THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Doc Contents
The purpose of the blood-related provisions in this legislation is to determine how much of an update increase may be needed to defray these costs that markedly improve the quality of our blood supply. By restoring the full inflationary update to the market basket index, Congress is providing the nation's hospitals with the means to afford new blood therapies and to ensure that patients are treated with the safest possible products.
[Page: H12496] GPO's PDF
All Americans deserve the peace of mind of safe blood and blood products, and I am pleased these provisions were included in the final Medicare relief package.
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my opinions on the Labor-HHS-Education portion of the Omnibus package.
Now that we have reached an agreement on this bill, I suggest that we take a look at what has changed from the bill that was practically a ``done deal'' in October to the piece of legislation that is before us.
While the overall funding for education has risen approximately $6.5 to $6.6 billion over FY 2000, which would be the largest increase in education funding ever, funding was cut by over $1.3 billion from the figures agreed to in the October version of the budget.
The whole Labor-HHS bill was cut approximately $2.5 billion from that agreement, so over half of the cuts to this bill come from education funding. Here is a sampling of the final funding levels for education programs in this bill: $1.2 billion for the School Renovation Initiative; funding for Head Start is at $6.2 billion, an increase of $933 million over FY 2000; $851 billion for 21st Century Community Learning Centers, an increase of $372 million; $1.62 billion for the Class Size Reduction and Teacher Assistance program; $8.8 billion for Pell Grants, which would set the maximum award at $3,750, an increase of $450 from FY 2000; and $295 million for GEAR UP, an increase of $100 million over FY 2000.
While I applaud the increases in education funding that this bill represents, I am saddened that we have chosen to cut education funding from the agreement we reached in October 2000. By leaving this important bill until the final days of the 106th Congress, we have subjected these programs to more scrutiny than other appropriations, and have chosen to cut the hopes and dreams of future generations.
Mr. Speaker, while I plan to vote in favor of this bill, I do so with a heavy heart. I only hope that this Congress is not remembered as the Grinch that stole the Christmas gift of education that our children have been waiting for all year long.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I rise mainly to state that I have some concerns about what is not in the Immigration proposal that we will vote to add in this final appropriations bill.
The proposed ``V'' nonimmigrant visitor's visa would allow the spouses and children of lawful permanent residents to live and work in the United States while they are waiting for a immigrant visa that would enable them to become permanent residents. This would make a compassionate change in the law that would unite families that have been separated by the long waiting lines for immigrant visas.
I am disappointed though that the visa would only be available to spouses and children who have waited three years or longer for an immigrant visa. The United States government does not benefit from keeping these families apart for three years, and it would work a great hardship on the people in these families.
The bill also provides relief for some other applicants for visas. For the next three years, it would establish a waiver of certain grounds of inadmissibility for individuals who are otherwise qualified for a ``V'' or ``K'' visa and who are already physically present in the United States. The waiver would apply to inadmissibility on account of prior unlawful entry or for overstaying as a visitor for more than six months.
Once again, I welcome a compassionate change in the law, and once again, I am concerned that the change would not go far enough. The waiver only applies to people who are already physically present in the United States. Those bars to admissibility would continue to separate the families whose foreign members are identically situated in every respect except that they are outside of the United States.
This bill also has a ``late amnesty fix'' which would provide assistance for people who were wrongly prevented from applying for amnesty under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. This is good start, but it still misses the mark Mr. Chairman.
Many of the late amnesty applicants already have a court ordered right to apply for amnesty. We need to do more. We need to change the registry date.
The ``registry'' provision gives long-time foreign residents who have been here without proper documents an opportunity to adjust to permanent status if they have nothing in their background that would disqualify them from immigrant status. The registry date is currently set at 1972.
The majority of immigrants who would benefit from updating the registry date are the late amnesty applicants, but a change in the registry date also would help other deserving groups such as the 15,000 Liberian nationals in this country who came to the United States ten years ago because of the civil unrest in Liberia. The situation of the Liberians is typical of the long time residents of this country who would benefit from a change in the registry date. They have had children who are citizens of the United States, purchased homes, and become upstanding members of American communities. They have fully assimilated into our society.
If the registry date is not changed, thousands of people will be forced to abandon their homes, will have to separate from their families, move out of their communities, be removed from their jobs, and return to countries where they no longer have ties.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the bill before us would add an additional $35 billion to Medicare's budget over the next five years. As you may recall, the principle reason I voted against the 1997 Balanced Budget Agreement (BBA) was my concern that the budget restraints on the Medicare budget included in that bill were unsustainable. That has proven to be the case and that is why we are moving forward with legislation to add money to the Medicare budget.
I have cosponsored legislation that would add billions of dollars to Medicare, and I was pleased to vote for this legislation when it was before the House a few months ago. I am glad that this bill will also increase spending on Medicare+Choice HMOs. I have heard from many of my constituents who are enrolled in these plans and who have become increasingly concerned about the availability of these plans in their communities. This funding will help ensure that these plans remain available to seniors. Given the opportunity to vote separately on this additional Medicare funding, I would again vote in favor of it.
While I am very supportive of this additional funding for Medicare and have recently voted in favor of this added funding, I am disappointed that Congressional leaders and President Clinton have chosen to lump this provision into a single catchall omnibus bill with hundreds of billions of dollars in spending and a various unrelated legislative provisions. This omnibus bill was just finalized earlier this morning and no one member of Congress is quite sure what is in the bill.
We do know of several things that are in the bill. Some of these are troubling. I understand that the omnibus bill would provide a 26 percent increase in funding for programs funded under the Labor, Health and Human Services (Labor/HHS) Appropriations bill, increasing funding from $85 billion in fiscal year 2000 to over $111 billion in 2001. This will result in additional spending of at least $180 billion over the next ten years for these programs. I also understand that this bill may have several hundred million dollars in last minute pork barrel spending. I am concerned that spending this money here will make it more difficult to find the money needed to pay for Medicare prescription drugs plans, a tax deduction for health insurance and long-term care insurance, and other important initiatives.
Also, dropped from the bill is a provision that was adopted by the Senate and supported by the House on a 250-170 vote. This provision would have prohibited taxpayer funding from being used to provide the morning after abortion pill to school age children at school based health clinics. Without this provision, federally funded school clinics will be able to distribute morning after abortion pills to 12 and 15 year old children without their parents permission. This undermines the rights of parents and should not be allowed to continue. It will also foster promiscuity among teenagers and contribute to the rapid progression of sexually transmitted diseases among teenagers. It was wrong to drop this provision due to President Clinton's objections.
This bill also creates a new federal school construction program but does so in a way that will force school construction in Florida to increase between 15 and 30 percent. President Clinton insisted that Florida school construction projects funded under this program be subject to the more expensive Davis-Bacon, prevailing union wa ge requirem ents. This means that the taxpayers will get 15 to 30 percent fewer classrooms for the same amount of money. I believe that if the federal government is going to return tax dollars to Florida, the people of Florida should determine what rules will apply to school construction. I could not in good conscience agree to the creation of a new federal government program under these conditions.
I am also very troubled that the bill before us would cut national defense spending by $500 million from what was recently enacted into law. Defense spending is being cut to fund Labor/HHS programs at a time when our military leaders tell us they do not have enough money to meet their demands and provide adequate training to our men and women in uniform.
I am sure that over the next few weeks we will discover additional objectionable provisions in this bill. It is for the reasons listed above that I rise in opposition to this bill.
Ms. DELAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill, and I want to thank Chairman YOUNG, Mr. OBEY, and Chairman PORTER for their tireless work in getting us, finally, to this
[Page: H12497] GPO's PDF
Because we worked together, this bill will make the largest single investment in education in a generation, helping reduce class size with funds to renovate and repair 3,500 schools and to hire 8,000 new teachers. And it will help prepare those teachers with a more than 50 percent increase in funding for teacher training. These are important steps toward strengthening America's public schools and make every classroom a place of learning and discipline.
Child care also receives a tremendous boost with a 70 percent increase in the Child Care Development Block grant program. By lifting funding to $2 billion, more families will have access to high quality, affordable child care. How much more information do we need about the critical zero to five years of a child's life before we ensure that EVERY child in America will learn and grow in an enriching child care environment. By supporting child care in America--and by providing a nearly $1 billion increase for Head Start--we help ensure that every child in America gets the right start in life.
The bill before us will also support a number of organizations in my district that help to make our community stronger and more caring. I am particularly grateful that the Committee chose to support the efforts of Connecticut Children's Hospice, which provides much needed help and care to families and their children in very difficult and tragic times.
And because of a bipartisan commitment to health research, this bill keeps us on track to doubling research at the National Institutes of Health with a 14 percent increase this year. That is a tribute to the members of the subcommittee, and particularly, to our chairman, JOHN PORTER. He leaves behind a great legacy, and I thank him.
We should be proud of the achievements in this bill, but a great deal of work remains. Even with this record investment, too many children and families will not have access to high quality child care. Medical research into chronic disease remains underfunded. Bipartisan legislation to support school modernization efforts with construction bonds should be on this floor. Yet I am pleased with the progress we have made, and I will support the bill. It represents progress, but we can, and should, do more.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I concur with the remarks of the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. BLILEY, concerning title II of H.R. 5660, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act.
It is my understanding as well that nothing in title II of the bill would: Authorize any bank or similar institution to engage in any activity or transaction, or hold any asset, that the institution is not authorized to engage in or hold under its chartering or authorizing statute; authorize depository institutions either to take delivery of equity securities under a security futures product or under any other circumstance, or otherwise to invest in any equity security, otherwise prohibited for depository institutions; and allow a depository institution to use single stock futures to circumvent restrictions in the law on ownership of equity securities under its chartering or authorizing statute.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 5660, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, despite the curious process that produced this final version of the bill. The critical investor protection and market integrity provisions approved overwhelmingly by the House in October remain intact, making it possible for many Democrats to support this important legislation.
The fundamental purposes of this bill are to modernize the regulation of our futures markets, to provide legal certainty for the over-the-counter derivatives market, and to authorize the trading of security futures products, consistent with maintaining the innovation, efficiency, transparency, honesty, and integrity of these vital markets.
Title I on commodity futures modernization places greater responsibility on contract markets and execution facilities to regulate themselves and their members. However, the CFTC is charged with supervising the exercise of this self-regulatory power in order to assure that it is used effectively to fulfill the responsibilities assigned to these organizations and that it is not used in a manner inimical to the public interest. The Congress intends that the CFTC use its oversight and enforcement powers to correct self-regulatory lapses where they occur. Although self-regulation has not always performed up to expectations, on the whole it has worked well, and we believe it should be preserved and strengthened under strong CFTC oversight.
Title II creates a coordinated regulatory structure for SEC and CFTC regulation of securities-based futures. I have significant reservations about the efficacy and wisdom of single stock futures. These products will most likely be used by day traders and other speculators and raise concerns about excessive speculation and excessive volatility in the underlying securities markets. However, this legislation provides a strong framework for the prudential regulation of these products. We intend a high degree of cooperation and coordination between the SEC and CFTC. With respect to volatility, this bill provides that single stock futures are subject to the same rules that cover other securities, including circuit breakers and market emergency rules. With respect to excessive speculation and leverage, the bill requires that margin treatment of stock futures must be consistent with the margin treatment for comparable exchange-traded options. This ensures that margin levels will not be set dangerously low and that stock futures will not have an unfair competitive advantage vis-a-vis stock options. Most importantly, single stock futures are subjected by this bill to protections to curb the potential for market manipulation, insider trading, and other fraudulent schemes. We expect these requirements to be vigorously enforced for the protection of investors and to maintain the integrity and efficiency of these markets.
One of the most important provisions of the bill, Title III, gives the SEC antifraud authority over securities-based swap agreements. By authorizing the SEC to apply Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to these swap agreements, the bill provides important additional protections to the vital and dynamic markets for these instruments. In extending these protections, the bill explicitly makes rules adopted under Section 10(b) to address fraud, manipulation, or insider trading applicable to securities-based swap agreements. Thus, the antifraud rules currently in existence--and those needed in the future--apply to such swap agreements to the same extent that they apply to securities. This permits the SEC to use its tested methods to enhance the protection in theses markets and to respond as necessary to developments in the future. The bill also explicitly makes judicial precedent relating to Section 10(b), as well as Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, applicable to securities-based swaps, to the same extent as it applies to securities. Thus, for example, cases establishing theories of liability and private rights of actions will apply directly to securities-based swaps.
Section 4b is the principal antifraud provision of the Commodity Exchange Act. It is the intent of Congress in retaining Section 4b in this bill that the provision be given its broadest reading for the protection of investors and these markets. Thus, Section 4b provides the CFTC with broad authority to police fraudulent conduct within its jurisdiction, whether the transactions are directly with customers or involve a traditional broker-client relationship, whether occurring in boiler rooms and bucket shops, or in the e-commerce markets that will develop under this new statutory framework.
The purpose of Title IV of this bill is clear: to clarify what is already the current state of the law that the CFTC does not regulate the traditional array of products that banks have been offering for years, or in the words of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley statute, identified--banking products. These products are deposit accounts, savings accounts, CDs, banker's acceptances, letters of credit, loans, credit card accounts, and loan participation.
The language of Title IV is very tightly worded. Title IV requires that, to obtain this bill's exclusion, a bank must first obtain a certification from its regulator that the identified banking product was commonly offered by that bank prior to December 5, 2000. This means that the product was actively bought, sold, purchased or offered--not just a customized deal that the bank may have done for a handful of clients. Also, the product cannot be a product that was either prohibited by the Commodity Exchange Act or regulated by the CFTC.
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Doc Contents