Ralph Regula

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. 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.

Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia. (Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

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

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

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

Mr. REGULA. 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. REGULA. 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.

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

Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

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

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

Mr. REGULA. 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. REGULA

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

Mr. REGULA. 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.

Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. REGULA. 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?

Mr. REGULA. That is the CRS's opinion, and we would have to clarify that. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

Mr. REGULA. 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. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. 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. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. 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.