Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5006) making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, appropriation bills are the truest expression of Congress' priorities. All year long we may claim to support after-school programs and child care assistance or provide expanded job-search assistance to the 1.2 million unemployed Americans. All year long we may have expressed opposition to the new Labor Department overtime rules. Today is the day we match the deeds to words.

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us, H.R. 5006, the fiscal year 2005 Appropriations Act for the Department of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, shortchanges a wide range of programs important to the people we serve.

Now, why are these programs being shortchanged? To meet our homeland security or our defense needs? To pay down our historic $422 billion deficit? No. Programs are being shortchanged to pay for tax cuts that the Congressional Budget Office found go disproportionately to the wealthiest Americans.

Schools are shortchanged under H.R. 5006. And those who supported the No Child Left Behind Act should have a problem with the fact that this measure shortchanges our schools to the tune of $9.5 billion.

The promises made when No Child Left Behind was signed into law over 2\1/2\ years ago may be a faint memory to those who supported the bill, but let me assure you that school superintendents, principals, teachers, and parents have not forgotten.

While I was pleased to see the bill raises funding levels for special education and title I funding by $1 billion each, this is a far cry from what has been promised.

The elimination of 22 education programs under H.R. 5006 warrants attention. Among them are the Dropout Prevention Program, Teaching American History grants, Foreign Language assistance, and the Arts in Education program, which encourages the integration of arts into classroom instruction.

There is a human toll to cutting these programs. A 60 percent cut to the Perkins loan program will result in 53,000 students losing college assistance. A freeze in the level of Federal support for after-school programs may force communities to close their centers. In my district, this year, the Rochester school board had to make the painful decision to cut their budget by over $7 million. The children in Rochester did not have the option this summer to take summer school, and now their after-school programs are in jeopardy.

Turning to the Health and Human Services section of the bill, I am troubled by cuts to public health and our critical health care safety net programs. The bill terminates the Healthy Communities Access program, which is a vital grant program supporting local efforts that take care of the health of the uninsured. It is wrong to eliminate this important program, especially given the fact that, according to the new census figures, the number of uninsured Americans has swelled to 45 million.

Mr. Speaker, I submit herewith for the Record a report issued by the U.S. Census Bureau which provides further details regarding this issue:

Estimates derived from SIPP data answer such questions as:

What percentage of households move up or down the income

distribution over times? How many people remain in poverty

over time? How long do people without health insurance tend

to remain uninsured?

Income in the United States

highlights

Real median household money income remained unchanged

between 2002 and 2003 at a level of $43,318, following two

consecutive years of decline. Median income remained

unchanged for all types of family and nonfamily households

(such as married-couple household and single individuals)

between 2002 and 2003.

Real median household income remained unchanged for non-

Hispanic White, Black, and Asian households between 2002 and

2003. Households with Hispanic householders (who can be of

any race) experienced a real decline in median income of 2.6

percent between 2002 and 2003.

The most commonly used measure of household income

inequality, the Gini index, did not change between 2002 and

2003. The share of aggregate income received by the lowest

quintile declined from 3.5 percent to 3.4 percent, as did the

real income level delineating the 20th percentile of

household income, from $18,326 to $17,984 (a 1.9 percent

decline in real terms). The 80th percentile of household

income increased 1.1 percent, from $85,941 to $86,867 in real

terms.

The real median earnings of men who worked full-time, year-

round remained unchanged between 2002 and 2003 at $40,668.

The real median earnings of the comparable group of women

declined by 0.6 percent to $30,724. Reflecting the fall in

the earnings of women, the female-to-male earnings ratio

declined from 0.77 to 0.76 between 2002 and 2003. The last

time the female-to-male earnings ratio experienced an annual

decline was between 1998 and 1999.

Compared with 1967, the first year for which household

income statistics are available, real median household income

is up 30 percent. Over this period, median income tended to

rise and fall along with the business cycle. median income

peaked in 1999, was unchanged in 2000, declined over the next

2 years (by a cumulative 3.3 percent), and was unchanged in

2003.

race and hispanic origin

Real median household income remained unchanged for most

race groups between 2002 and 2003. For example, the median

incomes of non-Hispanic White households, Black households,

and Asian households remained unchanged. Hispanic households

experienced a decline in median income of 2.6 percent.

Black households had the lowest median income. Their 2003

median money income was about $30,000, which was 62 percent

of the median for non-Hispanic White households (about

$48,000).

Median money income for Hispanic households was about

$33,000 in 2003, which was 69 percent of the median for non-

Hispanic White households.

Asian households had the highest median income among the

race groups. Their 2003 median money income was about

$55,000. 117 percent of the median for non-Hispanic White

households.

american indian and alaska native population

Because of the relatively small population of this racial

group, the sampling variability of their income data is

larger than for the other racial groups and may cause single-

year estimates to fluctuate more widely. To reduce the

chances of misinterpreting changes in income or comparisons

of income with other groups, the Census Bureau uses 2-year-

average medians for measuring changes in the income of

American Indians and Alaska Natives over time, and 3-year-

average medians when comparing the income of this group with

other racial groups.

The 3-year-average (2001-2003) median income for American

Indian and Alaska Native households was higher than the

median for Black households; not different from the median

for Hispanic households; and lower than the medians for non-

Hispanic White households and Asian households.

Comparison of 2-year moving averages (2001-2002 and 2002-

2003) shows that the median income for American Indian and

Alaska

Native households who chose that race alone or in combination

with another increased by 4.0 percent over that period for

single-race American Indian and Alaska Native households,

median income remained statistically unchanged.

nativity

Native households had a real median income in 2003

($44,347) that was not different from that in 2002. Foreign-

born households experienced a real decline of 3.5 percent to

$37,499. Households maintained by a foreign-born house-holder

who was not a citizen of the United States experienced their

third consecutive annual decline in real median household

income, down 5.6 percent from 2002 to $32,806. The real

median income of house-holds maintained by a foreign-born

householder who was a naturalized citizen remained unchanged

at $46,049.

Median income was $44,347 for native households, 18 percent

higher than the median for all foreign-born households

($37,499), and 35 percent higher than for noncitizen foreign-

born households ($32,806).

region

Real median money income of house-holds did not change

between 2002 and 2003 in three of the four regions, while

income in the South declined 1.5 percent to $39,823. the

South had the lowest income of any region. In 2003, the

median income of households in the Northeast was $46,742; in

the Midwest, it was $44,73; and in the West, it was $46,820.

residence

Real median income remained unchanged between 2002 and 2003

for households inside metropolitan areas overall and outside

metropolitan areas, while the real median income of

households in central cities of metropolitan areas declined

by 1.4 percent of $37,174. This is the third consecutive year

that households in central cities of metropolitan area

experienced a decline.

income inequality

The Gini index indicated no change in household income

inequality between 2002 and 2003. The 2003 Gini index (0.464)

was higher than in 1995 although the individual annual

changes in that period were not statistically significant.

Between 2002 and 2003, the real income of the household at

the 20th income percentile (that is, the income percentile

(that is, the income delineating the lowest 20 percent of

households) declined 1.9 percent from $18,326 to $17,984, and

the income of the household at the 80th income percentile

increased 1.1 percent from $85,941 to $86,867 (the income

levels denoting the 40th and 60th percentiles did not

change). In addition, the share of aggregate income received

by the lowest household income quintile declined from 3.5

percent to 3.4 percent. The shares of all other quintiles

were unchanged--in 2003, the second quintile received 8.7

percent, the third quintile 14.8 percent, the fourth quintile

23.4 percent, and the fifth quintile 49.8 percent.

work experience and earnings

Of the 80.6 million men aged 15 and over who worked in

2003, 73.0 percent worked full-time, year-round, unchanged

from 2002. Of the 71.4 million women in the same age group

who worked in 2003, 58.7 percent worked full-time, year-

round, also unchanged from 2002.

The real median earnings of men who worked full-time, year-

round in 2003 ($40,668) did not change from 2002, while those

of their female counter-parts declined by 0.6 percent, to

$30,724. The decline in women's real earnings between 2002

and 2003 was the first since 1995. Reflecting the decline in

the real earnings of women, the female-to-male earnings ratio

for full-time, year-round workers fell from 0.77 to 0.76

between 2002 and 2003. The last time the female-to-mail

earnings ratio experienced an annual decline was between 1998

and 1999.

Health Insurance Coverage in the United States

highlights

The number of people with health insurance coverage

increased by 1.0 million in 2003, to 243.3 million (84.4

percent of the population).

An estimated 15.6 percent of the population or 45.0 million

people, were without health insurance coverage in 2003, up

from 15.2 percent and 43.6 million people in 2002.

The percentage and number of people covered by employment-

based health insurance fell between 2002 and 2003, from 61.3

percent and 175.3 million to 60.4 percent and 174.0 million.

The percentage and number of people covered by government

health insurance programs increased between 2002 and 2003,

from 25.7 percent and 73.6 million to 26.6 percent and 76.8

million, driven by increases in the percentage and number of

people covered by Medicaid (from 11.6 percent and 33.2

million to 12.4 percent and 35.6 million) and Medicare (from

13.4 percent and 38.4 million to 13.7 percent and 39.5

million).

The proportion of children who were without health

insurance did not change, remaining at 11.4 percent of all

children, or 8.4 million, in 2003. With an uninsured rate at

19.2 percent, children in poverty were more likely to be

uninsured than all children.

The uninsured rate and number of uninsured increased from

2002 to 2003 for non-Hispanic Whites (from 10.7 percent and

20.8 million to 11.1 percent and 21.6 million), but not for

Blacks or Asians. Although the number of uninsured increased

for Hispanics (from 12.8 million to 13.2 million), their

uninsured rate was unchanged at 32.7 percent.

The historical record is marked by a 12-year period from

1987 to 1998 when the uninsured rate (12.9 percent in 1987)

either increased or was unchanged from on year to the next.

After peaking at 16.3 percent in 1998, the rate fell for two

years in a row to 14.2 percent in 2000, before the latest

period of annual increases to 15.6 percent in 2003.

type of coverage

Most people (60.4 percent) were covered by a health

insurance plan related to employment for some or all of 2003,

but the proportion declined from the previous year. This

decline essentially explains the fall in total private health

insurance coverage, from 69.6 percent in 2002 to 68.6 percent

in 2003.

The percentage of people covered by health insurance

provided by the government increased between 2002 and 2003.

Medicaid coverage rose by 0.7 percentage points to 12.4

percent in 2003. Medicare coverage also rose in 2003, by 0.2

percentage points to 13.7 percent. Among the entire

population, 26.6 percent had government insurance, including

Medicare, Medicaid, and military health care (3.5 percent).

race and hispanic origin

In 2003, the uninsured rate for Blacks was unchanged at

about 19.5 percent, and the rate for Asians unchanged at

about 18.7 percent. The uninsured rate rose for non-Hispanic

Whites--from 10.7 percent to 11.1 percent. Among Hispanics,

the uninsured rate was unchanged at 32.7 percent, whereas the

number of Hispanics without coverage increased from 12.8

million to 13.2 million in 2003.

The 3-year averages of the uninsured rates by race and

Hispanic origin (2001-2003) show that people who reported

American Indian and Alaska Native had an uninsured rate that

was lower than the uninsured rate for Hispanics (32.8

percent) but higher than those of the other race groups.

Comparison of 2-year moving averages (2001-2002 and 2002-

2003) shows that the uninsured rate for American Indians and

Alaska Natives did not change.

nativity

The uninsured rate increased in 2003, from 12.8 percent to

13.0 percent for the native population, and from 33.4 percent

to 34.5 percent for the foreign-born population. Among the

foreign born, the uninsured rate for noncitizens also

increased, from 43.3 percent to 45.3 percent, while the

uninsured rate for naturalized citizens was unchanged at 17.1

percent. The proportion of the foreign-born population

without health insurance (34.5 percent) was about two and a

half times that of the native population (13.0 percent) in

2003. Among the foreign born, noncitizens were more likely

than naturalized citizens to lack coverage--45.3 percent

compared with 17.1 percent.

economic status

The likelihood of being covered by health insurance rises

with income. Among people in households with annual incomes

of less than $25,000 in 2003, 75.8 percent had health

insurance; the level increased with income up to 91.8 percent

for those with incomes of $75,000 or more. Compared with

2002, the coverage rate was unchanged for those with

household incomes more than $75,000, whereas rates fell for

those in each lower category of household income.

Of those 18 to 64 years old in 2003, full-time workers were

more likely to be covered by health insurance (82.5 percent)

than part-time workers (76.2 percent) or nonworkers (74.0

percent). The uninsured rate for those working full-time

increased from 16.8 percent in 2002 to 17.5 percent in 2003.

The comparable rates for those working part-time or not

working did not change.

children's health insurance coverage

The percentage and number of children (people under 18

years old) without health insurance did not change between

2002 and 2003, at 11.4 percent and 8.4 million, respectively.

The likelihood of health insurance coverage varied among

children by poverty status, age, race, and Hispanic origin.

Children in poverty were more likely to be uninsured than the

population of all children in 2003--19.2 percent compared

with 11.4 percent.

Children 12 to 17 years old were more likely to be

uninsured than those under 12--12.7 percent compared with

10.6 percent. While 21.0 percent of Hispanic children did not

have any health insurance in 2003, the comparable rates among

children for whom a single race was reported were 7.4 percent

for non-Hispanic White children, 14.5 percent for Black

children, and 12.4 percent for Asian children.

region

The South was the only region to show an increase in the

percentage of people without health insurance in 2003, up

from 17.5 percent in 2002 to 18.0 percent. The uninsured

rates for other regions did not change in 2003--12.9 percent

for the Northeast, 12.0 percent for the Midwest, and 17.6

percent for the West.

residence

The uninsured rates increased between 2002 and 2003 inside

metropolitan areas overall (from 15.3 percent to 15.6

percent) and for people living in the suburbs (from 13.1

percent to 13.5 percent), while the uninsured rates for

people in central cities of metropolitan areas (19.5 percent)

and outside metropolitan areas (15.5 percent) did not change

in 2003.

Mr. Speaker, it is also wrong to freeze funding for Title X Family Planning services or for prenatal care for mothers and medical treatment for uninsured children, which this bill does.

Most importantly, this bill does nothing to address the recently announced, just last week, over the holiday, the 17 percent hike to Medicare premiums, which is the largest premium increase in the 40-year history of Medicare. For seniors living on fixed incomes, there is no room in their budgets to pay another $11.60 for doctors' visits per month.

At a time when seniors in Medicare are preoccupied with questions of the prescription drug law, the news of a premium increase only compounds their concern and frustration with the Medicare program. Medicare is not being reformed; it is being eviscerated.

Another troubling aspect of the bill is the inclusion of a provision offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) that could have a devastating effect on women's ability to receive the full range of reproductive health services, including abortion care and even simple information about their medical options. Talk about unconstitutional.

Under the Weldon amendment, health care companies are granted the right to exempt themselves from any Federal, State, or local law that assures women have access to abortion services and information. This is another gag rule. This sweeping ``refusal'' policy, otherwise known as a ``backdoor gag rule on doctors,'' is not restricted to just the actual abortion services, but also would allow companies not to pay for abortions, or even referrals for patients to see another doctor.

Once again, we are asking professionals not to be able to give to their patients the information they deserve and they need. It not only undermines the rights of women but also bestows power on insurance companies to choose whether or not to comply with the law. This is a precedent that should worry all of us and one that we have seen before that has been struck down. I know that this provision will be struck in conference and, if not, certainly in the courts.

It also says that should that information be given, the community can lose all of its Federal money. I do not know exactly how extensive that is. Does that mean all Medicare, Medicaid, nutrition money, highway money, school money, everything else that comes in from the Federal Government to the community will be cut off because a woman has been told her rights? Surely nobody in this House would want that.

Now, let me address some unfinished business from last year's appropriation debate: unemployment and overtime. This is really a tragedy, Mr. Speaker, for the millions of unemployed who are losing their homes, their cars, and are unable to keep their children in college. Millions of unemployed Americans today lost their jobs because of trade policies or outsourcing or the stalled economy, and they have not found replacement jobs. They have had to survive without the unemployment assistance for a year, something this country has never done before.

The news that 144,000 jobs were created in August was no solace, since our economy is still 1.2 million jobs short of where it was in 2000. At this rate, the current administration will be the first in our history to see fewer non-farm jobs created at the end of 4 years.

A 10 percent cut to farm offices is certainly not helpful. And funding Job Corps at a paltry $1.5 billion and providing only $25 million for community college training initiatives are also troubling decisions.

In addition to training, today's unemployed, over a fifth of whom are the long-term unemployed, need Congress to extend the unemployment insurance. I have constituents, as do all of my colleagues, who have exhausted all their regular and extended unemployment and still have not been able to secure a job. Unemployment insurance, which expired last November, must be extended and more needs to be done for America's dislocated workers.

Finally, I want to turn to a subject of keen interest to working Americans, access to overtime compensation. This week, for the 122nd year, Americans came together to commemorate Labor Day, a day when we celebrate the contributions that workers have made to the strength and the prosperity of our country. Alas, this year there is no cause for celebration for America's workers.

Today, they are simply struggling to support their families on wages that have not kept pace with inflation. They strain to cover exploding health care premiums, and they try to avoid joining the ranks of the 1.4 million workers who lost coverage last year alone. And they worry that their jobs are the next to be shipped off to Mexico or China. Now, with the enactment of the Labor Department's new overtime rules, they have a whole new source of stress. Today, they worry they are among the 6 million workers who stand to lose access to overtime pay under the new rules.

My colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), will offer an amendment to block enforcement of the final overtime rule with one exception. It would allow an increase to the salary threshold for low- wage workers from $8,060 to $23,600. Last year, this body approved, by a vote of 221 to 203, a similar measure that would have stopped the Department of Labor from rolling back the 40-hour workweek. As we all know, at the insistence of this administration, that provision was stripped out from the final fiscal year 2004 omnibus appropriations bill, even though it had passed both Houses.

Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Congressional Record a list of people who are losing their overtime work, which include firefighters, police sergeants, nurses, licensed practical nurses, nursery school teachers, oil and gas pipeline workers, steel workers, teachers, and on and on.

The Republican-Led Senate Voted 99:0 To Protect Overtime Rights for

Workers in 55 Job Categories Because They Had No Confidence in the

Administration's Claims

Any work paid on an hourly basis

Blue collar workers

Any work provided overtime under a collective bargaining

agreement

Team Leaders

Computer programmers

Registered Nurses

Licensed practical nurses

Nurse midwives

Nursery school teachers

Oil and gas pipeline workers

Oil and gas platform workers

Refinery workers

Steel workers

Shipyard and ship scrapping workers

Teachers

Technicians

Journalists

Chefs

Cooks

Police Officers

Firefighters

Fire sergeants

Police sergeants

Emergency medical technicians

Paramedics

Waste disposal workers

Day care workers

Maintenance employees

Production line employees

Construction employees

Carpenters

Mechanics

Plumbers

Iron Workers

Craftsmen

Operating engineers

Laborers

Painters

Cements masons

Stone and brick masons

Sheet metal workers

Utility workers

Longshoremen

Stationary engineers

Welders

Boilermakers

Funeral directors

Athletic trainers

Outside sales employees

Inside sales employees

Grocery store managers

Financial services industry workers

Route drivers

Assistant retails managers

Mr. Speaker, we do not do enough in this bill, and we really must.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I want to call a vote for the previous question and urge a ``no'' vote.

If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will make in order an amendment that was submitted to the Rules Committee yesterday by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Ranking Member Obey) but, sadly, was rejected. The amendment would increase funding for a number of vital programs and services that are insufficiently funded in the bill.

The programs and services provided in H.R. 5006 touch the lives of almost every American. The bill funds activities ranging from education for preschoolers from low-income families, to college tuition assistance, and to home-delivered meals for the elderly. It also provides for job training, worker protection, and funding for medical research. But as critical as these programs are to our citizens, the leadership has drastically underfunded them. The Obey substitute will help restore funding to a number of the most important of these programs.

I want to point out that this amendment is fully paid for. It offsets the increased costs of the programs by slightly scaling back the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for those with incomes above $1 million. Under this amendment, their average tax cut would go from $127,000 to $89,000, still a very substantial tax cut. I think most people making that kind of money are willing to accept this modest cut, especially since it will help improve the quality of life for so many less-privileged Americans and help America.

Mr. Speaker, all Members of this House need to be very concerned about the lack of adequate funding for the critical programs and services in this bill, whether it is health care, education, medical research, services for the elderly, low-income energy assistance. The list is long. The Obey amendment would help correct the funding deficiencies in the bill and would do so, as I said, with no additional cost to the deficit.

I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can vote on the Obey amendment. A ``no'' vote will not stop the House from taking up the Labor-HHS bill. It will not affect the open-amending process provided for in the rule. But a ``yes'' vote will prevent the House from considering this important amendment.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

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

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to offer today the fiscal year 2005 appropriations bill for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and related agencies. By taking into consideration the priorities of the President and the Members, all the Members of this House, we have produced a bill that meets the needs of all Americans. This bill affects the lives, in one way or another, of every American.

We are appreciative of the efforts of the leaders of the House and the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), to provide a workable allocation for this bill. I am pleased to say that this bill was unanimously approved on a bipartisan basis in both the subcommittee and the full committee. I would also like to acknowledge the hard work, dedication, and expertise of my subcommittee staff, as well as the minority staff, in putting together this bill.

Mr. Chairman, this bill is about hope. It gives hope to every child seeking a good education, it gives hope to everyone searching for a good or better job than they have, and it gives hope to the ill seeking a cure.

This bill provides $142.5 billion--that is $500 for every person in the United States of America--a 2.2 percent increase over fiscal year 2004, for over 500 different discretionary programs. It is responsible, it is fair, and it is balanced.

Let me first talk about education. I would like to discuss what this bill provides for education. Education is essential to the preservation of democracy, and an investment in education is an investment in human capital and an investment in the future of this great Nation.

Mr. Chairman, Federal education spending has more than doubled since fiscal year 1996, from $23 billion to nearly $60 billion today. We have focused spending in this bill in the key areas that most directly improve our children's education.

First and foremost, I believe that no child will be left behind if he or she has a quality and dedicated teacher. Almost every teacher in our Nation's classrooms today is there for one reason: They love children and want to help them reach their full potential, and that should be their goal.

We applaud their hard work and dedication, and we support them in this bill by providing funding to encourage people to enter the field of teaching and to strengthen and maximize the skills of those already in the classroom.

I would urge young people that are thinking about a career to give consideration to being in a classroom, where they can touch the lives of children. Often when I speak to large groups out in the district, I say, how many of you had a teacher that has made a difference in your life? Almost every hand in the room goes up.

This bill also supports teachers and students by increasing funding for Title I by $1 billion. Title I provides the additional resources to low-income schools to help principals, teachers and students close education achievement gaps. At the school level, Title I helps provide additional staff, ongoing training and the latest research, computer equipment, books or new curricula offerings that, coupled with strong accountability efforts, helps disadvantaged children meet the same high standards as their more advantaged peers.

In addition to the funding increases in Title I, this bill also increases funding for scientifically based reading programs so that all children can read well by the end of the third grade. In 3 short years, funding for reading programs has tripled to over $1.3 billion, tripled, and importantly so. Reading is the key. This investment will assist parents, teachers and school districts in meeting the reading challenges of our children.

Mr. Chairman, many of my colleagues speak with me about the financial demands of special education on

their local school districts. We also hear from parents about the need to support adequate special education funding to ensure their special- needs children receive a quality and equal education opportunity.

In this bill, funding for special education totals over $11 billion, a nearly 380 percent increase since fiscal year 1996, and $1 billion more than last year.

Title III programs are designed to strengthen institutions of higher education that serve a high percentage of minority students and students from low-income backgrounds. I want to point out that in fiscal year 2005, funding to Title III programs is at $519 million, and this, combined with the funding for Howard University and other historically black colleges and universities financing programs, our commitment to minority serving institutions exceeds $975 million.

The sharp rise in college costs continues to be a barrier to many students. Pell grants help ensure access to postsecondary education for low and middle-income undergraduate students by providing grants that help meet college education needs. The bill continues to support a maximum Pell grant level of $4,050, while also including $12.9 billion for Pell grants, an increase of $823 million over last year.

Health and Human Services.

If you have good health, you have hope; and if you have hope, you have everything. Health care is a critical part of our Nation's economic development. To assist in protecting the health of all Americans, and to provide essential human services, the bill provides the Department of Health and Human Services over $62 billion for fiscal year 2005.

Mr. Chairman, similar to the Department of Education, we have more than doubled the funding for HHS since fiscal year 1996: $28.9 billion in fiscal year 1996 to $62.2 billion for fiscal year 2005. I think that is a tremendous increase under the circumstances, but will meet real needs.

At the forefront of new progress in medicine, the National Institutes of Health supports and conducts medical research to understand how the human body works and to gain insight into countless diseases and disorders. As a result of our commitment to NIH, our citizens are living longer and better lives. Life expectancy at birth was only 47 years in 1900. By 2000, it was almost 77 years, and my colleagues heard me say earlier that Dr. Zerhouni testified that every 5 years, life expectancy goes up a year.

In every state across the country, the NIH supports research at hospitals, universities, and medical schools. The 5-year doubling of the NIH budget completed in fiscal year 2003 has picked up the pace of discovery and heightened public expectations. We now expect NIH to carefully examine its portfolio and continue to be a good steward of the public's investment. Funding for NIH has increased by over $700 million, bringing its total budget to $28.5 billion. In that regard I might say that we looked at all the programs and said, is this producing results so that we could use the money as good stewards and as wisely as possible for the 280 million Americans.

All of the information and advances we have gained from NIH, however, will be useless if they do not make their way to health care providers and individuals, those most responsible for their own health. Thus, the work of the Centers for Disease Control and prevention is critical to protecting the health and safety of people at home and abroad.

Recognizing the tremendous challenges faced by CDC, we have provided over $915 million for the prevention and control of chronic diseases such as diabetes, cancer, heart disease, arthritis and tobacco use, and $640 million for immunizations. CDC's total allocation for fiscal year 2005 includes nearly $4.5 billion.

Mr. Chairman, health centers operating at the community level provide regular access to high-quality, family-oriented, comprehensive primary and preventive health care, regardless of ability to pay, and improves the health status of underserved populations living in inner city and rural areas. These funds provided in our bill, $1.8 billion, an increase of $218 million over last year, are expected to serve 14.8 million patients in fiscal year 2005--83 percent more than in fiscal year 1996. These are important to a lot of people. They are important to emergency rooms, because it gives people a place to go as an alternative.

Children's hospitals across the Nation are the training grounds for our pediatricians and pediatric specialists. Many of these hospitals are regional and national referral centers for very sick children, often serving as the only source of care for many critical pediatric services. The bill provides over $303 million to train these important caregivers who care for America's youngest population, its children.

The Ryan White AIDS Drug Assistance Program funding is increased by over $35 million, bringing its total to over $800 million. The increase in funding assists those infected with the virus and receiving vital medication through the drug assistance program. Overall, the Ryan White AIDS programs are funded at more than $2 billion.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is the Federal agency responsible for overseeing Medicare, Medicaid, and the State Children's Health Insurance Program. CMS is the largest purchaser of health care in the world and second only to Social Security in the level of Federal spending. And while the mandatory funding for CMS programs comes through the Committee on Ways and Means, this bill provides the costs for their administrative functions. Funding for CMS is at $2.7 billion, an increase of more than $100 million. That is important, because it will speed up processing of claims for people in Medicare, Medicaid, and so on.

Infant mortality rates in certain segments of our population are at least 1\1/2\ times the national average. We have provided over $97 million for the Healthy Start Program, which uses community-designed and evidence-supported strategies aimed at reducing infant mortality.

Our commitment to a child's well-being does not rest with Healthy Start. We have provided nearly $6.9 billion for Head Start, a program designed primarily for preschoolers from low-income families.

The Adoption Incentive Program has been successful in contributing to substantial increases in adoptions in recent years. Between fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 2002, a total of 236,000 children were adopted. Think what that means. They got a home. They got a family, Mr. Chairman. 236,000! While the overall number of children being adopted has grown dramatically, some children needing permanent homes remain less likely to be adopted. This bill provides $32 million for the Adoption Incentives Program so that States may continue their efforts to increase the number of children adopted by caring families.

Additional support for the President's initiatives in this bill include: $55 million for the Compassion Capital Fund, which helps faith-based and community organizations increase their effectiveness and enhance their ability to provide social services to those most in need. Mr. Chairman, $129 million for violent crime reduction programs; $110 million for abstinence education, an increase of nearly $35 million over the fiscal year 2004 level.

The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program ensures that low-income households are not without heating or cooling and provides protection to our most vulnerable populations: the elderly, households with small children, and persons with disabilities. The funds are distributed to the States through a formula grant program, and we have provided $2 billion for fiscal year 2005, an increase of $110 million over the fiscal year 2004 level. In addition, $227 million is included for the weatherization program.

Mr. Chairman, our society is judged not only by the care we provide to our young, but also by how we treat the elderly. This bill provides over $1.4 billion to the Administration on Aging to enhance health care, nutrition, and social supports to seniors and their family caregivers.

In the labor area.

We ought to support the aspirations of people: good health, security, meaningful work, creative and intellectual pursuits. The Department of Labor plays a key role in many important worker-training and protection programs. Therefore, we have restored

funding to core job training and employment assistance programs.

A number of communities continue to experience plant closings and other layoffs, and we understand the need to support dislocated worker- training programs that can assist workers to return to gainful employment. In this bill, we restore funding for dislocated worker- assistance programs to nearly $1.5 billion, $25 million over fiscal year 2004, and an increase of over $96 million above the budget request.

This bill includes $19 million for a Homeless Veterans Reintegration program to operate employment programs that reach out to homeless veterans and help them become employed.

Worker-protection programs, including OSHA and MSHA, are funded at $462 million and $276 million, respectively.

The Social Security Administration receives its mandatory allocation through the Committee on Ways and Means; this bill provides the funding for their administrative costs. Effective administration of this agency ensures efficient services to recipients. We have included $485 million, an increase in the funding for the Social Security Administration to improve delivery of benefits and expedite the processing of disability claims. I am sure all of my colleagues have experienced this, where people very much need the funding and to get their disability claims taken care of, and we recognize that; and we have added money so that we can speed up the process.

Mr. Chairman, much more could be said about this bill which touches every American at some point in life. We are mindful of the fiscal limitations of our bill and have tried to use the allocation to fund our highest priorities.

The French philosopher de Touqueville came to America in the 1800s and wanted to see what makes this country different, and he observed, ``America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.''

This bill is about the goodness of America. This bill is a perfect example of how the taxpayers of this country are providing funds to help others. It is a perfect example of caring for each other, and I think that is very much a part of the goodness of America. As I stated earlier, this bill is about hope. Someone once said, ``Hope deferred makes the heart sick, but a desire fulfilled is a tree of life.'' We give hope to people who want better education. We give hope to people who want better health, and we give hope to those who are seeking retraining in order to get a job. This is very important in what this bill does for the people of this Nation. I think the people desire a good education, they desire meaningful jobs, and they desire good health.

Mr. Chairman, this bill does its best, within the constraints of what we had available, to meet the American people's needs. It is responsible, it is fair, and it is balanced. I ask my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I will submit a detailed table of the bill into the Record.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE04.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE04.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE04.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE04.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE04.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE04.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE04.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE04.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE04.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE04.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE04.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE04.012

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE04.013

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE04.014

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE04.015

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE04.016

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE04.017

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE04.018

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE04.019

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE04.020

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE04.021

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE04.022

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE04.023

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE04.024

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE04.025

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE04.026

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker), a very valued member of our subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, for the moment, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to remind my colleagues that in what is a relatively short period of 9 years, the total of this bill has gone from $65 billion to $143 billion. That is a dramatic increase, and I think it recognizes the commitment on the part of Members on both sides that these are important issues that we are addressing in this bill. But I think it also reflects the fact that we have a caring approach.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon), a very valued member of the subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger), a great member of our subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce and a great colleague from Ohio.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. One comment I would like to make, we are talking about a lot of programs here and an effort to improve education, but the bottom line is that the real work is done in the classroom. I just want to pay tribute to the teachers of America. I think we are so fortunate to have the dedicated people that are in the classroom. I have met many of them, as have you. As I said earlier, when I ask at a meeting, how many of you had a teacher that impacted your life, every hand in the room goes up.

So what our job is, with programs, provide support for those people that are out there and are dedicating their efforts and their lives to young people of this Nation, and we should say a big thank you to all of them.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I commend the gentlewoman for what she is trying to do here. My concern is that if we diminish OSHA's impact, we will have more people going into the hospital. Part of the objective of OSHA is to have safety in the workplace and get fewer people in. I think her desire to improve the quality programs that are embodied in the amendment here, we will be sensitive to this in conference. We have no idea what the other body's bill is going to look like and where the emphasis is going to be. I appreciate the fact that the gentlewoman will withdraw her amendment, but we will keep this very much in mind.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.

I thank the gentlewoman for her contribution.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I think the gentlewoman has a good amendment here. We are prepared to accept this, and I think in light of all the circumstances, the need for veterans' employment and training is growing, and, therefore, I think this is a very positive amendment, and we would be willing to accept it at this point.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I appreciate the fact that the gentleman is withdrawing the amendment because there is not an offset, but I want to commend him for his thoughts on this issue because it is important. These centers are very important, and it is a classic example of what confronted us in the subcommittee, and that is, there is so much in the way of good things that need to be done, and we had to make priority judgments. We will keep this in mind as we go to conference, but I certainly think the need is out there.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, there are a couple of things that I would point out in opposition to this. Number one, we are already recognizing the need for health statistics. In this bill, we have increased the amount for this purpose by $21,960,000. This is an increase of almost 20 percent over last year.

Secondly, at NIH we have increased the amount for monthly health and health disparities reports by $5.3 million.

So it is not the case that we have ignored the subject. I think we have tried to deal within the constraints of what we have available, and to take the money out of the other program, I think, would be just a mistake at this point. Therefore, I would be in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order, and I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment, if I understand it correctly, takes $1 million out of abstinence and puts it into CDC without any clarity as to how it would be used in CDC. We have over $4 billion in CDC already. I do not think that adding another $1 million would be significant in their total budget; and in abstinence, it is important that we kept that as tight as possible. Again, it is a rearranging of priorities, and for that reason I object to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out, we do have $22.5 million in the bill now for hepatitis C funding, and we recognize the importance of that, and we have done all that we could within the budget constraints, and there is a sizable amount there.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 42, line 7 be considered as read, printed in the Record and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that we recognized in our bill the importance of LIHEAP. We did increase it by $111 million over last year. The total provided in the bill is now $1.9 billion, a lot of money, and that is the formula grants that go right out to the States. In addition, there is $100 million for the contingent emergency fund, and lastly, in the weatherization assistance grant, which came to us from the Subcommittee on the Interior and Related Agencies, we are funded at $227 million.

None of us know exactly what the needs will be in the coming winter. It could be severe, it could be mild; and if it is a mild winter, I think this is more than adequate. If it is a severe winter, we may want to do a supplemental appropriation.

I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, it seems easy to take this out of the administrative

budget of the Secretary of Health and Human Services, but let me point out that he has a great challenge in oversight to manage that Department effectively, and that is part of his administrative budget.

Within that budget, he has to administer the Centers for Disease Control, the National Institutes of Health, the FDA, HRSA, SAMHSA, the Indian Health Services, CMS, the children and families programs, the older americans programs and the health care quality. Now, that is quite a range of services that he has to manage effectively if they are going to serve the public well, and we are faced with some priority choices here.

Mr. Chairman, well, if the gentleman would be willing to withdraw, we certainly would keep it in mind in conference, because I understand. I come from a State where it gets reasonably cold in the winter, too.

I understand what the gentleman is saying about fuel costs. We do not know, I see gasoline is like a yo-yo. One day it is $1.89 out my way, and the next day it is $1.69. But the problem for the Secretary of HHS to manage all these agencies, what we have tried to do is put in a reasonable amount for his needs.

Now, in conference, maybe we can address this, and we would certainly keep it in mind if the gentleman would consider withdrawing it.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I have been very pleased to see that NIH has responded so quickly and thoughtfully to the House report language. I think it is a very simple proposition: NIH, or the taxpayer, pays for the research, even pays for the journals, and should be able to share the results with the taxpaying public. Our investment in research is not well served by a process that limits taxpayer access instead of expanding it, and I should add public access.

I encourage NIH to move expeditiously to finalize its proposal after considering the comments it receives on its policy. The public deserves nothing less.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on this, and we do not have a copy of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, reluctantly we concede the point of order, but I would point out this is part of the President's request. It is a management tool to let the user pay for a service being provided by the government. But the gentleman is correct, it does violate the right of the authorizers to deal with this subject, and it is not a proper part of the bill.

Mr. Chairman, with the understanding that this has been cleared with the Committee on Ways and Means, we are prepared to accept this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I appreciate the fact that the gentleman is withdrawing the amendment. I think it has been a good discussion about what is a continuing problem. We have recognized it to some extent by putting 12 million plus or minus in AHRQ to do this very thing, and it is something we should keep in mind in the future. But the problem here is there is no offset for the $50 million. I think the intention is good, but this has been a tough bill to make all the dollars fit.

I yield to the gentleman from Maine.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it provides an appropriation for an unauthorized program and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The pertinent part of clause 2 of rule XXI is as follows: An appropriation may not be in order as an amendment for an expenditure not previously authorized by law.

Mr. Chairman, the authorization for this program has not been signed into law, and therefore it violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 95, line 21, be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the proposed amendment.

Mr. Chairman, we will have to insist on our point of order because obviously this is legislating on an appropriations, to add the language that the gentleman from Wisconsin is proposing. It violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part that an amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if it changes existing law. Obviously, this amendment proposes a change in existing law by prescribing changes in tax liabilities; and, therefore, we insist on our point of order.

Mr. Chairman, a number of my colleagues have stood up today to speak out against various parts of the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education appropriations bill. I recognize that through our positions as legislators, we have the ability to create programs and new initiatives that can benefit our constituents and our country. It is within the scope of our job to debate which programs deserve particular funding. Appropriations bills are Congress' vehicle of funding the public, not for creating limitations and barriers for their basic rights afforded by the constitution.

Within this appropriation bill is a provision that effectively prohibits a federal agency or program, or State or local government, from enforcing any abortion-related laws or regulations as they apply to health care entities. ``Healthcare entity'' is defined to include individual physicians or other health care professionals, hospitals, provider-sponsored organizations, HMOs, insurance plans, or ``any kind of health care facility, organization, or plan.'' This ``refusal clause'' permits a broad range of individuals and institutions-- including hospitals, hospital employees, health care providers, employers, and insurers--to refuse to provide, pay, counsel or even issue referrals for medical treatment based on their moral or religious views.

Refusal clauses affect a broad range of reproductive services, including: information and referrals for family planning, genetic counseling, infertility treatment, rape treatment, sterilization, STD and HIV testing and treatment and abortion.

Doctors and health care providers have a duty to ensure that women receive accurate

information and appropriate care. Failure to provide this care--even for religious, political or ideological reasons--jeopardizes women's health and violates bedrock principles of medical ethics.

obey overtime amendment

I would like to join many of my Democratic colleagues in supporting Mr. Obey's amendment to restore overtime protection to the millions of workers who will otherwise lose it if the Bush administration regulation that went into effect on August 23 is allowed to remain in effect.

Workers who are likely to see their pay cut include 2.3 million ``team'' leaders; almost 2 million low-level supervisors; hundreds of thousands of loan officers and other financial service employees; more than 1 million employees who lack college or graduate degrees or who may not be considered ``artistic'' professionals; 90,000 computer employees, funeral directors and embalmers; and more than 30,000 nursery school and Head Start teachers across the country.

Those families that lose overtime protection will find they will have to work longer hours for significantly less money. Overtime accounted for approximately a quarter of the income, more than $8,000 a year, for families who earned overtime in 2000. As the pool of workers who are exempt from overtime is expanded, those workers who are not directly affected by the regulation will lose income as their opportunity to be able to work overtime is diminished.

The Bush administration has justified the regulation on the basis of a proposed clarification of the rules and limitation on litigation; however, virtually every observer of the regulation has acknowledged that the regulations will incorporate vague new terms, that provisions of the regulation are confusing and conflicting, and that the regulation will engender substantial litigation for years to come.

I will offer two amendments to this legislation that would address the horrific effects of hepatitis C and lupus--the silent killer.

The purpose of the Jackson-Lee amendment relating to hepatitis C is to increase the research activities at the Centers for Disease Control for patients who are particularly at risk for the disease or resistant to conventional treatments--African-Americans, children and adolescents, renal dialysis patients, HIV/HCV positive patients, and patients with hemophilia. Because hepatitis C is a communicable disease, I believe this is an important step in getting this public health issue under control.

Back in June of this year, I joined the ``Hepatitis C Movement for Awareness'' to call for a more aggressive, and better informed, national approach to the hepatitis C epidemic in the United States. Hepatitis C infects 300 million people worldwide, including over 5.8 million Americans. Only 20 percent of those infected know they are infected, and scientists are still unsure how the virus is spread, or who is most likely to be infected. This deadly epidemic cannot be ignored any longer. We need action. I commend the Hepatitis C Movement for Awareness for its tenacity and energy in galvanizing in Washington to make its case for change.

The second of my amendments relates to addressing the silent killer, lupus. The purpose of this amendment is twofold. First the amendment transfers $1,500,000 to the account of NIH's National Center on Minority Health to increase educational programs on Lupus for health care providers and for the general public. I believe that this will help to facilitate the diagnosis of lupus today--particularly among susceptible populations. Second, I am proposing to transfer $2,500,000 to the Centers for Disease Control to expand the operation of the National Lupus Patient Registry. There are presently four pilot registry programs operating in Michigan and in Georgia. These pilot programs have been a good start, but additional data is needed to distinguish between environmental and other factors that cause Lupus.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the two Jackson-Lee amendments. I hope that the deficiencies that relate to the treatment of hepatitis C and lupus can be addressed in conference.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, let me, because this is a very important debate, again add my appreciation to the members of the Committee on Appropriations, the chairman and ranking of the full committee, and, of course, the ranking and subcommittee chairman of this Labor-HHS.

I hope that the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) will rise to support this amendment and share her thoughts as well on another deadly health issue, and that is the use of guns and the resulting injuries and deaths that come about through that. I do add

my voice in this very short time for having the reauthorization of the assault weapons ban. I remember studying this issue in Houston, and I found that for an injured child, costs were at that time, some maybe 5 to 10 years ago, $60,000 per their care. I imagine it has quadrupled at this point. So I hope that we will move in that direction.

I, too, raise an issue that I hope my colleagues will join me enthusiastically, and I also will acknowledge the hard work of a former colleague, Congresswoman Carrie Meek of Florida, who at most times when we came to the floor dealing with the appropriations, Labor-HHS, the Members can be assured she was speaking about the deadly disease of lupus.

Today I am proposing two amendments to the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill to further research and outreach on lupus, and I urge the Members to support these amendments. Lupus is a chronic, disabling, and potentially fatal condition in which the immune system attacks the body's own organs and tissues. Lupus strikes primarily women, and it is twice as common among people of color. Currently it is estimated that 1.5 million to 2 million Americans have lupus. There is no cure for lupus. No new drugs have been approved to treat the disease in nearly 40 years, and no medically validated measure to diagnose and track the disease's progression and how it exists.

I, too, am concerned about the National Institutes of Health and the more opportunities for research, and I hope in conference we can alter the configuration so that many researchers in labs around the country and professors will not be denied their opportunity to find the cure for lupus. That is why I am adding this small of amount of dollars that is budget-neutral as evidenced and indicated by CBO.

Early diagnosis and treatment of lupus are essential to minimizing life-threatening complications. Lack of understanding of lupus combined with the disease's complexity leads to significant underdiagnosis. And I might say that it strikes young women in a potentially hardship manner. I remember a young woman that I knew in my church, had two beautiful young children and a beautiful husband, was taken in the prime of her life not knowing that she had lupus, and it was too late in order to provide her with the treatment that she needed, and certainly there was no cure at the time.

Symptoms of the disease may resemble the flu or other less severe instances. In some instances, the patient's apparent symptoms may seem to subside, leading up to a false sense of security. Some surveys indicate that some lupus patients may suffer for 4 years or more and visit 3 or more different physicians before obtaining a diagnosis. I know this personally, because I had a member of my family who I had to take to doctors trying to find out whether it was or whether it was not. And you can be assured in our frustration, but also our great concern and our fear, that we were overcome by the fact that it was really a diagnosis that was hard to pinpoint. The delay in obtaining treatment can be devastating, because time is lost while irreversible organ damage may appear.

The purpose of these amendments is twofold. First, the amendment transfers $1.5 million to the account of the NIH's National Center for Minority Health to increase educational programs on lupus for health care providers and for the general public.

Let me assure you that we have yet addressed in this House the disparities in health care as it relates to minorities. We have yet to pass the equity to health care bill that has been promulgated or written by the Hispanic Caucus, the African American Caucus and the Asian Pacific Caucus and others. I believe that this will help to facilitate the diagnosis of lupus today, particularly among susceptible populations.

Second, I am proposing to transfer $2.5 million to the Centers for Disease Control to expand the operation of the National Lupus Patient Registry. There are presently four pilot registry programs in Michigan and in Georgia. These pilot programs have been a good start, but additional data is needed to distinguish between environmental and other factors that cause lupus.

Let me say to my colleagues, no one knows when their neighbor, their friend, their constituent may be diagnosed. There is one strong point about this disease: It is not easily diagnosed, and many people live with it for a very long period of time. Mr. Chairman, that is why we do not know how many people really have lupus. I would ask my colleagues to join me in this effort and support this amendment, very, very well balanced, and, might I say, not violating CBO. I ask for support of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman.

Mr. Chairman, let me carefully say this adds more money to the NIH. We respectfully add the fact that it is not necessarily a specific designation for a specific disease. But might I say that because of the discrepancies in access to health care for minorities and access to health care in respect to those who are being treated for lupus and the definitive impact on minorities as it relates to minority women as it relates

to lupus, I would offer to say that this is an amendment that has vibrancy and is necessary without in any way undermining or penalizing

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, let me again join the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) on the desire to attack another health issue and that is of course to see the ban on assault weapons reauthorized.

I rise to offer an amendment on another and very fast-growing epidemic in our country called hepatitis C. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment that relates to this very grave matter as it is being distributed to my colleagues.

Our Nation is facing an epidemic of hepatitis C virus, or HCV infection. HCV is the most common blood-borne infection in the United States. Although many of them do not know it, nearly 4 million Americans are currently infected, and 35,000 new infections occur each year.

I have been told about this because of the sizable population of hepatitis C-infected veterans that I have come across. And I want to thank Ed Wendt, a constituent of mine who has raised the question of what we are doing and how we are doing it and how we can do better by those who are infected and the many, many veterans who are infected by this disease.

This insidious virus takes thousands of lives annually, primarily through cirrhosis and liver cancer. HCV costs millions of dollars in health care and lost wages each year, but it receives inadequate attention from the public, the medical field, and the Federal Government.

Hepatitis is an inflammation of the liver. Inflammation of the liver with swelling, tenderness, and sometimes permanent damage can be caused by infection with various viruses or by substances such as chemicals, drugs, and alcohol. Current concern over viral hepatitis stems from the serious long-term health consequences for long-term sufferers.

Hepatitis C virus is one of six known types of the hepatitis viruses. The C virus has emerged as a cause of chronic liver disease, both in the United States and worldwide. It is of concern because of its potential for serious long-term health consequences. It resorts, or causes, if you will, the need for liver transplants as evidenced by my constituent who has suffered long and had a difficult health history. Its pattern of infection among young, hard-to-reach risk groups and the current lack of vaccine or curative therapy impacts or increases the number of deaths.

Some studies indicate that minority populations in the U.S. are disproportionately affected by hepatitis C virus, and some reports have shown that African Americans do not respond to the current treatment of chronic HCV infection with the same efficacy as whites. This is why I started out this debate by saying it is time now for us to pass the equity in health care and disparities in health care in America. But this amendment, as did the lupus amendment, attempts in some small way to address this divide.

HCV is a particular problem for patients coinfected with HIV. According to Dr. Raymond Chung, M.D., director of the Center for Liver Disorders at Massachusetts General Hospital, ``About 25 percent of those with HIV are coinfected with HCV, largely because these viruses share modes of transmission.'' Treatment of patients coinfected with HCV and HIV is particularly challenging, because many of the retroviral treatments traditionally used in HIV therapies are toxic to the liver. Better information about HCV will help develop treatments that are effective for HIV and compatible with HCV. That is all I am asking for in this very simple and minimal amendment of asking for $1 million.

The purpose of this amendment is to increase the research opportunities and to be able to provide patients who are at risk for some control studies: African Americans, children, and adolescents, renal dialysis patients, HIV- and HCV-positive patients, and patients with hemophilia. Because hepatitis C is a communicable disease, I believe this is an important step in getting this public issue under control.

Back in June, I joined the Hepatitis C Movement for Awareness to call for more aggressive and better informed national approach to the hepatitis C epidemic in the United States. Hepatitis C infects 300 million people worldwide, including over 5.8 million Americans. We must do something more. And only 20 percent of those infected know they are infected, and scientists are still unsure how the virus is spread or who is most likely to be infected. This deadly epidemic cannot be ignored any longer. We need action, and I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

The grass-roots movement of this organization is made up of veterans, victims of hepatitis C, and other health care advocates; and they came to Washington to simply ask the question, can we get help. They are seeking our help, working with the Veterans Administration, which I must say I applaud for looking at this issue more closely. This is not an issue for one person or two persons, it is for millions of people, and those who go infected who do not know they are infected.

I want to congratulate those who worked on this effort, including Ed Wendt and the whole hepatitis C movement, because they do it not for themselves. They do it for those who come after them. They ask that we have a wake-up call so that we can stop the tragedy of the hepatitis C epidemic.

Now it is time that we wake up together and move forward on an amendment that will simply help us move in that direction. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk that relates to a very grave matter with respect to the status of minority health. Our nation is facing an epidemic of Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) infection. HCV is the most common blood-borne infection in the United States. Although many of them do not know it, nearly four million Americans are currently infected, and 35,000 new infections occur each year. This insidious virus takes thousands of lives annually--primarily through cirrhosis and liver cancer. HCV costs millions of dollars in healthcare and lost wages each year, but it receives inadequate attention from the public, the medical field, and the federal government.

Hepatitis is an inflammation of the liver. Inflammation of the liver, with swelling, tenderness, and sometimes permanent damage, can be caused by infection with various viruses or

by substances such as chemicals, drugs, and alcohol. Current concern over viral hepatitis stems from the serious long-term health consequences for long term sufferers.

Hepatitis C virus is one of six known types of the hepatitis virus. Hepatitis C has emerged as a major cause of chronic liver disease both in the United States and worldwide. It is of concern because of its potential for serious long-term health consequences, its pattern of infection among young, hard-to-reach risk groups, and the current lack of a vaccine or curative therapy.

Some studies indicate that minority populations in the U.S. are disproportionately affected by the hepatitis C virus (HCV), and some reports have shown that African-Americans do not respond to treatment of chronic HCV infection with the same efficacy as whites.

HCV is a particular problem for patients co-infected with HIV. According to Dr. Raymond Chung, MD, director of the Center for Liver Disorders at Massachusetts General Hospital, ``About 25 percent of those with HIV are co-infected with HCV, largely because these viruses share modes of transmission.'' Treatment of patients co-infected with HCV and HIV is particularly challenging because many of the retroviral treatments traditionally used in HIV therapies are toxic to the liver. Better information about HCV will help to develop treatments that are effective for HIV and compatible with HCV.

The purpose of this amendment is to increase the Hepatitis C research activities at the Center for Disease Control for patients who are particularly at risk for the disease or resistant to conventional treatments--African-Americans, children and adolescents, renal dialysis patients, HIV/HCV positive patients, and patients with hemophilia. Because Hepatitis C is a communicable disease, I believe this is an important step in getting this public health issue under control.

Back in June of this year, I joined the ``Hepatitis C Movement for Awareness'' to call for a more aggressive, and better informed, national approach to the Hepatitis C epidemic in the United States. Hepatitis C infects 300 million people worldwide, including over 5.8 million Americans. Only 20% of those infected know they are infected, and scientists are still unsure how the virus is spread, or who is most likely to be infected. This deadly epidemic cannot be ignored any longer. We need action. I commend the Hepatitis C Movement for Awareness for its tenacity and energy in galvanizing in Washington to make its case for change.

The grassroots movement made up of Veterans, victims of Hepatitis C, and other healthcare advocates, came to Washington to tell policymakers about the pressing need for a viable national Hepatitis C policy. They feared that the present policies are based on worn out assumptions, and untested hypotheses. I agreed that more information was needed to help lawmakers craft appropriate strategies for mitigation of the rampant disease. I have been pressing the GAO for a comprehensive study of the past and present Hepatitis epidemic in the United States. We have to know where we stand, where mistakes have been made, and how we can do better. This epidemic is devastating our Veterans and our minority communities.

The Hepatitis C Movement for Awareness graciously presented me with an award for progress made toward the GAO report. I appreciated receiving this award. But, what I appreciated more was at the friendship and cooperation of my constituents Ed Wendt, Tricia Lupole, and the whole Hepatitis C Movement for Awareness. Years ago, the gave me a wake-up call on the tragedy of the Hep C epidemic. Now it is time to wake up Washington, and the nation by pursuing this amendment.

I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this important amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman for yielding.

I ask my colleagues to simply help us. It is simply asking $1 million for the hepatitis C, and I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) for her information.

This bill, with all the hard work of the appropriators, and I really appreciate them, was sprung on Members on Labor Day weekend. My apologies for the amendment being at the leg counsel, and it is supposed to be at the desk. It is now there, but I really ask my colleagues to look at the need. I also know my staff gave the amendment to both managers of the bill.

We are talking about 300 million worldwide, close to 10 million around the country, veterans, children and others infected with hepatitis C. The more we can do, the better off we are.

I believe this is a well-grounded amendment that should warrant the support of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and I would ask my colleagues to support this.

As I indicated, CBO has indicated this is revenue-neutral, has no impact with respect to the issues at hand, and I would simply ask that this amendment be supported.

Mr. Chairman, let me just quickly say, I respect what the gentleman has done. One of the problems we have is we are suffering because we have such a great percentage of our dollars going to the

tax cut. I think we can do more. Certainly what we have is what the gentleman has been able to do, but I believe this disease is so deadly that adding additional funds is a priority and should be a priority when we talk about health care and also inequity in health care, and I thank the distinguished gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Wisconsin yielding me this time, and I rise in support of the Labor-HHS bill today. While I feel the bill falls short in many areas, particularly in education, I will support the final bill. However, I would also like to rise today and speak to an issue that has great personal meaning to me and has been ignored by our House leadership.

While my amendments reauthorizing the assault weapons ban have been found nongermane, I will still be speaking to it, because so few opportunities remain to do anything about it before it expires on Monday.

One week from today, I will be able to purchase an assault weapon from any number of Web sites and from our local gun stores, which means our gangs and our police officers, and I just came back from a press conference with the police chiefs and the rank-and-file officers, and, unfortunately, many victims, all calling on our President to make some calls over here to the House so that we can bring the bill up for a vote.

A poll released this weekend by the National Annenberg Election Survey says two-thirds of Americans support keeping the assault weapons bill in place. And, in fact, 57 percent of gun owners support the ban, putting to rest the notion the ban is somewhat a threat to our second amendment.

Not one sportsman has missed a day in any hunting season due to the ban on assault weapons. President Bush says he supports the ban, but so far he has been doing the talk, but he has given us no action on it. The ball is in the President's court. He needs to pick up the phone and put renewing the ban on to the House floor. Only President Bush can stay the assault weapons ban execution.

Almost every law enforcement agency in the country supports renewing the ban. That is all the evidence I need to be convinced the ban is working. The most immediate challenge relating to the ban expiring is our police departments, who are saying they are not ready for this to expire. It is basically our police officers who are out there protecting us against terrorists and gangs, who protect our lives every day on the front lines that will be facing these assault weapons when they come back on the streets.

Since assault-style weapons do not need to be aimed, are designed to be moved back and forth in a sweeping

fashion in order to rain bullets on an area instead of a specific target, gang violence will become more reckless, with many more innocent bystanders caught in crossfires.

Police departments will have to re-outfit their squad cars, purchase new bulletproof vests, and make other expensive preparations for the ban's expiration.

Many currently banned weapons have multiple-capacity clips, holding up to 30 rounds of ammunition. Many State laws, including my State of New York, limit our hunters to six rounds in a clip. Deer are given a better chance of surviving than our police officers.

With the Bush budget intent on slashing grants to local police departments and its reluctance to push for extending the ban, the administration is depriving our police officers of the support that we need.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I am sorry that my colleague has withdrawn the amendment, and I hope they are going to be able to work this out further down the road.

But with that I also want to bring up what health care costs are because of assault weapons. Unfortunately, I have not been allowed to bring up the bill for a vote on assault weapons, but I just want to give the Members some health care costs.

Death and injuries caused by firearms cost the U.S. about $100 billion a year. If we keep assault weapons off the streets, we can bring that down and use the money for our community centers in those areas that need it. This includes hospitalization, other medical care costs, rehabilitation, and lost productivity.

I hope that we can, before this week is over, bring up the assault weapons bill so that we can have the bill and reduce health care costs in this country.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Jackson-Lee amendment. This amendment would increase funds for the National Center for Health Statistics surveys and for the National Center For Minority Health and Health Disparities.

The cost of health care for minorities is completely disproportionate. Nowhere is this truer than when it comes to the cost of gun violence. Although African Americans and Hispanics make up only 12.1 and 12.5 percent of the U.S. population respectively, these groups suffered 37 percent of all firearm deaths in 2000.

In 2000, homicide with firearms took the lives of 5,699 African Americans. In 2000, homicide with firearms took the lives of 1,958 Hispanics.

In 2000, the death rate for firearm injuries was two times higher for the African American population than the Caucasian population. In 2000, firearms homicide was the leading cause of death for African Americans age 15 to 34.

The assault weapons ban expires September 13, and we are not allowed to bring it up on the floor. This is something that could go into our communities, save lives and keep down health costs.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I support the Jackson-Lee amendment on hepatitis C. I spent over 30 years as a nurse before I came to Congress; and, unfortunately, hepatitis C a number of times, when it is diagnosed, it is far too late for so many of the patients. Unfortunately, the signs do not show up until the disease is very advanced, and because we are in a global world now and it is becoming a communicable disease, it is spreading more rapidly. Much more research needs to be done to see how we can stop this.

But I know one of the ways that we can have more money so we have the money for research is to try and stop the amount of money that is being spent every single year because of gun violence. And with the assault weapons ban expiring on September 13, we are going to see more violence on our streets; we are going to see more of these patients in our trauma hospitals, which is going to drive up the cost of health care all the way around. That is a shame. That is preventable. We need, certainly, the administration to back the police around this country and to back the health care providers around this country who all want to see the ban put in place.

If we do that, we can keep down health care costs because of the gun violence and have money go into research for hepatitis C and for so many other issues that all of us here care about.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I rise in support of the Sanders-Simmons-McCarthy amendment and am honored to be a cosponsor.

This vital amendment would increase funding for the Low Income Energy Assistance Program and Weatherization Assistance Program by $26 million.

Recent predictions indicate that this winter may be one of the harshest in many years in the Northeast, and the Energy Information Administration is predicting the price of heating oil, natural gas and propane will skyrocket. By the way, those prices have already skyrocketed.

LIHEAP provides the needed warmth for our most vulnerable communities, the poor, the elderly and the disabled. These disadvantaged communities are also, unfortunately, the most affected by gun violence.

When we have seen over the last several months that unemployment has gone up in certain areas of our country, our seniors are facing higher medical costs, higher prescription drug costs, now a 17 percent increase on their Medicare. Adding any little bit, amount, as far as increases on heating is going to be a problem for them.

As my colleague from Vermont has said, there is no one in this country that should be cold, but also another thing that happens, unfortunately, in this poorest of the poor communities is the gun violence we see on a daily basis. I could speak about that in my own district of Long Island. I know they say the suburban areas do not have gun violence. Well, unfortunately, after September 13 we are probably going to start seeing an increase of that because we are not allowed to bring up the assault weapons bill here on the House floor.

It is a shame that our seniors and our most vulnerable, who are our children and the poor that live in the communities, will be facing these guns again. It is a shame that our police officers who patrol these areas will also be facing these problems again.

I am sorry that we are not allowed to bring up the assault weapons bill that will expire on September 13. I hope that the leadership will change its mind.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, when I hear my colleagues from both sides of the aisle offering all of these amendments obviously to help our constituents from all over the country, and I thank my chairman and the ranking member for working so hard to bring us everything we need. I think more of us as Members should sit here instead of trying to watch this on television. I know that we are working very hard to keep the people of the United States comfortable, to make sure they have heat and do research to keep them healthy, and yet we have a program in place that is going to expire on September 13, which is the assault weapons bill. Yet we are not allowed to bring it up on the floor to talk about it. That is a shame. This is something that is working, does not cost any money, and yet as Members of Congress we are not allowed to bring the bill up for a vote, and the American people want it.

I thank the committee and subcommittee chairmen for doing the hard work they are doing, but I wish we could debate the assault weapons ban. The police officers on the street want to keep this ban in place. The health care professionals want to keep this ban in place. Every help organization wants to keep this ban in place. All of the different organizations which represent children want to keep the ban in place. I do not understand why we do not bring that issue to the floor for a vote. I hope by Monday, September 13, the White House will heed our call. I hope that the Speaker of the House will heed our call and answer to the American people.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman for accepting this amendment. It is extremely important for someone that has spent so much time in a rehab unit taking care of patients, even to the point of taking care of my son going back a number of years ago.

Medical technology and the science of taking care of those that never had a chance to learn how to walk again or possibly feed themselves again is now possible. It is mainly because of rehab. I know a lot of people think that they used to lay around the hospital after a hip operation. Today you have a hip operation, and you go to a rehab unit. It actually saves money, mainly because the patient is getting the rehab that they need so they can get up and walk and have a quality-of- life issue. On the other end of it, unfortunately going back not that many years ago, even for a simple hip operation, especially with the elderly, they ended up getting pneumonia and unfortunately needed more long-term care.

With that being said, the majority of our rehab hospitals and rehab units in an awful lot of our larger cities are filled, unfortunately, with patients because of gun violence in this country. On September 13, we are going to see the assault weapons bill expire unless this Congress, the Speaker of the House, the President of the United States get involved and allow us to debate this. We can save billions of dollars just on health care costs if we can bring down gun violence. We have seen a 60 percent drop since the assault weapons bill was passed on the use of those guns on our officers in our communities.

Large capacity clips, we are going to have them back out on the streets again. These are the large capacity clips that we see our men and women using that are serving this country so well over in the war in Iraq. We saw yesterday in the paper where someone with a gun had a large capacity clip that had 50 rounds. This is what we are going to go back to unless we stop by September 13, on Monday, to be able to renew the ban on assault weapons, to protect our communities, protect our police officers and to a very, very large extent, make more room in the emergency rooms, make more room in the trauma centers, make more room in the rehab units, because today because

of medical technology, thank goodness, people like my son are surviving these horrific wounds. A lot of our police officers are surviving their horrific wounds. But unfortunately the rehab, the expense to get those victims back on their feet certainly is extremely expensive.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Listening to my two colleagues, I appreciate this amendment they have put forward. Obviously, with the medical technology that we have today and with the medicines that are out there, I sometimes sit when I am watching the TV shows and I am watching them advertise all of these particular drugs, I hope everybody also listens to see what the side effects are going to be. They better listen carefully, because some of these side effects are very serious.

There are many drugs on the market that are over 10 to 15 years old that work just as well. People have to realize that. Unfortunately, even our doctors now, they are given information, thinking, wow, if this can help my patient. Let us hope that is what they are thinking. But we have to reevaluate this whole thing. It used to be you went to your doctor, the doctor knew which particular drug would work for you for whatever ailment you had, and you took it. Now we see TV, the doctors tell me, they want this drug, they want this drug, they want this drug.

Aspirin still works very, very well. Ibuprofen when I was working, gosh, a long time ago, that was a prescription drug. It is now over the counter. But there are still many prescription drugs that work just as well. Obviously, sometimes they are not going to work for the patient. That is when we should try a new drug. The research and development and the research that is needed to see what these actual new drugs do, I think, is extremely important.

With that being said, also, September 13, the assault weapons bill is going to expire. The reason I bring it up towards the health care section is mainly because how much health care money is expended on, unfortunately, these horrific wounds that we see. We also know with a lot of these types of assault weapons, there are head injuries. People do not realize when you have a head injury, a lot of times these patients have to be on an awful lot of different drugs that might even put the patient to the point of where they think they might be schizophrenic. It does fit and tie in with these bills.

The important thing is the assault weapons bill costs absolutely no money. We can renew it. It does not cost anybody anything except saving lives, saving health care costs; and I hope that the President of the United States will ask the Speaker of the House to allow this bill to come up on the floor for a vote.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I thank my colleague for bringing up this very important issue, preventative medicine and the research that needs to go into it. Any of us that have ever been in the health care field know preventative care and having the best techniques is the best thing that we can all offer anyone. There are so many things that we can do today to prevent, unfortunately, diseases that certainly could cost us as people and human beings in quality of life and, of course, the health care system millions and billions of dollars every single year.

With that being said, preventative care is what we should be looking at--how are we going to stop gun violence in this country. The first step that we can take is making sure the assault weapons ban is renewed by September 13. That alone will save so much money every single year. Our police officers, our children, and even those that live in the poorest communities where some of these health care communities are being closed down because of a lack of funds, people do not realize on the mental end the stress of living in these communities, what it costs.

I am hoping that we in time will have enough money to run the programs that we need; but to be honest, we can save money by cutting down on gun violence. We can save emotional stress

by cutting down on gun violence. We certainly can protect our police officers in this country by making sure the assault weapons ban comes up for a vote, passes here in the House. It has already been passed in the Senate, and the President said he would sign the bill if it gets on his desk.

Amendment Offered by Ms. Bordallo

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I rise in support of the Maloney-Woolsey-Sanchez amendment. This amendment would provide funds for the Patsy Mink Women's Educational Equity Act program. This is an important program promoted and named after our dearly missed colleague Patsy Mink, who I served with on the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

It is designed to promote gender equality in providing counseling and guidance, physical education and the development of the classroom materials.

A lot of people in Title IX kind of made fun of us women, and yet when you look at the women in the Olympics, these programs work. So we have to make sure that we keep them going.

I understand that I am lucky. I work in Congress. With that being said, I get equal pay. But an awful lot of my colleagues that are my friends that are working on the outside world doing the hard work right next to their male colleagues, they do not get the same pay. So women are disadvantaged in many parts of our society, and equal education offers them the opportunity to grow.

Our women also are living, unfortunately, sometimes in a violent society, especially those in the low-income areas. Think about all the women that right now possibly will be losing their husbands either from the war in Iraq or even from September 11, where we need to and we still continue the trend of educating them so they can educate themselves and have a job. But the majority of firearm homicides are the result of intimate partner violence.

With that being said, on September 13 the assault weapons bill will expire in this country. We know it has saved lives. We know that basically it has certainly put women at less risk, especially those that are in low-income areas and their children.

I do not understand why we cannot bring up the bill for a vote. I do not understand why. The President of the United States has said that he would sign the bill if it got onto his desk.

Well, we are the ones here who are holding it up. He is going to sign the bill. That is a good sign. So I think that we should move forward between today and Monday afternoon and be able to get this vote done so we can continue something that works. A program like this works. We have seen equal education getting better and better. Why are we even looking at a program to either cut it back or to see it expire when a program works?

Police chiefs from all over the country were here today. The rank- and-file were here today. Unfortunately, victims were here today too. I mentioned them many times today. We can cut down on health care costs; we can cut down on those who are in rehab hospitals, some who never leave. We can cut down on the amount of people who are unfortunately injured because of large-capacity clips and assault weapons. The bottom line is, why did we have an assault weapons ban in the beginning? Because too many of our police officers were being mowed down. We are putting that risk right back on the streets again. We are putting that risk to our police officers today, when things are actually even worse than they were 10 years ago.

This is when we should be renewing this ban. This is when we should be making sure our police officers who are protecting us because terrorists are in this country. This is what we should be doing. The American people care about this issue. They count on us, we in Congress, our leaders, our President, to take a lead on this. And we are letting them down, unless somebody has a change of heart. Do not think this is going to go away, because it is not. It will not, unfortunately, because one day we will be standing here and people will be saying, why did we not do something about it, and that is going to be, unfortunately, when we have a tragedy in our school or our police officers are mowed down, and people say, why did you not do something.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I will include at this point in the debate the supplemental views that I and my Democratic colleagues wrote on this bill which lay out our concerns about this bill's shortcomings. I think they will be sufficient to explain why so many of us have such grave misgivings about this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I simply want to say that I agree with the remarks of the gentleman from Texas, and I hope the committee will listen to what he said.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, this Labor, Health and Education bill is supposed to be that portion of the budget which invests in our children, which opens the door of opportunity for young people, which opens the door to the doctor's office or to the hospital for people who live life on its underside and do not have access to regular health care. It is supposed to protect the interests of workers. This bill falls far short on all fronts.

This bill does nothing to help workers, to protect workers against the efforts of employers to chisel on overtime pay. It falls billions of dollars behind the No Child Left Behind legislation in terms of meeting our obligations to support the education of our

children. It brings to a screeching halt the healthy expansion of after-school programs. It does, in so many ways, fall short of where we ought to be; and it does that because the majority, as I said earlier, has made a decision that its top legislative priority is ever more and always to provide very large tax cuts to people who are already very well off.

I really believe that there is no way to fix this bill, because this bill is the result of two past decisions. It is the result, as the gentleman from Ohio has said, it is the result of the Republican majority's passing a budget resolution which provides inadequate room for education, health, and worker-protection programs. It is also the result of the second vote which occurred on this House floor just a few weeks ago on a resolution that I offered to try to amend that budget resolution so that it would be a somewhat more progressive product that we could be proud of.

At this point, the only way that you could help this bill is to move it on to the Senate in the hopes that the Senate will provide better numbers so that in conference we can provide more resources for education, health care, and worker-protection bills that are so crucial to the welfare of this country's population.

I would say, Mr. Chairman, that there is only one way in the long term that we can fix this problem, and that is to put a different person in the White House and a different majority in the House of Representatives and the Senate. Because what is really at stake in this election, in my view, as someone said on the other side of the aisle, what is really at stake is whether or not this country is going to continue to build a social safety net for the middle class, for the broad working class of this country, or whether we are going to say, in effect, ``Sorry, but everybody is going to be on their own. You are going to rely on the luck of the draw. If life treats you happily, you will come out as one of life's winners; and if life does not treat you so happily, sorry, but you are on your own. We have no obligation to help in any significant way.''

This bill does a number of things for people, but it does not do nearly enough to meet the rising challenges that we have. And I regret very much that we are in that position, but there is not much we in the minority can do to change it except to make clear what is happening. So I urge Members to remember that as we go through the bill this afternoon.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute, and I would simply say to the gentleman the issue is not whether we should have cut taxes. Obviously, any time the economy is underperforming, it is perfectly legitimate to cut taxes over the short term. FDR invented that, and I am fully subscribed to that Keynesian approach to economics.

What I do not subscribe to is the idea that in the context of cutting taxes we have to give people who make $1 million a year a $127,000 tax cut. I think we could very well limit the size of that tax cut. That is the only tax cut that we have objected to and tried to change in order to finance this bill.

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 additional minute, and I would simply say in response that a very small portion of the people who would be affected by our amendment are small businessmen. Very small portion. The fact is that this House has to make a choice. Do we think it is essential to provide a $120,000 tax cut to people making over $1 million a year; or do we think that we ought to use some of that money to provide better opportunity for education, better health care for 45 million people that do not have it, and some additional protection for our workers in what is becoming every day a more and more brutal world market?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to say that I react to the gentleman's numbers with a touch of humor because the argument he makes is similar to the child who kills his parents and then throws himself on the mercy of the court because he is an orphan. The fact is if you look at the historical record over the last 10 years, if the House Republican majority had had its way, we would have appropriated about $20 billion less for education over the last 10 years than the Congress wound up appropriating. The House Republicans had to be led kicking and screaming into supporting the increases which he now tries to claim credit for.

I would point out this is the same Republican majority which tried 10 years ago to abolish the Department of Education and tried to make savage cuts in education 3 years in a row before they finally got religion.

I would also point out that in President Bush's first year, it was the Democrats who led the effort to add $4 billion to the President's education budget, and I am happy to say we finally persuaded the Republican majority to agree with our request.

If the House Republicans had had their way, $3.4 billion less would have been spent on education of the poorest children in America than was actually appropriated, and 1 million low-income children would have been eliminated from the Title I program; $3.1 billion less would have been spent on the education of children with disabilities than was actually appropriated if the House Republican majority had its way; $524 million less would have been spent on safe and nurturing places for children in the after-school hours than was actually appropriated if the House Republican majority had its way; and the maximum Pell grant would have been smaller in 5 of the last 10 years than the level actually approved, again if the House Republican majority had its way.

So I guess I am willing to accept the fact that the Republicans now want to borrow the money that we succeeded in

putting into the education budget and borrow it so they can make on their own competing claims the education budget. I do not much care as long as we've got the money.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to find every opportunity possible to support more resources in this bill for education, health care, and worker protection.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished minority whip.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, we also would be happy to accept it on this side of the aisle. It is a good amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, let me simply say the gentleman is absolutely right. This is a program that was begun by Secretary Shalala, who recognized that it is not enough to provide money to health centers if we do not also provide a thoughtful way to coordinate programs and services. This is what makes some of these efforts workable, and I think it is a disgrace that at a time when we have seen the number of uninsured increase from 40 to 45 million people, that we are eliminating a program that is crucial to providing service in more than 20 communities around the country.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I must also reluctantly oppose the amendment, because I think it has an unintended effect. The amendment, as I read it, would actually result in a small across-the-board reduction in funding for virtually all public health agency programs, including the National Institutes of Health. I do not think that is what we want to do.

Secondly, I would point out the gentlewoman has made quite clear in her remarks that she is attempting to add funding for a specific disease. In all of the years this subcommittee has funded the National Institutes of Health, it has never dictated to the National Institutes exactly how much money they should spend on any specific disease, and I do not think we ought to start now.

So I reluctantly would have to oppose the amendment and say that what we really need is an overall increase in funding for NIH so that we can attack lupus and dozens of other diseases that are causing great pain and suffering to people around the world.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say I am sure it is not the intention of the gentlewoman from Texas to fund this amendment by providing for an actual reduction in NIH, but the way she has drawn the amendment, it has that effect. I understand that is not her intention, but that is the effect of the amendment as written.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say that I absolutely agree with the gentleman who just spoke, and I congratulate him for the comments that he made. Everyone who has looked with any care whatsoever at this issue understands that there are massive ethical considerations surrounding this question. We need to try to work our way through those ethical considerations in a way that will bring people together on some very fundamental questions, rather

than pulling them apart. I think the gentleman has pointed to one way that can be done.

I would caution those in this society who think that we can somehow stop science from engaging in the kind of research just discussed by the gentleman from California, I would caution those who feel that we can stop that kind of research. We cannot. That kind of research will go forward. The only question is whether it will go forward in the United States or whether it will be somewhere else, and whether or not it will go forward under the auspices of the National Institutes of Health with all of the ethical considerations that they try to bring to bear on this issue, or whether it will be conducted by scientific teams that are not quite so careful about the ethical considerations involved.

I think that the gentleman from California has pointed out how we could move people forward on this issue in a way which is not destructive of anyone's ethical values. We need to start recognizing that we are dealing with real situations, real human beings; and humanity is not going to allow politicians to get in the way of attacking some of the medical problems that have been discussed by the gentleman from Rhode Island or by the gentleman from California; and I congratulate both of them for raising the issue this afternoon.

Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the amendment. We do not have a copy.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation, and I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that I would appreciate it if Members have amendments to offer that they at least provide each side of the committee with a copy of the amendment. I think it is a disservice to the House when amendments are sprung on the committee and we have no opportunity to review them. If we are shown them ahead of time, we can help Members draft them correctly so that they are in order.

So it seems to me it is in the interests of both people who offer these amendments and it is in the interests of the House for Members who are planning to offer amendments to provide us copies. It would seem to me a simple matter of common courtesy.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I certainly have no objection to the gentleman's efforts to provide funding for the block grant program. I think we ought to do that, but I offer this amendment to illustrate that the budget resolution adopted by the majority has put this committee in a position where each time a Member of either the majority or minority party tries to save a deserving program, they are forced to gouge another deserving program in order to pay for it.

Yet at the same time, that same budget resolution made it possible for the government to provide every person in this country who makes $1 million or more a year with a $127,000 tax cut this year. What this amendment points out is that if we simply reduce that $127,000 tax cut for millionaires by $125, so they would be stuck with a whole $125 less than $127,000, if we did that, we would not have to cut into the Even Start program.

I am not the sponsor of the Even Start program. The sponsor of the Even Start program was a former Republican Member of this House who was a Republican chairman of the Education and Labor Committee, Bill Goodling. I do not think we ought to be going after that program in order to do what the gentleman wants to do. So I am offering this amendment simply to illustrate that there are other ways to deal with this problem that are much more socially just and economically sensible.

I do not see why we ought to be cutting into funding which helps families of disadvantaged children learn to read and write. I do not see why we should be cutting into that program in order to fund the other block grant program. But this is the kind of robbing-Peter-to- pay-Paul situation that we have been backed into by the majority and by the White House.

Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment in the hopes that the majority will not strike it on a point of order, because I think this is a much more civilized way to deal with what the gentleman is trying to do.

Point of Order