To amend the Uniform Time Act of 1966 to modify the State exemption provisions for advancement of time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished minority whip.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\3/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

(Mr. EMANUEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 12 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is a pitiful Christmas tree with such a bad smell that it smells more like a garbage

truck than something appropriate to Christmas. It spectacularly insults the judgment of both the House and the Senate on a number of items.

Both Houses of the Congress voted to provide overtime protections for workers because the administration is trying to take those protections away from 8 million workers.

This bill, without one minute of comment in the conference committee, arbitrarily at the instruction of the Republican leadership rips out those protections.

Both Houses voted on a bipartisan basis to cap the number of television stations that could be owned by media conglomerates around the country. In the Senate, that amendment was offered by a Republican, Senator Stevens, and in the House it was offered by me. The House and Senate adopted both of them. Despite that fact, again, without a moment's discussion in the conference committee, at the instruction of the leadership, this conference committee has ripped out the judgment of both Houses on that score; and they have come back with a nice cozy insider arrangement that protects all of the major media giants from having to do anything inconvenient. So much for pluralism and democracy.

This House voted to instruct the conferees to allow for drug reimportation. This conference committee has stripped that out. This House earlier reached a compromise in the DOD bill and in Interior on outsourcing. This conference again arbitrarily changes that bipartisan agreement.

Fifthly, there are incredible numbers of American workers who have been unemployed for an extended period of time, and yet this Congress refuses to, in this same omnibus bill, extend long-term coverage for the unemployed. This Congress ought to be ashamed of itself on that score.

This bill gratuitously amends and guts a key provision of the Clean Air Act.

And then on funding levels, this bill on education falls $7 billion below the amount promised under the No Child Left Behind Act. It falls $350 million below the Republican-passed House budget resolution in the funding level it provides for title I, which is the main education program that helps disadvantaged children to try to improve their academic performance. And it falls $1 billion below the amount that was promised in the House budget resolution for helping to educate handicapped children.

In the National Institutes of Health, the committee pretends that it is above the bill that left the House; but by the time you take into account the across-the-board cut that is required in the bill and other financial transactions, this bill is in reality $118 million below the President for the National Institutes of Health, $145 million below the House-passed bill, and $182 million below the Senate-passed bill. It on substance short-sheets and shortchanges some of the most basic obligations of government. Yet this conference finds room for over 7,000 individual Member pieces of pork which cost the taxpayers over $7.5 billion.

In 1995, the last year that I chaired the Committee on Appropriations, the House provided virtually no earmarks in the Labor- Health-Education bill. There are well over 1,200 of those special earmarks this year.

In the VA-HUD bill, we have a $1.1 billion plug for projects. $1.1 billion is being spent for earmarked projects. One-quarter of the amount that is reserved for the House goes to three Members, one from New York, one from West Virginia, one from Alaska. If you take a look at the way these projects are distributed, if we distributed the earmarks evenly with every Member getting an equal amount in the Labor- Health-Education bill, for instance, there would be about $2 million per constituent provided for each Member's district. But it is not provided equally.

So if you are from Indiana, if we simply went by basic formulas, Indiana would get about $18 million in special earmarks, but it does not. In this bill, Indiana taxpayers get about 62 cents per capita by way of special earmarks. If you represent Oregon, you bring home to your constituents in this bill about 64 cents per capita in earmarks. North Carolina, you bring home about 85 cents per capita in earmarks. California, about a dollar. But in that same Labor-Health bill, if you are from Alaska, you bring home $47 per person. And then if you look at what else Alaska gets, they get $123 per person in the VA-HUD bill, they get $192 per person in the Transportation bill, and they get $220 per person from the Commerce-Justice bill. That means that special grants to Alaska wind up totaling $638 per person in comparison to the table scraps that I just explained for States like Indiana, Michigan, North Carolina, California and the like.

Mr. Speaker, the appropriations process used to be the main task of government. The main task of the Congress each year was to pass the 13 appropriation bills which funded all of the financial activities of government. The appropriation bills used to provide an opportunity for a debate on priorities. Instead, what has happened is that the number of earmarks, the number of pieces of pork have become so numerous that Members of Congress have changed their focus and today instead of asking ``Where's the beef?'' in terms of funding levels for education or for health care or for science, instead they are asking, ``Where's the pork and how much did I get?''

And what has happened is that these projects are now being used to entice Members into only asking one question: How much did I get in pork? Rather than what were we able to do to improve the program funding for education or health care or environmental protection or you name it. I think that fundamentally corrupts the appropriations process, I think it makes us all simply ATM machines rather than policymakers, and I think it does no credit whatsoever to the Congress as an institution.

I want to point out, in a troubled agency like NASA, in 1995 there were two special earmarks that were provided. Today there are 104. Over the past few years since 1998, $1.7 billion has been diverted from regular NASA appropriations, a very troubled agency with serious safety problems; $1.7 billion has been diverted from those regular programs to industrial parks or museums or other local projects.

In the Commerce-Justice bill in 1995, there were 45 projects costing the taxpayer $104 million. Last year, Mr. Speaker, there were 996, costing the taxpayer over $1 billion. There has been a 4,200 percent increase in earmarks for the Justice Department over that same period of time.

So, Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge that we vote ``no'' on this bill. This bill is a gratuitous insult to every worker who is entitled to overtime pay. It is an outrageous neglect of the workers who ought to see their elected representatives pushing for expanded unemployment compensation for the long-term unemployed. This bill falls seriously short of the funding that this Congress itself promised in the Republican budget resolution just 5 months ago for education. It falls far short of where we need to be in the area of health care. It falls half a billion dollars short of where we ought to be in providing aid to our local and State levels of government for law enforcement assistance. And I think the way in which the earmarking process has gradually moved from something which was a tolerable and understandable effort on the part of the Congress to shift a small number of financing decisions to Congress into a decision-making process in which the total dominant consideration is simply congressional pork rather than substance in programs. I think when we do that, we fundamentally erode the confidence that each individual Member has in this institution, and I think we erode the confidence that every taxpayer has in this institution. I regret that.

This bill is a spectacular example of legislation and political pressure run amuck, and I would urge a ``no'' vote on the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, once again we have heard the gentleman in the well, on behalf of the Republican Party, try to make the case that somehow the Republican Party was responsible for the education budget increases of the last 2 years. For the Republicans to take credit for increases in education spending over the last 8 years, Mr. Speaker, is like Saddam Hussein taking credit for providing the Third Infantry Division safe passage to Baghdad.

The fact is that the majority party leadership fought every step of the way to prevent us from being able to eventually add the $19 billion in education funding that we provided, because of Democratic pressure over the past 8 years, $19 billion above the amount that the Republicans tried to put in their own education bill when those bills were before the House.

The Republican Party leadership fought us every step of the way. That increase in $19 billion happened over their dead bodies, politically speaking, and in spite of every trick that their leadership could concoct to stop it from happening. They refused to give the subcommittees an allocation that would allow meaningful increases. They broke every arm on their side of the aisle to force people to vote for lower funding levels when the bills went to the floor. When that technique failed, they refused to allow the bills to be considered on the floor. When that did not work, and when they finally had to go to conference, and often they had the conference legislation that had never even been considered in the House because of the inadequacy of their allocation, they then blocked the conferees from reaching agreement between the two Houses because the funding levels for education would be too high in their judgment. They relented only at the very last minute

when conceding on education funding that increases that we were asking for was the only way to end the session and get the Congress out of town.

On one occasion they even agreed to allow a funding level for education to be reported out of the conference and then decided they could not tolerate such a high level of support and forced the bill back into conference to strip out increases in education funding. For the Republican Party members of this House to claim that somehow they were responsible for those education budget increases, makes Pinocchio look like Honest Abe by comparison. The credibility gap that we have on the Republican side of the aisle has grown faster than Pinocchio's nose. So I just want to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it is crocodile tears to hear the Republicans profess that they really are friends of education.

I also would like to point out one other thing, a newspaper ad which appeared in the Washington Post today. It reads ``The most outrageous Christmas list in America.'' It says ``It's called the omnibus. No, it's not Santa's sleigh, but it is laden with presents. It's coming to Washington D.C. this week. And you better believe the Bush Administration's best friends have front row seats.

``Having failed to pass seven of the Federal Government's 13 budget bills, the White House and Republican congressional leaders have rolled them all into one massive package dubbed `the omnibus.'

``So who does President Bush think is naughty and nice? Apparently no one is more deserving than Rupert Murdoch and his fellow network moguls. Despite the wishes of Congress and the vast majority of Americans, the President insists the omnibus include a relaxation of media antitrust rules. Now, the biggest networks will be able to acquire more of the hugely profitable local stations they desire.

``American workers, on the other hand, must have been very naughty. The omnibus bill eliminates extended unemployment benefits for millions of jobless. And 8 million workers who currently have Federal overtime protection lose their right to extra pay for those extra hours.''

That is the problem with this bill, Mr. Speaker, and I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman has two remaining speakers, I would ask him to use one of them now, and then I will close.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has one remaining speaker?

Mr. Speaker, I am waiting until the gentleman has one speaker. He does not have the right to two closing speeches. I have got the right to have the second to the last speech.

Mr. Speaker, I understand the gentleman indicates he has two remaining speakers; so I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3\1/3\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I simply want to say that I agree very much with the remarks of the distinguished majority leader that this legislation is a fitting close to this session, because this congressional session has been marked from start to finish with an iron-hard determination to do what was necessary to deliver the most to those who have the most in this society.

We started with tax cuts which aimed a huge percentage of the benefits to those who are most well-off in our society, giving huge benefits to the most well-off 1 percent who earn more than $330,000 a year. Yet this same Congress denied tax cuts to persons whose income is so limited that they had to apply for the Earned Income Tax Credit. They were not allowed to come to the table to get their share of the tax cut.

This is the same Congress which, even as it walks out the door, having provided in the energy bill fiscal health to companies like Hooters, this is the same Congress that now says, ``Oh, but, by the way, no, we will not provide a last-minute bit of help to workers who have been out of work for an extended period of time.'' They refuse to allow States to provide additional unemployment compensation for the long-term unemployed.

This truly is a fitting close to the Congressional Record, which we have sadly seen since the beginning of January.

With respect to the gentleman's comments about this Congress being a paragon of fiscal responsibility and virtue, I simply want to announce that I am perfectly willing right here and now to give the majority leader the Pulitzer Prize for fiction, because this is the same Congress and this is the same White House that has shown so much fiscal responsibility that in 3 short years they have taken us from a $230 billion surplus to a record $375 billion-plus deficit. That is some fiscal responsibility. I think Mr. Webster would weep if we asked him to put that definition in the dictionary.

I want to say one more time, Mr. Speaker, with all of the gifts that are given in the energy bill to the special interests, with all of the gifts that are given in this bill to many special interests throughout the land, with all of the gifts that were given to special interests in the tax bill, it seems to me that we could at least provide some additional benefits to the long-term unemployed. But, no, no, no, that does not fit in the Christmas plans for the Scrooges who are running the other party on the other side of the aisle.

The motto for this Congress when it comes to working people ought to be ``Bah, humbug,'' because that is what the record looks like.

Mr. Speaker, I ask for a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following article from the December 8 edition of the National Journal's Congress Daily AM bulletin, which comments on the choice of the Appropriation process by the majority party.

[From the Congress Daily AM, Dec. 8, 2003]

The Triumph of Pettiness

(By David Hess)

The partisan bitterness that has suffused Congress over the

past decade has reached a new level. Democrats have long

grumbled about power-mad Republicans who will stoop to

anything to exert their will. Republicans grouse about fault-

finding, obstructionist Democrats and speak of getting even

for long-ago Democratic abuses. But up to this point, in the

rough and tumble of parliamentary skirmishing, both sides

have largely refrained from sweeping, systematic legislative

blackmail.

Now the wraps are off even that. Furious about opposition

to key spending bills, Republican leaders have dropped the

hammer on hometown projects--known as ``earmarks''--sponsored

mostly by Democrats but also by some Republicans who have

balked at runaway spending in some of the bills.

The first round of earmark trashing came in a big bill

funding the Labor Department and HHS; that legislation

contains about $180 million for local projects. The second

came when the GOP leadership wreaked vengeance on 100 members

of both parties who voted last summer against the VA-HUD

spending bill; approximately $750 million in earmarks are in

that legislation. After some finagling, House Labor-HHS

Appropriations Subcommittee ranking member David Obey, D-

Wis., managed to restore about $20 million worth of

Democrats' projects and program enhancements in the Labor-HHS

spending bill. But major damage to the House's sense of

comity had been done.

``If they don't support the bills [in committee and on the

floor], then they shouldn't expect to get their projects,''

said Rep. Ralph Regula, R-Ohio, a senior member of the House

who chairs the Labor-HHS Appropriations Subcommittee.

Coming from regula--who for 40 years has served with

distinction from the Ohio General Assembly to the U.S. House

and enjoys a reputation as a fair and decent legislator--that

was a stunning remark. For it bespeaks a vindictive attitude,

prevalent now in the House in both parties, that poisons the

diminishing fount of civility in an institution at its best

when each party respects the other's right to act in

principled opposition--without fear of petty retribution--on

the issues of the times.

Beyond that, this brand of political blackmail is

misguided. It is the scattershot tactic of ruthless partisans

lashing out in fury to inflict damage on critics who have

every right--if not the duty to their constituents'

interests--to express their criticism of policy choices. And

who exactly is being punished? Certainly not the members who

dared oppose the legislation on policy grounds. The real

victims are the folks back home, Republicans as well as

Democrats and independents, taxpayers all, who stand to

benefit from the earmarked projects.

In Racine, Wis., for example, citizens will go without a

$400,000 water-treatment process to screen out a dangerous

pathogen, cryptosporidium, which causes serious and even

lethal intestinal disease. Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., the

project's sponsor, had voted against the FY04 VA-HUD bill

because it cut spending for veterans below the amount

provided in the Republicans' budget resolution.

Then there's the case of Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y., a

member of the Appropriations Committee, who in last year's

Labor-HHS spending bill managed to secure funding for four

projects--two for hospitals, two for universities--worth a

total of $1.3 billion. This year he voted against both the

Labor-HHS and VA-HUD bills, on policy grounds, when they

reached the House floor. He paid a stiff price for his

opposition votes. Only one project, $150,000 in the Labor-HHS

bill to expand an emergency room in Newburgh's St. Luke's

Hospital, made the cut. Hinchey is not even certain it would

have survived, had New York's senators not supported the

project.

The lame excuse is often made that the exigencies of party

discipline require stern measures to whip the members into

line. But what about the power of good policy ideas and moral

suasion to convince, rather than bludgeon, balky members who

harbor reasonable doubts about the impact of pending

legislation on their districts? Or the effect on principled

advocates, liberal and conservative alike, who oppose on

deeply felt philosophical grounds the options dictated by

party leaders? Are the leaders so hell-bent on winning they

must resort to strong-arm tactics, rather than persuasion and

the often-small compromises that win over reluctant members?

In reflecting on the head-bashing partisanship so manifest

in Congress, this writer wonders what his later mother--a

stalwart, lifelong Republican--would have thought about such

behavior by the leaders of her party. The GOP embodied the

values she held dear: individualism, self-dependence, fiscal

integrity, personal enterprise, fair play and charity for the

worthy. She would have given short shrift to the small-

minded, mean-spirited, punitive and divisive tactics this

sort of blackmail entails.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 473, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2673) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I call attention to the fact that this conference report was filed on November 25, nearly 2 weeks ago, so that every Member has had 2 weeks, if they wanted to, to review this bill to see what was in it and to see what was not in it.

Something that I always enjoy reporting to the House and reminding the House of, and they probably get tired of hearing me say it, is that we passed all of our bills in the House, all of our appropriation bills, before the August recess, except for two; and those last two we passed on September 9, the first week back after the August district work period. So the House has done its job. It has done a good job. What we are doing here today is we are passing an omnibus appropriation bill that includes seven bills that we have already passed in the House. I say that again: these seven bills that are in this package already passed the House once. So this is now the omnibus bill; this is the conference report on that omnibus bill.

I will not take a lot of time to say what the seven bills are that are included because I think everyone knows what those final seven bills are. But I want to say that there are some important items that need to be passed now, today, and not in January or February. Because if we were to operate under a continuing resolution until late January or sometime in February, there are some important funding issues that would not be resolved.

For example, the $2.9 billion increase in medical care for veterans is a very important issue, and one that the House agreed to strongly. That increase will not take any effect whatsoever until such time as this bill passes. A CR will not provide for that 2.9 additional billions of dollars for veterans health care.

The same factor applies for education money. The same increase would not be available under a CR that is available under this bill.

For the FBI, counterterrorism and embassy security and other security issues of these types, the increased money that we made available for security in those areas would not be available under a CR. And the list goes on. The list is lengthy.

So, Mr. Speaker, it is important that we pass this bill today, and I hope that we pass it with large numbers, large enough so that our friends at the other end of the Capitol understand that we are serious about this government of ours functioning; that we are serious about the issues that we brought to the attention of the Congress and that we intend to see them implemented.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if there is anybody who wants to find something at fault, something to complain about in this bill, they can do it, because there are seven bills. I am sure there will be something there each of us may not like. But I tell my colleagues that it is the best product that we could provide for, considering the fact that we were negotiating with Republicans and Democrats in the House, we were negotiating with the Senate Republicans and Democrats, we were negotiating with the leadership, and we were negotiating with the White House. I think all in all we have come to a pretty good conclusion considering the fact that we were able to bring most of those issues together and to bring a bill that we believe we can pass with a great number today.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring to the House the conference report on the Consolidated Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004.

Included in this bill are the following appropriations bills: Agriculture; Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary; District of Columbia; Foreign Operations; Labor, Education and Health and Human Services; Transportation and Treasury; and Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development.

So as you can see, this bill is a tremendously important bill. I'm sure it will not please everyone in all respects but it does address many important needs of this country.

I believe we have done an extraordinary job in holding spending to appropriate levels--the bill totals $328.1 billion in discretionary funding. It is a fiscally responsible bill that complies with the fiscal parameters prescribed by the President limiting total discretionary spending to $786 billion or approximately 3 percent increase over last year's comparable levels. Additional spending has been offset by a $1.8 billion rescission from any unobligated balances in the Department of Defense, as well as from P.L. 107-38 and P.L. 107- 117, the $40 billion post 9/11 supplemental, exempting from cuts any relief funds for New York, Washington, D.C. area, and rural Pennsylvania. It also includes an across the board reduction of .59 percent to all programs, projects and activities exempting Defense and Military Construction funds.

I would like to highlight a few items that I believe are of interest to many Members:

Veterans Medical Care is increased by $2.9 billion over last year, the largest onetime increase ever.

D.C. School Choice--$40 million is provided to expand school choice in the District of Columbia, including $13 million to improve public education, $13 million to expand charter schools, and $14 million to provide opportunity scholarships for students in the District of Columbia.

Special Education Grants are funded at $10.1 billion, $1.2 billion more than last year, and over three times the amount provided in 1995.

Election Reform--Provides an additional $1 billion for programs under the Help America Vote Act.

International HIV/AIDS Assistance--Provides $2.4 billion in international assistance for HIV/AID, TB and Malaria, the highest level in history.

Millennium Challenge Account--Provides $1 billion for the Millennium Challenge Corporation.

Highway Spending--Total highway spending amounts to $33.8 billion, an increase of $4.5 billion over the President's request and $6.1 billion over the FY03 guaranteed amount.

Convention Security--$50 million is provided for security expenses at the national party conventions in Boston and New York City.

Embassy Security--$200 million is provided for worldwide embassy security upgrades.

FBI--$513 million in increases are provided for the FBI to fight terrorism.

NIH--the bill continues our commitment to the NIH by providing an increase of $1 billion over last year.

National Service Corporation is funded at $584 million, $200 million above last year.

Faith- and Community-Based Initiatives are increased including the Compassion Capital Fund at $48 million and Mentoring Children of Prisoners at $50 million.

Social Security--Provides a 6.1 percent increase to the Social Security Administration to improve service delivery of Social Security benefits and accelerate the time it takes to process disability claims.

I believe we've have reached a point of no return--we must now pass this bill and turn our attention to the FY 2005 budget process.

I encourage all Members to support this important bill.

Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record detailed information on each of the appropriation bills in this omnibus legislation.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.012

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.013

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.014

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.015

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.016

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.017

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.018

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.019

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.020

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.021

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.022

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.023

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.024

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.025

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.026

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.027

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.028

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.029

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.030

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.031

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.032

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.033

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.034

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.035

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.036

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.037

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.038

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.039

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.040

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.041

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.042

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.043

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.044

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.045

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds to say that this is an appropriation bill, and the issues that the gentlewoman discussed are not within our jurisdiction and are not in this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation.

(Mr. ISTOOK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to advise the gentleman that I am happy to report that one of the major issues he was concerned about, the election reform program and to help the States, that money is in this package.

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies.

(Mr. BONILLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs.

(Mr. KOLBE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies.

(Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), chairman of the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia.

(Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. Speaker, I have only myself left for a brief statement and the majority leader will close for our side.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

I extend best holiday greetings and a Merry Christmas to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and to say what a pleasure it is to work with him. He is an honorable opponent. We have many disagreements, but we work together for what we think is the best interest of country and the institution of the House and the Committee on Appropriations. His staff and our staff worked together extremely well. Jim Dyer, as our clerk and chief of staff, and Scott Lilly on the gentleman from Wisconsin's (Mr. Obey) side worked together very well, and we have a lot of staff and they do work together very well. We try to deal with our differences in a very respectful manner, and I think that the actions over the years have proved that. So I wish all of our colleagues a very Merry Christmas.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, and I hope that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) would conclude, yield back his time, and then we will close.

Mr. Speaker, the majority leader, and I will close.

Mr. Speaker, to accommodate the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, again I appreciate the opportunity to work with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), as we bring closure to these final seven appropriations bills which the House had already passed once, as I have said before.

There are several important issues: one, as the majority leader said, is we are within the budget. There are a lot of good increases that we have called attention to, in health care, in education, in veterans care, in embassy security, in counterterrorism activities and all. But we offset those increases with rescissions, so that we were able to stay within the budget.

This is a must-pass bill. Appropriations bills have to pass. They are about the only bills here that have to pass. That is why sometimes they attract some riders that actually cause us more problems in negotiations than the appropriations bills themselves. But it is a give-and-take. Republicans and Democrats in the House, Republicans and Democrats in the Senate, leadership of both parties, the administration, the President, we brought all of those divergent groups together and we came up with a package, and that is what is before us today.

For those who are concerned that we did not spend enough money, we did; but we offset. We could have spent more, because we had requests from Members for over $50 billion worth of Member-adds. For those fiscal conservatives in our body, we found a way to say no to almost all of those requests, the $50 billion. But we bring about as good a fiscally conservative bill that meets the needs of the country as we possibly could.

So, again, Mr. Speaker, as we get ready to pass this bill and hope and pray that the other body will see fit to do similar so that our agencies can get about their business, I want to thank you for the exemplary way in which you conducted this session today, I want to wish you a Merry Christmas, and I want to wish all the Members a Merry Christmas. We look forward to seeing you next year, when we start this appropriations process all over again.

Mr. Speaker, I ask for a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference report on H.R. 2673. This omnibus appropriations bill, which was thrown together at the last minute, underfunds important programs and proposes dangerous new policies. As Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, I would like to detail my many concerns with this legislation.

law enforcement grants

The conference report would significantly underfund Federal grants for enhanced law enforcement efforts, for both state and local law enforcement assistance and the Community Oriented Policing Services program (``COPS''). For instance, with respect to actual state and local law enforcement assistance grants (Local Law Enforcement Block Grants, State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, Byrne Grants, Justice Assistance Grants, drug courts, etc.), the Justice Department received $2 billion. This conference report would provide only $1.3 billion, a drastic cut of $700 million (35 percent). This means that important programs like police block grants, the Boys and Girls Clubs, Project ChildSafe, and others will be slashed.

Developed by the Clinton Administration in 1994, COPS has community policing as its cornerstone; police officers concentrate on specific neighborhoods and gain the trust of community residents to prevent and solve crimes. Targeting youth violence has been a major priority for COPS; instead of locking up juveniles after they have committed offenses, the presence of cops on the beat and in schools helps to keep them out of trouble in the first place. In addition to putting cops on the street and in schools, the COPS program has reduced domestic violence, gang violence, and drug-related crimes by helping to create and organize community groups, victims' groups, treatment centers, and community police in various regions around the country. It is also important to note that local law enforcement is a critical component in the war on terrorism; local police in the everyday course of patrol may be the first to learn about potential terrorist acts or terrorists.

Its success has led to COPS being praised by law enforcement and politicians on both sides of the aisle. Fraternal Order of Police, the largest law enforcement organization in the United States, has stated that ``[COPS] is a program that works and one that has had a positive impact on our nation today.'' Also, during his confirmation hearings, Attorney General John Ashcroft promised to continue supporting COPS and, as a Senator, cosponsored legislation to reauthorize it. Finally, Representative Jim Kolbe, a member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce-Justice-State-Judiciary, has noted that COPS ``has always played a vital role in community safety and [he was] glad to see Federal money funding such a position.'' This is why it should not be surprising that, initially intended to fund 100,000 officers, the program funded 116,573 officers in September 2002 alone.

The Republican leadership, however, refuses to acknowledge the successes of COPS. Overall, this bill provides $756 million for COPS, a drastic cut from the FY03 level of $978 million. More specifically, the conference report provides only $120 million for the hiring of officers, which is the program's most important component; in FY03, this portion received $199 million (the Senate bill would have given $200 million for hiring). In the September 2003 issue of Washington Monthly, the Chief of the Richmond Police Department, Andre Parker, said he was ``dismayed at the current Administration's attitude toward local law enforcement. . . . [It] has not seemed to grasp what we face.'' It is clear that the Republicans are giving law enforcement and community policing the short shrift.

If we take away funds now, our local communities who have used COPS money to hire police officers will be devastated; many already are hard-pressed financially because of the slowdown in the economy. So there is no question in my mind that reducing funds will lead to police layoffs and an increase in the cycle on crime and violence.

Biomedical Research

The conference report also would stifle research on life-saving drugs and treatments. This is because of the report includes an amendment by Representative Dave Weldon that prohibits the PTO from issuing patents ``encompassing or directed to'' human organisms (section 634 of Division B). While this provision has been marketed as targeted toward human cloning, it would have a much broader effect.

Arguably, any medical treatment is ``directed to or encompasses'' human organisms. This is broad and vague prohibition could prevent patents on, and thus discourage research into, drugs and treatments for Alzheimer's, in vitro fertilization, and virtually any other area of medicine that pertains to the human body. This poorly-drafted provision is an example of why Congress should not legislate on medical practices and should not make important policy decisions without the input of experts in the field.

Gun Safety

The Republican leadership also caved to the gun industry by preventing the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and explosives (``ATF'') from enforcing gun safety laws. For instance, the conference report includes proposals from Representative Todd Tiahrt that:

Impose a 24-hour limit on destruction of records of approved firearm purchases (section 618 of Division B). The current rule permits the retention of records for 90 days. The new proposal would undermine audits of the system to ensure it is working properly and undermine the ability to retrieve firearms that have been transferred to criminals and other prohibited owners. A June 2002 study by the General Accounting Office stated that 288 of the 235 (97 percent) firearm retrievals initiated during the first 6 months of the current 90-day rule could not have been done under a 24-hour rule; in other words, the new rule would permit 228 prohibited persons (i.e. felons, domestic violence misdemeanants, fugitives) to keep their illegal guns.

Prohibit the ATF from releasing to the public information regarding sales and dispositions of firearms kept by gun dealers and manufacturers, as well as any records of multiple handgun sales (where 2 or more handguns are sold to the same buyer within 5 days) or gun tracing information reported to ATF (title I of Division B). Community residents no longer would be aware of neighbors stockpiling mass quantities of firearms.

Prohibit ATF from requiring dealers to provide a physical inventory (title I of Division B). This precludes the ATF from finalizing a rule it proposed in August 2000 to require annual inventories. The purpose of the proposed rule was to allow dealers to identify missing firearms and report them as such. Had the ATF's proposal been in effect, we could have avoided the situation that occurred in the Washington, DC, sniper case where Bull's Eye Shooter Supply (the dealer from whom the snipers allegedly stole an assault rifle) asserted they did not know the gun was stolen until the ATF traced it to the store.

Prevent ATF from computerizing records of gun dealers who go out of business (title I of Division B). Computerized records are critical with respect to being able to trace guns used in crimes. As a result of this amendment, a gun used in one crime could not be connected to another crime; depriving law enforcement of valuable evidence.

In essence, the conference report would reverse Clinton Administration policies that led to a substantial decrease in the number of gun

dealers from 245,000 in 1994 to 58,500 now. By making it easier to be a gun dealer, the conference report would make gun shops as prevalent as 7-Eleven; there would be one on every corner in every neighborhood in America, open all day and night. Moreover, as Kristen Rand, Legislative Director of the Violence Policy Center, noted on July 23, 2003, ``Representative Tiahrt's proposal would aid criminal gun traffickers and at the same time devastate ATF's already weak oversight authority.'' Make no mistake about it, the only winners under this proposal are criminals and the NRA.

Beyond these matters relating to Judiciary Committee jurisdiction, I am troubled by the conference reports treatment of other programs and initiatives important to everyday Americans.

In a reversal of prior votes of the House and Senate, the conference report would encourage media monopolies. In June 2003, the Federal Communications Commission raised the broadcast ownership cap from 35 percent of the national market to 45 percent of the market. This decision was widely criticized by Congress and the public, so much so that the House passed by a vote of 400-21 an appropriations bill that prevented the FCC from increasing the 35 percent cap. Similarly, the Senate Appropriations agreed by a vote of 29-0 to overturn the FCC decision, using an appropriations bill to retain the cap at 35 percent. Despite these prior votes, the Republican's engaged in backroom dealing to craft a conference report that lifts the cap to 39 percent (section 629 of Division B). This simply is bad policy that will encourage consolidation and discourage the diversity of voices in the media that drives our democracy.

The legislation fails to block a Labor Department regulation that would deny overtime pay to approximately 8 million workers across the country. Both the House and Senate had agreed to prevent this anti- worker provision from becoming effective, but the Republican leadership has turned its back on working Americans.

The House had agreed to permit drug reimportation so Americans with medical needs could reap the benefits of lower drug costs. By reneging on this promise, the Republican leadership is putting the needs of billion dollar corporations ahead of the needs of the sick.

In a blow to public education and home rule, the Republican leadership is authorizing funds for a school voucher program for the District of Colombia. This program will drain needed funds from already-suffering public schools, depriving school-aged children of the education they need and deserve.

Despite public rhetoric about how much it supports our troops, the Republican leadership thinks nothing of our men and women in uniform when they return from the front. The conference report provides veterans' medical programs with $700 million less than the Republican leadership promised in the budget resolution and $900 million less than the veterans groups had sought.

Continuing the Majority's attack on the environment, the Republican leadership weakens the Clean Air Act and prevents 49 states (all except California) from adopting stricter emissions control laws for small engines.

Despite public statements by the President and congressional leaders to support AIDS prevention and treatment, the conference report actually provides less money for AIDS programs than the President's request and other bills. The report requires the National Institutes of Health (``NIH'') to return to the treasury a large portion of non- research funds. As a result, the NIH receives $118 million less than the President's request, $145 million less than the House level, and $182 million less than the Senate level. This translates into an actual cut from current funding levels for AIDS programs.

The Bush Administration touted its ``No Child Left Behind'' package and signed it with great fanfare; not surprisingly, it sought virtually no funds for the program in its next budget. Now, the conference report gives $24.5 billion, which is $7.8 billion lower than the amount authorized in the actual bill. This gives schools just enough money to cover inflation and fails to give funding to cover costs incurred in complying with Federal mandates.

The Republican leadership claims to be concerned about domestic security, but now it underfunds the very Department created to provide that security. For example, the 0.59 percent across-the-board budget cut applies to the Department of Homeland Security, such that the planned increase for border protection will have to be cut by two- thirds.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this conference report.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge Members to support this bill, but I just want to address a few of the highlights in the Labor, HHS, and Education portions.

One, the Department of Education gets an increase of 4.8 percent which is above the overall rate of inflation, and, I think, recognizes the importance of education. Special education has an additional $200 million over the House-passed number, for a total increase of $1.2 billion over last year.

Reading programs have been increased in the overall bill, as has improving teacher quality, which I think is extremely important. We have a number of programs in here that are important from the standpoint of improving teacher quality, including increasing the number of math and science teachers. Pell Grants are maintained at the highest level ever. Impact Aid is $48 million over last year. After- school programs are $400 million over the President's request because we recognize the importance of these programs to young people. TRIO and Gear-Up are increased, Head Start is increased $148 million over last year, and we maintained comprehensive school reform. That is particularly important in addressing the dropout rate.

Community health centers are expanded. I think most of us know from experience that these are an important part of a community's health program, to have funding for these health centers, and we provide funds to expand them.

National Institutes of Health, we give them an increase of more than 7 percent if we take into account one-time costs in fiscal year 2003. The same is true for a number of activities, such as international HIV, infectious disease, homeland security biodefense. In addition, LIHEAP is fund at $1.9 billion.

I am particularly pleased that in the Labor Department, we are supporting job training programs. The worker training programs are extremely important, particularly as people shift to new types of employment. As the overall job economy changes in our society, it is important that we have a place that people can go and know that there is hope for getting a new job or getting a better job or getting an opportunity. I am glad we were able to do that in this bill.

Overall, I think the Labor-HHS portion of the bill is very responsive to the needs of our people. It is less than 4 percent overall, which is lower than the rate of inflation. It is about 3.4 percent over last year.

Mr. Speaker, given the fact that these programs are very important to people, touch the lives of 280 million Americans in one way or another, the subcommittee and the conference committee tried to address these challenges in the most effective way possible. I urge support of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, Division E of this conference agreement provides funding for a broad range of programs and activities affecting the lives of nearly every American. It provides help to workers looking for retraining or enhancing their job skills, assistance for teachers working hard to educate our children, support for families in need of health services, and funding for scientists seeking to understand and cure disease. The agreement totals $139 billion in discretionary spending, an increase of less than 4 percent over 2003.

In the area of education, I want to begin by laying out a few basic facts. Federal funds for education have more than doubled over the past 8 years. Discretionary appropriations for the U.S. Department of Education have climbed from $23 billion in FY1996 to $55.7 billion in this bill. This is an increase of 141 percent. The problem in American education is not lack of spending. It is lack of accountability for results. With the help of the reforms put in place by the No Child Left Behind Act, being implemented by good teachers and principals and caring parents all across this country, we are changing things for the better.

I will give a few examples of how this bill takes a focused approach to improving education for our Nation's children. First, funding for Special Education for disabled children is increased by $1.2 billion in this bill, bringing total funding to $10 billion. Meeting our Federal commitment in this program has been a priority for the Congress for the past 8 years, and this bill continues that progress.

Second, Title I, which helps children from low-income homes achieve academic success, is increased by nearly $700 million to a total of $12.35 billion. Coupled with the new accountability standards in No Child Left Behind, Title I has the potential to change ``business as usual'' at our public schools.

Third, reading programs, which use sound scientific evidence to help children learn to read effectively, are funded at over $1 billion, representing a tripling of these funds in just 3 years. These programs are important because we know that many children are placed in special education simply because they have not been taught to read properly. By investing in sound reading programs, we can ensure that every child gets the help to excel in reading at a young age.

tchr quality--comprehensive school reform

There are many other good education programs funded in this bill. We have increased funding for training teachers, especially math and science teachers, so that our future workforce can compete in the high- tech, global marketplace. We have included funds for after school and mentoring activities. We have increased funding for student aid programs and other higher education programs to help all students have a chance to realize the dream of graduating from college. Seventy-one education programs have been increased above last year's level in this bill. At the same time, other programs have been cut or eliminated from the budget entirely because they have not proven their results or because they duplicate other programs.

Our conference bill also invests in important health service and research programs. Community health centers, which are the backbone of medical care in many communities, receive an increase of $120 million, which puts our efforts ahead of the benchmark anticipated in the President's 5-year expansion plan. Maintaining the congressional commitment to supporting the important care provided by our pediatric hospitals, the conference agreement provides a $13 million increase for the graduate medical education program for children's hospitals. To ensure that we have enough health care providers for these community clinics and hospitals, we have preserved the health professions and nurse training programs in the face of drastic reductions proposed by the administration.

I'm pleased to report that we were able to provide more than a 30 percent increase for the abstinence education program, which I know many of our Members believe is very important to strengthen their communities.

We continue our commitment to biomedical research to provide the breakthroughs necessary to improve the quality of care we can give our citizens and provide answers to families who are desperate for help. The conference agreement provides over a 3 percent increase for the National Institutes of Health. This year's increase follows the successful campaign to double funding for NIH--in the previous 5 years, the NIH appropriation jumped from $13.6 billion to almost $27 billion. I am confident that the roadmap for future NIH investments developed by the new director of NIH will mold and discipline this investment to ultimately make possible better health care for our communities.

The conference agreement includes $100 million to fund a new substance abuse treatment voucher program, Access to Recovery, which will open new pathways to people who need treatment for addiction. By investing in this new initiative, Congress is giving hope to those who are lost in the cycle of addiction. This program will increase treatment capacity and access to providers by giving vouchers to those most in need.

In the area of faith-based programming, the conference agreement provides a 30 percent increase over last year. Increasing the capacity of small faith-based groups to provide outreach and services to our communities means that more people in need will be served. Programs in this bill with a faith component provide a wide-range of services including mentoring, substance abuse treatment, refugee services, child abuse prevention, and many others.

To provide services to families and individuals who care for their elderly loved ones, $160 million is provided for the Family Caregiver Program within the Administration on Aging. This program provides information, assistance, counseling, respite and supplemental services to the millions of caregivers who are the most important long-term care resource in the country. This support allows our Nation's elderly to remain at home for as long as possible.

For the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, the agreement provides $1.9 billion. Within those funds, the conferees have included $100 million to meet the additional home energy assistance needs arising from a natural disaster or other emergency.

While much more could be said about how this bill will benefit the American people, I will stop here and simply say, it is a responsible bill, crafted during tight budget times, that tries to direct resources to programs that work for people most in need. I want to thank Chairman Young for his assistance in forging this agreement. We had some tough issues to resolve with the other body. Of the nearly 600 programs and activities funded in the bill, 61 percent of them were at different levels between the two bodies. On top of that, several difficult policy items had to be resolved.

I also say to my friend, Mr. Obey, this year has been difficult for both of us. I respect your deep commitment to the programs in this bill and understand the reason for your opposition. I trust that in the future, we can again be partners.

Mr. Speaker, we are nearing the finish of this session of the 108th Congress, and I am sure most Members will be heartily glad to see it end.

Today, we are considering an Omnibus bill making appropriations for departments and agencies that ought to be funded in seven separate appropriations bills, which have been held up by various obstacles, including insufficient allocations and controversial riders--or riders to stop controversial administration policies.

On the matter that should be in a separate bill for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Federal Judiciary, and several important related agencies, we began with a bad budget allocation that has gotten worse and will be further reduced by across-the-board cuts, both within our division of the Omnibus and across the government.

I must say that our chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) is not to blame for the deficiencies in our portion of this bill. Throughout the process, he has been very fair and has sought to produce the best possible bill, given the limited resources his leadership gave him to work with. For that, I thank him very much.

I also cannot thank the staff enough for all their hard work, long hours, and time away from their families. Mike Ringler, Leslie Albright, Christine Ryan Kojac, and John Martens for the majority, as well as Anne Marie Goldsmith and Alan Lang, this year's detailees, have worked closely with Rob Nabors and David Pomerantz of the Democratic staff and Lucy Hand, Nadine Berg, and Diaraf Thiouf of my staff and my Presidential Management Interns Pete Balfe and Erin McKevitt.

However, the allocation is still too small, and I am seriously concerned about its impact on very important government functions in law enforcement, the judiciary, foreign affairs, and other areas. I am alarmed that the amounts we have worked out in conference with the Senate will be reduced by across-the-board cuts. We fought hard for adequate funding, for example, for the FBI and other law enforcement, but even those amounts face devastating cuts.

Among the most worrisome deficiencies are the State and local law enforcement programs. Most of them are at barely acceptable levels, before the across-the-board cuts, but the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant, funded at nearly $400 million last year, falls to $225 million this year, before the across-the-board cuts. Even relatively small programs had to be cut, such as the Police Integrity grants, which falls from nearly $17 million in fiscal year 2003 to $10 million. We are asking State and local governments to do more to protect our people, as the resources available to support this work decline.

Another alarming problem is the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program, which this year falls from over $106 million to just under $40 million, before the across-the-board cuts. This is a severe blow to a very important program, at a time when manufacturers need help. I can only hope that in fiscal year 2005 we can get back to a more appropriate level.

One last agency I would like to mention is the Legal Services Corporation (LSC) We had tried to stabilize LSC's funding this year, but across-the-board cuts will undercut that goal. Beyond that, there is growing concern that limits on the uses of private money donated to independent LSC grantees are hurting America's low-income families and imposing unwarranted government restrictions on the private sector. The administration does not tolerate such interference with the privately funded religious activities of its faith-based grantees. It--and we-- would not tolerate such interference with privately funded secular activities also dedicated to helping families in need. I am hopeful that next year we can address these restrictions on privately donated funds. At this point, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to submit for the Record letters I have received on this issue.

I am also alarmed by the process that got us to this point. The Republican leadership has imposed policies that are not supported by the majority of the American people, the Congress, or the conferees--in our subcommittee's division, the dead-of-night ``compromise'' on media ownership. The gun provisions are also different from what was agreed to by the conferees.

Mr. Speaker, if we can find $87 billion for a war we didn't have to fight, we ought to be able to find the resources to support our domestic law enforcement agencies with the personnel and resources they need; the commercial, statistical, and environmental activities of our Commerce Department; our foreign policy establishment; and such crucial agencies as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and the Small Business Administration (SBA).

Mr. Speaker, in the end, however most Members vote on the Omnibus Appropriations bill--and I recognize that many crucial programs would suffer under a long-term continuing resolution--I must emphasize that the resource allocation that has yielded Division B of the Omnibus, which funds the agencies in the jurisdiction of the Commerce, Justice, State, Judiciary, and Related Agencies Subcommittee, is grossly inadequate and may prove damaging to the national interest.

November 20, 2003.

Hon. Frank R. Wolf,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State and

Judiciary, Committee on Appropriations, Washington, DC.

Hon. Jose E. Serrano,

Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, and

Judiciary, Committee on Appropriations, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Wolf and Congressman Serrano: We write to

thank for your tremendous leadership on behalf of America's

families by supporting increased funding for the Legal

Services Corporation in the Fiscal Year 2004 Commerce,

Justice, State, the Judiciary and Related Agencies

Appropriations Bill introduced in your Subcommittee.

However, we also write to express our regret that for the

past several years this bill has included a restriction that

severely limits the manner in which independent civil legal

aid programs funded by LSC can spend their own private, state

and local funds.

This ``private money'' restriction annually encumbers more

than $300 million in non-federal money, and harms communities

in two distinct ways. First, the restriction imposes costly

government obstacles to private philanthropy. Second, the

restriction closes the doors of justice to many low-income

individuals and families unable to afford necessary legal

representation in civil matters.

The undersigned groups write to express our support for

amending the LSC appropriation in order to end this

governmental interference with non-federal funding for legal

aid nonprofits. We urge you to continue your tremendous

leadership on behalf of America's families by guiding efforts

to end this unfairness.

In particular, we hope you will support removal of the

private money restriction because the restriction improperly

interferes with the right of private philanthropies and other

non-federal donors--including state and local governments--to

determine the purposes for which their charitable donations

will be used. In addition, the restriction interferes with

the right of non-federal donors to select those local

institutions best equipped to carry out the purposes of their

charitable donations.

By removing the private money restriction, but keeping

intact restrictions that control activities financed with

federal LSC funds, Congress would properly place independent

LSC recipients in the same position as nonprofit grantees of

other federal entities which are permitted to use their non-

federal funds free of unwarranted restrictions. This would

bolster the mission of LSC as a model public-private

partnership dedicated to supporting independent and

accountable local programs that set their own priorities

based on community need.

Furthermore, Congress's removal of the LSC private money

restriction may well encourage increased charitable donations

to the more than 150 independent LSC recipients that serve

the working poor, veterans, the elderly, victims of domestic

violence, family farmers and people with disabilities in

every county and Congressional District in the Nation.

Thank you very much for your support and continued

leadership on behalf of America's families.

Sincerely,

Brennen Center for Justice at NYU School of Law;

International Union, UAW; National Legal Aid and

Defender Association; Center for Law and Social Policy;

National Organization of Legal Services Workers, UAW

Local 2320; National Immigration Law Center; Open

Society Policy Center; Association of the Bar of the

City of New York; Community Service Society of New

York;

National Council of La Raza; Council on Foundations

Independent Sector; National Council of Nonprofit

Associations; National Committee for Responsive

Philanthropy; OMB Watch; Charity Lobbying in the Public

Interest; Alliance for Justice; Nonprofit Coordinating

Committee of New York.