Ralph Regula

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. 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. REGULA

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

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

Mr. REGULA. 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. REGULA. 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. REGULA. 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. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. 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. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. 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. REGULA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. REGULA. 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. REGULA. 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. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve my time.

Mr. REGULA. 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. REGULA. 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.