[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 19]
[House]
[Pages 25053-25163]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




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

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Pursuant to House Resolution 866, I call up the 
conference report on the bill (H.R. 4818) making appropriations for 
foreign operations, export financing, and related programs for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes, and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 866, the 
conference report is considered read.
  (For conference report and statement, see page of proceedings of the 
House of Friday, November 19, 2004.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
might consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill we bring to the floor today is a conference 
report on the omnibus appropriations bill which includes nine bills 
that were not concluded prior to the end of the fiscal year. The good 
news is that the House had passed every one of our bills but one. And 
the other good news is that this bill concludes the appropriations 
business for fiscal year 2005.
  I compliment the Committee on Appropriations on both sides of the 
aisle. I compliment the Members of the House for having moved all of 
our bills expeditiously; but this will conclude our business, and now 
the 109th Congress can start fresh, with a new budget resolution, 
hopefully, and a new appropriations process.
  The bill that we are discussing today has already been discussed in 
great detail during consideration of the rule. The bill itself has been 
available for more than 14 hours for Members to review, and there is a 
10-page summary on all of the desks that is available so Members can 
look at the highlights of the bill.
  Considering the fact that we had to include nine bills here, and some 
extraneous material, this is a pretty good bill. It is a clean bill. It 
is a lean bill. It is within the budget limitations set by the House 
and set by the President; and so I would just hope, Mr. Speaker, that 
we can conclude this work and move on to whatever is next.

[[Page 25054]]





[[Page 25055]]



[[Page 25056]]



[[Page 25057]]



[[Page 25058]]



[[Page 25059]]



[[Page 25060]]



[[Page 25061]]



[[Page 25062]]



[[Page 25063]]



[[Page 25064]]



[[Page 25065]]



[[Page 25066]]



[[Page 25067]]



[[Page 25068]]



[[Page 25069]]



[[Page 25070]]



[[Page 25071]]



[[Page 25072]]



[[Page 25073]]



[[Page 25074]]



[[Page 25075]]



[[Page 25076]]



[[Page 25077]]



[[Page 25078]]



[[Page 25079]]



[[Page 25080]]



[[Page 25081]]



[[Page 25082]]



[[Page 25083]]



[[Page 25084]]



[[Page 25085]]



[[Page 25086]]



[[Page 25087]]



[[Page 25088]]



[[Page 25089]]



[[Page 25090]]



[[Page 25091]]



[[Page 25092]]



[[Page 25093]]



[[Page 25094]]



[[Page 25095]]



[[Page 25096]]



[[Page 25097]]



[[Page 25098]]



[[Page 25099]]



[[Page 25100]]



[[Page 25101]]



[[Page 25102]]



[[Page 25103]]



[[Page 25104]]



[[Page 25105]]



[[Page 25106]]



[[Page 25107]]



[[Page 25108]]



[[Page 25109]]



[[Page 25110]]



[[Page 25111]]



[[Page 25112]]



[[Page 25113]]



[[Page 25114]]



[[Page 25115]]



[[Page 25116]]



[[Page 25117]]



[[Page 25118]]



[[Page 25119]]



[[Page 25120]]



[[Page 25121]]



[[Page 25122]]



[[Page 25123]]



[[Page 25124]]



[[Page 25125]]



[[Page 25126]]



[[Page 25127]]



[[Page 25128]]



[[Page 25129]]



[[Page 25130]]



[[Page 25131]]



[[Page 25132]]



[[Page 25133]]



[[Page 25134]]



[[Page 25135]]



[[Page 25136]]



[[Page 25137]]



[[Page 25138]]



[[Page 25139]]



[[Page 25140]]

              Highlights of the Final FY05 Spending Bills

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

                              Agriculture

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


                      fy05 commerce justice state

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


          fy 2005 energy and water development appropriations

       Funding Levels: The Chairman's mark provides a total of 
     $28.0 billion in new discretionary spending authority for the 
     U.S. Army Corps of Engineers-Civil, the Department of 
     Interior including the Bureau of Reclamation, the Department 
     of Energy, and several Independent Agencies. This bill is 
     $734.5 million above fiscal year 2004 and $49.6 million above 
     the President's budget request.
       Corps of Engineers: The conference report supports a 
     vigorous Civil Works program. The recommendation of $4.7 
     billion is $125 million over fiscal year 2004.
       Bureau of Reclamation: The Chairman's mark provides funding 
     necessary to maintain, operate, and rehabilitate Bureau 
     projects throughout the western United States and protect the 
     considerable Federal investment in western water 
     infrastructure. Funding for the Bureau of Reclamation is $1 
     billion, $40 million over last year's level.
       Department of Energy: The recommendation of $23 billion for 
     the Department of Energy is $145 million under the 
     President's request and $1 billion above fiscal year 2004.

[[Page 25141]]

       The Committee funds the Yucca Mountain repository at last 
     year's level of $577 million and does not include the 
     proposed authorization language to reclassify the fees paid 
     into the Nuclear Waste Fund or the radiation standard 
     language.
       The Power Marketing Administrations are funded at $210.5 
     million, the same as the President's request and $1.2 million 
     below last year. Reimbursable purchase power and wheeling 
     activities are maintained at the fiscal year 2004 levels.
       The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), which 
     includes the nuclear weapons program, defense nuclear 
     nonproliferation, naval reactors and the office of the 
     administrator, is funded at $8.8 billion, an increase of $156 
     million over last year. Funding of $6.5 billion is provided 
     for Weapons Activities; $1.42 billion for Defense Nuclear 
     Nonproliferation programs;

                           Foreign Operations

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

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

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


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

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

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


                    fy05 legislative branch spending

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

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

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


                       fy05 labor, hhs, education

       Bill Funding:
       FY04 Comparable: $139.424 billion.
       FY05 Budget Request: $142.324 billion.
       FY05 Conference Report: $143.309 billion ($493.3 billion 
     including mandatory spending).
       The bill's funding level represents a 2.79% growth from 
     fiscal year 2004.
       Protecting Priority Education Programs:
       Overall, the bill provides a $1.4 billion increase for the 
     Department of Education, bringing it to a total of $57 
     billion. Special Education Grants are funded at $11.5 
     billion, $415 million below the request and $607 above FY04. 
     This is the highest level in history and over three times the 
     amount provided in 1995.
       Title I--Program is funded at $12.8 billion, $500 million 
     below the budget request and $500 million above last year, to 
     provide aid to states and school districts to help 
     educationally disadvantaged children achieve the same high 
     state academic performance standards as all other students.
       Reading Programs--Funds reading programs at $1.2 billion, 
     which will enable states to eliminate the reading deficit 
     through scientific research-based reading programs, $62 
     million above FY04.

[[Page 25142]]

       Improving Teacher Quality--The bills provide $2.94 billion, 
     $10 million above the budget request and last year's level, 
     for professional development programs to provide states and 
     school districts with tools to improve teacher quality Math 
     and Science Partnerships are funded at $180 million, an 
     increase of $31 million over last year to increase the number 
     of teachers trained in the fields of math and science.
       Education Block Grant--The bill includes a restoration of 
     the title V education block grant to $200 million, $96 
     million below the fiscal year 2004 request and $180 million 
     above the House bill.
       State Assessments--The bill includes $415 million, $25 
     million over fiscal year 2004, to cover the cost of 
     developing annual state assessments of students' reading and 
     math skills. States will be responsible for selecting and 
     designing their own assessments.
       Maximum Pell Grant awards are maintained at $4050 million 
     and the program is increased by $458 million over last year.
       Impact Aid is funded at $1.24 billion, $24 million over 
     last year's level and the budget request.
       Head Start is increased $124 million over last year's 
     level, bringing total FY05 funding to $6.9 billion. This 
     funding level will allow Head Start to maintain current 
     service levels while ensuring that quality improvements and 
     training elements are fully implemented.
       TRIO funding is increased to $843 million, an increase of 
     $11 million above the fiscal year 2004 level and the 
     President's request. The bill also increases GEAR UP funding 
     to $309 million, also an increase of $11 million above the 
     fiscal year 2004 level and the President's request.

                  Medical Research and Health Programs

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

        Supporting Job Training Programs and Dislocated Workers

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


                     fy05 transportation & treasury

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


                              fy05 va-hud

       FY04 Bill (Discretionary): $90.8 billion.
       FY05 President's Request (Discretionary): $92.1 billion.
       FY05 Bill (Discretionary): $93.5 billion.
       Taking Care of Veterans:
       Provides total resources of $30.3 billion for the Veterans 
     Health Administration: $19.5 billion for Medical Services; 
     $4.7 billion for Medical Administration; $3.7 billion for 
     Medical Facilities and $385 million for Medical Research--a 
     total of $1.2 over the budget request and $1.9 billion above 
     last year.
       Does not contain additional fees proposed by the President.
       Total budgetary resources for all activities of the 
     Veteran's Administration including retirement and medical 
     benefits are increased by $4.3 billion over last year and 
     $1.2 billion over the request.
       Science and Space:
       The National Science Foundation (NSF) is funded at $5.5 
     billion, $62 million below last year and $278 million below 
     the request. Includes $4.3 billion for research, $3 million 
     over last year; $175 million for research equipment, $20 
     million over last year; and $848 million for education and 
     human resources, $91 million below last year.
       NASA is funded at $16.2 billion, $822 million above last 
     year and $44 million below the request. The agreement give 
     NASA almost total funding flexibility, but requires NASA to 
     report to the Congress within 60 days on how they will adjust 
     program values to cover increased costs associated with the 
     Hubble servicing/repair mission and shuttle return-to-flight 
     activities. This flexibility is unprecedented and gives the 
     Administrator broad latitude to implement the President's 
     vision for Space within the funds provided in the bill.
       Protecting the Environment:
       The Environmental Protection Agency is funded with an 
     emphasis on state grants, particularly in the areas of clean 
     water and safe drinking water.
       Provides $8.1 billion for the EPA, $299 million above the 
     President's request and $278 million above FY04. This 
     includes funding of $2.3 billion for Environmental Programs 
     and Management, $33 million below last year's level and $3 
     million below the request.
       The Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Fund is funded to 
     the budget request of $850 million, $5 million above FY 2004 
     and the Clean Water State Revolving Fund is funded at $1.1 
     billion, at the President's request.
       Funds state environmental program grants at $1.2 billion, 
     about equal to the FY04 level.
       Overall, State and Tribal Assistance Grants are funded at 
     $3.6 billion, $273 million below FY04 and $373 million over 
     the request.
       Funds Superfund at $1.3 billion, the same as last year's 
     level.
       Addressing Critical Housing Needs: The Department of 
     Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is funded at $37.3 
     billion, $618 million below last year's level and $521 
     million above the President's request. Includes a provision 
     to synchronize funding for public housing operations to a 
     calendar year resulting in saving of $994 million.
       Funding for Section 8 programs is split into two accounts 
     to provide better accountability and oversight.
       Tenant-Based Rental Assistance (Section 8 vouchers) is 
     funded at $14.9 billion, $697 million over last year and 
     $1.77 billion over the request. This includes $13.46 billion 
     for Section 8 voucher renewals, $742 million, or 6 percent 
     over last year, and $1.67 billion over the request. This is 
     in addition to the 15 percent increase the program received 
     last year. Section 8 is treated as a budget or dollar based 
     system like all other discretionary

[[Page 25143]]

     programs. Does not include Administration's proposed 
     authorization legislation to alter income targeting and 
     tenant rent contributions.
       Project-Based Rental Assistance (project-based contracts) 
     is funded at $5.34 billion, $270 million over last year and 
     $10 million below the request.
       Public and Indian Housing programs are funded at $5.8 
     billion, which reflects a one-time $994 million reduction in 
     Operating Subsidies due to synchronization of the program to 
     a calendar year funding cycle. Includes $2.6 for the Capital 
     Fund, $144 million for HOPE VI, and $627 million for the 
     Native American Housing Block Grant, a 3 percent reduction 
     from last year.
       HOME Investments Partnership is funded at $1.9 billion.
       Includes $1.3 billion for Homeless programs, $284 million 
     for Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA), $747 
     million for Elderly Housing, and $240 million for Housing for 
     Persons with Disabilities.
       Other Items of Interest: The Corporation for National and 
     Community Service is funded at $578 million, $3 million below 
     last year and $64 million below the President's request. This 
     supports a volunteer level of 70,000.

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

[[Page 25144]]

that Bill Young is leaving as chairman of the committee is another 
compelling argument against term limits. His talent, his fairness, his 
vision will be missed as our chairman. Thankfully, he will still be on 
our committee, giving us his sound counsel and leadership.

                              {time}  1445

  And, Bill, I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart for the 
example you have set for all of us of what it means to be an American, 
working together on behalf of our country and not on behalf of our 
party, on either side. I thank you for that, sir.
  Mr. Speaker, here we are yet again this year considering an end-of-
session omnibus appropriations bill not because of our Chairman Young 
but because of the disagreements, frankly, within his party. This is 
the fourth in the last 5 years and the eighth time in 10 years since 
our Republican friends regained the House majority that we have not 
passed appropriation bills as they should have been passed.
  This clearly is not how our appropriations process should work, with 
this House rolling nine separate appropriation bills into one and 
giving the Members just a few hours to review it. My chairman said 14 
hours. The distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture 
is reviewing the bill right now. It is, I judge, at least two feet 
tall, right in front of her. I do not know whether the camera panned to 
that, but it is an extraordinary document.
  It epitomizes this failed 108th Congress in which Republicans failed 
to enact the budget, failed to enact an energy plan, failed to enact a 
transportation bill, failed to enact welfare reform, failed to enact 
higher education reauthorization, and failed to enact a patients' bill 
of rights.
  Now, despite this dreadful appropriations process, there are many 
good provisions, as Chairman Young has said, in this bill. Not only 
that, I am going to vote for this bill.
  For example, there are more than $90 million to support an African 
Union peacekeeping force intended to end genocide in Darfur, Sudan. We 
must act on that. This bill also maintains the Federal commitment to 
election reform, providing $14 million for the new Election Assistance 
Commission. And we again recognize the dedicated service of our Federal 
civilian employees by providing a 3.5 percent pay raise, which is 
consistent with the pay increase for our men and women in uniform. Our 
staffs, hopefully, will all receive that as well. These funds also 
allow FDA employees to move from substandard workplaces into modern, 
state-of-the-art facilities.
  Finally, let me say that I am disappointed, however, that the A-76 
outsourcing, supported by the majority of this House and the majority 
of the Senate, was nevertheless dropped out of the conference report. 
This will put Federal employees at greater risk.
  Let me conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying that I am disappointed that 
we once again failed to reimburse small airports in the Washington, 
D.C., area. The Republicans and ourselves say we are on the side of 
small business. These airports have been disadvantaged by the actions 
of the terrorists and by our security concerns closing them down. We 
should have made them whole in this bill. We did not. I hope that in 
the future we will.
  Again, I thank Bill Young for his leadership and for his service.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller).
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman 
for yielding me this time; and, as we all understand, the Committee on 
Appropriations plays the cards that they are dealt. In this instance, 
they have been dealt a set of cards with a great big deficit and not 
much room to work.
  I want to thank the Committee on Appropriations for the effort they 
have made to bring this bill together, and I want to thank the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) for his stewardship of this 
committee.
  I must say, however, that I am deeply disappointed in the figures for 
education. From kindergarten to college, this legislation disappoints 
America's children, its families and its educators.
  In title I education, we see a reduction of almost 50 percent or a 
little over 50 percent of the money that the President asked for that 
is not in this legislation.
  In special education, where we have constantly pledged that we were 
going to move toward full funding, and in fact provide full funding, 
this year we see now we have backtracked on the effort that was being 
made, because almost $600 million is cut out of that request for an 
additional $1 billion.
  There are after-school funding cuts, and some 85,000 students will 
lose their Pell Grants and tens of thousands of others will because of 
the eligibility reconfigurations by the administration. A bad bill from 
kindergarten to college.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report, 
and I want to associate myself with all the remarks with regard to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young). No Member in this history of this 
Congress has ever done a better job with appropriations than Mr. Young.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this conference report. 
Division B of this Omnibus bill is the conference report on the fiscal 
year 2005 Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary Appropriations Act, 
which represents the work of the subcommittee that I chair.
  I would like to thank my colleague, Mr. Serrano, for his support 
throughout this process. He helped us to get a strong bill through the 
House, with a vote of 397 to 18.
  I would also extend my thanks to our Senate counterparts Chairman 
Gregg and Senator Hollings.
  Within a very tight allocation, we were able to provide funding for a 
variety of critical national priorities.
  The bill includes $20.6 billion for the Department of Justice, $975 
million above fiscal year 2004 and $804 million above the budget 
request to address terrorism, drugs, violence and white collar crime. 
The bill addresses recommendations of the 9/11 Commission by enhancing 
the FBI's personnel and retirement authorities to attract and retain 
critical intelligence staff and provides an increase of $625 million to 
improve training and information technology and provide additional 
agents, analysts, translators, and support staff.
  For Federal law enforcement overall, the conference report represents 
a 6.2 percent increase over last year to strengthen counterterrorism 
and crimefighting capabilities.
  The conference agreement provides $3 billion for State and local law 
enforcement, $906 million above the administration's request, including 
$634 million for Byrne Justice Assistance grants, $305 million for 
State Criminal Alien Assistance, $110 million to addresses critical DNA 
backlogs, $387 million for violence against women prevention, and $384 
million for juvenile justice.
  The conference report includes $913 million for the Securities and 
Exchange Commission, $102 million above last year, to provide the 
necessary resources to protect investors from corporate abuse.
  For the State Department, we have provided $8.7 billion, $693 million 
above last year, including $1.6 billion, the full requested level for 
worldwide embassy security upgrades. It also includes $1.28 billion for 
public diplomacy programs including international broadcasting, 
focusing on expanded programs for the Arab and Muslim world.
  For the Department of Commerce, the conference report provides $6.7 
billion for the Department of Commerce and other trade agencies, $761 
million above last year. Increases will result in more accurate 
economic statistics, improved weather forecasting, better management of 
the Nation's fisheries, and more accurate and timely census data. The 
bill also includes a 4.5 percent increase for the Nation's trade 
agencies to negotiate, enforce and verify free and fair trade 
agreements.
  For the Federal judiciary, the conference report provides $5.16 
billion, $315 million above last year. This includes funding to process 
all-time high numbers of criminal and bankruptcy cases, and to fund the 
judiciary's security requirements.
  Overall, Mr. Speaker, this conference agreement represents a sound 
and fair resolution of the multitude of issues that we faced in 
conference, and it does so in a fiscally responsible manner. I urge my 
colleagues to support this conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the members of my subcommittee staff who 
have put in very

[[Page 25145]]

long hours to produce the FY 2005 C-J-S appropriations bill. All 
members of the staff have worked long, hard hours to produce a bill 
that I believe will help our country.
  I would like to particularly thank Mike Ringler, clerk of the 
subcommittee, who has led the subcommittee through the House 
Appropriations process. I would also like to thank Christine Kojac, 
John Martens, and Anne Marie Goldsmith for their tireless efforts. 
Their work is much appreciated.
  I also would like to thank the detailee, Jonathan Mattiello, who has 
also lent his support to the bill.
  In my personal office, I would like to thank Dan Scandling, Janet 
Shaffron, J.T. Griffin, Samantha Stockman, and Neil Siefring for their 
efforts and work with the subcommittee.
  From the minority staff, I would like to thank David Pomerantz, Lucy 
Hand, Linda Pagelsen, and Rob Nabors who have worked with my staff in a 
bipartisan manner to produce this bill.
  Thank you all very much.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi), the minority leader, who has some scathing 
remarks she wants to utter about the chairman of the committee.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
Wisconsin for yielding me this time and in jest describing the remarks 
I wanted to make. I want to join him, I know he is a friend of the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young). The two of them have worked 
together, despite their differences on some issues, in a very courteous 
and constructive way for this House.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to convey to you not only my personal 
congratulations and appreciation for your very distinct leadership on 
this committee but that of all the House Democrats. As a former member 
of the Committee on Appropriations, I saw firsthand the fairness, the 
intelligence, and the humor that you brought to the chairmanship. Our 
Congress was greatly served by your leadership, by your demeanor, by 
your friendship to each and every Member, and by the respect that you 
gave us all on the committee. You were a model of bipartisanship where 
you could be, where it was possible to be, and I think you always gave 
us the opportunity for that bipartisanship.
  I want to again congratulate you, wish you well in whatever the 
arrangement of chairs is on the Republican side, and to say not only to 
you but to Mrs. Young, thank you for the attention you have paid to our 
men and women in uniform, to our troops in battle and when they come 
back. Again, congratulations. Thank you, my friend, Mr. Young.
  I hope that bought you enough time. I have plenty more to say about 
you.
  I will just make one comparison. When Mr. Livingston came in as the 
Chair of the Committee on Appropriations, my colleagues on the 
committee will remember he brought, some would call it a machete, but I 
think it was called something else in Louisiana, and he was swinging 
this blade around, and that was how we started the term. It was 
humorous to some, frightening to others, a mystery to most.
  In any event, when Mr. Young came, it was a much less menacing 
beginning and a much more fruitful, I think, opportunity for us all to 
work together. No offense to Mr. Livingston, but your approach and 
friendship was much more inviting. So, again, Mr. Young, thank you so 
much for your service and for your leadership. We are all in your debt.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the distinguished majority whip.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding me this time, and I just wanted to stand up today and talk 
about what a great job I think this committee has done, given the tough 
assignment before the election to come back after our break and to 
bring these remaining bills into place at the budget number that the 
House had worked with, without a budget agreed to with the Senate. I 
think it is a remarkable accomplishment that both the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) should 
be praised for. The committee has worked hard.
  I certainly join in the remarks that I have heard on the floor this 
morning about the great leadership that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Young) has brought to the committee for the last 6 years, the 
challenges, the lines of people that want to talk to him that, in the 
case of a bill like this, just want one more thing in the bill that 
maybe was not an issue that the appropriators should be dealing with. 
So I rise in tremendous admiration, respect and appreciation for Mr. 
Young, for his leadership of this committee, and also for this product 
that is on the floor today and give my appreciation to both he and Mr. 
Obey for that job.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Thomas) for the purpose of a colloquy.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand section 222 of the Transportation, 
Treasury and Postal title provides the Committee on Appropriations with 
proper access to IRS facilities for oversight purposes but not the 
ability to examine individual tax returns, data, or information and 
that it is the intent of the Committee on Appropriations that all 
access to taxpayer information would remain governed by the disclosure 
and privacy rules of section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code. Is that 
correct?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. THOMAS. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct. The 
Committee on Appropriations needs access to IRS field facilities to do 
our oversight work. That work does not require the Committee on 
Appropriations to review individual tax returns under section 6103, but 
it does require access to the facilities.
  Mr. THOMAS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, with that clarification, 
I want to rise strongly in support of this omnibus bill.
  But, more strongly, Mr. Speaker, I want to rise in admiration of the 
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. All of us think we have 
difficult jobs around here. Some of us have impossible jobs. And 
heading that list is the gentleman from Florida, who has done a 
magnificent job, and I want to thank him not only for this bill but for 
the service he has rendered over the years.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), for the purpose of a colloquy.
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this 
time, and I just wanted in this colloquy to read a statement that was 
inadvertently deleted from the conference report regarding Waukegan 
Harbor.
  ``The Conferees recognize the progress achieved over the last year by 
the parties involved in the Waukegan Harbor project. However, it is 
important that this fiscal year the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
finishes its requirements so next year dredging of the Inner Harbor may 
begin, such as finishing the Comprehensive Dredging Management Plan, 
the National Environmental Protection Act requirements, and Plans and 
Specifications. All of these requirements must be completed for 
dredging work to begin on the Inner Harbor. Once final dredging is 
concluded, the Harbor can be considered for delisting as an Area of 
Concern by the International Joint Commission. The Conferees urge the 
Chicago District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to continue 
working towards a final resolution of cleaning of the Harbor.''
  Is that the Chairman's understanding.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KIRK. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Yes, Mr. Speaker, this language was to have 
been included in the conference report and inadvertently was not. But 
the gentleman is correct.
  Mr. KIRK. I thank the chairman.

[[Page 25146]]


  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield for purposes of a unanimous-consent 
request to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, had time permitted, I would have asked the 
following question of the Chairman of the Committee, the Gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Young):
  Given that earlier this week the Majority insisted that Congress 
increase the debt limit by $800 billion, and that this bill includes an 
across-the-board cut of everything from cancer research to highway 
funding, why does this bill, specifically section 108 of Division J, 
appropriate $2 million to purchase a Presidential yacht, the Sequoia? 
At a time when we are sending American men and women to war in Iraq 
without the necessary body armor and equipment, why in the world are we 
spending taxpayer money on a Presidential yacht?
  The background of this issue deserves some elaboration.
  Division J of H.R. 4818 appropriates $2 million for the Secretary of 
the Navy to purchase the Presidential yacht Sequoia. President Jimmy 
Carter ordered that this yacht be sold to eliminate signs of an 
``imperial presidency''. It is unclear whether the purpose of 
purchasing the yacht, a national historic landmark, is to provide a 
yacht for the President, or to bail out the current owner of the 
vessel, or to donate the vessel to a maritime museum. When the Navy 
previously owned the vessel, it cost $800,000 a year to keep the vessel 
running safely and securely.
  The Sequoia was built in 1925; President Herbert Hoover was the first 
President to use the yacht. It was used by all Presidents until Jimmy 
Carter became President. President Nixon used the Sequoia approximately 
100 times--including the evening on which he decided to resign the 
Presidency. The yacht is owned by Gary Silversmith, a lawyer and 
collector of presidential memorabilia, who purchased the vessel in 2000 
for $1.9 million. In recent years, the Sequoia has been available for 
charter on the Potomac for $10,000 per day.
  A nonprofit group, the Presidential Yacht Sequoia Foundation, has 
been raising money to make the privately owned vessel ``public.'' 
According to an April 17, 2003, Washington Times article, Bill Codus, 
vice president of the foundation, said that the foundation had the ear 
of certain Members of the Congress for future appropriations, but he 
understood if, during tough economic times, the yacht is not at the top 
of Congress' list. He specifically stated: ``We have to be patient. A 
lot is going toward defense now, and we understand that.''
  This body ought not to be patient with a frivolous expenditure of $2 
million to buy a yacht that the Federal Government does not need and 
which, in fact, was once sold by the Government as excess property. 
This $2 million could be put to much better use by the U.S. Coast Guard 
to help buy a high speed cutter to interdict drug runners and illegal 
immigration in the U.S. coastal waters, for example.
  There are, no doubt, numerous other such unwarranted expenditures 
buried in this bill which should be excised--nontheless, I will vote 
for the conference report: it is better than the ``C.R.'', and I 
consider an ``aye'' vote necessary to keep the Government functioning.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the very distinguished 
majority leader.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I do not know if I am sad or happy that I am coming to the floor 
today to talk about this bill because this is the last bill that the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) will handle as chairman of the 
Committee on Appropriations. It is sad that he is no longer going to be 
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations because for the last 6 
years he has done a stellar job under very difficult circumstances.
  As the gentleman knows, when the committee is trying to put an 
appropriation bill together, in the end it is very difficult. There is 
incredible pressure on the chairman. But the gentleman is a man of 
incredible patience because he has put up with me, has incredible 
stamina, and big, big shoulders because he has carried big, big 
responsibilities, particularly in light of the fact that after 9/11 
much tougher issues have come before the gentleman because of 9/11. He 
has the respect of the entire House. Actually, he has the respect of 
this entire Congress, both the House and the Senate, and certainly the 
President of the United States and the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, we greatly appreciate the service of the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Young). We are very excited that he is continuing to serve 
in the House and on appropriations.
  I come in support of this bill, and I want to reflect on a couple of 
things. This has been an interesting week on the same subject, raising 
the debt limit on the United States and bringing the government 
appropriations, the government spending bills, here to the floor today. 
Most of the debate centered around philosophy, economic philosophy on 
where this country should go.
  I was amused in watching the debate on the debt limit and on this 
bill, the comments from the other side of the aisle. They have many 
ideas about fiscal responsibility, fiscal restraint, how to lead us 
into the future. Part of their understanding of history is a little 
off. I lived through that same period of time. The other side of the 
aisle takes credit for the balanced budget and the surplus in the 1990s 
because they passed higher taxes and more spending in 1993. And they 
point to what happened in the late 1990s when we actually balanced the 
budget for the first time in, I do not know, 30, 40, 50 years, and we 
were in a surplus.
  The problem in 1993 was business as usual. I remind the body that in 
1993 the Democrats had the majority of the House, had the majority of 
the Senate, had the President of the United States. They could do 
anything they wanted to, and they did. So their philosophy was the 
policy of the United States. It was very interesting if raising taxes 
and increasing spending, taking money out of the economy so you are not 
creating jobs or not creating an economy that can sustain this 
government, it was the right way to go, then why did their subsequent 
budgets and all of their economists project that there were going to be 
growing deficits as far as the eye could see?
  If they were very strong in their philosophy, they would have had 
their economists look at their philosophy and understand if they raise 
taxes and they increase the size of government by increasing spending, 
then we could predict out into the future that deficits would go away, 
you would balance the budget and you would create surpluses. At no time 
in the 40 years that the Democrats controlled this body did they ever, 
ever present a budget that balances or did they ever present a budget 
that predicted a balance. So to take credit for balancing the budget in 
the 1990s, which we did, and having surpluses holds no water 
whatsoever.
  What actually happened was the Republicans came into the majority in 
1995. In 1996 we did what we are doing here today. We did not just 
freeze nondefense discretionary spending; we cut nondefense 
discretionary spending. Our philosophy is if you cut taxes, the economy 
grows; and if the economy grows and there are more jobs created, there 
is more revenue to the government. That is exactly what happened in 
1981 when we cut taxes and we froze spending in 1981 under Ronald 
Reagan. They should have taken credit for that because they were in the 
majority in 1981. Unfortunately, in 1982 they started spending again. 
In 1987 we were able to freeze spending again because the economy 
dictated it and tried to cut taxes again. They should have taken credit 
for that because they were in the majority. But right before that and 
right after that they started spending again.
  The best part about this debate is if Members really listen to what 
they are saying, and they criticize this bill, they have said there is 
not enough spending in this bill. This bill actually freezes 
nondefense, non-homeland security, the first time we have done that 
since 1996; and I am very proud that we held the line and made Congress 
make choices and set priorities because it fits our philosophy. You cut 
taxes, grow the economy, more revenue for the government. You hold down 
spending and let those revenues catch up, sooner or later we are going 
to get to balance. That is exactly what we did in the Balanced Budget 
Act of 1997.
  By the way, I was also amused in the opening of the Clinton Library, 
Bill Clinton took credit for that. He vetoed

[[Page 25147]]

it twice. He never proposed it; he vetoed it twice, and finally he 
signed it because he insisted over and over again that we were going to 
balance the budget, not by raising taxes but by increasing the economy 
and holding down spending. We can do it again. It is much more 
difficult now that we are at war. At no time has this country ever 
balanced the budget while we were at war because we will spend whatever 
it takes to win this war and protect our troops. So it is going to be 
difficult to balance the budget, particularly if we do not raise taxes.
  What they really want and what they are so mad about is we are 
lowering taxes when they want to increase them so they can continue to 
spend more and increase the size of government. But we are not doing 
that, and we are not doing it as exhibited in this bill. This is part 
of our philosophy. This is a part of where we want to lead the country.
  We have been cutting taxes. In fact, this House has cut taxes every 
year for the last 10 years that we have been in the majority, and we 
will continue to cut taxes because we believe American families should 
keep more of what they earn so they can spend it and invest it and 
thereby grow the economy. And we will continue fiscal restraint and 
hold down spending, as difficult as it is, so we will get to a balanced 
budget because we are the only ones that have the credibility because 
we have done it before. We did it in the 1990s, we can do it again, and 
we will because our budgets have a projected balanced budget over the 
next 4 or 5 years. Actually, if we could do that. If we could implement 
some of the policies we want to, we will get to it faster.
  The crux of the matter is when we bring a balanced budget amendment 
to the Constitution to the floor of this House, they will be the first 
ones to vote against it because they know what it means.
  Mr. Speaker, make no mistake about it, there are two philosophies. 
They presented their philosophy in the election; we presented our 
philosophy in the election. With all due respect, the American people 
chose. The American people chose, so we are going to continue down this 
road of fiscal responsibility.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of the bill that the chairman has 
presented. I am very proud of the fact that we actually froze spending 
for the first time in a long time. I am very pleased to support this 
bill and urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 14 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a sad bill. There are countless good reasons to 
vote against it. In fact, this bill is a poster child for institutional 
failure. That is true for several reasons. First of all, because the 
nine appropriation bills which are wrapped into this early Thanksgiving 
turkey should have been dealt with by the House months ago.
  Secondly, it is totally inadequate to meet the Nation's needs in 
education, health care, and the environment. It falls so far short from 
meeting our investment obligations for the future that it could only be 
brought to the floor by the majority party after the election.
  Third, there are things that have been added in this omnibus bill 
which have never been voted on by anybody. Some of them are reasonable; 
some of them certainly are not. An example, Republicans chose to take 
this opportunity to slip a number of anti-environmental provisions into 
this bill which I will list in full in my extended remarks.
  Fourth, the Republicans have taken out several provisions that were 
supported by the majority of this body and should have been retained. I 
will again expand more fully on them in my extended remarks, but those 
provisions include eliminating the contracting-out provision, the 
bipartisan Chabot-Andrews amendment prohibiting road building in the 
Tongass National Forest, provisions to ease the economic embargo on 
Cuba, the Sanders cash-balance pension plan amendment, the MILC 
reauthorization bill which the President twice claimed to favor, and 
they also stripped out the language which would have protected 6 
million workers from being chiseled on their overtime rights.
  Another troubling feature of this bill is that it misleads people 
into thinking that funding for the programs in this bill is more 
generous than it actually is because it applies an across-the-board cut 
to the accounts in this bill, but it does not show the impact of those 
cuts on individual programs.
  I have often quoted my friend Archie the cockroach and I am moved to 
do so once more in commenting on this action by the committee. Archie 
said once that ``man always fails because he is not honest enough to 
succeed. There are not enough men continuously on the square with 
themselves and with other men. The system of government does not matter 
so much; the thing that matters is what men do with any kind of system 
they happen to have.''
  The problem we have today is there are all kinds of papers floating 
around this floor that profess to describe what is the funding provided 
for each of the programs provided in this bill, but they significantly 
overstate the amount of money in those accounts because the effect of 
the across-the-board cut is not counted.
  I would also say that this bill is not here in a lame duck session 
because of any delaying action by the minority party. The record shows 
that the minority party has procedurally cooperated with the majority 
to bring all these bills to the floor. Of the 12 appropriation bills 
brought to the floor before the election, eight were expedited by 
unanimous consent agreements from the minority; four of the bills not 
considered under unanimous consent agreement were completed in a single 
day while the Labor-Health-Education bill took only two days.
  Despite that procedural cooperation, even though they control both 
Houses of Congress and the White House, Republicans could not enact 
these bills. Why? Well, it was not because the majority party could not 
compromise with the minority; it was because the majority party could 
not compromise with itself. Why was that? Because rank-and-file members 
of the majority party, especially in the Senate, did not want to act on 
these bills with inadequate funding for education, health, science and 
environmental protection until they were safely past the election.

                              {time}  1515

  This bill shows some examples. This bill slashes funding for the EPA 
by $335 million. The biggest cut, $259 million, comes from the Clean 
Water State Revolving Fund, even though surveys have shown that we will 
confront a $388 billion investment deficit in that program alone over 
the next 20 years.
  This Congress just finished doubling the NIH budget over the past 5 
years, but NIH in the long run is heavily dependent upon basic initial 
research done by agencies like the National Science Foundation. 
Congress is on record supporting the need to double NSF funding, and 
yet the bill cuts funding for the NSF by $107 million below last year. 
This is the most Luddite provision in the bill.
  Support for housing and community development block grant funding is 
so pitiful I cannot even talk about it. One of the most reckless 
actions is a $332 million cut to the FAA after the bill's across-the-
board cut is taken into account. FAA will lose staff, including safety 
inspectors and air traffic controllers, and forgo needed safety 
technology improvements, all at a time when clogged and overcrowded 
airways make the skies dangerous.
  But perhaps the most serious neglect of our responsibilities is 
reflected in what this bill does on education. Unbelievably, it cuts 
the President's request for title I education funding, the prime mover 
of education reform, by $607 million, almost 50 percent. It falls $482 
million below the President's request for special education. It cuts 
funding for after-school programs by $25 million below the request and 
below last year's level, denying 1.3 million kids the educational 
opportunities they were promised in No Child Left Behind.
  Flu vaccine. This Congress has still managed once again to cut the 
President's request for flu vaccine, by a small amount admittedly, but 
it is still $800,000 below the President's request.

[[Page 25148]]

  On low-income heating assistance, despite the fact that the increased 
costs are expected to be 28 percent for home heating oil this year, 
this bill provides only half that increase in funding. That means a 
real reduction in assistance provided to the most vulnerable people in 
our society.
  Let there be no doubt that if Democrats were running this place, this 
bill would look far different. In June, we had a vote on a bill that 
detailed our Democratic priorities, H. Res. 685. If that bill were 
before us today, we would be providing an additional $3 billion for 
homeland security, police, fire and emergency services, an additional 
$5.7 billion to strengthen education, an additional $2.3 billion to 
fully fund veterans health care and improve housing for military 
families and an additional $1.3 billion to improve health care by 
expanding community health centers, rural health clinics, mental and 
child health programs.
  If today we were voting on the Democratic priority package rather 
than this bill, we would be providing $1.5 billion more for title I, 
serving an additional 500,000 low-income children so that they can meet 
the high standards of No Child Left Behind; we would be providing $1.2 
billion more to serve the special education needs of 6.9 million 
children with disabilities; and we would be providing $2.2 billion more 
for Pell grants, increasing the maximum Pell grant to $4,500.
  Based on the debate yesterday on the debt ceiling and on the majority 
leader's comments just a few moments ago, I know that some people on 
the other side of the aisle would claim that the Democrats' proposals 
to increase these investments in education, health, science and the 
environment would add to the deficit, but that is simply not the case.
  If the Democrats' priority plan were before us tonight, this 
legislation would actually reduce the deficit by $5 billion because our 
priorities package would limit the jumbo-sized tax cuts for persons 
making over $1 million a year to the same amount provided to other less 
fortunate Americans. It would redirect $14 billion of the money saved 
to crucial additional investments and would use the other $5 billion 
for deficit reduction. This bill would be at the same time more 
fiscally responsible and more humane than the bill brought before us 
tonight.
  So Democrats have demonstrated what our priorities are. We have done 
everything we possibly can to improve the warped priorities of the 
majority budget, but the majority has rejected and defeated those 
efforts. At this point, we are at the end of the calendar, and we are 
out of options. We need to move on. At this point our choice is simply 
to continue to vote ``no'' as a protest for the misshapen priorities in 
the bill or to grudgingly vote ``yes'' because this bill is $4 billion 
closer to meeting our responsibilities than Congress would be if we 
turned this bill down and we had to live with a continuing resolution.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I will reluctantly vote for this bill, but I will 
certainly not be leading the cheers because this body should have been 
able to do much better. I know the chairman of the committee and the 
various subcommittee chairmen have by and large done their best with 
what resources have been made available to them. That limitation has 
been imposed upon them by their own party leadership and by the White 
House. This bill could have been made much more humane and much more 
socially responsible by a relatively small adjustment.
  $14 billion more for our top domestic priorities as we have in the 
Democratic priority package is a lot of money, but it pales in 
comparison to the $280 billion that this Congress passed out in tax 
cuts this year alone with so much of it aimed at high-end taxpayers. 
For only 5 percent of that amount that was provided in tax actions this 
year, so much of which has gone to the most privileged and well-off 
among us, we could have made responsible investments in the future and 
had bipartisan agreements in support of these bills long before the 
election.
  One more point. In response to the majority leader's reshaping of 
history, to put it kindly, let me state what the facts are with respect 
to the national debt. The last President to balance a budget was Bill 
Clinton. The last President to balance a budget over his full term of 
office was President Truman. The last time I looked, they were both 
Democrats. The facts are also these: since 1946 at the end of World War 
II, under Democratic and Republican administrations alike and under a 
Democratic Congress for all of those years, from 1946 to 1979, the 
Nation's debt as a percentage of our total national income declined 
from 126 percent to 25 percent. In other words, we cut it by more than 
75 percent. Then President Reagan came to power and he doubled that to 
50 percent. Bill Clinton came to power and again brought that debt 
down.
  In contrast to just a few years ago when Bill Clinton left office, in 
large part because of the actions of this Congress and this President, 
economists today are predicting deficits as far as the eye can see. 
That is why Democrats sought to improve investments in this bill, not 
in a free-lunch way, but by engaging on our own pay-as-you-go 
proposition in order to see to it that even as we increased crucial 
investments in the economy, we still were trying to keep some money 
available for deficit reduction. If the majority party were doing that, 
this bill would be a lot more palatable today.
  Mr. Speaker, I will, as I said, reluctantly vote for this bill, but 
this bill is no great product. As the press finds out more and more 
about what the impact is on various programs, I think the Congress is 
going to wish that we spent considerably more time dealing with this in 
a rational manner.
  Some examples of how the Omnibus would be different if Democratic 
priorities were being voted on today rather than the Republican 
majority's plan:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Issue                   H. Res 685--Democratic priorities          FY 2005 Republican omnibus
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Health care for veterans.........  +$1.3 billion over the Republican       -$235.1 million below the House
                                    budget resolution to fully fund         Republican budget resolution.
                                    veterans' medical care at levels
                                    advocated on a bipartisan basis by
                                    the House Veterans' Affairs
                                    Committee.
Investments in education.........  +$5.7 billion over the President's      -$779 million below the President's
                                    request.                                request.
Title I..........................  +$1.5 billion over the President's      -$607 million below the President's
                                    request to support reading and math     request.
                                    instruction for 500,000 additional
                                    low-income children.
Child Care and After-School        +$300 million over the President's      $25 million below the President's
 Learning.                          request to double the number of         request and last year's level.
                                    children receiving quality after-
                                    school care in five years.
Special Education................  +$1.2 billion over the President's      -$482 million below the President's
                                    request to meet the promise the House   request.
                                    Republicans themselves made on
                                    special education funding.
Pell Grants......................  +$2.2 billion over the President's      -$468 million below the President's
                                    request to increase the maximum Pell    request, freezing the maximum Pell
                                    Grant by $450 to $4,500 for more than   Grant at $4,050.
                                    5 million low-income students. The
                                    average public 4-year college tuition
                                    has increased $1,400 (36 percent)
                                    since 2001.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Public health
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Infectious diseases and            +$100 million over the President's      Provides only $9 million over the
 immunizations.                     request to protect the public against   President's request.
                                    infectious diseases (like SARS, West
                                    Nile Virus, tuberculosis, and AIDS)
                                    and for child and adult immunization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Health care and medical research
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Core health ``safety net''         +$400 million over the President's      -$32 million below the President's
 programs.                          request for community health centers,   request, including -$103 million for
                                    rural health clinics, mental and        community health centers and -$12
                                    child health programs.                  million for mental health programs.
NIH research.....................  +$500 million over the President's      $170 less than the President's
                                    request for health research in areas    request.
                                    such as liver cancer, SARS, breast
                                    cancer, Parkinson's disease, and
                                    Alzheimer's disease.

[[Page 25149]]

 
National nursing shortfall.......  +$35 million over the President's       Provides only $4 million over the
                                    request for the ``Nurse Reinvestment    President's request.
                                    Act'' authorization.
Dental care......................  +$50 million over the President's       No funding included.
                                    request for dental services in rural
                                    and other underserved areas.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Clean water standards and environmental protection
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land protection and preservation.  +$325 million over the President's      -$62 million below the President's
                                    request for conservation programs       request.
                                    covered by the bipartisan commitment
                                    reached in 2001.
Water infrastructure.............  +$500 million over the President's      -$259 million below the FY 2004
                                    request for the Clean Water State       levels.
                                    Revolving Fund.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Basic services in rural communities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Community assistance for refugees  +$50 million over the President's       Provides only $11 million over the
                                    request for States and local            President's request.
                                    communities to offset the cost of the
                                    dramatic influx of refugees
                                    anticipated as result of the
                                    Administration's commitment to permit
                                    resumption of refugee flow to pre-
                                    September 11 levels.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  The best that can be said about this bill is that if it passes, it 
will provide $4 billion more than a Continuing Resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  First I would like to make this announcement, that following the vote 
on this omnibus appropriations bill, there will be a vote on a 
continuing resolution. The CR that we are operating under today expires 
at midnight tonight. So in order for us to have time to move this bill 
from the House to the Senate and go through the enrolling process and 
get it transmitted to the President's office and give the President 
time to review it and OMB time to review it, we thought we should do a 
CR just to make sure that there were no difficulties. We will take that 
CR up right after we pass this.
  As my colleagues have heard, because of term limits on the Republican 
side of the House, this chairman will be term-limited at the end of 
this Congress and will not be chairing the Full Appropriations 
Committee. But I wanted to say as I depart this post that it has been a 
real honor to serve in this capacity. It has been a tremendous 
challenge. There have been days when I almost wished I was back in the 
minority. But nevertheless it has been a good work.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin has been the ranking member during the 6 
years that I have chaired the committee. He and I have had some very 
strong differences, but we have also had some very strong agreements. 
Regardless of whether we agreed or disagreed, whether we were happy or 
unhappy with the situation, we were able to conduct the business of the 
House, I think, with respect for the institution.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. I would simply like to say that I have enjoyed very much 
the relationship between both of us. But I have enjoyed nothing in that 
relationship more than in the days after 9/11 when the gentleman and I 
worked so closely with each other, visiting all of the security 
agencies in town to discover what they needed. We worked arm in arm 
providing $40 billion when it was needed and seeing to it in the 
process that congressional prerogatives were protected. It was a great 
bipartisan experience. I wish that we had been allowed to continue that 
on many more fields of endeavor.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I appreciate the gentleman's comments. I want 
him to know, I am not going anywhere. I plan to be back with all our 
appropriations bills as we proceed.
  I would like to call attention to all of the members of the 
Appropriations Committee on both sides because this is a working 
committee. I know that in some cases the committee is really admired 
and respected and appreciated. In other cases we are probably sort of 
hated on occasion, but nevertheless we have the responsibility of 
adopting legislation that is must-pass legislation. Without the 
appropriations bills, the government does not function. The committee 
has worked really well, and I am proud of the committee. I am proud of 
the members. I am proud of the staff. We have great staff. I want to 
call particular attention to, and there are too many to refer to 
everybody by name today, but the front office staff, the main staff 
headed by the clerk of the committee, Jim Dyer, and his very, very able 
assistants, John Blazey, and Therese McAuliffe and Dale Oak, and I do 
not know of anybody who knows more about the numbers in these bills 
than Dale Oak, and John Scofield and Doug Gregory who is the man who I 
rely on considerably to make sure that I am in touch with everything 
that is happening to the best of our ability. We have a really great 
staff and they work together very well.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin has a very great staff on the minority 
side. We do our very best to make sure that we do not have any 
surprises for them, and they have been very good about not having any 
surprises for us. We are open and honest with each other and that is, I 
think, important to the type of work that we are responsible to do.
  Mr. OBEY. I intend at some point to insert in the Record the names of 
all of the staff, including associate staff, but I just want the House 
to appreciate the fact that many members of that staff have been 
working on this bill for 2 and 3 days without sleep. I do not think the 
public or the Members understand that, but their dedication to this 
place is phenomenal.

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


                   Front Office--H-218 Capitol--52771

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


                  Communications--H-218 Capitol--65828

       John Scofield.


                     Editor--B-301A Rayburn--52851

       Larry Boarman, Cathy Edwards.


                     Computer--B-305 Rayburn--52718

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


               Surveys & Investigations--283 Ford--53881

       Rob Pearre, Mike Welsh.


                   Agriculture--2362-A Rayburn--52638

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


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

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


                     Defense--H-149 Capitol--52847

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


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

       Joel Kaplan, Clelia Alvarado.


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

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


                Foreign Operations--HB-26 Capitol--52041

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


                Homeland Security--B-307 Rayburn--55834

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


                     Interior--B-308 Rayburn--53081

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


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

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


                   Legislative--H-147 Capitol--67252

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


                  Military Const--B-300 Rayburn--53047

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

[[Page 25150]]




                  Transportation--2358 Rayburn--52141

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


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

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


                    Minority--1016 Longworth--53481

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

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

                              {time}  1530

  Senator Stevens and I were determined that that was not going to 
happen, and we worked really hard with the House, both sides of the 
House, both sides of the Senate. We were finally able to get agreement 
to include the energy and water in this package. So this bill includes 
everything. That is why it is so big. It is nine bills. That is why the 
stack is so high.
  But the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development staff only had 2 
days to prepare this legislation and to write it and to read it and to 
get it fit into the bill. And these 2 days they went 48 hours without a 
break, without sleep, with an occasional snack and something to drink. 
But they really worked hard because they were only given 2 days to get 
their work done.
  As we conclude the business of the Congress, as we conclude the 
appropriations business, I wish that I was able under the House rules 
to say what a great honor it is to work with the chairman of the 
Appropriation Committee in the Senate. Senator Stevens, while he is a 
tough negotiator and he takes really good care of Alaska, he is a good, 
honest guy, and he is good to work with, and I appreciate him very 
much.
  And Senator Byrd, it is an experience to work with Senator Byrd as 
the ranking member. He is such a distinguished gentleman and is very 
knowledgeable about what it is that we do here.
  So as we close the session and close this bill, I want to wish 
everybody a very safe and happy return to their homes and Thanksgiving, 
Christmas, Hanukkah, New Year's, and whatever other celebrations that 
we might have between now and the time we come back together. And I 
would like everyone, as they recognize all of these holidays and they 
remember and they enjoy their family times together, to think about our 
troops. Think about our Americans who are deployed overseas in harm's 
way and their families and just give them a little extra prayer for 
their safety and a successful completion of their mission.
  Mr. Speaker, God bless everybody in this institution.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the economic prosperity of the 
1990s fueled a drive to increase the levels of employment-based 
immigration. Both the Congress and the Federal Reserve Board expressed 
concern that a scarcity of labor could curtail the pace of economic 
growth. This resulted in an increase of the supply of foreign temporary 
professional workers through FY 2003. The number of petitions approved 
for H-1B workers escalated in the 1990s and peaked in FY 2001 at 
331,206 approvals. Since then, the H-1B annual numerical limit has 
reverted back to 65,000. That limit was reached on the first day of FY 
2005. The bill before us today includes provisions to address that 
problem. I want to thank Senator Kennedy for his work on these 
provisions.
  Before discussing these provisions, I want to emphasize that I 
believe American companies should hire American workers first. When 
they cannot meet their employment needs by hiring American workers, 
however, they should have access to foreign workers.
  The H-1B provisions in this bill would exempt H-1B applicants with a 
masters or higher degree from a U.S. institution of higher education 
from the annual H-1B cap. This exemption would be limited to 20,000 per 
year. It also would strengthen labor protections under the H-1B 
program. It would reinstate and make permanent the attestation 
requirements for H-1B dependent employers. Employers would be required 
to attest that they have not displaced a U.S. worker 90 days before or 
90 days after the hiring of an H-1B worker. It would require an 
employer to pay 100 percent of the prevailing wage. Current law only 
requires 95 percent. It would require a government survey to determine 
the prevailing wage to provide at least four levels of wages 
commensurate with experience, education, and the level of supervision. 
Currently, only two wage levels are used.
  I am pleased that we have provisions that would strengthen 
enforcement protections under the H-1B program. These provisions would 
authorize the Secretary of the Department of Labor, DOL, to conduct 
random investigations if the Secretary has reasonable cause to believe 
that an employer has committed a violation. It also would reinstate 
DOL's authority to investigate complaints alleging an employer's 
violation of the law.
  We also have provisions that would increase H-1B visa fees from 
$1,000 to $1,500 for business with more than 25 employees This would 
provide greatly needed additional funds for job training activities. It 
also would provide additional scholarships for computer science, 
technology, and science programs. I want to point out though that it is 
an empty victory if our American children are trained to do jobs and 
then are unable to find employment.
  Finally, we obtained provisions that would provide needed 
strengthening of labor protections under the L Visa program to plug 
loopholes that are being used to bypass the cap restriction of the H-1B 
program. These provisions would prohibit the subcontracting of L-1 
workers, and they would toughen eligibility restrictions by requiring 
L-1 workers to be continuously employed with the company for at least 1 
year prior to obtaining an L visa.
  While I would support provisions of this legislation with these 
provisions contained therein, I remain concerned about the need to hire 
American workers first. We must work together to ensure that American 
companies make an effort to save American jobs for American workers. I 
received a letter from the American Engineering Association that I want 
to bring to your attention. According to the American Engineering 
Association, ``American tech workers are facing record unemployment and 
losing their jobs to outsourcing.'' The Association claims also that, 
``Bringing in foreigners to take tech jobs undermines engineering as a 
profession and discourages young people from pursuing this path.''
  As I look forward to the 109th Congress, I envision a new approach to 
immigration reform. Instead of piecemeal reforms of our broken 
immigration system, such as this fix for some of the problems in the H-
1B and L visa programs, we need bipartisan, bicameral support for 
comprehensive immigration reform. Effective immigration reform must 
provide a certain path to legalization for workers from around the 
world who are already living and working in the United States; repeal 
and replace employer sanctions with stiffer penalties for employers who 
take advantage of workers' immigration status to exploit them and 
undermine labor protections for all workers; reform, not expand, 
temporary worker programs; and reform the permanent immigration system 
so that those who play by the rules are not penalized by unconscionably 
long waiting periods. I intend to pursue such reform in the 109th 
Congress by reintroducing my Comprehensive Immigration Fairness Act.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, on November 20, 2004, the House took up 
consideration of and passed H.R. 4818, the Consolidated Appropriations 
Act for 2005. Division K of H.R. 4818 contains the Small Business 
Reauthorization and Manufacturing Assistance Act of 2004. Since the act 
was incorporated directly into the Consolidated Appropriations Act for 
2005, no committee report accompanies the legislation. As chairman, I 
am submitting for insertion in the Record, the attached explanation of 
the Small Business Reauthorization and Manufacturing Assistance Act of 
2004. I would expect the Administrator, in implementing the provisions 
of this act, to accord the enclosed explanation the same weight in 
defining congressional intent that the Administrator would give to a 
report after a mark-up prior to floor action or the language in a 
conference report. This expectation is particularly

[[Page 25151]]

apt in this circumstance because the provisions were negotiated and 
agreed to in cooperation with my counterpart in the United States 
Senate.

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

     Section 101. Express loans
       Section 7(a)(25)(B) authorizes the Administrator to create 
     pilot loan programs. In exercising that authority, the 
     Administrator created an ``Express Loan Pilot Program.'' The 
     program authorizes lenders to use their own forms in 
     submitting requests to the Administrator for the issuance of 
     guarantees. Two significant restrictions are imposed by the 
     ``Express Loan Pilot Program:'' the guarantee cannot exceed 
     50 percent of the loan and the maximum loan amount is 
     $250,000.
       Section 101 codifies, with a few significant differences, 
     the provisions of Pub. L. No. 108-217, which addressed the 
     Express Loan Program. The two most significant changes are 
     the permanent authorization of the Express Loan Program by 
     creating a new paragraph (31) in Sec. 7(a) of the Small 
     Business Act and the statutory increase in the size of such 
     loans to $350,000.
       Section 101 defines an ``express loan'' as any lender 
     authorized by the Administrator to participate in the Express 
     Loan Program. Congress expects that the Administrator will 
     establish by rule the standards needed to qualify as an 
     Express Lender.
       Section 101 defines an ``express loan'' as one in which the 
     lender utilizes, to the maximum extent practicable, its own 
     analyses of credit and forms. Congress fully expects that the 
     conditions under which express loans are made will not vary 
     significantly from those conditions that currently exist 
     under the ``Express Loan Pilot Program.'' Nevertheless, 
     Congress understands that the Administrator may wish to 
     revise the standards and operating procedures associated with 
     ``express loans.'' Nothing in the statutory language should 
     be interpreted as prohibiting the Administrator from imposing 
     these additional requirements that are otherwise consistent 
     with the statutory language.
       Section 101 codifies the existing concept of the 
     Administrator's ``Express Loan Pilot Program.'' In other 
     words, the ``Express Loan Program'' is one in which lenders 
     utilize their own forms and get a guarantee of no more than 
     50 percent.
       Section 101 restricts the program, including the increased 
     loan amount of $350,000, to those lenders designated as 
     express lenders by the Administrator. Designation as an 
     express lender does not limit the lender to making express 
     loans if the lender has been authorized to make other types 
     of loans pursuant to Sec. 7(a) of the Small Business Act. 
     Although a lender may only seek status as an express lender, 
     this section was included to ensure that the Administrator 
     not limit the ability of an express lender to seek other 
     lending authority from the Administrator. Nor is the 
     Administrator permitted to change its standards for 
     designating an express lender in a manner that only 
     authorizes the lender to make express loans. To the extent 
     that the lending institution wishes to offer a full range of 
     loan products authorized by Sec. 7(a) and is otherwise 
     qualified to do so, the Administrator shall not restrict that 
     ability on the lender's status as an express lender.
       Section 101 prohibits the Administrator from revoking the 
     designation of any lender as an express lender that was so 
     designated at the time of enactment. This prohibition does 
     not apply if the Administrator finds the express lender to 
     have violated laws or regulations or the Administrator 
     modifies the requirements for designation in a way that the 
     express lender cannot meet those standards. Congress does not 
     expect that the Administrator will impose new requirements 
     for express lenders that prohibit them from making loans 
     under other loan programs authorized by the Small Business 
     Act for which they have approval from the Administrator.
       Congress, at the request of the Small Business 
     Administration, determined that it was appropriate to expand 
     the size of ``express loans'' to $350,000. Any change in the 
     size of an express loan now will require action by Congress.
       Congress is concerned that the Administrator will take 
     regulatory actions that unduly favor express lending over 
     other types of lending authorized by Sec. 7(a) of the Small 
     Business Act. As such, Congress incorporated a provision 
     prohibiting the Administrator from taking any action that 
     would have the effect of requiring a lender to make an 
     express loan rather than a conventional loan pursuant to 
     Sec. 7(a). Any significant policy change in the operation of 
     the lending programs authorized by Sec. 7(a) of the Small 
     Business Act requires notification to the House and Senate 
     Small Business Committees. Furthermore, the statutory 
     language on notification goes beyond that which is required 
     pursuant to Sec. 7(a)(24) of the Small Business Act.
     Section 102. Loan guarantee fees
       Section 103 increases the loan guarantee amount to a 
     maximum of $1.5 million. Given the fact that borrowers are 
     getting an additional increment in loan guarantees, the 
     sponsors determined that it would be appropriate to require 
     an additional 0.25 percent fee for the amount of guarantee in 
     excess of $1 million. Thus, on the amount of the guarantee 
     between $1 million and $1.5 million, the upfront fee 
     authorized pursuant to Sec. 7(a)(18) of the Small Business 
     Act increases from 3.5 percent to 3.75 percent but only for 
     that portion of the loan guarantee in excess of $1 million. 
     This is consistent with typical commercial lending practices 
     of charging fees that are commensurate with the lenders' 
     exposure to risk.
       Section 102 also raises the fee collected by the 
     Administrator from banks of the unpaid balance of deferred 
     participation loans. To avoid situations such as those that 
     occurred at the end of calendar year 2003 in which the 
     Administrator was required to drastically reduce lending and 
     impose other restrictions on the program, Congress determined 
     that it would be appropriate for the Administrator to have 
     some discretion in setting the fee paid by lenders on the 
     unpaid balance. The total amount of the fee cannot in, any 
     year, exceed 0.55 percent of the unpaid balance. Congress 
     expects the Administrator to use this authority only when 
     needed to drive the cost, as that term is defined in the 
     Federal Credit Reform Act, of the loan program to zero, i.e., 
     not need an appropriation. Any use of this discretion to 
     raise the fee beyond the current level of 0.5 percent should 
     trigger the notification provisions in Sec. 7(a)(24) of the 
     Small Business Act. As a further oversight tool, Congress 
     expects that the Administrator would satisfy any relevant 
     committee's request for information on the utilization of 
     this discretion.
       Finally, Congress determined that the Administrator also be 
     given the authority to lower fees charged to borrowers and 
     lenders if the subsidy cost becomes negative, i.e., the fees 
     will actually take in more money to the government than it 
     costs to operate the Sec. 7(a) loan program. Congress adopted 
     an approach that the Administrator should it undertake a fee 
     reduction first consider reducing the fees set forth in 
     clauses (i)-(iii) of subsection 7(a)(1 8)(A) and then reduce 
     fees on lenders. As a further restriction on the discretion 
     of the Small Business Administration, the fees that were 
     charged to borrowers on the date of enactment of this 
     conference report may not be raised. Congress adopted this 
     language to ensure that any fee increases to borrowers beyond 
     the statutory limits requires the action of Congress.
     Section 103. Increase in guarantee amount and, institution of 
         associated fee
       Access to capital is vital to the growth of small 
     businesses. Particularly for manufacturers and high 
     technology research and development businesses, typical 
     amounts of capital available under the existing loan limits 
     authorized by Sec. 7(a) of the Small Business Act often are 
     inadequate. Given the importance of capital to grow small 
     businesses, Congress determined that it would be appropriate 
     to permanently increase the amount of the loan guarantee from 
     $1 million to $1.5 million. No additional changes were made 
     in the overall statutory cap of a gross $2 million loan. 
     Thus, the Administrator will be able to guarantee up to $1.5 
     million of a $2 million loan rather than the current limit of 
     $1 million. Congress expects that this will increase the 
     number of lenders willing to make loans to small 
     manufacturers who face significant global competition.
     Section 104. Debenture size
       Congress raised all of the loan limitations for qualified 
     state and local development companies (``CDCs'') because they 
     had not been raised in many years and the long-term financing 
     needs of small businesses were not being met by loans that 
     did not exceed the thresholds for loans made pursuant to 
     Sec. 7(a) of the Small Business Act. Raising the loan 
     limitations has two effects. First, it signifies the 
     recognition that Title V of the Small Business Investment Act 
     and Sec. 7(a) of the Small Business Act has very different 
     purposes in mind. Second, an increase in the threshold allows 
     more effective economic development projects to be funded by 
     CDCs.
       Congress believes that the increases to $1,500,000 for 
     regular projects, $2,000,000 for public policy goal projects, 
     and $4,000,000 for small manufacturers will provide 
     significant new financial inputs to small businesses in 
     general and to small manufacturers in particular.
       While all small businesses whose primary industrial 
     classification is in North American Industrial Classification 
     sectors 31, 32, and 33 (the sectors for manufacturing), not 
     all small business concerns in those sectors are considered 
     small manufacturers. Congress adopted a requirement that 
     small manufacturers should be limited to those small business 
     concerns that have all of their production facilities are 
     located in the United States. Congress does not intend that 
     small business concerns that have manufacturing facilities 
     situated outside of the United States should be denied 
     assistance under programs operated by the Small Business 
     Administration. However, special benefits should be afforded 
     to those manufacturers whose production facilities are 
     located in the United States. Finally, the definition in 
     Sec. 106 is identical to the definition in this section 
     thereby avoiding any potential interpretive concerns about 
     what the legislature meant when it used the same term in 
     different sections of legislation.

[[Page 25152]]


     Section 105. Job requirements
       The Administrator has promulgated regulations, pursuant to 
     Sec. 501 of the Small Business Investment Act mandating that 
     a loan made by a CDC must create or save one job for each 
     $35,000 in guarantee. This standard has not been revised 
     since it was adopted in 1990. The standard clearly does not 
     reflect inflation or the dramatic increases in productivity 
     that has led to higher wages for all employees. Congress 
     determined that the standard should be revised to take 
     account of the changes in the economy during the past 14 
     years. Therefore, 105 statutorily raises the job creation 
     standard to one job for every $50,000 in guarantees.
       Manufacturing requires greater capital investment than 
     other businesses. Such investment may lead to higher 
     productivity for small manufacturers and therefore fewer jobs 
     created per investment. Congress does not want to prejudice 
     the ability of CDCs to fund projects that would assist small 
     manufacturers. Section 106 establishes a standard that 
     authorizes CDC loans to small manufacturers if the project 
     creates one job for each $100,000 of guarantee.
       CDCs do not need to meet job creation standards for 
     individual loans if the loan is used to further one of the 
     public policy objectives in Sec. 501(d). Section 105 modifies 
     that requirement slightly by exempting a particular project 
     from the job creation standards if the project was meeting a 
     public policy objective and if the CDC's overall loan 
     portfolio creates one job for $50,000 in guarantees.
       Since the basic premise of loans made pursuant to Title V 
     of the Small Business Investment Act is to encourage economic 
     development, Congress concluded that it made sense to 
     establish a different standard for job creation in 
     economically-depressed areas or places with unusually high 
     wage requirements. Congress believes that CDCs should be 
     provided more leeway in creating jobs in economically-
     depressed areas and Alaska and Hawaii. As a result, CDC loans 
     in these areas only need to meet a more lenient job creation 
     standard of one job per $75,000 of guarantee in certain 
     areas.
       Given the importance of small manufacturing to economic 
     development, Congress excluded loans to small manufacturers 
     from the calculations needed to determine whether a CDC's 
     loan portfolio meets the overall job creation standard of one 
     job per $50,000 of guarantee or the $75,000 standard for 
     high-wage and economically depressed areas. Congress intends 
     that the public policy goals set forth in Sec. 501 should be 
     accomplished without reference to job creation for small 
     manufacturers. Section 105 also authorizes the Administrator 
     to waive any of the standards when appropriate. Congress 
     expects that the Administrator will promulgate regulations 
     specifying when the job creation standards will be waived. 
     Two restrictions are imposed on the Administrator's 
     discretion. First, the Administrator may not waive the 
     requirements concerning small manufacturers. Second, the 
     Administrator may not mandate a job creation standard with a 
     number lower than that set forth in Sec. 105 but does have 
     the liberty to set a higher dollar guarantee per job 
     standard. These restrictions ensure that the Administrator 
     does not undermine the ability of CDCs to lend to small 
     manufacturers.
     Section 106. Report regarding national database of small 
         manufacturers
       Institutions of higher education can play a vital role in 
     reviving small manufacturers. Universities must purchase 
     large amounts of standard manufactured products (often on an 
     annual basis--such as furniture for dormitory rooms). They 
     also often purchase very sophisticated tools and laboratory 
     equipment that small manufacturers may produce. Congress 
     believes that some mechanism should be in place so that 
     institutions of higher education can identify suppliers from 
     the universe of small manufacturers. While not an ideal 
     system, a database similar to PRO-NET represents a useful 
     model for making institutions of higher education aware of 
     the capabilities of small manufacturers. PRO-NET is a 
     database operated by the federal government in which the 
     capabilities of numerous small businesses are outlined. 
     Contracting officers use PRO-NET to find small businesses 
     capable of providing goods and services. Section 106 requires 
     the Administrator and the Association of Small Business 
     Development Centers to study the viability of creating a PRO-
     NET-like database that all institutions of higher education 
     can use to identify small manufacturers (the definition is 
     identical to the definition in Sec. Sec. 104-05) capable of 
     providing their procurement needs. The bill also requires a 
     report to Congress on the viability and cost to establish 
     such a database.
     Section 107. International trade
       All Sec. 7(a) loans can be used to refinance existing debt 
     except for international trade loans. Congress determined 
     that the restriction did not make sense especially since 
     businesses harmed by unfair international competition will be 
     more competitive if their debt service payments are lower. 
     Therefore, Congress authorized businesses otherwise eligible 
     for an international trade loan to use it for refinancing of 
     debt but only to the extent that the Administrator determines 
     the applicant's existing debt is not structured with 
     reasonable terms and conditions. Congress expects that the 
     Administrator examine the interest rate being charged 
     relative to the interest rates generally available for 
     similar businesses to determine whether the terms and 
     conditions are not reasonable.
       To obtain an international trade loan, the applicant must 
     demonstrate that the business either is engaged in or 
     adversely affected by international trade. To avoid the 
     necessity of having to prove adverse effects if other 
     government agencies already reached that conclusion in the 
     same industry as the borrower, Congress mandated that the 
     Administrator must accept as conclusive proof of injury a 
     finding by the Secretary of Commerce issued pursuant to 
     chapter 3 of Title II of the Trade Act of 1974 or any 
     determination by the International Trade Commission. If an 
     applicant is in an industry for which the Commission or the 
     Secretary has made an injury finding, Congress concluded that 
     it would be pointless to require the small businesses so 
     suffering to go through the additional expense of presenting 
     new evidence to the Administrator of injury.
       Congress intends that the utilization of the findings by 
     the Secretary or the Commission is not a limiting factor if a 
     small business can present other evidence of injury. For 
     example, the Commission or Secretary may not find that an 
     industry was injured or that no claims were made to either 
     agency. Nothing in Sec. 107 prevents a small business from 
     presenting of evidence of specific injury to his or her 
     business. The Administrator then would be required to rule on 
     the adequacy of the proof, and if sufficient evidence was 
     found of injury, make a loan under Sec. 7(a)(16).
       Section 107 also provides for an increase in the size of 
     international trade loans. Given the nature of international 
     trade, Congress typically has mandated that loan caps be 
     $250,000 higher than those for conventional Sec. 7(a) loans. 
     This section maintains that practice and increased the cap 
     for international trade loans based on the increase in the 
     guarantee fees for conventional loans.
     Section 121. Program authorization levels
       This section amends Sec. 20 of the Small Business Act and 
     provides for authorization of appropriations. Congress 
     selected authorization levels with sufficient room to allow 
     for expected growth and expansion of programs authorized by 
     the Small Business Act and Small Business Investment Act. 
     Congress also determined that an authorization of 
     appropriations not elsewhere provided should apply to all of 
     the Small Business Investment Act.
       Finally, Congress concluded that the existing standing 
     authorization of appropriations only for carrying out title 
     IV of the Small Business Investment Act was illogical. 
     Section 121 amends Sec. 20 to provide for an authorization of 
     appropriations not elsewhere provided for carrying out both 
     the Small Business Act and all titles of the Small Business 
     Investment Act.
     Section 122. Addition reauthorizations
       The Small Business Development Center (SBDC) program's 
     authorization levels are set forth in Sec. 21 of the Small 
     Business Act. Congress provided modest authorization 
     increases for the SBDCs to take account of necessary growth 
     in providing services to entrepreneurs. In addition, Congress 
     also extended the authority of SBDCs to provide drug-free 
     workplace counseling. This authority would have lapsed 
     without the change. The extension of authority will give the 
     SBDC grantees sufficient time to coordinate their actions 
     with the grantees under the revised drug-free workplace 
     program.
       Given the SBDCs expertise in providing assistance to 
     entrepreneurs, Congress established a program authorizing 
     grants to SBDCs that are willing to offer advice in 
     communities that are economically challenged due to business 
     or government facility down-sizing or closing. Congress 
     expects that this assistance will first be offered to 
     communities suffering from plant closings, then to 
     communities suffering from government office closings, and 
     finally to base realignments. To the extent that other bases 
     are closed in future years, Congress expects that legislation 
     concerning such closures will provide additional assistance 
     to the surrounding communities and that assistance provided 
     under Sec. 122 should be utilized in other areas that do not 
     receive the directed assistance associated with base 
     closures.
     Section 123. Paul D. Coverdell Drug-Free Workplace Program 
         authorization provisions
       Congress recognizes that small businesses need drug free 
     workplaces. Drug-free workers boost productivity and reduce 
     the costs of health care coverage and absenteeism. As a 
     result, Congress reauthorized the program for two years at 
     the five million dollar level. In addition, to ensure that 
     funding is maximized to eligible intermediaries that 
     specialize in providing drug-free workplace assistance to 
     small businesses, Congress adopted a limitation on the amount 
     of funds that can be awarded to SBDCs for carrying out the 
     purposes of the Paul D. Coverdell Program. Furthermore, 
     Congress, again in an effort to maximize limited dollars, 
     restricts the use of funds for administrative purposes to 
     five percent of the total made available to grantees. Nothing 
     in this limitation restricts the drug-free workplace advice 
     that SBDC

[[Page 25153]]

     grantees are authorized to provide in their normal course of 
     operations.
     Section 124. Grant provisions
       Congress recognized that improvements in coordination 
     between the activities of drug-free workplace eligible 
     intermediaries and SBDCs might improve delivery of services 
     to small businesses. As a result, Congress established a 
     grant program within the Paul D. Coverdell Drug-Free 
     Workplace Program to promote cooperation between eligible 
     intermediaries and SBDC grantees. Congress expects that the 
     Administrator award the two-year grants to those applicants 
     that best demonstrate the capacity to deliver advice in a 
     coordinated manner between SBDCs and eligible intermediaries.
     Section 125. Drug-free communities coalitions as eligible 
         intermediaries
       Congress recognizes that there are numerous entities that 
     receive grants under chapter 2 of the National Narcotics 
     Leadership Act of 1988 but are not currently authorized to 
     participate as eligible intermediaries under the Paul D. 
     Coverdell Drug-Free Workplace Program. This section makes 
     these National Narcotics Leadership Act grantees, which could 
     provide valuable insight into establishing drug-free 
     workplaces, eligible to receive awards under the Paul D. 
     Coverdell Drug-Free Workplace Program. Inclusion of new 
     additional parties should not be interpreted as directing the 
     Administrator to favor them over others that apply for grants 
     under the Paul D. Coverdell Drug-Free Workplace Program.
     Section 126. Promotion of effective practices of eligible 
         intermediaries
       To ensure that the Paul D. Coverdell Drug-Free Workplace 
     Program operates optimally, Congress mandates that the 
     Administrator provide best practices to eligible 
     intermediaries. The Administrator should use all of its 
     available outreach resources, including SBDCs, Women Business 
     Centers, and district offices to ensure that eligible 
     intermediaries are kept apprised of best practices.
       Congress also believes that the performance of eligible 
     intermediaries should be assessed and measured. Such 
     evaluations will be useful to Congress when it considers what 
     changes, if any, need to make the program even more 
     effective. This section establishes the procedures for 
     collecting data needed to evaluate the efficacy of the 
     program.
     Section 127. Report to Congress
       This section requires the Administrator to use the data 
     collected under Sec. 126 and report to Congress on the 
     efficacy of the program and dissemination of drug-free 
     workplace information. Congress expects the relevant 
     committees to examine the report and make necessary 
     legislative changes as a result to ensure optimal operation 
     of the Paul D. Coverdell Drug-Free Workplace Program.
     Section 131. Lender examination and review
       Current practice authorizes SBIC licensees to pay for 
     examination and reviews conducted by the Administrator. 
     Congress determined that the same principles should apply to 
     lenders authorized to make government-guaranteed loans under 
     Sec. 7(a). This section grants the Administration the 
     authority to charge for examinations and reviews. The section 
     also requires that the fees be directed to lender oversight 
     activities including the payment of salaries and expenses of 
     Administration personnel involved in such functions. This 
     authority does not imply that the fees may be directed to the 
     reimbursement of other functions of the Administration.
     Section 132. Gifts and co-sponsorship of events
       Gifts and co-sponsorships play a useful role in the Small 
     Business Administration's performance of its outreach 
     function to small businesses. Congress determined that even 
     broader language than is currently permitted was necessary to 
     ensure the Administration's continued ability to obtain gifts 
     and seek co-sponsorships. In particular, Congress recognized 
     that in many instances the Administration does not receive 
     gifts but rather contributions are made by a co-sponsoring 
     entity to an Administration event, such as small business 
     forum. In other instances, the SBA uses gifts to pay for 
     promotional materials, such as cards that are handed out in 
     district offices to promote an event. This section clarifies 
     and broadens the existing authority of the Small Business 
     Administration to obtain gifts and co-sponsorships in order 
     to expand the agency's outreach. To ensure appropriate 
     clarity, Congress added the term ``recognition events'' which 
     would include Small Business Week and sponsorship of dinners 
     during that period. The section also requires the 
     Administration to recognize the co-sponsors of such events 
     but only to the extent of their contributions. No 
     endorsements of the co-sponsors products or services are 
     permitted.
       In order to ensure that conflicts of interest do not arise 
     in the solicitation or acceptance of gifts, Congress requires 
     the General Counsel to determine whether a conflict of 
     interest exists. If a determination that a conflict of 
     interest exists, the General Counsel is empowered to prohibit 
     the solicitation or acceptance. Finally, the language 
     clarifies that the Administrator may delegate the approval of 
     co-sponsorships to the Deputy Administrator, Associate 
     Administrators, and Assistant Administrators. No personnel 
     located in district or regional offices are permitted to 
     approve co-sponsorships. Congress adopted this restriction to 
     ensure close cooperation with the General Counsel of the 
     Administration.
       Congress also requires that the Inspector General audit the 
     use of such gifts and co-sponsorships. This avoids potential 
     abuses of the program through independent oversight of an 
     official whose investigations cannot be impeded by the 
     Administrator or Administration personnel. Congress wanted 
     additional assurances (beyond the Inspector General audit) 
     that the Small Business Administration achieved a proper 
     balance between this new expanded authority and 
     accountability. As a result, a sunset date of 2006 was added 
     in order to properly monitor this new authority before 
     considering making this language permanent in the Small 
     Business Act.
     Section 141. Service Corps of Retired Executives
       Currently, the Administrator has the discretion whether to 
     permit the Service Corps of Retired Executives (SCORE) to 
     maintain offices at the headquarters of the Administration 
     and pay employees of SCORE. Congress determined that the 
     vitality of SCORE should not be subject to whims of the 
     Administrator and therefore require that the Administrator 
     maintain SCORE's offices at the Administration's headquarters 
     and continue to pay for the salaries of SCORE personnel. 
     Congress notes that this will not require any increased 
     appropriation since these services and expenses are currently 
     included in the Small Business Administration's budget.
     Section 142. Small Business Development Center Program
       Congress remains concerned that SBDCs were and may continue 
     to be revealing the name of businesses that seek their advice 
     to Administration employees for functions unrelated to the 
     financial auditing or client surveys needed to oversee the 
     operations of the SBDC grantees. Congress believes that such 
     behavior is intolerable. This section prohibits the 
     disclosure of client information (including the name, 
     address, telephone and facsimile numbers, and e-mail address) 
     of any concern or individual receiving assistance from a SBDC 
     grantee or its subcontractors (who operate service centers 
     that business owners can utilize to obtain advice) unless the 
     Administrator is ordered to make such disclosure pursuant to 
     a court order or civil or criminal enforcement action 
     commenced by a federal or state agency. Congress expects that 
     SBDC grantees will only respond to formal agency requests, 
     such as civil investigative demands, and subpoenas.
       Congress also recognizes that the Administrator has 
     significant management responsibilities to ensure that 
     federal taxpayer dollars are wisely used by grantees and are 
     in compliance with the law, regulations, and the cooperative 
     agreements signed by SBDC grantees. Congress authorizes the 
     SBDC grantees to provide client names for the purposes of 
     financial audits conducted by the Administrator or Inspector 
     General and for client surveys to ensure that the SBDC 
     grantees are satisfying certain aspects of their grant 
     agreements. Congress recognizes that client surveys may be 
     misused and impose restrictions on their use. Until 
     regulations are in place to ensure that SBDC grantee client's 
     privacy is protected to the maximum extent practicable given 
     the management oversight responsibility of the Administrator, 
     Congress requires client surveys to be approved by the 
     Inspector General and any approval incorporated into the 
     semi-annual report made to Congress.
       This section also makes a technical change in wording of 
     the SBDC program. It renames the certification program as an 
     accreditation program. The change was made because 
     institutions are accredited not certified. Since the program 
     determines the quality of SBDCs, it makes sense to have them 
     accredited not certified. An identical change is made in 
     20(a)(1)(D)-(E).
     Section 143. Advisory Committee on Veterans Business Affairs
       Congress has determined that the federal government must 
     provide better assistance and support to veterans in their 
     efforts to form and expand small businesses. In 1999, as part 
     of this effort, Congress established an Advisory Committee on 
     Veterans Business Affairs. Its responsibilities included 
     providing advice to Congress and the Small Business 
     Administration on policy initiatives that would promote 
     entrepreneurship by veterans. The responsibilities of this 
     advisory board were to be taken over by the National Veterans 
     Business Development Corporation on October 1, 2004. Congress 
     determined that the Advisory Committee's role was 
     sufficiently beneficial that it should not be subsumed within 
     the National Veterans Business Development Corporation. As a 
     result, Congress authorized an extension of the Advisory 
     Committee as a separate entity to continue its functions 
     through September 30, 2006.
     Section 144. Outreach grants for veterans
       The Administration is authorized to provide outreach grants 
     to help disabled veterans start and expand small businesses. 
     Congress determined that the outreach grants should not be 
     limited to disabled veterans. This section extends the 
     authority to

[[Page 25154]]

     provide outreach programs to veterans and reservists.
     Section 145. Authorization of appropriations
       To express Congress' concern about adequate efforts to 
     assist veterans, Congress determined that the Small Business 
     Administration's Office of Veterans Affairs should have a 
     separate authorization. This section provides for that 
     separate authorization for fiscal years 2005 and 2006.
     Section 146. National Veterans Business Development 
         Corporation
       A ruling by the Department of Justice concluded that the 
     National Veterans Business Development Corporation was a 
     federal agency for all purposes and thus subject to, among 
     other things, federal administrative, personnel, and 
     procurement laws. Congress, when it created the corporation, 
     never intended that it would be considered a federal agency. 
     The legislation mandated sufficient fundraising by the 
     corporation that would eliminate the need for federal 
     funding. While that fundraising continues, Congress 
     determined that its original intent concerning the status of 
     the corporation should be honored. This section makes it 
     clear that the corporation is to be considered and treated as 
     a private entity and not an agency or instrumentality of the 
     federal government.
     Section 147. Small Business Manufacturing Task Force
       Manufacturing jobs in the United States have declined since 
     their historic peak in 1979 and that loss has accelerated in 
     recent years. Small business manufacturers constitute over 98 
     percent of our nation's manufacturing enterprises. It is 
     impossible to overstate the role of small manufacturers 
     within the overall manufacturing industry and our nation's 
     economy. The House and Senate Small Business Committees have 
     placed a high priority on trying to resuscitate the small 
     business industrial base because economic security in the 
     United States cannot occur in a purely post-industrial 
     economy.
       Section 147 establishes a Small Business Manufacturing Task 
     Force within the Small Business Administration, charged with 
     ensuring that the Administration is properly addressing the 
     particular needs of small manufacturers. Specifically, the 
     Small Business Manufacturing Task Force will: (a) evaluate 
     and identify whether existing programs and services are 
     sufficient to serve small manufacturers' needs, or whether 
     additional programs or services are necessary; (b) actively 
     promote the SBA's programs and services that serve small 
     manufacturers; and (c) identify and study the unique 
     conditions of small manufacturers, and develop and propose 
     policy initiatives to support and assist them. This section 
     also instructs the Small Business Manufacturing Task Force to 
     submit a report of its findings and recommendations to the 
     President and the Senate and House Small Business Committees 
     not later than 12 months after the effective date of the bill 
     and annually thereafter. In carrying out their obligations 
     under this section, Congress expects that the Task Force will 
     consult with other agencies that have manufacturing 
     responsibilities, such as the Department of Commerce.
     Section 151. Streamlining and revision of HUBZone eligibility 
         requirements
       The Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) 
     program was designed to direct portions of federal 
     contracting dollars into areas of the country that in the 
     past have been out of the economic mainstream. HUBZone areas, 
     which include qualified census tracts, poor rural counties, 
     and Indian reservations, often are out-of-the-way places that 
     the stream of commerce passes by, and thus tend to be in low 
     or moderate income areas also characterized by comparatively 
     high unemployment. These areas can also include certain rural 
     communities and tend generally to be low-traffic areas that 
     do not have a reliable customer base to support business 
     development. As a result, businesses have been reluctant to 
     move into these areas and expend the necessary funds to 
     develop the infrastructure for creation of jobs. It simply 
     has not been profitable, without a customer base, to keep 
     those businesses operating.
       The HUBZone program seeks to overcome these problems by 
     providing the means for Federal procurement activities to 
     become customers for small businesses that locate in 
     HUBZones. While a small business works to grow, expand its 
     payroll, and establish a solid base of commercial or other 
     customers, federal business opportunities can be of vital 
     importance. Federal prime and subcontracts can become an 
     important source of revenue for a HUBZone small business, and 
     prime contracts in particular can help stabilize revenues, 
     establish valuable past performance record, and maintain 
     future profitability.
       In past years, the HUBZone program has encountered issues 
     relating to the statutory requirement that a HUBZone firm be 
     entirely owned and controlled by individual U.S. citizens. 
     This requirement means that all HUBZone applicants need to be 
     owned by human beings directly and not human beings organized 
     as business entities. However, many small business owners and 
     small business investors prefer to take advantage of various 
     corporate forms in order to limit the personal liability for 
     themselves and their families. Exceptions for Alaska Native 
     Corporations, Indian tribal governments, and community 
     development corporations were added by the Small Business Act 
     reauthorization legislation in 2000. Even with those changes, 
     the presence of a corporate entity or a limited liability 
     company with an ownership stake in a small business would 
     have automatically disqualified an otherwise eligible firm 
     from participation in the HUBZone program. Small agricultural 
     cooperatives, which already maintain presence in rural 
     HUBZones, would have faced similar restrictions. These rules 
     unnecessarily impede the flow of capital to the very areas 
     that need it the most and create compliance conflicts with 
     other small business procurement programs.
       Section 151 addresses this problem through streamlining and 
     revision of the eligibility requirements for HUBZone small 
     businesses to include small businesses that are 51 percent 
     owned by United States citizens, as well as to include small 
     businesses which are small agricultural cooperatives or are 
     owned and controlled by small agricultural cooperatives.
       In addition, HUBZone firms owned by the Indian tribes have 
     been facing peculiar challenges due to statutory requirements 
     that they must hire a certain percentage of its workforce 
     performing a federal contract or subcontract from Indian 
     reservations or adjacent areas. These requirements, while 
     motivated by the desire to spur economic development of the 
     tribes, over time had the unintended consequence of putting 
     tribally-owned firms at a disadvantage in comparison with all 
     other HUBZone concerns by imposing a geographic restriction 
     on the kinds of contracts that tribally-owned HUBZone firms 
     could perform. Geographic restrictions also impeded business 
     synergies between tribally-owned HUBZone firms and Alaskan 
     Native Corporations. To remedy this disparity, Section 151 is 
     providing tribally-owned HUBZone concerns the option of 
     qualifying for the program based on locating in, and hiring 
     workers from, either Indian reservations or any other 
     HUBZones on the same terms as available to other HUBZone 
     firms. Congress notes that the Indian tribes, as owners of 
     the HUBZone firms, will be receiving expanded economic 
     benefits from new contracting opportunities.
     Section 152. Expansion of qualified areas
       Congress observes that the HUBZone area qualifications are 
     also in need of improvement. Paradoxically, economically 
     distressed rural communities in states with high 
     unemployment--among the neediest of needy areas--currently do 
     not qualify for the HUBZone program because rural areas 
     currently must qualify in relation to the statewide 
     unemployment average. As an example, in calendar year 2003, 
     Alaska had a statewide unemployment rate of 8.0 percent. To 
     qualify as a HUBZone area, it was necessary for an Alaskan 
     rural community to have an 11.2 percent unemployment rate. 
     But, in 25 of the 50 states, a rural community could have 
     qualified as a HUBZone with an unemployment range of 7.8 
     percent or less.
       Section 152 addresses this problem by modifying the 
     definition of a ``qualified nonmetropolitan county'' to 
     provide the option of comparing the unemployment statistic 
     for that area to the statewide average or to the national 
     average. The new statutory HUBZone definition should give the 
     Small Business Administration flexibility to address both 
     national and state-wide unemployment disparities without 
     hurting the states that have comparatively low unemployment 
     overall, but with pockets of serious unemployment.
       Congress recognizes the drastic economic ramifications of 
     military base closures and that the HUBZone program can 
     uniquely harness the strength and the creativity of the 
     private sector by providing incentive for small businesses to 
     relocate to areas suffering such ramifications. According to 
     congressional research, more than 300 military bases closed 
     or realigned between 1988 and 2003 and more than 50 percent 
     of these bases were located outside of a designated HUBZone. 
     Therefore, Congress intends that, upon the later of the 
     enactment of this act or the date of final closure, existing 
     as well as future military base closure areas be designated 
     as HUBZones for a period of five years in order to 
     reinvigorate the productive capacity of such areas and 
     leverage existing local customers and a skilled workforce. 
     Congress believes that new businesses and new jobs created 
     through the HUBZone small firms mean new life for areas 
     affected by base closure.
       Additionally, Congress notes the existence of numerous 
     complaints that the current definition of HUBZone qualified 
     areas based on census income data, in conjunction with the 
     definition of HUBZone qualified redesignated areas, fail to 
     provide adequate time to recoup a return on investment. These 
     concerns appear justified. Congress observes that the HUBZone 
     program is relatively young, and the federal government is 
     not even close to meeting its statutory prime contracting 
     goal of 3 percent. Because the HUBZone program was enacted 
     into law in 1997, the initial HUBZone areas were designated 
     on the basis of the 1990 Census. However, the federal 
     government conducted another census in 2000.

[[Page 25155]]

     As a result, many areas were redesignated after only 3 years 
     of the program's existence. The statute currently 
     grandfathers the redesignated areas into the program for 3 
     years.
       Congress notes that, at the time of the last redesignation, 
     the small business community received comparatively few 
     benefits from the HUBZone program despite the substantial 
     workforce recruitment, compliance, and business development 
     efforts that must be expended by each of the HUBZone firms. 
     These small businesses, which made business decisions to 
     pursue the HUBZone strategy by locating in a HUBZone, 
     adjusting their ownership structure, and recruiting HUBZone 
     residents are in danger of being penalized for the federal 
     government's slow initial implementation of the HUBZone 
     program. Further, anecdotal evidence indicates that it may 
     take a long time for a new firm to secure a federal contract, 
     and that multiple-order contracts commonly envision task 
     orders over a number of years. In these circumstances, a 3-
     year grandfather clause would appear not to provide 
     sufficient time for a small business to generate a return on 
     the HUBZone investment. By comparison, companies under the 
     8(a) program can maintain such a designation for 9 years, and 
     a general small business designation can be maintained 
     indefinitely. Therefore, Congress imposes a moratorium on 
     HUBZone area redesignations by providing for an extension of 
     the redesignation period until the conclusion of the 2010 
     Census. No certified HUBZone firm shall be decertified as a 
     result of either the redesignation process based on the 2000 
     Census data or any revised unemployment data subsequent to 
     December 21, 2000, the date of passage of enactment of the 
     HUBZone in the Native America Act. It is the intent of 
     Congress to have the Small Business Administration reinstate 
     any HUBZone firm previously decertified based on these two 
     criteria.
       Congress also finds that, concurrently with the moratorium, 
     a study on the effectiveness of the HUBZone area definitions, 
     including the redesignation period, must be conducted by the 
     Office of Advocacy of the United States Small Business 
     Administration. The Office of Advocacy is chosen to conduct 
     this study for its particular expertise in small business 
     procurement, rural small business development, and general 
     small business matters. Congress directs the Office of 
     Advocacy to examine the impact and effectiveness of the 
     HUBZone definitions on small business development and jobs 
     creation, and expect that the Office of Advocacy will 
     periodically consult with congressional small business 
     committees on matters concerning this study. Findings and 
     recommendations of the study must be reported to 
     congressional small business committees by May 1, 2008.
     Section 153. Price evaluation preference
       With regards to the application of existing HUBZone price 
     preferences to international food aid procurements conducted 
     by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 
     Congress concludes that the preferences as they currently 
     stand are hindering the goals of U.S. foreign humanitarian 
     food assistance programs. This view is supported by extensive 
     consideration of market data from the Kansas City auction 
     office of the USDA Farm Service Agency, the structure of 
     auction tenders and other auction processes, as well as data 
     supplied by the industry. It appears that there is a risk of 
     various unintended and undesirable consequences to applying 
     the current HUBZone mandate to international food aid 
     acquisitions. In particular, it appears that, in the context 
     of food aid tender auctions, the claimed job gains fostered 
     by the current price preference are offset by job losses in 
     other communities, the non-HUBZone small businesses 
     attempting to compete may experience undue harm, and the 
     competitive supplier base may atrophy. In turn, this may 
     undermine USDA's capacity to secure adequate foodstuffs for 
     malnourished persons and increase the costs to the food aid 
     programs without realizing adequate jobs creation and 
     business development benefits.
       The HUBZone price preference alternative adopted in this 
     act (a 5 percent price evaluation preference on 20 percent of 
     the contract) would alleviate these potentially damaging 
     effects on the U.S. food aid system. Congress believes that 
     this approach would preserve the HUBZone program's goal of 
     providing HUBZone-eligible companies with a meaningful 
     opportunity to compete while ensuring that the USDA has an 
     adequate capacity of supply from which to draw to deliver 
     emergency food aid in catastrophic situations. This approach 
     would also eliminate the current HUBZone program's 
     application problem which directly penalizes non-HUBZone 
     small businesses due to the nature of the food aid auctions. 
     The potential for job losses in other communities would be 
     limited. Importantly, this approach also reflects the 
     cornerstone of America's efforts to provide food assistance 
     to the world's neediest people through competitive markets.
       According to President Dwight D. Eisenhower and 
     congressional architects of the Small Business Act, an 
     overarching purpose of small business procurement programs is 
     to assure a vibrant, competitive supplier base for the 
     federal government. Price preferences are employed to further 
     this purpose, and should be structured accordingly. Congress 
     notes that, in general, price preferences have been a 
     valuable tool for encouraging a more robust supplier base. 
     Nevertheless, Congress believes that, in these very special 
     circumstances, it is important to encourage competition by 
     keeping multiple vendors actively bidding in our food 
     assistance programs to secure the lowest cost procurement and 
     emergency supply chains in the case of humanitarian crisis. 
     This approach builds on the current small business 10 percent 
     set-aside by an additional 20 percent allocation of every 
     tender to small businesses and HUBZone applicants. It 
     guarantees full and open competition, including competition 
     pursuant to the Small Business Act, in food aid procurement 
     tenders to assure that U.S. food aid programs do not suffer 
     consequences inconsistent with the intent of the price 
     preference program. The approach in this legislation 
     safeguards the dual interests of a vibrant small business 
     presence in federal procurements and robust food aid 
     programs.
     Section 154. HUBZone authorizations
       Congress notes that the federal government has failed to 
     meet its statutory HUBZone contracting goals every single 
     year these goals have been in effect. Continuous, dedicated 
     authorization of the HUBZone program is essential to continue 
     the effort to bring economic opportunities to the HUBZone 
     areas. Therefore, Congress extends the current authorization 
     of appropriations of $10,000,000 for the SBA's HUBZone 
     program through Fiscal Year 2006.
     Section 155. Participation in federally funded projects
       Section 155 removes the burdensome paperwork requirements 
     for additional certification by firms seeking to perform any 
     State, or political subdivision projects that utilize federal 
     dollars if they are currently certified, or otherwise meet 
     the applicable qualification requirements, for participation 
     in any program under Sec. 8(a) of the Small Business Act.
       This change will: (1) provide federally certified Sec. 8(a) 
     small businesses with access to all State and local projects 
     funded in whole or in part by the federal government; (2) 
     eliminate the burden of requiring Sec. 8(a) small businesses 
     to get certifications from the State or local government or 
     both in addition to their federal certification under 
     Sec. 8(a); and, (3) decrease certification costs and 
     eliminate time delays associated with the burden of receiving 
     additional state or local government certifications for 
     businesses authorized to participate in program established 
     by Sec. 8(a) of the Small Business Act.
     Section 161. Supervisory enforcement authority for small 
         business lending companies
       This section creates a new Sec. 23 of the Small Business 
     Act. It gives the Administrator specific enforcement and 
     supervisory authority over Small Business Lending Companies 
     (SBLCs) and Non-Federally Regulated SBA Lenders as those 
     terms are defined in Sec. 162 of this conference report. The 
     vast majority of lenders authorized to make loans pursuant to 
     the Small Business Act have their lending and other 
     activities overseen and regulated by federal financial 
     regulators, including loans and corporate transactions 
     related to their general lending practices. The Administrator 
     makes no effort at regulating lending institutions except for 
     their authority to make Sec. 7(a) loans.
       In contradistinction, there are a few institutions that are 
     authorized to make loans pursuant to Sec. 7(a) of the Small 
     Business Act that are not typical lending institutions. SBLCs 
     (except for two which are wholly-owned by national banks) are 
     subsidiaries of industrial corporations and thus not subject 
     to any regulation by financial regulators, other than certain 
     filings made with the Securities and Exchange Commission. 
     Non-federally regulated SBA lenders have some state oversight 
     but the extent varies according to state law. The only 
     authority that the Administrator has with respect to these 
     lenders is the ability to prohibit them from making loans 
     pursuant to Sec. 7(a). The Administrator has no authority to 
     take other regulatory action, similar to that available to 
     banking regulators, to protect the public and the federal 
     treasury. Congress concurs with the Administrator's request 
     that greater authority is needed to regulate SBLCs and Non-
     Federally Regulated SBA Lenders.
       The basic approach adopted by Congress enables the 
     Administrator to supervise the soundness and safety of 
     institutions authorized to make loans pursuant to Sec. 7(a) 
     but are not otherwise subject to the strict oversight imposed 
     by federal financial regulators. Congress concurs with the 
     Administrator's request that specific enforcement and 
     supervisory authority are needed. These authorities include 
     the power to: issue cease and desist orders, impose civil 
     money penalties, mandate capital standards, and remove 
     officers and directors who are acting in an unsafe and 
     unsound manner. The power and authority tracks closely the 
     powers granted to the Administrator with respect to 
     regulation of SBICs and their officers and employees. In some 
     cases, Congress differentiated regulatory powers applicable 
     to SBLCs and those applicable to Non-Federally Regulated 
     Lenders. Nothing in this section grants the Administrator the 
     authority to be extended to

[[Page 25156]]

     overall corporate management of the parent that owns a SBLC.
       Congress provides for the Administrator to issue capital 
     directives mandating maintenance of certain capital 
     standards, including the requirement to increase its level of 
     capital. The section also authorizes the Administrator to 
     issue cease and desist orders by the SBLC or Non-Federally 
     Regulated Lender. To ensure that the capital directive is 
     used sparingly and only in appropriate circumstances, the 
     Administrator is required to promulgate regulations on 
     capital directives and may only delegate the authority to the 
     Associate Administrator for Capital Access.
       The Administrator also is empowered to suspend or remove 
     officials that have management responsibility for the 
     entity's lending pursuant to Sec. 7(a) of the Small Business 
     Act. No authority, explicit or implied, is authorized to 
     remove or suspend officials that do not have management 
     responsibilities with respect to Sec. 7(a) lending. Thus, 
     Congress expects that the Administrator take action not to 
     suspend the Chief Executive Officer of General Electric 
     Corporation but only its SBLC subsidiary.
       Prior to the issuance of any order under this section 
     except for a capital directive, the Administrator is required 
     to provide any target of the order a hearing pursuant to 
     Sec. Sec. 554, 556, and 557 of the Administrative Procedure 
     Act. The section delegates the responsibility of conducting 
     the hearing to administrative law judges but the final 
     responsibility on determining whether an order should issue 
     rests with the Administrator based on the record developed at 
     the adjudication. The approach is similar to that used by 
     independent federal regulatory agencies such as the Federal 
     Communications Commission or Federal Trade Commission. Those 
     agencies use administrative law judges to conduct hearings 
     and the commissioners use that record as the basis for their 
     legal and policy determination. This bifurcation of the 
     hearing from the decisionmaker ensures that the hearing will 
     be fair and provide an opportunity for the target of an order 
     to make the best possible case before an impartial fact-
     gathering tribunal.
       The Administrator is authorized to issue orders prior to a 
     hearing if extraordinary circumstances exist and the order is 
     needed to protect the financial or legal position of the 
     United States. The Administrator only should use the power to 
     issue orders without a hearing only under those circumstances 
     in which an agency issues a rule without notice and comment, 
     i.e., a truly exigent circumstance, see, e.g., NRDC v. Evans, 
     316 F.3d 904, 912 (9th Cir. 2002); Utilities Solid Waste 
     Group v. EPA, 236 F.3d 749, 754 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (good cause 
     to forgo notice and comment applies only in emergency 
     circumstances), or when a federal court would issue an ex 
     parte temporary restraining order (but in order to preserve 
     and protect the federal government rather than the status 
     quo). Cf. Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of 
     Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers, 415 U.S. 423, 439 (1974) 
     (noting that ex parte restraining orders necessary evil to 
     protect status quo). The section then provides that the 
     procedures for holding a hearing, including the notice 
     requirement, be commenced within 2 days after the issuance of 
     the order. Congress believes that this comports with the 
     fundamental fairness exhibited by federal courts when issuing 
     an ex parte temporary restraining order.
       Congress' approach defines final agency action for purposes 
     of a challenge to the issuance of an order by the 
     Administrator and authorizes that a challenge may be 
     commenced in federal court within 20 days after issuance of a 
     final order. For purposes of fundamental fairness to 
     individuals, Congress also believes that interim relief in 
     federal court is appropriate for a stay of an order issued 
     prior to hearing until the hearing itself is completed. Both 
     of these provisions were added out of an abundance of 
     caution. Although Congress believes that federal court 
     jurisdiction challenging the Administrator's action may 
     constitute a ``federal question'' pursuant to Sec. 1331 of 
     the Title 28, United States Code, Congress determined that 
     explicit authority to challenge the Administrator's orders in 
     federal court removes any question that this decision has 
     been remitted solely to the discretion of the agency and is 
     not subject to review under Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 
     (1985).
       This section authorizes a court to appoint a receiver for 
     the entities subject to regulation pursuant to this section. 
     The receiver is entitled to take possession of assets of the 
     SBLC or Non-Federally Regulated SBA Lender. Congress intends 
     this authority to extend only to the SBLC or Non-Federally 
     Regulated Lender's portfolio of loans or other instruments 
     guaranteed by the Administrator including any debentures, 
     participating debt, or securities issued pursuant to the 
     Small Business Investment Act.
       Congress believes that suspension, revocation, or cease and 
     desist is an extraordinary remedy. Each requires an extremely 
     high burden of proof related to willful misconduct that may 
     present a difficult case for the Administrator to prove. 
     Therefore, the bill also provides the Administrator with the 
     authority to seek court-imposed civil penalties for the 
     failure to file reports required by the Administrator. Such 
     penalties shall issue when the failure to file is willful and 
     not due to neglect. The failure to file required reports for 
     more than two reporting periods is, in the opinion of 
     Congress, sufficient, but not the only evidence of willful 
     neglect. Congress expects the Administrator to promulgate 
     regulations outlining the factors that determine willful 
     neglect for the purposes of civil penalties (as an aid to the 
     entities regulated pursuant to Sec. 23). These regulations 
     also must contain standards for exempting SBLCs and Non-
     Federally Regulated Lenders from the civil penalty provisions 
     as well as the procedures used for determining whether the 
     institution qualifies.
     Section 162. Definitions relating to small business lending 
         companies
       Almost all of the lenders authorized by the Administrator 
     to issue guaranteed loans pursuant to Sec. 7(a) are lending 
     institutions regulated by a federal financial regulator. 
     However, there are a few institutions that make guaranteed 
     loans that are not subject to federal financial regulatory 
     oversight or regulation by a state banking authority. The 
     Administrator classifies these institutions generically as 
     ``small business lending companies.'' However, that universe 
     actually consists of two separate entities--small business 
     lending companies (not financial institutions) and financial 
     institutions not subject to any agency authorized to review 
     the safety and soundness of depositary institutions. Since 
     Sec. 161 adds a new Sec. 23 granting the Administrator power 
     to regulate these entities, Sec. 162 adds two new subsections 
     to the definitions in the Small Business Act defining small 
     business lending companies and non-federally regulated SBA 
     lenders.
     Section 201. Amendment to definition of equity capital with 
         respect to issuers of participating securities
       Congress determined that changes were needed in the 
     definition of equity capital with respect to any company that 
     issues participating securities. Such companies, 
     participating securities SBICs, commit to invest an amount 
     equal to the outstanding face value of participating 
     securities solely in equity capital. Equity capital refers to 
     common or preferred stock or a similar instrument, including 
     subordinated debt with equity features. Equity capital issued 
     by participating securities SBICs previously provided for 
     interest payments to be made to the Administration contingent 
     upon--and limited to--the extent of earnings on equity 
     capital. However, since the inception of the Participating 
     Security SBIC program, the majority of SBICs have not 
     realized sufficient profits with which to meet their 
     financial obligations to the federal government. This has 
     resulted in serious financial loss for the federal 
     government. In order to mitigate these losses, the definition 
     of equity capital has changed so that participating security 
     SBICs do not have to realize profits on their investments in 
     order to make payments to the Administration. If a 
     participating security SBIC is experiencing overall losses on 
     their investments but has other sources of funds such as 
     invested excess funds, royalty payments, licensing fees and 
     the like, Congress intends that these funds may be used to 
     meet their obligations to the Administration.
     Section 202. Investment of excess funds
       This section provides SBICs with additional flexibility for 
     handling funds prior to investments in small businesses by 
     allowing SBICs to invest such funds in additional types of 
     securities. Currently, SBICs holding cash, prior to investing 
     in a small business, are only permitted to invest directly in 
     obligations of the United States, obligations guaranteed by 
     the United States, or in certificates of deposit maturing 
     within one year or savings accounts that are in institutions 
     insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or the 
     Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation. This section 
     modifies the current restriction by permitting SBICs to 
     invest in securities, mutual funds, or instruments, which 
     themselves invest solely in the obligations that are 
     currently permitted. For instance, Congress expects that 
     SBICs will be able to invest in mutual funds that, in turn, 
     invest in the government-backed obligations already 
     authorized for investment in SBICs. Congress believes that 
     this modification will provide SBICs with greater flexibility 
     and a wider range of short-term investment options.
     Section 203. Surety Bond Amendments
       Section 203(a) clarifies that the current $2 million limit 
     on surety bonds applies to the bond guarantee and not the 
     contract size. Congress adopted this clarification to 
     prohibit contracting officers from determining that small 
     businesses would not qualify for an Administration-backed 
     surety bond for a contract worth less than $2 million even 
     though it was part of a bundle of contracts that exceeded $2 
     million. For example, a small business might be denied a 
     surety bond if the small business had a contract for $1.5 
     million, but that contract was part of a $12 million bundle 
     of contracts that had been awarded simultaneously.
       Section 203(b) requires that an audit of each participating 
     surety shall occur every three years instead of annually. 
     This reduction in the frequency of audits will save 
     participating sureties time and money and

[[Page 25157]]

     allow them to allocate these resources to more productive 
     uses. In addition, this will enable the Administrator to 
     focus on more critical elements since the sureties already 
     provide reports on a periodic basis that would identify 
     problems during the interregnum between audits.
       Currently certain sureties designated by the Administrator 
     may issue, monitor, and service surety bonds issued pursuant 
     to Title IV of the Small Business Investment Act. This 
     authority ceased to be operative on September 30, 2003 (but 
     has been extended for short periods of time on a temporary 
     basis). Congress determined that the authority for this 
     program should be made permanent. Section 203(b) makes that 
     change by repealing 207 of the Small Business Reauthorization 
     and Amendment Act of 1988.
     Section 204. Effective Date of Certain Fees
       Loans made pursuant to Title V of the Small Business 
     Investment Act do not require any appropriation. Fees charged 
     to borrowers and CDCs absorb the costs associated with the 
     issuance of such loans. When the zero-subsidy for the program 
     was instituted, Congress made the fee authority temporary to 
     see whether the program could survive without an 
     appropriation. The program has succeeded admirably and 
     Congress does not expect that an appropriation to fund loans 
     made by CDCs will be made for the foreseeable future. As a 
     result, Congress determined it was pointless to continue, as 
     temporary, the Administrator's authority to charge fees for 
     loans made pursuant to Title V of the Small Business 
     Investment Act. Section 204 grants the Administrator 
     permanent authority to charge fees.

  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in strong support of the 
Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs 
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2005, which is included as Division 
D of this consolidated appropriations legislation. This conference 
agreement provides important funding for programs designed to support 
the global war on terrorism, the battle against HIV/AIDS and other 
infectious diseases, and to support the national interests of the 
United States. It provides new funding of $93 million to help address 
the humanitarian disaster in Sudan, including $75 million to support an 
African Union security force to help end the violence that is plaguing 
the people of Darfur.
  This portion of the conference report contains $19.7 billion in new 
discretionary budget authority for fiscal year 2005, excluding $93 
million in emergency spending to meet the very real emergency in 
Darfur. This is still $1.6 billion below the President's request, but 
represents an increase of $318 million above the level passed by the 
House. The primary reason for the increase is a conference decision to 
fund the President's highest priority in this bill, the Millennium 
Challenge Corporation, at a level of $1.5 billion.
  We had many challenges in dealing with the Senate bill and reaching a 
final agreement, but I think we were successful in crafting a bill that 
is balanced and promotes United States foreign policy objectives.
  The Millennium Challenge Corporation will be an important innovation 
in the way we deliver foreign assistance. It will reinforce and reward 
efforts in developing countries to strive for poverty reduction by 
emphasizing a country's commitment to fighting corruption and investing 
in its people. It was our appropriation bill last year that 
incorporated the authorization creating the MCC. The President can 
continue to count on me as a strong supporter.
  In addition, we provide important military assistance and counter 
narcotics funding for our allies in the global war on terrorism, 
including: an increase of $350 million, for a total of $400 million, to 
train and equip the new Afghan National Army; an increase of $90 
million for law enforcement and counter narcotics programs in 
Afghanistan, to help reduce record opium harvests; a new base program 
of $300 million for military assistance for Pakistan to help us in 
hunting terrorists along the Afghan border; and an increase of $73 
million, for a total of $2.22 billion, for our closest alley in the 
Middle East, the State of Israel.
  The conference agreement includes full funding for these increases, 
both through new budget authority and, in the case of Pakistan, the use 
of $150 million in transfer authority.
  In addition, the conference agreement includes $2.3 billion for 
combating HIV/AIDS and related diseases, an increase of $690 million 
over last year and $93 million over the President's request. Together 
with $624 million recommended by the Subcommittee on Labor/HHS, over 
$2.9 billion will be available for HIV/AIDS programs in fiscal year 
2005.
  The conference agreement includes a contribution of $338 million for 
the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. The figure for 
the Global Fund has gotten a lot of attention, and I want to set the 
record straight. The $338 million that the conference included in $238 
million over the President's request. I hope everyone keeps in mind 
that in order to meet our budget target we had to cut $1.6 billion from 
the President's request for foreign assistance. Given such a challenge, 
I'm personally very satisfied that we are able to find bicameral, 
bipartisan support for such a significant contribution.
  My colleagues should know that the U.S. contribution is limited by 
law to one-third of all contributions to the Global Fund. Because other 
countries, particularly some European countries, did not step up to the 
plate last year, $88 million of our money intended for the Global fund 
could not be spent. We've included bill language to direct those funds 
back to the Global Fund; otherwise they would not be available for that 
purpose. When the challenge of AIDS is so large, we must put every 
dollar to work.
  Finally, the Fund has grown tremendously in its three years. It 
currently has over 200 grants under management for billions of dollars. 
The funding included in the conference agreement provides enough--
again, assuming other countries contribute their share--to cover the 
ongoing and renewal costs of these grants.
  The Fund needs to take the next several months to make sure it's 
strong enough to fulfill its mandate efficiently and transparently. The 
conference agreement includes guidance for steps the Fund should take, 
such as making sure funds are disbursed only on the basis of proven 
results.
  This conference agreement also provides $950 million for other health 
activities aside from HIV/AIDS. This amounts to an increase of $130 
million over the President's request and a $31 million increase over 
last year.
  The conference agreement also provides $404 million in assistance for 
Sudan, including Darfur. I visited Darfur a few months ago with Mr. 
Jackson of Illinois, and we returned convinced that no long-term 
solution can be found for that troubled region without security. The 
African Union observers and protection mission in Darfur is a step in 
the right direction, and $75 million of this assistance is specifically 
intended to support and sustain that mission. Our bill is explicit in 
providing that no funds from these accounts can be made available for 
the government of Sudan in Khartoum until it acts in good faith to find 
a lasting peace in Darfur. The rest of the funding will remain 
available for humanitarian assistance for the people of Sudan.
  We continue an emphasis in agreement on helping developing countries 
build their capacity to participate in the international trading 
system. The conference agreement provides $507 million for trade 
capacity building, the same amount as last year. It also includes $20 
million specifically intended to help the countries of Central America 
develop the labor and environmental standards that will help facilitate 
implementation of the Central American Free Trade Agreement, which I 
hope Congress can make a reality in the coming session.
  The conference agreement also responds to emerging needs, such as the 
provision of $85 million in assistance for Haiti. This legislation also 
funds the export finance agencies that help promote U.S. investment 
overseas and create jobs in the United States export sectors. It 
provides over $250 million for these agencies, including the Export-
Import Bank, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, and the Trade 
and Development Agency, which is offset by $311 million in collections.
  The narcotics industry has become a source of funding for terrorists, 
especially in countries like Colombia and Afghanistan. As part of the 
war on terror, the conference agreement fully funds the President's 
request for the Andean Counterdrug initiative at a level of $731 
million, for anti-narcotics, interdiction, development programs, and 
rule of law and institution building programs in Colombia, Bolivia, 
Peru and Ecuador.
  Under the general anti-narcotics account, the conference report fully 
funds anti-narcotics and law enforcement programs in Afghanistan at a 
level of $90 million, and in Mexico at a level of $40 million.
  To support continuing United States leadership in the world for 
providing humanitarian responses to refugee crises, the conference 
agreement provides $800 million for refugee programs, $50 million more 
than the President's request.
  To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I believe this balanced conference 
agreement provides important support for our most critical national 
security needs while substantially increasing funding to respond to the 
global HIV/AIDS pandemic. It also enhances our support for our overseas 
development assistance and humanitarian assistance activities. It meets 
the high priority needs of the President in these areas, and 
accommodates Congressional concerns as well. It is a conference 
agreement that I think all members of this body should support.
  Before I yield, Mr. Speaker, I want provide special thanks to my full 
committee chairman,

[[Page 25158]]

Bill Young of Florida, for his help and support to the Foreign 
Operations Subcommittee over the past 6 years. He is leaving as 
committee chairman, but remains a valued member of our committee, and I 
look forward to working with him closely in the future.
  I also want to pay tribute to the ranking minority member of the full 
committee, Mr. Obey, and my ranking minority member, Nita Lowey. They 
both have been extremely helpful in this process, and I very much 
appreciate the House Foreign Operations bill, and in reaching a 
conference agreement. I also appreciate all the members of the 
Subcommittee who contributed so much to this final agreement.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the language in this Omnibus bill 
that significantly restricts a woman's access to health care services. 
This year, 2,500 Washington State residents traveled across America to 
march for this right protected by the U.S. Constitution. As the 108th 
Congress comes to an end, I am disappointed to be faced again with an 
omnibus piece of legislation containing political poison pills that 
attack constitutional liberties.
  I regret that Congress must pass this appropriations bill to keep our 
Government running yet simultaneously approve a bill that encroaches on 
a woman's right to make private medical decisions with her doctor. 
Embedded in this legislation is a Federal Refusal Clause which creates 
an impossible situation for women in my State that are protected by 
local pro-choice laws--laws that these citizens time after time 
support--which ensure women access to reproductive health information 
and services.
  This provision would break contracts that Washington State has with 
Medicaid providers to prohibit the local healthcare facilities 
participating in Medicaid from referring patients to abortion 
services--even when medically necessary, even upon patient request and 
even though law entitles it. This provision is a blow to the right of a 
woman and her doctor to make private healthcare decisions and I urge my 
colleagues to correct this outrage.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my statement be included at the 
appropriate place in the Record in its entirety and request permission 
to revise and extend my remarks.
  Mr. Speaker, as other members on the Democratic side of the aisle 
have stressed, the Republican majority has allowed us only a handful of 
hours to examine the content of this mammoth bill, which numbers in the 
thousands of pages, before holding a vote on final passage. This rushed 
vote on the omnibus appropriations bill for fiscal year 2005 represents 
more than a serious disservice to the American people. It signifies a 
disgraceful denigration of our role as elected representatives and a 
serious blow to our democratic form of government.
  Although I therefore lack any time to sift through, let alone examine 
carefully, the lion's share of provisions in this omnibus measure, I 
have seen two labor clauses which cause me the gravest of concerns. 
First, this conference report reverses a provision--which passed both 
the House and the Senate with clearcut bipartisan support--to ensure 
that workers who put in overtime hours get paid overtime wages. The 
Republican leadership in Congress has therefore joined with the Bush 
Administration in pilfering the pockets of hard-working Americans and 
their families. By taking away the right of millions of American 
workers to earn overtime pay, the Republican leadership is also turning 
back the clock more than half a century. They do so to the detriment of 
hardworking women and men and their families across this nation.
  Secondly, a clause in this bill that would seriously erode worker 
protections against tuberculosis (TB) and bioterrorism. This provision 
prohibits the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) from 
enforcing any part of its respirator standard for workers at risk of 
exposure to TB and other deadly infections. At a time when the Bush 
Administration is invoking daily, color-coded terrorist alerts, it is 
senseless to weaken the only standard we have to protect health care 
workers against air-borne pathogens or air-borne ``weapons of mass 
destruction.'' By prohibiting OSHA from enforcing either an initial as 
well as an annual fit test for workers' masks, that is exactly what is 
possible. According to Dr. Margaret Hamburg, Vice President for 
Biological Programs at the Nuclear Threat Initiative, drug-resistant TB 
is a biological agent that might be used as a weapon, in addition to 
small pox, pneumonic plague, and others. To undercut the only 
protection that front-line health care workers would have against such 
agents--namely, their respirators--is worse than irresponsible and 
reckless. It is entirely without conscience. Mr. Speaker, I hope my 
colleagues in the 109th Congress will see the wisdom of reversing this 
provision, which seriously undermines workers' protections against TB 
and bioterrorism.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge the Conferees 
and Appropriators to strike the language contained in Section 
508(d)(1), language that was offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
as a violation of the House Rule against legislating in an 
appropriations measure.
  In addition, Mr. Speaker, this provision severely undermines the 
right of States to enforce their laws.
  If this bill passes and a State or local government fails to comply 
with the Weldon provision, they essentially put at risk the following:
  All of their state Medicaid funding.
  All their S-CHIP money.
  All their Head Start money.
  All their child care development block grant money.
  All their social services block grant money.
  Simply put, it restricts states' autonomy and right to self-
governance and undermine states' ability to enforce their own 
constitutional protections.
  If a state chooses to enforce its own laws and require an HMO to 
provide abortion counseling or services--it will pay a very heavy 
price.
  This provision has a broad and draconian enforcement mechanism. It 
would deny federal funds to a state or local government that attempts 
to ensure women have full access to reproductive health services and 
information. In fact, the proposal is worded so that even federal 
programs could be stripped of their funds if they were to comply with 
existing federal laws requiring women have full access.
  Moreover, it interferes with state and local governments' 
responsibility to set the parameters of their own Medicaid programs. It 
blocks federal, state and local governments' attempts to improve 
women's access to full reproductive health services.
  Rights now, if a woman is raped and receives her health care from 
Medicaid, states can force all HMOs that participate in Medicaid to 
either pay for her abortion or at least tell her that she is eligible 
to get such coverage and where to get it. If this provision passes, 
states will not be able to enforce this requirement and Medicaid HMOs 
could simply refuse to cover this woman's abortion and not tell her 
that she can get coverage elsewhere.
  It even interferes with, and possibly overrides, current federal 
laws, such as the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, 
which ensure that women in life-threatening circumstances receive the 
medical care they need.
  Right now, if a woman comes into the emergency room of a hospital 
with an incomplete miscarriage, which can threaten her life, under 
EMTALA, the hospital must stabilize her. If stabilizing requires 
completing that abortion, they have to do it no matter what their 
religious beliefs. If Weldon passes, the hospital could claim that it 
is ``discrimination'' to force them to do this. So, this provision 
could essentially overrule EMTALA depending on how it is interpreted 
and we don't know how it will be interpreted.
  Mr. Speaker, I strenuously urge my colleagues in the House to fight 
this onerous, dangerous provision that is a backdoor attempt to 
overturn Roe v. Wade.
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Appropriations 
conferees for including in the conference report nearly $100 million to 
improve flu vaccine production capacity and technology, and, if 
necessary, to allow the government to purchase vaccine.
  This allocation will help us make sure we don't repeat the mistakes 
of this year. This investment in flu vaccines means that the Congress 
learned a lesson from this year's crisis and is taking steps so it 
doesn't happen again.
  This year's shortage is resulting in long lines for the flu shot and 
widespread fear among the elderly and other vulnerable populations that 
they will be stricken with the flu virus.
  As the sponsor of the Flu Protection Act, along with Senator Bayh in 
the other body, I also want to thank Congressman Shimkus and all of the 
29 bipartisan cosponsors of the Flu Protection Act for their work on 
this issue.
  We have our work cut out for us. Next year, we need to implement all 
of the provisions of the Flu Protection Act, and ensure that we improve 
our ability to prevent an avoidable public health disaster.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my displeasure with 
the current state of the appropriations bills.
  First, I regret that we are using an omnibus bill to finish the 
appropriations process for FY 2005. It is not a good procedure, under 
any circumstances, when we are required to vote on a bill with 
insufficient time for review, especially a bill as important as 
appropriations for most of government funding other than Defense and 
Homeland Security.
  My most serious concern with the omnibus is the appropriation for the 
National Science Foundation, (NFS), which is $227 million

[[Page 25159]]

below the President's request for FY 2005. The amount is even $60 
million lower than last year's appropriation--before accounting for the 
.83 percent across-the-board cuts, meaning the cut is actually larger 
than $60 million--primarily in the critical areas of research and 
education, and even reduces the support for basic research. In the last 
20 years this has happened only twice, and I am sorry to see that this 
year we will make it a third.
  While I understand the need to make hard choices in the face of 
fiscal constraint, I do not see the wisdom in putting science funding 
far behind other priorities. We have cut NSF despite this omnibus bill 
spending more money for the 2005 fiscal year, so clearly we could find 
room to grow basic research while maintaining fiscal constraint. But 
not only are we not keeping pace with inflationary growth, we are 
actually cutting the relative size basic research comprises of the 
overall budget.
  NSF has been praised as a model of administrative efficiency--over 95 
percent of its funds go directly to support education and research 
programs. Former OMB director, Mitch Daniels, praised NSF as a model of 
administrative efficiency and called NSF one of the ``true centers of 
excellence in this government'' for its low overhead costs and 
efficient use of tax dollars. Furthermore, NSF has earned a reputation 
as the premiere basic research institution with only 4 percent of the 
total federal research and development budget. I am concerned about the 
kind of message that we are sending by cutting funding at agencies that 
succeed so well with already lean budgets, while rewarding those less 
efficient agencies by increasing their funding.
  This decision shows dangerous disregard for our nation's future, and 
I am both concerned and astonished that we would make this decision at 
a time when other nations continue to surpass our students in math and 
science and consistently increase their funding of basic research. We 
cannot hope to fight jobs lost to international competition without a 
well-trained and educated workforce. If we want to remain competitive 
in the international marketplace, we must provide funding that 
stimulates innovation and supports education. Within our borders, NSF 
supports technological innovation that has been, and remains crucial to 
the sustained economic prosperity that America has enjoyed for several 
decades. This innovation is made possible, in large measure, by NSF 
support of basic scientific research, particularly in the physical 
sciences. Research at NSF not only underpins physical science research, 
but lays the foundation for work in the health science and medicine as 
well. Reducing this funding is extremely short-sighted.
  While I strongly oppose the reduced budget for the National Science 
Foundation, I recognize that the omnibus contains many important pieces 
of legislation that are necessary to pass. Therefore, under protest, I 
will vote for the bill, but my vote does not in any way represent my 
approval for the funding cuts to the NSF.
  Ms. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report. 
I'd like to take a few moments to focus on the foreign operations 
section, which I strongly support and which I believe represents the 
very best of bipartisan cooperation in the pursuit of a sound and 
effective foreign policy.
  Despite representing a cut of $1.9 billion below the President's 
request, the conference agreement will accomplish many good things. It 
increases the President's request for international HIV/AIDS programs 
by about $100 million, and by about $700 million over last year's 
level. It provides a total of $400 million for basic education, which 
is a $75 million increase above last year. Since Chairman Kolbe and I 
began working together, we have quadrupled funding for basic education, 
and I am pleased the Senate agreed to include the House-passed level 
for this valuable priority.
  The Millennium Challenge Corporation will receive $1.5 billion, which 
is $500 million above last year. We have also restored cuts proposed by 
the President to USAID's core programs for health, the environment, 
democracy building, and economic growth. This is the second consecutive 
year that Congress has had to restore the administration's cuts, and I 
hope the administration will take notice. Congress has no intention of 
cutting our core programs in Africa and Latin America to make room for 
new initiatives.
  The agreement fully funds our commitments to Israel and other Middle 
Eastern countries and provides increases for new programs designed to 
mitigate conflicts. I am pleased that we have extended the loan 
guarantee program for Israel by 2 years, which will enable Israel to 
take full advantage of the authority already granted by Congress. I am 
also pleased that the statement of managers expresses concern about the 
need for more vigorous oversight of the United Nations Relief and Works 
Agency, and requests a report on oversight measures from the State 
Department.
  The agreement also provides significant funding for both Pakistan and 
Afghanistan as we continue our partnership in fighting the war on 
terrorism. As reconstruction proceeds in Afghanistan, it is 
increasingly clear that the $1 billion in this bill will have to be 
augmented by as much as an additional $1 billion in supplemental funds. 
I hope that we will have the opportunity to provide these funds after 
the New Year--we have a responsibility to our own national security, 
and to the people of Afghanistan, to get the reconstruction job done 
right.
  We have increased funds for both Sudan and Haiti because of the 
serious humanitarian crises in both countries. For Haiti, we have 
provided $85 million, which is $58 million above the request. For 
Sudan, the bill contains the $311 million included in the House-passed 
bill plus an additional $93 million specifically for the Darfur 
emergency. This funding, which should have come in the form of a 
mandatory transfer from the billions of unspent Iraq reconstruction 
funds, will instead be provided as new, emergency funding. I am simply 
baffled that, despite bipartisan support for this transfer, the 
administration has fought tooth and nail against it. While I am pleased 
the funds have been provided, I am surprised that we have not taken 
advantage of the authority to use already-appropriated funds for this 
clearly important purpose.
  Once again, I am disappointed with the disposition of the outstanding 
issues surrounding international family planning. While I am pleased 
that the conference agreement provides $441 million for our bilateral 
family planning programs, these programs are still subject to the 
senseless global gag rule policy. We have also failed to rationalize 
restrictions on funding the United Nations Population Fund, which as 
received no U.S. support since 2001.
  I am pleased that we have clearly stipulated that any fiscal year 
2005 funds blocked from UNFPA will go to bolster our bilateral family 
planning programs. I am deeply disappointed that the administration has 
only allowed us to provide half of the fiscal year 2004 funds meant for 
UNFPA for family planning. I support anti-trafficking initiatives, but 
urge the President to actually request them for the upcoming fiscal 
year, instead of simply announcing that he will take them from other 
programs.
  One last issue I feel compelled to address is the potential cut-off 
of economic assistance to a number of countries based on their failure 
to sign so-called Article 98 agreements. The House bill contained 
language extending the reach of current law by cutting off Economic 
Support Fund assistance to the government of countries that have not 
signed agreements exempting U.S. troops from the jurisdiction of the 
International Criminal Court. Current law cuts off military assistance 
to countries with no signed Article 98 agreements, but also gives the 
President broad waiver authority.
  The conference agreement contains a narrow waiver for non-NATO 
allies, but no waiver for the remainder of the world. The ultimate 
result is the potential cutoff of economic assistance to Jordan, 
Cyprus, Lebanon, Ecuador, Kenya, South Africa, Angola, and other 
countries.
  I understand and share the concerns many of my colleagues have about 
the International Criminal Court. But I also do not believe that these 
concerns should be the cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy.
  Jordan is not only our most reliable partner in the Arab world, the 
country now serves as the primary staging point for much of our Iraq 
reconstruction effort. The new Iraqi police force upon which so much 
depends is now being trained in Jordan. Threatening a cutoff of 
economic assistance simply flies in the face of common sense. Our 
program in Cyprus has been in place for many years and funds efforts to 
help end the conflict there--a key U.S. foreign policy goal. In other 
countries, our efforts include a wide range of programs relating to 
drug trafficking, dealing with environmental problems, and providing 
economic advisors. It seems shortsighted to discard these goals because 
of concerns over the poorly organized and ineffective ICC.
  Personally, I believe this provision should have been dropped--I 
opposed it when it was offered during House consideration of the bill. 
However, if a waiver must be included, it should have included all 
countries and not simply NATO and major non-NATO allies. This would 
allow the administration to let aid flow unimpeded to key countries in 
Latin America and Africa that might otherwise be forgotten. As it 
stands now, many of these programs are likely to be curtailed or 
halted.
  Mr. Speaker, I also want to express my concern with the Weldon 
refusal clause provision included in the LHHS section of the bill. For

[[Page 25160]]

over 30 years, there have been Federal laws that allow doctors, nurses, 
and hospitals to refuse to provide abortion services because of their 
religious beliefs.
  However, just as the law protects religious or moral objections, it 
protects the rights of patients--ensuring that women have access to 
accurate and complete medical information when making decisions about 
their own health. The Weldon provision would unravel these 
protections--gutting the patient protections included in the Title X 
family planning program, which require that all legal options are 
presented to a woman; denying rape and incest survivors access to legal 
abortion services, which is a longstanding provision in current law, 
and overriding State constitutional patient protections.
  I am very disappointed that my and my colleagues' efforts to strip 
this provision from the final bill did not prevail. This will hurt 
women all around our country, and it is shameful.
  In closing, I want to thank Chairman Kolbe for his hard work on this 
bill, and express my deep appreciation of this close working 
relationship we have enjoyed. I think it is clear from the bipartisan 
way in which this bill was written--from the very first day--that we 
both share a strong commitment to our Nation's foreign assistance 
programs, and that we both understand that foreign assistance, along 
with diplomacy and defense, is a pillar of U.S. national security 
strategy. Chairman Kolbe and his staff--John Shank, Alice Grant, Rodney 
Bent, Rob Blair, Lori Maes, and Sean Mulvancy--have been wonderful 
partners in this process.
  And I would like to thank the minority staff--Mark Murray and Beth 
Tritter--for their work as well.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, protecting and preserving our environment is 
one of the most important jobs I have, but I don't think we as a 
Congress are doing very well at it.
  The conference report before us today includes funding for hundreds 
of important and beneficial programs and projects. Unfortunately, it 
also contains provisions that will weaken several significant land and 
water protections.
  When the House passed the Interior Appropriations Act in June, we 
included a pro-environmental provision that would block new 
roadbuilding in the Tongass National Forest. The amendment passed 
because environmentalists came together with fiscal conservatives to 
end a long-standing subsidy for the logging industry while protecting 
the rainforest. Doing so just made sense. I am disappointed that this 
important provision is absent from the conference report before us 
today.
  What is included, however, is language that reduces judicial review 
on Tongass timber sales by placing a 30-day statute of limitations on 
challenging those sales in court, making it much more difficult for the 
public to participate in the process.
  In addition, the conference report waives National Environmental 
Policy Act (NEPA) review of nearly 1,000 expiring Federal-lands grazing 
permits, which will further discourage agencies from complying with 
environmental laws and could lead to continued degradation of sensitive 
public lands.
  While I intend to support this legislation, I want to reiterate my 
disappointment that this Congress has missed another opportunity to 
craft policy that is both fiscally and environmentally responsible. 
Congress can and must do a better job protecting our environment. We 
simply will not have a world to live in if we continue our neglectful 
ways.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, as we conclude our work today on the omnibus 
fiscal year 2005 spending bills, I wanted to take a few moments to 
recognize publicly the work of our Appropriations chairman for the past 
six years, the Honorable Bill Young of Florida. Like so many members 
here in the House I greatly admire and respect my friend Bill Young. He 
is truly both a gentleman and leader of this body and his work as 
chairman can only be categorized as outstanding.
  The Appropriations Committee must find ways to fund the many programs 
authorized by the committees of the Congress. It is an awesome and 
challenging job requiring a person of skilled leadership abilities to 
accomplish. Our chairman is such a person who in his own quiet but fair 
manner finds ways to solve the problems around here. The reason is that 
warmth, fairness and skill he brings with him every day in coming here 
to work.
  I support the omnibus legislation, H.R. 4818, we have before us now. 
It is a tribute to Chairman Young and his many talents that we are able 
to debate and pass this bill today.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to explain my vote in favor of 
H.R. 4818, the massive omnibus appropriations act, which incorporates 
the nine unfinished spending bills into a single package.
  I reluctantly supported this legislation. On the positive side, it 
includes millions of dollars I requested for important projects in 
southwest Oregon. For example, the bill includes $2 million for the 
North Bend Airport Air Traffic Control Tower; $475,000 for the Port of 
Brookings Harbor Boardwalk Expansion and $418,250 for the Port of 
Brookings Harbor Seafood Processing Plant; $60,000 for Coos and Curry 
County METH Reduction and $150,000 for Coos County Law Enforcement 
Technologies; $265,000 for the Benton County Health Services in Monroe 
for facilities and equipment; and $200,000 for the Springfield Public 
Schools, Schools Plus Program.
  It provides a significant investment in our Nation's roads, bridges, 
and water infrastructure. For southwest Oregon, the bill includes $5 
million for the Courthouse District Transportation Improvements in 
Eugene; $2 million for the Lane Transit District Bus and Bus 
Facilities; $3 million for the Coburg/I-5 Interchange Improvements; and 
Wastewater Improvement Funds, including $150,000 for Sweet Home, 
$300,000 for Coburg, and $250,000 for Coquille.
  I am pleased the bill restores at least some funding for the dredging 
of small ports in my district, though more funding is needed. Despite 
the fact that these small ports are the economic lifeblood of coastal 
communities in my district, President Bush had proposed to zero out 
funding for these ports in his budget.
  I was also pleased that H.R. 4818 boosts funding for veterans' health 
care by $1.9 billion over last year and by $1.2 billion above the level 
requested by the President. Though, as I will discuss in a minute, 
veterans need and deserve more.
  And, I am pleased the bill falls within the spending cap set by the 
President. Our Nation cannot continue to run up hundreds of billions of 
dollars in debt every year. Reversing the dangerous accumulation of 
debt will require discipline on both spending and taxes.
  While I supported the bill, I want to note for the record my 
disappointment with the inadequate funding levels in several important 
areas. These areas could have been funded at higher levels even within 
the spending cap set by the President if lower priority items, such as 
the President's plan to send spacecraft to Mars or military and 
economic aid to dozens of countries, were reduced or eliminated.
  For example, I am concerned that the bill cuts funding for the Small 
Business Administration by 19 percent below its current funding level. 
Small businesses are the primary employers and innovators in our 
economy. I cannot understand why the House Republican leadership 
elected to slash support for small businesses in this bill.
  As I mentioned, while funding for veterans' health care was increased 
in this bill, I am concerned that the funding level still falls $1.3 
billion below the level requested on a bipartisan basis by the House 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
  I am disappointed that H.R. 4818 underfunds the education programs 
under the No Child Left Behind Act by $9.6 billion. Title I, Head 
Start, IDEA, and after-school programs, among others, are underfunded. 
Thousands of children will be left behind by the funding levels in this 
bill.
  Older students won't make out much better. H.R. 4818 freezes the 
maximum award for Pell grants for the second year in a row, despite the 
fact that college tuition has risen 36 percent since 2001.
  Finally, I think it is outrageous that the House Republican 
leadership stripped a variety of important provisions that were adopted 
on a bipartisan basis by the House and, in some cases, the Senate as 
well. For example, the House leadership cut a provision to protect 
overtime pay for millions of American workers. And, a provision to 
allow Americans to safely reimport cheaper drugs from overseas was 
eliminated at the behest of the pharmaceutical industry.
  So, again, I will support this bill, but I will not do so 
enthusiastically.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today during this 
special Saturday session to discuss the omnibus appropriations we are 
now hurriedly trying to pass. While I commend the conferees and 
appropriators for completing the extraordinarily difficult task of 
agreeing to the language of this legislation pertaining to the nine 
appropriations, it is vitally important that all necessary programs are 
funded at the appropriate levels. This august body is nevertheless 
charged with the responsibility to prioritize in the most efficient 
manner possible and with the needs of the American people in mind. Each 
Member of this body comes from a district that has its own particular 
needs and requirements, and it is our sworn duty to ensure that our 
constituents are served.
  As we all know, this omnibus bill is a mixed blessing because while 
many programs will receive greater funding, many others will lose

[[Page 25161]]

the level of funding they received in previous years. Under the 
agriculture portion of this omnibus we are appropriating $85.3 billion. 
This number is $1.3 billion (1.5 percent less than the fiscal year 2004 
level, which means that many valuable programs will face cuts or 
losses. But I also want to make note to the credit of the conferees 
that the funding level is $2.3 billion (4 percent more than the Bush 
administration's request and $2.1 billion (2 percent more than the 
original version that came from the House of Representatives.
  Of that total, $68.3 billion (80% is mandatory spending for nutrition 
programs, such as food stamps and crop-support programs. There are two 
programs in particular that are of great value, both to my constituents 
and the Nation: the WIC program and the School Meals Program.
  The omnibus has allocated $5.3 billion to the WIC program, which 
supports the Women, Infants and Children program. I am pleased to see 
that this is $665 million (14% more than the fiscal year 2004 level and 
$370 million (7.5 percent more than the original House bill.
  The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and 
Children, WIC, is a health and nutrition program with a successful 
record for improving the diet of infants, children, and pregnant, 
postpartum and breastfeeding women who are at risk for nutrition-
related illness. The main focus of the WIC program is to educate 
mothers on the proper nutrition for babies and young children. The 
target population is low-income women who are pregnant, breastfeeding 
or have recently given birth, and children up to the age of 5.
  This is a commonsense, simple approach to instill good nutrition into 
mothers and children at an early age. The purpose of WIC is to provide 
nutrition education and food assistance to those categories of people 
who have been found to be the most vulnerable to the effects of 
malnutrition and to achieve optimal nutritional status for children 
prior to starting school.
  Income eligibility for WIC is at 185% of the poverty line, allowing 
women who can afford to take care of their children a unique 
opportunity to learn about nutrition and pass those skills and 
nutrients along to their child. This past year, in my State of Texas, 
there were 1,132,467 women who met the eligibility requirements of WIC. 
Out of that number, 80 percent, or 901,658 participated in the WIC 
program, demonstrating its huge success and appeal.
  In my position as a legislator, I often hear criticism of government 
programs that don't instantly solve problems with taxpayer money. WIC 
is a direct benefit to mothers with young children, providing them with 
nutrition education, access to public health care system, (i.e., 
prenatal care, child health, family planning, immunizations) and 
supplemental nutritious foods. This combination is a positive cycle 
toward a lifetime of healthy living, which will continue to be passed 
on for generations. Having a community with healthy, immunized children 
is a public good.
  The other program I want to address today is the school lunch 
program, which $11.8 billion is allocated to under the agriculture 
appropriations in the omnibus bill. Unfortunately, this is $364 million 
(3 percent less than the current level of funding. Again to be fair 
though this appropriation is $405 million (3.5% more than the 
President's request and $401 million (3.5% more than the House bill had 
originally offered.
  According to the American School Food Service Association, both WIC 
and the school lunch program provide a link to literacy and support the 
Nation's educational goals. Teachers, parents, children and 
administrators can all attest how hard it is for a child to concentrate 
in a classroom on an empty stomach.
  Schools have an important role to play in the development of healthy 
children. The school lunch program needs to be adequately funded so 
that all children who are with 185 percent of the poverty line can get 
a healthy, nutritious meal at school. Until we are able to do this, we 
cannot expect all children to learn and engage properly in a classroom.
  The school lunch program doesn't just address those that are eating 
too little, but also those that indulge too much. The American School 
Food Service has stated that the most effective place to begin 
addressing overweight and obesity is by teaching children to make 
healthy life choices. Obesity has become a leading health problem in 
our Nation's schools. Childhood obesity rates have tripled over the 
past 20 years, resulting in children suffering from early onset of 
traditionally adult diseases such as hypertension, diabetes, and heart 
disease.
  As reiterated by Dr. Susan Finn, chair of the American Council for 
Fitness and Nutrition, it is not a ``black list of foods'' that we must 
eliminate in children's diets to create a better balance, but teaching 
children to recognize healthy options and learn to enjoy them. The 
school lunch program gives our educational system a prime opportunity 
to do so.
  I am proud to be here today to pass this bill, and ensure the success 
of these two programs. As chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, 
I have always been committed to America's children. Our children are 
our Nation's greatest strength and resource. Marian Wright Edelman, 
president of the Children's Defense Fund said, ``If we don't stand up 
for children, then we don't stand for much.'' Today on this floor I 
want all of us to reaffirm our commitment to the welfare of all of 
America's children.
  Transportation is a vital issue in my district in Houston as I know 
it is all throughout America. I am satisfied to know that this omnibus 
agreement provides a total of $58.9 billion in budgetary resources for 
the Transportation Department, $559 million (1 percent) more than 
current funding and $485 million (1 percent) more than originally 
requested. I am also satisfied that the amount in the conference 
agreement in $48.1 billion more than in the House-passed bill, because 
most of the $58.9 billion in transportation funding recommended by the 
House Appropriations Committee was removed by points of order during 
the debate and had now been restored.
  As a body we must insist on proper funding for our long-term 
transportation needs because it is of such vital interest to our 
Nation. Investments in our Nation's surface transportation 
infrastructure create millions of family-wage jobs and billions of 
dollars of economic activity. Each $1 billion of Federal funds creates 
47,500 jobs and $6.1 billion in economic activity. In addition, this 
investment in transportation infrastructure will increase business 
productivity by reducing the costs of producing goods in virtually all 
industrial sectors of the economy. Increased productivity results in 
increased demand for labor, capital, and raw materials and generally 
leads to lower product prices and increased sales.
  Because so much is literally riding on transportation services for 
the 21st century we must insist on a balanced surface transportation 
program that serves the mobility needs of our country in a manner 
consistent with key democratic principles, including: economic growth, 
intermodalism, security, safety, continuity, equal opportunity, 
protecting our human and natural environment, rebuilding our transit 
and highway systems, encouraging alternative transportation, 
encouraging smart growth, encouraging advanced technology solutions, 
and protecting the rights of workers in transportation industries. 
While I am satisfied with the current funding level I look forward to 
the day when we can pass a comprehensive and equitable transportation 
agreement that serves the 21st century transportation needs of the 
American people.
  I want to spend some time discussing the appropriations made under 
the section covering the Veterans Affairs, VA, Housing and Urban 
Development, HUD, Independent Agencies appropriations bill. The 
conference agreement includes $93.5 billion in discretionary funding 
under this section, which is $2.7 billion (3 percent) more than the 
fiscal year 2004 discretionary level and $1.4 billion (1 percent) more 
than the administration's request. Unfortunately, not all the needs 
within this section were fulfilled and too many people will be left to 
feel this burden.
  I am saddened to say that our Nation's housing programs were hardest 
hit by this omnibus. The agreement provides $37.3 billion for the 
Housing and Urban Development Department. Sadly, this total is a full 
$618 million less than the fiscal year 2004 level but thankfully $521 
million more than the administration's pitiful request for housing. 
Every year our housing needs grow greater, not less; therefore, I find 
it implausible that our funding for housing programs would in fact go 
down. Too many people in my district in Houston and in fact throughout 
the country are in need of housing assistance, and now as we near the 
holidays we are prepared to leave these people out in the cold. I call 
for all in this body to make the commitment to housing because in many 
ways it is the backbone of the American family and our way of life.
  Being from Houston, home of the Johnson Space Center, I am also very 
concerned by the level of funding given to NASA. The agreement provides 
$16.2 billion for the National Aeronautical and Space Administration, 
NASA, $822 million more than the fiscal year 2004 appropriation but a 
full $44 million less than the President's request. As a Nation, we 
must reaffirm our full commitment to science and space exploration. The 
discoveries made through NASA endeavors have many practical 
applications as well as helping us to answer questions about our past. 
Truly, our Nation would be less complete without the marvels and 
innovations that NASA has produced

[[Page 25162]]

throughout its history. I also want to make note of the reduction in 
funding for the National Science Foundation, NSF, which under the 
agreement appropriates $5.5 billion, but is $62 million less than the 
fiscal year 2004 level and $278 million less than the President's 
request. Again, as a Nation we must strive to move forward, not 
backward in the areas of innovation and discovery. Our Nation's 
greatness was built on the hard work of its people, but it was also 
greatly aided by the work of our science community.
  Another vital section of this omnibus is the one regarding Labor, 
Health and Human Services, HHS, and Education departments and related 
agencies. Truly the well being of so many Americans is affected by the 
funding levels set in these provisions. We owe it to our constituents 
young and old alike to ensure that their needs are addressed in this 
portion of the omnibus.
  The economic prosperity of the 1990s fueled a drive to increase the 
levels of employment-based immigration. Both the Congress and the 
Federal Reserve Board expressed concern that a scarcity of labor could 
curtail the pace of economic growth. This resulted in an increase of 
the supply of foreign temporary professional workers through fiscal 
year 2003. The number of petitions approved for H-1B workers escalated 
in the late 1990s and peaked in fiscal year 2001 at 331,206 approvals. 
Since then, the H-1B annual numerical limit has reverted back to 
65,000. That limit was reached on the first day of fiscal year 2005. 
The bill before us today includes provisions to address that problem. I 
want to thank Senator Kennedy for his work on these provisions.
  Before discussing these provisions, I want to emphasize that I 
believe American companies should hire American workers first. When 
they cannot meet their employment needs by hiring American workers, 
however, they should have access to foreign workers.
  The H-1B provisions in this bill would exempt H-1B applicants with a 
masters or higher degree from a U.S. institution of higher education 
from the annual H-1B cap. This exemption would be limited to 20,000 per 
year. It also would strengthen labor protections under the H-1B 
program. It would reinstate and make permanent the attestation 
requirements for H-1B-dependent employers. Employers would be required 
to attest that they have not displaced a U.S. worker 90 days before or 
90 days after the hiring of an H-1B worker. It would require an 
employer to pay 100 percent of the prevailing wage. Current law only 
requires 95 percent. It would require a governmental survey to 
determine the prevailing wage to provide at least four levels of wages 
commensurate with experience, education, and the level of supervision. 
Currently, only two wage levels are used.
  I am pleased that we have provisions that would strengthen 
enforcement protections under the H1-B program. These provisions would 
authorize the Secretary of the Department of Labor, DOL, to conduct 
random investigations if the Secretary has reasonable cause to believe 
that an employer has committed a violation. It also would reinstate 
DOL's authority to investigate complaints alleging an employer's 
violation of the law.
  We also have provisions that would increase H1-B visa fees from 
$1,000 to $1,500 for businesses with more than 25 employees. This would 
provide greatly needed additional funds for job training activities. It 
also would provide additional scholarships for computer science, 
technology, and science programs. I want to point out though that it is 
an empty victory if our American children are trained to do jobs and 
then are unable to find employment.
  Finally, we obtained provisions that would provide needed 
strengthening of labor protections under the L Visa program to plug 
loopholes that are being used to bypass the cap restriction of the H1-B 
program. These provisions would prohibit the subcontracting of L-1 
workers, and they would toughen eligibility restrictions by requiring 
L-1 workers to be continuously employed with the company for at least 1 
year prior to obtaining an L visa.
  While I am going to vote for this bill with these provisions in it, I 
remain concerned about the need to hire American workers first. We must 
work together to ensure that American companies make an effort to save 
American jobs for American workers. I received a letter from the 
American Engineering Association that I want to bring to your 
attention. According to the American Engineering Association, 
``American tech workers are facing record unemployment and losing their 
jobs to outsourcing.'' The Association claims also that, ``Bringing in 
foreigners to take tech jobs undermines engineering as a profession and 
discourages young people from pursuing this path.''
  As I look forward to the 109th Congress, I envision a new approach to 
immigration reform. Instead of piecemeal reforms of our broken 
immigration system, such as this fix for some of the problems in the H-
1B and L visa programs, we need bipartisan, bicameral support for 
comprehensive immigration reform. Effective immigration reform must 
provide a certain path to legalization for workers from around the 
world who are already living and working in the United States; repeal 
and replace employer sanctions with stiffer penalties for employers who 
take advantage of workers' immigration status to exploit them and 
undermine labor protections for all workers; reform, not expand, 
temporary worker programs; and reform the permanent immigration system 
so that those who play by the rules are not penalized by unconscionably 
long waiting periods. I intend to pursue such reform in the 109th 
Congress by reintroducing my Comprehensive Immigration Fairness Act.
  Health and Human Services Programs are essential to all Americans and 
indeed to our Nation as a whole. I am satisfied that this agreement 
appropriates a total of $375.3 billion for the Health and Human 
Services Department, including $304.5 billion in fiscal year 2005 
appropriations, $68.1 billion in advance fiscal year 2006 
appropriations, and $2.8 billion from trust funds. We can never allow 
the well being of the people to be short changed, especially when we 
are addressing their health care needs.
  Unfortunately, I am less than satisfied and in fact disturbed by the 
lack of total funding for education programs. The agreement 
appropriates a total of $59.7 billion for the Education Department, 
including $44.6 billion in fiscal year 2005 funds, and $15 billion in 
advance fiscal year 2005 funds. The agreement's total for the Education 
Department is $1.4 billion (2 percent more than the fiscal year 2004 
appropriation but $306 million less than the administration's request. 
Not fully funding our children's education, which in my mind is already 
dramatically underfunded, is troubling. Too many children fall through 
the cracks of our educational system every year and instead of finding 
ways to support them, we instead choose to ignore them once again. I 
will always fight for the children of my district and in fact for all 
the children of America because their future is tied to ours and our 
present actions do not bode well for our Nation.
  Again, I will admit that in any large Appropriation measure many 
programs will be left underfunded because it is impossible to fund 
everything we desire. But that cannot become a defense against short 
changing our Nation's priorities such as education, housing, and 
transportation. We all bear a responsibility to our constituents to 
take the proper time and consider all the options to ensure that their 
most vital needs are being met. We as a body may not always agree, but 
we do stand together on the principle of protecting the welfare of the 
American people, and I for one will stand in this Chamber for as long 
as is needed to ensure that honorable principle.
  The fiscal year 2005 appropriations process was indeed a tough fight, 
but it is vitally important for Members to understand that portions of 
the tax revenue should be given back to the constituents. For Houston, 
TX, I am happy to report the following awards:
  In the Labor, HHS portion of this bill, the Donald Watkins Memorial 
Foundation will receive $340,000. This is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit 
community-based organization established as a direct response to the 
rising number of persons living with HIV/AIDS, PLWHA.
  The Houston Area Urban League will receive $300,000 to aid in its 35-
years-old mission of assisting the poor and disenfranchised achieve 
social and economic equality with the Communities to Work program.
  The Houston Independent School District will receive $770,000 to do 
its work in early-childhood education. These dollars will enable HISD 
to address the critical need of developing an infrastructure suitable 
for implementing and operating a program that will deliver an 
integrated continuum of services to young children and their families.
  The Thurgood Marshall Scholarship will receive $400,000 to facilitate 
the following goals: developing student and faculty leadership; 
advancing the position of Public HBCUs by providing access to best 
practices in development and education; increasing technology, 
operations, communications and staff and student expertise; 
strengthening minority professional involvement with students in the 
areas of community service and career development; and targeting 
increased outreach activities of Public HBCUs historical service to 
disadvantaged students high school guidance counselors and students to 
assure that those in need are aware of and have access to the 
opportunities available at Public HBCUs.
  The Center for Research on Minority Health at the University of 
Texas' M.D. Anderson

[[Page 25163]]

Cancer Center will receive $500,000 to aid in the focus on cancer and 
other health issues that disproportionately affect ethnic minorities 
and the medically underserved. While the CRMH currently works with 
minority and underserved populations in the Houston area, its 
activities will ultimately serve as a model for other communities 
nationwide.
  Mr. Speaker, because these projects as well as the others that I 
received in the Transportation and the VA, HUD portions of the bill 
have been so severely cut as a result of the Republican tax cut scheme, 
I vote ``yes'' on passage with great reluctance.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.


                Announcement by the Speaker pro tempore

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

                          ____________________