to the 
ranks of the uninsured under President Bush's watch.)
  The recent HHS Inspector General and the GAO reports on the unsavory 
activities of Mr. Tom Scully, the Administrator of the Centers for 
Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), during the Medicare debate give 
us one more example of the Administration's deception of Congress and 
the American people.
  The Administration, through former CMS Administrator Scully, covered 
up important cost information, particularly the fact that the bill 
would cost more than 500 billion dollars, that Congress should have 
seen prior to voting on the Medicare bill. Mr. Scully threatened the 
Chief Actuary with adverse consequences if he provided requested 
estimates to Congress, and had his underling threaten the Chief Actuary 
as well. All the while making sure that the White House had the real 
information.
  Just this week, GAO issued a legal opinion stating that Mr. Scully's 
actions violated federal law, and is recommending that the money from 
the Medicare Administrator's salary which he received during these 
improper activities--$84,500--be returned to the Treasury. This 
amendment does that.
  Accountability has been lacking throughout the four years of this 
Bush Presidency. We need to bring accountability back to the 
government. And we should start right here with this Amendment offered 
by my colleague Representative Stark.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I would, as a matter of prerogative of the 
House, encourage us all to support this modest amendment, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry).
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Stark).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Stark) will be postponed.


                  Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Paul

  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Paul:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to create or implement any new universal mental 
     health screening program.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House earlier 
today, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment says that no funds in this bill will be 
permitted to be used to institute system of universal mental health 
screening. The New Freedoms Commission on Mental Health, a commission 
established in 2002, has recommended universal mental health screening 
for all our children in our public schools as well as adults who work 
in these schools. As a medical doctor, as a civil libertarian, and a 
strict constitu-
tionist, I strongly reject this notion, this plan, as dangerous and 
nonproductive.
  This type of screening would surely lead to a lot more treatment of 
hyperactive kids. We already have an epidemic in our schools today that 
are overtreated. Too often under these conditions, children are coerced 
into taking medicine. It has been known that parents who have denied 
medication for their children have been accused of child abuse. There 
is already tremendous pressure on parents to allow public school 
officials to put children on medication like Ritalin.
  This amendment would not deny, in the routine course of events, 
medical treatment for those who are suffering from mental disease. What 
my concern is for a universal screening test of all children for mental 
illness.
  Diagnosis in psychiatry is mostly subjective. It is very difficult to 
come up with objective criteria. If we wanted psychiatrists to perform 
the test to make it more objective, it would be impossible. We are 
talking about an unbelievable number of psychiatrists that are not 
available, so nonpsychiatrists would be doing this testing.
  One of the worst downsides from a program like this would be for a 
child to be put on a list as having some type of mental disorder.

                              {time}  1515

  An unruly child is going to be the first one to be determined as 
mentally disturbed. It is happening all the time. Those are the 
individuals that are hyperactive even in a normal sense and end up on 
Ritalin.
  But can you imagine a list of this sort? They claim it will be 
private, but can you imagine if there is a list that has identified an 
individual as a possible candidate for violence? And what if he were to 
be hired by an important industry? What if the post office was to hire 
this individual and he was on this list and we did not make this 
information available to the hiring authorities? That means there would 
be tremendous pressure to make public officials use this list for 
reasons that I think would be very, very negative.
  The whole notion of testing children to me represents a principle 
even more intrusive than a mandatory blood test. It would make more 
sense medically to have a blood test for, say, AIDS, if you thought it 
was the responsibility of the Federal Government to take this job upon 
themselves. But, no, if we tried to do this in the area of mental 
diseases, believe me, the criteria would be way too arbitrary. A 
diagnosis will be too difficult to determine with a set of objective 
standards.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). Does any Member rise in 
opposition to the amendment?
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am a little baffled by this, because there is nothing 
in this bill to establish the universal mental health screening. I do 
not know what the need for the amendment is. I understand what the 
concern of the gentleman is if this were the case, but we do not have 
it. There is no requirement, there is no money, there is no action.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, that is correct, there is no money specified 
for this. But on previous legislation, the authority exists for us to 
be involved in mental health. The particular bill's mental health 
services, it is on the books. The legislative authority is there. It 
could be done by regulation.
  I am just saying you are correct, it is not on there, so there should 
be no objection, is my interpretation. It is just a protection, a 
statement by the House that we do not like this idea because this is a 
recommendation from a commission set up by the administration, and I 
would like to cut it off before it gets very far.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I guess you might call 
this preventive medicine.
  Mr. PAUL. I hope the gentleman will join me in this effort for 
preventive medicine.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is a little inflammatory. You do have a lot 
of people who for, one reason or another, maybe family members, maybe 
in their own case, they do have problems. I think, in a way, to pass an 
amendment of this type is sort of putting our thumb in their eye or 
sort of saying, hey, we do not want any part of this.

[[Page 17875]]

  What the commission did in their report is say this is a problem we 
need to be thinking about, that we need to address. But I think it is 
premature, and it is unfair in a way to identify a segment of the 
population and say under no circumstances are you going to get any 
help.
  For this reason, I would have to oppose the amendment.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the amendment was misconstrued by the previous 
speaker, because it would not deny medical care. What it does is it 
denies the authority to the administration to have universal screening 
of all children in public school. It does not deny care to any 
individual that may qualify.
  Already the SAT tests have now been changed to incorporate having the 
students write a paragraph about personal beliefs and their world view. 
Can you not see the connection? If one has a strange world view or a 
strange personal belief, if you have a prejudice or whatever one may be 
deemed mentally ill.
  This is a dangerous idea and a notion that has been used by 
totalitarian societies throughout the ages. Just think of the extreme 
of this if this is not nipped in the bud, as happened in the Soviet 
system. People were not always convicted of crimes; but they were put 
in psychiatric hospitals to be retrained, to be conditioned to think 
differently and politically correct.
  When we see a monopoly school system, a universal school system, 
talking about standardizing what they think is sound mental health, 
believe me, we are treading on dangerous ground.
  I would like to restate once again, this amendment does not deny 
treatment to any individual that is pointed out to have medical needs. 
This goes along with the principles of reasonable cause. They cannot go 
in and search our houses, or at least they are not supposed to, without 
a reasonable cause. We should not go into these kids' minds without 
reasonable cause and sort out this kind of information.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out that this is the President's 
new Freedom Commission on Mental Health, and it is titled, ``Achieving 
the Promise. Transforming Mental Health Care in America.'' But nowhere 
in this report does it propose universal mental health screening.
  So this amendment is totally unnecessary, and I think it is almost a 
slap in the face to people that have some difficult problems. 
Therefore, I would be strongly in opposition to it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I 
certainly agree with the gentleman's comments. I have great respect and 
affection for the gentleman from Texas. I know that he believes what he 
believes deeply, and I respect that. But I just would have to say that 
I wish we were at the stage in this country in terms of our recognition 
of mental illness, I wish we were at the stage in this country where we 
could provide every child with the opportunity to be screened, so that 
we can catch ahead of time developing problems and help families who 
otherwise have nowhere to turn.
  I join with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) in opposition to the 
amendment.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy), a member of our subcommittee.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I think we have before us 
a choice between science and stigma. Stigma is the biggest barrier to 
us making sure millions of Americans gain access to what is 
fundamentally a physical illness. You do not need to take my word for 
it. You have every Nobel Laureate, the Surgeon Generals of the United 
States, all saying this is a physiologically, biologically based 
illness. So the notion that we are going to shut kids out from being 
screened so that we can intervene and make a difference in their lives, 
I do not understand.
  I would add one more thing: our colleagues have learned the hard way. 
Three of our colleagues have lost their children in the last couple of 
years alone as a result of suicide. We voted on one of those bills on 
suicide prevention on Senator Smith's son, who died a year ago 
yesterday as a result of suicide. We know of many others whose 
tragedies we do not want to go into.
  But to think that suicide and mental illness are not scientifically 
based is to look back and think we are still living in the Stone Age.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Paul) will be postponed.


                 Amendment Offered by Mr. Brown of Ohio

  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Brown of Ohio:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used for administrative costs for the collection of 
     monthly premiums under part B of the medicare program for 
     months in a year at monthly premium rates that exceed the 
     monthly premium rates for months in the previous year.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
today, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against this 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio reserves a point of 
order.
  The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) is recognized for 5 minutes on 
his amendment.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, last week, the Bush administration on Friday afternoon 
when no one was paying attention, right after he made a speech at the 
convention assuring seniors that Medicare would be strong and prosper, 
and right as Labor Day weekend began and no one was paying attention, 
the President announced a dramatic increase, a historically high 
increase in Medicare part B premiums paid by seniors and the disabled, 
a 17 percent increase, the single biggest premium hike in Medicare 
history.
  Most seniors rely on the Social Security cost-of-living adjustments, 
COLAs, to offset Medicare premium increases. Though the administration 
has not published it yet, the Social Security COLA will be about 3 
percent, making the Medicare increase almost six times what the COLA 
increase for Social Security will be.
  Usually they are announced at the same time. This year, because of 
the election, presumably, the President thought he could sort of 
quietly do this right before Labor Day. He did not really want to 
announce them at the same time, presumably because the premium increase 
for Medicare was five to six times what the COLA increase would be.
  Why are those premiums rising so dramatically? The Bush 
administration spokesman says it is because seniors are going to 
receive enhanced benefits. He did not acknowledge that the premium 
increase will help cover enhanced benefits for HMOs, $12 billion worth.
  So we have a $130 increase for seniors' premiums, and we have $12 
billion more going into HMO pockets. HMO profits already are soaring; 
they increased 50 percent last year. Yet the Bush administration is 
tapping the Medicare trust fund and making seniors pay more out of 
pocket to finance a $12 billion HMO slush fund. That is

[[Page 17876]]

just the beginning. The total HMO payment changes in last year's law 
will cost taxpayers $46 billion.
  So even as it is emptying the Medicare trust fund, the Bush 
administration has the audacity to ask the American seniors to pay 
more. The change would require each of 40 million senior and disabled 
Americans to pay $139 more next year for Medicare coverage. My 
amendment would stop the premium increase.
  Unfortunately, my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), is 
using his discretion to object to the amendment on procedural grounds. 
I urge my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), to reconsider 
because we need to look at this bigger picture: how much money are we 
paying the insurance companies; how much are we telling seniors they 
have to reach into their pockets.
  There is no justification for pouring billions into the pockets of 
already very profitable HMOs and asking seniors on fixed incomes to 
absorb a 17 percent increase just to appease a President bent on 
privatizing Medicare.
  Asking seniors to finance the President's privatization agenda is not 
just unjustifiable; it is, frankly, shameful. If this amendment does 
not pass, seniors will see their premiums rise sharply while HMOs take 
billions more in so-called bonus payments.
  The chairman can and should permit a vote on this amendment so we can 
begin to restore the trust of seniors and the fiscal integrity of 
Medicare.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would point out that the gentleman that just spoke is 
a member of the authorizing committee with jurisdiction, and, 
therefore, this ought to be handled there.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment 
offered by Mr. Brown, my good friend and the ranking member of the 
Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee.
  Last week the Bush administration announced a 17-percent increase in 
premiums for Medicare Part B benefits. This is the highest increase in 
Medicare's long history.
  In fact, since the Bush administration came to town, Medicare 
premiums have increased twice as much as they did during all 8 years of 
the Clinton administration combined.
  On every account, it is wrong for our seniors on fixed incomes to 
face double digit increases in their Medicare premiums.
  But to make matters worse, our seniors are left footing the bill as a 
result of this administration's failed health care policies.
  If this administration wants to increase access to health care, it 
should ensure that Medicare--as a safety net program--is truly 
affordable to America's senior citizens.
  Instead, this administration is charging our seniors an extra $5.5 
billion next year, all the while diverting $12 billion from the 
Medicare Trust Fund to help HMOs lure Medicare beneficiaries away from 
traditional Medicare.
  Instead of siphoning money from the Medicare Trust Fund to the HMOs' 
pockets, the administration should focus on the fiscal realities facing 
the Medicare program.
  By stopping the Medicare Part B premium increase, the Brown amendment 
will force them to do just that.
  I urge my colleagues to do right by America's seniors and support 
this amendment.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment because it is a violation of section 302(f) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974. The Committee on Appropriations filed 
a suballocation of budget totals for fiscal year 2005 on July 22, 2004, 
House Report 108-633. This amendment would provide new budget authority 
in excess of the suballocation made under section 302(b) and is not 
permitted under section 302(f) of the act.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) 
wish to be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I have one additional speaker. Is it 
possible that he can speak before that?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) has 
made a point of order on the amendment. The Chair must at this point 
entertain only argument related to the point of order.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak respecting the 
opinion and statement of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) on the 
point of order.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a question of, by and large, moving money from 
the Medicare trust fund, the money that Congress has decided should go 
to insurance companies, and, as a result, costing Medicare 
beneficiaries an additional payment out of their pockets.
  It is basically a zero-sum game. Are we in this body going to say 
insurance companies are going to get the money, or are we going to say 
we are going to charge beneficiaries for that money? I would appeal 
based on that.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair is prepared to rule on the point 
of order.
  The Chair is authoratively guided under section 312 of the Budget Act 
by an estimate of the Committee on the Budget that an amendment 
providing any net increase in new discretionary budget authority would 
cause a breach of the pertinent allocation of such authority.
  The amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio would increase the 
level of new discretionary budget authority in the bill.

                              {time}  1530

  As such, the amendment violates section 302(f) of the Budget Act.
  The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not in order.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Ramstad

  Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The Clerk will designate 
the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Ramstad:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are 
     revised by reducing the amount made available for 
     ``Employment and Training Administration-Training and 
     Employment Services (including Rescission)'', by reducing the 
     amount made available for ``Employment Standards 
     Administration-salaries and Expenses'', by reducing the 
     amount made available for ``Occupational Safety and Health 
     Administration-salaries and Expenses'', by reducing the 
     amount made available for ``Mine Safety and Health 
     Administration-salaries and Expenses'', by reducing the 
     amount made available for ``Bureau of Labor Statistics-
     salaries and Expenses'', by reducing the amount made 
     available for ``Departmental Management-salaries and 
     Expenses'', by reducing the amount made available in title I 
     for ``Office of Inspector General'', by reducing the amount 
     made available for ``Health Resources and Services 
     Administration-Health Resources and Services'', by reducing 
     the amount made available for ``Children and Families 
     Services Programs'', by reducing the amount made available 
     for ``Administration on Aging-Aging Services Programs'', by 
     reducing the amount made available for ``Office of the 
     Secretary-General Departmental Management'', and by 
     increasing the amount made available for ``Substance Abuse 
     and Mental Health Services Administration-Substance Abuse and 
     Mental Health Services'', by $18,978,00, $10,802,00, 
     $10,967,000, $7,280,000, $15,022,000, $5,000,000, $4,386,000, 
     $11,042,000, $12,312,000, $1,158,000, $5,234,000, and 
     $100,000,000, respectively.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
today, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad) and a Member opposed 
each will control 5 minutes on the amendment.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on this 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) 
reserves a point of order.
  The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad) is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This amendment would fully fund the President's request for the 
Access to Recovery grant program, which helps people who need chemical 
dependency treatment get the help they need from the treatment provider 
of their choice.
  Mr. Chairman, it is time for Congress to get serious about the 
problem of alcohol and other drug addiction and treat it like the 
number 1 public health crisis it is. Nearly 1 in 10 Americans today is 
suffering the ravages of chemical addiction. Twenty-six million

[[Page 17877]]

Americans are addicted to drugs and/or alcohol, and 156,000 Americans 
died last year from this fatal disease.
  The public costs of untreated addiction are also staggering. A 
Brandeis University study found that addiction costs the American 
economy $400 billion a year. That is billion with a B, Mr. Chairman. 
These criminal justice costs, health care costs, lost productivity in 
the workplace, and so on are a huge drain on our economy, and there are 
countless other human costs we cannot even begin to quantify.
  At the same time, Mr. Chairman, there is real hope for Americans 
struggling with the disease, hope through treatment and recovery. We 
have all the empirical evidence in the world to show that treatment 
works, and expanding access to treatment, as the President wants us to 
do, is not only the right thing to do, but it is also the cost-
effective thing to do.
  The National Institute on Drug Abuse did an exhaustive study and 
found that every dollar spent on treatment saves $7 in criminal justice 
costs alone. If savings in health care are factored in, we save $12 for 
each dollar spent on treatment. A California study found that statewide 
emergency room admissions dropped by one-third after treatment, and 
crime declined by two-thirds following treatment.
  So the question, Mr. Chairman, is not whether we can afford to 
provide treatment; the question is whether we can afford not to provide 
treatment.
  Mr. Chairman, I stand here today as a grateful recovering alcoholic 
of 23 years, 1 month, and 9 days, and I am alive today only because I 
had access to the treatment that I needed. If fully funded, the Access 
to Recovery program could extend the same lifeline to 100,000 other 
Americans who desperately need help, who desperately need treatment.
  President Bush proposed the Access to Recovery program last year, and 
we funded just half of his $200 million request. As a result, 45 States 
applied for funding; because of the lack of funds, only 14 States and 1 
tribal government received any grants. It is clear, Mr. Chairman, the 
demand far outstrips the supply of these critical funds. The bill 
before us, once again, contains only one-half the funding that the 
President requested.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a life-or-death issue, and we cannot afford to 
be half-hearted about it. This amendment would fully fund the 
President's request by adding $100 million to the Access to Recovery 
program. It is fully offset with cost-savings for administrative 
accounts.
  Mr. Chairman, President Nixon, when he first declared the war on 
drugs in the 1970s, directed 60 percent of funding, of Federal funding, 
to treatment. Today we are down to 18 percent, 18 percent. That is why 
over half the treatment beds available just 10 years ago are gone. That 
is why 3.5 million Americans were denied treatment last year alone.
  This program, the Access to Recovery program, will not only enable 
addicted Americans to receive treatment, it will also help increase the 
number of providers, and the rigorous peer review process at SAMHSA for 
obtaining the grants and its strong program evaluation requirements 
will lead us to better performance-based treatment in this country.
  I urge my colleagues to support this critical program and provide 
hope to thousands of Americans who need treatment for the fatal disease 
of alcohol and other addiction, alcohol and other drug addiction.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of 
order.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman for his concern. We 
have the same concern in the subcommittee. We have put lots of money in 
the State grants. We have put $100 million in this program. I think it 
is important that we prove the efficacy of it, give the agency a chance 
to demonstrate that it will work.
  But in the meantime, we are constrained by parliamentary rules, and 
under the parliamentary requirements, this does require some additional 
expenditure.
  Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment, because it provides an appropriation for an unauthorized 
program and, therefore, violates clause 2 of Rule XXI. Clause 2 of Rule 
XXI states in pertinent part: ``An appropriation may not be in order as 
an amendment for an expenditure not previously authorized by law.''
  Mr. Chairman, the authorization for this program has not been signed 
into law. The amendment, therefore, violates clause 2 of Rule XXI, and 
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Ramstad) wish to be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. RAMSTAD. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand this amendment is subject to a point of 
order because it seeks to add funding to an account administered by 
SAMHSA. Unfortunately, the authorization for SAMHSA did expire at the 
end of last year.
  At the very least, Mr. Chairman, this should be a wake-up call for 
Congress to reauthorize SAMHSA without further delay. SAMHSA is a 
critical source of treatment funding for the 45 million Americans 
suffering from mental illness and the 26 million Americans suffering 
from chemical addiction.
  It is unfortunate this amendment will most likely be ruled out of 
order because Congress has not acted to reauthorize SAMHSA. However, I 
look forward to working with the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) 
and my other colleagues on the critical mission of expanding access to 
treatment for people suffering the ravages of chemical addition.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. 
Kennedy) wish to be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would like to be 
heard on the point of order.
  I believe that this is an important point that the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad) brought up. I thought it was brought up very 
poignantly because of the importance of this issue, and I wanted to 
join him in addressing this issue and to ask my colleagues to 
acknowledge the real champion on these issues with alcoholism and 
substance abuse that the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad) speaks 
so eloquently about and is such a leader on.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair is prepared to rule on the point 
of order.
  The proponent of an item of appropriation carries the burden of 
persuasion on the question of whether it is supported by an 
authorization in law.
  Having reviewed the amendment and entertained argument on the point 
of order, the Chair is unable to conclude that the item of 
appropriation in question is authorized in law.
  The Chair is therefore constrained to sustain the point of order 
under clause 2(a) of Rule XXI.
  The amendment is not in order.


             Amendment Offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey

  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to send or otherwise pay for the attendance of more 
     than 50 Federal employees ``from that agency'' at any single 
     conference occurring outside the United States.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
today, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) and a Member opposed 
each will control 5 minutes on the amendment.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Over the last few days, I have heard colleagues from both sides of 
the aisle

[[Page 17878]]

address the financial situation that our government finds itself in 
with regard to the budget deficits and our level of spending. Mr. 
Chairman, while people may disagree on each side of the aisle on 
exactly how we got to this point, how we got here, I think most Members 
will agree that we are, in fact, spending too much money.
  That is why I am proposing today a very simple amendment, a common-
sense approach, I think, to help limit the amount of money that the 
government spends of our constituents' hard-earned tax dollars.
  My amendment will simply do this: It will limit the number of Federal 
employees that are sent to international conferences funded under this 
bill to 50. Recently there has been a trend, unfortunately, by various 
government agencies to send far in excess of this number of staff to 
international conferences, costing taxpayers millions upon millions of 
dollars. Like all of my colleagues, I understand the importance of 
staff, both on a personal level and on an agency level, but I think we 
have an obligation to our citizens back at home to do all we can to 
rein things in.
  Let me just take a moment to cite one example. Back in 2002, a U.S. 
agency sent 236 people to an international AIDS conference in 
Barcelona, Spain. These employees were sent at a cost of $3.6 million 
of taxpayers' funds. Someone pointed out after I raised this point 
earlier how much treatment and how many individuals could have been 
treated with that $3.6 million had we not sent so many people.
  Due to my limited time here right now, I am not going to go into 
other examples of excesses as far as employees and staff being sent to 
these conferences; I am just going to urge my colleagues on both sides 
of the aisle to support this amendment, to support the limited number 
to 50, a number that we have done on voice vote on a previous bill, on 
the foreign ops bill, a number that was also concurred with by the 
Secretary of HHS as well as in his own directive to his employees. So I 
encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, and I yield 
myself such time as I may consume.
  I understand my colleague's concern about international travel. I 
think that Secretary Thompson has done a good job of trying to get 
guidelines established in the agency. William Steiger, who is the son 
of one of our former highly respected House colleagues, is a point 
person in the agency. They are reviewing their travel requirements.
  I am not going to object to the amendment, but I think that Secretary 
Thompson is very much aware of this problem, and I think he will 
address it certainly in the way in which he administers the Department. 
He has done a superb job in handling a very difficult agency in HHS. 
There may be special occasions when it requires more than 50, 
particularly when many of these meetings are in Canada.
  But in any event, we will address this as we go along, and we are not 
going to object to it today.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment Offered by Mr. Neugebauer

  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Neugebauer:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following section:
       Sec. _. None of the funds made available in this Act for 
     the National Institute of Mental Health may be used to fund 
     grant number MH054142 & MH064527.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
today, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer) and a Member opposed 
each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas. (Mr. Neugebauer).
  (Mr. NEUGEBAUER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  My amendment would prohibit the National Institute of Mental Health 
from further funding a grant studying the decorations of dorm rooms and 
college students' Web pages. It also would prohibit NIMH from further 
funding a grant studying what makes for a meaningful day.
  This would not cut out any funding for NIMH; it would simply focus 
research funding that is provided toward serious mental health issues 
and not interior decoration.
  I have personally read this grant application and found that each 
participant was allowed to receive $100 for decorating his dorm room 
and, additionally, three $1,000 prizes were given away in a lottery to 
the study participants.
  The second application states that ``for many students, attending 
college may be a source of meaning itself, as a stepping stone to 
future goals or as a means of occupying a meaningful social role.'' 
Now, I do not think we need to spend $1 million for college students to 
determine what is a meaningful day in their life.
  Each of us meet with constituents on a daily basis with serious 
mental health issues threatening not only themselves, but their 
families. Right now, when Americans are facing these unbearable losses, 
taxpayer dollars should be focused on serious mental health issues like 
bipolar disorders and Alzheimer's.
  Research areas under the NIMH include Alzheimer's, schizophrenia, 
bipolar disorder, and suicide prevention. Grants to questionable 
studies like dorm room wall decorations cloud many of the good things 
that the National Institute of Mental Health does and can do.
  According to a recent study published by the Treatment Advocacy 
Center and Public Citizen, ``Individuals with serious mental illnesses 
account for 58 percent of our direct costs for all mental illness. 
However, only 5.8 percent of the NIMH budget funds `clinically 
relevant' studies.''
  I have no doubt that those receiving those NIH funds will conclude 
that their research is valid, but when I talk to Americans with mental 
health issues and mental illnesses, I want to be able to tell them that 
we are committing NIH funds to studying serious mental health issues.

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, 
and I thank the gentleman for bringing this important amendment 
forward. Every once in a while you just have to stand back and say, 
hey, you have gone too far here, and studying dorm room walls to see if 
the paintings or the decorations on them say something about the health 
of the student or whatnot is just going too far.
  I can look back at college and I can tell my colleagues my dorm room 
walls were pretty bare. It said one thing about me, that I was broke, 
and that is what most students are worried about in college, just 
getting through. To tell them that they are paying taxes and some of 
their taxes are going to study what they have put on their dorm room 
walls, as to what that tells about them, is simply absurd.
  So I think every once in a while you have to step back and say we 
will have none of this; you have gone too far, the taxpayers deserve 
better.
  I thank the gentleman for bringing it forward, and I urge support for 
the amendment.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The gentleman from Texas 
has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Does the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) seek the time in 
opposition?

[[Page 17879]]


  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Hulshof).
  Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  I would like to commend the gentleman from Texas for working with me. 
I would like to commend the gentleman and thank the gentleman for the 
advance notice seeking to rescind funding for a competitive grant that 
has been awarded to a constituent of mine. I would like to, but I 
cannot because he did not have the common courtesy to advise me of that 
in advance.
  Certainly, the gentleman portrays the amendment in a simplistic way, 
and I know that is certainly great fodder for an election-year press 
release, but I would say to the gentleman that the grant itself does 
have substance.
  First about the scientist. Dr. Laura King, who is a constituent of 
mine at Columbia, Missouri, I would like to put her curriculum vitae 
into the Record, Mr. Chairman, at this point.

                          Laura A. King, Ph.D.

       Office Address: Department of Psychological Sciences,
       University of Missouri
       McAlester Hall
       Columbia, MO 65211
       (573) 882-6389
       K[email protected]
       Date of Birth: January 4, 1964, Dover, Ohio
     Academic Record & Honors
       Ph.D.--1991 University of California, Davis, Psychology, 
     with distinction
       M.A.--1990 University of California, Davis, Psychology
       M.A.--1989 Michigan State University, Psychology, Phi Kappa 
     Phi
       A.B.--1986 Kenyon College, English Literature with High 
     Honors & Distinction; Psychology with Distinction; summa cum 
     laude, ranked 2nd in class; Phi Beta Kappa; Semi-finalist for 
     the Mellon Fellowship in the Humanities, 1986; Awards for 
     Outstanding Junior English Major (1985) and Outstanding 
     Senior Psychology Major (1986)
     Research Grants Awarded
       NIMH/FIRST Award MH54142 $475,728.00, 1995-2000 ``Goals, 
     Identity, and Meaning in Life''
       NIMH 2R01MH054142-06A2 (same grant, different name) 
     ``Goals, Memory, and Self-Regulation'', 2002-2005; $450,000
       Templeton Prize in Positive Psychology, $50,000 (including 
     $35,000 unrestricted research grant)
     Awards
       Chancellor's Award for Outstanding Research and Creative 
     Activity in the area of Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2004, 
     University of Missouri
       Named a H.O.P.E. Professor for excellence in teaching, SMU, 
     2000
       Maguire Teaching Fellow (for Teaching Ethics), SMU, 2000
       The ``M'' Award presented by SMU for ``sustained 
     excellence,'' 1999
       Mortar Board Senior Honor Society Faculty Appreciation 
     Award, 1998
       Rotunda Outstanding Faculty Teaching Award, SMU, 1996
       Faculty Member of the Month Award, SMU Student Association, 
     April, 1995
     Professional Experience
       2003-present--Professor, University of Missouri, Columbia
       2001-2003--Associate Professor, University of Missouri, 
     Columbia
       1997-2001--Associate Professor, Southern Methodist 
     University
       1991-1997--Associate Professor, Southern Methodist 
     University
       1988-1991--Teaching Assistant and Instructor, University of 
     California, Davis
       1988--Graduate Assistant, Murray Lectures Committee, M.S.U.
       1986-1988--Teaching Assistant, Michigan State University
       1984-1986--Writing Clinic Tutor, English Department, Kenyon 
     College
     Professional Affiliations
       Society for Personology (Elected for membership, 2004); 
     Association for Research in Personality--elected Member At 
     Large, 2002; American Psychological Association; APA Division 
     8; American Psychological Society; Midwestern Psychological 
     Association; Society of Experimental Social Psychology; 
     International Society for Self and Identity
     Editorial Activities
       Associate Editor, Journal of Personality and Social 
     Psychology 1999-2003
       Associate Editor, Personality and Social Psychology 
     Bulletin 1998-1999
       Guest Co-editor, with Kennon Sheldon American Psychologist: 
     Special Section on Positive Psychology, 2001; Guest Editor, 
     Journal of Personality: Special Section: Personality 
     Development and Personal Growth, 2002; Editorial Board, 
     Journal of Personality, 1996-2003; Journal of Personality and 
     Social Psychology, 1997-1999; Ad hoc Reviewer, Psychological 
     Bulletin, Psychological Review, Personality and Social 
     Psychology Bulletin Journal of Abnormal Psychology, Social 
     Cognition, Journal of Research in Personality, Basic and 
     Applied Social Psychology, Journal of Social and Personal 
     Relationships, Psychological Science
     Grant Review Panels
       National Institutes of Health Panel RPHG-4, 1999-2003 SPIP, 
     2003-present; Special emphasis panels, 3/2000, 7/2000


                              publications

     Articles
       Scollon, C.N., & King, L.A. (2004). Is the good life the 
     easy life? Social Indicators Research 68, 127-162.
       Twenge, J.M., & King, L.A. (in press). A good life is a 
     personal life: Relationship fulfillment and work fulfillment 
     in judgments of life quality. Journal of Research in 
     Personality.
       King, L.A., & Raspin, C. (2004). Lost and found possible 
     selves, well-being and ego development in divorced women. 
     Journal of Personality, 72, 603-631.
       Burton, C.M., & King, L.A. (2004). The health benefits of 
     writing about peak experiences. Journal of Research in 
     Personality, 38, 150-163.
       King, L.A., & Smith, S.N. (2004). Happy, mature, and gay: 
     Intimacy, power, and difficult times in coming out stories. 
     Journal of Research in Personality, in press.
       King, L.A., & Smith, N.G. (2004). Gay and straight possible 
     selves: Goals, identity, subjective well-being, and 
     personality development. Journal of Personality, 72, 967-994.
       King, L.A. (2003). The Mysterious and Audacious World of 
     Melanie Klein. Contemporary Psychology, 48.
       King, L.A. (2003). Money really doesn't buy happiness. 
     Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy.
       King, L.A. (2003). Some truths behind the trombones? 
     Psychological Inquiry, 128-131. Invited commentary on 
     Lazarus.
       Singer, J.A., King, L.A., Green, M.C., & Barr, S.C. (2002). 
     Personal Identity and Civic Responsibility: ``Rising to the 
     Occasion'' Narratives and Generativity in Community Action 
     Student Interns. Journal of Social Issues 58, 535-556.
       King, L.A. (2002). Personal growth and personality 
     development: A foreword to the special section. Journal of 
     Personality, 70, 1-4
       King, L.A. (2001). The health benefits of writing about 
     life goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 
     798-807.
       Sheldon, K., & King, L.A. (2001). Why positive psychology 
     is necessary. (foreword to the special section). American 
     Psychologist, 56, 216-217.
       King, L.A. (2001). The hard road to the good life: The 
     happy, mature person. The Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 
     Special Issue on Positive Psychology, 41, 51-72.
       King, L.A., & Patterson, C. (2000). Reconstructing life 
     goals after the birth of a child with Down Syndrome: Finding 
     happiness and growing. International Journal of 
     Rehabilitation and Health, 5, 17-30.
       King, L.A. (2000). Why happiness is good for you: A 
     commentary on Fredrickson. Prevention and Treatment, 3, 
     Article 4. Available on the World Wide Web: http://
journals.apa.org/prevention/volume3/pre0030004c.html.
       King, L.A., Scollon, C.K., Ramsey, C.M., & Williams, T. 
     (2000). Stories of life transition: Happy endings, subjective 
     well-being, and ego development in parents of children with 
     Down Syndrome. Journal of Research in Personality, 34, 509-
     536.
       King, L.A., & Miner, K.N. (2000). Writing about the 
     perceived benefits of traumatic life events: Implications for 
     physical health. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 
     26, 220-230.
       Pennebaker, J.W., & King, L.A. (1999). Linguistic Styles: 
     Language use as an individual difference. Journal of 
     Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1296-1312.
       King, L.A. (1998). Ambivalence over emotional expression 
     and reading emotions in situations and faces. Journal of 
     Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 753-762.
       King, L.A., & Napa, C. (1998). What makes a life good? 
     Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 156-165.
       King, L.A., Richards, J., & Stemmerich, E.D. (1998). Daily 
     goals, life goals, and worst fears: Means, ends, and 
     subjective well-being. Journal of Personality, 66, 713-744.
       King, L.A., & Pennebaker, J.W. (1998). What's so great 
     about feeling good? Psychological Inquiry, 9, 53-56. (Invited 
     commentary on Ryff & Singer).
       King, L.A., & Broyles, S. (1997). Wishes, gender, 
     personality, and well-being. Journal of Personality, 65, 50-
     75.
       King, L.A., & Williams, T. (1997). Goal orientation and 
     performance in the martial arts. Journal of Sport Behavior, 
     20, 397-411.
       King, L.A., McKee-Walker, L. & Broyles, S. (1996). 
     Creativity and The Five Factor Model. Journal of Research in 
     Personality, 30, 189-203.
       King, L.A. (1996). Who is regulating what and why? The 
     motivational context of self-regulation. Psychological 
     Inquiry, 7, 57-61. (Invited commentary on Baumeister & 
     Heatherton).

[[Page 17880]]

       King, L.A. (1995). Wishes, motives, goals, and personal 
     memories: Relations and correlates of measures of human 
     motivation. Journal of Personality, 63, 985-1007.
       King, L.A. (1993). Emotional expression, conflict over 
     expression, and marital satisfaction. Journal of Social and 
     Personal Relationships, 10, 601-607.
       King, L.A., Emmons, R.A., & Woodley, S. (1992). The 
     structure of inhibition. Journal of Research in Personality, 
     26, 85-102.
       King, L.A., & Emmons, R.A. (1991). Psychological, physical 
     and interpersonal correlates of emotional expressiveness, 
     conflict and control. European Journal of Personality, 5, 
     131-150.
       King, L.A., & Emmons, R.A. (1990). Conflict over emotional 
     expression: Psychological and physical correlates. Journal of 
     Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 864-877.
       Emmons, R.A., & King, L.A. (1989). Personal striving 
     differentiation and affective reactivity. Journal of 
     Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 478-484.
       Emmons, R.A., & King, L.A. (1988). Conflict among personal 
     strivings: Immediate and long-term implications for 
     psychological and physical well-being. Journal of Personality 
     and Social Psychology, 48, 1040-1048.
     Chapters
       King, L.A., Eells, J.E., & Burton, C.M. (2004). The good 
     life, broadly defined. In A. Linley, & S. Joseph, (Eds.), 
     Positive Psychology In Practice. (pp. 35-52). New Jersey: 
     John Wiley and Sons.
       King, L.A. (2003). Measures and meanings: The use of 
     qualitative data in social and personality psychology. In C. 
     Sansone, C. Morf, & A. Panter, Handbook of Methods in Social 
     Psychology, (pp. 173-194). NY: Sage.
       King, L.A., & Burton, C.M. (2003). The Hazards of Goal 
     Pursuit. In E. Chang & L. Sanna (Eds). Virtue, Vice and 
     Personality: The Complexity of Behavior. (pp. 53-70). 
     Washington, D.C.: APA.
       King, L.A. (2002). Gain Without Pain: Expressive Writing 
     and Self Regulation. In S.J. Lepore & J. Smythe (Eds.), The 
     Writing Cure, Washington, D.C.: American Psychological 
     Association.
       King, L.A. (1998). Personal goals and personal agency: 
     Linking everyday goals to future images of the self. In M. 
     Kofta, G. Weary, and G. Sedek (Eds.), Personal Control in 
     Action: Cognitive and Motivational Mechanisms (pp. 109-128). 
     New York City, NY: Plenum.
       King, L.A., & Emmons, R.A. (2000). The assessment of 
     motivation. In A.E. Kazdin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Psychology, 
     Vol. 5. (pp. 320-324). New York: American Psychological 
     Association and Oxford University Press.
       King, L.A., & Napa, C. (1999). Ambivalence. In D. Levinson, 
     J. Ponzetti, & P. F. Jorgensen (Eds.), The Encyclopedia of 
     Human Emotions, New York, NY: MacMillan Reference.
       King, L.A., & Pennebaker, J.W. (1997). Thinking about 
     goals, glue, and the meaning of life. In R.S. Wyer, Jr. 
     (Ed.), Advances in Social Cognition (pp. 97-105). Hillsdale, 
     NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
       Emmons, R.A., King, L.A., & Sheldon, K. (1992). Goal 
     Conflict and the Self-Regulation of Action. In D.M. Wegner 
     and J.W. Pennebaker (Eds). Handbook of Mental Control (pp. 
     528-551). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
       Emmons, R.A., & King, L.A. (1992). Thematic analysis, 
     experience sampling, and personal goals. In C.P. Smith (Ed.), 
     Thematic content analysis for motivation and personality 
     research (pp. 73-86). New York: Cambridge University Press.
       Emmons, R.A., & King, L.A. (1989). On the personalization 
     of motivation. In T.K. Srull & R.S. Wyer, Jr. (Eds), Advances 
     in social cognition (V. 2., pp. 111-122). Hillsdale, NJ: 
     Erlbaum.
     Manuscrips Under Review
       King, L.A. Happy endings.
       King, L.A., Hicks, J.A., Baker, A.K., & Krull, J. Positive 
     affect and the experience of meaning
       King, L.A. & Eells, J.E. Older but wiser, and happier and 
     nicer: Folk concepts of maturity.
       Lyubomirsky, S., King, L.A., & Diener, E. The benefits of 
     positive emotion.
       King, L.A., Baker, A.K., & Burton, C.M. The relocation of 
     joy: Rediscovering happiness after a life transition.
     Manuscripts In Preparation
       King, L.A., Hicks, J., & Burton, C. Self disclosure vs. 
     self construction: Reconsidering the healing power of writing
       King, L.A., & Williams, T. Enacting a life dream: 
     Implications for daily experience, and psychological and 
     physical well-being.
       King, L.A., & Kennedy, T.D. What they did for love; 
     Generativity, subjective well-being and the career narratives 
     of professional dancers.
       King, L.A., & Marquis, J. Making a contribution: Changing 
     life goals, generativity, and subjective well-being in 
     infertile individuals.
       King, L.A. The consequences and correlates of the pursuit 
     of happiness.
       Williams, T., King, L.A., & Eels, J. Are important goals 
     difficult? Person X Appraisal Interactions in Personal Goals.
       Drigotas, S.M., & King, L.A. Intuition, emotional 
     intelligence, and social functioning.


                             Presentations

     Invited Colloquia and Talks
       King, L.A. (2004, May). Who I am and who I was: Stories of 
     the discovery and construction of meaning in life 
     transitions. Presented in Symposium entitled ``Second Changes 
     in Life: Transformative Stories of Self and Society. Dan 
     McAdams, Chair. Foley Center for the Study of Lives, 
     Northwestern University.
       King, L.A. (2004, April). Happiness and the Meaningful 
     Life. Keynote Speaker Address. Michigan Undergraduate 
     Research Conference. Kalamazoo College.
       King, L.A. (2004, April). Stories of Life Transition: 
     Implications for Happiness and Personality Development. 
     Kenyon College, Gambier, OH.
       King, L.A. (2004, April). Writing for Our Lives: 
     Implications for psychological and physical health. Kenyon 
     College, Gambier, OH.
       King, L.A. (2003, May). A Meaningful Life: The positive 
     psychology approach to the Life Story. Psi Chi Distinguished 
     Speaker Presentation. Midwestern Psychological Association 
     Convention. Chicago, IL.
       King, L.A. (2002, October). In favor of happy endings. 
     Presented at the International Positive Psychology Summit, 
     Washington, D.C.
       King, L.A. (August, 2002). All that ends well really is 
     well. Invited address, presented at a Presidential Symposium. 
     American Psychological Association, Chicago, IL. Martin 
     Seligman, Chair.
       King, L.A. (2002, February). The relative weight of work 
     and family in judgments of life quality. University of 
     Maryland, College Park, MD.
       King, L.A. (2001, December). The Articulated Self: Writing, 
     revising and reinventing the life story. University of 
     Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
       Twenge, J., & King, L.A. (2001, October). A good life is a 
     good personal life. University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
       King, L.A. (2001, February). Goals, stories, and the 
     meaning of life. University of Missouri, Columbia, MO.
       King, L.A. (2001, February). Healthy Pleasures. Two talks, 
     plus discussion presented as part of SMU's Godbey Lecture 
     Series, Looking on the Bright Side of Life, with Mike 
     McCullough.
       King, L.A. (2000, April). Trivial Pursuits and Magnificent 
     Obsessions: The Role of Life Goals in Happiness, Health, and 
     Maturity. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC.
       King, L.A. (2000, Spring). The Psychology of the Good Life. 
     Godbey Lecture Series, Southern Methodist University. A 
     series of four lectures, plus discussion, presented in 
     Dallas, TX.
       King, L.A. (2000, February). Are only bad things good for 
     us? University of Texas at Austin.
       King, L.A. (2000, February). Lost and found possible 
     selves: The role of what might have been in subjective well-
     being and personality development. Presented at the First 
     Annual Personality Preconference, The Society for Personality 
     and Social Psychology Conference. Nashville, TN.
       King, L.A. (1999, October) Reconstructing the future: 
     Personal growth, subjective well-being, and physical health 
     in response to life changing events. Iowa Psychological 
     Association Convention, Pella, IA.
       King, L.A. (1999, November). Lost and Found Possible 
     Selves: Implications for Well-being and Maturity. Feminist 
     Reading Group, Southern Methodist University. Dallas, TX.
       King, L.A. (1999, April). What the stories we tell say 
     about us: Subjective well-being and personal growth. 
     University of Texas at Dallas.
       King, L.A. (1998, February). A psychology of Goya's Los 
     Caprichos. Meadows Museum of Art. Southern Methodist 
     University, Dallas, TX.
       King, L.A., & Napa, C. (1997, April). What makes life worth 
     living? Presented at the Midwestern Psychological Association 
     Convention, Chicago, IL.
       King, L.A. (1996, October). Emotional disclosure: Basic 
     mechanisms and re-writing the life story, Universidad 
     Autonomous de Mexico (UNAM), Mexico City.
       King, L.A. (1996, March). Personal goals and personal 
     development: Becoming the people we want to be. Southern 
     Methodist University, Dallas, TX.
       King, L.A. (1996, February). Daily goals and best possible 
     selves: Implications for Subjective well-being. University of 
     Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
       King, L.A. (1996, April). Personal strivings, possible 
     selves and the meaning of life. Invited paper presented at 
     the Southwestern Psychological Association Convention, San 
     Antonio, TX.
       King, L.A. (1995, December). Goals, wishes, and ultimate 
     life dreams: Explorations in personality and motivation. The 
     University of Houston, Houston, TX.
       King, L.A. (1994, September). Goal conflict, ambivalence 
     and psychological well-being. Department of Psychiatry, 
     Universitat Ulm and the Psychiatric Hospital at Weissenau, 
     Germany.
       King, L.A. (1994, September). Linking current goals to 
     future images of the self: Implications for well-being and 
     goal progress. Presented at an invited conference entitled 
     ``Issues in Personal Agency.'' The University

[[Page 17881]]

     of Warsaw, Poland. M. Kofta, G. Weary, and G. Sedek, 
     Organizers.
       King, L.A. (1994, December). Personal strivings and the 
     imagined future self: Implications for subjective well-being. 
     The University of Texas-El Paso, El Paso, TX.
       King, L.A. (1993, November). Ambivalence over emotional 
     expression and the interpretation of emotional stimuli, Texas 
     A&M University, Bryan-College Station, TX.
     Symposia Organized
       King, L.A. Chair (2000, October). Happiness, Optimism, Hope 
     and Maturity: A social psychology of human strengths. Society 
     of Experimental Social Psychology. Contributors: Ed Diener & 
     Carol Nickerson, Sonja Lyubomirsky, C. R. Snyder, and Laura 
     King.
     Selected Conference Papers
       King, L.A., Baker, A. K., Velasquez, L., & Burton, C. M. 
     (2004). Changes, happiness, and maturity, APA.
       King, L.A. & Baker, A. K. (2003). The Relocation of Joy: 
     American Psychological Association Convention.
       King, L.A. (2002, April). Writing and revising your way to 
     health and happiness. Presented at the SPAM Meeting, 
     Columbia, MO.
       King, L.A. (2002, February). The self looks upon itself 
     transformed: Narrative explorations in self change. Society 
     for Personality and Social Psychology, in a symposium 
     entitled ``Self Perception.'' Savannah, GA.
       King, L.A. (1999, January). If it's positive, it must be an 
     illusion. Presented at the First Annual Invited Conference of 
     Positive Psychology, Akumal, Mexico.
       King, L.A. (1998, June). Stories of life transitions: Happy 
     endings and subjective well-being. Presented at the Nags Head 
     Conference on Personality and Social Behavior.
       King, L.A. (1997, August). Doesn't everybody just want to 
     be happy? Presented in a symposium entitled, ``Looking on the 
     Bright Side'' C. Langston, Chair. 105th Annual Convention of 
     the American Psychological Association. Chicago.
       King, L.A. (1997, July). Finding meaning in traumatic 
     events: Implications for physical well-being. Presented in a 
     symposium entitled ``Trauma: Social, Clinical, and 
     Personality Perspectives'' Luc Vandenberg, Chair. 4th annual 
     European Congress of Psychology, Dublin, Ireland.
       King, L.A. (1995, June), Linking current goals to future 
     images of the self: The case of Pre-med students. Presented 
     at the Nags Head Conference on Personality and social 
     Behavior, Highland Beach, FL.
       King, L.A. (1994, August), Implicit and Self-Attributed 
     Motives: Relations to Private Wishes, Worst Fears, and 
     Awareness. Paper presented in a symposium entitled, 
     ``Implicit and Explicit Motivation.'' W. Fleeson, Chair. 
     102nd Annual Convention of the American Psychological 
     Association. Los Angeles, CA.
       King, L.A. (1994, August). Personal strivings and ultimate 
     life goals: Linking the present with the future. Presented in 
     a symposium entitled, ``Goals Units in Personality: 
     Development and Change of Personal Goals.'' C. Langston, 
     Chair. 102nd Annual Convention of the American Psychological 
     Association. Los Angeles, CA.
       King, L.A. (1994, June). Personal goals and personal 
     development: Development as a deliberate process. Presented 
     at the Nags Head Conference on Personality and Social 
     Behavior, Highland Beach, FL.
       King, L.A. & Whitmore, J. (1993, April). Ambivalence over 
     Emotional Expression and Interpretation of Emotional Stimuli. 
     Paper presented at the 65th Annual Convention of the 
     Midwestern Psychological Association. Chicago, IL.
       King, L.A. (1992, August). Intrapsychic Conflict and Self-
     destructive Behavior: A Vicious Circle. Presented at 
     Symposium entitled ``Self-Destructive Behavior: Clinical, 
     Social and Personality Perspectives'' R. A. Emmons, Chair. 
     American Psychological Association Convention, Washington, 
     D.C.
       King, L.A. (1992, May). Autonomic Correlates of Writing 
     about Emotion. Presented at the Nags Head Conference on 
     Affect and Cognition, Highland Beach, FL.
       King, L.A. (1992, May). Goals and Motives to Achieve: 
     Motivational Contributions to Performance. Paper presented at 
     the Midwestern Psychological Association. Chicago, IL.
     Selected Recent Poster presentations
       King, L.A., Scollon, C. K., & Eells, J. (2001, February). 
     Counting our blessings: Gratitude, mood and well-being. 
     Presented at the Society for Personality and Social 
     Psychology. San Antonio, TX.
       King, L.A., Patterson, C., Smith, S.N., & Ruff, K. (2000, 
     August). Reclaiming agency: Motivational themes in the 
     autobiographical memories of divorced women. Presented at the 
     American Psychological Association Convention, Washington, 
     D.C.
       King, L.A., Patterson, C., Smith, S.N., & Ruff, K. (2000, 
     August). Mature, happy and gay: Exploring healthy adulthood 
     via coming out stories. Presented at the American 
     Psychological Association Convention, Washington, D.C.
       Patterson, C., & King, L.A. (1999, August). the lost and 
     found possible selves of parents of children with Down 
     Syndrome: Implications for psychological well-being. 
     Presented at the American Psychological Association 
     Convention, Washington, D.C.
       Meier, J. A., & King, L.A. (1999, May). Emotional writing 
     in infertile women: Psychological distress and conception. 
     Paper presented at the Midwestern Psychological Association 
     Convention, Chicago, IL.
       Napa, C. K., & King, L.A. (1999, May). Is the good life the 
     easy life? Presented at the Midwestern Psychological 
     Association Convention, Chicago, IL.
       Scollon, T. B., & King, L.A. (1998, August). Psychological 
     responses to life goal change. Presented at the 106th Annual 
     APA Convention. San Francisco, CA.
       Napa, C. K., & King, L.A. (1998, May). Admirable Lives. 
     Midwestern Psychological Association Convention. Chicago, IL.
       Fisk, L., & King, L.A. (1998, May). Best and lost possible 
     selves: Psychological well-being in injured athletes. 
     Midwestern Psychological Association Convention. Chicago, IL.
       Miner, K., & King, L.A. (1996, August). Writing about 
     traumatic events and recovery: Implications for psychological 
     and physical well-being. Presented at the 104th Annual 
     Convention of the American Psychological Association. 
     Toronto, Canada.
       King, L.A. (1995, August). Ambivalence over emotional 
     expression in survivors of sexual trauma. Presented at the 
     103rd Annual Convention of the American Psychological 
     Association. Los Angeles, CA.
     Counseling Experience & Community Service
       2002--PRISM Board Member (Columbia, MO Gay-Straight Teen 
     Alliance)
       1993-1995--Literacy Volunteers of America (LVA), literacy 
     tutor in Dallas County
       1993-present--Certified to train literacy tutors
       1993--LVA Dallas Curricular Review Board Member
       1989 to 1991--Certified HIV test counselor Davis, CA, Davis 
     Community Clinic
     Teaching Interests
       Undergraduate courses taught: Personality Psychology; 
     Introductory Psychology; Social Psychology; Personality and 
     Social Development; The Person in Psychology and Literature 
     (in the SMU in Oxford program); The Psychology of Sexual 
     Behavior; Research Design; Graduate courses taught: The 
     Psychology of Character (awarded the Maguire Teaching 
     Fellowship for courses in Ethics); Research Design; 
     Quantitative methods II: Multivariate Statistics; 
     Contemporary Approaches to Social Psychology; Additional 
     interests: Health Psychology, The Psychology of Emotion; 
     Contemporary Issues in Personality; The Storied Self; 
     Graduate Seminar in Personality; Undergraduate Statistics for 
     Psychology; Honors Introduction to Psychology.

  In addition, of course, to the many awards, she was most recently 
awarded the University of Missouri's Chan-
cellor's Award for outstanding research and creativity activity in the 
area of social and behavioral sciences, not to mention the fact that 
the scientific field has recognized her because of this important work 
with the American Psychological Association, Tem-
pleton Positive Psychology Prize.
  In addition, as the curriculum vitae will indicate, Dr. King has had 
30 separate presentations. She is preparing seven manuscripts in 
preparation, five manuscripts under review, 11 chapters and manuscripts 
already published, and 34 published articles; but particularly as it 
relates to the substance of the study, this study has relevance to the 
prevention of mental disorders, just as the gentleman says that he 
professes that he supports.
  Giving patients tools to alleviate depression could minimize the 
development of other chronic health conditions that flow from 
depression. Specifically, I would say that studies have shown 
prevalence of depression and severe psychological problems among 
college students is growing. Sixty-one percent have reported feeling 
hopeless; 45 percent felt so depressed they could barely function; 9 
percent felt suicidal.
  Perhaps that is not of relevance or significance to my colleague, but 
I certainly would say to him that the average age of diagnosis for 
bipolar disorder is 21, and 27 years for unipolar depression, and 5 
percent of college students drop out of college due to psychiatric 
disorders.
  So, again, I recognize that the gentleman wants to talk about being 
fiscally responsible, and certainly Congress has a prerogative to 
exercise congressional oversight, but I would just say to the 
gentleman, as it relates specifically to the funding and the study 
specifically, that that is a legitimately peer-reviewed award by the 
National Institutes of Health, a grant was competitively sought, that 
was, in fact, awarded to a very distinguished scientist in this 
particular field, and I would urge a ``no'' vote on the gentleman's 
amendment.

[[Page 17882]]


  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to thank 
the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would also like to say very rarely, if ever, have I 
ever disagreed with my friend from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer) before, but I 
do oppose this amendment today.
  The intent of this amendment is to ensure that the National 
Institutes of Health is prudent about which grants are funded through 
their peer-review process. While I agree with this intent, I do not 
think the amendment accomplishes that goal.
  For instance, the University of Texas grant currently under 
discussion has already been funded and completed in previous fiscal 
years. Furthermore, any discussions about follow-up funding do not 
pertain to the Labor-HHS appropriations bill currently under 
consideration.
  This project has received funding for a second study, but it was 
awarded by the National Science Foundation in the VA-HUD appropriations 
bill, which has not yet been brought to the House floor for 
consideration.
  Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to vote against this 
amendment and instead focus our efforts on reforming the National 
Institutes of Health grant selection process.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, can I inquire how much time I have 
left.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer) 
has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) has 
1 minute remaining, and the gentleman from Ohio has the right to close.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Pence).
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Neugebauer 
amendment as a commonsense statement about what I think the American 
people would have us do in this majority, and that is, after allowing 
our distinguished appropriators to do their level best in producing 
legislation that the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) has produced 
is to come to this floor and in the absence of a Presidential line item 
veto to try and do that ourselves.
  The amendment in particular of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Neugebauer) in focusing, as it does, on funding that would in one case 
explore the value and merit of dormitory decorations is precisely that 
which, I believe if the President had a line item veto, would be struck 
from legislation again and again.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer) is new to this institution, 
but he is demonstrating a courage and a conviction and, more to the 
point, a common sense that I think is a great value to this 
institution. I rise with great respect to the members of the committee 
who have produced this important and meritorious legislation to 
strongly support the Neugebauer amendment.
  Bring common sense back to the spending process. Pass the Neugebauer 
amendment today.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer) 
has 30 seconds remaining.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.
  Well, first of all, I want to thank the distinguished chairman for 
his hard work in bringing this bill forward. It is a good bill.
  I believe that we do have to bring some common sense to this process, 
and we have to be good stewards of the American taxpayers' money, and 
there are some serious mental health issues that need to be addressed 
in this country. Our charge as Members of this Congress is to 
prioritize how we spend that money and make sure that we are putting it 
into areas where there are serious mental health issues at risk.
  Certainly, I think that this amendment is very positive and would 
encourage Members to vote in support of this amendment.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.
  I am not going to oppose this in a vote because the grants are over. 
They have been completed. The amendment does not have any impact, in 
essence; but I think the gentleman is trying to make a point that they 
ought to be cautious about what type of grants they fund.
  I would point out that NIH funds almost 40,000 grants annually; and, 
obviously, when you look at 40,000, you can find a couple that you 
might have some question about the efficacy of those particular grants, 
but on the other hand, I would not want to get our committee or this 
body in the position of trying to monitor or to be in the decision-
making process on what grants are funded.
  We have very capable people at NIH. It is peer-reviewed by 
physicians, by people who are very knowledgeable on the subject; and 
the objective of many of these grants is ultimately in good faith to, 
in some way, improve the health conditions. But given the fact that 
they are over with, I am not going to object to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Neugebauer).
  The amendment was agreed to.


        Sequential Votes Postponed in the Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, 
proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further 
proceedings were postponed, in the following order: amendment by Mr. 
Obey of Wisconsin; amendment No. 6 by Mr. Hayworth of Arizona; 
amendment by Mr. Kildee of Michigan; amendment by Mr. Stark of 
California; amendment No. 3 by Mr. Paul of Texas.
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Obey

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 223, 
noes 193, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 434]

                               AYES--223

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nussle

[[Page 17883]]


     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--193

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

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Ballenger
     Cannon
     Clyburn
     Goss
     Greenwood
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Lucas (OK)
     Majette
     Nethercutt
     Quinn
     Ryan (OH)
     Schrock
     Shuster
     Tauzin
     Toomey
     Waters
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1621

  Mrs. CUBIN changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. HARMAN and Mr. MURPHY changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Ms. MAJETTE. Mr. Chairman, I was unavoidably detained during the vote 
on the Obey amendment to the Labor, HHS, Education Appropriations bill 
for FY 2005. Had I been present for the vote on the Obey amendment to 
protect overtime I would have voted ``yes.''


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). Pursuant to clause 6 of 
rule XVII, the remainder of this series will be conducted as 5-minute 
votes.


                Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Hayworth

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Hayworth) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 185, 
noes 227, not voting 21, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 435]

                               AYES--185

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carson (OK)
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Hobson
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Manzullo
     Matheson
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickering
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryun (KS)
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--227

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner

[[Page 17884]]


     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Simmons
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Sweeney
     Tauscher
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Ballenger
     Cannon
     Delahunt
     Gephardt
     Goss
     Greenwood
     Istook
     Kanjorski
     Kleczka
     Lucas (OK)
     Moran (KS)
     Nethercutt
     Quinn
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ryan (OH)
     Schrock
     Shuster
     Tauzin
     Terry
     Toomey
     Young (AK)


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1630

  Ms. DUNN changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Kildee

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Kildee) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 413, 
noes 3, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 436]

                               AYES--413

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--3

     Blunt
     Istook
     Kingston

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Ballenger
     Cannon
     Delahunt
     Gephardt
     Goss
     Greenwood
     Kanjorski
     Lucas (OK)
     Moran (KS)
     Nethercutt
     Quinn
     Ryan (OH)
     Schrock
     Shuster
     Tauzin
     Toomey
     Young (AK)


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus) (during the vote). Members are 
advised that 2 minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1638

  Mr. SHIMKUS changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Stark

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Stark) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 195, 
noes 216, not voting 22, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 437]

                               AYES--195

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)

[[Page 17885]]


     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutknecht
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--216

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

                             NOT VOTING--22

     Ballenger
     Cannon
     Delahunt
     Ford
     Gephardt
     Goss
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     John
     Kanjorski
     Lucas (OK)
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Nethercutt
     Quinn
     Ryan (OH)
     Schrock
     Shuster
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Toomey
     Young (AK)


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry) (during the vote). Members 
are reminded that there are 2 minutes remaining to vote.

                              {time}  1646

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                  Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Paul

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Paul) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 95, 
noes 315, not voting 23, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 438]

                                AYES--95

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Brady (TX)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burton (IN)
     Camp
     Cantor
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Everett
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hart
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones (NC)
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Linder
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Norwood
     Ose
     Otter
     Paul
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Ramstad
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Upton
     Vitter
     Whitfield

                               NOES--315

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Burr
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chandler
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Foley
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Herseth
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Ney
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver

[[Page 17886]]


     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Simmons
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tauscher
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--23

     Ballenger
     Cannon
     Delahunt
     Gephardt
     Goss
     Greenwood
     Istook
     Kanjorski
     Langevin
     Lucas (OK)
     McInnis
     McNulty
     Moran (KS)
     Nethercutt
     Quinn
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Schrock
     Shuster
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Toomey
     Young (AK)


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry) (during the vote). Members 
are reminded 2 minutes remain to record their vote.

                              {time}  1654

  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                   Amendment Offered by Ms. Bordallo

  Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Bordallo:
       At the end of bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to enforce the limitations under section 1108 of the 
     Social Security Act on the amount certified for fiscal year 
     2005 with respect to title XIX of such Act with respect to 
     Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Northern 
     Mariana Islands, but only insofar as such amount provided by 
     this Act does not exceed $9,190,000 for Guam, $9,420,000 for 
     the Virgin Islands, $5,950,000 for American Samoa, and 
     $3,380,000 for the Northern Mariana Islands, and the amount 
     otherwise provided by this Act for ``Centers for Medicare and 
     Medicaid Services--Program Management'' is hereby reduced by 
     $8,000,000.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
today, the gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo) and the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Barton) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo).
  Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) and the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for allowing me the opportunity to offer this 
amendment. I come before the House today to address the chronic health 
care disparities in the Insular Areas.
  This amendment temporarily brings the Insular Areas into parity with 
the funding of other States. While States receive between 50 to 75 
percent in Federal matching funds for their Medicaid costs, Guam and 
the Insular Areas' matching funds are arbitrarily reduced to 25 percent 
at the most. The gap in funding must therefore be borne by the local 
governments. This financial burden has crippled the health care system 
in Guam.
  Chronic illnesses such as cancer and heart disease are abnormally 
prevalent in the Insular Areas. Diabetes is a leading cause of death on 
Guam. Contagious diseases like tuberculosis are a constant threat to 
the health of our children. Patients needing emergency care in Guam are 
often medvaced to Hawaii for treatment, largely at their own expense. 
Guam's only cancer clinic has recently closed. The Guam Memorial 
Hospital Authority is on the verge of bankruptcy with constant safety 
concerns.
  The gentleman from Indiana (Chairman Burton), the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Honda), the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. 
Faleomavaega), and the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. 
Christensen) have each advocated forcefully that Congress address this 
issue. And now is the time to do it.
  We have had a hearing on the dangerous health care disparities in the 
Insular Areas. The GAO is currently conducting a study to further 
document these problems. The amendment before us has been scored by CBO 
and is fully offset.
  Listen to the plea for medical assistance coming from the Insular 
Areas. America's most disadvantaged citizens truly need our help, and 
this is the first step in the right direction; and I urge the Members 
to support it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to this amendment. 
Obviously I am not opposed to providing additional dialysis and health 
care for the residents of the Virgin Islands and Guam and the Northern 
Mariana Islands. However, having said that, the way this amendment is 
structured, if we were to support the amendment, if it were to pass, it 
would change the Medicaid funding formula, which, as we all know, is a 
very sensitive issue and is something that in the next Congress I 
intend to make a major effort to do a fair reform of that formula.
  If this amendment were to pass, it is my understanding that the 
people that are covered by the amendment, 2 million out of the 3 
million covered are qualified for Medicaid, and there could be, I am 
not saying there would be, but could be as much as $28 million in 
expenditures, additional expenditures. Since I have the committee of 
jurisdiction and we had not even been approached on this until either 
yesterday or today, I would hope that the gentlewoman and the gentleman 
from Indiana would withdraw the amendment and we could work with them 
to find a way to get some funding this year in some additional bill 
that is going to come before the floor.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I had an opportunity to speak 
with the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Barton) about this issue; and 
as I understand it, he is pretty much committed to helping get these 
funds this year through another source to help the people in this area.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman 
is correct. I am not opposed to the underlying substance of the 
amendment. My objection is to the procedure, and the way in which it 
has come forward in order to implement it in its current configuration 
would cause a major problem down the road in Medicaid-matched rates 
with other States.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue 
to yield, the limitations that are placed on American citizens in that 
part of the world as far as Medicaid is concerned are quite low. Is it 
my understanding that he is going to try to change that in the next 
Congress so that there is a more equitable distribution?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman 
is correct. My father was a diabetic. I respect the fact that the 
gentleman has been out and had, if not a formal hearing, at least some 
meetings in the Territories in which this was discussed. I understand 
the gentlewoman's concern and her requirement that she has to represent 
her constituents. This is not a policy objection. This is a fact that 
when we deal with Medicaid, we have got a carefully crafted formula 
that involves all the States and the Territories and this amendment 
would upset that formula.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

[[Page 17887]]


  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I further yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I know the gentleman from Texas 
(Chairman Barton). He is a man of his word. And if he says that he will 
help us get the funds for the people who are suffering over in that 
part of the world who are American citizens, I am sure he will do that; 
and he has also said he will address the distribution formula or the 
limitations that are placed on the Marianas, Guam, and Saipan and 
others. In any event, he has made a commitment to do that. I think it 
would probably be wise to consider withdrawing the amendment because I 
know he is a man of his word and he will help us get this problem 
solved. But I will leave it up to them.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) for his kind words and 
support.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Honda).
  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the amendment, but it 
sounds like there is a work afoot to be able to support the desire for 
the gentlewoman from Guam (Mr. Bordallo) to work further in the next 
session. Is that what I am hearing?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HONDA. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. It would certainly be in the next session. I am 
not opposed to trying to do something in the next 4 or 5 weeks in this 
session, if we can find the right vehicle.
  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, that would be great. As 
Chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific Islander Caucus, I support 
that effort and would work with both the chairman and the gentlewoman 
from Guam in the furtherance of this amendment. I thank the gentleman 
for his cooperation.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Chairman 
Barton), and I appreciate the challenge that diabetes faces in the 
United States.
  I will insert in the Record a letter, and I had considered an 
amendment, but actually it fits really well with this. As chairman of 
the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources 
of the Committee on Government Reform, we have been trying for about 2 
years to get from the Department of HHS a listing of the studies on 
adult stem cell research, embryonic stem cell research, and others.
  Finally, yesterday, after a full 23 months, the Department gave us a 
listing of all the studies that have been done on stem cell research as 
it relates to diabetes, as it relates to Parkinson's disease and 
others. I will insert the correspondence that we have had back and 
forth for the Record, as well as the list of studies and their 
conclusions about the effectiveness of adult stem cell research and the 
fact that they do not have any successful clinical studies on embryonic 
stem cell research.
  Mr. Chairman, one of the most exciting and controversial areas of 
clinical research in recent years has involved stem cells.
  The Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human 
Resources, which I chair, has held a series of hearings on stem cell 
research. We have learned dramatic advances in medicine have been made 
utilizing stem cells obtained from adult tissues and cord blood.
  Yet proponents of human cloning and destructive embryonic stem cell 
research continue to promise ailing patients and their families and 
friends and members of Congress that stem cells from these 
controversial sources will yield even greater medical breakthroughs.
  When the subcommittee held its hearings, we located a number of 
patients successfully treated with stem cells derived from cord blood 
and adult tissues. Yet we were unable to find a single patient or a 
single disease that has ever been successfully treated with embryonic 
stem cells or through cloning human embryos.
  In October 2002, nearly 2 years ago, Congressman Chris Smith and I 
sent a letter to the director of the National Institutes of Health, 
NIH, requesting that the agency prepare a comprehensive report of all 
medical therapies for humans that currently exist and ongoing clinical 
trials which utilize (1) adult stem cells, (2) cord blood stem cells, 
(3) embryonic stem cells, (4) fetal (germ) cells or (5) stem cells from 
cloned embryos.
  We believe that this information is vitally important for patients, 
scientists and lawmakers so we can turn our attention away from media 
hype and focus our attention and resources on real medical 
breakthroughs that are offering the best hope and promise for real 
people.
  Knowing the high profile stem cell research has had in recent years, 
we expected that NIH, with a budget of nearly $30 billion, would be 
quick to respond to Congress to demonstrate that taxpayer-funded 
research on stem cells--including embryonic stem cells--was indeed 
living up to the promises.
  After repeated inquiries by my staff on the status on this report 
over a year and a half, on June 17, 2004, Chairman Tom Davis and I sent 
a written ultimatum inquiring about the status of the report.
  The following day, the subcommittee received a response signed by Dr. 
James Battey, Director of the National Institutes on Deafness and Other 
Communication Disorders (NIDCD) and Director of the Stem Cell Task 
Force.
  The letter we received, however, did not fully answer the questions 
we had posed and was clearly inadequate.
  Subcommittee staff, in fact, identified five NIH-sponsored clinical 
trials in which human patients are being treated with adult stem cell 
therapies, which, astonishingly, were not included in the NIH response.
  At a meeting on July 2 between subcommittee staff and NIH staff, Dr. 
Battey agreed that he and his colleagues would assemble a comprehensive 
report as originally requested.
  Since that meeting just 2 months ago, researchers in Germany have 
successfully utilized adult stem cells to reconstruct a man's jawbone 
and researchers at the Northwestern University in Chicago successfully 
cured a woman with severe rheumatoid arthritis by transplanting adult 
stem cells from her sister.
  Still there have been no cures, treatments, clinical trials or 
published studies reported utilizing stem cells derived from human 
embryos or clones.
  Just yesterday--a full 23 months after sending our initial request to 
the agency and following another written inquiry--NIH finally delivered 
a 79-page report on stem cell therapies. The NIH report finds that over 
100 health disorders and conditions are currently treatable with non-
embryonic stem cells. Yet, not a single condition has been treated with 
embryonic stem cells.
  Based on the available medical data provided by the Nation's premier 
scientific institute, adult stem cell research clearly continues to 
live up to its promise by yielding real results while embryonic stem 
cell and cloning research remains unproven.
  These findings underscore the need to continue to prioritize adult 
stem cell research that has actually yielded the most practical results 
for patients rather than siphoning resources away to gamble on purely 
speculative research.
  I would like to submit for the Record the cover letter from NIH's 
report, a list of conditions currently being treated with adult stem 
cells and a letter sent to Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy 
Thompson in July regarding our request as well as a letter to the 
Director of the NIH sent last week.

                                                September 8, 2004.
     Hon. Mark Souder,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and 
         Human Resources, Committee on Government Reform, House of 
         Representatives, Longworth House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Souder: Dr. Elias Zerhouni, Director of the 
     National Institutes of Health (NIH), asked me to provide 
     additional materials to respond to your questions for the NIH 
     and Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) regarding 
     the current status of medical therapies and clinical research 
     using stem cells.
       In your recent letter of July 9, 2004 to HHS Secretary 
     Tommy Thompson, you reiterated four areas for which you are 
     requesting information:
       1. A comprehensive listing of all medical therapies which 
     utilize various types of stem cells,
       2. A listing of all ongoing clinical trials or experiments 
     involving human subjects using these same categories of stem 
     cells,
       3. The findings of any studies that utilized stem cells or 
     tissues from embryos or fetuses to treat human patients from 
     Parkinson's disease and juvenile diabetes, and

[[Page 17888]]


       4. A listing of alternatives to stem cells from embryos and 
     fetuses that have shown promise in human subjects for 
     treating juvenile diabetes, Alzheimer's, and Parkinson's 
     disease.
       To develop responses to these questions, my staff reviewed 
     over 18,000 published biomedical journal articles for the 
     past 10 years (1994-June 2004) using the database PubMed. 
     PubMed was developed at the NIH/National Library of Medicine 
     (NLM) and provides access to citations and abstracts from the 
     biomedical journal literature. In developing the response it 
     was decided to limit the literature search to publications 
     within the past 10 years due to the overwhelming volume of 
     articles on bone marrow treatments prior to 1995. The terms 
     for the search strategy and a glossary of medical terms are 
     included in the accompanying notebook under Tabs 1 and 2. Our 
     review did not include any results published or added to 
     PubMed after June 2004, since NIH had to proceed with the 
     analysis on a fixed set of data. Since June 2004, it is 
     estimated there are over 300 published articles that meet our 
     search criteria. Any specific biomedical journal articles 
     that you may be aware of that were published after June 2004 
     are listed through PubMed at http://www.nlm.nih.gov.
       As a result of the analysis, my staff compiled a listing of 
     medical therapies which utilize various types of stem cells 
     as published in the scientific literature over the past 10 
     years. This listing is provided as Tab 3.
       In addition, my staff conducted a search of current 
     clinical trials that involve stem cells as a part of the 
     treatment protocol. The clinical trials database used in this 
     search is available from the NIH/NLM at http://
clinicaltrials.gov. The database provides regularly updated 
     information about clinical research in human volunteers. The 
     clinical trials database currently contains approximately 
     11,400 clinical studies sponsored by the NIH, other federal 
     agencies, and some privately funded trials. The listing of 
     ongoing clinical trials is provided under Tab 4. The search 
     terms used were ``stem cell transplantation or stem cells'' 
     and retrieved 563 studies of trial records as of August 24, 
     2004. For access to the full clinical trial records, search 
     http://clinicaltrials.gov/. I would like to underscore that 
     while there have been claims in the popular press and 
     elsewhere of people who have been helped or cured by stem 
     cell therapies, the NIH cannot attest to their veracity as 
     proven therapies until such time as scientific clinical 
     trials have been conducted and the results of those trials 
     have been published in the scientific peer-reviewed 
     literature.
       I am also providing information from our analysis on any 
     findings of studies that use stem cells or tissues from human 
     embryos or fetuses to treat Parkinson's disease or juvenile 
     diabetes. There are currently no studies using stem cells or 
     tissues from embryos or fetuses to treat type 1 diabetes. 
     With regards to Parkinson's disease, we found that scientists 
     have tried two approaches utilizing tissues from embryos or 
     fetuses to treat human patients with Parkinson's disease. The 
     first study showed that human embryonic dopamine-neuron 
     tissue transplants survive in patients with severe 
     Parkinson's disease and result in some clinical benefit in 
     younger but not in older patients. In addition, dystonia and 
     dyskinesias recurred in 15 percent of the patients who 
     received transplants, even after reduction or discontinuation 
     of the dose of dopaminergic medications, like levodopa. In a 
     follow-up article looking at the same patients, scientists 
     measured cognitive performance at 1 year after 
     transplantation. Performance was not significantly different 
     between the two patient groups (transplanted and no 
     transplant). The second study showed that, as with embryonic 
     tissue transplanted PD patients, younger PD patients with 
     fetal tissue transplants do show motor improvement. However, 
     the underlying disease process does not slow down after fetal 
     transplantation, and Parkinson symptoms ultimately recur. 
     Moreover, fifty-six percent of transplanted patients 
     developed dyskinesia that persisted after overnight 
     withdrawal of dopaminergic medication. A further discussion 
     of these results is contained in Tab 5.
       Under the second question in Tab 5, we describe a potential 
     tissue-based alternative to stem cells from embryos and 
     fetuses that has shown promise for treating juvenile 
     diabetes. In addition, NIH funds significant research in 
     focusing on other possible therapies for each of these 
     diseases, and would be glad to provide further information on 
     these upon request.
       Finally, in order to better manage the results of the 
     PubMed journal literature that were used in our analysis, my 
     staff developed a database of the 18,349 records, which can 
     be searched by keywords, author, and other searchable limits. 
     The database URL and passwords will be sent to you under 
     separate cover. An example of the user interface with 
     descriptions of search field capabilities is appended in Tab 
     1.
       I hope you find this information satisfactory in responding 
     to your questions on stem cell treatment.
           Sincerely,
     James F. Battey, Jr.,
       M.D., PhD. Director, National Institute on Deafness and 
     Other Communication Disorders, Chair, NIH Stem Cell Task 
     Force.


     disorders and conditions treated with non-embryonic stem cells

       Note: Not all of these treatments are considered 
     ``standard' treatments--many are experimental
       Source: Compiled from NIH's database search and the 
     National Marrow Donor Program
       Acute Leukemias: Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL); Acute 
     Myelogenous Leukemia (AML); Acute Biphenotypic Leukemia; 
     Acute Undifferentiated Leukemia; Philadelphia chromosome 
     positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia.
       Chronic Leukemias: Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia; Chronic 
     Lymphocytic Leukemia; Juvenile Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia; 
     Juvenile Myelomonocytic Leukemia.
       Myelodysplastic Syndromes: Chronic Myelomonocytic Leukemia; 
     Refractory Anemia.
       Stem Cell Disorders: Aplastic Anemia; Fanconi's Anemia; 
     Paroxysmal Nocturnal Hemoglobinuria (PNH); Pure Red Cell 
     Aplasia.
       Myeloproliferative Disorders: Acute Myelofibrosis; 
     Agnogenic Myeloid Metaplasia (myelofibrosis); Essential 
     Thrombocythemia; Polcythemia Vera.
       Lymphoproliferative Disorders: Non-Hodgkin's Lymphomia; 
     Hodgkin's Disease.
       Phagocyte Disorders: Chediak-Higashi Syndrome; Chronic 
     Granulomatous Disease; Neutrophil Actin Deficiency; Reticular 
     Dysgenesis.
       Inherited Metabolic Disorders: Adrenoleukodystrophy; 
     Gaucher's Disease; Hunter's Syndrome (MPS-II); Hurler's 
     Syndrome (MPS-IH); Krabbe Disease; Lysosomal Storage 
     Disorders; Maroteaux-Lamy Syndrome (MPS-VI); Metachromactic 
     Leukodystrophy; Morquio Syndrome (MPS-IV); Mucolopidosis II 
     (I-cell Disease); Mucopolysaccharidoses (MPS); Niemann-Pick 
     Disease; Peroxisomal Disorders; Sanfilippo Syndrome (MPS-
     III); Scheie Syndrome (MPS-IS); Sly Syndrome, Beta-
     Glucuronidase Deficiency (MPS-VII); Wolman Disease.
       Histiocytic Disorders; Familial Erythrophagocytic 
     Lymphohistiocytosis; Hemophagocytosis; Histiocytosis-X; 
     Langerhans cell histiocytosis.
       Inherited Erythrocyte Abnormalities: Cooley's Anemia; 
     Diamond Blackfan Anemia; Fanconi's Anemia; Sickle Cell 
     Disease; Thalessemias.
       Inherited Immune System Disorders: Ataxia-Telangiectasia; 
     Bare Lymphocyte Syndrome; DiGeorge Syndrome; Kostmann 
     Syndrome; Leukocyte Adhesion Deficiency; Omenn's Sydrome; 
     Severe Combned Immunodeficiency (SCID); SCID with Adenosine 
     Deaminase Deficiency; SCID with Absence of T & B Cells; SCID 
     with Absence of T Cells, Normal B Cell Common Variable 
     Immunodeficiency; Wiskott-Aldrich Syndrome; X-Linked 
     Lymphoproliferative Disorder.
       Other Inherited Disorders: Lesch-Nyhan Syndrome; Cartilage-
     Hair Hypoplasia; Glanzmann Thrombasthenia; Leukodystrophy; 
     Osteogenesis Imperfecta; Osteopetrosis.
       Inherited Platelet Abnormalities: Amegakaryocytosis; 
     Congenital Thrombocytopenia.
       Plasma Cell Disorders: Multiple Myeloma; Plasma Cell 
     Leukemia; Waldenstrom's Macroglobulinemia.
       Other Malignancies: Brain cancer; Breast cancer; Ewing's 
     Sarcoma/Ewing's family of tumors; Gastrointestinal cancers; 
     Lung cancers; Malignant Thyoma; Meningeal cancer; 
     Musculoskeletal cancers; Neuroblastoma; Renal cell carcinoma; 
     Reproductive cancers (ovary, testes, stem cells cancer); 
     Retinoblastoma; Sarcoma; Skin cancer/melanoma; Urinary 
     cancer.
       Autoimmune Disorders: Autoimmune Lymphoproliferative 
     Syndrome (ALPS); Crohn's Disease; Juvenile arthritis; 
     Multiple sclerosis; Rheumatoid arthritis; Systemic lupus 
     erythematosus.
       Other Diseases/Conditions: AIDS; Alzheimer's Disease; 
     Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS, Lou Gehrig's Disease); 
     Chronic myeloproliferative disorders; Coronary (Heart) 
     Disease; Cytomegalovirus Infection; Graft versus Host Disease 
     (GVHD); Nervous system repair; Ocular/Corneal Damage; 
     Parkinson's disease; Skeletal and cartilage repair; Stroke.
                                  ____

                                                     July 9, 2004.
     Hon. Tommy G. Thompson,
     Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Secretary: As Chairman Davis and I indicated in 
     our letter dated June 17, 2004, over the past two years the 
     Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human 
     Resources and the office of Chairman Chris Smith have been in 
     correspondence with the NIH regarding the current status of 
     medical therapies and clinical research using adult and 
     embryonic stem cells.
       How the Department has allowed this matter to drag on for 
     nearly two years defies excuse or explanation.
       On October 8, 2002, Chairman Smith and I sent a letter to 
     Dr. Elias Zerhouni, Director

[[Page 17889]]

     of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), requesting ``a 
     detailed report'' providing comprehensive information about 
     the medical applications of adult and embryonic stem cells as 
     well as stem cells from cloned embryos and aborted fetuses.
       After almost a year had passed, Subcommittee records 
     indicate that on August 4, 2003, Subcommittee staff inquired 
     into the status of the requested report and were told that 
     the letter had been in the office of the Assistant Secretary 
     for Legislation (ASL) ``for some months'' and would be out 
     ``in a few weeks.''
       On October 14, 2003, Subcommittee staff again inquired into 
     the status of the report and were assured that although ``. . 
     . the letter is in final draft and is going through the 
     clearance process now.''
       The written inquiries on the status of this report are 
     recorded below. There were also numerous telephone 
     conversations that are unrecorded here. The dates of 
     correspondence from the Subcommittee to HHS regarding our 
     October 8, 2002, letter are as follows:
       August 4, 2003; October 14, 2003; October 27, 2003; 
     November 19, 2003; February 10, 2004; March 25, 2004; April 
     20, 2004; June 17, 2004.
       After repeated inquiries about the status of the report by 
     email, I sent a formal, written letter to you, Mr. Secretary, 
     on April 20, 2004.
       Remarkably, there was no answer to the April 20 letter.
       After waiting several weeks for acknowledgement, on June 
     17, 2004, Chairman Tom Davis of the House Government Reform 
     Committee and I sent another letter communicating our concern 
     about a number of outstanding correspondence and document 
     requests.
       On June 18, 2004, the Subcommittee received a letter signed 
     by Dr. James Battey, Director of the National Institutes on 
     Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD) and 
     Director of the Stem Cell Task Force, responding to our 
     request for information regarding stem cell therapies.
       However, the letter we received did not respond to the 
     plain meaning of our request on October 8, 2002. Instead of a 
     thorough response, it represented only a sampling of the 
     information we requested. Through subsequent phone and email 
     conversations within hours of receiving the response, 
     Subcommittee staff communicated disappointment regarding the 
     quality and depth of the letter we received and asked that 
     the response be revised and completed by June 30, 2004.
       In lieu of sending a revised document, at the close of the 
     day on June 30, an HHS Deputy Assistant Secretary requested a 
     meeting with members of the Subcommittee staff to ``discuss 
     the response on adult stem cells and how [NIH] may be able to 
     better respond to your inquiries here.''
       At this meeting on July 2, Subcommittee staff communicated 
     our frustration about the delay in receiving a response from 
     the Department as well as our disappointment regarding the 
     quality of the letter. In order to assist the Department in 
     responding to the Subcommittee's inquiry, I have included a 
     summary of the meeting that took place, along with an outline 
     of our agreement about the nature of a forthcoming, revised 
     report in response to our October 8, 2002 written request.
       The original letter, dated October 8, 2002 requested 
     (italics added):
       ``a comprehensive listing of all medical therapies'' which 
     utilize various types of stem cells,
       ``a listing of all ongoing clinical trials or experiments 
     involving human subjects using these same categories of stem 
     cells,
       ``the findings of any studies that utilized stem cells or 
     tissues from embryos or fetuses to treat human patients from 
     Parkinson's disease and juvenile diabetes,'' and
       ``a listing of alternatives to stem cells from embryos and 
     fetuses that have shown promise in human subjects for 
     treating juvenile diabetes, Alzheimer's, and Parkinson's 
     disease.''
       In response to our letter, the NIH stated that there are no 
     treatments or ongoing clinical trials utilizing embryonic 
     stem cells or stem cells from cloned embryos or aborted 
     fetuses. The NIH letter also reported the adverse effects 
     resulting from the two known clinical trials using fetal 
     tissue transplantation to treat Parkinson's disease.
       However, instead of a comprehensive listing of all medical 
     therapies and a listing of all ongoing clinical trials in 
     which human patients were being treated with adult stem cell 
     therapies, NIH included a sampling of the work ongoing at 
     some NIH Institutes and a listing of NIH-funded clinical 
     trials.
       That is not what was requested.
       The Subcommittee identified several obvious omissions in 
     Dr. Battey's letter.
       (1) From the NIH website www.clinicaltrials.gov, in the NIH 
     National Library of Medicine Medline database, and in the 
     popular press, Subcommittee staff identified extramurally 
     funded clinical trials and clinical research involving human 
     patients which were not included in the NIH letter, including 
     some that began as early as 1999 and should have been 
     available to Dr. Battey prior to his submission of the letter 
     to the ASL office in November 2002. A selection of 
     extramurally funded clinical trials not included in the NIH 
     letter are listed below:
       Sponsor: Baylor College of Medicine; Stem Cell Transplant 
     to Treat Patients with Systemic Sclerosis; Phase I H7157; 
     Study start date: June 1999; Date last reviewed: March 2004.
       Sponsor: Texas Heart Institute, Houston, Texas; 
     Transendocardial, Autologous Bone Marrow Cell Transplantation 
     for Severe, Chronic Ischemic Heart Failure, announced in 
     media April 16, 2004; www.genomenewnetwork.org/articles/2004/
04/16/stem_cell_trial.php; Circulation. 2003 May 
     13;107(18):2294-302.
       Sponsor: Caritas St. Elizabeth's Medical Center of Boston; 
     Stem Cell Study for Patients with Heart Disease 00165; Study 
     start date: January 2004; Date last reviewed: April 2004.
       Sponsor: Bioheart, Inc.; Autologous Cultured Myoblasts 
     (BioWhittaker) Transplanted via Myocardial Injection; Phase I 
     BMI-US-01-001; Study start date: June 2003; Date last 
     reviewed: December 2003.
       Sponsor: Bioheart, Inc.; MYOHEARTTM (Myogenesis 
     Heart Efficiency and Regeneration Trial); Phase I BMI-US-01-
     002; Study start date: February 2003; Date last reviewed: 
     December 2003.
       In response, Dr. Battey maintained that the intent of NIH 
     was to provide a comprehensive listing of work funded by NIH, 
     but not by universities or pharmaceutical companies, citing 
     the difficulty of enforcing compliance with a law (PL105-115, 
     signed November, 1997) mandating that privately funded trials 
     also be listed on the www.clinicaltrials.gov website.
       Nonetheless, Subcommittee staff were also able to identify 
     several intramurally funded clinical trials at 
     www.clinicaltrials.gov, in which human patients are being 
     treated with adult stem cell therapies, which, astonishingly, 
     were not included in the NIH response:
       NIAMS (National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal 
     and Skin Diseases); Autologous Stem Cell Transplant for 
     Systemic Sclerosis; Phase I N01 AR-9-2239; Study start date: 
     July 2002; Date last reviewed: March 2004.
       NINDS (National Institute of Neurological Disorders and 
     Stroke); Investigating Endothelial Precursor Cells 03-N-0269; 
     Study start date: August 1, 2003; Date last reviewed: August 
     1, 2003.
       NHLBI (National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute); The 
     Effect of Exercise on Stem Cell Mobilization and Heart 
     Function in Patients Undergoing Cardiac Rehabilitation 03-H-
     0086; Study start date: January 28, 2003; Date last reviewed: 
     December 5, 2003.
       Stem Cell Mobilization to Treat Chest Pain and Shortness of 
     Breath in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease 02-H-0264; 
     Study start date: August 6, 2002; Date last reviewed: July 
     17, 2003.
       NIDCR (National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial 
     Research); Bone Regeneration Using Stromal Cells 94-D-0188; 
     Study start date: August 3, 1994; Date last reviewed: June 4, 
     2003.
       (2) The Subcommittee also identified several reports of 
     clinical research not yet in clinical trials that were also 
     missing from the report. Some of these studies, reported in 
     peer-reviewed journals and in the public media are listed 
     below:
        Preliminary clinical research using adult skeletal 
     myoblasts to repair injured heart muscle:
       Pagani, et al, 2003. Autologous skeletal myoblasts 
     transplanted to ischemia-damaged myocardium in humans. 
     Histological analysis of cell survival and differentiation. J 
     Am Coll Cardiol. Mar 5; 41(5):879-88.
       Hagege, et al, 2003. Viability and differentiation of 
     autologus skeletal myoblast grafts in ischaemic 
     cardiomyopathy. Lancet. Feb 8; 361(1956):491-2.
       Menasche, et al, 2003. Autologous skeletal myoblast 
     transplantation for severe postinfarction left ventricular 
     dysfunction. J Am Coll Cardiol. Apr 2; 41(7):1078-83.
        Autologous bone marrow or blood cells transplanted 
     into human heart:
       Dr. Cindy Grines at Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, Michigan: 
     http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/conditions/03/06/
teen.heart.ap/http://www.sctline.com/info/
english_viewarticle.asp?id=1966.
       Assmus et al, 2002. Transplantation of Progenitor Cells and 
     Regeneration Enhancement in Acute Myocardial Infarction 
     (TOPCARE-AMI). Circulation. 2002 Dec 10; 106(24):3009-17.
       Dobert et al, 2004. Transplantation of progenitor cells 
     after reperfused acute myocardial infarction: evaluation of 
     perfusion and myocardial viability with FDG-PET and thallium 
     SPECT. Eur J. Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2004 Apr 3 [Epub ahead of 
     print]
       (3) Included in the response from NIH was an enclosure from 
     the National Bone Marrow Donor Program entitled ``Diseases 
     Treatable by Stem Cell Transplantation,'' dated 2002. 
     However, this list contained only blood disorders, autoimmune 
     diseases, and related cancers treatable with hematopoietic 
     stem cells. The letter did not include a more updated, 
     comprehensive listing of additional diseases treated with 
     hematopoietic or other adult stem cell types.
       When questioned about these omissions, Dr. Battey conceded 
     that the report was not comprehensive. The wide range of 
     information missing from the NIH response to our

[[Page 17890]]

     October 8, 2002 letter demonstrates the need for NIH to 
     review responses to ensure that Congress receives accurate 
     and thorough information in response to its requests.
       Dr. Battey also indicated that he had made a decision when 
     responding to the letter to include only NIH information that 
     would be difficult for Congress to obtain through publicly 
     accessible sources.
       However, Subcommittee staff reiterated to HHS staff at the 
     meeting that our request for a comprehensive document 
     remained unchanged and unfulfilled.
       In response to Subcommittee documentation of the inadequacy 
     and omissions of the NIH response, Dr. Battey apologized.
       Dr. Battey agreed he and his colleagues would assemble a 
     comprehensive report as requested on October 8, 2002. 
     Subcommittee staff agreed to give a time extension to the $27 
     billion agency.
       Dr. Battey and Subcommittee staff agreed that the revised 
     report would:
       (1) be comprehensive in scope as originally requested, 
     including both NIH funded research as well as privately 
     funded research in the public domain, including studies 
     abroad,
       (2) be in a format that is easily accessible and 
     searchable,
       (3) include anecdotal reports of clinical research when 
     these reports appear substantive and likely to lead to future 
     clinical research and/or clinical trials, and
       (4) include only minimal analysis necessary for translating 
     the factual components of the report into lay terms.
       The Subcommittee staff and the Department also agreed that 
     an iterative response would be provided to Senator Brownback 
     in advance of his July 14, 2004, hearing on adult stem cell 
     research.
       Subcommittee staff emphasized that this report will be an 
     invaluable resource as Congress seeks to make policy 
     decisions and educate the public based on accurate and in-
     depth scientific data rather than the often-misleading 
     information that is readily available from the news media and 
     lobbying groups.
       I appreciate your attention to this matter and your 
     assurances that the Department will be more responsive to 
     matters of Congressional oversight. This, as you know, is not 
     a peripheral issue of concern only to a small number of 
     people. I would think, on an issue of this magnitude, that 
     HHS would have wanted to have this report available in 
     response not only to Congress but for the President and 
     others to whom such information might be important.
       It is my hope that as members of Congress and their staff 
     continue to face critical and complex science policy issues 
     they will be able to draw on accurate, thorough, timely, and 
     up-to-date information from the Department of Health and 
     Human Services.
           Sincerely,

                                               Mark E. Souder,

                       Chairman, Subcommittee on Criminal Justice,
     Drug Policy, and Human Resources.
                                  ____

                                                  August 31, 2004.
     Hon. Elias A. Zerhouni, M.D.,
     Director, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD.
       Dear Dr. Zerhouni: Chairman Bill Young of the House 
     Appropriations Committee and Chairman Ralph Regula of the 
     Labor, HHS, Education Subcommittee have urged members of the 
     House of Representatives to contact you with questions 
     regarding specific research projects funded by the National 
     Institutes of Health (NIH).
       On October 8, 2002, Congressman Chris Smith and I requested 
     ``a detailed report'' providing comprehensive information 
     about the medical applications of adult and embryonic stem 
     cells as well as stem cells from cloned embryos and aborted 
     fetuses.
       On June 17, 2004, Chairman Tom Davis and I sent another 
     letter inquiring about the status of the report. The 
     following day, the Subcommittee received a response signed by 
     Dr. James Battey, Director of the National Institutes on 
     Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD) and 
     Director of the Stem Cell Task Force.
       The letter we received, however, did not fully answer the 
     questions we had posed. At a meeting on July 2 between 
     Subcommittee staff and NIH staff, Dr. Battey agreed that he 
     and his colleagues would assemble a comprehensive report as 
     originally requested. The Subcommittee sent a letter to 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson re-
     iterating this commitment on July 9, 2004.
       Since our meeting, researchers in Germany have successfully 
     utilized adult stem cells to reconstruct a man's jawbone. The 
     case, reported in The Lancet, involved a 56-year-old man who 
     lost a substantial portion of his jawbone, also called the 
     mandible, during cancer surgery. After nine years of eating 
     only soft food and soup, the patient is now able to enjoy his 
     first dinner in nearly a decade. Our understanding is that 
     Dr. Pamela Gehron Robey is doing similar research at the 
     National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research.
       Another study conducted at the Northwestern University in 
     Chicago reported in the journal Arthritis & Rheumatism found 
     that transplanting adult stem cells from a healthy woman to 
     her sister with severe rheumatoid arthritis apparently cured 
     the disease, researchers report.
       Still there have been no cure, treatments, clinical trials 
     or published studies reported utilizing stem cells derived 
     from human embryos or clones.
       I look forward to a response regarding the status of this 
     stem cell report prior to consideration of the Labor/HHS/
     Education appropriations for fiscal year 2005 by the House of 
     Representatives.
           Sincerely,

                                               Mark E. Souder,

                                Chairman, Subcommittee on Criminal
                         Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources.

  Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, first I want to thank the gentleman from Texas 
(Chairman Barton), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the ranking member, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Dingell), for their willingness to work with the 
Delegates to address the disparities contributed to by the Medicaid 
caps on our territories.
  I also want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda) for 
his support and all of the others in Congress who have talked to me 
about supporting this issue. I think it is very important to me and all 
of the other Delegates from the Territories that these gentlemen have 
made a commitment to work with us in the future. I certainly am very 
willing to sit down and work with them.
  Mr. Chairman, this has been an issue with the Territories for the 
last 20 years. We have been bringing it before Congress, all to no 
avail. I am sure, with the assistance of all these fine gentleman, we 
will be able to work out some solutions.
  I also want to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Pombo) 
for signing off on this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentlewoman from Guam?
  There was no objection.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Hayworth

  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Hayworth:
       At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the 
     following new section:
       Sec. ___. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be 
     used by the Commissioner of Social Security or the Social 
     Security Administration to pay the compensation of employees 
     of the Social Security Administration to administer Social 
     Security benefit payments under a totalization agreement with 
     Mexico which would not otherwise be payable but for such 
     agreement.

  CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, 
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) and a Member opposed each 
will control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. Mr. Chairman, I recognize the broad scope of this bill and how 
difficult it is to meet the challenges of funding on all the important 
programs. Let me take time to commend the chairman of the subcommittee 
and his expert and able staff.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment regarding the Social 
Security totalization agreement signed on June 29 by the Social 
Security Commissioner and her Mexican counterpart. Totalization 
agreements are bilateral agreements between the United States and 
another country to coordinate Social Security programs. Essentially, a 
totalization agreement eliminates the need to pay Social Security taxes 
in both countries when U.S. companies send workers to the other country 
and vice versa and it protects benefit eligibilities for workers who 
divide their careers between the two countries.
  In a general concept, totalization agreements are desirable, but I 
would ask my colleagues to carefully review what is at stake in this 
recent decision and agreement involving Mexico.
  By every account, Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, the Social Security 
Administration tried to slip Mexico totalization under the radar 
without coming

[[Page 17891]]

to Congress, as the Social Security Administration had promised. This 
is a problem; and, therefore, it requires a response from this House.
  I personally met with Social Security Commissioner Barnhart. I 
believe she is very capable and, on balance, has done a fine job. But 
following our discussions, I continue to believe that serious problems 
remain with this totalization agreement with Mexico.
  The principal problem with the agreement is that our Social Security 
Administration assumes that only 50,000, only 50,000, Mexican workers 
will apply for Social Security benefits. But with estimates of over 4 
million Mexican workers here illegally, I think the number in fact will 
be significantly higher.
  To be clear, Mr. Chairman, this is not an immigration issue. This is 
a Social Security solvency issue; and if a mere 25 percent above that 
estimate of 50,000 apply, and I will do the math for you, that would 
mean 60,000 people actually take up benefits, the GAO has found it will 
be a financially significant drain on the trust fund.
  Now, for purposes of full disclosure, obviously not every Mexican 
national working here illegally will suddenly qualify for Social 
Security. We passed and the President signed into law H.R. 743, the 
Social Security Protection Act, which keeps many illegal workers from 
assessing benefits. But, Mr. Chairman, a significant new population, 
perhaps hundreds of thousands, would have access to Social Security 
under this Mexico totalization agreement.
  Specifically, it would be three groups: number one, workers who were 
illegal at one time, such as those with temporary work visas, who have 
fallen into illegal worker status by overstaying their visas; number 
two, the dependents of these once legal workers; and, number three, 
these Mexican workers who have worked more than six quarters in the 
United States and less than 40.
  The 50,000 estimate that Social Security assumes will take advantage 
of these benefits are Mexicans working legally in the United States, 
and it does not account for these three groups I have detailed.
  Now, to give an idea of how large a group are unaccounted for here, 
according to Citizenship and Immigration Services' most recent data in 
2002, 166,000 Mexicans changed their status to permanent resident from 
a variety of other classifications, for example, visitor, temporary 
worker, no status, et cetera. Again, Mr. Chairman, that is 166,000 in 1 
year.
  The Social Security Administration assumes only 50,000 are here, when 
three times that received permanent resident status in 2002 alone; and 
that 50,000 will only grow at the rate of general population growth 
when hundreds of thousands more will move in and out of legal status 
each and every year. To assume that hundreds of thousands of these 
workers would pass up benefits is unrealistic.
  Mr. Chairman, let me make this very clear. If only fully legal 
workers were to collect benefits under this totalization plan, I would 
not oppose it. But, Mr. Chairman, I have serious doubts that this would 
be the case.
  The Social Security trust fund will begin spending more than it 
receives in the year 2018. In 2042, the trust fund will have spent up 
the surpluses it has built up. It will be totally bankrupt. Opening the 
floodgates to hundreds of thousands of illegal workers can only hasten 
the coming funding crisis facing Social Security.
  I urge support for this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) is 
recognized for 15 minutes in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the Social Security so-called totalization agreements 
permit the United States and another country to coordinate their Social 
Security programs. The Social Security Administration has totalization 
agreements in force with 20 countries, including Canada, Australia, and 
most of Western Europe.
  Totalization agreements help American workers and American business. 
These agreements prevent the Americans working overseas for United 
States companies from having to pay two Social Security systems. As a 
result, American workers and their companies save approximately $800 
million annually in foreign Social Security taxes. Totalization 
agreements also protect benefits for workers who divide their careers 
between two countries.
  In June, the Commissioner of Social Security and Director General of 
the Mexican Social Security Institute signed a totalization agreement. 
Now, what does that mean? This agreement has not been approved. The 
signing of the agreement is the first step in the approval process. The 
State Department and the White House must review the agreement in order 
to determine whether the agreement should be sent to Congress for 
approval. We have no idea at this time whether it will even be sent to 
us for approval.
  Congress has the final say. Should the President send a proposed 
totalization agreement with Mexico to Congress for approval, Congress 
has 60 legislative days during which either the House or the Senate are 
in session to consider the agreement and to disapprove it, if 
necessary.
  It is imperative that we follow through with the vetting process 
established in the law, not circumvent it through appropriation 
legislation. Why? Because there is much concern, confusion, and 
misinformation about a United States Mexican totalization agreement. We 
need to hear all the facts. We do not need to rush to judgment. We need 
regular order.
  For example, there are a number of advantages in a totalization 
agreement with Mexico. First, an agreement would save about 3,000 
United States workers and their employers about $140 million in Mexican 
Social Security taxes over the next 5 years. Second, Mexico is the 
second largest trading partner, and a totalization agreement with 
Mexico would be consistent with one of the goals of the North American 
Free Trade Agreement, to strengthen cooperation and friendship. Lastly, 
Social Security's official scorekeepers estimate a U.S.-Mexican 
agreement would have a negligible impact on Social Security long-term 
financing. The 5-year cost to the U.S. Social Security system has now 
been estimated at about $525 million. That is over a 5-year period.
  Contrary to what many believe, a totalization agreement would not 
change current law prohibiting payment to persons living illegally in 
the United States. Also a totalization agreement would not create a 
substantial enticement for Mexican citizens to work illegally in the 
United States. That is because the recently enacted Social Security 
Protection Act of 2004 strengthened the law to prevent those who only 
worked illegally from receiving benefits.
  While there are potential advantages to a totalization agreement with 
Mexico, there are also concerns, and we concede that. For example, 
Social Security official scorekeepers have stated there is considerable 
uncertainty involved in their estimates. It could be higher; it could 
be lower. In addition, there are concerns about the potential for 
fraudulent receipt of benefits and the integrity of the Mexican 
records.
  There are also some issues relating to a potential United States-
Mexican totalization agreement that raise serious questions about the 
impact of the agreement on Social Security financials and drives the 
need for a full and fair vetting through public hearings held by the 
committee of jurisdiction, the Committee on Ways and Means Subcommittee 
on Social Security, which I chair.

                              {time}  1715

  Only if we allow the vetting process to continue as designated rather 
than obstructed will the Congress and the American people be assured 
whether a totalization agreement with Mexico is in the best interests 
of our Nation's workers and those who depend upon those benefits.
  For this reason I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

[[Page 17892]]

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I listened with interest to the comments of my subcommittee Chair, 
and I think it is worth noting in this debate, if there could be 
guarantees that a resolution of disapproval would be allowed to come to 
the floor, and one of my friends, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Collins) has drafted it, there would be no need for this amendment, and 
we could withdraw it. We have made that clear. But that guarantee has 
not been forthcoming. Therefore, the appropriations process is our 
opportunity for a floor vote.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I chaired the bipartisan Social 
Security Task Force, and we talked about this so-called totalization, 
which is pretty much a reciprocal effort between countries to earn and 
get payments for retirement benefits, for three reasons. One is the 
oversight of Congress would result in maybe 60 days delay, but not a 
real opportunity to turn this around. I support the amendment, but 
because I think we need sort of a cooling off period of at least a year 
to look at the consequences, a couple of consequences.
  One is the solvency of Social Security. So as we look at the 
potential cost to Social Security, the actuaries are already estimating 
that Social Security is going to be insolvent by 2018, this provision 
lowers the date of insolvency because of the cost. Let me just quote 
what the Social Security Administration estimates. Number 1, it is 
going to cost approximately $105 million per year over the first 5 
years, like the chairman suggested; but, further, the GAO found that a 
lack of consideration to the estimated millions of current and former 
unauthorized workers and family members from Mexico who are already 
residing in the United States who could qualify under various amnesty 
and guest worker proposals make the cost of such an agreement highly 
uncertain and could have a measurable impact on the long-range 
actuarial balance of the trust fund. This is what the GAO said.
  So the potential benefits are to 3,000 workers in Mexico, American 
workers, and what we are looking at is potentially millions of Mexican 
workers in the United States.
  Now, there is a huge difference in the totalization agreements that 
we have with Europe. The differences, I think, are substantial in two 
ways. Number 1, in addition to the vastly greater number of new 
beneficiaries claiming claims to this entitlement from under the 
Mexican agreement, the other nations, mostly in Europe, that we have 
these reciprocal agreements with involve a relatively small or few 
number of people, and there is closer economic parity. So because of 
the wage differences between Mexico and the United States, it could be 
very costly to the Social Security system.
  I just suggest to my colleagues that as Social Security looks at a 
$12 trillion unfunded liability, to add these potential large costs to 
Social Security without thoroughly examining the consequences of what 
it is going to do to our solvency of our system in the United States, 
without the kind of changes that we need in Social Security, should be 
put off for a year.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Weller), a valuable member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the position taken by 
the chairman of the Subcommittee on Social Security, the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Shaw), in opposition to an amendment offered by my 
longtime friend and respected seatmate of 10 years, who I disagree with 
on his amendment, in a respectful way.
  Let me ask, I think, three important questions. One, why are we 
having this vote, which is essentially putting the cart before the 
horse? Why are we singling out Mexico, our next-door neighbor, number 2 
trading partner, and friend? And, three, why is there an effort to 
essentially vent our frustration over illegal immigration on a 
potential agreement with our friend, Mexico?
  That is why I think it is important for us to be very careful on this 
amendment, because we have Social Security totalization agreements with 
7 out of 10 of our biggest trading partners. Mexico is our second 
largest trading partner. We have thousands of American workers working 
in Mexico who right now are in a situation where they are forced to pay 
two sets of Social Security taxes. A totalization agreement would be of 
great benefit to American workers working in Mexico, as well as their 
American employers who may be employing them. In fact, they say they 
could save up to $140 million in additional taxes that workers and 
American companies would suffer unless we have a totalization 
agreement.
  Now, the issue of putting the cart before the horse. Under the 
procedure for a totalization agreement, the totalization agreement, 
when it is finalized, because it is not yet finalized; it still has to 
be signed off on by the State Department and the White House before it 
would be considered a final agreement, and then it would have to come 
to Congress where we could have an up-or-down vote on whether or not to 
accept it. That is where Congress comes in with our role. Again, this 
vote here today is putting the cart before the horse, and Congress does 
truly have the final say.
  Mr. Chairman, I pointed out earlier that Mexico is our second largest 
trading partner. It is a longtime friend, a fellow democracy, and I do 
not believe it should be singled out when our other friends, Canada, 
Australia, most of Western Europe, have concluded totalization 
agreements that have been in place now for, in many cases, two decades, 
protecting American workers from double taxation.
  I would also, when it comes to the issue of illegal immigration, 
because we realize that is an issue that is hanging over this vote 
today, and this should not be a vehicle to vent that frustration, it 
should not be a vehicle, because this actually helps American citizens.
  A totalization agreement would not change current law prohibiting 
payment of benefits to persons living illegally in the United States. I 
think it is important to note that. Let me say that one more time. A 
totalization agreement would not change current law prohibiting payment 
of benefits to persons living illegally in the United States. Second, a 
totalization agreement would not create an enticement for Mexican 
illegal immigrants to come here.
  The bottom line is just vote no on this amendment, let us move on, 
consider it next year when it is brought up to us through regular 
order.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I would note again for my friend from 
Illinois this is not an immigration issue, it is a solvency of Social 
Security issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Goode).
  Mr. GOODE. Mr. Chairman, I salute the gentleman from Arizona for 
having the courage to address this issue.
  Totalization with Mexico will harm the Social Security Trust Fund. It 
will be a major drain on this fund. They talk about 20 countries that 
we have a totalization agreement with. None of them have 5 million 
illegal workers in the country like Mexico does.
  We are better off to stop this snake here and now, cut off its head. 
Some say wait, let it get bigger. Let it bite us again. I say no. Cut 
off its head today by stopping the funding.
  If we grant an amnesty, and there are plenty of amnesty bills 
floating around, those illegals will be legal, and we will have a huge 
drain on the Social Security fund.
  I want to stand with the seniors in this country. I want to protect 
Social Security for United States citizens, and I want to preserve it 
for future generations, not drain it by allowing Mexico and illegals to 
get in it and suck a big truckload of money out of it.
  Stand up for Social Security and vote yes with the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).

[[Page 17893]]


  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), a very valued member of the 
Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me time 
on this measure.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Arizona has offered an amendment 
that bars funding for an agreement that Congress has yet to consider, 
much less be approved.
  This summer, the United States and Mexico signed a totalization 
agreement, an agreement that would coordinate retirement coverage for 
at least 3,000 American workers who divide their careers between 
America and Mexico. But this agreement is far from final. It must be 
approved by the State Department, then the White House, and then sent 
to Congress where the committee of jurisdiction, the Subcommittee on 
Social Security, which is part of the full Committee on Ways and Means, 
will carefully review it.
  This amendment is premature and tramples upon the deliberative 
process at the heart of our committee system. So I oppose this 
amendment on jurisdictional grounds, but I would also like to speak for 
a minute on some of the other statements that are being made by those 
who support this amendment.
  First, the United States is currently a partner in 20 totalization 
agreements, with countries ranging from Canada to South Korea. 
Totalization is not a new concept. In fact, currently we are saving 
American workers and their employees about $800 million from double 
taxation that would otherwise occur. An agreement with Mexico will mean 
that the U.S. has totalization agreements with 8 of our top 10 trading 
partners.
  Secondly, totalization agreements have no impact on immigration law. 
Today it is illegal for Social Security to pay benefits to undocumented 
immigrants. Totalization will not change that.
  Finally, totalization will not bankrupt the Social Security Trust 
Funds. In the long term, Social Security estimates that the impact to 
the trust funds will be negligible. In the short term, costs will 
approximate $105 million per year for the first 5 years. In comparison, 
in the last year with Canada, that totalization agreement with Canada 
cost $197 million.
  Whatever your beliefs are on the merits of such an agreement, we need 
to debate the facts, not the rhetoric. Another reason why is our first 
consideration of this issue should be before the Committee on Ways and 
Means, not as an amendment to an appropriations bill.
  I urge Members to vote no on the Hayworth amendment.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, to further demonstrate that this issue 
transcends normal partisanship, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), my friend from the other side of 
the aisle.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I rise here in support of the Social Security system and concerns 
about its looming revenue shortfalls.
  We heard from the esteemed chairman that this would only cost $500 
million over 5 years. Now, the GAO says that that is not at all an 
accurate estimate. In fact, they said, the actions the Bush 
administration ``took to assess the integrity and compatibility of 
Mexico's Social Security system were limited and neither transparent 
nor well-documented. The administration provided no information showing 
it assessed the reliability of Mexican earnings data and the internal 
controls used to ensure the integrity of information that the Social 
Security Administration will rely on to pay Social Security benefits.''
  In other words, the agreement could be setting the stage for massive 
fraud.
  Mr. Chairman, $500 million is a lot of money around here. We have 
pitched battles over tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, a few 
million, and to just dismiss this and say, well, $500 million. And then 
the point that, well, the House has to approve it. Well, if this was 
going to come to the House for an up-or-down vote for certain, and if 
we had to approve it before it became binding for all time on the 
people of the United States and our Social Security system, that would 
be one thing. This is under an upside down, backwards procedure that 
says, we can only vote if we are allowed to vote on a resolution of 
disapproval. There is no guarantee that such a resolution will be 
brought forward and no way to guarantee that.
  So the question becomes will we take something the GAO has assessed 
as being on faulty data, poorly negotiated, with low-ball estimates on 
the cost, and just hope that we get to vote on it before it becomes 
binding, before it costs Social Security perhaps $1 billion over 5 
years? We do not really know what it will cost. But with the looming 
shortfalls with Social Security, I do not believe we can take that 
risk.
  We should go back to the drawing board. This should be done in a 
transparent manner. It should be done with good data. And then it 
should be brought forward with an assurance that we will get to vote up 
or down.

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to remind the previous speaker that when we are talking 
about a shortfall of $500 million over 5 years in the Social Security, 
we are saving American workers and American companies $800 million a 
year.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) a few moments 
ago said that the Social Security system would go insolvent in 2018. 
This is simply wrong. In 2018, the Social Security system will have to 
begin to pay benefits from the interest accumulated on the trust fund. 
Sometime in the later 2020s, the Social Security system will have to 
begin to dip into the principal of the trust fund. That will not be 
exhausted until at least 2042, according to the trustees, and according 
to the Congressional Research Service, 2050. There is no Social 
Security problem until at least 2042 or 2050.
  Now, we are told that we have to start paying back the bonds. Social 
Security lent the money to the General Treasury; that is true, it did. 
That is how you invest money. You invest in U.S. bonds. That is not a 
problem with the Social Security system. It may be a problem for the 
budget, but the fact is the system is solvent. Those are legal due-and-
owing obligations, exactly as legally binding as a U.S. savings bonds 
is to pay to my colleagues or me if we own a savings bond.
  In 1983, Chairman Greenspan chaired a commission which recommended 
increasing Social Security taxes, which we did in 1986, to precisely 
generate the surplus which we will start dipping into when the baby 
boomers start retiring, and that is a surplus which we will start 
dipping into in 2018. To say that produces a crisis is to say that we 
lied to an entire generation of people when we increased the taxes in 
order to produce that surplus to dip into later. We will dip into that.
  Mr. Greenspan, of course, says it was fine to reduce taxes on the 
rich; and because we did that, we have a budget deficit. We cannot 
repay the bonds; and therefore we should reduce benefits starting in 
2018. That is simply thievery.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Hayworth) has 3 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Shaw) has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Florida has the 
right to close.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this 
amendment, and we need to take some time to take a look at what this 
totalization agreement is all about, and we need to make sure that the 
democratic process is brought to play when this becomes law or does not 
become law.
  The fact is the totalization agreement that we are talking about 
would,

[[Page 17894]]

 most likely, include illegal immigrants in our Social Security system. 
Let us make sure what that status is. If we have 5 million people from 
Mexico who come here and have been working illegally in our system, do 
we want to pay out Social Security to those illegal immigrants? We need 
to know the answers to that before we move forward.
  Those who are against this amendment would put us in a situation 
where we might wake up 6 months down the road and this totalization 
agreement would be law and we would never have had a chance to vote on 
it. Social Security is too important for the American people, and the 
idea of making illegal immigrants eligible for Social Security is too 
important for us to let it just go by and possibly have this come into 
law without even a vote on the floor.
  The American people ought to notice what is going on here today. We 
have seen health care in California go to hell. We have seen the school 
and education programs going to hell in California. We have seen our 
criminal justice going to hell, and now we want to take a risk with 
Social Security? People in California know that those illegal 
immigrants who are here, oh, yes, even if they are paying Social 
Security, they are taking that job away from an American citizen.
  Our senior citizens do not believe that Social Security should be 
provided to illegal immigrants. It will cost the Social Security 
billions and billions of dollars when this folly is done, and it will 
bankrupt the system.
  We need time to talk about it. We need time to get the calculations 
right. We know that in the past we have been given all sorts of 
statistics that have been wrong. Let us not gamble with Social 
Security. Let us watch out for our own people instead of illegal 
immigrants.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would say to the previous speaker that this in no way provides for 
Social Security payments to illegal workers.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Lincoln Diaz-Balart).
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in 
opposition to the amendment of my friend from Arizona.
  We have these totalization agreements with about 20 countries: 
Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Ireland, Netherlands, Norway, 
Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom. But even though this agreement is 
not yet approved by the Congress, it will, under regular order, be 
considered by the Congress.
  We are to then, under this amendment, outright reject by defunding an 
agreement with our neighbors to the south and Mexico, our largest 
trading partner? Why? I think it is incorrect; and I think that's 
unfortunate, perhaps unintentional, signals are being sent out by this 
amendment that we must be very wary of; and so it is important to focus 
on the facts, as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) has said.
  The law is not changed by this totalization agreement. Social 
Security benefit accounts will not be paid to undocumented workers. 
That is the fact. That is the law. I oppose this amendment, with 
respect to my friend from Arizona.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, to close out advocacy on this amendment, 
I yield the remaining minute to my friend, the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Hostettler).
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Hayworth 
amendment.
  As chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and 
Claims, I convened a hearing on this issue of totalization with Mexico 
on September 11, 2003.
  As a result of the troubling testimony received at that hearing, I 
asked the GAO to conduct a study on the possible effects of such an 
agreement. I wanted to make sure that any totalization agreement with 
Mexico does not drain tens or hundreds of billions of dollars out of 
the Social Security trust fund by paying benefits to aliens who are 
illegally present and working in the United States while at the same 
time we are fighting to keep the fund solvent to ensure benefits for 
American workers.
  Unfortunately, we know now that the Social Security Administration 
did not use an accurate actuarial basis for the proposed totalization 
agreement with Mexico. They did not account for the estimated millions 
of illegal aliens residing in this country, nor did they account for 
reported widespread fraud by these illegal workers using Social 
Security numbers belonging to others and ``not for employment'' 
numbers.
  The system cannot tolerate the burden of paying out to possibly 
millions of illegal workers. Protect the Social Security system and 
vote for the Hayworth amendment.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.
  There has been a lot said, and it is mostly about illegal immigrants, 
which has not a darn thing to do with the issue that is in front of us 
this evening.
  It would be a mistake for anybody to come down here to the floor and 
vote for this amendment, thinking that there is some way that without 
doing this that this is going to support illegal immigration. It does 
not have anything to do with this.
  This is a good deal for American workers. It is a good deal for 
American companies, and it is a good deal that the Congress oppose this 
particular legislation. Let the committee have a look at it. The 
committee is going to vet this thing. There is no question about it.
  The gentleman from Michigan who spoke earlier in the debate talked 
about how, if the Congress changes this and that, that then all of the 
sudden they are going to open the floodgates. I am sorry, we cannot 
pass legislation or pass amendments based upon what we think the 
Congress might do. I am talking about what the law is, and this has a 
negligible effect upon the trust fund, and the Congress should look at 
it.
  This issue is not before the Congress now. The timing is all wrong. 
The administration has to send this to the State Department and to the 
White House for approval, and then we have 60 legislative days in which 
to kill it, if that is what the Congress wants to; but we should look 
at it, and we should do it in regular order. We should not be doing it 
by trying to tie the hands of the government from enforcing something 
that has not even happened yet. That is just plain malarkey.
  Vote ``no'' on this amendment, and let the regular process go 
forward. It has nothing to do with illegal workers receiving Social 
Security benefits.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
Hayworth Amendment.
  I want to prevent the Social Security totalization agreement with 
Mexico from moving forward because it is a bad deal for Americans who 
rely on Social Security now and in the future.
  Since rumors first circulated that this agreement might be in the 
works, I have told the negotiators that it is a bad idea.
  Despite having met with me privately on this issue and heard my 
concerns, Social Security Commissioner Barnhart signed this agreement 
anyway.
  This agreement with Mexico is completely different in scope from our 
other totalization agreements. Primarily, we have an illegal 
immigration problem with Mexico that we don't have with the other 19 
countries. Coupled with the ill-considered immigration proposal from 
the Administration, this totalization agreement would wreck havoc on 
our already troubled Social Security system and is a recipe for 
disaster.
  There is hardly another issue that unites my constituents more than 
in opposition to this totalization agreement with Mexico. I urge my 
colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment to prevent the 
agreement from moving forward.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time for debate on this amendment has 
expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further

[[Page 17895]]

proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Hayworth) will be postponed.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Oberstar

  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

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

                  TITLE  ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS


  DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES PROGRAMS FOR PATIENTS WITH 
                        FATAL CHRONIC ILLNESSES

       (a) Establishment of Programs--The Secretary of Health and 
     Human Services shall carry out research, demonstration, and 
     education programs with respect to fatal chronic illness 
     through the Public Health Service.
       (b) Studies on End-of-Life Care--The Secretary shall 
     conduct studies on end-of-life care through all relevant 
     agencies and through the Assistant Secretary for Planning and 
     Evaluation. Such studies shall include an examination of the 
     development of practice parameters applicable to such care as 
     well as research regarding such care. Such studies shall also 
     include an annual report from the Secretary to the 
     appropriate committees for oversight in Congress and to the 
     Special Committee on Aging in the Senate on service delivery 
     and quality of life for persons living through fatal chronic 
     illness and their families and professional caregivers.
       (c) Health Resources and Services Administration--
       (1) In general--In carrying out subsection (a), the 
     Secretary, acting through the Administrator of the Health 
     Resources and Services Administration, shall carry out 
     research, demonstration, and education programs toward 
     improving the delivery of appropriate health and support 
     services for patients with fatal chronic illnesses.
       (2) Health centers--As determined appropriate by the 
     Secretary, paragraph (1) may be carried out through the 
     program under section 330 of the Public Health Service Act 
     (relating to community and migrant health centers and health 
     centers regarding homeless individuals and residents of 
     public housing), including by designating individuals with 
     fatal chronic illnesses as medically underserved populations.
       (3) Caregivers--Programs under paragraph (1) shall include 
     activities regarding appropriate support services for 
     caregivers for patients with fatal chronic illnesses, 
     including respite care.
       (4) Health professions training--Programs under paragraph 
     (1) shall include making awards of grants or contracts to 
     pubic and nonprofit private entities for the purpose of 
     training health professionals, including students attending 
     health processions schools, in the care of patients with 
     fatal chronic illnesses. Such training shall include training 
     in the provision of appropriate palliative care and 
     appropriate referral to hospices, and training provided as 
     continuing education.
       (5) Initiative--Programs under paragraph (1) shall include 
     an initiative to coordinate innovation, evaluation, and 
     service delivery relating to fatal chronic illnesses.
       (d) Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality--
       (1) In general--In carrying out section 912(c) of the Pubic 
     Health Service Act, the Secretary, acting through the 
     Director of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 
     shall, with respect to patients with fatal chronic 
     illnesses--
       (A) identify the causes of preventable health care errors 
     and patient injury in health care delivery, including errors 
     of inadequate mobilization of services to the home, 
     inadequate continuity of caregivers, inadequate symptom 
     prevention, management, and relief, or inadequate advance 
     care planning;
       (B) develop, demonstrate, and evaluate strategies for 
     reliable performance of the care system, including reducing 
     errors and improving patient safety and health outcomes; and
       (C) disseminate such effective strategies throughout the 
     health care industry.
       (2) Grants--in carrying out paragraph (1)(A), the Secretary 
     shall make grants for the purpose of developing reliable and 
     current data and insight as to the merits and efficiencies of 
     various strategies for providing health care, including 
     palliative and hospice care, and social services for patients 
     with fatal chronic illnesses.
       (e) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention--The 
     Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
     shall expand activities with respect to epidemiology and 
     public health in fatal chronic illness. Such activities may 
     include contracting with the Institute of Medicine or another 
     national interest non-profit organization to provide a review 
     of the status of care for the end of life, which review shall 
     be included by the Secretary in the annual reports to 
     Congress under subsection (h).
       (f) National Institutes of Health--
       (1) Expansion of activities--The Director of the National 
     Institutes of Health (in this subsection referred to as the 
     Director) shall expand, intensify, and coordinate the 
     activities of the National Institutes of Health with respect 
     to research on fatal chronic illness. Such activities shall 
     include programs, requests for proposals, study section 
     membership, advisory council membership, and training 
     programs to support rapid and substantial improvements in 
     understanding--
       (A) mechanisms of disability and suffering in fatal chronic 
     illness and the relief and management of that disability and 
     suffering through to end of life; and
       (B) human resource, service delivery arrangements, 
     technology, and financing that would be most useful in 
     ensuring comfort and dignity for individuals with fatal 
     chronic illness, and in relieving the burden for family and 
     professional caregivers.
       (2) Administration--the Director shall carry out this 
     subsection acting through the Directors of every Institute 
     within the National Institutes of Health that has at least 
     one fatal chronic illness in its purview.
       (3) Collaboration--In carrying out this subsection, the 
     Director of the National Institutes of Health shall 
     collaborate with the Department of Veterans Affairs, the 
     Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and any other 
     agency that the Director determines appropriate. The 
     Secretary of Veterans Affairs and the Director of the Agency 
     for Healthcare Research and Quality shall assist in such 
     collaboration.
       (4) Responsibilities of Institutes--Each Institute with the 
     National Institutes of Health that has fatal chronic illness 
     in its purview shall establish a plan for improving 
     understanding of the mechanisms of disability and suffering 
     in fatal chronic illness and the relief and management of 
     that disability and suffering through to end of life.
       Since most Americans now die of chronic heart or lung 
     failure, cancer, stroke, dementia, or multifactorial frailty, 
     each such institute shall develop and implement a strategic 
     plan and a set of projects that aim primarily to ensure that 
     affected patients and their families can live through 
     advanced illness and death comfortably and meaningfully.
       (5) Centers of Excellence--
       (A) In General--In carrying out paragraph (1), the Director 
     shall make awards of grants and contracts to public or 
     nonprofit private entities for the establishment and 
     operation of centers of excellence to carry out research, 
     demonstration, and education programs regarding fatal chronic 
     illness, including programs regarding palliative care.
       (B) Designation--In carrying out this subsection, the 
     Director shall designate at least 2 Claude D. Pepper Older 
     Americans Independence Centers (supported by the National 
     Institute on Aging), 2 program projects of the National, 
     Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, and 2 comprehensive cancer 
     centers (supported by the National Cancer Institute) to 
     provide education and information support and research data 
     and methods leadership for substantial and rapid improvements 
     in the understanding of the mechanisms of disability and 
     suffering in fatal chronic illness and the relief and 
     management of that disability and suffering through to the 
     end of life.
       (C) Research--Each center established or operated under 
     subparagraph (A) or designated under subparagraph (B) shall 
     conduct basic and clinical research into fatal chronic 
     illness.
       (D) Certain activities--The Secretary shall ensure that, 
     with respect to the geographic area in which a center of 
     excellence under subparagraph (A) is located, the activities 
     of the center include--
       (i) providing information and education regarding fatal 
     chronic illness to health professionals and the public;
       (ii) serving as a resource through which health 
     professionals, and patients and their caregivers, can plan 
     and coordinate the provision of health and support services 
     regarding fatal chronic illness; and
       (iii) providing training and support of implementation of 
     quality improvement.
       (g) Medicare Pilot Programs for Treatment of Fatal Chronic 
     Illnesses--
       (1) Establishment--The Secretary, in all relevant parts of 
     the Department of Health and Human Services, including the 
     Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and the Office of 
     the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, shall 
     provide for pilot programs under this subsection. The pilot 
     programs shall be developed under a coordinated national 
     effort in order to demonstrate innovative, effective means of 
     delivering care to Medicare beneficiaries with fatal chronic 
     illnesses under the Medicare program. The pilot programs 
     shall be completed within 5 years after the date that funds 
     are first appropriated under this subsection.
       (2) Design--The pilot programs under this subsection shall 
     be designed to learn how--
       (A) to effectively and efficiently deliver quality care to 
     the fatally chronically ill;
       (B) to provide and maintain continuity of care for the 
     fatally chronically ill;
       (C) to provide advance care planning to the fatally 
     chronically ill;
       (D) to determine what rate and strategies for payment are 
     most appropriate;
       (E) to deliver emergency care for the fatally chronically 
     ill;

[[Page 17896]]

       (F) to facilitate access to hospice care when the Medicare 
     beneficiary becomes eligible for such care;
       (G) to develop and estimate the effect of potential 
     alternative severity criteria for eligibility of specially 
     tailored programs;
       (H) to test the effectiveness and costs of new strategies 
     for family caregivers support;
       (I) to implement a clinical services and payment program 
     that uses thresholds of severity to define the onset of the 
     need for comprehensive end-of-life services;
       (J) to test the merits of using severity criteria (relating 
     to fatal chronic illness) in determining eligibility for the 
     Medicare hospice program, but only when use of such criteria 
     expands access to hospice care to individuals who are not yet 
     terminally ill (as that term is defined at section 
     1861(dd)(3)(A) of the Social Security Act); and
       (K) to arrange financial incentives so that substantially 
     diminished payments arise when care providers fail to ensure 
     timely advance care planning, symptom prevention, management, 
     and relief, or continuity of care across time and settings.
       (3) Conduct of pilot programs--The Secretary shall conduct 
     pilot programs in at least 6 sites and in at least 3 States.
       (4) Report to congress--the Secretary shall submit to 
     Congress a report on the pilot programs under this 
     subsection. Such report shall include recommendations 
     regarding whether the pilot programs should become a 
     permanent part of the Medicare program.
       (h) Annual Reports--The Secretary, in consultation with the 
     Secretary of Veterans Affairs and other appropriate Federal 
     agencies, shall submit an annual report to Congress on end-
     of-life care an on the research, demonstration, and education 
     programs and studies conducted under this section. The 
     Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shall be the lead 
     agency for integrating and preparing the annual reports under 
     this subsection unless the Secretary designates otherwise.
       (i) Definitions--For purposes of this section:
       (1) The term `fatal chronic illness' means a disease (or 
     diseases), condition (or conditions), or disorder (or 
     disorders) that ordinarily worsens and causes death and that 
     causes a physical or mental disability or periodic episodes 
     of significant loss of functional capacity.
       (2) The term `Secretary' means the Secretary of Health and 
     Human Services.
       (j) Authorization of Appropriations--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated--
       (1) such sums as may be necessary to carry out subsections 
     (a), (b), (c), and (f);
       (2) $50,000,000 for the 5-fiscal-year period (beginning 
     with fiscal year 2004) to carry out subsection (c), excluding 
     paragraph (5) of that subsection;
       (3) $100,000,000 for the 3-fiscal-year period (beginning 
     with fiscal year 2004) to carry out subsection (c)(5);
       (4) $20,000,000 for the 5-fiscal-year period (beginning 
     with fiscal year 2004) to carry out subsection (d);
       (5) to carry out subsection (g) for each of fiscal years 
     2003 through 2007--
       (A) $50,000,000 for the purposes of conducting evaluations 
     of pilot programs; and
       (B) $50,000,000 for the purpose of providing clinical 
     services under pilot programs; and
       (6) $500,000 for each fiscal year during the 5-fiscal-year 
     period beginning with fiscal year 2004 to carry out 
     subsection (h).

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
today, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and a Member opposed 
each will control 5 minutes on the amendment.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I just want to reserve a point of order. I 
understand that the plan is to withdraw the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) 
reserves a point of order on the amendment.
  The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula). I 
acknowledge that the point of order would lie against the amendment. I 
appreciate the opportunity to discuss my amendment and then 
subsequently to withdraw that amendment.
  The purpose of this amendment is to address an issue that few of us 
want to talk about, but which all of us are going to face in some way 
or another, and that is, end-of-life care. We are all getting there, 
and this amendment would do five things. It is derived from a bill I 
introduced last year that would do five things.
  It would provide grants through NIH to train health care 
professionals in the care of patients with fatal, chronic illness. It 
would direct the NIH to expand and to intensify research on fatal, 
chronic illnesses. Three, it would establish pilot programs under 
Medicare to improve delivery of care and continuity of care for end-of-
life considerations. Four, it would provide funds for advanced care 
planning; and, five, facilitate access to hospice care when that 
becomes necessary at the end-of-the-life decision.
  Why is this an important issue? Well, frankly, it is an issue that my 
wife, Jean, and I have discussed around the dinner table. We have both 
lost spouses who succumbed at a very unusually and unanticipated age to 
cancer. We both attended to frail and disabled parents. We all have 
friends who have been in the same position. As the baby boom generation 
reaches older age, the number of people facing serious illness and 
death is going to double over the next 25 years.
  Second, 28 percent of Medicare's budget over the last few years has 
been spent caring for the last few years, in many cases the last few 
months of life. Who are there to provide these services? These are 
family members. The value of the services that family care-givers 
provide in a sense for free is estimated in excess of $250 billion a 
year.
  Third, there are a number of professionals in the health care field 
who do not get training in the course of their medical education in 
palliative care, in end-of-life decision-making with families.
  We need to do a better job of training our health care professionals. 
We need to do a better job of preparing families for end-of-life care 
decision-making.
  We have to acknowledge that Americans are living longer. The fastest 
growing age group in our society is people over age 85. Half of them 
need some help with personal care. We should be doing a better job with 
our NIH resources to help families, to help health care professionals, 
to help patients themselves to deal with fatal, chronic illness, the 
end-of-life care decisions.
  That is simply what this amendment would do, provide those resources. 
I take this opportunity to discuss the issue in this detail so that 
next year when we come back into session again, this bill will be 
reintroduced and will have an opportunity for a broader discussion and 
legislative action, to bring to the floor legislation that will be 
meaningful, implement these recommendations and then be eligible for 
the funding that I requested and set forth in the legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Minnesota?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1745


                 Amendment Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The Clerk will designate 
the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. King of Iowa:
       At the end of the bill (but before the short title), insert 
     the following new section:
       Sec. ___. None of the funds made available under this Act 
     to the Department of Education may be expended in 
     contravention of section 505 of the Illegal Immigration 
     Reform and Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1623).

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
today, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes on the amendment.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment today to enforce existing 
Federal law that requires any State providing illegal aliens instate 
tuition discounts to provide these discounts to all students, 
regardless of State of residence. In other words, all legal students 
get no less tuition discount than illegal students.
  That is existing law. But my amendment would not allow any Department 
of Education funds to be spent in violation of existing Federal law; 
namely,

[[Page 17897]]

section 505 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Responsibility Act of 
1996. It simply seeks to enforce existing law.
  There are approximately 12 States that have adopted a policy that 
they would give instate tuition breaks to illegal aliens as students, 
and yet students that might live within sight of the State border and 
not be residents of that State, would pay out-of-State tuition costs. 
That would then necessarily entail that citizens of the United States, 
people who lived in the neighborhood and in the region, would pay out-
of-State tuition while illegal aliens would get instate tuition breaks. 
That would be in violation of this section of the 1996 Immigration Act, 
and I seek to tighten that up with this simple amendment that is 
consistent with current law.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, 
although I will not oppose the amendment.
  It is my understanding this is a State issue, but that we are 
prepared to accept it because the Department of Education is in 
compliance. They are not doing anything to violate the section 505.
  I do not think it is necessary we have this. It really is something 
the States deal with in the funding of their higher education programs. 
So under those circumstances, we are prepared to accept the amendment.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume to thank the gentleman, the chairman, for his cooperation on 
this issue.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to 
Congressman Steve King's amendment to the Labor-HHS-Education 
Appropriations bill, H.R. 5006. This amendment would prohibit any funds 
from being spent by the Department of Education in violation of Section 
505 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 
U.S.C. 1623)(IIRIRA). Section 505 of IIRIRA prohibits states from 
giving in-state tuition unless they provide in-state rates to all U.S. 
citizens under the same conditions.
  The States have responded by offering in-state tuition based not on 
residency but on having attended school in the state and graduated from 
high school there. These states are thus in compliance with section 
505. Congressman King's amendment would not stop that practice, but it 
would make it more difficult for children in other states to afford a 
college education. This is a serious barrier for undocumented students, 
as they are also ineligible for any publicly-funded financial aid.
  The real issue is whether children who have lived in the United 
States and been educated here should be able to afford a college 
education even if they were brought here illegally by their parents. 
Even though they had no say in the decision, our laws force them to 
suffer the consequences of their parents' actions.
  The consequence of this policy is that our country will punish 
innocent children and foster an increase in the unskilled, 
undereducated workforce, which will be accompanied by increased 
spending on social service programs, higher rates of crime, and 
decreased opportunities for a higher quality of life. Who benefits from 
such a policy?
  We all suffer when good students in our communities are prevented 
from completing their education and reaching their full potential. We 
suffer because we are deprived of future contributors and leaders who 
could help stimulate economic growth and social richness. We suffer 
because children who might have been scientists, nurses, teachers, or 
engineers are forced, instead, to exist in a legal limbo.
  I urge you to vote against this amendment.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. John

  Mr. JOHN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. John:
       Page 105, after line 16, insert the following section:
       Sec. _. Of the amount made available in title II for the 
     account ``Office of the Secretary--General Departmental 
     Management'', $100,000,000 is transferred and made available 
     under the account in such title ``Centers for Disease Control 
     and Prevention--Disease Control, Research, and Training'' for 
     carrying out the program under section 317S of the Public 
     Health Service Act (as added by Public Law 108-75).

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
today, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. John) and a Member opposed 
each will control 5 minutes on this amendment.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. John).
  Mr. JOHN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
although I will not take all 5 minutes. But I did think it was 
important for me to come here and talk about this amendment to this 
legislation.
  I am offering this amendment, and I have worked with the ranking 
member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), and also the chairman, 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), about trying to work through this 
in conference, but I thought it was very important that we talk just a 
little bit about this piece of legislation.
  The amendment that I have at the desk is an amendment today to fully 
fund a piece of legislation that was passed out of this body last year 
and that was signed by the President of the United States. It is called 
the Mosquito Abatement for Safety and Health Act, the MASH Act. The 
MASH Act has the support of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) 
and also Senator Gregg, who have joined together to support this piece 
of legislation along with the National Association of Counties.
  This amendment offers protection for our constituents from mosquito-
borne diseases like the West Nile virus. This year alone, Mr. Chairman, 
over 1,100 human cases of the West Nile virus have popped up, and over 
30 deaths have been reported in all but three States and the District 
of Columbia. Last year alone, this country faced over 9,800 human cases 
and 264 deaths from the West Nile virus which is spreading across our 
country.
  Of course, countless Americans, mainly our young and our elderly, are 
very susceptible to the West Nile virus, but it can be kept under 
control.
  I guess many of us outside of the deep South consider that Labor Day 
has passed and that summer is over, so the mosquitoes go away. But I 
can tell my colleagues that the infected mosquitoes are continuing to 
spread well into the months of November and even into some of December.
  What this piece of legislation does is establish a one-time matching 
grant through the CDC, Center for Disease Control, to enable counties 
to begin to improve their mosquito abatement programs. Funds can be 
used for laboratory equipment, purchase of equipment, conduct outreach, 
educational programs, the kinds of things we need to do to protect our 
constituents from mosquitoes and this bad disease.
  Currently the CDC offers some educational programs, but they do not 
have real assistance to our counties and to our parishes to make sure 
that we have the proper funds. Abatement programs are handled through 
the local government in many instances. So the Federal Government, I 
believe, because of the West Nile virus and it being spread throughout 
the whole continental United States, needs to get involved in this to 
protect our constituents.
  I certainly would ask both the chairman and the ranking member to 
work through this in conference committee, because I feel that this is 
not just a Louisiana problem, it is certainly a national problem. And I 
am prepared to withdraw the amendment at the proper time.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman's concern. We have the same 
concern, and we will do as much as we can in conference. This is a 
serious problem, and we have put $42 million in CDC to combat West Nile 
virus, which is an increase over last year, but more needs to be done.

[[Page 17898]]

  I commend the gentleman for bringing this issue to our attention. And 
as I understand, the gentleman is going to withdraw his amendment, but 
we will be sensitive to it.
  Mr. Chairman, I might say for the benefit of Members that are 
watching, I believe this is the last amendment, so we should be able to 
wrap up here pretty fast, for those who have planes or whatever.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to assure the gentleman 
of my agreement with his comments. I think that we have become 
incredibly arrogant in assuming that we have conquered these virus-
borne diseases and other communicable diseases. In fact, we are 
learning that we are going to be facing a whole new generation of 
threats to public health, and I think even with this additional money 
in the bill, there needs to be much, much more.
  Mr. JOHN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
thank both the ranking member and also the chairman for working on this 
with me. This is a new disease, and we do not know much about it. This 
can go a long way in understanding and gaining some information and 
education about it and also in stopping the spread of this disease.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Louisiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to explain to the House why there will not 
be a recommittal motion.
  Mr. Chairman, I voted to report this bill from subcommittee and full 
committee to the House in order to give the House an opportunity to 
make some hard choices, but I had frankly expected to vote against the 
bill for all of the reasons listed in the minority views in the 
committee report beginning on page 281, and I submit for the Record at 
this point the minority views signed onto by the Democratic members of 
the subcommittee which outline in some detail what we consider to be 
the shortcomings of this bill.

 MINORITY VIEWS OF THE HONORABLE DAVID OBEY, STENY HOYER, NITA LOWEY, 
 ROSA DeLAURO, JESSE JACKSON, JR., PATRICK KENNEDY, AND LUCILLE ROYBAL-
                                 ALLARD

       While this bill is a modest improvement over the 
     President's budget request, it fails to meet America's needs 
     in education, health care, medical research, and human 
     services. The bill's inadequacies, however, are not the fault 
     of the Committee or Chairman Regula. This bill's shortcomings 
     are the direct and foreseeable result of the Majority's 
     reckless FY 2005 budget resolution which, as with each of the 
     budgets the Majority produced over the past three years, 
     abandons fiscal discipline, mortgages our nation's future, 
     and makes impossible critical investments that benefit all 
     Americans. It is the product of the skewed priorities of the 
     Majority, who value super-sized tax cuts for our wealthiest 
     and most privileged citizens over honoring our commitments 
     and protecting our most vulnerable citizens.
       Even when provided with an opportunity to change course, 
     the Majority held rigidly to its failed budget blueprint. 
     Earlier this year, the Majority rejected a Democratic 
     alternative to the FY 2005 budget that was fiscally 
     responsible and allowed a greater investment in education, 
     health care, and many other critical priorities. Then, on 
     June 24, the Majority defeated a Democratic resolution to 
     revise the budget resolution that would have made a greater 
     investment in education, training, and health by modestly 
     scaling back tax cuts for those with annual incomes of $1 
     million or more.
       Given the Majority Party's misguided budgetary choices, 
     shortfalls in appropriations are inevitable. In fact, the 
     Labor-HHS-Education Subcommittee received a relatively good 
     share of an inadequate total, allowing an increase of about 
     $3 billion above the current year. That increase was largely 
     allocated to a few areas: providing $1 billion increases for 
     two high-priority education programs, keeping up with rising 
     costs in the Pell Grant program, partially covering increased 
     research costs at NIH, and funding the administrative 
     expenses of the Social Security Administration.
       After doing these things, the subcommittee had more than 
     exhausted the additional funds it was allocated above the FY 
     2004 level. Consequently, other priorities in the bill had to 
     be cut.


                 education--not at the top of the class

       Next year, K-12 and higher education enrollments will again 
     reach record levels. Nearly 55 million students will attend 
     the nation's elementary and secondary schools--4 million more 
     students than in 1995. Full-time college enrollment will 
     reach 16.7 million students--14 percent more than a decade 
     ago.
       At the same time that schools are serving more students, 
     the stakes are raised higher by the mandates of the No Child 
     Left Behind Act (NCLB). During the 2005 school year, schools 
     must actually test each student in grades 3-8 in reading and 
     math or face federal sanctions. Student achievement must 
     improve. And, every teacher of a core academic subject must 
     become ``highly qualified.''
       Against the backdrop of record school enrollments, 
     unprecedented Federal education accountability requirements, 
     and rising demand for college assistance, the Committee bill 
     fails to match these growing demands with sufficient 
     resources. The bill provides a $2.0 billion (3.6 percent) 
     increase over FY 2004 for the Department of Education's 
     discretionary programs, continuing a downward slide in new 
     discretionary education investments under the Bush 
     Administration.
     No Child Left Behind
       While all 50 states and 15,500 school districts are 
     striving to address NCLB's worthy goals, money remains short 
     in many schools. Nonetheless, the Committee bill actually 
     cuts NCLB funding $120 million below the Administration's 
     request, while providing only $328 million (1.3 percent) more 
     than FY 2004. In total, the bill provides $9.5 billion less 
     than the funding promised in NCLB.
       Fully funding Title 1--which serves low-income children in 
     schools with the greatest educational challenges--is the 
     centerpiece of federal education reform efforts. Title 1 
     grants to school districts receive a $1 billion (8.1 percent) 
     increase in the Committee bill, the same amount as the 
     President's request. Despite this needed increase, Title 1 
     appropriations in FY 2005 would still fall $7.2 billion short 
     of the NCLB funding promise--accounting for most of the total 
     $9.5 billion NCLB shortfall in the Committee bill.
       A key concept in NCLB is that students who are falling 
     behind are able to receive tutoring and a broad array of 
     enrichment services in school and community-based after 
     school centers. Yet the Committee bill freezes funding for 
     21st Century Community Learning Centers at $999 million--only 
     half of the $2.0 billion authorized by NCLB. At the $2.0 
     billion level, an additional 1.3 million children could be 
     served in such communities as Davenport, Iowa, Columbus, 
     Ohio, Greenville, South Carolina, and Salt Lake City, Utah, 
     all of which are struggling to keep existing after school 
     centers open to serve children in working families.
       The Committee bill freezes funding at last year's levels 
     for several programs that are important to the success of 
     NCLB. For example, English language learning assistance for 
     more than 5 million children who must learn to read and speak 
     English is frozen at $681 million, the second year in a row--
     even while these children must meet the same rigorous 
     academic standards as all other children. About 6,500 rural 
     school districts will see their Rural Educational Achievement 
     Program grants level funded at $168 million, in the 
     aggregate; despite the difficulty they face in recruiting and 
     retaining teachers. In addition, investments in school 
     violence prevention, substance abuse prevention and school 
     safety activities are frozen at $595 million, nearly 10 
     percent less than the safe and drug-free schools funding 
     level three years ago.
       The Committee bill makes only modest investments in a few 
     areas. For example, it provides a $63 million net increase 
     for teacher training in math and science instruction (after 
     accounting for an offsetting reduction in NSF support). It 
     provides 1,300 school districts located on or near military 
     bases and other federal facilities a $21 million (1.7 
     percent) increase under the Impact Aid program. Further, it 
     rejects the Administration's proposal to cut vocational and 
     career education by $316 million and, instead, provides an 
     increase to offset inflation.
       These modest increases, however, are offset by deep 
     reductions in other education initiatives, including the 
     outright elimination of 22 programs. For example, the 
     Committee bill wipes out the Title VI education block grant, 
     although the Administration proposed to continue its flexible 
     funding of nearly $300 million to help the nation's school 
     districts pay for locally identified needs, such as up-to-
     date instructional materials, counseling services, and 
     parental involvement activities. Moreover, arts education, 
     teacher training to improve American history instruction, 
     drop out prevention, K-12 foreign language assistance, and 
     community technology centers to bridge the digital divide in 
     low-income communities--all priority activities reauthorized 
     in NCLB--are terminated. Because of budget constraints, the 
     bill even denies over $100 million in education initiatives 
     requested by the President.

[[Page 17899]]


     Special education
       President Bush's Commission on Excellence in Special 
     Education concluded, ``children with disabilities remain 
     those most at risk of being left behind.'' The Committee bill 
     makes progress in fulfilling federal commitments in special 
     education by providing a $1 billion (9.9 percent) increase 
     over FY 2004 for IDEA Part B State Grants, the same amount as 
     the President's request. Under the Committee bill, the 
     federal contribution toward special education costs incurred 
     by the nation's schools will increase from 18.7 percent in FY 
     2004 to 19.8 percent in FY 2005. Nonetheless, the Committee 
     bill falls $2.5 billion short of the $13.6 billion promised 
     last year by the Majority party when it passed H.R. 1350, the 
     IDEA reauthorization bill.
     College assistance
       In today's increasingly technological society, a college 
     education is essential for a good-paying job. For low- and 
     moderate-income families, however, the task of sending a 
     child to college--which has never been easy--is now a 
     daunting challenge, given an average 26 percent tuition 
     increase in the last two years at 4-year public colleges and 
     universities.
       The Committee bill, however, makes little progress in 
     making college more affordable for disadvantaged students. 
     The bill freezes the maximum Pell Grant for low-income 
     college students at $4,050 for the second year in a row, 
     freezes College Work Study assistance, and cuts Perkins Loans 
     by $99 million below last year's level.
       College students will receive help with dramatically rising 
     tuition bills only through a $24 million (3.1 percent) 
     increase for Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants 
     (SEOGs), and a restoration of the $66 million LEAP grants for 
     state need-based student financial assistance programs, which 
     the Administration sought to eliminate.


                investing less in america's labor force

       For the Department of Labor's employment and training 
     assistance programs for unemployed Americans, the Committee 
     bill invests $236 million less than the Administration's 
     request and $40 million less than last year, despite a loss 
     of 1.8 million private sector jobs since President Bush took 
     office.
       While the Committee bill provides a $25 million (1.7 
     percent) increase over FY 2004 to assist dislocated workers 
     affected by mass layoffs, it denies 80 percent of the 
     Administration's $250 million request for the Community 
     College technical training initiative and eliminates the $90 
     million prisoner re-entry initiative due to budget 
     constraints. The bill shaves the Administration's proposed 
     2.8 percent increase for salaries and other operating costs 
     for Job Corps, the highly successful initiative that helps 
     hard-core disadvantaged and unemployed youth, to a 1.8 
     percent increase over FY 2004.
       Unemployment remains unacceptably high with 8.0 million 
     Americans out of work; however, the Committee bill actually 
     cuts assistance for individuals seeking jobs through the 
     Employment Service, a building block for the nation's one-
     stop employment services delivery system. State Employment 
     Service funding is cut to $696 million, a 10 percent 
     reduction below FY 2004 and the lowest level in more than 10 
     years. The Committee bill also rescinds $100 million in prior 
     funding, as requested by the Administration, for the H-1B 
     training grants that help train Americans in high-skill, 
     high-wage jobs and reduce the nation's reliance on foreign 
     workers.
       Further, funding to promote international labor standards 
     and combat abusive child labor will be eviscerated with a 68 
     percent cut in the Committee bill, which adds only $5 million 
     to the Administration's request. The $35.5 million provided 
     in the bill includes only $16 million for child labor 
     projects compared with the $82 million allocated in FY 2004.


       falling short of the promise of a safe and healthy nation

       For the health-related programs of the Department of HHS, 
     the Committee's bill falls short of what is needed to 
     maintain the health care safety net, protect the public 
     health, and advance medical research.
       The measure does substantially increase funding for 
     Community Health Centers, expand a Global Disease Detection 
     initiative at CDC, and provide modest increases for AIDS drug 
     assistance and chronic disease prevention programs. In some 
     respects it is an improvement over the President's budget--it 
     rejects the Administration's proposal to cut bio-terrorism 
     preparedness assistance to health departments and hospitals, 
     and reduces the President's proposed cuts in rural health and 
     health professions programs.
       However, a number of health programs are still cut below 
     the current-year level by the Committee bill. Examples 
     include the Healthy Communities Access Program, several rural 
     health programs, some health professions training programs 
     (especially those related to primary care and public health), 
     and block grants for public health services. A large number 
     of other programs have their funding frozen, often for the 
     second or third year in a row. These freezes, while health 
     care costs and the number of people needing assistance are 
     continuing to increase, mean real erosion in the health care 
     safety net and public health protection.
        The Committee bill terminates the Healthy 
     Communities Access Program (HCAP), which makes grants to 
     local consortia of hospitals, health centers, and other 
     providers to build better integrated systems of care for the 
     uninsured. This means that roughly 70 communities will lose 
     their existing three-year grants and about 35 new grants will 
     not be made.
        Rural Health Outreach Grants--which support 
     primary health care, dental health, mental health, and 
     telemedicine projects--are cut by 24 percent. Grants to 
     improve small rural hospitals are cut in half, funding to 
     help rural communities acquire the defibrillators that can 
     save the lives of heart attack victims are cut by more than 
     half, and a small new program to help improve emergency 
     medical services in rural areas is eliminated.
        Apart from grants to Health Centers, the bill 
     continues to slow erosion of most other health care programs. 
     The Maternal and Child Health Block Grant is funded slightly 
     below its level of three years earlier, with no increase for 
     rising health care costs, population or anything else. These 
     grants help support prenatal care and health and dental 
     services for low-income children, and assist children with 
     disabilities and other special health care needs. The 
     National Health Service Corps--which helps bring doctors and 
     dentists into under-served areas--receives a bit less than in 
     FY 2003. The Ryan White AIDS Care programs (other than drug 
     assistance) is also slightly under its FY 2003 level (while 
     the number of AIDS patients has been rising by about 7 
     percent per year), and the Title X family planning program is 
     just 1.8 percent above FY 2003.
        Support for training in primary care medicine and 
     dentisty--which is targeted to increasing the number of 
     doctors and dentists in rural and other underserved areas--is 
     cut 22 percent below the current year by the bill. Support 
     for training in public health and preventive medicine is cut 
     24 percent, despite the difficulties that public health 
     departments are having recruiting and retaining qualified 
     professionals.
        The Committee bill does include a small, $5 
     million (3.5 percent) increase for nurse education and 
     training programs. While a step in the right direction, it 
     pales in comparison to the national commitment envisioned 
     under the Nurse Reinvestment Act, which was aimed at stemming 
     the looming nursing shortage.
        CDC's childhood immunization program receives a 
     small but welcome $11 million increase in the Committee bill. 
     However, the bill's FY 2005 level is just 3.4 percent above 
     FY 2002 while the cost to immunize a child with all 
     recommended vaccines will have increased 18.5 percent.
        Also in CDC, although the bill roughly doubles an 
     important Global Disease Detection initiative, funding for 
     ongoing domestic activities to control and respond to 
     infectious diseases like West Nile Virus, SARS and the flu 
     are increased by just 1.1 percent.
        The Committee bill makes a 17.5 percent cut in 
     basic support to state and local health departments through 
     the Preventive Health and Health Services Block Grant. This 
     funding is used for a range of priorities, from health 
     screening to immunization to control of chronic diseases like 
     diabetes and asthma to basic epidemiological investigations 
     and public health laboratory operations.
       For the National Institutes of Health, the Committee bill 
     is identical to the Administration's budget request. It 
     provides an increase of 2.6 percent--which is the smallest in 
     19 years and significantly less than the 3.5 percent needed 
     to cover estimated inflation in biomedical research costs. 
     Although the Administration says that its budget (and hence 
     the Committee bill) would produce a small increase in the 
     number of new and re-competing research project grants--
     reversing a decrease that is occurring in FY 2004--it 
     achieves that result only by assuming unusually tight limits 
     on the average size of research grants, including cuts to 
     ongoing research projects below previously committed levels. 
     If grant amounts were instead allowed to increase at normal 
     rates, the number of new grants would decrease for the second 
     year in a row. Many Members have been circulating letters to 
     the Committee urging additional funding to accelerate 
     research into diseases like Parkinson's or Alzheimer's or 
     cancer. Many of the Members of Congress who have signed such 
     letters in fact voted for the Republican budget resolution 
     which has made it impossible for the committee to provide 
     funding levels requested in such letters. At the funding 
     level in the Committee bill, such increases simply are not 
     possible.


               helping america's most vulnerable citizens

       For the human services side of the Department of HHS, the 
     Committee bill includes increases for Low-Income Home Energy 
     Assistance (LIHEAP), Refugee Assistance, Head Start, 
     Abstinence-only Sex Education, and some programs of the 
     Administration on Aging. It also rejects most (but not all) 
     of the cut in the Community Services Block Grant proposed by 
     the President. On the whole, however, the bill's human 
     services appropriations fall short of what is needed.
       For LIHEAP, the Committee added $111 million above FY 2004, 
     as proposed by the President. However, this barely does more 
     than reverse a decrease that occurred last

[[Page 17900]]

     year. Sharply higher energy prices combined with cold winters 
     have increased the need for LIHEAP. These same conditions 
     have also led to growing need for the Energy Department's 
     Weatherization Assistance Program (which was recently 
     transferred to the Labor-HHS bill). However, the bill 
     includes no increase at all for Weatherization, rejecting the 
     $64 million addition proposed by the President.
       The Child Care Block Grant has its funding essentially 
     frozen for the third year in a row under the Committee's 
     bill, meaning a real reduction in help for working families. 
     Appropriations for Head Start are $45 million less than the 
     amount proposed by the President. Overall funding for the 
     Administration on Aging is up by 2.2 percent. However, this 
     follows two years of even smaller increases, leaving the FY 
     2005 figure just 4.0 percent above its level three years 
     earlier.

                       The Democratic Alternative

       The demands of the war on terrorism, the conflict in Iraq, 
     homeland security needs, and a sluggish economy require a 
     pragmatic and responsible approach to America's budget. Yet, 
     even with all these competing needs and challenges, this 
     bill's shortcomings were not fated.
       The budget alternatives that Democrats offered earlier this 
     year--including the package of budget resolution revisions 
     that the House considered on June 24--would have allowed this 
     Committee to make a greater investment in education, health 
     care, medical research, and other pressing needs. Our budget 
     alternatives were also fiscally responsible; they would have 
     provided for these national needs and reduced the deficit by 
     modestly reducing tax cuts for those with annual incomes 
     above $1 million.
       When this bill was considered by subcommittee and by the 
     full Appropriations Committee, amendments were offered 
     mirroring the Labor-HHS-Education portion of the Democratic 
     budget proposal. These amendments would have added $7.4 
     billion to the bill, paid for by 30 percent reduction in the 
     2005 tax cuts for people with incomes over $1 million. 
     Instead of tax cuts averaging about $127,000, this top-income 
     group would have their tax cuts reduced to an average of 
     $89,000. Regrettably, these amendments were defeated on party 
     line votes. Had they been adopted, we could:
        Invest $1.5 billion more in Title I instruction to 
     help an additional 500,000 low-income and minority children 
     in the poorest communities succeed in school;
        Invest $200 million more in after school centers 
     so that an additional 267,000 children, who are responsible 
     for taking care of themselves after school each day, have a 
     safe and nurturing place to go after school;
        Invest $1.2 billion more to subsidize the high 
     costs of educating 6.9 million children with disabilities;
        Provide a $450 increase in the maximum Pell Grant 
     for students with the greatest financial need, and begin to 
     restore its purchasing power for more than 5 million low-
     income students;
        Assist an additional 51,000 teachers improve their 
     instructional skills to become highly qualified under NCLB; 
     and
        Ensure that 2,500 low-performing schools receive 
     the assistance they were promised to implement effective, 
     comprehensive reforms to raise their academic performance.
       In the area of workforce training, the Democratic amendment 
     would have provided an additional $200 million to support 
     training and job placement services for more jobless 
     Americans. And, it would have fully restored funding to 
     combat child labor and promote workers' rights around the 
     world, which in turn would have helped workers here at home.
       On the health and human services side, the Democratic 
     amendment would have allowed us to provide more help to the 
     45 million people without health care, maintain momentum in 
     biomedical research, and restore some of the lost purchasing 
     power in key human services programs. For example, the 
     amendment would do the following:
        Maintain the Healthy Communities Access Program, 
     rather than terminating it as under the Committee bill, and 
     add some funds to make up for lost ground in programs like 
     the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant, Family Planning, 
     and Community Mental Health Block Grant.
        Avoid any cuts in health professions training 
     programs, add $20 million to the National Health Service 
     Corps to get more doctors and dentists into underserved rural 
     and inner city areas, and add $35 million to Nurse 
     Reinvestment Act programs to help stem the nursing shortage 
     by providing more scholarships for nursing students and more 
     support for nursing schools.
        Eliminate the proposed cuts in rural health 
     programs, and add an additional $19 million to better support 
     rural health clinics, hospitals and emergency services.
        Provide $50 million to help meet some of the most 
     urgent unmet needs for dental care, through grants for rural 
     dental clinics, scholarships and student loan repayment 
     arrangements for dentists who locate in underserved areas, 
     and grants and low-interest loans to help dentists who agree 
     to participate in Medicaid establish and expand practices in 
     areas with dental shortages.
        Add $500 million to the budget of the National 
     Institutes of Health--enough to provide a full inflation 
     adjustment, renew all ongoing research grants, and restore 
     the number of new grants to the FY 2003 level. This would 
     help maintain momentum in research to find better treatments 
     for diseases like cancer, Parkinson's disease, and 
     Alzheimer's.
        Provide $50 million more for child immunization, 
     to help catch up with rising vaccine costs, and also add $50 
     million to other infectious disease control efforts at CDC 
     (including those aimed at HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and 
     sexually transmitted diseases).
        Add $200 million to the Low-Income Home Energy 
     Assistance Program to help keep up with rising needs. Between 
     the 2002 and 2004 winter heating seasons, average home 
     heating costs rose 50 percent for natural gas users and 54 
     percent for users of fuel oil. As energy prices rise and the 
     economy remains weak, the number of households seeking 
     assistance is rising, but the program still serves only about 
     14 percent of the eligible population.
       Provide an additional $70 million for senior citizens' 
     programs of the Administration on Aging, including Meals on 
     Wheels and other nutrition programs.
       Budgets are as much about America's values are they are 
     about dollars and cents. By prioritizing massive tax cuts for 
     the wealthiest among us, House Republicans have once again 
     rejected traditional American values of shared sacrifice in 
     difficult times and equal opportunity for all Americans. The 
     Majority's priorities will mean less opportunity through 
     education and job training, decreased access to health care 
     in rural and other underserved areas, and a nation that is 
     less caring toward its most vulnerable children, families, 
     and senior citizens.
       The decisions that have led to this unhappy situation have, 
     in fact, already been made by the Republican majority members 
     who have voted for the Republican budget resolution and 
     against our efforts to modify it. This bill is the inevitable 
     unhappy result of those decisions. The only way to achieve a 
     more favorable final outcome is for this bill to move to 
     conference with the Senate and be greatly altered to produce 
     a more responsible result.

     David Obey.
     Steny Hoyer.
     Nita Lowey.
     Rosa L. DeLauro.
     Jesse L. Jackson, Jr.
     Patrick J. Kennedy.
     Lucille Roybal-Allard.

[[Page 17901]]

     
     


[[Page 17902]]



[[Page 17903]]



[[Page 17904]]



[[Page 17905]]



[[Page 17906]]

      

[[Page 17907]]

 MINORITY VIEWS OF THE HONORABLE DAVID OBEY, STENY HOYER, NITA LOWEY, 
 ROSA DeLAURO, JESSE JACKSON, JR., PATRICK KENNEDY, AND LUCILLE ROYBAL-
           ALLARD ON THE ADMINISTRATION'S OVERTIME REGULATION

       The Administration is poised--in a few short weeks--to 
     implement the most sweeping, anti-worker revision of the Fair 
     Labor Standards Act (FLSA) since its inception in 1938. The 
     overtime pay requirements of the FLSA, which guarantee for 
     most workers ``time and a half'' pay for hours worked beyond 
     a standard 40-hour work week, are one of the nation's bedrock 
     worker protections. The FLSA's overtime provisions cover 
     approximately 115 million workers--about 85 percent of the 
     nation's workforce.
       On August 23rd, 2004, the Department of Labor's final 
     overtime regulations (redefining who is considered a 
     professional, administrative, or executive employee and 
     thereby exempt from overtime pay) are slated to go into 
     effect, giving employers a huge windfall taken right out of 
     employees' paychecks. On the eve of Labor Day, more than 6 
     million Americans soon will be getting less pay for their 
     labors courtesy of the Bush Administration.
       This anti-worker regulation is just the latest attack on 
     America's workers by this Administration. Since President 
     Bush entered office, 1.8 million private sector jobs have 
     been lost. Despite modest job creation in the last few 
     months, some 8.2 million Americans remain unemployed--2.3 
     million (38 percent) more than when President Bush entered 
     office. Further, more unemployed individuals are out of work 
     for longer periods of time. In June 2004, 1.7 million 
     individuals had been unemployed for over 6 months--nearly 
     triple the number of long-term unemployed at the start of the 
     Administration.
       For families who received overtime pay in 2000, overtime 
     earnings accounted for about 25 percent of their income or 
     about $8,400 a year. Overtime compensation is essential to 
     their ability to pay mortgages, medical bills, and make ends 
     meet. Yet, despite the urgent need to halt the 
     Administration's assault on these workers, the House 
     Appropriations Committee rejected, by a party line vote of 29 
     to 31, a Democratic amendment that would have prevented the 
     Administration from rolling back the 40-hour workweek.
       Last year, both the House and the Senate voted to stop the 
     Administration from taking away workers' rights to overtime 
     when the Department of Labor issued its initial proposal to 
     strip overtime protections away from 8 million workers. The 
     Senate twice adopted amendments offered by Senator Tom Harkin 
     to prohibit the Administration from taking away overtime pay. 
     Last October, the House voted to adopt the Obey-Miller Motion 
     to Instruct by a vote of 221 to 203.
       Both the Harkin Amendment and the Obey-Miller Motion to 
     Instruct would have restricted the Administration's ability 
     to disqualify anyone from overtime protection, while 
     retaining virtually the only positive change in the initial 
     regulation--a long overdue and non-controversial increase in 
     the protective salary threshold to guarantee overtime rights 
     for low-income workers. Democrats support extending overtime 
     protections to more low-income workers, even though the 
     Administration's proposal fails to provide a true 
     inflationary adjustment to the salary threshold. (Moreover, 
     we now know that that far fewer workers would actually 
     benefit from this change than claimed by the Department of 
     Labor.)
       Yet, despite passage of these measures in the Senate and 
     the House--in opposition to all the traditions of the 
     Congress--the Republican leadership stripped the Harkin 
     language from the final fiscal year 2004 omnibus 
     appropriations bill, allowing the Department of Labor to 
     proceed with its anti-worker regulation.
       On July 14, the Committee on Appropriations had an 
     opportunity to preserve the hard-earned overtime rights for 
     working Americans by adopting the Democratic amendment. The 
     Democratic amendment was identical, in effect, to the earlier 
     measures approved by both the House and the Senate. It would 
     have prohibited the Department of Labor from implementing the 
     final rule to disqualify workers from overtime coverage. At 
     the same time, it would have allowed the expansion of 
     overtime rights for low-income workers earning up to $23,660 
     a year, precisely as proposed by the Department of Labor in 
     its final regulation.
       The Democratic amendment would protect more than 6 million 
     workers in a broad range of occupations now at risk of losing 
     their overtime rights according to estimates made by the 
     Economic Policy Institute (EPI). Indeed, an even larger 
     number of workers are likely to be harmed by the 
     Administration rule because EPI examined only 10 of the 
     hundreds of occupational categories covered by the Bush anti-
     worker regulation.
       The Democratic amendment would protect:
        2.3 million workers who lead teams of other 
     employees assigned to major projects--even if these team 
     leaders have no direct supervisory responsibilities for other 
     employees on the team. About 40 percent of employers with 50 
     or more employees routinely use work teams. Under the 
     Department of Labor's final regulation, however, we can 
     expect even more employers to take advantage of this new 
     exemption with enormous negative consequences for employees;
        Nearly 2 million low-level working supervisors in 
     fast food restaurants, lodging and retail stores. Under the 
     Department of Labor's final regulation, these employees could 
     lose 100 percent of their overtime eligibility even though 
     only a small percentage of their time is spent on managerial 
     work. For example, low-paid Burger King assistant manager who 
     spends nearly all of his or her time cooking hamburgers and 
     serving customers, with no authority to hire or fire 
     subordinates, could lose all of his or her overtime pay. 
     Moreover, it will not be easier for employers to evade the 
     rules by converting hourly employees to exempt salaried 
     employees;
        More than 1 million employees without a college or 
     graduate degree. These employees will now be exempt from 
     overtime pay as professional employees because employers will 
     be able to substitute work experience for a degree under the 
     Department of Labor's final regulation.
       Moreover, the Department of Labor has not resolved the 
     question of whether training in the military can be 
     considered substitute work experience. Thus, despite Labor 
     Department denials, many veterans employed in engineering, 
     accounting, and technical occupations could lose overtime 
     pay. For example, the Boeing corporation observed, ``* * * 
     many of its most skilled technical workers received a 
     significant portion of their knowledge and training outside 
     of the university classroom, typically in a branch of the 
     military service * * *'';
        30,000 nursery school and Head Start teachers. 
     These already low-paid employees, who currently receive 
     overtime pay because their jobs do not require them to 
     exercise sufficient discretion and judgment to be considered 
     professional employees, will lose the right to extra pay 
     under the Department of Labor's final regulation;
        160,000 mortgage loan officers and hundreds of 
     thousands of additional workers in the financial services 
     industry. These employees will lose their overtime rights 
     because of a blanket industry exemption in the Department of 
     Labor final regulation for financial service employees who 
     work at such duties as collecting customer financial 
     information, providing information and advice about financial 
     products, or marketing financial products;
        Nearly 90,000 computer employees, funeral 
     directors and licensed embalmers. These employees will become 
     exempt and lose their right to pay under the Department of 
     Labor's final regulation; and
        Nearly 400,000 workers earning more than $100,000 
     annually. Under the Department of Labor final regulation, 
     these highly compensated employees will lose overtime pay 
     under a new blanket exemption if they perform only a single 
     exempt task ``customarily or regularly'', such as suggesting 
     discipline, promotion or assignment of other employees 
     perhaps as infrequently as twice a year. Over time, as 
     incomes grow, the number of employees bumped into this new 
     exclusion from overtime pay will increase.
       The Department of Labor failed to hold a single public 
     hearing on one of the most controversial regulations in the 
     history of the Department, despite receiving 75,280 comments 
     on its proposals. Indeed, the Department of Labor even 
     provided information to employers in its initial regulation 
     on how to escape overtime pay requirements as part of a 
     concerted campaign to give employers dozens of new ways--both 
     obvious and subtle--to reclassify workers to cut costs.
       Affected employers would have four choices concerning 
     potential payroll costs: (1) Adhering to a 40 hour work week; 
     (2) paying statutory overtime premiums for affected workers' 
     hours worked beyond 40 per week; (3) raising employees' 
     salaries to levels required for exempt status by the proposed 
     rule; or (4) converting salaried employees' basis of pay to 
     an hourly rate (no less than the federal minimum wage) that 
     results in virtually no (or only a minimal) changes to the 
     total compensation paid to those workers. Employers could 
     also change the duties of currently exempt and nonexempt 
     workers to comply with the proposed rule.
       The Administration claims that its overtime regulation will 
     strengthen and expand overtime protections. The facts say 
     different. Even the Republican-led Senate voted 99 to 0 in 
     favor of the amendment offered by Senator Judd Gregg to 
     protect overtime rights in 55 job classifications--including 
     blue-collar workers, registered nurses, police officers, and 
     firefighters--because they had no confidence in the 
     Administration's claims.
       The Administration claims that its overtime regulation will 
     reduce costly and lengthy litigation. However, three experts 
     who formerly administered the FLSA in the Department of Labor 
     during both Republican and Democratic administration reached 
     exactly the opposite conclusion,
       Further, in our view, the Department has written rules that 
     are vague and internally inconsistent, and that will likely 
     result in a profusion of confusion and court litigation--
     outcomes that the Department explicitly sought to avoid.
       For example, the former Department of Labor officials 
     observed that,

[[Page 17908]]

       The team leader provision in new Sec. 541.203(3) is an 
     entirely new regulatory concept that is also fraught with 
     ambiguity. This provision is not based on case law, but is 
     purportedly an attempt to reflect modern workplace practices. 
     . . . Furthermore, the regulations do not address the very 
     real possibility that team leaders may be working on a number 
     of different short- or long-term projects, simultaneously or 
     in succession, some of which would be major and directly 
     related to the performance of management or general business 
     operations and some of which would not. Evaluating the team 
     leader's primary duty in that instance will be very difficult 
     at best. Would the employee, for example, move in and out of 
     exempt status from one week to the next? How this provision 
     will operate in practice can only be imagined, but one can 
     surmise that employers will seek to apply this provision to 
     large numbers of employees to whom the exemption was never 
     intended to apply.
       Rather than providing more clarity to protect more workers, 
     the Administration's overtime regulation constituents an open 
     invitation to dispute. The Department of Labor deliberately 
     has replaced longstanding, objective criteria by which 
     employers and employees could clearly understand who 
     qualifies for overtime pay and who does not with ambiguous 
     concepts and criteria. These changes will require subjective 
     judgments by employers that no doubt will be made based on 
     the employers' economic interests to the detriment of 
     workers. Practically the only instances in which the Labor 
     Department ``clarified'' the rules are by declaring virtually 
     entire classes of workers--for example, financial services 
     workers, insurance claims adjusters, athletic trainers, 
     funeral directors and embalmers, and employees earning more 
     than $100,000--ineligible for overtime pay.
       At a time when millions of families feel lucky just to have 
     a job, this Committee should have rejected the 
     Administration's proposed pay cut for 6 million American 
     families. By failing to adopt the Democratic amendment, the 
     Committee failed to uphold the values of working and middle 
     class Americans who simply want a fair day's pay for a hard 
     day's work.

     David Obey.
     Steny Hoyer.
     Nita Lowey.
     Rosa L. DeLauro.
     Jesse L. Jackson, Jr.
     Patrick J. Kennedy.
     Lucille Roybal-Allard.

  Mr. Chairman, the fact is that the only chance we have to improve 
this bill is to send it to conference with the Senate, because without 
going to conference, we cannot correct the shortcomings produced by the 
subcommittee.
  In spite of that, I intended to vote against the bill until the House 
today adopted the Obey-Miller amendment. With the adoption of that 
amendment, which is an attempt to restore overtime rights to some 5 
million workers, this bill becomes at this point the only vehicle by 
which we have a shot at restoring those overtime rights. So I will most 
reluctantly vote to move this bill on to conference.
  But I want to make clear to the majority that if the conference 
report comes back with this provision stripped, and if the conference 
report comes back without correcting some of the deficiencies that we 
have laid out in the minority views, and we do not expect them all to 
be corrected, but we certainly expect some to be corrected in a 
legitimate give-and-take process, but if this overtime provision winds 
up being stripped out of the bill, and if some of these shortcomings 
are not corrected, then I want to make quite clear to the majority not 
to expect me to vote for it when it comes back from conference, because 
I will not do so.
  This bill falls far short of where it needs to be to protect the 
long-term interests of our children and our workers, and especially 
those people without health care. And I would urge Members of the other 
body to make enough changes when they consider the bill so that we have 
a reasonable prospect in conference of actually producing a decent 
bill.
  I appreciate the support that we got today from every Member on this 
side of the aisle and 22 Members on that side of the aisle on the 
overtime provisions. I hope that Members will insist, now that they 
voted that way, I hope that they will insist that that provision stays 
nailed in the bill, unlike last year when the provision was removed by 
the leadership.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank the gentleman for his cooperation. 
It really has been a team effort in many ways, and I think this bill 
does reflect, maybe not in total numbers of dollars, but certainly in 
terms of what we had available, I think we have reflected the Members' 
priorities pretty well across the board, both sides of the aisle, and 
we have tried to reflect the needs of the American people.
  I think the bill is very fair. It is very well balanced. We have had 
the support of the minority in the subcommittee and the full committee 
that reflects that. Obviously, many would like to have more money, but 
we have to work with what we have. And given what was available, I 
think we worked together to produce a very responsible bill, so I would 
urge all of our Members to support this bill on final passage.
  I think the membership can point to it with satisfaction; maybe not 
with complete agreement, but satisfaction that it reflects as well as 
possible the aspirations and priorities of Members given the amount of 
money that was available to us through the budget process.

                              {time}  1800


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Hayworth

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The pending business is 
the demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) on which further proceedings were 
postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 178, 
noes 225, not voting 30, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 439]

                               AYES--178

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Boehlert
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Capito
     Carson (OK)
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Emerson
     Everett
     Feeney
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hart
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Hill
     Hoekstra
     Hooley (OR)
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Isakson
     Israel
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lampson
     LaTourette
     Lewis (KY)
     LoBiondo
     Manzullo
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCotter
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moore
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Norwood
     Otter
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Putnam
     Ramstad
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Whitfield
     Wolf
     Wu

                               NOES--225

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Cantor
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Case
     Castle
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley

[[Page 17909]]


     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pickering
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rahall
     Regula
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Turner (OH)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weller
     Wexler
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--30

     Ballenger
     Cannon
     Cardoza
     Delahunt
     Gephardt
     Goss
     Greenwood
     Kanjorski
     Langevin
     Lipinski
     Lucas (OK)
     McInnis
     Meehan
     Moran (KS)
     Nethercutt
     Peterson (PA)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ryan (OH)
     Schrock
     Shuster
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Toomey
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Young (AK)


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry) (during the vote). Members 
are advised that 2 minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1827

  Messrs. FATTAH, PEARCE and GUTIERREZ, Ms. KAPTUR, and Messrs. TIAHRT, 
McCRERY, STRICKLAND and ISSA changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. BOEHLERT, ROGERS of Michigan, FROST, WELDON of Florida, 
FOSSELLA, SANDLIN, JOHN and LAMPSON, Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon, and Messrs. 
BURGESS, MOORE, HILL, WU, TOM DAVIS of Virginia and WELDON of 
Pennsylvania changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will read the last three lines of 
the bill.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       This Act may be cited as the ``Departments of Labor, Health 
     and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 2005''.

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, the LoBiondo amendment to Section 221 of 
H.R. 5006, the ``Department of Labor, Health and Human Services, and 
Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2005,'' would make 
a change to Medicare Part A payment policy, and thus falls within the 
sole jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means. Legislating on an 
appropriation bill is a violation of House Rules XXI, and the Committee 
opposes attempts to legislate on appropriation bills. However, in this 
case, I have worked with Representatives LoBiondo, Lowey and Wamp to 
draft the amendment being offered today to ensure that the Committee's 
position is addressed. The Committee on Ways and Means has long been 
involved in this issue and is interested in ensuring that any rule 
relating to the classification of inpatient rehabilitation hospitals is 
properly implemented and enforced. The amendment is being offered with 
the understanding that it does not in any way prejudice the Committee 
with respect to the appointment of conferees or its jurisdictional 
prerogatives on this or similar legislation.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I wish to express grave concern over a 
clause in this bill that would seriously erode worker protections 
against tuberculosis, TB, and bioterrorism. This provision prohibits 
the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA, from fully 
enforcing its respirator standard for workers at risk of exposure to TB 
and other deadly infections. At a time when the Bush administration is 
invoking daily, color-coded terrorist alerts, it makes absolutely no 
sense to weaken the only standard we have to protect health care 
workers against air-borne pathogens or air-borne ``weapons of mass 
destruction.'' By prohibiting OSHA from enforcing the annual fit test 
for workers' respirators or masks, that is exactly what is possible.
  According to Dr. Margaret Hamburg, Vice President for Biological 
Programs at the Nuclear Threat Initiative, biological agents that might 
be used as biological weapons include small pox, pneumonic plague, and 
drug-resistant TB. To undercut the only protection that front-line 
health care workers would have to such agents--namely, their 
respirators--is absolutely unconscionable.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that a letter on this critical 
issue from the Director of Occupational Health and Safety at the 
Service Employees International Union (SEIU) be included in the Record 
at this point. I trust and hope my colleagues in the Senate will see 
the wisdom of opposing any such effort to weaken workers' protections 
against TB and bioterrorism.

                     An Open Letter to APIC Members

       Dear APIC member:
       I ran across your e-mail thread from my colleagues in the 
     occupational health and safety community. As I am not an APIC 
     member (yet), I hope that you are not offended by my taking 
     this liberty to communicate directly with you about a manner 
     of upmost importance to all of us who are concerned about 
     health care worker occupational health and safety.
       The APIC leadership (with AHA) have been on a crusade to 
     undermine adequate TB and respiratory legal protections for 
     health care workers for some time now. They are proud of 
     their singular role in working with Congressman Roger Wicker 
     (R-MS), whose state coincidentally is surrounded by states 
     with some of the highest rates of TB, to kill the OSHA TB 
     rule late last year.
       Not satisfied with that ``accomplishment'', APIC leadership 
     is now determined to gut the application of the OSHA 
     respirator standard that has been on the books for all other 
     chemical, biological and infectious disease agents, except TB 
     since 1998. The reason that the respirator standard didn't 
     apply to TB until now is because the separate OSHA TB 
     standard (that APIC had killed) would have covered 
     respiratory protection within the framework of a 
     comprehensive TB rule.
       As someone trained as a microbiologist and industrial 
     hygienist working in the healthcare sector for the past 24 
     years, I must tell you that your APIC leadership is dead 
     wrong to oppose annual fit testing against TB and other 
     airborne biological hazards. I am not alone. Every labor 
     organization that represents health care workers also 
     supports annual fit testing, as does the Bush Administration, 
     the American Nurses Association, American Industrial Hygiene 
     Association and the 50,000 member American Public Health 
     Association.
       Let's look at the facts:
       (1) Last year TB rates had their smallest decline in years; 
     rates increased in twenty states.
       (2) Without annual fit testing, respirator face seals will 
     erode over time, respirators will leak, and more healthcare 
     workers will experience TB conversions. Respirator 
     manufacturers recommend annual fit testing for their products 
     to work properly.
       (3) The APIC leadership is misleading you when they say 
     that the Wicker amendment is supported by CDC. This is not 
     true. The official CDC position has never differed from 
     OSHA's position either verbally or in writing.
       (4) The official position of the Bush Administration in 
     supporting annual fit testing, was articulated in the 
     December 30, 2003 Federal Register OSHA notice, stating that 
     fit testing is crucial to a proper face seal, and that over 
     time that 5% to 50% of all workers will lose a proper face 
     seal each year if annual fit testing is not performed.
       (5) As far as the argument that there is ``no difference'' 
     between a surgical mask vs. a properly fitted N95 respirator, 
     a study conducted by Nelson Laboratories in Salt Lake City 
     last year found that a surgical mask filtered out 61.9%-62.3% 
     of particles in the respirable 0.3 micron range vs. 97.9%-
     99.7% for a properly fitted N95 respirator.
       Many of you may recall the clamor of opposition against the 
     bloodborne pathogens standard in the late 1980s. Many 
     dentists claimed that if they wore gloves, that patients 
     wouldn't see them. Today the opposite is the case, while the 
     CDC reports that since the standard took effect, that 
     hepatitis B cases among health care workers have plummeted 
     from 17,000 a year to 400.

[[Page 17910]]

       Today, as a result of the requirements under the bloodborne 
     pathogens standard, many infection control professionals have 
     more resources to do their job. The same could be the case if 
     we work together to protect health care workers from airborne 
     exposures to TB through annual fit testing; also conferring 
     protections against SARS, avian flue and airborne weapons of 
     mass destruction.
       SEIU represents 1.7 million workers, with over half 
     employed in health care, including over 100,000 nurses and 
     20,000 physicians. Many of our members are APIC members who 
     vehemently disagree with the position of the current APIC 
     leadership. I know that many other APIC members believe that 
     their current leadership is not acting in the best interest 
     of their membership when they work so zealously in opposition 
     to these basic worker protections.
       I respectfully suggest that APIC members learn the facts, 
     and work to support an APIC leadership that shares our joint 
     interests in protecting both workers and patients.
           Sincerely:

                                           Bill Borwegen, MPH,

                          Director, Occupational Health and Safety
                            Service Employees International Union.

  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I support the fiscal year 2005 Labor, Health 
and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Bill, but I would like 
to state my opposition to the Weldon refusal clause provision.
  The Weldon provision would exempt health care companies from any 
federal, state or local government law that ensures women have access 
to reproductive health services, including information about abortion.
  If passed, this provision would have many negative effects.
  It would override federal Title X guidelines that ensure women 
receive full medical information. A fundamental principle of Title X, 
the national family planning program, ensures pregnant women who 
request information about all their medical options, including 
abortion, be given that information, including a referral upon patient 
request.
  I am also concerned this bill does not include an increase in funding 
for Title X. Each year approximately 4.5 million low-income women and 
men receive basic health care through 4,600 clinics nation wide that 
receive Title X funds. This program reduces unintended pregnancies and 
makes abortion less necessary. Had funding for Title X kept pace with 
inflation since 1980, with no additional increases, it would be funded 
today at double its current budget.
  While Title X is receiving flat funding from last year, H.R. 5006 
gives abstinence-only programs an increase of $35 million. Unlike Title 
X, abstinence-only programs do not provide clinical health services.
  Additionally, research shows comprehensive sex-education programs, 
which teach both abstinence and contraception, are the most effective. 
There is no federal program that earmarks dollars for comprehensive sex 
education.
  I support a woman's right to choose whether to terminate a pregnancy 
subject to Roe v. Wade.
  Abortion is a very personal decision. While a woman's doctor, clergy, 
friends, family and public officials may have an opinion, the ultimate 
decision rests solely with her. It is vital for every woman to have 
access to as much information as she needs in order to make this 
decision.
  While I support the bill, I oppose these provisions and amendments.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today with concern for our public 
education system. As a new school year begins on Long Island, many 
parents are eager to find out if their children's schools will be 
labeled failing or in need of improvement, assessments mandated by the 
federal No Child Left Behind Act. I believe this is also an ideal time 
for the administration and Congress to assess federal efforts to 
support our nation's public schools.
  The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and No Child 
Left Behind Act were landmark federal policies to ensure quality 
education for children with disabilities and improve learning results. 
Unfortunately, these well meaning efforts have been met with great 
controversy on the local level due to immense funding inadequacies.
  The monumental No Child Left Behind Act passed Congress in 2001. It 
made a deal with America's public schools: in exchange for new 
standards of excellence, the legislation promised new federal funding. 
Unfortunately, the federal government has not held up its end of the 
bargain. The FY05 Labor, Health and Human Service and Education 
Appropriations Act alone shortchanges No Child Left Behind programs by 
whopping $9.5 billion, making it increasingly difficult for schools to 
meet new, higher standards.
  In 1975, the federal government committed to pay 40 percent of the 
cost of educating children with disabilities. Not once have they come 
close to honoring this commitment. The FY05 Labor, Health and Human 
Service and Education Appropriations Act, which closely follows the 
President's funding request, provides $2.5 billion less than what was 
promised for special education just last year. This keeps the federal 
government's share at less than 20 percent. This is shameful because 
fully funding IDEA would benefit every child in every classroom by 
providing fiscal breathing room to school districts and local tax 
relief to families.
  The administration's support of our public schools is failing and the 
legislation we are debating today is in clear need of improvement. The 
Fiscal Year 2005 Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Act 
will likely pass this chamber today. It is my hope that a House/Senate 
conference committee will make substantial improvements in fulfilling 
our promise to local schools by increasing funding.
  Mrs. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I support the fiscal year 2005 Labor, 
Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Bill, but I 
would like to state my concern about the funding cuts for two important 
programs, the Community Service Block Grant and the Social Services 
Block Grant.
  The Community Service Block Grant funds the anti-poverty Community 
Action Agencies and family self-sufficiency efforts of a nationwide 
network of 1,100 community agencies. These organizations create, 
coordinate and deliver comprehensive programs and services to those 
living in poverty.
  The Community Service Block Grant is a unique and essential resource. 
It provides the necessary tools for employment and training, education, 
housing, senior services, energy assistance, community development, 
health, nutrition, Head Start and other programs to help families 
escape and remain out of poverty.
  Unfortunately, funding for this vital program has decreased since it 
was funded at $650 million in 2002. This Labor, Health and Human 
Services, and Education Appropriations bill would fund the Community 
Service Block Grant at $627.5 million. I encourage my colleagues to 
support restoring this program's funding in conference.
  Funding for the Social Services Block Grant has also declined over 
the past few years.
  Created in 1981, the Social Services Block Grant contributes federal 
funds to states for providing social services.
  States have broad discretion over the funds, which are directed at 
increasing self-sufficiency, preventing or remedying neglect and abuse 
of children and adults and preserving families. The funds are used both 
by local governments and nonprofit organizations to meet the specific 
and unique needs of the local population.
  In the 1996 welfare reform law, states agreed to a reduction of the 
Social Services Block Grant authorization from its FY 95 high of $2.8 
billion to $2.38 billion through FY 03. In exchange, Congress allowed 
each state to transfer up to 10 percent of its Temporary Assistance for 
Needy Families (TANF) funds into Social Services Block Grants.
  In 1998, the maximum funding amount for the Social Services Block 
Grant was further reduced to $1.7 billion, effective in FY 01. Today's 
legislation appropriates the same amount, $1.7 billion, for FY 05.
  I believe it is imperative to restore funding to the Social Services 
Block Grant because it is essential we preserve and strengthen the 
critical safety net it provides. With that being said, I appreciate 
Chairman Regula's good work with limited resources and support passage 
of the bill.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of H.R. 5006, the 
Fiscal Year 2005 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education 
Appropriations Act. While this bill contains many flaws, it is an 
unfortunate reality that we must attempt to fund important government 
functions within the budgetary constraints that the Administration's 
policies have created.
  Among the many cuts, there are a few welcome funding increases in 
this bill. First, this bill contains an increase of $125 million in 
LIHEAP funds, which is desperately needed to help my constituents keep 
their homes warm during the upcoming winter. As energy costs rise and 
the economy remains weak, more and more households need assistance to 
survive the harsh Northern winter. I hope more funds for this 
successful program are included in conference.
  In addition, this legislation contains an increase of $219 million 
for Community Health Centers, which provide primary and preventive 
health care services in medically-underserved areas throughout the 
country, including the Providence Community Health Centers in my 
district. Without these facilities, numerous Americans would not have 
access to vital health care.

[[Page 17911]]

  H.R. 5006 increases the national Institutes of Health budget by $727 
million to search for cures for spinal cord injuries, cancer, 
Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, and numerous other ailments. 
These funds bring us closer to treating deadly and painful diseases 
affecting nearly every American family. I support an additional $500 
million, as proposed in the Obey amendment, to keep pace with inflation 
and fund this important research.
  Unfortunately, the restrictive rule did not allow an opportunity for 
the House to vote on the Obey amendment. This alternative would correct 
many of the funding shortfalls for national priorities by fully funding 
No Child Left Behind, Pell Grants, Perkins Loans, the Community Access 
Program, and numerous other health, education, and job training 
programs facing cuts under this bill. The Obey amendment would have 
been fully offset by slightly reducing the tax break for those who earn 
more than $1 million per year, a small sacrifice to improve the lives 
of so many Americans.
  I am delighted, however, that the Obey-Miller Overtime Amendment was 
passed by the House. This amendment would overturn the Administration's 
misguided overtime regulations that took effect on August 23rd, ending 
guaranteed overtime pay for up to 6 million workers. This regulation is 
an unprecedented assault on American workers and discourages businesses 
to hire new workers. The Obey- Miller Amendment would guarantee that 
supervisory and administrative employees, including registered nurses, 
working foremen, salespersons, law enforcement officers, and nursery 
school teachers, keep the overtime pay they depend on. I hope that the 
conference agreement on this appropriations bill will retain this 
important provision to prevent the further erosion of workers' rights.
  Despite the bill's shortcomings, I will be voting in favor of H.R. 
5006. I commend the Ranking Member and Chairman, and the rest of the 
Appropriations Committee, for their work within difficult constraints. 
The funding level in this bill is a direct result of the fiscally 
irresponsible policies of the Administration, which will result in a 
projected record $422 billion deficit for fiscal year 2004. I expect 
next year's deficit will be even higher. Deficits will continue to 
increase until this Administration and this Congress realize that 
cutting taxes for the wealthy during a time of extraordinary security 
demands only exacerbates the budgetary crisis. Without discipline, 
future generations will be saddled with the debt we are creating today. 
Although the bill is not perfect, I urge my colleagues to join me in a 
call for fiscal responsibility and support H.R. 5006, the Fiscal Year 
2005 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations 
Act.
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to increased 
funding for `abstinence-only' programs under the Labor-HHS-Education 
Appropriations bill.
  Ideology, not science, has been driving America's response to the 
devastating problem of teen pregnancy and STD/HIV infection. Funding 
for restrictive abstinence-only programs are dramatically increasing. 
All told, abstinence-only programs have received over half a billion 
dollars in federal funds since 1997, and the Bush administration 
requested an unprecedented increase to $273 million in fiscal year 
2005.
  This huge investment of taxpayer funds in abstinence-only programs 
conflict with scientific and medical research: abstinence-only programs 
have never been proven effective and may result in riskier behavior by 
teenagers. Responsible sex education programs, on the other hand, have 
demonstrated positive results such as delayed initiation of sex, 
reduced frequency of sex, and increased contraceptive use.
  Ideologically driven groups, not scientific or public health 
organizations, have pushed the proliferation of abstinence-only 
programs. In fact, current scientific research fails to show that 
abstinence-only programs are effective.
  In 2001, the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy found no 
credible studies of abstinence-only programs showing any significant 
impact on participants' initiation of or frequency of sex.
  By denying adolescents complete information and by censoring 
teachers, abstinence-only programs endanger our youth.
  Abstinence-only programs can harm teens by putting them at risk of 
pregnancy and STDs. Abstinence-only programs fail to provide 
information about contraception beyond failure rates, and, in some 
cases, provide misinformation. Without complete and accurate 
information, some teens therefore may forgo contraceptive use, 
jeopardizing their reproductive health.
  The lack of responsible sex education puts teens at risk of pregnancy 
and STDs, including HIV. One study that compared an abstinence-only 
program with a more comprehensive ``safer-sex'' program found that 
``only the safer-sex intervention significantly reduced unprotected 
sexual intercourse.''
  The recent explosion of federal funds for abstinence-only programs 
has negatively influenced schools. Almost one-third of secondary school 
principals surveyed reported that the federal abstinence-only funding 
influenced their school's sex education curriculum.
  Current research indicates that more comprehensive sex education 
programs that discuss both abstinence and contraception have positive 
effects.
  In 2001, the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy concluded 
that sex and HIV education programs that discuss both abstinence and 
contraception delay the onset of sex, reduce the frequency of sex, and 
increase contraceptive use.
  Moreover, their review of studies dispelled many of the myths 
attached to responsible sex education programs. In particular, the 
study showed that sexuality and HIV education programs that include 
discussion of condoms and contraception: do not hasten the onset of 
sexual intercourse; do not increase the frequency of sexual 
intercourse; and do not increase the number of sexual partners.
  The National Academy of Sciences' Institute of Medicine concluded 
that sex education and condom availability programs in schools do not 
increase sexual activity among teenagers.
  Teaching our children about abstinence is a critical part of a well-
rounded and effective sex education program. But abstinence by itself 
is not sufficient. Young people deserve complete and accurate 
information about their reproductive health, including abstinence, 
pregnancy prevention, and STD/HIV prevention. Only when teens have 
reliable information about their reproductive health can they make 
informed and appropriate decisions.
  Given the high stakes facing teens, the fact that almost half of all 
teens aged 15 to 19 years old in the United States have had sex, and 
the absence of research showing that abstinence-only programs are 
effective, ``Just Say No'' efforts are misleading at best, and 
dangerous at worst. Congress should enact policies that effectively and 
responsibly address the current crisis in adolescent reproductive 
health. Federal funds should be directed at responsible sex education 
programs that provide teen with the information and skills they need to 
protect themselves and that have demonstrated positive results.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to reiterate my opposition to increased funding 
for `abstinence-only' programs under the Labor-HHS-Education 
Appropriations bill and the blatant assault on a woman's right to 
choose.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant support of the 
Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2005.
  I say reluctant, because while there are some good things in the 
bill, it is lacking due to the fact that the House Republican 
leadership has failed to reach a budget agreement with the Senate 
Republican leadership. As a result, the bill before us has an 
inadequate budget allocation for the important health and human 
services programs it funds.
  While Democrats have reluctantly supported appropriations bills this 
year in order to move the process forward, we all recognize they are 
woefully inadequate based on the needs of the country. Nevertheless, my 
support of this bill is based on the fact that Chairman Ralph Regula 
and Chairman Bill Young are to be commended for the work they have done 
with the unrealistic budget limits they have been given, and the fact 
that I appreciate Chairman Regula including in the bill and report 
several important items I highlighted during our subcommittee hearings.
  First, the bill contains an increase for the national folic acid 
education program. Representative Jo Ann Emerson and I were the authors 
of this program that was established by the Children's Health Act of 
2000. Severe brain and spinal defects have dropped 27 percent in the 
U.S. since the government, in 1998, began requiring makers of cereal, 
pasta, bread and flour to fortify their foods with folic acid. However, 
a national public and health professions education campaign designed to 
increase the number of women taking folic acid daily is still 
imperative to eliminate these birth defects.
  Second, language was included commending the Secretary of Health and 
Human Services for establishing an interagency committee on underage 
drinking and moving forward with a national media campaign, to be 
conducted by the Ad Council, to combat underage drinking. I feel 
certain that the final bill will include funding for the second year of 
this important national media campaign. These significant 
accomplishments by the department and by the Substance Abuse and Mental 
Health Services Administration acting as the lead agency, stem from a 
bipartisan effort that

[[Page 17912]]

I have been proud to lead with Representatives Frank Wolf, Rosa 
DeLauro, Zach Wamp, and Tom Osborne and supported by Senators Mike 
DeWine and Chris Dodd.
  Also, a number of other issues have been addressed in our report, 
including the migrant and seasonal head start program, farmworker 
housing programs, a pending regulation in the Department of Labor 
regarding personal protective equipment for employees, and newborn 
screening initiatives. I ask the various departments to pay close 
attention to the committee's directives on these important subjects and 
the issues they raise based on the experiences of the many affected 
constituent groups and the input from the administration during budget 
oversight hearings.
  In the end, however, this bill will be evaluated on the resources it 
provides to the many deserving programs within our subcommittee's 
jurisdiction. And unfortunately, due to the budget constraints I have 
already mentioned, the bill in front of us shortchanges some of the 
very programs and the very needs that so many witnesses told us about 
in their testimony.
  For example, Congress and the President made a commitment to our 
nation's children though the No Child Left Behind legislation passed 
with so much fanfare two years ago. Unfortunately, against the backdrop 
of record school enrollments, unprecedented federal education 
accountability requirements, and rising demand for college assistance, 
the bill provides only a 3.6 percent increase for the Department of 
Education's discretionary programs. No Child Left Behind is actually 
cut $120 million below the Administration's request, and the bill 
provides $9.5 billion less than the funding promised by the No Child 
Left Behind authorization. While 4-year public colleges and 
universities have experienced an average 26 percent tuition increase in 
the last two years, the bill freezes the maximum Pell Grant for low-
income college students at $4,050.
  Training America's work force is the key to competing in a global 
economy, and training is also essential to prevent the loss of American 
jobs to competitors overseas. Despite a loss of 1.8 million private 
sector jobs since President Bush took office, the bill provides $40 
million less than last year for employment and training assistance 
programs administered by the Department of Labor.
  Health programs point out the real dilemma in our bill. Although the 
bill does substantially increase funding for community health centers, 
global disease detection, AIDS drug assistance, and chronic disease 
prevention, a number of other programs are cut including rural health 
outreach grants, health training programs in primary care medicine and 
dentistry, the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant, and the 
Preventive Health and Health Services Block Grant. Funding for the 
National Institutes of Health is increased, but the 2.6 percent 
increase is the smallest in 19 years and less than the 3.5 percent 
increase estimated to cover inflation costs for biomedical research.
  Democrats don't just criticize, however. We offered revisions to the 
budget resolution that would have allowed this bill to make a greater 
investment in education, health care, and medical research. When the 
bill was considered by the subcommittee and the full Appropriations 
Committee, we again offered amendments to add $7.4 billion to the bill 
by reducing by 30 percent the 2005 tax cuts for people with incomes 
over $1 million. In fact, polls consistently show that the American 
public is far more interested in preserving important education and 
health priorities than in tax cuts that benefit primarily the rich.
  I agree with the common-sense approach to this problem that has been 
consistently laid out by Ranking Member David Obey. Let's simply 
reduce--not eliminate, but reduce--the tax break we give to 
millionaires--those with adjusted incomes greater than $1 million. By 
doing so we can increase Title I, add funding for No Child Left Behind 
programs, maintain college affordability by raising Pell grants, shore 
up our health safety net programs, rebuild our public health system to 
respond to disease outbreaks and possible terrorist attacks.
  But these fiscally responsible efforts by Mr. Obey and other 
Democrats have been defeated by the Republican majority at each turn, 
resulting in the bill we are considering today.
  The bill before the House is governed by a rule that prevents us from 
having these choices because the Republican leadership knows that given 
the opportunity this House would vote overwhelmingly to adequately fund 
this bill.
  The Labor-HHS-Education bill, which is one of the most important 
bills that comes out this House, contains the most deserving programs 
administered by the federal government in support of the well-being of 
our people. These programs are also cost-effective in providing worker 
training and protection, helping to educate our children from Head 
Start to Pell grants, and in contributing to a healthy populace through 
our public health system and health safety net programs.
  The bill in front of the House today is the best that can be done 
under the circumstances. But it does not reflect the aspirations of 
American society. I believe we can do more for America's children, 
America's workers, and America's future. Although I will support this 
bill today, I will continue to work with my colleagues on the 
Appropriations Committee and in the House to look for opportunities 
before we complete our work this year so that the future of America's 
children and America's families will be bright.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 5006, the Labor/
HHS Appropriations Bill for FY 2005, and to inform members that this 
bill is in compliance with the budget resolution for FY 2005 as applied 
to the House by H. Res. 649.
  H.R. 5006 provides $142.5 billion in new budget authority and $141.1 
billion in new outlays for programs within the Departments of Labor, 
Health and Human Services, Education, and related agencies. This 
funding level represents an increase of $2.8 billion in BA and $3.9 
billion in outlays over last year. That is a 2 percent increase over FY 
2004 levels. This reflects the need to restrain the rate of increase 
for non-defense, non-homeland security domestic discretionary programs 
which provided the overall policy framework for this year's budget 
resolution.
  H.R. 5006 complies with the budget act because the spending levels it 
contains do not exceed the subcommittee's 302(b) suballocation of new 
budget authority. Additionally, the bill is in compliance with 
requirements that it not exceed aggregate spending levels established 
in the budget resolution. Finally, the bill also complies with 
restrictions on advance appropriations.
  Regarding this last point, the Budget Resolution for FY 2005 places a 
total limit for advance appropriations in FY 2006 at $23.2 billion. The 
bill before us today will consume the vast majority of those funds, 
since it provides for $19.275 billion in FY 2006 advance 
appropriations. All of the accounts for which advance appropriations 
are made in this bill are listed as eligible within the budget 
resolution. Since no advance appropriations have as yet been enacted, 
the bill does not cause a breach of this limit. However, the House 
should be aware that only $4 billion will remain available for advance 
appropriations should this bill be enacted.
  I commend the Committee on Appropriations for bringing us a bill that 
funds many priority programs which Members care about while living 
within our means in an era requiring tougher fiscal discipline. The 
bill increases Department of Education funding by $2 billion over last 
year, and includes a billion dollar increase for Special Education, 
bringing funding for IDEA to its highest level in history. This is over 
three times more funding than Special Education received in 1995, and 
this is an accomplishment that we in the Budget Committee have helped 
to bring about through past budget resolutions which assumed 
substantial increases for special education.
  Additionally, the bill continues the commitment that the House has 
made to the National Institutes for Health, providing $727 million more 
than last year. Worker retraining and dislocated worker assistance 
programs are also restored and augmented, which should help us continue 
to expand employment and ensure that Americans who want to work will be 
able to find good jobs. This is a responsible bill which fulfills our 
commitments to the public while living within the constraints of 
difficult fiscal times.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. If there are no further amendments, under 
the rule the Committee now rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Hastings of Washington) having assumed the chair, Mr. Thornberry, 
Chairman pro tempore of the Committee of the Whole House on the State 
of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under 
consideration the bill (H.R. 5006) making appropriations for the 
Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and 
related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for 
other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 754, he reported the bill 
back to the House with sundry amendments adopted by the Committee of 
the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.

[[Page 17913]]

  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will 
put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 388, 
nays 13, not voting 32, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 440]

                               YEAS--388

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Herseth
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Turner (OH)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--13

     Bartlett (MD)
     Flake
     Franks (AZ)
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Hostettler
     Jones (NC)
     Miller (FL)
     Paul
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Tancredo
     Wilson (NM)

                             NOT VOTING--32

     Ballenger
     Brown (OH)
     Cannon
     Cardoza
     Cox
     Delahunt
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Everett
     Gephardt
     Greenwood
     Kanjorski
     Langevin
     Lipinski
     Lucas (OK)
     McInnis
     Meehan
     Moran (KS)
     Nethercutt
     Peterson (PA)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Reyes
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ryan (OH)
     Schrock
     Shuster
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Toomey
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Young (AK)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington) (during the 
vote). Members are advised there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1844

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 440, had I been 
present, I would have voted ``yea.''

                          ____________________