Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me this time, 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, for far too many Americans, justice delayed is justice denied in our Federal Court system. Regrettably, today's Federal courts find themselves without the resources to adjudicate the cases in a timely fashion. Compliance with the Speedy Trials Act of 1974 must seem like an unachievable goal to judges all across this Nation, that struggle to keep our Federal court systems functioning.

Mr. Speaker, the rule before us is a restrictive rule that allows for 1 hour of general debate on this bill to create 47 new Federal district judge positions and add 11 circuit judgeships to the Federal bench. It allows consideration of only two of six amendments offered in the Committee on Rules last night.

Mr. Speaker, I agree that adding new judgeships would help address the backlog in the Federal courts; however, to do so without addressing the congestion in the Federal Bankruptcy Courts is analogous to trying to stop a hemorrhage with a Band-Aid.

It is worth noting that the other body's version of this bill would create 34 bankruptcy judge positions. It is also worth noting that one of the rejected amendments offered by our colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), in the Committee on Rules last night would have created 36 new permanent and temporary bankruptcy judgeships.

We would have a better debate on this bill today if this body were allowed to debate the thoughtful amendments that the rule does not make in order.

Mr. Speaker, the Federal courts are hurting. Just last week, the Judicial Conference of the United States voted to delay 42 court construction projects across the country to save $225 million and to avoid laying off as many as 3,500 employees. Last year, Federal courts had to cut 1,000 jobs. The lack of staffing resources only compounds the backlog problem, and the remaining staff is grievously overworked. Even with this extreme action, the Judicial Conference reports that as many as 4,800 court clerks, probation officers and other support staff could still lose their jobs in the next year.

According to the chief judge of the bankruptcy court for the Western District of New York, the number of bankruptcy cases filed has steadily increased nearly 10 percent for each of the last 4 years. Yet despite the increased workload, the court's funding was substantially reduced over the past 2 fiscal years, and it is bracing itself for a 15 percent reduction in fiscal year 2005. Judge John Ninfo writes that ``the immediate impact is the need for the court to terminate the employment of four to five people, all of whom have served this court extremely well. The

adverse impact upon the families of those people will be substantial.''

Judge Ninfo goes on to say, ``The court anticipates the need to significantly reduce services to the bar and the public, which will cause hardship on debtors and creditors during a time that is already difficult and stressful.''

Mr. Speaker, we must do more to address the backlog in the Federal courts than simply adding new positions to the bench. We must provide the resources necessary for staffing and the efficient operation of justice. We must show more respect for the third branch. Vilifying the courts or singling out so-called activist judges is counterproductive. Certainly, stripping jurisdiction away from the courts to hear cases relating to the Pledge of Allegiance or same-sex marriage is not helpful and, I do not believe, constitutional.

The current push to strip the courts of jurisdiction when controversial decisions are issued is not novel. It has been tried before. In the 1960s and 1970s, in the aftermath of the historic decision in Brown v. Board of Education, Congress repeatedly attempted to strip the courts of the power to hear school desegregation suits or to order busing to achieve integration. More recently, it has been tried to strip courts of jurisdiction to hear challenges to laws prohibiting abortion or suits against public schools that require prayer. These shortsighted efforts raise significant balance-of-power questions and demean this austere body. Lest we forget the words of James Madison, the father of our Constitution, who two centuries ago explained that the courts are the ``impenetrable bulwark'' that transform the Bill of Rights into enforceable rights, a very important statement.

I, therefore, caution my colleagues to consider the full ramifications of court-stripping action. It does little good to have an abstract constitutional right if no court can ever enforce it.

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today provides this body with the opportunity to take a look at the state of the judiciary. Adding new judgeships will help, but we need to do more to ensure the strength and the independence of the judicial branch, the protector of our constitutionally guaranteed rights.

Mr. Speaker, I call for a ``no'' vote on this rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 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 simply want to make the point that on a party-line vote, the Rules Committee Republicans rejected making the following four bipartisan amendments in order under the rule:

The first one was offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) to increase Federal judges' salary;

A Democratic amendment by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) permitting Federal judges to allow photographing or televising court proceedings at their discretion;

An important amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) that would allow a party to petition for a three-judge panel to override a Federal judge's refusal to recuse herself or himself from a case;

And the Republican amendment, a very important one, by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) to create 36 new permanent and temporary bankruptcy judges.

I think that renders this bill fairly useless, Mr. Speaker.

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. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues and its leaders, Congresswomen Shelley Moore Capito, Ginny Brown-Waite and Hilda L. Solis and myself, to honor the amazing achievements of the women athletes at the 2004 Olympics in Athens, Greece. In particular, I want to celebrate the success of the United States Women's Soccer Team, who made us proud by winning a gold medal at the 2004 Olympics, beating Brazil 2-1 in overtime, on August 26, 2004.

I would especially like to recognize Julie Foudy and Brandi Chastain, our honored guests for a Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues reception today, Tuesday, September 28, 2004, celebrating the accomplishments of female U.S. Olympic athletes. As Captain and 16-year veteran of the U.S. Women's National Team, Julie Foudy is one of the most influential athletes in the United States. Through the end of 2003, she had started in 229 of the 239 games in which she appeared, including all six of the world championship events played by the U.S. women. And if that was not impressive enough, she scored in all four of the Women's World Cup tournaments. Her teammate, Brandi Chastain, another long-standing player on the U.S. Women's Soccer Team, provided one of the greatest moments in the history of sports with her penalty kick on the USA's fifth shot in the 1999 Women's World Cup Final at the Rose Bowl.

These women have become some of the most famous athletic role models on earth. They have taught our children that if you work hard and you believe in yourself, you can accomplish anything. Indeed, these women are helping to fundamentally change perceptions about athletics. It is no surprise that our little girls look up to these strong, motivated women for inspiration. But to also see little boys wearing jerseys emblazoned with the names of their favorite women players is a wonderful sight. The accomplishments of this generation of women athletes demonstrates the profound impact that Title IX has had on increasing opportunities in sports for women and girls. Title IX, part of the Education Amendments of 1972 requiring that public schools and colleges provide equal educational and athletic opportunities for girls and women, has unquestionably been a tremendous success. The members of

the U.S. Women's Soccer team have been tireless advocates for Title IX. Their efforts have helped the Women's Caucus and our male colleagues to preserve and strengthen this historic law.

It is important for girls to have every opportunity to succeed, especially when it comes to athletics. That is why the leadership of the Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues has introduced H.R. 4994, the High School Athletics Accountability Act. This bill will require schools to report to the Department of Education basic data on the number of female and male students in their athletic programs and the expenditures made for their sports teams. Currently high schools are not required to disclose any data on equity in sports, making it difficult for schools and parents to ensure fairness in athletics programs. Better information can help high schools and parents of schoolchildren foster fairness in athletic opportunities for girls and boys.

As a testament to the power of these women, their fan appreciation tour, which kicks off in Rochester, on September 25, sold out all 14,000 seats in just minutes. I have introduced a bill in Congress, H. Res. 373, which supports the re-establishment of the Women's United Soccer Association (WUSA). Hopefully, some day the WUSA will return, to give every amazing female soccer player the professional athletic opportunities in the United States they so deeply deserve.

Thank you to all the women Olympic athletes for transforming the lives and attitudes of today's young women, and for those of generations to come. We all know that girls who compete in sports perform better in school, are physically healthier and have a stronger self-esteem. Our girls have learned that sweat is sexy, brawn is beautiful and a little dirt never hurt anyone. You have truly given us all a whole lot more to celebrate, work hard for and dream about.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Dr. Katherine Eisenberger Keough, who served with absolute distinction as President of St. John Fisher College in Pittsford, NY, and departed this life on September 25, 2004. American academia has lost one of its most dedicated leaders, and the communities of Pittsford and Rochester, NY, have lost an exemplary leader and friend.

Since assuming the presidency in 1996, Dr. Keough's tenure at St. John Fisher College was marked by progressive excellence and committed leadership. As the first woman president of a well respected college steeped in religious traditionalism, Katherine Keough ushered in a new and more prominent era at the college; one that will long speak for her, now that her own voice is silent.

Guided by Dr. Keough's expertise and leadership, St. John Fisher College has initiated 20 new graduate and undergraduate programs and a new business school. Student enrollment at the college at this time is very close to double the number of students enrolled at the time Dr. Keough took office. New buildings are currently under construction at the college, which will include Dr. Keough's envisioned School of Pharmacy, a new residence hall and a new student center. Plans for these initiatives were in process at the time of Dr. Keough's untimely demise.

While known for her stately and stoic persona, and widely respected for her strict adherence to personal and professional ethics, Dr. Keough also possessed a kind and generous spirit. Her family and friends will long remember her as an extraordinarily giving individual whose legacy will live on into infinity.

In the 1970's when Dr. Keough's husband, William, visited the American Embassy in Iran before his scheduled return to America from a business trip abroad, he was seized by Iranian rebels and detained as a hostage, along with other unsuspecting Americans. After consideration of all of the relatives associated with the then American hostages in Iran, Dr. Katherine Keough emerged as the individual who could best articulate the thoughts and feelings of American families of hostages to then President Jimmy Carter. Dr. Keough's presentation to President Carter was a poignant one that assisted the President with bringing the hostage situation to a peaceful and successful conclusion.

Mr. Speaker, today it is my great privilege to honor the life and profound works of Dr. Katherine Eisenberger Keough. I wish to extend my thoughts, prayers and deepest sympathy to Dr. Keough's son, Steven, her daughters, Kathryn and Alyssa, her six grandchildren and to her dear friends.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and this bill. The rule before us is a closed rule allowing only 60 minutes of debate and prohibits consideration of all the Democratic amendments offered to the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, this bill repeals District of Columbia's laws that ban the sale and possession of handguns and semiautomatic weapons that have been in effect for over three decades.

Our constituents expect us to work on issues of national concern.

They expect us to complete the annual appropriations process and avoid a government

shutdown. Yet, today, with the end of the fiscal year 2 days away, Congress has only managed to complete one appropriation bill.

They expect us to continue to provide States with Federal assistance to build and maintain the Nation's highways. However, Congress has not acted to renew authorization for billions of dollars for critical surface transportation projects that expire on Friday. They expect us to take up the 9/11 Commission's recommendations to make America safer. They expect us to enact legislation to create new jobs and address the plight of the unemployed.

They do not expect us to waste the little time remaining on a bill that the chief sponsor in the other body has all but abandoned hope of getting to the President.

Why on earth is this body squandering the little time remaining in this session on this bill? One word. Politics. Brazen, election-year politics.

With only 7 legislative days left in this Congress, I know that my constituents sent me here to vote on bills of more importance to their lives.

H.R. 3193 repeals several District of Columbia firearms laws and limits the authority of the District to enact new firearms legislation.

Specifically, the bill repeals the District's ban on the sale and possession of handguns, handgun ammunition and semiautomatic weapons.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know where to begin in expressing my outrage about the legislation before us today.

The rule before us blocks consideration of meritorious amendments offered by my colleagues at Rules last night. These amendments would have reinstated the District's ban on semiautomatic assault weapons, reinstated the Federal ban on semiautomatic assault weapons, and reinstated the District's prohibition on the sale of armor-piercing bullets--the so-called ``cop-killer'' bullets.

I think the majority of our constituents would be appalled to learn that this bill exempts semiautomatic weapons that fire 12 or more shots without manual reload from the District's ``machine gun'' restrictions.

We should be here considering legislation to renew the national assault weapons ban that unceremoniously expired a couple of weeks ago--not making a mockery of DC's restrictions on semi-automatic weapons.

As DC Mayor Anthony Williams wrote to congressional leadership, ``It is unthinkable that while the Nation's capital is under alert, Congress should take action to expose more than half a million residents, almost 200,000 federal workers and 20 million tourists to greater danger.''

It is unthinkable to put our officers at greater risk at a time when Capitol Police--alone--are asking for $20 million to secure the Capitol Building for this year. The last thing they need to hear is that semi- automatic weapons can now be carried on the National Mall or cop-killer bullets are legal in the District.

It is worth pointing out the hypocrisy of my colleagues who support this bill by arguing that the District's gun laws infringe on DC citizens' second amendment right to bear arms.

While the bill changes the law to allow DC residents to carry pistols, open or concealed, in their homes and places of business, it does not repeal another DC gun law. The law we will not repeal today is the provision outlawing people from carrying or having readily access to a firearm ``upon the United States Grounds or within the Capital Buildings.''

So we will vote to approve guns in another person's workplace in DC, but not in our offices.

It is unthinkable that only 2 years after the Washington area was terrorized by snipers who killed 10 people in the region, and while the Nation's capital is still under a terrorist alert, Congress would take action on this bill.

We must not lose sight of the innocent victims of gun violence.

Yesterday, the front page of the Washington Post reported that a 13- year-old boy was fatally shot inside his apartment, the 21st child killed this year in DC.

When we voted on this same issue in the aftermath of the Columbine shootings, it failed by a vote of 175 to 250. I hope my colleagues remember their outrage to that senseless killing and recognize that this bill and the recent lapse of the 1994 Federal ban on semi- automatic weapons place our children in more danger.

So, Mr. Speaker, to recap, we are not considering bills to create jobs, we are not passing the budgets for Federal agencies and services, and we are not improving our homeland security. No, today we are debating legislation to allow more lethal guns and ammunition to be on the streets of our Nation's capital--in the hands of would-be terrorists, gang members, and other violent criminals.

Mr. Speaker, again, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this closed rule and to vote against the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the amazing achievements of the women athletes at the 2004 Olympics in Athens, Greece. In particular, I want to celebrate the success of the United States Women's Soccer Team, who made us proud by winning a gold medal at the 2004 Olympics, beating Brazil 2-1 in overtime, on August 26, 2004.

Every woman on the Olympic soccer team deserves our recognition and congratulations: Shannon Boxx, Brandi Chastain, Joy Fawcett, Julie Foudy, Mia Hamm, Angela Hucles, Kristine Lilly, Kristin Luckenbill, Kate Markgraf, Heather Mitts, Heather O'Reilly, Cindy Parlow, Christie Rampone, Cat Reddick, Briana Scurry, Lindsay Tarpley, Aly Wagner, and Abby Wambach.

These women have become some of the most famous athletic role models on earth. They have taught our children that if you work hard and you believe in yourself, you can accomplish anything. Indeed, these women are helping to fundamentally change perceptions about athletics. It is no surprise that our little girls look up to these strong, motivated women for inspiration. But to also see little boys wearing jerseys emblazoned with the names of their favorite women players is a wonderful sight.

The accomplishments of this generation of women athletes demonstrates the profound impact that Title IX has had on increasing opportunities in sports for women and girls. Title IX, part of the Education Amendments of 1972 requiring that public schools and colleges provide equal educational and athletic opportunities for girls and women, has unquestionably been a tremendous success. The members of the U.S. Women's Soccer team have been tireless advocates for Title IX. Their efforts have helped the Women's Caucus and our male colleagues to preserve and strengthen this historic law.

It is important for girls to have every opportunity to succeed, especially when it comes to athletics. That is why the leadership of the Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues has introduced H.R. 4994, the High School Athletics Accountability Act. This bill will require schools to report to the Department of Education basic data on the number of female and male students in their athletic programs and the expenditures made for their sports teams. Currently high schools are not required to disclose any data on equity in sports, making it difficult for schools and parents to ensure fairness in athletics programs. Better information can help high schools and parents of schoolchildren foster fairness in athletic opportunities for girls and boys.

As a testament to the power of these women, their fan appreciation tour, which kicks off in Rochester, on September 25, sold out all 14,000 seats in just minutes. I have introduced a bill in Congress, H. Res. 373, which supports the reestablishment of the Women's United Soccer Association (WUSA). Hopefully, some day the WUSA will return, to give every amazing female soccer player the professional athletic opportunities in the United States they so deeply deserve.

Thank you to all the women Olympic athletes for transforming the lives and attitudes of today's young women, and for those of generations to come. We all know that girls who compete in sports perform better in school, are physically healthier and have a stronger self-esteem. Our girls have learned that sweat is sexy, brawn is beautiful and a little dirt never hurt anyone. You have truly given us all a whole lot more to celebrate, work hard for and dream about.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my neighbor for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, we have before us a rule that allows for same day consideration of a conference report for H.R. 1308, a bill to extend the middle-class tax provisions in the 2001 tax bill.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly believe that any time the body chooses to stray from the regular order of business, it had better be for a darn good reason. It had better be to respond to some catastrophic or emergency situation.

Things are dire out there for the 2.7 million Americans who have lost their good-paying manufacturing jobs since 2001. These workers live in a constant state of emergency and face the catastrophic prospect of losing their homes or sending their children to bed with empty stomachs. The fact the body has failed to extend unemployment insurance for nearly a year is a catastrophic failure, not a catastrophic success.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of other bills languishing in conference committees that certainly warrant emergency consideration. What about the transportation bill? Immediate consideration of this bill could bring millions of Americans a step closer to getting back to work, because it is a job creation bill.

And what about addressing the WTO tariffs on American exports? Should we not take immediate action to clear the path for more of our manufacturers to export their goods?

Mr. Speaker, as you can see, there is no shortage of bills that could be justifiably brought to the House floor under martial law, but, unfortunately, the bill we have before us today fails to meet that standard.

Although I think everyone here in the House supports extending the middle class tax cuts, I do not like running roughshod over the rules of the House. What is this emergency? The earliest that any of these provisions would expire is December 31.

Mr. Speaker, the majority has not made its case for taking this extraordinary action. The conference report was filed late this afternoon. In fact, we do not have any paper on it at all. So that makes it impossible for us to even continue with the bill. But for a bill that is going to cost nearly $150 billion, the majority owes it to us to provide us the time to read it.

For these reasons, I cannot support the use of a martial law rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. May I inquire if the gentleman does.

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

Mr. Speaker, before I yield back my time, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question; and if the previous question is defeated, I would offer an amendment that upon its adoption of the rule, the Enrolling Clerk is instructed to add language to the conference report that does two things:

First, it directs the Secretary of the Treasury to pay for the cost of the bill by rolling back part of the tax breaks for those with incomes exceeding a million dollars annually. These millionaires will still receive a substantial portion of their tax cuts, but this modest rollback covers the cost of this bill for middle-income American families.

Second, it fixes a serious flaw in the conference report that negatively affects our military families. Because combat pay is exempt from taxation, many low-income military families with children are ineligible for the low-income tax credits or the child care tax credits. Democrats would change this so that soldiers would be able to count combat pay as income when applying for both the child tax credits and the earned income tax credit over the next 5 years.

The majority only wants to provide a 2-year extension of the EITC provision. Mr. Speaker, I think most Members want to see the tax breaks in this bill extended, particularly the child tax credit. However, many of us are very concerned about the legislation's substantial price tag, and I think this is a fair and a reasonable way to address that cost.

I want to stress that a ``no'' vote on the previous question will not stop consideration of the conference report for the tax bill. But a ``no'' vote will simply allow the House to amend the rule to make the changes necessary to pay for the tax cuts and not increase our already bloated deficit. However, a ``yes'' vote on the previous question will not allow these changes to be made, will drive up our debt to the tune of $149 billion.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question so we can fix the conference report and provide tax relief to those who need it most.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment be printed in the Record immediately before the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, again, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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

(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I will include for the Record the revenue effects of the bill we are discussing. Up at the top here it says ``very preliminary.'' Given what we went through with the Medicare bill and the fact that we are still now getting revised estimates on what that cost, I thought that was a very interesting thing, and I have not seen that before. So I will put that in the Record.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. It provides the House with only an hour to debate a tax package that was rushed in so fast that we are not sure the ink is dry.

The conference report before us contains many provisions that have broad bipartisan support. Members on both sides of the aisle strongly support the $1,000 per child credit and the new larger 10 percent bracket, and they provide real tax relief for working families. Additionally, the research and development tax credit, work opportunity tax credits and tax incentives for Qualified Zone Academy Bonds all have a great deal of support.

Further, we all probably can agree on the importance of the bill's alternative minimum tax relief provisions. The AMT has increasingly become a major source of headaches for middle-class taxpayers. Last year alone, 3.3 million taxpayers unwittingly found themselves subject to this onerous tax because of the 2001 tax bill. Without further congressional action, the number

of Americans who will have to deal with it will grow over 30 million by 2010. While I am pleased that the conference addresses the AMT, it is only a Band-Aid. Providing a permanent remedy to this egregious problem will be costly, but it must be done.

As you can see, Mr. Speaker, there is little fault to find in what the conferees chose to include in their final tax package, except the cost, which, as I said, is very preliminary. I only hope that the conference report for the pork-laden, Christmas-tree-like corporate tax bill that this body passed in June is as reasonable.

That said, the critical question for our Members to ask about this $150 billion bill is who is going to bear the cost? Our children? Our grandchildren? Both?

The House leadership may not have qualms about putting off questions about the fiscal consequences, but, as a mother and grandmother, I certainly do. We could have paid for it by simply taking back a portion of the recent tax reductions enjoyed by taxpayers who earn over $1 million a year. Unfortunately, the majority refused to consider this approach, choosing instead to push us further into debt by $150 billion.

I do not understand this tactic. It is irresponsible and indefensible, especially given what the Congressional Budget Office told us 2 short weeks ago. The 2004 deficit will be our largest in history, $422 billion, surpassing last year's record by $47 billion. At this rate, how on earth do we ever stand a chance of bringing the budget back to balance?

We can do better, and we must do better. And I also have no confidence in what we are being told, as I have said, about the cost of the bill. In the past 4 years, my experience has certainly taught me to question the cost estimates that were provided.

Back in 2000, the majority went to great pains to deliver a package that would be scored at $350 billion, and they devised a scheme of phase-ins and phase-outs to arrive at that number. Now, we know the tax cuts have an actual cost of about $620 billion, according to the administration's own office.

In addition to putting the true cost of the tax cut at nearly double the initial estimate, OMB attributed $290 billion of our deficit to the 2001 tax bill, and yet this House refuses to recognize that. Then, let me say again, there is a medicare bill. In June 2003, Congress was told the bill would cost no more than $400 billion over 10 years. Then, we learned about the coercive tactics used to arrive at that magic number and that the actual number of $134 billion more was kept from us.

Today, we understand that there is more to come and that the actual cost now of the medicare bill is $576 billion over 10 years, $176 billion more than we voted on just a few months ago. So keep your eyes open on this one, because if you blink, you may miss millions more added to the price tag.

Mr. Speaker, given the record, how can we trust the cost of this bill?

For all of these reasons and despite my support for middle-class tax cuts, I oppose this rule because we are not allowed to do anything, not only about the extraordinary cost but for the children of our soldiers who are left out of this bill completely and lose their tax credit.

Mr. Speaker, I will insert for the Record at this time the material I referred to earlier.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23SE04.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23SE04.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23SE04.006

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).

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

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

If I could say to the previous speaker, the idea of it being the people's money, obviously, all taxes are the people's money. It is also the people's debt that we are running up. They might want us to have some consideration for that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

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

I am going to be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment that directs the enrolling Clerk to add language to the conference report that pays for this bill. The previous question directs the Secretary of the Treasury to pay for the costs of the bill by rolling back part of the tax breaks of those incomes exceeding $1 million annually.

These millionaires will still receive a substantial portion of their tax cuts, but a modest rollback will offset the cost of this bill for middle-income American families.

Mr. Speaker, I think many Members of this body want to see the tax breaks in this bill extended. I know I do, particularly the child tax credit. However, many of us are very concerned about the legislation's substantial price tag, and I think this is a fair and reasonable way to address that cost.

I want to stress that a ``no'' vote on the previous question will not stop consideration of the conference report for the tax bill. A ``no'' vote will allow the House to amend the rule to make the changes necessary for this conference report to pay for these tax cuts, and not increase our already-bloated and record-breaking deficit. However, a ``yes'' vote on the previous question will not allow the changes to be made and will drive up our debt to the tune of $146 billion. I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question so we can fix this conference report.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry).

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment I referred to earlier be printed in the Record immediately before the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, and 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. Speaker, I rise today to honor the amazing achievements of the women athletes at the 2004 Olympics in Athens, Greece. In particular, I want to celebrate the success of the United States Women's Soccer Team, who made us proud by winning a gold medal at the 2004 Olympics in Athens, Greece, beating Brazil 2-1 in overtime, on August 26, 2004.

These women have become some of the most famous athletic role models on earth. They have taught our children that if you work hard and you believe in yourself, you can accomplish anything. Indeed, these women are helping to fundamentally change perceptions about athletics. It is no surprise that our little girls look up to these strong, motivated women for inspiration. But to also see little boys wearing jerseys emblazoned with the names of their favorite women players is a wonderful sight.

I would especially like to recognize Abby Wambach, who is from my district in Rochester, New York. When she scored the goal that secured the gold medal, nowhere in the world cheered louder than Rochester. In addition, every other woman on the Olympic soccer team also deserves our recognition and congratulations: Shannon Boxx, Brandi Chastain, Joy Fawcett, Julie Foudy, Mia Hamm, Angela Hucles, Kristine Lilly, Kristin Luckenbill, Kate Markgraf, Heather Mitts, Heather O'Reilly, Cindy Parlow, Christie Rampone, Cat Reddick, Briana Scurry, Lindsay Tarpley, and Aly Wagner.

As a testament to the power of these women, their fan appreciation tour, which kicks off in Rochester, on September 25, sold out all 14,000 seats in just minutes. I have introduced a resolution in Congress, H. Res. 373, which supports the reestablishment of the Women's United Soccer Association (WUSA). Hopefully, some day the WUSA will return, to give these amazing female athletes the professional athletic opportunities in the United States they so deeply deserve.

Thank you to all the women Olympic athletes for transforming the lives and attitudes of today's young women, and for those of generations to come. We all know that girls who compete in sports perform better in school, are physically healthier and have a stronger self-esteem. Our girls have learned that sweat is sexy, brawn is beautiful and a little dirt never hurt anyone. You have truly given us all a whole lot more to celebrate, work hard for and dream about.

Mr. Chairman, I was unable to be present for rollcall votes 452, 453, 454, 455, and 456. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall votes 452, 453, 454, and 456. I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall vote 455.

personal explanation

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present for rollcall vote Nos. 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449, 450, and 451. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote Nos. 446, 447, 448, and 449. I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall vote Nos. 444, 445, 450, and 451.

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present for Rollcall votes 441, 442, and 443. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 441, 442, and 443.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to discuss the issue of having lost 1,000 of our soldiers. How heart-breaking this is when we look at the ages and the numbers of those young people, many of them barely 19 years old, whose dreams for their lives and hopes for their future are gone, and our hearts break for them and for their families.

One statistic that we have not heard much about, and frankly I think have not been given the truth about, are the number of those who have been wounded and maimed. Again, 18, 19, 20, 21 years old.

We are told that the casualty statistics of people wounded amounts to 7,000, but we found out last week in my office, because I was curious about that number, that the Pentagon has sent home over 15,800. These are young people coming back to the United States whose lives are changed forever, many of them amputees. Many of them lost their eyesight, many of them again changed and future gone, coming back to an America where the Veterans Administration has been so decimated by the Bush administration that they will have to wait 6 or 8 months even to see a doctor at the VA.

The resources, the health care that they need, that they counted on and that we made a contract with them is not there. What a sad commentary on this country, with its wealth and its riches and where people go on living their lives, that we would allow our young people and a large part of our future to be maimed and to be killed for a war with no end.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, an important part of our job is to encourage the purchase of U.S. goods and services by others in the international community, especially now when the economy is limping along and failing to replace the 1.1 million jobs lost since the Bush administration took office. Hopefully opening up foreign markets for American products will lead to the creation of good, high-paying jobs here in the United States. However, we must be mindful of the consequences of free trade agreements such as the U.S.-Morocco Free Trade Agreement.

Last week this body considered the free trade agreement, FTA, between the United States and our ally Australia. Serious questions were raised about the impact patent protection language might have on the ability of the United States to reimport lower cost drugs from other countries and the impact on the Australian government's low-cost pharmaceutical drug program.

According to the Wall Street Journal, urged by the drug industry, the U.S. Trade Representative is seeking to strengthen protections for costlier brand-name drugs, defending the U.S. companies from foreign competition of foreign producers of generic drugs. So far the USTR has successfully added this safeguard to the trade agreements with Jordan, Chile, Singapore, Australia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Dominican Republic, and Morocco.

The U.S.-Morocco agreement contains patent protection language which restricts Morocco for 5 years from approving generic-drug applications if the application is based on the data of the original manufacturer. What impact will this 5-year ban have when enforced? Will this interfere with a developing African nation's ability to get affordable, generic pharmaceuticals to fight public health crises like the HIV infection?

In response to these serious concerns, the USTR points to a letter of understanding between the United States and Morocco. In the letter, both countries agree that the patent provisions ``do not affect the ability of either country to take necessary measures to protect public health by promoting access to medicine for all, and in particular concerning cases such as HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, and other epidemics as well as circumstances of extreme urgency or national emergency.''

This mutual understanding is promising. However, it is not directly part of the free trade agreement or the implementing legislation. According to Robert Weissman of Essential Action, ``This statement of understanding expresses noble sentiments, but is unlikely to make much, if any, material difference in the implementation of the agreement.'' I hope Mr. Weissman is wrong.

Approximately 16,000 Moroccans are infected with HIV, and the pandemic of HIV and AIDS is devastating the nations of Africa. Will Morocco be able to purchase or produce less expensive, generic anti- viral and other medications needed to fight HIV infection? Of the 40 million people with HIV or AIDS globally, less than 10 percent have access to drugs that have transformed many cases of HIV infection to a chronic illness, from a death sentence. In most of the developing world, drugs to fight HIV infection and AIDS are far too expensive for most. Any barrier to access to more affordable generic medicine denies essential health care to the poor.

Women are nearly half of the 40 million infected with HIV, and the infection rate of women is climbing faster than the infection rate of men in many regions. Irene Khan, Secretary-General of Amnesty International, told last week's World AIDS Conference that ``gender inequality is driving new infections among women and girls like never before.''

Mr. Speaker, more free trade agreements are in the works. The U.S. Trade Representative has negotiated with six Central American countries and has just initiated negotiations with Thailand. The consequences of trade agreements go far beyond merely eliminating trade barriers, such as tariffs. These agreements enforce significant public policy decisions made not by Congress, but by the Trade Representative. Congress has a narrow role in trade agreements, so I urge my colleagues to carefully consider the language in this and all future agreements. Free trade must be fair trade.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), a valued member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and 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. Speaker, I rise today to honor the heroes of the Niagara Falls Fire Department and the New York State Park Police. Last Sunday evening, these brave first responders rescued a woman on the verge of ending her own life at the edge of the vast Niagara Falls. Without hesitation, these men put their own lives in danger to save another.

Niagara Falls is one of the greatest natural treasures on earth. One of the largest waterfalls in the world, Niagara Falls plunges a dramatic 180 feet, or 16 stories. It is a wondrous site that attracts millions of tourists every year. But with its immense beauty comes immense dangers. Over the years, police and fire personnel in Niagara Falls have performed daring rescues to save people who have gotten too close to the edge.

On Sunday evening, a suicidal woman ventured out to a ledge just a few feet from the edge of the mighty falls. Responding first to the scene, New York State Park Police officers Scott Durham and Timothy Coulombe

kept the woman calm until rescue personnel from the Niagara Falls Fire Department arrived.

State Park Police Lieutenant Patrick Moriarty, Niagara Falls Fire Battalion Chief John Jacoby, and Niagara Falls firefighters Gary Carella and David Beahen all made their way out onto the ledge, just feet from the edge. Mr. Carella spoke to the woman with Mr. Beahen securing him from behind. As the woman suddenly began to slide towards the falls, Mr. Carella lunged to seize her, while Mr. Beahen lunged to catch him. They safely brought the woman to shore amid the cheers of dozens of onlookers who had gathered to watch this dramatic rescue.

I want to thank these men, and the personnel from Engine 8, Engine 4, Truck 1 and Rescue 1 who assisted them, for their astounding courage. The rescue only reaffirms what we already know: that the first responders of Niagara County are some of the finest. We should all feel safer knowing that that these brave men and women do such a stellar job, around the clock. I applaud and admire their valor and altruism.