Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole of H.R. 3010 pursuant to House Resolution 337, notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no further amendment to the bill, as amended, may be offered except pro forma amendments offered at any point in the reading by the chairman or ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their designees for the purpose of debate, the additional amendments specified in this order, and amendments en bloc specified in this order; it shall be in order at any time for the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations or a designee, after consultation with the ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations, to offer amendments en bloc as follows: Amendments en bloc shall consist of amendments that may be offered under this order, or germane modifications of any such amendment; such amendments en bloc shall be considered as read, except that modifications shall be reported, shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their designees, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole; all points of order against such amendments en bloc are waived; the original proponent of an amendment included in such amendments en bloc may insert a statement in the Congressional Record immediately before the disposition of the amendments en bloc.

The additional amendments specified in this order are as follows:

amendments printed in the Congressional Record and numbered 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 24;

an amendment by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) regarding coverage of certain drugs;

an amendment by the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) regarding enforcement of certain compliance agreements;

an amendment by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) regarding grants under the Public Health Service Act;

an amendment by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) regarding designations of critical access hospitals;

an amendment by the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) regarding certain appointments to Federal advisory committees;

an amendment by the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) regarding United Airline pension plans;

an amendment by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) regarding the content or distribution of public telecommunications programs and services under the Communications Act of 1934;

an amendment by the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda) regarding military recruiters;

an amendment by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) regarding funding levels and income tax rates;

an amendment by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) regarding special allowances under the Higher Education Act;

an amendment by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) regarding interoperable information technology;

an amendment by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) regarding funding for the Medicaid Commission;

amendments by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) regarding veterans programs of the Department of Labor, LIHEAP, section 503 of H.R. 3010, or a limitation on the use of certain education funds; and

an amendment by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) regarding funding for certain education programs.

Each additional amendment may be offered only by the Member named in this request or a designee, or by the Member who caused it to be printed in the Record or a designee, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment except that the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations and the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies each may offer one pro forma amendment for the purpose of debate; and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole; and an amendment shall be considered to fit the description stated in this request if it addresses in whole or in part the object described.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jindal).

Yes. I thank the gentleman for bringing this important issue to my attention and to the attention of the House of Representatives.

I agree that the quality of health care in rural America is an important issue. And regrettably in a tight fiscal environment, some reductions have been made to rural health care programs. I look forward to working with the gentleman to help find funding streams from which to draw from to help improve the technology available to patients of health care providers in rural America.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Speaker, our chaplain today is the Reverend Dr. Richard LaPehn. He is a member of one of the first families of Ohio, tracing his heritage prior to 1800. And Ohio became a State, of course, in 1803. His parents, Donald and Rebecca, are both natives of Iowa, veterans of World War II, and after a career as a CPA and a homemaker, respectively, now live in Florida. His wife, Laura Miles LaPehn, is a national board certified teacher employed as an educator in Barberton, OH. Mrs. LaPehn is the daughter of Carl and Sharon Miles, a retired engineering executive and his wife a homemaker who both reside in Indianapolis, IN. Richard and Laura are the proud parents of two daughters, Samantha and Allison. Fortunately, the family is in the gallery today.

Reverend Dr. LaPehn serves as pastor to the very kind and caring members of the Milton Presbyterian Church. In addition, he serves the growing city of Rittman, OH, which, of course, is in the 16th District, as a member of the city council. That is kind of unusual for a pastor of a church to also be a member of a city council. It is my pleasure today to welcome our guest chaplain to the House.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 27, the Job Training Improvement Act of 2005. I would like to recognize the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) for their leadership and tireless efforts in bringing this bill to the House floor.

Hard-working families in my district who have been laid off rely on programs like the One-Stop workforce development system, which helps States and communities ensure workers to get the training they need to find good jobs. I like to call the One-Stops ``hope centers'' because they provide hope to people seeking gainful employment.

For example, my constituent, Jeff Ring, who after 24 years of employment as a steelworker, was laid off. He is a father of three children, eight and younger. He came to the One-Stop and enrolled in training to become a registered nurse. Just last week he received his certification and will begin

working at Aultman Hospital and will be making nearly 20 percent more than his previous salary.

In another case, my constituent, Tiffany Birtalan, a single mother raising a teenager, she currently works as a waitress making $2.13 an hour plus tips. She came to the local One-Stop seeking to change careers. Tiffany is now enrolled at a community college and is training to be a dental hygienist. Based on current labor market information and the high demand for this occupation, she will easily make $25 to $30 per hour.

Every day, every day, hard-working people like Jeff and Tiffany walk through the doors of One-Stop across the country seeking assistance. We must do all we can to streamline unnecessary bureaucracy and strengthen allocations so that adequate resources are available to them achieve their hopes and dreams.

Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill, and I would urge my colleagues to support H.R. 27.

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

A United States courthouse and Federal building is a symbol of liberty and justice for all. Tony Hall's career has been marked with a lifetime of working for the goals of justice and liberty for all people. A courthouse named after Tony Hall is a fitting tribute to a life well lived. All of us in Ohio take special pride in the accomplishments of our friend and colleague, Tony Hall.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Ohio recount requested by the other party, has been completed and has been verified. In every area of Ohio, bipartisan county boards have verified the integrity of these election results. This is the true message to the world: our system works with integrity.

We keep hearing that Ohio's vote was rigged in some way. But this is not plausible when you have a system of 88 separate bipartisan county election boards. In Ohio, our boards take great pride in their administration of the election laws.

I urge the Congress to accept the votes cast today by the State of Ohio for President Bush.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4818. We have put a lot of thoughtful deliberation into these bills, and we are pleased to get this job done. By taking into consideration the priorities of the President and the Members of this House, we have produced a bill that meets the needs of all Americans, 280 million. Let me share with you the funding we have provided in a few of the programs in the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education appropriations bill. I might say there are 500 programs in that bill, but I think there are some worth highlighting.

First is education. It is essential to the preservation of democracy, and an investment in education is an investment in people. Mr. Speaker, Federal education spending has more than doubled since fiscal year 1996, from $23 billion to nearly $57 billion today. The bill supports teachers and students by increasing funding for title I by $500 million. Title I provides additional resources to low-income schools to help principals, teachers and students close education achievement gaps.

Yesterday, we voted to reauthorize IDEA. Many of my colleagues speak with me about the financial demands of special education and the needs of the children in their local school districts. We hear from parents about the need to support adequate special education funding to ensure their special needs children receive a quality education. In this bill, funding for special education totals over $11 billion, a $607 million increase over fiscal year 2004, a 380 percent increase since 1996.

Secondly, health care is a critical part of our Nation's economic development. To assist in protecting the health of all Americans and provide essential human services, the bill provides the Department of Health and Human Services over $64 billion for fiscal year 2005. Mr. Speaker, similar to the Department of Education, we have more than doubled funding for health and human services since fiscal year 1996.

Funding for NIH, that is the place where they do the research on health needs, is increased by $800 million, bringing its total budget to $28.6 billion. As a result of our commitment to the National Institutes of Health, our citizens are living longer and better lives.

Health centers operating at the community level provide regular access to high-quality, family-oriented comprehensive primary and preventive health care, regardless of ability to pay, and improve the health status of underserved populations living in inner city and rural areas. By the end of fiscal year 2004, it is estimated that these facilities around the country will have served more than 13 million patients. Funding is increased in this bill.

Children's hospitals are the training grounds for pediatricians and pediatric specialists. Again, $303 million to educate these people to serve the children of this Nation.

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

The bill also includes $21 million for a Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program to operate employment programs that reach out to our homeless veterans.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and I certainly want to compliment the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner) and the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) for producing a good bill.

In our committee, we hear a lot of testimony from parents and educators about the importance of this legislation, of these programs, and we have done everything possible to increase the funding each year to ensure that every student that has a need gets a quality experience in the IDEA program.

One of the things that this bill strengthens is those features along with giving greater choice and control to parents and local school districts, and, therefore, it will ensure that we do meet the goal of recognizing the need of every student and respond to the educators and parents that testify in my committee about the importance of this to their child and to their school.

I compliment them again, all the Members that participated in the conference committee, for producing a good bill that we can all take pride in.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a committed soldier and citizen from the 16th District of Ohio who died protecting our Nation. Private First Class Ryan Martin died when a bomb exploded while he was on a mine clearing mission with the 216th Engineering Battalion of the Ohio National Guard.

A graduate of Mount Vernon High School and of the carpentry program at the Knox County Career Center in Mount Vernon, Ohio, Pfc. Martin enjoyed fishing and working on cars and had a tremendous sense of humor. After his tour, he planned to either operate heavy equipment or help his father on the family farm.

Pfc. Ryan acted as vital part of his unit in Iraq, often volunteering for dangerous missions. His bravery and service were an inspiration to his fellow soldiers and to us all. Ryan embodied all that is great about our Nation. Without young men and women like him, our Nation would fall.

I send my most heartfelt prayers and sympathies to his family and friends. I pray for the homecoming of all of our service men and women and remember them as they continue to defend our freedom at home and abroad.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to acknowledge Devin Grella, a constituent from the 16th District of Ohio, who sacrificed his life fighting for our country. Private First Class Devin Grella of the 706th Transportation Company of the Army Reserve died when incendiaries exploded near his convoy.

A graduate of Medina High School, Pfc Grella was an Eagle Scout in Boy Scout Troop 503 and was active in choir and athletics, participating in both cross-country and lacrosse. Everyone who knew him regarded him as a happy, gentle, and caring man. After his term of service, he planned to go to college in Utah and join ROTC in order to become an officer.

This exceptional young man exhibited valor and a commitment to serving our country. Without people of Pfc Grella's quality, the Nation would fail to carry out its task as a protector of freedom.

My deepest sympathy and prayers are extended to his family and friends who are now in mourning. I pray for the safety of our servicemen and women and thank them for their dedication to the defense of our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material, and that I may include tabular material on the same, during the further consideration of H.R. 5006, making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes.

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

Mr. Chairman, well, we are getting down to a close on this, and I think the fact that most of our speakers have been from the Committee on Education and Workforce illustrates the fact that this is a legislative issue that ought to be debated and dealt with there, but, in reality, it is before us.

But I want to just simply point out a few facts, and I hope that those of our colleagues who are listening will keep this in mind. That is that in the opinion of the Solicitor from the Department of Labor, if we pass this amendment, it will preclude the Department of Labor from enforcing regulations. That means that every employee that wants to get overtime will have to do it on their own. It would be a bonanza for the legal profession, because they would be filing lawsuit after lawsuit to claim their overtime, alleged overtime, rights. So that is fact number 1.

Fact number 2, the allegation is that we would go back to the old regulations, but the truth of the matter is, they are gone. Therefore, the Obey amendment covers those people under $23,600. But anyone over that amount, which is about 34 million workers, would have no coverage. Now, they can say, oh, yes, the old regulations would be put in place, and even if the Secretary of Labor were to attempt to do that, it would be subject to the rulemaking requirements, the rulemaking process, because the law requires that. And it took 2 years to do the new regulations, and, therefore, it would take at least 2 years to put back in place the old regulations.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think that is an opinion that would be subject to legal action. But I think, in my judgment, as I understand this, once the new regulations were put in place, the old ones are gone, and, therefore, to put the old ones back in place will require a new round of the rulemaking process. So you have employees over $23,600 who are without coverage for a period of 2 years. They would have to try to enforce whatever might be perceived as overtime.

Would the gentleman from Wisconsin admit that he precludes the Department of Labor from enforcing these regulations, but that does not mean that they will, and they may do nothing, if the Obey amendment passes?

That is the CRS's opinion, and we would have to clarify that.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think the gentleman makes the point very clear.

I would say to my colleagues, when you vote on this, keep in mind that you are putting 34 million workers at risk who may end up with no coverage for as much as 2 years under the requirement of the rulemaking process to put anything back in place for these rules.

I want to make one other point, and that is that it has been raised that we had a motion to instruct. Keep in mind that when the motion to instruct, when many Members voted for it was when the old rules were still in place, and the motion to instruct would have allowed, had it actually been consummated, would have allowed the old rules to be enforced, but they are gone. They are gone. Therefore, there would not be anything out there if we take away the Department's authority, which is being proposed by this amendment.

So I have to reiterate that we are running a great risk that in passing this amendment, if it were to become law, that 34 million workers will be on their own.

Let me make a couple of other points, and that is, under the proposal of the Department of Labor, contracts can cover any matters of overtime rules. They can be put into union contracts, and it would supersede any departmental regulations. So any way we look at it, we are not doing people a favor by voting for this. I think, in fact, we are putting their overtime very much in jeopardy, and I hope my colleagues will consider that as they vote on this issue and on this proposed amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Speaker, in the interests of expediting the rest of the afternoon and getting people out at a reasonable time, I ask unanimous consent that during further consideration of H.R. 5006 in the Committee of the Whole, pursuant to House Resolution 754, no further amendment to the bill may be offered except:

Pro forma amendments offered at any point by the chairman or ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their designees for the purpose of debate;

Amendments 1 and 2;

Amendment 6, which shall be debatable for 30 minutes;

An amendment by Mr. Stark regarding Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which shall be debatable for 20 minutes;

An amendment by Mr. Neugebauer regarding NIMH gants;

An amendment by Mr. Hayworth regarding totalization agreements with Mexico, which shall be debatable for 30 minutes;

An amendment by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey regarding participation by Federal employees in conferences;

An amendment by Mr. Oberstar regarding fatal chronic illness;

An amendment by Mr. Ramstad regarding SAMHSA;

An amendment by Mr. Brown of Ohio regarding Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services;

An amendment by Mrs. Wilson of New Mexico regarding Head Start;

An amendment by Mr. King of Iowa regarding section 505 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Responsibility Act;

An amendment by Mr. John regarding mosquito control;

An amendment by Mr. Kildee regarding education funding, which shall be debatable for 20 minutes; and

An amendment by Ms. Bordallo regarding Medicaid funding.

Each such amendment may be offered only by the Member named in this request or a designee, or the Member who caused it to be printed in the Record or a designee, shall be considered as read, shall not be subject to amendment, except pro forma amendments offered by the chairman or ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their designees for the purpose of debate, and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.

Except as otherwise specified, each amendment shall be debatable for 10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. An amendment shall be considered to fit the description stated in this request if it addresses in whole or in part the object described.

No, I am not. I am going to support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to rise in support of the amendment. The decision on sovereignty will not be made today, it was made a couple hundred years ago when our forefathers decided they wanted to take these lands, and in the process they granted the Indian tribes sovereignty.

Sovereignty is the issue, and the gentleman's amendment does respect the sovereignty of the tribes that they received in the early years of this Nation.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would forbid the use of CMS funds to administer the undocumented alien program funded in last year's Medicare Modernization bill. I am reluctant to get into this debate because it is the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and last year's Medicare bill included funding for this new program intended to provide relief to hospitals in jurisdictions with large numbers of undocumented aliens.

I think the goal here might be to prevent these undocumented aliens from having health care, but the truth of the matter is the hospitals are going to pay the price. They are not going to turn anybody away that comes to the door that needs medical treatment. And if they cannot get reimbursed from CMS, they are going to have to eat it. The hospitals have to do a lot of this as it is with charity patients and so on, and I do not think it is fair to use an amendment like this to put an additional burden on hospitals. While it may seem to preclude undocumented aliens from getting health care, the truth is they are going to get it, and instead of being reimbursed, the hospitals are going to have to eat it and, in effect, pass it on to the rest of their clients.

This was defeated as a proposal to overturn the program by 331-88 last May on H.R. 3722. I understand the feelings of the gentleman from Colorado, but the truth of the matter is I do not think it is a burden we want to shove off on hospitals, and they already have enough outlays for charity patients, for charity work, and let us not add one more set of problems to them.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve a point of order, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I am not sure I understand the objective of this amendment, reducing the Office of the Secretary by $84,500 in general departmental management. Here we are talking about a Department with a $60 billion, $60 billion, budget, and to manage that Department efficiently and effectively, we gave a reasonable amount in the bill. And I think it would be a great mistake because the programs that are part of Health and Human Services are very important to people, and if we start debilitating the ability of the Office of the Secretary to manage these agencies well and these programs well, we are not hurting the head of the agency, we are hurting the people who would be benefiting from the programs.

And for this reason I think it is a big mistake, because already, in constructing a bill and because of the constraints, we had a limited amount of additional funding under the Budget Act, and it would be a serious mistake to constrain them even more. And to penalize the Department for a mistake by Tom Scully, and he is no longer there, is not right. It is penalizing the people, tens of thousands of people, that benefit tremendously from the Health and Human Services programs, and to in any way erode the ability to manage these programs on behalf of people I think is a big mistake. And I would, therefore, be strongly in opposition to this proposal.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I am a little baffled by this, because there is nothing in this bill to establish the universal mental health screening. I do not know what the need for the amendment is. I understand what the concern of the gentleman is if this were the case, but we do not have it. There is no requirement, there is no money, there is no action.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I guess you might call this preventive medicine.

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

Mr. Chairman, I think it is a little inflammatory. You do have a lot of people who for, one reason or another, maybe family members, maybe in their own case, they do have problems. I think, in a way, to pass an amendment of this type is sort of putting our thumb in their eye or sort of saying, hey, we do not want any part of this.

What the commission did in their report is say this is a problem we need to be thinking about, that we need to address. But I think it is premature, and it is unfair in a way to identify a segment of the population and say under no circumstances are you going to get any help.

For this reason, I would have to oppose the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out that this is the President's new Freedom Commission on Mental Health, and it is titled, ``Achieving the Promise. Transforming Mental Health Care in America.'' But nowhere in this report does it propose universal mental health screening.

So this amendment is totally unnecessary, and I think it is almost a slap in the face to people that have some difficult problems. Therefore, I would be strongly in opposition to it.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy), a member of our subcommittee.

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I would point out that the gentleman that just spoke is a member of the authorizing committee with jurisdiction, and, therefore, this ought to be handled there.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it is a violation of section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. The Committee on Appropriations filed a suballocation of budget totals for fiscal year 2005 on July 22, 2004, House Report 108-633. This amendment would provide new budget authority in excess of the suballocation made under section 302(b) and is not permitted under section 302(f) of the act.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

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

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman for his concern. We have the same concern in the subcommittee. We have put lots of money in the State grants. We have put $100 million in this program. I think it is important that we prove the efficacy of it, give the agency a chance to demonstrate that it will work.

But in the meantime, we are constrained by parliamentary rules, and under the parliamentary requirements, this does require some additional expenditure.

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

Mr. Chairman, the authorization for this program has not been signed into law. The amendment, therefore, violates clause 2 of Rule XXI, and I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I understand my colleague's concern about international travel. I think that Secretary Thompson has done a good job of trying to get guidelines established in the agency. William Steiger, who is the son of one of our former highly respected House colleagues, is a point person in the agency. They are reviewing their travel requirements.

I am not going to object to the amendment, but I think that Secretary Thompson is very much aware of this problem, and I think he will address it certainly in the way in which he administers the Department. He has done a superb job in handling a very difficult agency in HHS. There may be special occasions when it requires more than 50, particularly when many of these meetings are in Canada.

But in any event, we will address this as we go along, and we are not going to object to it today.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.

I am not going to oppose this in a vote because the grants are over. They have been completed. The amendment does not have any impact, in essence; but I think the gentleman is trying to make a point that they ought to be cautious about what type of grants they fund.

I would point out that NIH funds almost 40,000 grants annually; and, obviously, when you look at 40,000, you can find a couple that you might have some question about the efficacy of those particular grants, but on the other hand, I would not want to get our committee or this body in the position of trying to monitor or to be in the decision- making process on what grants are funded.

We have very capable people at NIH. It is peer-reviewed by physicians, by people who are very knowledgeable on

the subject; and the objective of many of these grants is ultimately in good faith to, in some way, improve the health conditions. But given the fact that they are over with, I am not going to object to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to reserve a point of order. I understand that the plan is to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, although I will not oppose the amendment.

It is my understanding this is a State issue, but that we are prepared to accept it because the Department of Education is in compliance. They are not doing anything to violate the section 505.

I do not think it is necessary we have this. It really is something the States deal with in the funding of their higher education programs. So under those circumstances, we are prepared to accept the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman's concern. We have the same concern, and we will do as much as we can in conference. This is a serious problem, and we have put $42 million in CDC to combat West Nile virus, which is an increase over last year, but more needs to be done.

I commend the gentleman for bringing this issue to our attention. And as I understand, the gentleman is going to withdraw his amendment, but we will be sensitive to it.

Mr. Chairman, I might say for the benefit of Members that are watching, I believe this is the last amendment, so we should be able to wrap up here pretty fast, for those who have planes or whatever.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

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

Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank the gentleman for his cooperation. It really has been a team effort in many ways, and I think this bill does reflect, maybe not in total numbers of dollars, but certainly in terms of what we had available, I think we have reflected the Members' priorities pretty well across the board, both sides of the aisle, and we have tried to reflect the needs of the American people.

I think the bill is very fair. It is very well balanced. We have had the support of the minority in the subcommittee and the full committee that reflects that. Obviously, many would like to have more money, but we have to work with what we have. And given what was available, I think we worked together to produce a very responsible bill, so I would urge all of our Members to support this bill on final passage.

I think the membership can point to it with satisfaction; maybe not with complete agreement, but satisfaction that it reflects as well as possible the aspirations and priorities of Members given the amount of money that was available to us through the budget process.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Hayworth

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. I want to highlight some of the positive things about this bill.

This bill distributes over $142.5 billion, and it does things for people. It is aimed at helping people, and I think we can be proud as a Congress for what we are doing here. It funds over 500 discretionary programs, and every one of those programs is important to people in this Nation. But, importantly, also, it stays within the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation and the constraints that were established in the budget resolution. It would be easy to go over because these programs are something that are very sensitive, but I think we have tried very hard, and we had a bipartisan effort in the subcommittee, to meet the needs and aspirations without exceeding the budget.

We did this with a lot of hearings, 23 days of hearings. We heard from 33 different agencies, and we had over 100 public witnesses. One of the things that we have done in our subcommittee is give the public an opportunity to be heard on how these programs affect them and what is important to them.

The bill only goes up a little over 2 percent above last year's level, and obviously we had to make some very tough priority choices in order to stay within the constraints of the budget resolution which gave us a little bit over 2 percent.

A policy decision we made was to focus on education, and we put $342 million more into education programs than was requested in the President's budget. The bill reflects the priorities of Members of the House. For example, the original budget proposed to cut vocational education State grants by $200 million. We not only restored the $200 million, but added $20 million above last year because we recognized that vocational education is extremely important as people need to have training and retraining. We think of vocational education as only at the high school level, but we have a lot of adult education programs that give individuals an opportunity to get skills for new job opportunities that come their way.

We increase the funding for student aid in higher education in certain areas not requested by the administration, and we restored other programs that were proposed for termination. I think overall the bill reflects the priorities of the Members of this House on both sides of the aisle in the field of education. Obviously, it would be nice to have a lot more, but we have to work within the constraints of the budget.

An area of great interest to our Members is special education, IDEA, and we added a billion dollars to this program above last year that brings the total to over $11 billion. In Title I, we added a billion dollars over last year for a total of $13.3 billion. In addition to aid to education, this bill expands funding for training and adjustment services for workers that are dislocated due to plant closures and mass layoffs. It reflects the fact that we have somewhat of a changing mix of the employment opportunities in our society.

This bill also provides $50 million for the President's new Community College/Community-Based Job Training Initiative. These types of institutions, because they are sort of a hands-on opportunity, have provided a lot of great help to people. I know in my own district we have a vocational or trade school that is post-high school 2 years. It offers skills in about 45 different curricula offerings, and enrollments just leaped to a very high level, and the important thing is that they have an excellent record in placing their graduates, their 2-year graduates, in jobs. So we want to support that type of thing in this bill.

Another area that is of interest to people are the community health centers, because it keeps people out of

emergency rooms that really need that access. It provides medical help to the people that are without means. I think expansion of the community health center service is very important. We support the proposal of the President in his budget.

Through NIH, we support medical research. This is an agency that gives hope to people, hope that there will be a cure. I think the measure of the success is testimony by Dr. Zerhouni that every 5 years life expectancy goes up a year in the United States. That is a tremendous record. We try to continue the support. We have more than doubled NIH in the last 5 years, and we added $700 million to this year's bill.

Also we recognize that preparedness is very important in today's world of terrorism and uncertainty, so we have given the Federal, State and local public health officials the ability to respond to terrorism, to meet whatever emergencies arise in the public health system. One of the things that has been our goal is to make the whole public health system seamless, starting with the Centers for Disease Control and with the State public health and the local public health, so the ability to communicate when there is an emergency is done almost instantly. Secretary Thompson has given great leadership, I think, in focusing an information center in HHS that allows a quick response whenever there is a critical problem. Because of the importance of all this, we added $188 million above the 2004 level.

We added $398 million to the Centers for Disease Control. Because we have a freer flow of people around the world: SARS, the West Nile virus, hepatitis, influenza, and other emerging global disease threats. And the watchdog, the protection for all of us, is done effectively by the Centers for Disease Control. They are on the cutting edge. Recognizing that, we put an increase in $29 million over 2004 to deal with some of these threats to all of us.

I could say a lot more about the bill and will in the general debate, but I think overall the bill, given the constraints that we had in terms of the allocation, we have done a fair job. I think fair in the sense that it reflects not a partisan outlook, but reflects the feeling of the members of the subcommittee and the full committee and the Members of this House, many of whom testified on various things. We tried to make a balanced bill that would give the best possible service to the American people in terms of their education, in terms of their health, job retraining, and basically I suppose one could describe this bill as the epitome of hope. It gives hope that there will be cures found by NIH, hope that people will get new skills so they can be reemployed, and hope that their children will have better education opportunities than they have, and we have tried to respond to that desire on the part of the American people.

I urge Members to support this rule and to support the bill when we get to it. I think it is a fair and balanced approach to the challenges that confronted our subcommittee.