Floor Statements

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we could just look at this chart and I would rest my case. The blue is the Pell grant under the Democrats. The red is the Pell grants under the Republicans.

Now, I am pleased that in the motion to instruct that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) is urging us to adopt the number passed that was in the House-passed bill. We did not get a vote on the Democrat side; but, nevertheless, tonight we are being asked to instruct conferees to adopt the number that was in the House bill. And that is great. It was a good number as evidenced by the chart. This chart shows the maximum award under the Pell grant program. It has grown under Republican leadership, as evidenced by the red line here. And in the labor bill it maintains the maximum award of $4,050 for fiscal year 2004. When we took control of the Congress in 1995, the maximum Pell grant under the now-minority was only $2,340. And it was funded at $6.2 billion. Today under the Republican leadership, the maximum is $4,050 and the amount in the budget authority was $12.25 billion.

I agree with the previous speaker, this is a great program. It gives middle-income students access to college. In 2004 there will be about 4.9 million students, almost 5 million students that will have a chance to go to college because of Pell grants. In the last 2 years, the number of Pell grant recipients has surged by 25 percent. It is a good example of a need-based program meant to open doors and provide an equality of education opportunity. The poorer the student, the larger the award. It is a means-tested program, so it recognizes that those with the most need get the most help. It is an example of the Federal Government enabling school choice for millions of Americans. They can use their Pell grants for public or private schools; they can use them to attend religious schools. Real choice is one reason that this country's higher education system is the envy of the world.

And let me emphasize that in 2004 not one student will see their Pell grant reduced based on their circumstances. I think it is a record we can be very proud of. We can be proud as a Nation that we are providing some help to students to ensure that they have access to higher education. I think more and more we come to realize how important it is for individuals to get access and opportunity to get the benefits that go with higher education.

Personally, I would like to see the school system become seamless: from the day that student ends the first grade that they think in terms of going through 16 years and getting the college education, that we do not think there is a stopping place, that the student thinks in terms of their future ending up with some type of education beyond high school. The Pell grants ensure that every child will have an opportunity that might not otherwise get that chance.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson), a very valued member of the subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).

That is right.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and let me make a couple of points here.

One, not one student will be denied a Pell Grant that meets the qualifications. Number two, the formula is written into the law, and we are not changing the formula. So the maximum amount will remain the same. And, number three, on July 10, 215 Republicans voted for the bill, and my colleagues tonight are saying in this motion that they agree with the number that was adopted then.

We support the motion because the motion is saying do what the Republicans did on July 10 in terms of funding the Pell Grants. We are totally in agreement. We were in agreement then, and we are in agreement tonight. We like the program. We want to make sure that every student that meets the criteria of need will have an opportunity.

So we do not have a disagreement tonight on what we are trying to accomplish, and we are pleased that the other side has this position tonight. We wish our colleagues had had it on July 10, but we welcome your support tonight and will join you in this motion.

I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, we would like to do that, and we will certainly make every effort because we have not changed our minds since July 10 that this is a good program and should receive the funding that was incorporated in the bill at that time.

Once again reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, we are in agreement on Trio and GEAR UP, and I think the gentleman would be in agreement that we make the system as seamless as possible so that these students will enter kindergarten and the first grade with the idea that they are going to go all the way. And part of that would be the Pell Grants, to ensure that, regardless of their economic circumstances, and that is often beyond their control, but that they are still going to get that kind of an opportunity.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear, there are no students going to be cut off. Those that meet the qualifications are going to get the grants in accordance with their family's economic situation. The formula is written into the law. We are not changing that.

Secondly, what this motion proposes is to do exactly what the House did on July 10. We welcome the support of the other side of the aisle and the fact that they are joining the 215 Members that voted for the bill that contain the Pell grant numbers exactly as are being proposed tonight, and we certainly support the motion to instruct because this motion is instructing House Members to do what we did on July 10. We are happy to join the other side in this effort and hope on a bipartisan basis prospectively in the future that we retain strong support for Pell.

All of the arguments that have been made tonight are very compelling, and it is what I would like to see, and that is to get the system seamless so that young people think in terms of 16 years, because if America is to be competitive in the years ahead, we need a very well- educated population. We have seen time and again how important that is to the future of our Nation.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Rhode Island has described many of the values of this program. He is a very valued member of our subcommittee. As he well knows, we have done all we could for this program within the constraints of the Budget Act. It is a great program. I think one of the benefits that probably was not mentioned is it gives a lot of people in communities a sense of participation because these meals are delivered by volunteers in most cases if

not all. That means that those in the community who are doing this service realize that they are helping the seniors. It gives them an understanding, but most importantly, of course, as the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy) described, it is very important to the beneficiaries of the program.

As has been mentioned, it is not only the nutrition and that is important. Seventy-nine percent of the individuals that are recipients have a high nutritional risk and the Meals on Wheels ensures that they will get, at least as much as possible, a balanced diet which obviously will contribute to their health.

We were earlier debating some aspects of the Medicare reform bill and the prescription drug change. I think that bill does more on preventive medicine than has been the case in the past. An item such as requiring that those who go on Medicare must first have a medical examination to see if they have any problems, that will now be covered by Medicare. I think that is a great provision. But part of preventive medicine is having a nutritious diet. The Older Americans Act nutrition programs serve that purpose. As was mentioned, over 270 million meals to almost 3 million people that benefit. They benefit in a congregate setting and also as individuals in their homes.

What it does is allow people to stay in their homes for a longer period of time. In my discussion with seniors, they want to stay at home as long as possible. They do not want to be institutionalized. Meals on Wheels affords them that privilege. I wish we could do more. I wish the budget numbers that were provided to our subcommittee were larger, but we have a lot of challenges in the Labor-H subcommittee. We have the challenges of funding the research at the National Institutes of Health. We have the challenges of funding the Centers for Disease Control; that has a new dimension because of 9/11. We have the challenge of providing good education to ensure that no child is left behind. We have the challenge in the Labor Department of providing services to those that are unemployed so that they can get back into employment. We have some tough policy decisions that we have to make.

We do put a lot of money into the Older Americans Act. I and all of us wish it could be more, but we have to balance out the needs of the seniors and the Meals on Wheels programs with education, health research and so on. But on balance this is good preventive medicine, to provide for nutritious meals. It also, as was mentioned, is very important for their social well-being. The fact that somebody is going to come to their home once a day for 5 days a week, it gives them a sense of being a part of the community. Because these people that are delivering these Meals on Wheels are volunteers, most of them have some time that they can stop and visit a little bit with the clients. I think that adds to their well-being and adds to their ability to be comfortable in their home setting.

Another feature of this that we do not fully appreciate is that the Meals on Wheels leverages a lot of other sources. It leverages the State funds. In the case of the Native Americans, it leverages tribal funds. It leverages local funds and Federal moneys and other subcommittees of appropriations. These total contributions of matching funds more than exceed what we put into the program in our bill. That is a very positive thing that we do--leverage these funds.

I think for this reason I have no objection to this motion to instruct. I wish we could do more, but we are limited in the total resources that are available as we make the priority choices among many very fine programs. We have in constructing this bill held the numbers that can be available for the Meals on Wheels, the Older Americans Act at the highest level possible within the constraints of the resources that are provided to our subcommittee.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, just briefly, I think for those that have listened to this debate tonight, as a society we can take pride in this program of the Older Americans Act. And I might add one that has not been discussed yet is the Caregivers Program which is also in our subcommittee to help people gain the knowledge of how to provide care to their elderly relatives, family, and so on in the home setting. All of this adds up to a real effort to allow those who want to stay in their homes to do so. And in the House bill, we can increase the amount over last year. And we will be very mindful of the thrust of this instruction as we negotiate with the other body in a final number.

But, again, I would say that as Americans we can take pride in what we have done, I think in the Older Americans Act, to allow people to stay in their home, to allow people to have some social contact with the other members of their community, to allow the volunteers who want to help others to have this opportunity. So we certainly support the motion to instruct. And as a conferee, I will do all that I can to urge that we do get the highest possible number within the constraints of priorities that we have in the bill and the constraints of the allocation that we started with originally.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to rise to discuss the funding the Committee on Appropriations has provided to the National Institutes of Health and respond to the motion to instruct from the gentleman from Texas. I think all Members of the House have been touched by a family member or constituent with a heart-wrenching medical problem who turned to the research supported by NIH as their hope for recovery or relief from pain.

The fiscal year 2004 appropriation bills passed by the House and Senate continue the tradition of congressional support. The House bill provides almost a $700 million increase for NIH, one of the largest program increases in the bill and the largest increase in the Department of Health and Human Services. This comes on the heels of completing the doubling of funding for NIH over a 5-year period, from $13.7 billion to $27 billion in the short span of 5 years.

I think the chart we have here tells the story very eloquently. We can see on the bar graph how much since 1996 NIH funding has increased through the doubling mechanism, and it is very substantially more than it was when the Republicans took over. It was $13 billion. Now, it is $27 billion. And I think it shows the commitment of the majority party to NIH. Yes, it is a little bit less than the doubling era, but we cannot continue that; we do not have the resources, but it still provides an increase in new grants and the highest total level of grants in NIH's history. And because NIH had more than a $1 billion of one-time costs in fiscal year 2003 that can be converted to research funding in fiscal year 2004, the real increase for NIH is more than 6 percent, that is, for research programs, a level in line with most annual increases prior to the doubling.

I am confident that Dr. Zerhouni, the new director of NIH, will lead the agency on a productive new path in the postdoubling era. I am enthused about the ``road map'' he has unveiled after extensive consultation with the research community. Of course, we would all like to provide Dr. Zerhouni with the highest possible funding level in conference, and I am confident we will do that. I intend to support the gentleman's motion. I think the House has already demonstrated that they want to do it with the highest possible funding level in light of the resources made available to us as the Committee on Appropriations, and I have no quarrel with the gentleman and I know that we will, in conference, try to reach the highest funding level that is possible because NIH is an extremely important resource of this Nation. They have done great work over the years, and we are very supportive of them both in our subcommittee and the Committee on Appropriations and in conference.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), a strong booster of the NIH.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me reiterate that in the last 5 years we have doubled the budget of NIH. We have had some wonderful results. They testified in our committee not long ago that today, because of advances in medical science, every 5 years life expectancy goes up 1 year. That is a tremendous breakthrough and achievement, particularly for our younger people. I look at my 20-month-old granddaughter and think how much more she will have in years, and, hopefully, quality years. That is the other challenge of NIH.

Let me say again that this is a little misleading to talk about a freeze, because last year we put a lot of money in construction, which is not in this budget. So in real terms of research this budget is up 6 percent, because of the money that will be available that has not been put into construction, as has been the case in other years.

I also want to commend Dr. Zerhouni, the new director of NIH. I

think we can look forward to his leadership being very effective on the part of this institution. He has developed a new road map, after extensive consultation with the research community; and the road map is designed to bring the NIH greater successes than they have experienced in the past. That is a great credit to his leadership; it is a great credit to Secretary Thompson, who named him to this position, and to President Bush, who supported this very strongly.

I think we can look forward to a continued period of great accomplishments from NIH. We are very supportive of this effort and will put the highest amount possible, as stated in the motion to instruct. We will do that.

But we have limitations. We have the budget. We have the dollars available to us. In our subcommittee, it is not just NIH. It is education; it is IDEA. There was an extra $1 billion we put in this year. There are a whole host of good programs.

I say our Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies is the love-your-neighbor committee, because all 280 million Americans in one way or another have their lives touched by the education programs, by NIH research, by our Labor Department programs to help people get relocated and get new jobs in the event of plant closures.

So we are going to do the best we can. This motion to instruct, we are going to support it because it says essentially what the committee will try to do in conference.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a very interesting point. Promises made, 1975, the Democrats were in control. They made promises. Here is the performance. Look at that, barely increased over 19 years. Barely increased over 19 years. Republicans take over, and we kept the promises. Here it goes, up, up, up, up, up, up. We can see the difference. This clearly shows us the difference between the Democrat Party, make the promises, do nothing. Republicans deliver.

On top of that, just recently the Members of the Democrat Party voted against a bill to increase special education by $1 billion. And I think it is interesting that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are seeking to instruct conferees to adopt the Senate funding levels for IDEA when just 3 months ago they voted against a $1 billion increase. They did not seem to want that. We strongly support funding for special education and the hope it gives millions of families every day.

In fact, since fiscal year 1996, the first year Republicans controlled the House, funding for special education has tripled; and under Republican control the percentage of per-pupil expenditures that the Federal Government contributes toward special education has increased to nearly 20 percent. By way of contrast, when the Democrats were in charge from 1975 until 1995, 20 years, the percentage of per- pupil expenditures was never more than 9 percent.

There are the facts; and I say to those who are looking at this situation, do not go on what I say. Go on what the chart shows happened when the Republicans took control. They made the promises; we delivered.

Mr. Speaker, the Republican commitment to funding special education cannot be questioned. The bill passed by this House in July continued the investment in IDEA by increasing the program by another $1 billion, representing the largest dollar increase in the entire Labor, Health and Human Services Education appropriations bill ever.

As most of my colleagues know, the original bill reported by the Committee on Appropriations in the other body provided a slightly smaller increase for this program. That is the bill that they reported out of committee. It was less than we have done. On the floor the other body adopted an amendment that would have added $1.2 billion to the program.

One little problem, however. This amendment was offset by the use of a customs user fee. Basically, this is a tax, and as we all know, increasing taxes is something that is not within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Appropriations to decide. And tax policy is also something which the United States Constitution says must, and I emphasize must, originate in the House, not in the Senate. Therefore, this provision must be dropped by the other body in order for us to complete our conference on this bill. So we are talking about an instruction that cannot happen under the Constitution.

If we accept the gentlewoman's motion, it will have the effect of cutting $1.2 billion out of every other program in this bill. It will mean we will have to make cuts in funding for biomedical research that is seeking cures for cancer or diabetes or Parkinson's disease. Or perhaps the gentlewoman would suggest we take the funding out of programs under No Child Left Behind, such as programs to teach children to read or improve teacher quality. Or should we take the funding out of that provided for colleges and universities, or funding to produce textbooks for blind students? Or should we reduce the Pell grants? That is the effect of this motion.

We are not going to disagree with it because we are for IDEA. Here is the evidence: it says clearly which party cares about these children; and, therefore, we want the conference committee to do as much as possible. We did it on the bill that passed here in July. We raised IDEA by $1 billion, and the Democrats for whatever reason chose to oppose this.

Mr. Speaker, this motion is nothing more than a vain attempt to divert the

public's attention from the fact that my colleagues on the other side of this aisle voted against the $1 billion increase for children with special needs earlier this year.

The bill passed by this House was a balanced approach to addressing the needs of all of our citizens, including those with special needs. It gives hope to children and families across this Nation. And I say once again here are the facts, just look at the chart. It tells us the story eloquently. They make the promises; the Republicans deliver.

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

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

Mr Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood), a very valued member of our subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson), also a very valued member of our subcommittee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out the facts: promises made by the Democrats, very little increase; promises delivered by the Republicans. The chart tells more eloquently than words what it is all about. I simply say that we believe in special education, and we have put the money there to back up our beliefs.

This motion to instruct is a sham because the Senate money is not there. They did something proposed, and I would again emphasize that the bill that came out of the Senate committee had less, less in IDEA than the House bill. They had a floor amendment that said we are going to raise taxes to pay for it. Unconstitutional. So let us get on with it.

I would point out one other fact, and that is that the Democrats voted against $1 billion for IDEA in the July bill for labor, health and human services.

So I submit to my colleagues that the record is clear. Republicans deliver; the Democrats promise.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to express my strong support for the appropriations conference report. I think the committee's done a great job.

They have dealt with backlog maintenance which is extremely important in terms of maintaining our parks and giving the public the quality experience they expect.

I was also pleased to see they extended the fee program. We are working to pass permanent legislation authorizing the direct fee program, but I would point out that this program has produced over $1 billion in the past years. It has gone into improving the quality of the visitor experience, and the money has stayed largely in the park that has produced it. I believe the public, generally, has been very supportive because they recognize that they are the beneficiaries of the small fees for using the public lands.

Also, I was pleased to see that the Committee restored cuts in the USGS budget, restored the cuts made in the President's budget. This is an extremely important agency because it allows us to understand the science of the earth and to better manage the resources of our programs that are their responsibility.

Everglades, again, this bill continues our strong support for the restoration of the Everglades, provides $68 million toward the historic initiative, and it does have the assurance from the State of Florida that it will meet its obligations.

Energy programs, extremely important to our Nation's economy. We are a Nation of large consumers of energy, and this is essential to the quality of life that we enjoy. I am particularly interested in developing programs to develop vehicles that will use natural gas. I think this is one of the ways to save our petroleum reserves and make us less dependent on imports. It is something that we are moving toward. A lot of buses, if my colleagues notice, around the city are powered by natural gas. The technology is clearly workable. It is a matter of getting infrastructure, and I would hope that the committee that does the reform of the transportation bill will recognize that there should be some funds to develop infrastructure for the fueling of natural gas vehicles.

On balance this is a very good bill, given the limited resources available.

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

I find it fascinating, Mr. Speaker, that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle today seek to instruct conferees to adopt certain higher funding levels for education when less than 3 months ago they stood on this very floor and voted against providing the funding for many of these same programs.

The Labor, Health and Human Services and Education appropriation bill that this body approved in July was a fair and balanced bill. In the area of Federal education spending, we provided increases in education totaling $2.2 billion, or 4.5 percent. Further, within these increases are the highest levels of spending for both title I programs and special education, IDEA programs, today. Finally, let me remind my colleagues that not only did the bill include increases in both those highly visible education programs, but it also included increases in other numerous important education programs as well.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to run through the list of education programs that were increased in funding in this bill over last year: title I grants to school districts, Even Start, Reading First, Early Reading First, literacy through school libraries, migrant education programs, programs for neglected and delinquent youth, comprehensive school reform, Impact Aid payments for children of military families, mathematics and science partnerships, after-school centers, State assessments, education for homeless children, education programs for rural school districts, teacher enhancement programs, charter school grants, credit enhancement for charter schools, mentoring programs, physical education programs, special education programs, preschool programs for disabled children, grants for special needs infants and their families, vocational rehabilitation grants for adults with disabilities, independent-living grants for adults with disabilities, services for older blind individuals, National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, American Printing House for the Blind, National Technical Institute for the Deaf, Gallaudet University for the Deaf, vocational education State grants, adult education State grants, smaller high schools, Pell grants, Hispanic Serving Institutions, Historically Black Colleges and Universities, TRIO programs for first- generation college students, GEAR UP programs to encourage minority students to attend college, Teacher Quality Enhancement Grants, Howard University, education research, education statistics, national assessment of educational progress, and national assessment governing board.

Every one of those education programs had an increase in our bill over last year.

Mr. Speaker, this body passed a responsible Labor, Health and Human Services and Education appropriation bill in July. The bill was within the subcommittee's allocation and the budget resolution. Let us work to finish our conference with the other body so that we can complete the people's work for the year and fund these important programs that give hope to the children of the families of our Nation.

I would like to point out that a previous speaker mentioned the fact that the President has not supported the programs in the No Child Left Behind bill. Since No Child Left Behind was signed into law, Federal spending for major elementary and secondary education, including funding for children with disabilities, has increased by approximately 34 percent, from $24.5 billion in fiscal year 2001 to $32.8 billion in fiscal year 2003. So I think that this clearly says that the President and the majority party have supported responsible increases to fund the No Child Left Behind programs.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this motion to instruct because we want to provide the most money possible for education, too. And I agree with the gentleman from Wisconsin that we should do as much as possible, and the gentlewoman from California, the minority leader; but we have to live within the budget constraints. We do not do the budget in our committee; we live with the money that has been provided by the Committee on the Budget. And I think we did a very responsible job given the constraints of the amount that was budgeted for Labor, HHS and Education by a vote of this House when they approved the budget.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would point out that the gentleman's party had control of the Presidency, the House, and the Senate in fiscal years 1994 and 1995. During this time, Congressional Democrats voted to cut the Department of Education by over $3 billion below levels recommended by their President, President Clinton. The final 1994 increase was only 3.6 percent; the final increase in 1995 was only 2.4 percent. And remember, they controlled everything; and we propose in this bill to increase it by 4.5 percent.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker), a distinguished member of the subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), a very valued member of our subcommittee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. Northup), a very productive member of our subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon), a member of our subcommittee who works diligently on these tough problems.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are going to support this motion because we share with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) the desire to have the highest funding levels possible for programs on No Child Left Behind. We did that in the bill. Obviously, there is never enough, but we did as much as we could under the constraints of the budget.

I would point out again and reiterate that we increased the funding for 43 programs in education, including title I, including IDEA and a whole host of others. Of course, the motion is simply saying do the best possible job we can.

I know that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and I both share the desire to do as much as we can for education, but we are constrained by the amount of money that is available to us under the budget resolution. Within that, and in the priorities within our bill, we have done every bit possible. Hopefully, in conference, we can reach an agreement with the other body that will even increase some by taking it from other areas. I support the resolution.

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

Richard Watkins has left a great legacy of public service in our community, public service that had many dimensions, as was outlined by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis). I think that he deserves a lot of credit for the great work that he has done in our community, and this would be a fitting tribute to his career.

He is completing 12 years as mayor of what we know as the Hall of Fame city. Canton, Ohio, has the Football Hall of Fame, and in that capacity he accomplished many things that are beneficial to people.

Mr. Watkins has always been sensitive to the type of leadership that cares about people. I think perhaps the best example were his efforts to establish the Canton Community Clinic. This is a free health care facility. It has been in operation since 1994, and it has served over 35,000 people in that time. This is a beacon light of help to many people who otherwise would not have access to health services.

In addition, he developed what is known as Cornerstone Square. This is a social services campus, kind of a ``one-stop'' for people that need help. The Ohio Bureau of Workmens' Compensation is there, the Industrial Commission of Ohio and the Ohio Bureau of Employment Services. So those that need assistance in these areas can go there and find help, and I think his leadership in getting that accomplished was great. And it is so important because it has not only provided these services in a central place, but it also provided a facility in part of the city that needed rehabilitation.

He has worked on a number of things in the revitalization of downtown Canton. Big cities have a challenge these days, and Mayor Watkins has addressed that challenge and provided a worthwhile legacy for those that he represents. The aesthetic appeal of downtown Canton has been immeasurably enhanced by his actions as the mayor, and this would be a fitting tribute to an individual who has served the public well, who has provided a legacy for others to benefit and also has provided leadership that will inspire others to public service.

He was also, as has been mentioned before, a member of the Marine Corps, and I know for some Members that is a very substantial endorsement, and so I would urge the Members to support this legislation and give this fitting honor of naming the Cleveland Ave. Post Office, city of Canton, Ohio, for the retiring mayor of Canton, Ohio, Richard D. Watkins.

Mr. Chairman, those who do not learn from the mistakes of history are doomed to repeat these mistakes. After World War I, we had the Versailles Treaty. It was punitive. It spawned resentment in Germany. The result was World War II. You need only to read William Shirer's book ``The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich'' to realize that the punitive approach to a vanquished foe breeds the poverty and resentment that make people easily led by a demagogue.

Fifty million people died throughout the world because of the mistake of the Versailles treaty at the end of World War I. President Truman and Secretary of State George Marshall had the wisdom and the foresight to not repeat the tragedy of Versailles, and the result was a rebuilt Europe that has given us 50 years of peace.

President Bush, in his policy on this, recognizes that if we want to build a stable, peaceful world where people can enjoy the fruits of freedom that we too have to be a generous people. We too have to follow the pattern of the Marshall Plan that was so effective at the end of World War II. The Iraqi people are already burdened with $200 billion worth of debt. Let us not try to add to that and only spawn the same resentments that generated World War II.

I think we have an opportunity, and President Bush recognizes that, to build a stable Middle East that can be our legacy to the generations that follow us just as we had the legacy of President Truman and Secretary of State George Marshall that gave us the peace in Europe and avoided the mistake of Versailles.

I urge the rejection of this amendment. I urge the support of the President's position. I think it serves not

only the people of Iraq, but it serves the best interests of the people of the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2660) making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think the operative word here as stated by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is they ``apparently.'' Well, they have not finished this procedure. The Department of Labor has received 80,000 comments on the proposed change. What they are trying to do is to bring the rules on overtime into the new century. It has been over 50 years since the present rules were promulgated and the department thinks it is important to take a look in relationship to today's world, today's communications, today's structures of our labor programs that would be realistic.

I think one of the things that I want to put to rest is that this will affect certain groups. I have here a letter from the national president of the Fraternal Order of Police writing on behalf of the members of the Fraternal Order of Police to advise of their opposition to the motion to instruct. What they are saying is let us look, let us take these 80,000 comments and see what makes sense and is fair to everyone concerned. The Secretary of Labor is approaching it from that point of view. What is fair.

Likewise, it has been said that the nurses would come under this because they have do a lot of overtime and, again, the Nursing Executive Watch, a publication that goes to nurses says, ``Contrary to popular belief, changes to overtime regulations won't affect nurses.''

So, again, it is an effort by the Department of Labor to look at regulations that have been in place more than 50 years and say what is fair, what makes sense in 2003 and thereafter.

Now, there is another risk involved in all of this and that is the fact that the administration's leadership, the executive branch, has said they would recommend a veto.

Well, what would be the result of a veto? We would be living on a continuing resolution without increases voted by this House in support of the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education Bill, increases in the amount of money for many good programs. And let me tell you a few of these:

Special education gets an extra increase of $1 billion in the Labor H bill. Title I, which is designed to help children from low income homes gets an increase of $650 million. Reading programs, and we hear more and more evidence that reading is such a vital part of the education of any individual. They use scientific evidence to help

children, and they are funded at over $1 billion. Impact aid, for those of you who have military bases, is increased by $50 million for a total of $1.2 billion. That is just education.

As I said many times, this is the people's bill. Every one of the 280 million Americans in one way or another, their lives are touched by the things we do in this bill. Health programs, many of you have community health centers, a very valuable asset in any community, and we recognize this, and based on the President's recommendation have increased the funding for these in the bill. Centers for Disease Control. The CDC has been much in the news in recent months because of a wide variety of diseases and, again, we increase the funding for the Centers for Disease Control. Substance abuse. We hear all the time about the problem of drugs. And again, we have increased the money for this program and, of course, the National Institutes of Health. This is the premier medical research institution in the world. Not only does it benefit the people in the United States, it has a worldwide impact on the health of people. We have substantial increases for the National Institutes of Health.

I could read off a whole list of agencies that get increases in this bill, Even Start, Reading First, Early Reading First, Literacy, Migrant Education, programs for neglected and delinquent youth, Comprehensive School Reform, Mathematics and science partnerships, after-school centers, education for homeless children, education programs for rural school districts, teacher enhancement programs, charter school grants, credit enhancement for charter schools, the list goes on and on, PELL grants, vocational education state grants, Historically Black Colleges and Universities, TRIO, GEAR UP, Teacher Quality Enhancement Grants, Howard University, education research, and so on.

All of these programs get increases under the bill under discussion, and we are going to put that at risk if we reject the efforts of Secretary Chao and that is what this amendment does. It says, do not pay any attention to the 80,000 comments that have been sent in to your agency to evaluate how it is presently working in comparison to what it would have been 50 years ago. We are saying, no, no, no, stop. And then you run the risk that if the President's advisors prevail and there is a veto, we could be on a continuing resolution even for the balance of this fiscal year. If that were to happen, all of these programs would be funded at levels below what we have put in the bill.

And I think as our Members contemplate making a decision on how to vote on this motion to instruct, that they ought to keep in mind that what they are doing is gambling the future of our children or gambling these increases in some great programs against what we think is a very orderly process, and that is to let the Secretary go forward, evaluate the 80,000 comments and make a decision on what the rules should be in terms of overtime pay for the next years.

So I say to all of my colleagues, weigh your vote carefully because you are not only voting on a proposal that was brought up in the Senate by way of an amendment, you are voting on the future of a lot of very good programs that are funded under the Labor bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Just let me say that the Secretary's proposal would allow, this is a proposal that she has the comments on, would allow an opportunity for overtime for over one million workers that are now not covered. And these are the workers that are at the low end of the wage scale. So you have to keep in mind what the administration is proposing to do here, although they have to evaluate the 80,000 comments.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have time I want to yield to some of my colleagues.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood).

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

I want to read the operative section of the so-called Harkin amendment: ``None of the funds provided under this Act shall be used to promulgate or implement any,'' and I emphasize ``any regulation that exempts from the requirements of section 7 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 any employee who is not otherwise exempted pursuant to regulations under section 13 of such Act that were in effect as of September 3rd, 2003.''

Now, with 80,000 comments to evaluate and if this were adopted, this amendment, the result would be that the Secretary would be very reluctant to do anything because it says none of the funds shall be used to promulgate or implement any regulation that exempts and so on. It would simply put a chill on trying to bring overtime regulations into this century.

The result would be that over 1 million people who are presently not getting the benefit of overtime pay would be denied this prospect for the future because the Secretary would look at this language and say, look, under those circumstances, I cannot even get involved because this language is so restrictive, and they are in effect denying the very people that the other side would say they want to help. They are denying them an opportunity to participate in overtime regulations and in effect get the time and a half that they would deserve.

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

Mr. Speaker, how much time is left for each side?

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

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have one more speaker, and I understand the gentleman has the right to close, so I will reserve the balance of my time.

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

I think we need to clarify some things here. Number one, this proposed regulation will offer a lot of hardworking Americans that have been alluded to here an opportunity to get overtime pay. These are the people making less than $65,000. They will then be eligible under this proposed regulation.

Now, we understand that these comments have to be evaluated and that the Secretary of Labor will ultimately have to rule on what is fair. And what we are trying to do is to give her this opportunity.

I want to quote from a letter from the Fraternal Order of Police: ``The proposed regulations offer an important opportunity to correct the application of the overtime provisions of the FLSA to public safety officers. We are therefore concerned that the retention of this amendment,'' as proposed by the other side, ``during conference committee deliberations will undermine our efforts to successfully protect overtime compensation for more than 1 million public safety officers and hinder the DOL's,'' Department of Labor's, ``ability to issue final regulations.''

They would propose, as it is outlined here, to hinder the possibility and protection of overtime compensation for more than 1 million public safety officers.

Now, one of the things that has been tossed around is that nurses would come under this. As a matter of fact, they will not. And the Nurses Association makes it clear that they are not covered, that it will not affect them, as far as their availability of overtime.

It is a matter of being fair. None of us drive, or very few, an automobile that is over 50 years old, yet we are operating under standards promulgated more than 50 years ago. Let us bring these up to date so that more Americans will be eligible to participate in the American Dream.

We cannot discount the fact that there is a possibility of a veto. Because if this were to happen, and if we were

to operate the Labor-HHS programs under a continuing resolution, as I have pointed out earlier, a lot of good programs would no longer get the increases that have been provided in our bill, starting with the $1 billion extra for IDEA.

Here is a chance to do something good for America. That is why the Secretary of Labor is proposing to take a look. And if you read this proposed restriction carefully, what it says is that none of the funds shall be used. I can see the lawyers in the Labor Department saying, hey, Congress has said none of the funds shall be used, and they put in certain conditions. So the Secretary of Labor, in all probability, would say we cannot take the risk so we will not do anything. The result would be that more than one million Americans would be denied an opportunity to participate in overtime.

I do not think Members here want to do that. I think they want to be fair. And the vote that is fair on this issue is to reject the motion to instruct and, in effect, reject the motion that we instruct the conferees to accept the Harkin amendment. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote against the proposal of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

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

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), a member of the subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman on the committee of jurisdiction for authorizing legislation of this type.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2210, the School Readiness Act of 2003. As a former elementary teacher and an elementary principal, I am aware of the necessity of a first-rate education and the need to ensure that children have adequate skills before entering kindergarten. You cannot start too soon. My daughter-in-law reads to my 16-month-old granddaughter, and here we are talking about children who are 2, 3, 4 years old.

The Head Start program has been a successful program over the years, providing comprehensive services to many children not otherwise reached, and providing students with some of the basics needed to be successful in school.

As successful as Head Start has been, I believe that the program can be even more successful by maintaining the comprehensive services already provided and enhancing, that is the key word, the academic component. H.R. 2210 will allow the Head Start program to achieve this goal by emphasizing cognitive development, improving teacher quality, and providing extra help for Head Start programs identified as underachieving.

I would like to emphasize, as my colleagues have stated, that there will be no additional testing required of the children in this program. Further, arbitrary performance measures will be eliminated, ensuring that the performances of Head Start centers are more fairly evaluated.

Because of the value of the comprehensive services, recently referred to as the crown jewel of Head Start, this legislation will keep the program at the Department of Health and Human Services, preserving and extending the health and nutrition components. The bill authorizes a level of more than $200 million over the current level and limits Federal Government administrative expenses allowing as many as 10,000 more children, 10,000 more to be served by the Head Start program.

I would like to add that in the appropriations bill for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education that this body recently approved, we provide an additional $148 million. This bill was just approved a few weeks ago. We added $148 million to the program. I might point out that in the last 8 years the Republican majority has more than doubled the amount going to Head Start.

I hear conversation about how the program is not getting adequately funded. The facts are the facts. Funding has more than doubled in the last 8 years since we have been responsible. Additionally, the bill contains incentives for States to maintain or expand funding of early childhood education. Education should be seamless. It should start with the Head Start program, go through the elementary into the high school and on to the college level. And I have had a real concern since I have been chairman of this subcommittee about the number of high school dropouts. Many of the major cities are in excess of 50 percent in the dropout rate. That is a terrible waste of human capital; and we need to address it. One of the key elements in this is the ability to read. I do not think decisions are made by young people at the ninth grade or the tenth grade to drop out. Those decisions are made when they do not learn to read at the first, second, third, fourth, fifth grade level.

Therefore, the Head Start program as envisioned by this bill will be an added component to ensure that individuals will have skills so that when they reach high school they can participate. They can read. They can comprehend, and they can be ensured that they will get the skills they need to participate in our economy.

We hear today about unemployment levels. We hear about people not finding jobs, and the need for skills only grows. Therefore, I think this program is a very important part of the early education of a young person, of a child and on into adulthood. I would urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Give these kids the same chance that others have. That is what it is. It is Head Start. And we want to give them a head start, and this bill will do that.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Fiscal Year 2004 Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations bill and commend Chairman Wolf for a fair and balanced bill that funds the Justice Department, the Commerce Department, the Judiciary and the State Department.

I want to particularly commend the Chairman for a hearing that the Subcommittee held

on May 22, 2003 regarding the impact of Chinese imports on U.S. companies. As a result of that hearing the bill today includes funding increases for our trade agencies so that they can better enforce existing trade agreements. Many witnesses at the hearing testified that their businesses were being overwhelmed by low-priced Chinese imports that are causing them to down-size and lay-off workers.

The Commerce Department must be more responsive to U.S. companies, and particularly those small- and medium-sized businesses, who are being harmed by imports. In my district, I have heard from many small and medium-sized manufacturers who say they have had to lay-off workers because of Chinese imports.

According to a recent National Association of Manufacturers report, Ohio has lost 97,100 manufacturing jobs between July 2000 and December 2002. This represents an 8.9 percent decline in just over two years. Ohio had the third largest loss of manufacturing jobs behind California and Texas. I urge officials of our trade agencies to take notice of this manufacturing crisis in Ohio and in the U.S.

I will also work with the Chairman to seek restoration of funding for the Manufacturing Extension Program to last year's level as the bill moves forward. This program has been important in allowing small- and medium-sized manufacturers to modernize and remain competitive in the global marketplace.

I commend the Chairman further for the restoration of funds for State and local law enforcement efforts to fight crime in our local communities. This funding has allowed for the initiation of an important project in Stark County, Ohio to link the communications systems of all law enforcement agencies within the county. This will prevent the tragedy that occurred last year when an officer in one part of the county was shot even though agencies in the other part of the county knew an armed and dangerous man was on the loose.

I urge support of this important appropriations bill that funds our local, national and international security needs.

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

I agree with what the chairman of the Natural Resource Committee had to say, the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo); and I think the problems of concern here can be addressed in a hearing for permanent legislation. So I think the chairman is right on.

I just want to point out this past week the National Public Radio had two segments on maintenance in the parks, and they probably overstated the case substantially about how terrible maintenance is, but without the billion dollars that had been brought in over the past 3 or 4 years from the fees, it would be a lot worse. And these fees are to stay in the park or the forest or the Bureau of Land Management, or whatever it might be, to enhance the visitors' experience. We want them to have good restroom facilities, trails, and the things that are important to the visitors.

To pass this amendment would confuse the public. Because the fee program is a package. It includes the Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife, and USDA. The Forest Service has received over the period of this experimental program $206 million; and that has done a lot to enhance the visitors' opportunities.

But I think the questions that have been raised by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and addressed by the chairman of the Committee on Resources ought to be the subject of a hearing to make sure that the program works well for everyone.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for yielding me the time.

I want to express my strong support for the fiscal year 2004 Interior appropriations bill. As a member of the Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies, I believe this is a balanced bill that addresses many of our most urgent needs. I want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) and his staff for their hard work in putting together a good bill under very tight budget constraints.

Mr. Chairman, this bill addresses a number of important national priorities. It provides funding increases for our four land management agencies, the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management, which provide wonderful recreation opportunities for the American people.

To improve the visitor experience, the bill provides focused funding to address the continuing backlog of maintenance on these public lands, including $682 million for our national parks and a restoration of $47 million for our national forests.

During my past tenure as chairman of the committee, I made reducing of the maintenance backlog a top priority. We created the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program, which allows the land management agencies to raise additional revenues to further address their maintenance needs. Most of the fee stays at the site where it is collected and is used for maintenance and other enhancements to the visitor's experience.

This demo program, which would be extended under this bill, continues to be a success. We have collected over $1 billion thus far, which was put most largely into maintenance and enhancing the visitor's experience. It has provided a real benefit for those Americans who have visited our parks, forests and other public lands.

The bill restores deep cuts made in the President's budget to the U.S. Geological Survey and further provides a $16 million increase over the fiscal year 2003 level. This funding will enable USGS scientists to better understand the Earth's processes and allow them to provide first-rate scientific data to those responsible for managing and conserving our natural resources.

In particular, I want to highlight funding included for the America View program which allows universities to collect remote sensing data and analyze it for both educational and land planning purposes.

This bill continues our strong support in Congress for the restoration of the Everglades, providing $68 million toward this project. However, I remain concerned that recent actions taken by the Florida legislature undermine the Federal-State commitment, and it is a Federal-State commitment, to restoration. It is my understanding that we will consider an amendment to condition Federal funding on assurances that the State of Florida is meeting its prior commitments to improve water quality. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment when it is considered.

I am pleased that the committee has worked to restore a number of serious cuts in the President's budget for important programs at the Department of Energy. The bill specifically restores funding for fuel cell research in fossil energy to current enacted levels. This will allow the Solid State Energy Conversion Alliance initiative, which is developing standardized fuel cell components that would be used in many different types of fuel cell applications, to continue to move forward.

I also appreciate the committee's efforts to restore cuts in the President's budget to the Industries of the Future program within Energy Conservation, particularly those relating to steel and metal- casting.

These programs support technological advances that make our domestic industries more energy efficient and, as a result, more competitive in the global marketplace.

The bill continues our commitment in Congress to implement the National Fire Plan, which is very timely given the serious situation in the West. It provides $115 million above the President's request, including substantive increases for readiness, hazard fuels reduction and forest health. These are commonsense measures that will help us both prevent and more adequately contain wildfires.

Lastly, I am encouraged by the committee's work to develop a coordinated national plan for the acquisition of Federal lands. I believe the Federal Government needs to focus less on acquiring new lands and more on taking care of the property and facilities it already has. Under this bill, the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture would develop a plan outlining clear acreage goals and conservation objectives for lands acquisition. I believe this reevaluation will provide for better and more focused use of limited funding resources.

Mr. Chairman, this is a very balanced bill that Chairman Taylor has produced in the subcommittee, and it

funds many important national priorities. I urge its expeditious consideration and passage.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this compromise amendment, which I believe will help ensure that the efforts of Congress to restore the Everglades will be successful. In agreeing to the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, the Federal Government and the State of Florida made an $8 billion commitment, equally cost shared, to restore this national treasure. Congress, on behalf of the American people, has already committed $1 billion over the last 9 years toward this effort, and throughout this process the subcommittee has maintained strong oversight of the project to ensure that these funds are spent wisely and true environmental restoration will be achieved.

Mr. Chairman, water quality is an absolute key to the success of this restoration. If we fail to address water quality issues upfront, we could potentially invest $20 billion of the taxpayers' dollars on a new plumbing system that pours tainted water into the

Everglades, and that is of course why this compromise is vitally important.

This amendment was crafted in response to the passage of a law in Florida. It seeks to ensure that the State of Florida will not fail to meet its water quality goals. It will put a string on the Federal dollars that Congress has approved, tying them to compliance with agreements the State has already made. Every year the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of the Army, the Attorney General, and the EPA administrator will have to file a joint report certifying that the State of Florida is meeting its prior commitments to improve water quality. If the report indicates that the State is failing to work toward that goal, they have to take another look at the funding issue.

It is unfortunate that Congress has been put into a place that they are requiring these new assurances. However, in order to ensure that Federal funds are truly going towards our shared goal, and this is the money of all the people in these United States and this is a treasure that belongs to all the people, that the environmental restoration, we have to condition their release on assurances that the State of Florida is living up to agreements it has already made. Otherwise, we risk not only wasting billions of taxpayer dollars but also further polluting the Everglades. And I commend the gentleman from Florida for agreeing to this amendment. I realize this is his district, but it is a treasure of all the American people, and I would urge support of the amendment.

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

I am here on behalf of myself, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui). The three of us represent the House on the Board of Regents the governing body of the Smithsonian; it is a great institution, something that has won worldwide acclaim for the collections, for the way in which it interprets the history of the United States as well as other parts of the world.

I rise today in support of H.R. 2195, the Smithsonian Facilities Authorization Act. As a member of the Board of Regents, I am pleased to see this bill brought to the floor today; and I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), and also the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) for recognizing the importance of a timely passage of this bill and for their efforts to expedite the bill through the Committee on House Administration.

H.R. 2195 authorizes a trust fund improvement to the Patent Office Building, most notably the courtyard enclosure. These improvements are critical steps in the renovation of the Old Patent Office Building and to reopening the historic building for the public to enjoy. And certainly ``for the public to enjoy'' is a true statement, because people coming to visit the Nation's capital put a visit to the Smithsonian on a high priority on their list of places to see.

Additionally, the bill authorizes funding for planning, design, and construction of the Pod 5 facility at Suitland. This authorization will facilitate the evolving needs of the biological research community at large.

One of the lesser-known functions of the Smithsonian is the preservation of all kind of things that are valuable to research people. We have no idea how much how much their collections are used by the research community; and, therefore, it is important that we have adequate facilities to take care of these.

H.R. 2195 provides the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution with continuous contracting authority for the Pod 5 project which will make future phasing more efficient and economically sound.

Finally, the bill recognizes the efforts of the National Museum of American History to establish Jazz Appreciation Month. Acknowledging the Smithsonian's jazz collections is important to bringing attention to our Nation's oldest and most comprehensive program in this inherently American art form.

Again, I would like to express my appreciation to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) for promptly seeing this bill through the Committee on House Administration, and I look forward to having it passed by this body.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 2660, and that I may include tabular and extraneous material.