[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 101 (Thursday, July 10, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H6470-H6535]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simmons). Pursuant to House Resolution 
312 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of 
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
bill, H.R. 2660.

                              {time}  1046


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of 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 Mr. 
LaTourette in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, July 9, 2003, the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey) each will control 1\1/2\ hours.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula).
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Many of my colleagues have asked, will we finish today, and I can 
only answer that by saying we can if everybody works at it, and if we 
do not get too many delays, I think we can get this bill done in good 
time.
  The Constitution says that the objective of government, or at least 
this is what we interpret it to be, is twofold. One is to provide for 
the common defense, and we did that earlier this week; we provided for 
the common defense. The other is to provide for the common welfare of 
the people, 280 million Americans. Today, in this bill, we have a 
unique and, I think, very good opportunity to achieve that goal. Maybe 
not perfectly, but certainly a lot of very positive things are in this 
bill.
  First of all, I want to say that the members of the subcommittee were 
all very cooperative, all very helpful. We worked together in the 
subcommittee listening to a lot of testimony. We tried to put together 
a bill that represents the aspirations of the American people, not 
totally to the satisfaction of everyone, but certainly I think one that 
covers a lot of very positive parts. I also want to commend the staff 
members of both the minority and the majority. We have an excellent 
staff on this subcommittee; and if it were not for their effort, we 
would not be here today.
  I am pleased to present before the House today the fiscal year 2004 
appropriations bill for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human 
Services, Education, and Related Agencies. When we reflect on that, we 
think of the broad jurisdiction and responsibility which that entails: 
Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies.
  In crafting this bill, we have taken into consideration the 
priorities of the President, as well as the Members of the House. We 
have been attentive to the priorities of Congress as set by the budget 
resolution, and we are appreciative of the work of the leaders of the 
House and the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), in

[[Page H6471]]

working with the administration to develop a workable allocation for 
this bill.
  My colleagues on the subcommittee know that I call our subcommittee 
the Love Your Neighbor Committee, because it provides the funding that 
touches so many lives and provides a helping hand to those in need in 
this great country. There would not be one American that is not 
affected by what is in this bill in some part, whether it is education, 
whether it is health care, whether it is retraining for a new job--a 
whole host of good things that are done in this piece of legislation.
  The bill provides $138 billion in discretionary budget authority. 
This represents a 2.7 percent increase over fiscal year 2003. We have 
tried to be restrained and yet meet the needs, and this is really 
probably a little lower than the rate of inflation. The level of growth 
in the bill is commensurate with the current level of growth in our 
economy. It is a responsible and balanced bill.
  The bill focuses priority spending for education in three important 
areas, including Title I, education funding for disadvantaged children, 
special education, and reading programs. Education programs overall are 
increased by $2.3 billion over last year, for a total of $55.4 billion. 
I would point out that this means that in the last 8 years we have 
doubled what is being spent on education.
  Funding for the Department of Health and Human Services totals $61.2 
billion, including $4.55 billion for the Centers for Disease Control 
and Prevention, and we all know from the news that this is a very 
important function; and $27.664 billion for the National Institutes of 
Health to continue our research into treatments for disease.
  The Department of Labor is funded at $11.7 billion, which includes 
funding of $1.46 billion for dislocated worker assistance, and $1.5 
billion for the Job Corps program. This is a very important program. I 
just testified before the International Trade Commission that in Ohio 
alone, we lost over 90,000 manufacturing jobs in the last couple of 
years, and that retraining becomes extremely important in the lives of 
those individuals. They do not want welfare; they want jobs. They want 
an opportunity to get a new skill.
  Mr. Chairman, Federal education spending has more than doubled since 
fiscal year 1996 when our investment totaled $23 billion, to today with 
the Federal education funding reaching $55.4 billion. This funding is 
significant and we must be cautious in our funding priorities to ensure 
that these dollars go to programs most directly improving our 
children's education.
  As my colleagues know, the bill provides the funding necessary to 
implement the historic No Child Left Behind Act, which passed this 
Chamber with strong bipartisan support. The law sets high goals for 
ensuring that every child in our Nation will know how to read by the 
third grade and establishes important programs to aid in achieving this 
goal. To carry out this mission, we have provided a $666 million 
increase in Title I funding for disadvantaged children, bringing the 
total funding of title I to $12.35 billion. Together with the funding 
we are providing today and the accountability provisions included in 
the No Child Left Behind Act, these dollars can make a real difference 
in the quality of education for every child.
  I want to mention at this point that our Committee on Education and 
the Workforce is working hard to look at the laws to ensure that they 
are effective, that they work better prospectively. It is not just a 
matter of putting money into these various activities, but it is a 
matter of putting the money in and using it carefully. I think the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce deserves a lot of credit for 
trying to meet that goal.
  In addition to the Title I program, the No Child Left Behind Act 
creates new reading programs to assist school districts in meeting the 
challenge of ensuring that every child can read through scientifically 
based methods. These programs will assist parents, teachers, and school 
districts in meeting the reading challenges of our children. We provide 
over $1 billion for these programs.
  I would say one of the things that causes me concern is the dropout 
rate in our big cities. They do not start in the 9th grade or the 10th 
grade to drop out. If we are to lower the dropout rate, one of the 
elements of that is getting every child able to read. I think many 
times high school dropouts result from the fact that they have not been 
well grounded in reading, and we recognize that in our funding.
  Many of my colleagues speak to me about the financial demands of 
special education programs in their local school districts. We also 
hear from parents about the need to support adequate special education 
funding to ensure that their special needs children may receive a 
quality education. It is a wonderful thing about America; we are 
concerned for everyone, and this bill reflects that. With the inclusion 
of an additional $1 billion for special education in this bill, the 
program is now funded at nearly $10 billion. This figure represents a 
nearly 300 percent increase in the program since fiscal year 1996, 
three times as much. Clearly, we are all committed to addressing the 
needs of our children with special education needs.
  I am a believer that no child will be left behind if we can ensure 
that there is a quality teacher in every classroom in our Nation. 
Funding for Title II--Preparing, Training, and Recruiting High-Quality 
Teachers and Principals under the No Child Left Behind Act is a 
critical component to achieving this goal.
  We provide the following funding to encourage people to enter the 
field of teaching and strengthen the skills of those already there. I 
am sure if I ask the Members, all of my colleagues have had a teacher 
or maybe two or three teachers who made a difference in their lives, 
and we want to be sure that every child has a good teacher in every 
classroom.
  We include $2.93 billion for the State teacher-training block grant, 
giving the States money to improve their teacher-training programs; $90 
million for the teacher-quality enhancement grants; $150 million for 
math and science partnerships that will allow universities and local 
education agencies to partner to improve the quality of their math and 
science programs, and this really is a very critical need; $49.4 
million for the Transition to Teaching program to assist in recruiting 
mid-career professionals into the field of teaching. There are people 
out there who say, there must be more than what I am doing and they 
want to be teachers. They want to contribute. And we want to help them 
through this program.
  Mr. Chairman, there is $20 million for the Troops to Teachers 
program. For those that are not familiar with this program, we 
encourage those people in the armed services that are leaving, maybe 
they are 42 or 43 years old, and we encourage them to go into teaching 
to help fill the gaps because they have travel experience, they have 
experience in managing people, and this program has proven very 
successful. I think last year the Teacher of the Year was an individual 
who had been brought into the field as a retired member of military. So 
we encourage that program. Many of my colleagues may already know that 
First Lady Laura Bush supports the Troops to Teachers program with 
visits to our military bases to inform our troops about the opportunity 
to enter the field of teaching upon the completion of their military 
service. With maturity, training in mathematics or science, and 
assistance in appropriate courses for teaching, members of our Armed 
Forces make outstanding classroom teachers in fields where we are 
currently experiencing a teacher shortage. I might say the First Lady 
is very important in this effort because having her, when she visits 
military bases, encourage individuals to consider this is a very 
effective part of the program.
  We have restored funding to programs important to our Members, 
including the popular 21st Century Learning Communities program for 
after-school programs for students, which is funded at $1 billion, and 
for rural education at $170 million. In other words, it gives the young 
people an opportunity to acquire skills or to participate in athletics 
between the hours of 3 to 6 or 7 p.m., an opportunity to use this time 
usefully.

                              {time}  1100

  And we have strong support for this from YMCAs, Boys and Girls Clubs, 
a

[[Page H6472]]

whole host of these groups that do provide this kind of service. We 
have restored funding to programs important to our members.
  Impact Aid provides funding to school districts that have Federal 
facilities, including military facilities, within their jurisdictions 
and is increased by $50 million to $1.238 billion. We have asked our 
troops, many of them leave their families to go overseas to protect 
American interests, and I think it is essential that we give their 
children a good educational opportunity. That is what we do with Impact 
Aid and that is why the increase.
  Charter schools provide an alternative to students in failing 
schools, and we have included $220 million in charter school grants and 
$25.8 for the charter school facilities. We have funded the Head Start 
program at the President's budget request of $6.8 billion, an increase 
of $148 million. This funding level will provide for current service 
levels for the program and ensure that quality improvements and 
training elements are fully implemented. And, again, the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce is taking a look at this existing law with 
the thought of making it even better.
  Students who have no experience in higher education benefit from the 
TRIO and GEAR UP programs. These programs assist students in preparing 
for higher education through proper course selection, mentoring and 
even tutoring services. TRIO receives $835 million and GEAR UP $300 
million in the bill. What this means is that students who might not 
have thought about going on to higher education are encouraged to do so 
by others in the community. Many times volunteers will work in these 
programs. And, again, that is part of the American way of giving more 
opportunity.
  College costs continue to rise and the cost of higher education today 
continues to be an impediment to many students. Pell grants play an 
important role in helping low-income students achieve their education 
goals. A larger-than-expected demand on these grants has occurred as a 
result of our slow economy, causing many people who have previously 
been in the workforce to seek additional training in an academic 
environment, which is a very positive thing. Therefore, the bill 
continues to support a maximum Pell grant level of $4,050 while also 
including funding of $12.250 billion, an increase of $885 million over 
last year to address the shortfall in addressing the funding needs of 
students.
  There is a book that talks about how the GI Bill has made a very 
great impact on this Nation in terms of elevating educational 
opportunities and, again, this Pell grant has a similar impact. It 
gives students an opportunity who might not otherwise get a crack at a 
higher education. That does not have to be academic at the sense of a 
university college. It can be a trade school. It can be a vocational 
school, a technical institute; but it does provide opportunity for 
those at all levels of our economic scale.
  Health and Human Services. There is little more precious to each of 
us than our good health. I believe that when you have good health you 
have it all or at least a good part of it. Unfortunately, this is not 
the case for many Americans, and it is through the agencies and 
programs of the Department of Health and Human Services that we assist 
others to improve their health. I wish all of you could sit in our 
hearings and see a row of wheelchairs with people with health problems 
and hear testimony from those who have various kinds of afflictions. It 
will make you realize how fortunate you are if you have good health and 
how important it is that we, as a society, try to ensure that everybody 
has this kind of opportunity, and that is one of the things this bill 
does.
  In fiscal year 2003 we completed a 5-year effort to double the 
funding of the National Institutes of Health, and this was a bipartisan 
effort; but it made a vast improvement or vast opportunity for NIH to 
reach out much further than they would have otherwise. Through the work 
of NIH scientists and extramural scientists at universities across the 
country, we have been able to conduct important research to understand 
who we are through the Human Genome Project, how to treat once-deadly 
diseases and that many life-threatening diseases are actually 
preventable. After accounting for one-time costs for fiscal year 2003, 
NIH will have an additional $1.7 billion for medical research in this 
bill.
  One of the pieces of testimony that really stuck with me was NIH said 
that every 5 years life expectancy goes up a year. That is an enormous 
achievement when you think about it. A baby born today will have a 
possible 10 or 15 years of additional life. We hope it is a quality 
life as a result of the commitment of this body, again, a bipartisan 
commitment, to do the research, to deal with these troubling diseases 
that afflict us. I was also struck when they testified that there are 
6,000 identifiable diseases and medical conditions that can possibly 
afflict people. So you can see why it is so important that we continue 
the funding. And, basically, because we have funded building programs 
in the past, we have not had to do that so much in this bill so that 
the real increase is about 6 percent for the research programs.
  All the information and advances we have gained from NIH, however, 
will be useless without a way to communicate this information to health 
care providers and individuals, those most directly responsible for 
their own health. Thus, the work of the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention is critical to improving our health. We call upon the CDC to 
put into practice medical advances through numerous conflicting disease 
and prevention programs. Further, we call upon the CDC and its 
infectious disease experts to act as our first line of defense, such as 
Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, SARS, which you have heard a lot 
about lately, and West Nile Virus. In our changed world we must call 
upon CDC to protect us from diseases that may come to us intentionally 
through terrorist attacks--bioterrorism, radiological and chemical 
attacks. Given these tremendous demands on the CDC, we have provided 
the agency with $4.55 billion. That is a $57 million increase over last 
year.

  Total CDC funding for the Global AIDS Initiative is $243 million. 
Within this level, we have been responsive to the President's request 
to fund his new Global HIV/AIDS Mother and Child Prevention Initiative 
at $100 million. Through this important initiative, thousands of 
children across the African continent may be protected against HIV 
transmission from their mothers. What a great contribution. The 
President, of course, is talking about this when he is in Africa this 
week.
  The Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund was established 
following the tragic events of September 11. It is through this fund 
that we are attempting to build a seamless system for delivering 
important safety information and protecting the American people. The 
fund includes support to the CDC and through it our State and local 
health departments, as well as other agencies and the Department of 
Health and Human Services to ensure protections from all levels of 
government. This year we are providing over $1.7 billion to the funds.
  I might say it is a goal of this subcommittee to make the health care 
preventative delivery system seamless so the Centers for Disease 
Control, the State health agencies, the local health agencies, city and 
county, are in complete communication and that the whole process is 
seamless. This is very important in terms of delivering services, and 
it is important in terms of our national security.
  Funding for community health centers is $1.627 billion. This 
represents a $122.3 million increase over last year as we provide 
funding for the third year of the President's proposed expansion of 
health services to people who are underinsured or have no health 
benefits at all. And this is a very important element, again, of our 
communities, a lot of volunteers that participate. It frees up the 
emergency rooms because people have another alternative place to go, 
and it provides some measure of help to those who can ill afford to pay 
for a doctor or pay for health care services. I think these community 
health programs are extremely important, and we have reflected that in 
our funding, and I am sure many of you have those in your own 
community.
  Children's hospitals across the Nation are the training grounds for 
our pediatricians. The bill provides $305 million to train these 
important care

[[Page H6473]]

givers. The Medicare system takes care of the education for the 
conventional MD programs but not for pediatricians or OB-GYNs. And what 
we do is give the children's hospitals financial assistance so they in 
turn too can provide the same level of education for the pediatricians. 
We all know that the early years are the most important in a child's 
life. And I think this is an extremely important program.
  The Ryan White AIDS program is funded at $2 billion, an increase of 
$24 million. An important portion of this funding assists those who are 
infected with the virus in receiving vital medications through the Drug 
Assistance Program.
  This year the administration sought congressional support for a new 
substance abuse treatment program called Access to Recovery through the 
use of a State voucher system. We have responded to this request with 
$100 million and are eager to work with the administration as they 
develop a program to serve people in great need. It will be another 
tool, but we want the administration to do a pilot project to work out 
how this can be done effectively. They have requested somewhat more 
money than that, but I think $100 million will go a long way. And if it 
proves as effective as we think it could, the next year will be another 
time to look at it.
  Additional support of the President's initiatives in this bill 
include faith-based programs--the Compassion Capital Fund at $50 
million, and the Mentoring of Children of Prisoners at $25 million, I 
suspect a somewhat forgotten group. But those children will be citizens 
tomorrow too, and we should give them a chance even though maybe one of 
their parents is incarcerated for some reason.
  Programs to support abstinence programs for young people will receive 
$10 million increase for a total of $65 million in this bill.
  LIHEAP is an important safety net providing financial assistance to 
low-income people who struggle with paying their heating and cooling 
bills. These funds are distributed to the States through the formula 
grant program, and we have retained the funding level for these grants 
at the fiscal year 2003 level of $1.7 billion. To assist people in the 
event of a particularly severe heating or cooling season, we provide 
$100 million in emergency funds. These funds may be released to the 
State at the discretion of the President.
  The Department of Labor has jurisdiction over many important worker 
training and protection programs; therefore, we have restored funding 
to core job training and employment assistance programs to the fiscal 
year 2003 level. As a number of communities continue to experience 
plant closings and other layoffs, we understand the need to support 
dislocated worker-training programs that can assist workers to return 
to the workforce. Funding for this program is $1.155 billion, the same 
as in fiscal year 2003, an increase of $78 million over the budget 
request. This is one where we feel that this is so important that we 
want to add more than requested in the President's budget. And if you 
have ever been to one of these job opportunity locations in your 
district, you realize how vitally important this is to those that are 
laid off. It gives them hope, hope that there may be a new job 
available, hope that they can take care of their families, hope that 
they can get health care. It is vitally important.
  The Job Corps program provides a second chance to young people to 
develop a skill for the 21st century workforce. As we all know, the mix 
is different than it used to be in the job market. Many people who 
enroll in Job Corps centers never completed their high school 
education, and many have other problems that make holding a job very 
difficult. A second chance. I like that, second chance. Everybody 
should have a second chance at training, giving hope to these workers; 
and it makes them productive members of our society. Funding for Job 
Corps is $1.5 billion. This is an increase of $28 million.
  Worker protection programs, including OSHA and MSHA, are funded at 
the President's budget request.

                              {time}  1115

  Related agencies. While agencies such as the Social Security 
Administration and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, 
receive their funding from the mandatory spending side, this bill 
provides the administrative costs for these agencies. Effective 
administration of these agencies ensures efficient service to 
recipients. We have included a 6.1 percent increase in the funding for 
the Social Security Administration to improve service delivery of 
benefits and accelerate the time it takes to process disability claims.
  I am sure all of us have experienced a call from someone who has a 
disability claim and says, why can I not get this taken care of? We 
recognize that, and we are saying let us put more people so they can be 
handled promptly. Otherwise they are left without any means of 
providing a living. So we have given a 6.1 percent increase.
  The Institute of Museum and Library Services provides funding to our 
Nation's public libraries and provides grants for library and museum 
projects. Funding totals $238 million, including funds for the second 
year of a program to recruit and educate librarians. Libraries are the 
windows to the world and a place of inspiration for many individuals.
  Mr. Chairman, the programs and funding levels I have described 
represent the good neighbor in all of us as a Nation, as a people. We 
have tried to use our allocation to fund our highest priorities and to 
reduce the growth in this bill. It is fair, it is balanced, and I think 
it will serve the people well, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  At this time, Mr. Chairman, I will submit a detailed table of the 
bill into the Record.

[[Page H6474]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH10JY03.001



[[Page H6475]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH10JY03.002



[[Page H6476]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH10JY03.003



[[Page H6477]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH10JY03.004



[[Page H6478]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH10JY03.005



[[Page H6479]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH10JY03.006



[[Page H6480]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH10JY03.007



[[Page H6481]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH10JY03.008



[[Page H6482]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH10JY03.009



[[Page H6483]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH10JY03.010



[[Page H6484]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH10JY03.011



[[Page H6485]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH10JY03.012



[[Page H6486]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH10JY03.013



[[Page H6487]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH10JY03.014



[[Page H6488]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH10JY03.015



[[Page H6489]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH10JY03.016



[[Page H6490]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH10JY03.017



[[Page H6491]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH10JY03.018



[[Page H6492]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH10JY03.019



[[Page H6493]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH10JY03.020



[[Page H6494]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH10JY03.021



[[Page H6495]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH10JY03.022



[[Page H6496]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH10JY03.023



[[Page H6497]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH10JY03.024



[[Page H6498]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH10JY03.025



[[Page H6499]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH10JY03.026



[[Page H6500]]

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 12 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, the last 2 years the Republican majority has pushed $2 
trillion in tax cuts through this House. A huge percentage of those 
cuts have been focused on the top 1 percent of earners in this country 
who make over 100,000 bucks a year. For those 2 years, the Republican 
Party has pretended that there are no costs associated with those tax 
cuts. Well, there are, and on this bill is where those costs become 
evident. This is where the chickens come home to roost.
  Cost number one is $26 billion a year in additional interest payments 
that our taxpayers will have to pay next year because every single 
dollar of the tax cut that was passed was paid for with borrowed money.
  The second cost that is incurred is that because all of the dollars 
have been put into tax cuts, ``ain't no more money left'' for Medicare 
fix-ups, ``ain't no more money left'' to do a real as opposed to a 
``let's pretend'' prescription drug program, and there isn't nearly 
enough money left to make the necessary investments that American 
families depend upon in the education and health care and worker 
protection area, and this is where those consequences show up on this 
bill.
  Now, what are the deficiencies? First of all, the Republican budget, 
which was the enabling legislation which enabled the tax cuts to come 
to this floor, the Republican budget resolution promised Republican 
moderates, in return for their votes on the budget resolution, they 
promised that Title I, which is the main education program that we use 
to help kids who need some help to stay abreast, they promised that 
Title I would be funded at $1 billion above last year. This bill 
contains the broken promise because this bill funds Title I $340 
million below the amount promised in the Republican's own budget 
resolution.
  Special education. Both parties compete with each other and claim how 
much they are in love with special education programs. Well, the 
Republican majority promised $2.2 billion in additional funding for 
special education if those moderates would just vote for that bill. 
Now, you bring the actual bill to the floor, and I said yesterday it is 
apparent the check is not in the mail because this bill is $1.2 billion 
short of the Republican promise in the budget resolution on that score. 
That is broken promise number two.
  There is another way to measure it. The President, when he came into 
office, said, ``Oh, he was not going to spend any more money on 
education until we reformed the programs.'' So we reformed the programs 
in the No Child Left Behind Act, all kinds of promises to the States 
and the local school districts, all kinds of mandates. That bill was 
the mother of all mandates, and yet today, if you take a look at how 
this bill or those programs compares to the funding schedule in that 
bill, this bill is $8 billion short, $8 billion short.
  Then if you take a look at some of the details, after-school 
programs, now I know my good friend from Ohio is a strong supporter of 
those programs, but this bill is $750 million short of the No Child 
Left Behind promise for after-school programs.
  Student aid: Pell grants, the principal program by which we help 
families send their kids to college, in 1975 Pell grants paid for 84 
percent of the cost of a public education on average. This year it is 
down to 38 percent because this bill freezes Pell grants. In addition 
to that, the administration cuts the ability of Pell grant recipients 
to use their full State and local tax deduction in determining their 
eligibility for Pell grants. So that is another chiseling away at 
benefits we provide families to go to college.
  Now move to the health care front. For 5 years we have almost doubled 
funding at NIH, the institute which provides for most of the medical 
research in this country, but this bill puts the brake on that 5-year 
progress. The result? Grants for new programs and competitive renewal 
of existing or of expiring grants will go up by only two-tenths of 1 
percent for a grand total of 21 grants, the smallest increase in 15 
years.
  I invite Members of this House, tell the 1.3 million people who are 
going to get cancer this year, tell the 1 million people who are going 
to find out they have diabetes, tell the 60,000 people who are going to 
get Parkinson's, tell them that it is more important to give an $88,000 
tax cut to somebody who makes $1 million a year than it is to continue 
our efforts to attack those diseases at full throttle.
  We hear this nonsense about how NIH needs some breathing time in 
order to absorb the money that we have already given them. Baloney. 
Less than 35 percent of all of the grants that are approved as being 
quality science are ever funded. Tell me there is not a need.
  Or if you want to move on, the nursing, the new nursing act that 
passed last year, every politician in this House wrote to every nurse 
in their district and said, ``we love you, we are all for this 
program.'' Where is the money to make it reality? No new money in this 
bill for that program.
  Then if you take a look at community service block grant, money that 
we provide that is used to help families that are poor and near poor, 
cut by 150 million bucks.
  Low-income heating assistance program: I started that program with Ed 
Muskie back in the 1970s, and we had a lot of help from a lot of 
Republicans, including Silvio Conte. What has happened to that bill 
today? We have been told, on one hand, we have been told by the 
Republican members of our committee, correctly so, that we are going to 
have a big increase in natural gas prices. How does the committee 
respond? By cutting the low-income heating assistance program by 200 
million bucks. I do not think that is a very smart thing to do.
  So basically, these are just a few areas in which this bill is 
deficient. So what we are going to try to do, despite the fact that the 
rule turned us down, we are going to try to offer two amendments on 
this side of the aisle.
  We are going to try to add $2.8 billion in additional education 
funding, to add $340 million more for Title I, $1.2 billion for special 
education. We are going to try to raise Pell grant, the maximum grants, 
by $150. In the health care area, we are going to add some money to the 
rural health program. We are going to add some funding to our chem/bio 
response capability. We are going to try to double the rate of 
increased funding for NIH so that we can have a 6 percent increase in 
new and competing grants. We are going to fund that nursing act. We are 
going to try to provide $450 million in increased funding for low-
income heating assistance. We are going to restore the $150 million cut 
for the CSBG program. We are going to put $82 million back in the older 
Americans bill so that we do not have to cut out 3 million congregate 
meals for senior citizens this year, and so that we do not have to cut 
out 4 million meals for the Meals on Wheels program.

  How are we going to pay for it? We are going to pay for it by cutting 
the tax cut that people who earn more than a million bucks a year would 
get from $88,000 that they are now scheduled to get to a mere $60,000. 
My goodness me, they are going to be stuck on a starvation diet this 
year, poor folks.
  Then we are going to try a second amendment which will raise the 
matching rate for Medicaid for each State so that we can prevent every 
State in the Union from knocking kids off the Medicaid or the SCHIP 
rolls.
  Mr. Chairman, we ought to be ashamed of ourselves that we are making 
kids pay for tax cuts for millionaires by giving up their eligibility 
for health care. That is an outrageous set of priorities, but it is one 
which is enforced on this country by the majority party actions in 
ramming those giant-size tax cuts for high-income people through this 
House.
  We are not saying that those who make $1 million a year should not 
get a tax cut like everybody else. We are saying that we ought to 
limit, through the action of our first amendment and the second 
amendment, all we are saying is when you put those two together, we 
simply want to limit the size of their tax cut to $44,000 on average 
instead of $88,000. And I will bet you that if you ask 90 percent of 
those people, they will say that they would much prefer that we provide 
the money for these kids and provide the money for their education 
rather than give them a supersize tax cut.

[[Page H6501]]

  So, Mr. Chairman, that is what we are going to try to do today 
because this budget process has been handled in such a way that the 
majority party has tried to obscure, at every opportunity they have 
tried to obscure the linkage between their actions on taxes and the 
resulting actions on education, health care and other needed services 
for the citizens of this country.
  What our amendments will try to do is to reestablish those linkages 
so that people understand there are consequences to the choices that we 
make, and those consequences fall most heavily on the people who most 
need our help.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield so much time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the Chairman of the full 
Committee on Appropriations, and I want to say he did a wonderful job 
in getting us a very substantial allocation to meet these needs.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Regula) for yielding me this time, and I want to compliment and 
congratulate him and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), as the 
chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee, for doing a really 
good job in allocating the money that was available. As Chairman Regula 
has said, there is an increase in the 302(b) allocation for this bill 
over last year. The gentleman from Wisconsin and the gentleman from 
Ohio have worked extremely hard to try to balance the funding so that 
we meet the responsibilities in this bill.
  I support the bill. I think it is a good bill. I know that there are 
a lot of things that Members would like to do and there are a lot of 
other items that they would like to see funded. But there is a 
limitation on the amount of money. As everyone knows, we have a budget 
resolution that did not make our job easy, but it is still the budget 
resolution, like it or not.
  I know that there are many Members who would like to add additional 
money, because for the 13 appropriation bills, I have received requests 
from Members that totaled more than $50 billion to add over and above 
the allocated amount that was provided in the budget resolution. 
However, we cannot do all of the requests, and we have to do the best 
we can with what we have. I think the committee has done a really 
outstanding job. I have been a member of this committee for a long, 
long time; and I know the members of this subcommittee are diligent and 
very respectful of their responsibilities.
  One thing this bill is not: this bill is not a tax bill. I understand 
that my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), has made this 
case strongly and he feels very strongly about it. But the fact of the 
matter is that this is not a tax bill. We do not do taxes in the 
Committee on Appropriations. That is a Ways and Means responsibility. 
So I think we have worked together very well to produce this bill. I 
think we have worked together very well to reach an agreement on the 
process for this bill.
  I believe that sometime today we will have a unanimous consent 
request that will accommodate Members to have our work concluded by 5 
p.m., hopefully. And again I appreciate the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey) very much and Chairman Regula for working together on this.
  Now, if I can just take a minute, I want to give the Members an 
update on where we are in the appropriations process. As usual, we got 
off to a slow start because there were some budget decisions that had 
to be made, that should have been made prior to voting on the budget 
resolution; but that was not done. However, I want to report that of 
the 13 appropriation bills, 10 have already been marked up in 
subcommittee. The 11th will be marked up tomorrow.
  We have already marked up seven of these bills in full committee. We 
have already concluded in the House the Homeland bill, the Military 
Construction bill, the Defense bill, the Legislative bill, and today we 
will finish the Labor-HHS bill. So a lot of the heavy lifting has 
already been done.
  By the time we break for the August recess, if we are allowed to 
maintain the schedule that we have set, we will have passed 11 of the 
13 appropriation bills, which is much better than we did last year 
because of some other budgetary problems. The remaining two bills will 
be out of the full committee by August recess, but there will not be 
time to schedule them for floor action, so we will take those up early 
in September. Senator Stevens has advised me that we are going to move 
quickly in the conferences, so we should have our work done in a 
reasonable timeframe.
  Again, I want to express my support for this bill. I want to express 
my appreciation for everyone who worked so hard to make this bill 
happen. This is not an easy bill. The defense bill is about half of the 
total discretionary funds. This bill is about one third of the 
remaining discretionary funds after defense, and so it is a big bill. 
The committee has done a good job, and I have tremendous respect for 
the committee and the subcommittee and the staff for the good job that 
they have done, understanding that a lot of people would like to have a 
lot more money, but there was only so much money to go around.
  Anyway, I thank the gentleman, I appreciate his yielding time to me, 
and I support the bill.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I forgot, but I want to state here and now that I have 
the greatest respect for the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and 
certainly the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young). And I know that the 
gentleman from Ohio, as chairman of this subcommittee, if more money 
would have been available, would have put the money in the right 
places. His heart is in the right place. I understand that.
  My problem is that the policy of the majority party has prevented 
Chairman Regula from being Chairman Regula. The problem is that we are 
told as a result of the tax cuts that we can somehow afford $2 trillion 
in tax cuts over the next decade, over 40 percent of which are targeted 
at the wealthiest 1 percent of the people in this country, but somehow 
we cannot afford $3 billion, not trillion, but $3 billion more to 
educate our kids, or $3 billion more to help see to it that kids do not 
lose their health coverage in a time of national economic problems. I 
think that is a sad, sad commentary on the priorities of this Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished minority whip, 
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time; and let me start, as so many of us do on the Subcommittee on 
Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies, by 
saying how much respect we have, affection we have for the chairman of 
our committee. No committee has a fairer chairman. No committee has a 
chairman any more committed to the welfare of the American people than 
the Committee on Appropriations. As we are blessed to have the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) as the chairman of our committee, we 
are fortunate as well to have the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) as 
the chairman of this subcommittee.
  As the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has said, both of these 
gentlemen care deeply about this country and care deeply about the 
people of this country. I have served on this committee, as Chairman 
Young said, with him for a long, long time. I do not believe this is 
the bill of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young). I do not believe it 
is the bill of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula). It is, however, 
their response to the realities that confront them, and the gentleman 
from Ohio pointed that out.
  But, Mr. Chairman, on January 8, 2002, on a stage in Hamilton, Ohio, 
President Bush signed the bipartisan No Child Left Behind Act. 
Surrounded by Members from both sides of the aisle, including chairman 
of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), and the ranking member of that committee, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), as well as Senators 
Kennedy and

[[Page H6502]]

Gregg, the President recognized that the landmark legislation 
essentially was a contract with the American people. The No Child Left 
Behind Act demanded greater accountability and expectations in our 
education system; and in return, it promised, it contracted with 
States, with teachers, with parents, with America to provide educators 
greater resources to accomplish our shared goals and responsibilities.
  Let me quote: ``A fourth principle of this act,'' the President said, 
``is that we are going to spend more money, more resources, but they 
will be directed at methods that work.'' So we asked Maryland, we asked 
Ohio, and we asked Florida to perform certain responsibilities; but we 
said in the process that we would provide them the resources to 
accomplish those responsibilities.
  Well, today, my colleagues, the Republican Party in this House of 
Representatives has decided, very frankly, that they will break its 
contract, the GOP's promise with the American people. This Labor-HHS-
Education appropriation bill is an unflinching betrayal of the No Child 
Left Behind Act and a betrayal of children and parents and educators 
all over this country. While educators and local school districts all 
across this Nation have begun implementing the new accountability 
measures under this act, this bill falls $8 billion short of the 
promise that was made.
  Our Republican friends undoubtedly will get up on this floor and say 
that they are increasing education funding. But here is what they will 
not say. The funding in this bill, after inflation, is tantamount to a 
funding freeze. Yes, my colleagues can provide $162 billion in estate 
tax cuts for the wealthiest families in America, a tax cut that will 
cost an estimated $750 billion in the decade after 2013, but they 
cannot keep their promise in funding the No Child Left Behind Act.
  Two months ago, in the conference report on the budget resolution, 
this Republican majority promised, promised a $3 billion increase for 
the Department of Education. Today, it would underfund that commitment 
by $700 million, the smallest percentage increase in 8 years. Two 
months ago, this Republican majority promised an increase in IDEA 
funding, that is for the disabled children he spoke to, by $2.2 
billion. Today, it would provide less than half that promised increase. 
Two months ago, this Republican majority promised an increase in title 
I funding by $1 billion. Today, it falls a third of a billion dollars 
short of that promise.
  Furthermore, it cuts LIHEAP, low-income assistance. If Silvio Conte 
were here, a Republican from Massachusetts, he would be on the warpath 
saying how irresponsible that was. Even the Bush administration, in a 
statement of administration policy issued yesterday, and my 
distinguished chairman said some people say we are not spending enough 
money, well, ``some people'' includes George Bush, the President of the 
United States. He said he was disappointed that the LIHEAP funding 
level is $200 million less than he asked for. Not Democrats; that the 
President asked for.
  In addition, this bill unravels our bipartisan commitment to 
increased funding for scientific and medical research. It slashes 
unemployment programs at a time when the unemployment picture is worse 
than it has been in a decade and where we have produced the least 
number of jobs of any administration in half a century. It fails to 
meet our commitment to address the nursing shortage, which the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) spoke to as well.
  Finally, I want to urge my colleagues to support the amendment that 
will be offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) 
and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) that would bar the Labor 
Department from spending money on regulations that undermine the 40-
hour workweek once again. I urge my colleagues to vote against this 
bill.
  Let me say in closing to my distinguished chairman that when he said 
we are not the Committee on Ways and Means, he is absolutely correct. 
But, my colleagues, we cannot, like Pontius Pilate, wash our hands of 
the responsibility of leaving children behind.
  Vote against this bill. Vote for the Obey amendments to add the 
dollars necessary to fund what the President says we ought to do.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to just comment and again point out that we have doubled education 
funding in the last 8 years. We have tripled the amount that goes to 
special needs children. We have a 2.7 percent increase in this bill 
over last year, and I think a lot of people in the United States will 
be happy to get a 2.7 percent pay raise. I am just saying we are doing 
the best we can with the resources that are available.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman is correct. And I said 
that at the beginning, that I think the chairman is doing the best with 
what he has been given. Our only argument is that he has not been given 
enough to meet the commitments made in the Republicans' budget and the 
President's request and the legislation we passed to leave no child 
behind.
  But I think the gentleman is accurate, he has done the best he could 
with the resources he was given.
  Mr. REGULA. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would add one more 
comment. We have a different situation as a result of 9-11. We have 
responsibilities that have absorbed funds that otherwise might be 
available here.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Peterson), a very valued member of our subcommittee.

                              {time}  1145

  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and compliment him on a good process in tough 
times.
  I have listened to the discussion so far this morning, and I find 
there are two different schools of thought here on the floor. The 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Hoyer) I think believe from my long years of friendship with them, 
and I consider them friends, they believe that our future in this 
country depends on what we spend here.
  I do not agree with that. I believe our future depends on the 
opportunities we provide to have good jobs for people to be self-
sufficient, to be employed, and to pay taxes. All the programs we 
provide here help those who cannot participate in that and help them 
get the education they need and the health care they need.
  We keep hearing about these horrible, huge tax cuts. A huge number of 
the taxpayers they keep talking about are employers. They are people 
who provide our children and our grandchildren jobs. They are the 
growth part of this country. They are individual family businesses who, 
through subchapter S corporations, pay the individual tax rate.
  Now I have been in government quite awhile. I have been in business 
and government about the same length of time. I was in local 
government, State government and now in Washington. There is a rule 
that I believe in: If you want less of something, tax it. If you want 
less, tax it again. The more you tax something, the less you will have 
of it. If you want something to prosper, tax it less. The theory is the 
individual family businesses that pay that individual rate, they are 
the ones that are growing this country, not the global corporations, 
not these huge companies that we talk about. It is those family 
businesses. The more we tax them, the less their business can grow 
because as they make profits, and I know businesses that have poured 
all of their profits back into the company, buying machines, putting 
more people to work because they did not have to pay it in taxes.
  We cannot have it both ways. The more we prevent them from growing, 
the more programs we are going to need to support the people that do 
not have jobs. So the tax cuts Members rail against are the hope of our 
young people, and I will debate that issue with Members any time.
  We heard that in education title I, a $666 million increase was 
categorized as a $340 million cut. In IDEA, a $1 billion increase was 
characterized as a $1.2 billion shortfall, but let us talk about IDEA a 
minute. When I came here, we

[[Page H6503]]

were at 5-6 percent of the 40 percent that we had promised. We are now 
at 20 percent. That is a wonderful, huge increase that did not happen 
when the other party was in control.
  NIH, we doubled their budget and they are now at $27.7 billion. This 
year they will have an additional $1.7 billion in new research funding. 
We can play with those numbers and some of last year's money went into 
construction of buildings and things, but in reality they will have a 
$1.7 billion increase in research funding.
  To conclude my comments, yes, we stand for helping people have a job, 
and to help people have a job, we help businesses grow by cutting the 
individual tax rate that prevents them from putting that money back 
into their business. The big taxpayers in this country, the bulk of 
them are businesses that are putting our people to work. I am for 
growing them so that our social programs will be less needed.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe opportunity is the key, but I think it is 
very difficult to have opportunity if you do not have an education. It 
is very difficult to have opportunity if you do not have decent health.
  The only choice before us is what we think is more important: Using 
$6 billion to provide better education for our kids and making sure 
that kids are not knocked off health care rolls around the country, or 
whether to use that $6 billion to make sure that people who make more 
than $1 million a year get an $88,000 tax cut rather than a $44,000 tax 
cut. That is the only issue before us here today.
  I am highly amused when I hear Republicans come to the floor and talk 
about how much they have done for education. I want to show what the 
record shows because I negotiated every one of the education budgets 
for the last 10 years. I was one of the four people in the room when 
the numbers were decided.
  Here is what happened. In fiscal year 1995, the Republican House 
majority tried to cut $1.7 billion from the previous education budget. 
They tried to abolish the Department of Education, and they even shut 
down the government to try to force President Clinton to swallow those 
priorities. They lost.
  In fiscal year 1996, the House Republicans tried to cut $3.6 billion 
from the previous year's education funding. They lost.
  In 1997, the House Republicans tried to cut $2.8 billion from the 
Clinton budget for education. They failed.
  In 1998, the House Republicans tried to cut $660 million from the 
Clinton education budget. They failed.
  In fiscal year 2000, the House Republicans tried to cut $1.4 billion 
from the Clinton budget, they failed.
  In 2001, they tried to cut $3 billion out of the Clinton budget for 
education. They failed.
  Now they are trying to take credit for their failures. I find that 
interesting; I find that fascinating. I would call it near-Enron 
accounting. By all means if they want to climb on board and claim that 
they were funding that they tried to stop, be my guest. The country 
knows otherwise. Nobody believes them. All I can say is that in 
Washington the worse thing that can happen to a politician is when they 
believe their own baloney, and we have heard a lot of it here today.

            The House Republican Record on Education Funding

       Lately, the Republican Majority has attempted to claim 
     credit for education funding increases, and to reinvent their 
     record on education. Just a few years ago, however, 
     Republicans were calling for the demise of the Department of 
     Education and billions in education cuts.
       If the House Republican position on education had prevailed 
     over a 9-year period, House Republicans would have spent $20 
     billion less on education.
       One of the first actions of the new House Republican 
     majority in the spring of 1995 was to rescind $1.7 billion 
     ($1.635 billion in HR 1158 and $65 million in HR 889) in FY 
     1995 education funding. Democrats succeeded in reducing the 
     final rescissions to less than $600 million.
       House Republicans then led an attack on education in the FY 
     1996 Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill when they 
     proposed only $20.8 billion for the Department of Education--
     a cut of $3.6 billion below the already-reduced FY 1995 level 
     and $5.0 billion below President Clinton's education request. 
     The House Republican LHHS bill was $2.0 billion below the 
     final conference version of the LHHS bill supported by 
     Democrats, which restored the majority of the Republican 
     cuts.
       House Republicans passed a FY 1997 LHHS-Education 
     appropriations bill that provided $22.8 billion for 
     education, a cut of $2.8 billion below the request and $3.6 
     billion below the final conference level for education. 
     Democrats and President Clinton were successful not only in 
     reversing these Republican-led cuts, but increasing education 
     funding in real terms, to the funding levels approved in the 
     last Democratic Congress.
       Following the 1997 bipartisan budget agreement, the FY 1998 
     LHHS-Education appropriations bill included a bipartisan 
     agreement to provide $29.3 billion for education. Democrats 
     secured an additional $410 million in the final conference 
     version of the bill.
       House Republicans were back to their old tricks in FY 1999. 
     They could not even pass their FY 1999 LHHS bill--it was so 
     mired in controversy. The Republican LHHS bill reported by 
     the Appropriations Committee included $30.5 billion for 
     education, $2.6 billion less than the $33.1 billion provided 
     in the final conference agreement on LHHS.
       In the House of Republican FY 2000 Labor-HHS-Education bill 
     reported by the Committee--a bill that never saw the light of 
     day on the House floor--$33.3 billion was included for 
     education, nearly $2.4 billion less than the $35.7 billion 
     included in the final conference agreement.
       In FY 2001, House Republicans included $37.1 billion in the 
     House-passed Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations bill. This 
     amount was a stunning $.9 billion below the amount secured by 
     the Clinton White House and Congressional Democrats for 
     education in the final conference agreement ultimately 
     reached in December 2000.
       In FY 2002, House Democrats succeeded in obtaining a 
     commitment from President Bush to support another $4 billion 
     for the FY 2002 LHHS 302(b) allocation. As a result, the 
     House-passed LHHS bill provided $49.3 billion for education, 
     an increase of $4.7 billion over the Bush request. The House 
     level was scaled back slightly (by $336 million) in the final 
     conference agreement.
       In FY 2003, House Republicans punted on the Bush education 
     budget, which would have cut No Child Left Behind programs by 
     $90 million--until after the elections. Although they failed 
     to hold a subcommittee or committee mark up, House 
     Republicans introduced a LHHS bill that provided the 
     President's request of $50.3 billion. This Republican LHHS 
     bill was $2.8 billion below the final level agreed to in the 
     FY 2003 omnibus bill.

                                   DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION--GOP EDUCATION CUTS
                      [Discretionary budget authority, program level, millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     GOP House       GOP House
                                      Request        GOP House      Conference      compared to     compared to
                                                                                      request       conference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 1996.........................          25,804          20,797          22,812          -5,007          -2,016
FY 1997.........................          25,561          22,756          26,324          -2,805          -3,568
FY 1998.........................          29,522          29,331          29,741            -191            -410
FY 1999.........................          31,185          30,523          33,149            -662          -2,625
FY 2000.........................          34,712          33,321          35,703          -1,391          -2,383
FY 2001.........................          40,095          37,142          42,092          -2,953          -4,949
FY 2002.........................          44,541          49,268          48,932           4,727             336
FY 2003.........................          50,310          50,310          53,113               0          -2,803
FY 1996 to FY 2001..............         186,879         173,870         189,820         -13,009         -15,951
FY 1996 to FY 2003..............         281,730         273,448         291,865          -8,282         -18,418
FY 2004.........................          53,139          55,380              na           2,241              na
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes.--House level is the level in the House-passed bill or the House Appropriations Committee-reported bill in
  those years in which the House did not pass a LHHS bill, except in FY 2003 where the House level is the level
  in H.R. 246, a LHHS bill introduced by Chairman Regula. Shaded areas are years in which there was a bipartisan
  agreement on the House-passed Labor, HHS, Education Appropriations Bill. Figures reflect CBO scoring which may
  differ from OMB scoring in certain years.
In FY 1995, the House GOP proposed $1.7 billion in rescissions, of which $577 million were enacted.


[[Page H6504]]

                      Republican Record on Title 1

       If House Republicans had had their way, funding for Title 1 
     would have been cut between FY 1996 and FY 2003 by a net 
     total of $3.4 billion below the final levels that were 
     enacted into law.
       House Republicans led an attack on education in the FY 1996 
     Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill when they proposed 
     only $5.6 billion for Title 1--slashing Title 1 funding by 
     $1.14 billion below the previous year's level. The House 
     Republican bill was $1.18 billion below the final conference 
     version of the LHHS bill which rejected the Republican cuts.
       In FY 1997, House Republicans included $6.8 billion for 
     Title 1 grants in the FY 1997 LHHS-Education appropriations 
     bill, a cut of $414 million below the request and $443 
     million below the final conference level for education.
       Following the 1997 bipartisan budget agreement, the House-
     passed FY 1998 LHHS-Education appropriations bill included a 
     bipartisan agreement to provide $7.7 billion for Title 1, an 
     increase of $150 million over the request. This amount was 
     scaled back slightly in conference to $7.5 billion.
       House Republicans were back to their old tricks in FY 1999. 
     They could not even pass their FY 1999 LHHS bill--it was so 
     mired in controversy. The Republican LHHS bill reported by 
     the Appropriations Committee included $7.4 billion for Title 
     1, $421 million less than the $7.7 billion provided in the 
     final conference agreement on LHHS.
       In the House Republican FY 2000 Labor-HHS-Education bill 
     reported by the Committee--a bill that never saw the light of 
     day on the House floor--Republicans proposed to freeze title 
     1 funding at $7.7 billion--$209 million less than the $7.9 
     billion included in the final conference agreement.
       In FY 2001, House Republicans again proposed to freeze 
     Title 1 grants at $7.9 billion in the House-passed Labor-HHS-
     Education Appropriations bill. this amount was $660 million 
     below the amount secured by the Clinton White House and 
     Congressional Democrats for education in the final conference 
     agreement ultimately reached in December 2000.
       In FY 2002, House Democrats succeeded in obtaining a 
     commitment from President Bush to support another $4 billion 
     for the FY 2002 LHHS 302(b) allocation. As a result, the 
     bipartisan House-passed LHHS bill provided $10.5 billion for 
     Title 1, a $1.7 billion increase that was the largest 
     increase in the program's history. This amount was slightly 
     scaled back (by $150 million) in the final conference 
     agreement to $10.35 billion.
       In FY 2003, House Republicans punted on the Bush education 
     budget, which would have cut No Child Left Behind programs by 
     $90 million--until after the elections. Although they failed 
     to hold a subcommittee or committee mark up, House 
     Republicans introduced a LHHS bill that included $10.85 
     billion for Title 1, cutting the President's request by $500 
     million. This Republican LHHS bill was $834 million below the 
     final $11.7 billion included for Title 1 in the FY 2003 
     omnibus bill.

                                       TITLE 1 GRANTS TO SCHOOL DISTRICTS
                       [Discretionary budget authority program level, millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     GOP House       GOP House
                                      Request        GOP House      Conference      compared to     compared to
                                                                                      request       conference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 1996.........................           7,000           5,555           6,730          -1,445          -1,175
FY 1997.........................           7,165           6,751           7,194            -414            -443
FY 1998 \1\.....................           7,541           7,691           7,495             150             195
FY 1999.........................           7,767           7,375           7,796            -392            -421
FY 2000.........................           7,996           7,732           7,941            -264            -209
FY 2001.........................           8,358           7,941           8,602            -416            -660
FY 2002 \1\.....................           9,062          10,500          10,350           1,438             150
FY 2003.........................          11,350          10,850          11,684            -500            -834
FY 1996-2003....................  ..............  ..............  ..............          -1,842          -3,397
FY 2004.........................          12,350          12,350              na               0              na
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes.--House level is the level in the House-passed bill or the House Appropriations Committee-reported bill in
  those years in which the House did not pass a LHHS bill, except in FY 2003 where the House level is the level
  in HR 246, a LHHS bill introduced by Chairman Regula.
\1\ Years in which there was a bipartisan agreement on the House-passed Labor, HHS, Education Appropriations
  Bill.

             Republican Record on IDEA Part B State Grants

       If House Republicans had had their way, funding for IDEA 
     Part B State Grants--which finance the federal contribution 
     toward excess special education costs--would have been cut 
     between FY 1996 and FY 2003 by a net total of $2.8 billion 
     below the final levels that were enacted into law.
       In FY 1996, the House Republican LHHS bill proposed to 
     freeze IDEA Part B state grants at $2.3 billion, and the 
     final conference level was $2.3 billion. This was a $88 
     million cut below President Clinton's request of $2.4 
     billion.
       In FY 1997, the House Republican LHHS bill would have 
     frozen IDEA Part B state grants funding at $2.3 billion--a 
     level $279 million below President Clinton's request of $2.6 
     billion and $784 million below the final conference level of 
     $3.1 billion.
       In FY 1998--a bipartisan year in which Democrats supported 
     the LHHS bill--the LHHS bill adopted by the House provided 
     $3.4 billion for the IDEA Part B state grants, $185 million 
     more than the request. Democrats secured an additional $375 
     million in conference above the House level for a final 
     appropriation of $3.8 billion.
       In FY 1999, the House Republican LHHS bill provided $4.3 
     billion for IDEA Part B state grants and this level was 
     enacted in the final, conference agreement.
       In FY 2000, the House Republican bill provided $4.8 billion 
     for IDEA Part B state grants, $179 million below the final 
     conference level of $5.0 billion.
       In FY 2001, the House Republican bill provided only $5.5 
     billion for IDEA Part B state grants, an amount that was $850 
     million below the final $6.3 billion approved in conference.
       In FY 2002--a bipartisan year in which Democrats supported 
     the LHHS bill--the House-passed LHHS bill provided $7.7 
     billion for IDEA Part B state grants, a $186 million increase 
     over the final conference level of $7.5 billion.
       In FY 2003, the House never even considered the LHHS bill. 
     However, the Republican LHHS bill introduced by Chairman 
     Regula recommended $8.0 billion for IDEA Part G state grants, 
     a $500 million cut below the President's request and $846 
     million below the final conference level.

                                            IDEA PART B STATE GRANTS
                      [Discretionary budget authority, program level, millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     GOP House
                                      Request        GOP House      Conference      compared to    GOP compared
                                                                                      request      to conference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 1996.........................           2,412           2,324           2,324             -88               0
FY 1997.........................           2,603           2,324           3,108            -279            -784
FY 1998 \1\.....................           3,241           3,426           3,801             185            -375
FY 1999.........................           3,811           4,310           4,310             499               0
FY 2000.........................           4,314           4,811           4,990             497            -179
FY 2001.........................           5,280           5,490           6,340             210            -850
FY 2002 \1\.....................           7,340           7,715           7,529             375             186
FY 2003.........................           8,529           8,029           8,874            -500            -846
FY 1996-2003....................  ..............  ..............  ..............             898          -2,847
FY 2004.........................           9,529           9,874              na             346              na
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes.--House level is the level in the House-passed bill or the House Appropriations Committee-reported bill in
  those years in which the House did not pass a LHHS bill, except in FY 2003 where the House level is the level
  in HR 246, a LHHS bill introduced by Chairman Regula.
\1\ Years in which there was a bipartisan agreement on the House-passed LHHS bill.


                                        INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Dollar          Percent
           Fiscal year               Children      Appropriation    increase in     increase in    Federal share
                                   served (000)       ($000)       appropriation   appropriation  as a % of APPE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1977............................           3,485         251,770              na              na               5
1978............................           3,561         566,030         314,260           124.8              10

[[Page H6505]]

 
1979............................           3,700         804,000         237,970            42.0              13
1980............................           3,803         874,500          70,500             8.8              12
1981............................           3,941         874,500               0             0.0              10
1982............................           3,990         931,008          56,508             6.5              10
1983............................           4,053       1,017,900          86,892             9.3              10
1984............................           4,096       1,068,875          50,975             5.0               9
1985............................           4,124       1,135,145          66,270             6.2               9
1986............................           4,121       1,163,282          28,137             2.5               8
1987............................           4,167       1,338,000         174,718            15.0               9
1988............................           4,236       1,431,737          93,737             7.0               9
1989............................           4,347       1,475,449          43,712             3.1               8
1990............................           4,419       1,542,610          67,161             4.6               8
1991............................           4,567       1,854,186         311,576            20.2               9
1992............................           4,727       1,976,095         121,909             6.6               8
1993............................           4,896       2,052,728          76,633             3.9               8
1994............................           5,101       2,149,686          96,958             4.7               8
1995............................           5,467       2,322,915         173,229             8.1               8
1996............................           5,629       2,323,837             922             0.0               7
1997............................           5,806       3,107,522         783,685            33.7               9
1998............................           5,978       3,801,000         693,478            22.3              11
1999............................           6,133       4,301,000         500,000            13.2              11
2000............................           6,274       4,976,685         675,685            15.7              12
2001............................           6,381       6,323,685       1,347,000            27.1              14
2002............................           6,483       7,512,533       1,188,848            18.8              16
2003............................           6,580       8,858,398       1,345,865            17.9              18
2004 Request....................           6,672       9,512,533         654,135             7.4              19
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Annual appropriations exclude funding for studies and evaluations.
Source: Data provided by the U.S. Department of Education Budget Service.

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Just to keep the record straight, the Democrats 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 President 
Clinton. The fiscal year 1994 increase was only 3.6 percent, and 1995 
was only 2.4.
  In fiscal year 1993, a Democrat-controlled House and Senate passed a 
final bill that cut President Bush's education budget by nearly $700 
million. I think we have to stick with the facts here today. It is 
obvious that there have been some different approaches in the past.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I received unanimous consent earlier to insert a table 
after my remarks, which I will do, which will lay out clearly what the 
record has been over the last 10-year period.
  All I would say in further rebuttal to my good friend: Regardless of 
what each of us argues the past shows, the issue today is whether we 
are for $6 billion more for education and health care for kids and sick 
people, or whether you are for using that $6 billion to make sure that 
our struggling millionaires get a double-sized tax cut. I think the 
public will see by the votes who is for what.

                                   DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION--GOP EDUCATION CUTS
                      [Discretionary budget authority, program level, millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     GOP House       GOP House
                                      Request        GOP House      Conference      compared to     compared to
                                                                                      request       conference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 1996.........................          25,804          20,797          22,812          -5,007          -2,016
FY 1997.........................          25,561          22,756          26,324          -2,805          -3,568
FY 1998 \1\.....................          29,522          29,331          29,741            -191            -410
FY 1999.........................          31,185          30,523          33,149            -662          -2,625
FY 2000.........................          34,712          33,321          35,703          -1,391          -2,383
FY 2001.........................          40,095          37,142          42,092          -2,953          -4,949
FY 2002 \1\.....................          44,541          49,268          48,932           4,727             336
FY 2003.........................          50,310          50,310          53,113               0          -2,803
FY 1996 to FY 2001..............         186,879         173,870         189,820         -13,009         -15,951
FY 1996 to FY 2003..............         281,730         273,448         291,865          -8,282         -18,418
FY 2004.........................          53,139          55,380              na           2,241              na
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes.--House level is the level in the House-passed bill or the House Appropriations Committee-reported bill in
  those years in which the House did not pass a LHHS bill, except in FY 2003 where the House level is the level
  in HR 246, a LHHS bill introduced by Chairman Regula.
\1\ Years in which there was a bipartisan agreement on the House-passed Labor, HHS, Education Appropriations
  Bill. Figures reflect CBO scoring which may differ from OMB scoring in certain years.
In FY 1995, the House GOP proposed $1.7 billion in rescissions, of which $577 million were enacted.

            The House Republican Record on Education Funding

       Lately, the Republican Majority has attempted to claim 
     credit for education funding increases, and to reinvent their 
     record on education. Just a few years ago, however, 
     Republicans were calling for the demise of the Department of 
     Education and billions in education cuts.
       If the House Republican position on education had prevailed 
     over 9-year period, House Republicans would have spent $20 
     billion less on education.
       One of the first actions of the new House Republican 
     majority in the spring of 1995 was to rescind $1.7 billion 
     ($1.635 billion in HR 1158 and $65 million in HR 889) in FY 
     1995 education funding. Democrats succeeded in reducing the 
     final rescissions to less than $600 million.
       House Republicans then led an attack on education in the FY 
     1996 Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill when they 
     proposed only $20.8 billion for the Department of Education--
     a cut of $3.6 billion below the already-reduced FY 1995 level 
     and $5.0 billion below President Clinton's education request. 
     The House Republican LHHS bill was $2.0 billion below the 
     final conference version of the LHHS bill supported by 
     Democrats, which restored the majority of the Republican 
     cuts.
       House Republicans passed a FY 1997 LHHS-Education 
     appropriations bill that provided $22.8 billion for 
     education, a cut of $2.8 billion below the request and $3.6 
     billion below the final conference level for education. 
     Democrats and President Clinton were successful not only in 
     reversing these Republican-led cuts, but increasing education 
     funding in real terms, to the funding levels approved in the 
     last Democratic Congress.
       Following the 1997 bipartisan budget agreement, the FY 1998 
     LHHS-Education appropriations bill included a bipartisan 
     agreement to provide $29.3 billion for education. Democrats 
     secured an additional $410 million in the final conference 
     version of the bill.
       House Republicans were back to their old tricks in FY 1999. 
     They could not even pass their FY 1999 LHHS bill--it was so 
     mired in controversy. The Republican LHHS bill reported by 
     the Appropriations Committee included $30.5 billion for 
     education, $2.6 billion less than the $33.1 billion provided 
     in the final conference agreement on LHHS.
       In the House Republican FY 2000 Labor-HHS-Education bill 
     reported by the Committee--a bill that never saw the light of 
     day on the House floor--$33.3 billion was included for 
     education, nearly $2.4 billion less than the $35.7 billion 
     included in the final conference agreement.
       In FY 2001, House Republicans included $37.1 billion in the 
     House-passed Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations bill. This 
     amount was a stunning $4.9 billion below the amount secured 
     by the Clinton White House and Congressional Democrats for 
     education in the final conference agreement ultimately 
     reached in December 2000.

[[Page H6506]]

       In FY 2002, House Democrats succeeded in obtaining a 
     commitment from President Bush to support another $4 billion 
     for the FY 2002 LHHS 302(b) allocation. As a result, the 
     House-passed LHHS bill provided $49.3 billion for education, 
     an increase of $4.7 billion over the Bush request. The House 
     level was scaled back slightly (by $336 million) in the final 
     conference agreement.
       In FY 2003, House Republicans punted on the Bush education 
     budget, which would have cut No Child Left Behind programs by 
     $90 million--until after the elections. Although they failed 
     to hold a subcommittee or committee mark up, House 
     Republicans introduced a LHHS bill that provided the 
     President's request of $50.3 billion. This Republican LHHS 
     bill was $2.8 billion below the final level agreed to in the 
     FY 2003 omnibus bill.

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I think that debate was held when we had the Ways and 
Means bill. Today we have to work with what we have.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Weldon), a valued member of our subcommittee.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Regula) and the full committee chairman for bringing this 
bill to the floor. This bill funds a lot of critical health 
investments, but being a Republican, I must say that in many past years 
I have been very concerned about this bill. It would often have 
significant increased levels of funding well above and beyond the 
inflationary level. We would have inflation going at 2 and 3 percent, 
and in some of these previous Labor-HHS appropriations bills, there 
have been 10-15 percent funding increases.
  I was particularly concerned about this issue this year. We have had 
a significant decline in revenue into the Federal Treasury, mainly due 
to the recession. We have had significant expenses associated with the 
war on terror, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and I think the 
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations should be commended. He has 
brought a bill to the floor that is a total of $138 billion, $46 
million over the budget request, $3.6 billion over comparable levels of 
last year.
  I think it funds education, I think, adequately under the 
circumstances that we are in. And I must reiterate what the chairman 
has already said: We have doubled education spending over the last 8 
years. Some of the other programs that I am particularly interested in, 
it provides the third year of the President's initiative to expand 
health services through community health centers. I have seen these 
programs in action firsthand. I think they are a very effective use of 
health care dollars, Federal tax dollars, in providing needed health 
care to some of the poorest in our country.
  And the chairman just made some very good points. We are the 
majority. We have to be the responsible adults here. If we look at the 
Democratic record when they were in the majority, they frequently 
underfunded below the authorization levels in a lot of these programs. 
For example, the Democratic past Labor-HHS bill back in I believe it 
was 1994, that year increased education spending by only 2 percent. The 
chairman pointed out a reduction of $3 billion in 1995.
  The issue here is it is easy to pass an authorization bill, but to 
find the dollars to fund it is always a challenge, and I think the 
chairman has done really an outstanding job in meeting that 
requirement.
  Now, regarding the business about the tax cuts, if we did not cut 
taxes, supposedly we would have more money for this bill. Well, let us 
look at what those tax cuts are doing. Some of the tax cuts, they are 
going to the child credit. These are families that are going to get 
more money to pay for the cost of raising their kids. It is money that 
is going to go right back into the economy.
  Then, of course, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) laid 
this case out very, very nicely. When we cut the rates, the majority of 
job growth in this country has been in the small business sector. Most 
small businesses pay at the personal level, and most of those small 
businesses, if you leave more money with them, if you tax them less, 
they are going to leave it in the business, and it will be easier for 
them to create jobs. Today we had another posting of unemployment up. I 
think most Americans want to see, more than funding for all of these 
various Federal programs going up much higher than the inflation level, 
would rather see people getting a job.
  I stand by our tax cut package. I think it was the right thing to do. 
It was badly needed to get this economy going. Once we get this economy 
going, we are going to have more money into the Federal Treasury to 
better enable us in the years ahead to meet the requirements of all 
these various programs that the Federal Government is involved in 
funding.
  I would encourage my colleagues, conservatives, liberals, Democrats, 
Republicans, to support this bill. I think this is a very, very good 
bill in the context of where we are today. We have a recession. We have 
a war on terror going on. We have problems in Iraq still. Yet we have a 
fairly good bill that increases funding for most of these critical 
needs areas slightly. I think it is a very responsible, mature, adult 
bill. I again commend the chairman.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Jackson).
  (Mr. JACKSON of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by expressing my 
appreciation to the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey), and to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula). It is an honor to 
serve under the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula).

                              {time}  1200

  The chairman indicated at the beginning of his remarks there are two 
real roles, goals, responsibilities, if you will, for government under 
the Constitution: to provide for the common defense and to provide for 
the general welfare. Just a few days ago, the Congress of the United 
States voted in the amount of $369.1 billion to provide for the common 
defense; and the other constitutional provision for which the chairman 
spoke, providing for the general welfare, today we will vote in the 
amount of $138 billion. Go figure. If we are providing for the common 
defense, a clear responsibility under the Constitution, providing for 
the general welfare, $138 billion, certainly the Federal Government has 
room for improvement on this question.
  The key here is the 302(b) allocation for this bill, which limited 
our committee to $138 billion. The 302(b) allocation for this bill 
woefully underfunds a number of programs.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this bill that is before 
us today. Today we are considering the bill which assists the most 
vulnerable in our Nation. This bill provides assistance to the 
unemployed and job training to those who need the skills. This bill 
provides health care treatment, research, prevention funds to those who 
are ill; and this bill provides funds for the great American equalizer. 
What was unclear in the chairman's statement was whether or not he 
advocated for more funds under the 302(b) allocation for this bill. If 
he advocated for more funds for the Labor, Health and Human Services 
bill, then he cannot at the same time say that the funding for this 
bill is adequate because it is inadequate if he argued for more funds 
under the 302(b) allocation.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill does provide more money for title I, but it 
does not provide adequate money. Title I is the primary Federal program 
that helps school districts meet the new accountability and academic 
results mandated by the Leave No Child Behind Act. With the title I 
funding, low-income, low-performing children are able to get help 
particularly with reading and mathematics, the two subjects that the No 
Child Left Behind Act requires be tested in grades three through eight 
beginning in 2005. Title I is a critical source of funding for high-
poverty schools. In adopting the rigorous new accountability standards 
in title I, Congress on a bipartisan basis agreed to phase in increased 
title I payments over several years. For fiscal year 2004, the No Child 
Left Behind Act authorizes $18.5 billion with additional increments 
each year through 2007. The majority's fiscal year 2004 budget 
resolution promises $1 billion, or 9 percent increase over fiscal year 
2003 for title I grants for school districts for a total of $12.7 
billion.

[[Page H6507]]

  Mr. Chairman, it is clear that title I falls woefully underfunded in 
the chairman's mark.
  The Majority's FY 2004 Budget Resolution promised a $1 billion or 9 
percent increase over FY 2003 for Title 1 grants to school districts, 
for a total of $12.7 billion. Yet, the Committee bill provides only the 
President's request of $12.4 billion a--$666 million or 6 percent 
increase over last year and the smallest increase in 4 years--and falls 
$334 million short of their promise.
  The Democratic Substitute offered in full Committee mark-up would 
have eliminated this gap by providing the additional $334 million for 
Title 1 grants, for a total of $12.7 billion. These funds would have 
allowed schools to hire an additional 6,600 teachers to provide high 
quality instruction to about 140,000 disadvantages children who are 
falling behind.
  The $12.4 billion included in the Committee bill for Title 1 is $6.15 
billion below the amount targeted in the NCLB Act. Let me say that one 
more time--$6.15 billion is below the amount targeted in the No Child 
Left Behind Act. With the additional $6.15 billion, an additional 
120,000 teachers could have been hired to provide instruction to 
approximately 2.5 million low-income children across this country.
  NCLB imposes significant new mandates on Title 1 schools, including 
new annual testing requirements in grades 3-8, ``adequate yearly 
progress'' to achieve academic proficiency for all children 
disaggregated by low-income, minority, limited English proficient, and 
children with disabilities status, new teacher and paraprofessional 
qualification standards, new data collection and reporting, and 
additional parental notice requirements.
  More than 8,600 Title 1 schools, enrolling 3.5 million disadvantaged 
students nationwide, have been identified as failing to meet state 
academic standards. These chronically failing schools will face 
additional sanctions under the No Child Left Behind Act if they do not 
improve their academic performance. More schools will be labeled 
failing as states implement new ``adequate yearly progress'' 
requirements.
  High-poverty schools have the greatest challenges, but the least 
experienced teachers, lower teacher salaries, and higher teacher 
turnover-factors with a negative correlation with student achievement.
  Since FY 1996, Title 1 funding has increased from $6.7 billion to 
$11.7 billion, an increase of $5.0 billion or 75 percent. However, 
these increases were in spite of, not because of, House Republicans.
  If House Republicans had had their way, they would have cut Title 1 
funding by a net $1.8 billion between 1996-2003. House Republicans 
tried to slash Title 1 funding below the President's requests by $1.4 
billion in FY 1996, $414 million in FY 1997, $392 million in FY 1999, 
$264 million in FY 2000, $416 million in FY 2001, and $500 million in 
FY 2003. In total, these cuts of $3.4 billion were offset by increases 
of $1.6 billion in FY 1998 and FY 2002--two bipartisan years when 
Democrats secured additional education funding for the LHHS bill.
  Again, Mr. Chairman, I am strongly opposed to this bill. In January 
2002, the President signed into law Congress' commitment to the most 
vulnerable children in America--Title 1. This bill falls $6.15 billion 
short of that commitment.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Wicker), a very valued member of our subcommittee.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this 
time.
  Some years ago when I first came to this House of Representatives, I 
was afforded an unusual honor. I was a freshman appointed to the 
Committee on Appropriations, and at that same occasion I was given an 
opportunity to be on this very important subcommittee; and I have had 
the privilege of serving for some 8\1/2\ years in this capacity and 
watching these debates year after year. I would submit, Mr. Chairman, 
that those Americans following this debate today and down through the 
years get a pretty good idea of the dynamics going on in this House 
concerning spending bills.
  First of all, I want to echo what some of my colleagues on the 
Democratic side of the aisle have said. We all have a great deal of 
affection, Democrat and Republican, for the gentleman from Ohio 
(Chairman Regula) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the 
chairman of the full committee. Likewise, I have great respect and 
affection for the intellect and determination and hard-work ethic of 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). We will roll up our sleeves. 
We will debate in an honest manner. We will come up with a result, and 
then we will slap ourselves on the backs as Americans and say that we 
have done the best that we could do for our country and for our 
constituents. So we are all agreed that we cast no aspersions on each 
other as human beings.
  My friends on the Democratic side of the aisle simply have a 
different philosophy of government than we do on this side of the 
aisle. They wish that we could spend more money on this bill, and they 
wish that we could spend more money on a lot of bills, and that is 
their true feeling; and they also feel that if only we could tax more, 
if only taxes were higher, then we could spend more money on the 
programs that they believe in.
  In response to some of the charges that have been made and some of 
the statements that have been made by those who are going to oppose 
this bill today, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), my chairman, has 
pointed out that this Republican majority has doubled education 
spending, has tripled special needs education spending, and has doubled 
research under the National Institutes of Health. And in response to 
those remarks about huge increases in Federal spending, frankly some of 
my Republican colleagues, some of my more conservative Republican 
colleagues actually have concern about that level of increase. They are 
troubled that we have increased spending so much. They are a bit 
embarrassed by that, and they say that we did not come here to increase 
the size of government.
  So the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), my friend and chairman, has 
had to strike a balance and come up with a product that will be able to 
get a 218-vote majority and move this legislation forward. There are 13 
bills that must pass this House of Representatives, or we are not doing 
our duty, and they are the 13 appropriation bills. This is one of the 
largest and most significant of those, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Regula) has done a good job in balancing those competing dynamics and 
coming up with a very reasonable bill.
  As has been pointed out by some of my colleagues, this bill tries to 
hold program level growth and discretionary spending to a 2.7 percent 
increase from last year. At the same time, it provides the third year 
of the President's initiative to expand health services through the 
Community Health Centers program, a program that the President believes 
in and that he campaigned on in the year 2000. It increases funding for 
medical research, supported by the National Institutes of Health, by 
$680 million on top of the doubling of NIH funding that we have had 
over the past 5 years, which was a bipartisan commitment.
  In order to frame the debate today, my friends on the Democratic side 
of the aisle will want to reopen the debate on the tax cut bill which 
of course has already been passed and already been signed into law. 
Their contention is that the rich have gotten too much in terms of tax 
cuts and that if only we would tax the rich a little more, then we 
could do some more of the kind of spending that they would like to do. 
I contend that this type of class warfare does not serve our Nation 
well, and it does not accurately reflect the truth about our Tax Code.
  The truth is that during the past few years taxes on the richest 
Americans have increased by some 250 percent. In addition, it might 
interest Americans and my colleagues to know that the top 50 percent of 
wage earners in the United States pay 96 percent of all Federal taxes. 
The top 10 percent of earners in America--the top 10 percent--pay 67 
percent, and even after our tax cuts, the top 1 percent of earners are 
still paying 37 percent of the taxes which our Federal Government 
receives.
  Mr. Chairman, we will end the fiscal year on September 30. 
Unfortunately, we will finish with a $400 billion deficit. We are told 
by economists that some $300 billion of this deficit is due to the 
weakness in our economy. The last thing we want to do in a weak economy 
is start unraveling the tax cut which we passed for the very purpose of 
getting this economy stimulated. We need to create jobs both in large 
industry but also in the private sector with our small business 
individuals. We think the tax cut bill that has been signed into law by 
President Bush will create jobs. We think that the same Americans who 
are benefited by the programs

[[Page H6508]]

in this bill will also be benefited up and down the economic spectrum 
by the tax cuts because the economy will improve. So I say that we 
should certainly vote for this bill. I support my chairman entirely. I 
hope we will reject the amendment as offered by the Democrats, and I 
thank the chairman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking member on 
the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
  (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman 
for yielding me this time.
  I want to say there are no two people more committed to education of 
our young children than the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula). And the budget that we are presented 
today, or the funding that we are presented today, in this legislation 
is not of their doing. That decision was made a long time ago when the 
decision was made to provide for the tax cuts to go out and borrow $2 
trillion and give it away in tax cuts, and the result is that we do not 
now have a sufficient amount of money to fund the promises that were 
made by this administration, by this Congress for the education bill of 
leaving no child behind. I am very proud to have been one of the four 
primary cosponsors of that legislation, to be one of the architects of 
that legislation. I believe that the reforms that we are asking to come 
about in that legislation are changing education in America, are giving 
children who never had an opportunity before, children who were lost in 
the system, an opportunity. But that legislation is the most 
significant reforms of the Federal role in elementary secondary 
education in 35 years.
  Constantly, as we met and talked with the President of the United 
States, we talked about whether or not if we did the reforms would we 
have the resources, and we were assured we would have them. But today 
is when the rubber meets the road because today this is the 
appropriations bill. This is when we decide the real money that we will 
spend, and of course what we now see is the money that was promised in 
Leave No Child Behind is not in this legislation. It is not here for 
teacher professionalization, it is not here for title I, it is not here 
for after-school, all of which are key components to improving the 
educational experience and the success of America's children, 
especially America's poor and disadvantaged children.
  We make it a keystone of this legislation, and it is a key to 
improving education and that is that we have a qualified teacher in 
every classroom within 4 years; and yet, of course, we see here that 
the funding is not available. Just yesterday the Republicans promised 
an additional $300 million for the Ready to Teach Act and yet the money 
for current teachers for professionalization is not in this 
legislation. It is short over $200 million, $240 million that would go 
to taking those thousands of teachers who are not presently certified, 
qualified to teach the subjects they are teaching, and get them 
certified and get them qualified so they can teach our children what 
they should be learning and our children will have an opportunity to 
learn it.
  This appropriations bill, because of the budget decisions made by the 
Republicans and the administration, is a series of broken promises, 
promises made by the President of the United States when he signed this 
legislation, promises made by this administration and made by this 
Congress to America's parents, to America's children, to our schools, 
our school districts, that we would provide the resources to carry out 
these reforms, the annual assessment of children, the determining of 
which children are doing well and which need additional help. All of 
that is now threatened by the failure to provide this funding. It is 
not enough to say we double the funding in past or we tripled the 
funding in past. This is a brand-new game. It is a brand-new game based 
upon these very significant, important reforms.

                              {time}  1215

  The fact of the matter is there was a bipartisan agreement reached on 
the money that was necessary to carry out these reforms, and now we are 
reneging on that, and yet we are continuing to ask school districts to 
go forward with these reforms. We are continuing to ask school 
districts to make sure that every teacher is qualified, but we are not 
going to provide the resources to do that.
  We have here the smallest increase in the past 8 years in education. 
Yes, it is an increase, but the question we should ask, just as we ask 
in many other parts, is is it sufficient to get the job done as the 
American public expects?
  The fact of the matter is this provision in education funding in this 
legislation is not sufficient to do that. It is not going to provide 
the outcomes that we want for America's children. It is going to leave 
millions of children behind to a substandard education, trapped into 
results of that substandard education, and the loss of economic 
opportunity in America's society.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I think we just have to keep the record straight today, 
and this is a fact. What was promised by President Bush and 
congressional Republicans in No Child Left Behind was that Federal K-12 
education spending would increase substantially, linked for the first 
time to accountability and high standards, and that is precisely what 
has happened.
  Title I, disadvantaged students, the primary spending program in the 
No Child Left Behind increased during the first 2 years of President 
Bush's administration more than it did during the previous 7 years 
combined under President Clinton.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Cunningham), a valued member of our subcommittee.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, many of us, when we came to the Committee on Education 
and the Workforce, I came off the authorization committee for education 
and got on appropriations, I had concern when John Porter retired. I 
did not know who on the Republican side could fill the shoes of John 
Porter, one of the most caring individuals that I have ever known as 
far as education, medical research and the issues that we have in this 
bill today.
  Well, I want to tell you something. The gentleman from Ohio (Chairman 
Regula), and I think the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) would 
agree, has more than filled those shoes. He cares deeply about those 
programs, education, medical research and the other issues, and he has 
done everything he can to bring this bill forth that helps people.
  If you vote against this bill, there is an increase in IDEA, you are 
going to vote against that. If you vote against this bill, there is an 
increase in Pell grants. You are going to vote against those increases. 
Maybe not as much as you want, but there is an increase, and you will 
vote against it.
  Be partisan if you want. This bill has got a lot of good things. None 
of it has the things that all of us want. I would like to see, under a 
different economy, more into education. And I think if you take the 
``tax rate for the rich'' argument, if tax relief was static, then they 
would be right. But it is not. President Kennedy, former President 
Bush, this President Bush know that when you stimulate the economy and 
you have more revenue coming in to the Treasury, you will have more 
money for the economy and for education. That is what we believe, not 
that we are giving money away to ``the rich.''
  My friends on the other side will say, well, they drug the 
Republicans kicking and screaming for education. Well, no skid marks. 
And I want to tell you, on this chart, if they drug us through the muck 
to raise education funding, look at 1995 and prior and where they 
funded education. I will submit these charts for the record. But they 
sure did not drag their own party to increase education, because look 
at the level at which the increase in education was and what it is now.
  My colleagues on the other side know there is a regular process. The 
other body, that many of us call the House of Lords, no matter what 
figure we put in for any one of the 13 appropriations

[[Page H6509]]

bills, they will load it with pork. Traditionally, the Democrats did 
so, too, when they were in the majority, and that is, I think, a little 
bit of these figures that go into that as well. But they knew in 
conference there was a negotiation, and this bill will be negotiated in 
the conference as well.
  I think if you look at the number of increases, Republicans did not 
do it all by ourselves. The gentleman from California (Mr. George 
Miller) over there, I laud what he did in working with the President, 
and we did that in a bipartisan way. I think we can get through this 
bill the same way.
  If you take a look at IDEA, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) 
yesterday said they increased IDEA 7 percent every year. That is true. 
But when you increase IDEA from 2 percent of funding or 3 percent of 
current level, it is not very much, and the maximum was 6 percent. We 
are up to like 18 percent now in the last 5 years. That is a 
significant increase.
  Did Republicans do that alone? Absolutely not. We did it with the 
help of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), we did it with the 
help of our Speaker and with the Members of the other body. 
Unfortunately, on the floor today there is more partisan wrangling for 
an election coming up than there is sitting down and really wanting to 
work on these bills, and that is disconcerting.
  I have brought forward that my real concern is that we are increasing 
a lot of these funds for Title I, and we did in the previous years, 
too, with the help of my friend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) 
as well. But in California, Governor Davis, for example, Title I, the 
extra money we got in the formula fight and increases in funding, he 
has taken that money and is putting it into county mental health.
  IDEA, which we fight for, my sister-in-law is head of IDEA for Alan 
Bersin, Superintendent of city schools, who was working under President 
Clinton, and I am supporting him. He is a good guy trying to do the 
right thing. But Governor Davis is cutting the State money and using 
the Federal money to drive the engine of IDEA and cutting a lot of 
people out. There is never enough money there that we can put in to 
solve all of these problems. I would say all the way from Pell Grants 
to Impact Aid, all of these programs are being cut.
  My concern is the State of California and the lack of leadership of 
Governor Davis. He is crucifying the education programs.
  Let me go to another area. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) 
could really ping on me on this if he wanted to, because when I came 
here as a freshman, I did not support the National Endowment for the 
Arts or NIH. I still do not support the National Endowment for the 
Arts. I thought they were a waste of money.
  Then Speaker Gingrich came to me and said, Duke, look at it fiscally. 
Look at a child with diabetes. If we can get in with early detection 
and intervention and healthy living, we can stop kidney dialysis, the 
child going blind, amputation, re-hospital visits, and those dollars we 
will have to apply to Medicare more.
  Then I went back and trumped Speaker Gingrich, who is controversial 
on your side, but he really had his heart in the right direction as far 
as NIH. I went back with John Porter and said it should be a Republican 
policy to double medical research, because it is the one thing that we 
can do to give back. You converted me, and we have done that.
  In this bill, do we keep adding the money for NIH? No. We have 
doubled it, and now we want a COLA to maintain. If you take out 
construction, which can be delayed, it actually increases it 6 percent. 
And we did not get here alone. The gentleman from California (Mr. 
George Miller) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and Speaker 
Gingrich and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), all of us have 
worked on this. I just wish I would hear a little less partisan 
wrangling on the floor and more coming together, because I know, my 
friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), we have done that 
before. I would like to continue to do that.
  Mr. Chairman, I include the following for the Record:

  [Charts not reproducible in the Record.]

                           Special Education

       For too long, America has measured success in special 
     education by money and regulations--not by whether disabled 
     children are learning.
       The bill provides record funding of $9.9 billion to help 
     the states. That means more than $1,400 per special education 
     student. This year, a new authorization will focus on 
     instruction methods, curricula, teacher training, and 
     education strategies, that help identify early and accurately 
     as well as treat swiftly the needs of disabled children.


          New Solutions for Teaching Disabled Children Better

     There are many challenges facing special education.
       For some parents, special education laws and regulations 
     can be a morass of bureaucracy and unmet needs leading to 
     frustrating conferences, meetings, even court rooms. But for 
     the vast majority of parents (67%), they rate their schools 
     as ``good'' or ``excellent.''
       As a recent survey of members of the National Schools 
     Boards Association noted, almost 9 in 10 (88%) identified 
     special education as an issue of ``moderate'' or 
     ``significant concern.''
       For special ed teachers, special education laws and 
     regulations can mean reams of paperwork that keep them out of 
     the classroom.
       For some educators, special education laws mean extra class 
     work as a nurse, a psychologist, or a social worker when 
     trying to help a student while teaching a full class.
       For school officials, special education can mean tough 
     choices about resources and other students' needs, pitting 
     some programs against others.
     No Child Left Behind applies to every student--including 
         those with disabilities.
       Under the bipartisan law, every state must set clear and 
     high standards for what students in each grade should know 
     and be able to do in the core academic subjects of reading, 
     math, and science.
       States will measure each student's progress toward those 
     standards with tests aligned with those higher standards.
       The law requires that all schools be held accountable for 
     the learning of every student.
     We have to identify special needs early and accurately . . .
       Of the 6.5 million children in special education, half of 
     those who are in special education are identified as having 
     a``specific learning disability.'' In fact, this group has 
     grown over 300% since 1976.
       Of those with ``specific learning disabilities,'' 80% are 
     there simply because they haven't learned how to read. We 
     must change that by promoting solid curricula, good teachers 
     and involved parents.
       Children of minority status are overrepresented in some 
     categories of special education. The fact is African-American 
     children are twice as likely as white children to be labeled 
     as having mental retardation and placed in special education.
     . . . and get children help swiftly and surely.
       By focusing on scientifically tested, evidence-based 
     research we can end the fads that force many children into 
     special education.
       By focusing on programs that work we can find the best ways 
     to teach children including how to meet unique learning 
     needs. To this end, No Child Left Behind funds only 
     scientifically based teaching materials.
       And, through the President's Early Reading and Reading 
     First initiatives, reading programs will be supported that 
     use proven methods, equip teachers to intervene when problems 
     arise, and allow educators to build on strengths and target 
     learning needs.
     We must move from a culture of compliance to a culture of 
         accountability and results.
       This year Congress has the opportunity to resolve these 
     issues. The Individual with Disabilities Education Act is set 
     for reauthorization. Now is the time for reform.
       The Education of the Handicapped Act of 1975 (now IDEA) 
     requires that every child with disabilities receive a free 
     and appropriate education in the public schools. Millions of 
     children have benefited.
       But too many fail to catch up.
     Congress has poured billions of dollars into special 
         education. It's time to measure progress not dollar 
         signs.
       We must heed the plea of families and make the system 
     simpler.
       We must heed the plea of teachers and reduce the paperwork 
     and increase their time in the classroom. A tree should not 
     fall every time a child enters special education.
       Special education money must yield results--not encourage 
     districts to put children in special education to get more 
     federal money. The percentage of children in special 
     education has soared from 8% in 1976 to 13% in 1997.
     Politics should stop at the schoolhouse door.
       That's why President Bush appointed experienced educators 
     to a special commission to find out how to best serve 
     children with disabilities.
       The Commission on Excellence in Special Education looked at 
     ways to make sure lesson plans, textbooks, and teaching 
     methods are scientifically proven to get results so that 
     early classroom experiences help not exacerbate learning 
     difficulties.

[[Page H6510]]

       The Commission also looked at the current effectiveness of 
     teacher training and professional development not just for 
     special educators, but also for all educators who work with 
     students with disabilities.
     The president believes in funding with reform.
       For three straight years, President Bush has asked for 
     three $1 billion increases in federal funding for IDEA. In 
     contrast, President Clinton asked for total increases 
     equaling $1.7 billion during his entire eight years in 
     office.
       This year's request is the largest of any president in 
     history; $9.5 billion dollars.
       That means the federal government will be spending an 
     $1,400 for every child with a disability. The highest funding 
     ever.
       A majority of parents with children in special education 
     (52%) agree that ``better programs and policies, not more 
     money, is the best way to improve special education.''
     Critics have attacked the issue of ``fully funding'' special 
         education. But this is a twenty-five year-old attack.
       Special education should not be treated as a separate cost 
     system, and evaluations of spending must be based on all of 
     the expenditures for the child, including the funds from 
     general education.
       As the President's Commission put it, ``Funding 
     arrangements should not create an incentive for special 
     education identification or become an option for isolating 
     children with learning and behavior problems. Each special 
     education need must be met using a school's comprehensive 
     resources, not by relegating students to a separately funded 
     program. Flexibility in the use of all educational funds, 
     including those provided through IDEA, is essential.''
                                  ____


                           Unfunded Mandates

       Some critics charge that No Child Left Behind takes away 
     local power and imposes unfunded mandates.


              Record Spending and A Commitment to Success

No Child Left Behind mandates only one thing: results for every child. 
   The law ends the old days of ever-higher federal spending with no 
  expectation or demand for better student achievement or wise use of 
                            taxpayer funds.

       No Child Left Behind respects the rights of states to 
     establish their own standards, align their curriculum to 
     their standards, and assess whether or not students are 
     meeting those standards.
       Schools and school districts must be accountable for how 
     they spend taxpayer funds.
       States must improve schools, produce results, and ensure 
     that every child learns.
     And this law is amply funded. Democrats and Republicans 
         passed a bill that combines record spending with a 
         commitment to reform and results.
       Fiscal Year 2003 funding for No Child Left Behind programs 
     increased by more 36 percent over 2001, and 60 percent over 
     2000 levels.
       This year America will spend more than $8,200 per student 
     of which the federal contribution is now 8.4 percent.
       Thanks to the record spending in No Child Left Behind, 
     federal discretionary spending on education has more than 
     doubled since 1996.
       Spending without a plan, without accountability, without 
     studying what works, without setting standards or 
     expectations is a mandate of sorts--a mandate to fail every 
     time.
     No Child Left Behind provides record spending--the highest 
         spending per child ever. That federal money is meant to 
         supplement and boost state and local spending, ensuring 
         that all children receive a world-class education.
       Educators can spend the money more freely than ever before, 
     but they cannot waste taxpayer money on programs that don't 
     work. That's why the bill measures every child's progress 
     with tests and gives every parent report cards on how their 
     school is doing.
       According to a new study from the National Bureau of 
     Economic Research, the average cost of testing is just $5.81 
     per student--just a tiny fraction of the $8,200 spent per 
     student.
       Total spending on all testing is a mere seven-hundredths of 
     one percent (.07 percent) of the cost of K-12 education.
       In addition, No Child Left Behind provides full funding for 
     the development and implementation of the new assessments 
     required by the law by requesting $390 million this year--$3 
     million higher than the year before.
                                  ____


                           Supporting Success

       President Bush has done more than support record spending 
     levels. His administration--for the first time in history--is 
     focusing federal money on programs that work as well as 
     ensuring that old programs show results.
       As part of that leadership, the president's budget sets up 
     top priorities such as special education, help for the 
     disadvantaged (Title I), and the Reading First program, which 
     supports solid scientifically based reading instruction.
     The increases and record spending to programs such as Title I 
         (for disadvantaged children) and special education were 
         made possible by courageous leadership.
       In the past the federal government has consistently 
     increased spending, but it has never demanded that taxpayers 
     get a return on their investments.
       Using new measures of programs and a culture of 
     accountability the No Child Left Behind Act provides the 
     information and options to parents to improve the future of 
     children in schools receiving Title I funds.
       In the past, disadvantaged children had no options when 
     they were trapped in low-performing schools. Now, portions of 
     Title I funding can be used to send students to after-school 
     classes, tutoring, even to a new, better performing school.
       This is a solution proven to work: Get children into better 
     learning environments to raise their academic performance. 
     It's also why the president is requesting, and this 
     subcommittee is recommending, $12.4 billion for Title I--the 
     highest spending ever.
     New programs and budget priorities will also help prevent 
         many children from needing special education help.
       Of the 6.5 million children in special education, half of 
     those who are in special education are identified as having a 
     ``specific learning disability.'' In fact, this group has 
     grown over 300% since 1976.
       Of those with ``specific learning disabilities,'' 80% are 
     there because they haven't learned how to read. We must 
     change that by promoting solid curricula, good teachers, and 
     involved parents.
       Children of minority status are overrepresented in some 
     categories of special education. The fact is African-American 
     children are twice as likely as white children to be labeled 
     mentally retarded and placed in special education.
       That's why the 2004 budget and the subcommittee bill 
     increase spending on Reading First from $1.068 billion to 
     $1.150 billion. From that total, Early Reading First is set 
     to get a $25.5 million increase. These two programs teach 
     reading and literacy skills using scientifically backed 
     research. Such instruction and curricula will help held off 
     the reading problems that lead so many children to special 
     education.
       All this supplements No Child Left Behind's requirement 
     that all federal funds be directed to programs reflecting 
     scientific backed curricula and instruction methods.
       Of course, to increase spending on vital programs that 
     serve millions of children is a challenge for fiscally 
     responsible leaders. It often means ending programs that have 
     no track record of success or inefficiently serve too few 
     children.
                                  ____


                                Title I

       In 2004, President Bush's Title I funding request for 
     disadvantaged students will provide yet another increase to 
     record levels.


                 how president bush fights for title I:

     The president recognizes that the Title I program is at the 
         very heart of both the federal investment in improving 
         elementary and secondary education and the reforms called 
         for in the No Child Left Behind Act.
       Building on last year's historic increase, the president 
     has requested and the subcommittee has approved $12.4 billion 
     in 2004, which will result in a $4.4 billion increase since 
     2000--a 55% increase!
       This means more than 15 million students in more than 
     46,000 schools will receive Title I services.
       In his first three years, President Bush and the Republican 
     Congress have sought double the support for Title I that 
     President Clinton sought in his previous eight budget 
     requests.


            more than money: real help for the disadvantaged

     Real leadership means ensuring programs help children, not 
         just spend more money.
       No Child Left Behind converts the Title I program from a 
     system of reckless spending to a structure of accountability 
     for finance and results.
       President Bush has proposed boosting spending on Title I to 
     over $12 billion annually--but for the additional funding, he 
     expects clear results. States are required to develop 
     standards in math and reading for grades 3-8, with annual 
     assessments tied to these standards.
     Title I was one of the federal government's first major 
         education programs. It was intended to help individual 
         children from low-income homes achieve. No Child Left 
         Behind focuses the money back on high poverty schools to 
         help children in those schools improve their academic 
         performance.
       Fro 38 years and with nearly $160 billion, Title I has not 
     fulfilled its purpose of boosting academic performance.
       A lack of accountability and a lack of research-based 
     education methods left Title I efforts with few results to 
     show. In recent decades, the achievement gap between 
     disadvantaged children and their higher-performing, more 
     affluent peers, has remained wide, and in some case, has 
     grown wider still.
     Under No Child Left Behind student performance will be 
         monitored and the results will matter.
       All schools must meet adequate yearly progress (AYP) 
     objectives for all the students they serve--regardless of a 
     child's race or socioeconomic status.
       The 12-year goal of No Child Left Behind is teach every 
     child and live up to the vision first dreamt when title I was 
     begun.

[[Page H6511]]

     
                                  ____
                            Higher Education

       Pell Grants are maintained at $4,050 for the maximum award. 
     This is the highest level in the program's history.
       This latest proposed increase will also continue to retire 
     a shortfall related to the 2002-2003 award year while 
     maintaining support for nearly 4.9 million low and middle-
     income students--one million more students since 2001.
       The bill continues its commitment to disadvantaged students 
     includes increased funding overall for HBCUs and HISs that 
     strengthen institutions that serve high proportions of 
     minority and disadvantaged students.
       An increase of $10.1 million (4.7 percent) for Historically 
     Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs).
       A $1.2 million increase (1.3 percent) for Hispanic-serving 
     Institutions (HSIs).
       Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants (SEOG) are 
     maintained at $760 million, which would leverage nearly $200 
     million in institutional matching funds to make a total of 
     $960 million available in grants to an estimated 1.2 million 
     recipients.
       Work-Study is maintained at $1.01 billion to help 1.1 
     million needy students pay for college through part-time work 
     on campus or in the community.
       The Education Department waives the 25 percent match 
     requirement for students employed as reading or math tutors.
       The president's budget allows for more than $1 billion in 
     new low-interest loans to be made to needy students 
     qualifying under the Perkins Loan program, and continues a 
     $99 million capital contribution to a revolving fund that has 
     grown to a sustainable size--more than $7.2 billion--over its 
     40-year history.
       Repayments of existing loans into federal revolving funds 
     held at institutions will continue to support more than $1 
     billion in new Perkins Loans each year.
                                  ____


                              Pell Grants

       Pell Grants give low- and middle-income students greater 
     access to college.
       Nearly 4.9 million students will receive Pell Grants in 
     2004.
     Pell Grants because they provide millions of students with 
         the freedom and opportunity to go to college.
       In just two years (2000-2002), the number of Pell 
     recipients has surged 25 percent!
       The program is a perfect example of a need-based program 
     meant to open doors and provide equality of education 
     opportunity: The poorer the student, the larger the award.
     Pell Grants show how freedom of choice in education works to 
         help students and keep America competitive.
       Pell Grants are an example of the federal government 
     enabling school choice for millions of Americans. Students 
     can use their Pell Grants at public or private schools. They 
     can even use them to attend religious schools.
       Real choice for students is one reason that this country's 
     higher education system is the envy of the world.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 20 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, we come together all right when we have good bills to 
come together on, but this bill is a turkey, and that is why on this 
occasion we are not for it.
  I will also be inserting in the Congressional Record when we get into 
the full House several charts which relate to what the gentleman just 
said that demonstrate the error of his ways.
  I would also point out to the gentleman, he is factually incorrect if 
he says that this bill was earmarked when the Democrats were in 
control. There were no earmarks whatsoever. In fact, Bill Natcher, the 
last Democratic chairman of this subcommittee, prided himself on not 
having any earmarks.
  With respect to the subcommittee that I chaired for foreign 
operations, there were no earmarks in the foreign operations bill when 
I chaired that subcommittee either.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the theme of this particular bill seems to be 
``promises made and promises broken.'' The fact of the matter is that 
this theme is true with respect to K through 12 education, where 
President Bush's own education bill, the No Child Left Behind bill, the 
promise was a deal. The deal was that there would be more 
accountability and more requirements in there that would be imposed or 
mandated on local communities to meet that cost, and, in return, the 
Federal Government would step up to the plate and put some more 
resources towards meeting those mandates.
  The broken part of the promise, of course, is this appropriations 
bill is $8 billion short on the promised full funding. Yes, it is a 
little over 1 percent more than the current funding, but that is 
essentially a freeze when you consider the increased number of students 
involved and the inflationary factor.
  The fact of the matter is it does not at all address the increased 
mandates of local communities to meet the requirements in that bill.
  This theme is also true with respect to IDEA, the Individuals with 
Disabilities Education Act, the promise of over 25 years ago that the 
Federal Government would try to come up with 40 percent of the excess 
cost of educating a child with disabilities. Now, we know that that 
high cost for a free and appropriate education of disabled students was 
not being met by the States, and the Federal Government stepped forward 
with that promise. The States now have relied on that promise. In 2004, 
6.4 million 3- to 21-year-olds depend in part on the Federal Government 
to step forward and help out.
  Promise number two in the area of IDEA is in 1994 the Republicans in 
their Contract on America said they would fully fund IDEA, but both of 
these promises have been broken. Both the 25-year-old goal and the 
decade-old political statement have not been met.
  The third promise is the majority's 2004 budget resolution. It 
promised an increase of $2.2 billion over the last year's grants for 
school districts.
  Another promise was the majority's reauthorization bill passed in 
April, again promising an additional $2.2 billion for IDEA.
  The fact of the matter is this appropriations bill falls $1.2 billion 
short on IDEA. Under the Republican plan, the State of Massachusetts 
will lose over $29 million on grants that it otherwise would have 
gotten if the authorization bill's goals were met.
  But that is the way it is, Mr. Chairman, with this House. The 
majority says when it comes to giving tax cuts to millionaires, they 
can take the check to the bank; but when it comes to funding 
educational needs for children and their families, that check is 
written in disappearing ink.
  When it comes to millionaires getting a break, deficits do not seem 
to matter; but when it comes to funding education for disabled kids in 
Massachusetts and throughout this country, deficits all of a sudden do 
seem to matter, and there is no money left to help.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) offered an amendment to just 
make those millionaire tax cuts a few thousand dollars less so we could 
meet this obligation and add that $1.2 billion back into IDEA, but the 
majority voted it down in committee. Yesterday the Committee on Rules 
made sure we could not debate it on the floor of the House.
  So, in this body millionaires get the huge tax cuts they make, they 
do not have any shared sacrifice, they do not offer back to help out, 
but families and children and school districts, they do not get it. 
They get the check written in disappearing ink.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).
  Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to lend my support for the 
2004 Labor-HHS appropriations bill. Much has been said today by those 
in opposition to the bill regarding the lack of aid to social projects 
and education, and the reason I wanted to come down here today is to 
call special attention to one program that has been given significant 
increases, and that has to do with mentoring. Those dollars have gone 
from practically zero a year ago to a significant amount. As a matter 
of fact, those mentoring programs have been funded by an increase of 
roughly 300 percent this year.
  This is very important. The reason I think this is important is to 
realize that over the last 10 years, we have spent an additional $80 
billion on education. That is both Republicans and Democrats. We have 
increased it $80 billion. We have seen no increase in the level of test 
scores, we have seen no improvement in drop-out rates.

                              {time}  1230

  So just spending large amounts of money does not fix the problem.
  One of the things that has happened here is we have seen a tremendous 
increase in social pathology. We have more and more kids who go to 
school each day who are so troubled by their environment and their home 
life that they cannot really learn anything because they cannot focus. 
So mentoring

[[Page H6512]]

is one thing that does work. There are statistics and research that 
indicates this, that mentoring significantly reduces dropout rates, 
cuts drug abuse by roughly 50 percent, absenteeism from school by 
roughly 50 percent, teenage pregnancy by 30, 40 percent, violent 
behavior by 30 percent. It improves graduation rates, personal hygiene, 
and relationships with peers and with parents. It costs about $300 to 
$500 a year to run a good mentoring program per student. It costs about 
$30,000 a year to lock somebody up. Somebody addicted to meth will cost 
probably roughly $50,000 to $100,000 for a community, because they are 
going to commit 60 crimes a year, on the average. So we feel that this 
is very cost effective. This money will come back to society many times 
over.
  So I would like to thank the President for his interest, as well as 
the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner) for his interest in 
mentoring, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for his help, 
and particularly the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula), because as 
I have found the chairman, he has been very fair. He has listened very 
carefully. He does care about children. He cares about education. He 
has a difficult balancing act to perform and has done it, I think, with 
great effectiveness. I just wanted to come down here and thank the 
chairman. I appreciate it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this legislation because it 
abandons our commitment, our common commitment to affordable college 
education for American families; and it abandons those values which 
guide us towards that commitment.
  Just last month, unemployment rose to 6.4 percent, the highest in 9 
years. America's working-class and middle-class families are struggling 
to make ends meet; and yet college tuition is skyrocketing in this 
country. Double-digit tuition increases are a standard at public 
universities, with these costs rising by more than 20 percent in some 
States.
  The solution in this bill to these trends of rising unemployment and 
increasingly unaffordable college education is to freeze all student 
aid for the first time in 6 years. The value of the Pell grant, the 
biggest and largest Federal college assistance program and other 
student financial aid programs, actually decreases under this bill. It 
does not even adjust for inflation or counteract sharply-rising college 
tuition costs.
  I believe that this bill runs counter to the values that Members on 
both sides of the aisle share. I know I have talked to Members on the 
other side of the aisle who have expressed the importance of college 
education. We would not be here in this Chamber if it were not for the 
importance that college education provided us to move and achieve for 
us and for our families the American Dream.
  We tell our constituents that they should have to take out a second 
mortgage on their homes or burden their children with increasing 
amounts of debt to just make college education accessible. Now, I 
remember a family I met, a police officer and a spouse, a teacher in a 
parochial school. They had two kids in high school. They looked at me 
and they said they had no idea how they were going to pay for college 
education for their kids who wanted to go to a public university. I was 
running for Congress and I told them about the tuition deduction which 
ends in 2005, their ability to deduct $4,000 from their taxes. I told 
them about other availabilities of States programs.
  Now, we have talked on both sides of the aisle. We are all here 
because of the importance we put on higher education. We know it is the 
door which every American middle-class family or low-income family 
walks through so they can achieve for themselves and their families the 
American Dream. This bill is in violation of our common values and the 
principles that we hold true, that a higher education is the key to 
America. We should not convince middle-class families of the importance 
of college education and then place it out of reach for them. The only 
guarantee that that parent has is to take a second mortgage on their 
house. The only guarantee we provide is that child graduates from 
college with $30,000 or $40,000 or $50,000 in debt as they begin the 
new adventure of their endeavors in life. According to the Advisory 
Committee on Student Financial Assistance, 48 percent of qualified, 
low- to moderate-income students from high school do not go to 4-year 
colleges because of financial barriers.
  I believe, and I have talked to Members on the other side of the 
aisle, that this bill violates our fundamental commitment to make sure 
that college education is there for middle-class families by walking 
away from the commitment to make sure that college assistance is here 
today, there tomorrow, so they can go to college and achieve for 
themselves and their children what we are here doing for ourselves and 
our children.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I want to say first, before yielding to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman of the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce, that his committee is looking at all of 
these programs to find which of those are working well and is providing 
reforms that will make them work even better, and I think that is an 
important element of what we are doing today.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Boehner).
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the dean of our Ohio 
delegation, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), for yielding me this 
time. Let me thank the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) and the 
gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) and the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey) for their efforts in bringing this bill to the floor today. 
We all know this is a difficult bill. There are a lot of competing 
interests in this bill, and it is never easy; but they have done a good 
job.
  There has been a lot of discussion here about the fact that this 
ought to be bigger. But not only did we, the Congress, support a tax 
cut for the American people, we also supported a $20 billion increase 
in discretionary spending. And the fact is, we are spending more. Our 
job as Members of Congress is to make decisions, decisions about where 
the resources that we get from our taxpayers, where those resources 
ought to go. For a while, in the late 1990s, revenues were flowing to 
the Federal Government at unprecedented rates, and we did not have to 
make as difficult choices as we do today, given the fact that we are in 
a recession and given the fact that we have been the subject of a 
serious terrorist attack. So we are making decisions.
  But when it comes to the education issues that we fund in this bill, 
we all know when we passed the No Child Left Behind Act that we were 
going to make a serious commitment to improve all of America's schools, 
especially the neediest of America's schools. We know the problems that 
are there; and in a bipartisan way, this House and this Congress and 
the President worked to put in place a reform effort. And for the first 
time in the 37 years that the Federal Government has been involved in 
our local schools, we have all States in compliance with the Federal 
law. This never happened before. All 50 States have set their 
accountability plans to Washington and all 50 States, and the District 
of Columbia and Puerto Rico, have had their plans approved. This is a 
major accomplishment on the part of the Congress and the administration 
to start the accountability process in a serious way.
  We also said when we passed that bill that we would increase our 
funding to our local schools. Under the bill we have before us, title I 
gets $666 million in new money. Now, this is in addition to the money 
that we have given over the last 3 years. If we look at the last 3 
years under President Bush, the increases in title I were greater than 
the increases in title I during 7 years of President Clinton.
  Now, we can argue about whether it is enough, whether it is too much; 
but the fact is that we stepped up to the plate to help the neediest of 
our students, because title I money goes to poor children and goes to 
poor schools. I think that we have done our job, and we need to stay at 
it. We need to keep working to increase these amounts. But we have to 
understand that this $666 million increase is on top of the

[[Page H6513]]

$1.2 billion increase last year and a $1.3 billion increase the year 
before.
  Let us talk about special needs children, individuals with 
disabilities and education. Since 1995, the Congress has increased our 
grants to local schools by 300 percent. In this bill we add another $1 
billion of funding to help meet our commitments. Now, we can have a 
partisan debate about who is doing the most for education, but when 
Republicans took control of Congress in 1995, the Federal commitment to 
IDEA was 5 percent of the cost, 5 percent. With the passage of this 
bill, we will be up to 18.7 percent of the cost of IDEA, and it is 
based on a much greater number of special ed children today than what 
we were talking about in 1995, a 300 percent increase.
  Also in the bill that we have before us, we move the reading grant 
for Reading First and Early Reading to $1.15 billion. Now, this is 
again a 300 percent increase over where we were just 3 years ago in 
terms of our commitment to help children in kindergarten through third 
grade and even younger in the earlier grant money to help them have a 
chance at being able to read by the end of the third grade.
  Charter schools in this bill will get an increase of $71.5 million, 
another significant increase, made up of $220 million of money for 
start-up and planning for new charter schools, and $75 million worth of 
facility money, which will be leveraged into over $200 million worth of 
money to help plan facilities. There is another $885 million in this 
bill, an increase, to do Pell grants.
  We all know, especially the speaker that spoke before, of the 
increasing challenge that this Congress has to meet our commitments 
under the Higher Education Act, to provide more access for the neediest 
of our students who are able and want to go to college. The more we 
work to increase access, the harder it becomes because the cost of 
tuition and fees at our colleges and universities continues to outstrip 
inflation by a rate of two to three times the inflation rate, causing 
us increasing problems. As we reauthorize the Higher Education Act, as 
we go through the balance of this year and next, we will continue to 
look at what we can do to ensure that the children have better access.
  Head Start gets an increase here of $148 million of new money. But 
overall, spending on discretionary education programs in this bill 
increases by $2.3 billion. Mr. Chairman, $2.3 billion, that is real 
money on top of the money we are spending, bringing the total to some 
$55.4 billion that we are committing in this bill to discretionary 
education programs. This does not include the cost of student loans and 
mandatory spending programs, but $55.4 billion worth of discretionary 
money. I just think that if we look at over the last 3 years since 
President Bush has taken office, that is an increase of $13.2 billion 
of real money, trying to help improve our schools and to ensure that 
every child in America gets a chance at a good education, because 
without one, they will have no chance at a shot at the American Dream. 
We need to support this bill.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, let me simply correct several of the impressions left 
by the previous speaker.
  I want to congratulate the Republican Party. I will readily admit 
that they have changed somewhat since they took over in 1995. When they 
took over in 1995, they wanted to cut the guts out of education 
funding, and they wanted to abolish the Department of Education. They 
have become somewhat more civilized since that time. But they are still 
producing appropriation bills that do not meet the promise of their 
authorizations and do not meet the promise of their budget resolutions. 
That is obvious.
  With respect to title I, the fact is that between fiscal year 2001 
and 2003, the Bush administration requested a total increase of $1.3 
billion for title I, only 44 percent of the total $2.9 billion increase 
eventually provided by the Congress, one House of which is under 
Democratic control. On Pell Grants, if House Republicans had had their 
way, the Pell Grant maximum award would have been cut between fiscal 
year 1996 and fiscal year 2003 by a net total of $530 below the final 
levels enacted into law.
  So let me simply say those are the facts with respect to the past. 
But the past, in my view, is not quite as important as the future; and 
I would simply say that today it is very simple: Do we want to use $6 
billion to guarantee that people who make more than $1 million a year 
will get an $88,000 tax cut, or do we want to limit their tax cut to 
$44,000 so we can move $6 billion into education and into health care, 
most of which will go to protect the health care of children?

                              {time}  1245

  That is the issue that is before us, not yesterday, but today; and 
when the votes are counted, we will see where each party stands.

                    Republican Record on Pell Grants

       If House Republicans had had their way, the Pell Grant 
     maximum award would have been cut between FY 1996 and FY 2003 
     by a net total of $530 below the final levels that were 
     enacted into law.
       In FY 1996, the House Republican LHHS bill cut President 
     Clinton's request for a $2,620 maximum Pell Grant by $180 to 
     $2,440. The Republican bill provided $30 less than the $2,470 
     maximum grant provided in the final LHHS bill.
       In FY 1997, House Republicans again cut President Clinton's 
     request for a $2,700 maximum Pell Grant by $200 to $2,500. 
     The Pell Grant award level in the House Republican LHHS bill 
     was $200 less than the final $2,700 maximum award approved in 
     the LHHS conference agreement.
       In FY 1998, a bipartisan House-passed LHHS bill provided a 
     $3,000 maximum Pell Grant level. This amount, secured by 
     Democrats, provided a $300 or 11 percent increase over the 
     previous year, and was later enacted into law.
       In FY 1999, the House Republican LHHS bill provided a token 
     $25 more than the final conference level of $3,125 for the 
     maximum Pell Grant.
       In FY 2000, the House Republican LHHS bill provided $3,275 
     for the maximum Pell Grant, $25 less than the $3,300 maximum 
     Pell Grant approved in the final conference agreement 
     supported by Democrats.
       In FY 2001, the House Republican LHHS bill included $3,500 
     for the maximum Pell award--$250 less than the $3,750 secured 
     by House Democrats in conference. The final level secured by 
     Democrats provided a $450 increase over the previous year and 
     was the largest Pell Grant increase in more than 25 years.
       In FY 2002--a bipartisan year--Republicans agreed with 
     Democrats to raise the maximum Pell Grant to $4,000, an 
     increase of $250 over the previous year. This level was 
     enacted into law.
       In FY 2003, the Republican LHHS bill introduced by Chairman 
     Regula accepted the President Bush's proposal to freeze the 
     maximum grant at $4,000. The bill provided $50 less than the 
     $4,050 level ultimately approved in the FY 2003 omnibus 
     appropriations bill.

                                        PELL GRANT PROGRAM--MAXIMUM AWARD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     GOP House       GOP House
                                      Request        GOP House      Conference      compared to     compared to
                                                                                      request       conference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 1996.........................           2,620           2,440           2,470            -180             -30
FY 1997.........................           2,700           2,500           2,700            -200            -200
FY 1998 \1\.....................           3,000           3,000           3,000               0               0
FY 1999.........................           3,100           3,150           3,125              50              25
FY 2000.........................           3,250           3,275           3,300              25             -25
FY 2001.........................           3,500           3,500           3,750               0            -250
FY 2002 \1\.....................           3,850           4,000           4,000             150               0
FY 2003.........................           4,000           4,000           4,050               0             -50
FY 1996-2003....................  ..............  ..............  ..............            -155            -530
FY 2004.........................           4,000           4,050              na              50              na
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes.--House level is the level in the House-passed bill or the House Appropriations Committee-reported bill in
  those years in which the House did not pass a LHHS bill, except in FY 2003 where the House level is the level
  in HR 246, a LHHS bill introduced by Chairman Regula.
\1\ Years in which there was a bipartisan agreement on the House-passed LHHS bill.


[[Page H6514]]

  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York 
(Mrs. Lowey).
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today reluctantly in opposition to 
the 2004 Labor-Health and Human Services bill because I know how much 
our chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), really cares about 
these issues and how he is committed to these issues. And I also want 
to express my appreciation to the gentleman from Florida (Chairman 
Young) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). 
They are all men of great principle and fairness. I enjoy serving with 
them, and I do respect them.
  However, I am really disappointed that this process operated under 
terms and with restraints for the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) 
that do not do justice to the millions of Americans whose lives are 
improved by the programs funded in this bill. For example, one would 
hope that students attending college could count on greater support 
from the Federal Government during these hard times, but with this bill 
they will not be able to. The maximum Pell grant is frozen at 4,050. 
Not only have House Republicans consistently neglected the Pell grant, 
but it is important for us all to remember that when the program was 
started in 1975, Pell grants paid about 84 percent of college costs. It 
now pays only about 38 percent of college costs. And under the 
Republican bill, funding for the four campus-based aid programs, 
Supplemental Education Opportunity Grant, College Work Study, 
Leveraging Educational Assistant Partnership, LEAP, and Perkins Loans 
Program, are also level-funded.
  The average student loan debt has nearly doubled in the last 5 years. 
Last year the average undergraduate borrower left school with nearly 
$17,000 in debt due to Federal student loans. With nearly 64 percent of 
students depending on student loans, and that percentage is sure to 
grow during this time of economic hardship, how can we in good 
conscience not increase funding for the very programs that encourage 
States to implement need-based aid?
  In New York, the State and city university systems are on the cusp of 
instituting massive tuition increases, and they are not alone in their 
struggle to make up for faltering State budgets and decreased 
philanthropy. Colleges across the country are hiking tuition by record 
levels, including colleges and universities in Texas, Iowa, Missouri, 
and Massachusetts.
  And let us not forget, we have to couple the lack of college funding 
assistance in this Labor-HHS bill with the administration's recently 
announced regulation change that would decrease college loans for 
millions of students and their families. Nationwide under the Bush 
regulations, 84,000 students would lose Pell grant eligibility 
altogether, and millions more would lose some Federal assistance. It 
really was a shame that we could not have corrected that in this bill.
  I will give you an example. I visit the community colleges and the 4-
year colleges in my district all the time.
  For example:
  A family of four living in New Jersey with one child in college, 
attending full time, would have to pay about $100 more toward college 
expenses; and
  A family in New York with $45,000 combined income, one child 
attending college full time, would have to pay about $300 more toward 
college expenses.
  During Committee consideration of the Labor HHS, we had an 
opportunity to put the breaks on the Bush proposal. But, and I think 
it's important for America's hardworking families and dedicated 
students to know, Committee Republicans rejected that attempt.
  In pointing out the problems with this bill, I do not fault either of 
the chairmen. They had a bad set of parameters to work with. But the 
2.9 million graduating high school students, the 5 million Pell Grant 
recipients, and the millions of Americans who rely on the student aid 
programs to make attending college a reality deserve more. And the 
Democratic substitute would have done just that!
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the Republican Labor HHS bill.
  Let us hope that we can correct this bill and work together as the 
bill comes back from the Senate and reach the level that I know our 
chairman and our ranking member and all of us really want to achieve. I 
thank the gentleman again for working so closely with us.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to comment that in the last 8 years we have 
doubled Pell grants, and I will also add that we have added $885 
million this year. The reason the maximum has stayed stable is that 
more people are taking advantage of it, and that is good. That is a 
positive thing. As a naval veteran, I am a product of the GI bill, and 
I realize how very important these opportunities are. And I would like 
to do more, but I think we have done a good job, considering the 
resources that are available.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Nethercutt).
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time. I rise in support of this bill, and I rise particularly to 
support the funding for diabetes prevention and control activities that 
are contained in it.
  As the cochairman of the Diabetes Caucus in the House, I believe that 
increased funding for these programs is of utmost importance, and I 
thank the committee for its attention to the issue of diabetes. This 
bill increases funding for NIDDK over the last year's level by $47 
million and increases funding at the CDC by $300 million over last 
year's level.
  The progress made to date with this money that has already been 
appropriated by the House is very impressive, and I want to emphasize 
to the chairman and the Members that clinical trials involving the 
transplantation of insulin-producing cells into individuals with Type I 
diabetes has brought us within reach of a cure. Of the approximately 
200 patients who have received these transplants, 160 of them no longer 
need to take insulin. If you are involved at all with diabetes, you 
know how significant this is. It is a life-saving event.
  So as we consider the bill, I know there are some upcoming 
initiatives that we need to emphasize, and they will be very important 
in the prevention of diabetes in America, and in turn they will save 
taxpayers' dollars.
  On March 31, 2003, the Department of Health and Human Services 
announced that the Department would be launching a diabetes detection 
initiative. The goal of the initiative is to encourage people at risk 
with diabetes to get tested and to refer those who test positive for a 
follow-up. About 6 million people in this country have diabetes, but 
they just do not know it. So by supporting this initiative in the 
future, the committee and the House can help these people avoid the 
devastating complications of diabetes, because they are so much a part 
of the Medicare cost that we face in this country.
  I have been working to develop a national diabetes strategic plan 
with the American Diabetes Association and the Office of the Surgeon 
General along with former Speaker Newt Gingrich, who has been a leader 
in this effort to bring a cure to diabetes, and the details on this 
announcement will be made later in the coming months, but it is very 
exciting, the initiatives that are out there. The committee has an 
excellent record on diabetes prevention funding, and I am certain that 
the needs of these meritorious programs will be recognized as we go to 
conference on this measure.
  I thank the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) for his good 
work.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), the ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness, Committee on Education 
and the Workforce.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, today's education funding bill completely ignores the 
reality facing the neediest of our college students today. College 
costs are rising dramatically over the last 10 years. College tuition 
is up 38 percent, and the buying power of the Pell grant is at an 
historical low. Due to the sour economy, State legislatures have 
dramatically reduced their support for a postsecondary education as 
they seek to balance State budgets. Charitable giving, alumni support 
and endowments are down.
  How has all of this affected our students? Students, especially the 
neediest students, are literally being denied a postsecondary education 
because

[[Page H6515]]

they do not have the resources to pay for college. According to the 
Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance, nearly one-half of 
all college-qualified, low- and moderate-income graduates will be 
unable to attend a 4-year college due to rising costs. Nearly 170,000 
students will be unable to attend any postsecondary institution.
  As a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce and the 
ranking member of the Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness, I 
have heard from countless numbers of students and student associations 
on their need for relief, but here on this floor the Republican 
response to the financial difficulties of students is to freeze the 
maximum Pell grant.
  We have passed tax cuts that have benefited the wealthiest of 
Americans. Those within incomes of $1 million receive an $88,000 tax 
cut, and student aid was frozen. This is a terrible priority. We cannot 
provide the $5,800 maximum authorized Pell grant to our students 
because we prioritize those tax cuts over the needs of students. Are we 
now asking the neediest students to walk across town to those who got 
an $88,000 tax cut and plead for help in going to college?
  What is really happening to our country? We are better people than 
that.
  The entire increase in Pell grants during the Bush administration is 
less than the increase made in Pell in the last year of the Clinton 
administration. Clearly financial access to a postsecondary education 
has not been a priority for this administration. Freezing Pell grants 
at a time when more and more individuals are seeking retraining and 
education due to the sour economy sets us back as we struggle to come 
out of this economic recession.
  Rather than passing another tax cut for the wealthiest in our Nation, 
we should defeat this bill on the floor. Instead of passing this 
legislation, we should significantly increase funding for Pell grants 
and other critical education priorities.
  When I was growing up, my dad had to pick one of his five children to 
go to college, one of the five. Although my brothers and sisters were 
qualified, he had to pick one. Are we returning to those days when 
those choices had to be made?
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on each side?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) has 16 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 46 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  We hear on the Pell grant, I want to point out something, and that is 
that in the last 2 years, the numbers have increased 25 percent. So 
even though the level which we have increased substantially in the last 
6 or 8 years was the same this year, it is because we wanted to give 
more students a chance. We have increased the total amount by $880 
million that will be available for Pell grants, but there are so many 
more, and that is good. I like to see more and more students gets 
involved and use this service, but it makes it a tough budgeting 
situation. At least that is the reason that we have gotten to the 
situation we are in.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. 
Simpson), a member of the committee.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time 
and the great work he has done on this, the most difficult, I believe, 
of the appropriation bills.
  We have continually heard today during this debate that 302(b) 
allocations were insufficient or inadequate, and, consequently, we do 
not have enough money to spend on this appropriation, and it is all due 
to the tax cuts.
  If I remember correctly, during the debate on tax cuts, we could not 
do those tax cuts because of the increase that they would cause in the 
deficit. And now we see the truth. They were never concerned about the 
increase in the deficit. They were concerned that there would not be 
enough money to spend on the variety of programs that they want to 
spend money on.
  Well, the distinguished minority whip said that we cannot wash our 
hands, like Pontius Pilate, of the debate on the deficit and the tax 
cuts and on the budgets because they are all interrelated, and he is 
absolutely right.
  There is one thing that should be clear from the past decade. We 
cannot raise taxes enough to eliminate the deficit that has occurred. 
Another thing should be clear is that we cannot cut spending enough to 
eliminate the deficit that has occurred.
  The only way to eliminate the deficit is to have a growing economy. 
We learned that in the 1990s. The only way to have the resources to 
spend on the programs that today you complain about as being 
inadequately funded is to have a growing economy. And we on this side 
of the aisle believe that one way to help that economy is to stimulate 
it by reducing taxes to put more money into people's pockets to grow 
the economy. That is why we supported the tax cuts, not because we care 
more about millionaires than we care about children or anything else. 
It is so in the future, in the long term, we have the resources for 
these programs that we all believe are vitally important.
  Yet, in spite of the economy, we have produced a bill which continues 
the improvements we have made in education and health funding over the 
past 8 years.
  Now, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) continually says, and 
quite emphatically, that the only reason we have been able to increase 
the funding for education or double it over the last 8 years is because 
he brought us across the line kicking and screaming. And I guess that 
may be true. I do not know. I have not been here 8 years. All I want to 
know is who was he bringing across the line kicking and screaming when 
his party controlled the House, the Senate and the White House? I am 
not sure who was doing the kicking and screaming, but you have been 
much more successful with our party than you were with your own party.

                              {time}  1300

  The distinguished minority leader last year on the debate on the rule 
went through a litany of programs in education and health that were 
cut. What the distinguished minority leader did not say is that in each 
and every one of those programs that she mentioned, I believe every one 
of them, there is actually an increase in spending. She was talking 
about a decrease from the authorized level, and I do not know of hardly 
any program in the Federal Government that is actually funded at the 
authorized level. Yet we have continued to improve funding for these 
programs.
  As an example, in special education grants, $1 billion more than last 
year. That is not a cut. In Title I, $660 million above last year. That 
is not a cut. Improved teacher quality, $49.4 million. For transition 
to teaching to assist eligible members of the Armed Forces and 
midcareer professionals to obtain certification of teachers, $2.93 
billion, an $81 million increase above the budget request for 
professional development. Math and science partnerships are funded at 
$150 million, an increase of $50 million. That is not a cut. In Impact 
Aid, $1.238 billion, $50 million over last year's level. That is not a 
cut. In Head Start, $148 million over last year's level. That is not a 
cut.
  The list goes on and on. Only in Washington, D.C., can an increase in 
spending be considered a cut. This is a good bill, and I compliment the 
chairman for his work on it.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I plead absolutely fully guilty to wanting to spend more money to 
invest in education and to spend more money so we can guarantee that 
poor kids are not knocked off Medicaid and SCHIP programs so that they 
have some health care when they need to be seen by a doctor. Fully 
Guilty!
  I also plead fully guilty to wanting to spend more money for NIH so 
we can deal with the ravages of cancer, heart disease, Lou Gehrig's 
disease and the like.
  One example: a year ago my brother-in-law was diagnosed with terminal 
pancreas cancer, 1 year ago. He is still alive because he is lucky 
enough to have gotten into a clinical trial, and they found a drug that 
seems to be working for him. I plead fully guilty to wanting to add a 
lot more money to the Federal budget so that a lot more people can be 
as lucky as he is.
  Madam Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent 
request to the gentleman from Virginia.

[[Page H6516]]

  (Mr. MORAN of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
Labor, Health and Human Services and Education appropriations bill for 
fiscal year 2004. This legislation, if passed and signed into law, will 
be a setback to one of the great American ideals of equal access to a 
quality public education.
  It was once said that ``Education is the great equalizer in a 
democratic society, and if people are not given access to a quality 
education, then what we are doing is creating an underclass of people 
who will ultimately challenge our very way of life.''
  This quote has never been more meaningful and poignant than today, as 
we are poised to do just that: create an underclass of people.
  A year and a half ago, this Congress stood with President Bush and 
our House and Senate education leaders, to pass a bill which would 
redefine our education system and strive to ``leave no child behind.''
  Just two months ago, the Majority passed a conference report for the 
fiscal year 2004 Budget Resolution that promised to provide a $3 
billion increase over the previous year for the Department of Education 
and No Child Left Behind initiatives.
  Unfortunately, this bill still underfunds No Child Left Behind by $8 
billion dollars.
  In other words, we are telling our schools that they must implement 
these reforms for greater accountability, but offering no additional 
resources to do so. In fact, we are doing the complete opposite of the 
intent of the No Child Left Behind law. We are leaving our children 
behind, our teachers behind and more importantly, letting the American 
people down by breaking yet another promise.
  Unfortunately, there is not enough time in general debate for me to 
catalog every shortchange in this bill, such as National Institutes of 
Health funding, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act funding, 
bioterrorism preparedness funding, and failing to provide an increase 
for programs under the Nurse Reinvestment Act.
  This bill is full of broken promises. We can attribute these broken 
promises to the fact that this Congress and our President gave to this 
country's wealthiest 1% massive tax cuts in a time of economic 
uncertainty.
  While I am not pleased with the funding levels of several initiatives 
in this bill, I am pleased that my colleagues, Mr. Obey and Mr. George 
Miller are offering an amendment to correct a recent unfair Department 
of Labor proposal to eliminate overtime under the Fair Labor Standards 
Act.
  This unfair proposal would affect thousands of workers in my 
congressional district who rely on overtime pay to help make ends meet.
  This proposal will make it feasible for employers to reclassify 
workers as ``white collar'' employees, rendering them ineligible for 
overtime pay.
  Some of these 8 million workers include police and firefighters, 
nurses and other First Responders, who would be the first line of 
defense in the event of a terrorist attack.
  After these workers are reclassified and ineligible for overtime pay, 
they would still be required to work longer hours for less money, which 
is the real intent of this proposal.
  The Obey-Miller amendment would prohibit the Department of Labor from 
using funds to enforce any regulation that would cut overtime pay.
  Brick by brick we are building the road to create an underclass of 
people.
  Let us not break yet another promise to the American people.
  I urge all my colleagues to vote in support of the Miller-Obey 
amendment to protect overtime pay and to vote against final passage so 
that this body may consider a bill that more adequately funds 
initiatives at the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and 
Education.
  Mr. REGULA. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy).
  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I rise today to talk about 
the role this plays in helping promote the culture of life, a culture 
that values and respects human life at every stage. I believe that we 
have a responsibility to protect innocent life whenever and wherever 
possible, and so I applaud and thank my colleague from Ohio, the 
chairman of the subcommittee, for including funding in this 
appropriations bill for the Promoting Safe and Stable Families program.
  This program helps fund safe havens created by laws passed in 42 
States that try to reach out to desperate and troubled parents. Too 
often we hear of infants who have been abandoned in trash bins and 
alleys and, much more tragically, killed.
  Just this past week, there was a case in my home State of Minnesota 
where a mother decided to throw her twin infants over a bridge. We must 
reach out to these parents who are unwilling or unable to care for 
their infants and let them know that they can take care of their 
infants by taking them to a safe haven and leave them in the hands of 
those who will care for them and see that they are placed in loving 
families.
  Let me be clear, safe havens are not a substitute for education and 
adoption, merely a last resort for desperate parents considering the 
unthinkable. Safe havens can help avert tragedy and preserve the most 
precious of all things, innocent human life, but these safe havens only 
work if those that need them are aware of them.
  That is why I am sending a letter to the Secretary of Health and 
Human Services Thompson and to the GAO calling for a review of the safe 
havens to find out how much of the funding is being spent on raising 
the awareness of safe havens so we can make recommendations on how it 
can be expanded and improved.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge), former chief school 
officer of his State.
  (Mr. ETHERIDGE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
the time.
  Let me thank the chairman. I will say to him, I served as chairman of 
the committee on appropriations at the State level for 4 years, so I 
recognize the challenge he faces.
  Budgets are about priorities, and I have strong oppositions to this 
bill because of the priorities that it sets out. I will vote against 
it. I do not like voting against appropriations bills, and I will urge 
my colleagues to do the same because of the draconian cuts that I see 
it places on education at the very time when we ought to be investing 
not less, but more in the future of this country and in our children 
and in our ability to compete in an international economy.
  Last Congress, strong bipartisan majorities in this House and in the 
Senate voted to pass the President's No Child Left Behind legislation, 
and I joined in with that vote, but we promised to fund to the level of 
the authorization the moneys for the schools to meet their needs, and 
this bill is $8 billion short in that requirement.
  As my ranking member has said, I am the only former chief serving in 
this Congress. I know what budget priorities are about, but I also know 
what happens in the schools when these cuts come. At a time when we are 
asking our schools to do more than ever, these educational cuts will 
destroy the morale of our teachers, parents and students. These 
educational cuts will make meeting the requirements we have almost 
impossible because we have set high standards for accountability. I 
think we should. Without the needed funding, though, No Child Left 
Behind is a massive unfunded mandate on our local communities and our 
State budgets at a time when States are struggling just to meet the 
funding needs.
  In every State in this Nation, schools are currently working to 
determine how they will measure up to the Federal Education 
Department's definition of adequate yearly progress. Over the next 
several weeks and months, we are going to find out about that because 
they are going to be reporting in. Early estimates are there may be as 
many as 80 percent in some States that cannot meet AYP.
  Plain and simple, these schools need that $8 billion to comply with 
these tough new educational reforms. The education cuts in this bill 
will make No Child Left Behind a cruel hoax on our schools and on our 
children.
  This bill also fails to provide adequate funding for Impact Aid. Let 
me remind my colleagues, Impact Aid is the money we provide for those 
communities that have military bases that have men and women who are 
deployed or protecting our interests around the world. It is critical 
for those children in the military personnel. In my district alone, the 
communities that surround Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base, truly one 
of the important bases in this country, with many, many women deployed 
right now, the tax base is not there to meet the needs due to the 
Federal presence. These funds

[[Page H6517]]

provide flexible operating resources and finance teachers, books, 
computers and others.
  Under this bill, North Carolina loses $16.8 million. We can do 
better. We must be better as our men are deployed in Iraq, Afghanistan, 
and Libya.
  Under this bill, North Carolina will lose $16.8 million in Impact Aid 
below the level authorized. At the very time that states are under 
stress, we are cutting funding in some states.
  As we continue to deploy our troops to Iraq, Afghanistan, Liberia and 
other hot spots throughout the world, we ought not to neglect the 
schools their children attend back here in the states.
  Madam Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote against this bad bill.
  Mr. REGULA. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall).
  (Mr. UDALL of Colorado asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman 
for yielding me time to talk about how this bill is woefully inadequate 
in funding biomedical research, especially Parkinson's research, which 
is near and dear to my heart, as I believe it is to many Members of 
this body.
  Over the last 5 years, Congress took on the charge of doubling the 
NIH budget, and we accomplished that goal. It was a worthy goal. It 
still is a worthy goal because this added funding for NIH will help 
find cures and better treatments for some of the world's deadliest 
diseases. The bill will bring to a halt this progress that we have made 
in funding biomedical research.
  There is just an increase of 2.5 percent, the smallest percentage 
increase in 18 years. It falls short of what is needed to just keep up 
with research inflation costs, which NIH estimates at 3.3 percent for 
the year 2004. So the bulk of the increased funding will go to these 
multiyear research projects that are in place, thereby leaving very 
little time and very little money for new research.
  The bill provides only a 3.9 percent increase for Parkinson's 
disease, not enough to keep up with inflation and grant renewal costs, 
and definitely little or nothing left over for new or expanded research 
efforts.
  Madam Chairman, we have heard that tax cuts are the answer to all of 
our problems, and now those tax cut chickens are coming home to roost. 
We do not have the resources to meet these research needs. We see 
research cuts, and I want to conclude there is not a Member of this 
body as a Congressman, but as a son, a father, a nephew, a friend, 
Parkinson's disease is known as the most uncommon common disease in our 
country. We cannot go more than four or five people in asking them a 
question, do they know anybody with Parkinson's disease, before we hear 
somebody who will say, yes, I know somebody, a friend, an uncle, a 
sister, somebody in my community that has Parkinson's disease. We know 
colleagues in this body that have Parkinson's disease. We ought to 
honor them and support Parkinson's disease research in the way that we 
can find a cure for this terrible disease.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam Chairman, I thank my friend from Wisconsin 
for yielding me the time.
  Madam Chairman, this body passed a resolution on June 10 recognizing 
two major advances in public health: the 50th anniversary of the 
discovery of the double helix structure of DNA, and the completion of 
the Human Genome Project. Good congratulatory words in this Congress, 
but as usual from around here, nothing to back it up.
  The bill we are considering today provides funding for NIH barely 
sufficient to support existing research projects, much less any ground-
breaking new research into avenues like gene therapy.
  In a recent survey, taxpayers were asked what the Federal 
Government's major priorities should be. Public education, first. The 
public said medical research, second. Yet today we are considering a 
bill that underfunds both education and medical research.
  Whom does Republican leadership report to? It is certainly not the 
American public. The bill's authors argued that this Congress has other 
priorities. It has chosen tax cuts for the wealthiest people in this 
country instead of research for cancer and Alzheimer's and ALS and MS 
and spinal cord injury. It has chosen to give a millionaire a tax cut 
of $93,000 instead of spending the money where Americans want it spent, 
on basic medical research.
  The bill provides an increase today of only 2.5 percent for NIH, the 
smallest percentage increase in 18 years, in a sharp drop from what we 
have been doing the last several years. NIH estimates its spending on 
cancer research would only rise 3.7 percent, short of the 4.7 percent 
just necessary to stay even on what we are doing with cancer research. 
The number of grants for new research projects and renewals would 
increase by just two-tenths of 1 percent.
  Is that what the American public asks for when it says its top two 
priorities are spending money on public education and spending money on 
medical research?
  Madam Chairman, vote against this bill. Unfortunately, medical 
research seems to be an afterthought in this Congress.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Chairman, I thank the distinguished 
gentleman from Wisconsin for yielding me the time.
  I know there has been a lot of hard work in trying to put together an 
appropriations bill that would deal with the neediest of our Nation, 
but we confront two, if you will, systemic crises in this country. We 
have a 6.2 percent unemployment rate, and it is increasing. The faces 
of the unemployed are not here in this body, and they cannot speak for 
themselves, but they are workers who made $100,000 a year and have 
children in college and mortgage payments, and they are those who are 
the chronically unemployed, who have never had a chance to work.

                              {time}  1315

  And yet this bill, instead of dealing forthrightly with their crisis, 
it cuts the community services block grant by $150.8 million. The cut 
will reduce services for the growing numbers of low-income working poor 
and the long-term unemployed.
  The tax cut that was rendered just a few weeks ago for the rich does 
nothing to invest in this economy. In fact, economists have said that 
those who will receive a $90,000 tax cut will not invest in the 
economy, will not create jobs; but what they will do is to invest in 
themselves and make sure they have a big fat savings account.
  As a member of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, I have 
advocated constantly, in addition, that we should invest in homeland 
security and provide the resources for our first responders and our 
neighborhoods. I have been asked the question: Are our neighborhoods 
safe in America? No, they are not. And here we are not providing the 
necessary resources to fund those neighborhood groups, those citizen 
corps, so that neighborhoods will be on the front line if there is a 
terrorist attack in the United States.
  And in conjunction with that, rather than fund bioterrorism 
preparedness, the important research to be able to prevent bioterrorist 
attacks or to be able to ensure that more people's lives will be saved, 
we are cutting the resources for bioterrorism. That means, for example, 
that if someone decided to use a mosquito that had the West Nile virus, 
to use that as a bio weapon, who knows, we are still unprepared in our 
communities.
  Madam Chairman, I wish we could have a bill we all could vote for. I 
ask my colleagues to enthusiastically vote ``no'' on this legislation.
  Madam Chairman, I rise today to express my disappointment at the 
failure of the Republican Party to adequately fund vital programs in 
H.R. 2657, the Labor, HHS, Education, and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2004.
  Madam Chairman, we have failed our Nation. The Labor-HHS-Education 
Appropriations bill leaves our health care system, our schools, our 
children and our communities at risk. Sadly, my Democratic colleagues 
and I have seen the writing on the wall.
  Over the past several weeks, my fellow Democrats and I have been very 
outspoken

[[Page H6518]]

on the Republican financially irresponsible bills. We opposed the 
Republican's tax cuts. We opposed the Republican's Medicare package. 
And now we oppose their appropriations request in H.R. 2657, and our 
opposition to the insufficient funding in this bill is directly due to 
the Republican's poor budget initiatives.
  H.R. 2657 falls short of adequately funding our education and health 
care programs, among many other valuable programs.


                               education

  H.R. 2657 fails to adequately fund our Nation's schools and fails to 
live up to the many promises made by the Republican Party.
  When the ``Leave No Child Behind'' legislation was passed we all 
believed we were committed in a bipartisan way to guarantee that good 
schools were established in our communities to improve our overall 
living standards and close the gaps that divide our societies along 
economic, social and racial lines. The Republicans promised to be 
committed to bettering our education system. They have not lived up to 
that promise.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle promised in its fiscal 
year 2004 budget resolution to provide a ``$3 billion increase from the 
previous year for the Department of Education.'' Despite that promise, 
the H.R. 2675 bill provides only a $2.3 billion increase over fiscal 
year 2003--far less than the promise they made.
  Another broken promise is the inadequate funding of the Title 1 
Program. The Title 1 Program is critical to enabling schools with large 
student populations of low-income children to meet the No Child Left 
Behind Act's accountability and academic mandates. These schools enroll 
students with the greatest academic deficits, but they have the least 
experienced teachers, less competitive teacher salaries, higher teacher 
turnover, less rigorous curriculum, and less than their fair share of 
resources. All of these factors negatively impact student achievement.
  The Republican's fiscal year 2004 budget resolution promised a $1 
billion increase over last year for the Title 1 Program. However, my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle have failed to keep their 
word here as well. Instead of $1 billion, H.R. 2675 provides only a 
$666 million increase. The result of the committee's action is that 
this bill falls $334 million short of the majority's own promise. The 
loss of that money does not affect my Republican colleagues or their 
wealthy supporters. It affects millions of low-income children 
nationwide and their ability to get a quality education.
  In the area of special education, the Republicans promised in the 
fiscal year 2004 budget resolution to provide $2.2 billion over the 
current level. The Republicans repeated this promise in H.R. 1350--the 
bill reauthorizing the Individuals with Disabilities Act, adopted on 
April 30 on the House floor. Instead of providing our special education 
students with the funds they desperately need, and because of their 
massive tax cuts, this bill falls $1.2 billion short of that promise. 
This massive funding shortfall will force schools to continue to absorb 
the extraordinary costs of providing special education for nearly 6.7 
million schoolchildren. Consequently, other education programs will 
have to be reduced or local taxes will have to be raised to make up the 
funds.

  Perhaps the biggest broken promise by the Republican Party is the 
destructive impact of their budgetary action on the No Child Left 
Behind Act. The Members of the Republican Party put tax cuts ahead of 
their education promises in the Leave No Child Behind Act. As a result, 
H.R. 2657 falls a stunning $8 billion short of the fiscal year 2004 
funding targets in the No Child Left Behind Act.
  On the issue of higher education, the Republicans have harmed our 
college students as badly as they have harmed our low-income and 
special education students. As a direct result of the Republican's 
economic mismanagement over the past 2 years, only eight States in our 
Union are not facing a severe budget crisis. The declining State fiscal 
crisis has forced States to make huge cuts in the budgets of public 
colleges and universities. When States make cuts to public schools, the 
schools must raise their tuitions. The raising tuition costs are 
crushing working families who want to send their kids to college.


                              Health Care

  Health care is another area in which the majority's bill falls short 
of meeting urgent national needs. In these tough economic times, with 
the high rates of unemployment and the loss of health insurance that 
comes with it, Federal health care is even more crucial to our 
communities.
  Additionally, the State fiscal crises are causing many States to cut 
back on eligibility and benefits under health care programs like 
Medicaid and the State Child Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), as well 
as on public health protection. The programs that are funded by the 
Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill 
help provide a crucial health care safety net for people without other 
access to care, and also help States and localities provide basic 
public health services.
  The majority's appropriations bill provides little funding to deal 
with the growing health care crisis. There are virtually no increases 
to the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant and no increase at all for 
the National Health Service Corps, a vital program which provides 
student loan repayment aid and scholarships for doctors and dentists 
who work in areas with a shortage of health providers.
  The committee bill also provides no increase at all for childhood 
immunization grants. That program has struggled to provide 
immunizations for children with the rising cost of vaccinations, and 
the bill will lead to further shortfalls. Additionally, while the 
administration asked for $100 million to help us get better prepared to 
deal with an influenza pandemic, the bill provides only half of that 
request.


                               Conclusion

  Madam Chairman, H.R. 2675 is yet another example of poor budgetary 
policy impacting the American people. The majority party's failure to 
act responsibly with America's funds has impacted our ability to fund 
our first responders so they can protect our homeland from terrorists. 
The majority party's failure to act fiscally responsible has resulted 
in 9.4 million Americans being unemployed. Now, through H.R. 2675, the 
majority party's failure to act fiscally responsible is depleting the 
resources of our schools and our health care system. This result is 
unacceptable for the hardworking Americans we represent. I oppose this 
bill, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. REGULA. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for 
yielding me this time.
  A few years ago, a friend of mine that I went to law school with 
called and told me that his 4-year-old son had been diagnosed with 
leukemia. He and his wife were obviously devastated by this news. They 
wondered what life would be like if this precious little boy were to be 
taken from their lives. That little boy will start third grade next 
September, in large part because of the huge advances that have been 
made in health care, in pharmaceutical products, and largely 
underwritten by the National Institutes of Health, an organization that 
has had bipartisan support in this body for a very long time.
  How can we justify shutting down this miracle factory by increasing 
its funding by only 2\1/2\ percent, barely enough to keep up with 
inflation? What choice are we making by doing this? How could we pay 
for a more robust increase?
  Here is what we could do. If we increase NIH funding to keep in line 
with what has been done by bipartisan majorities in the last 10 years, 
a 7 or 8 or 9 or 10 percent increase, we would have to reduce the tax 
cut this way: for every $1,000 worth of tax cut, we would have to take 
away $20. So we could still take the person with the $1,000 tax cut and 
make it $980 and keep the NIH doing the research, continuing the 
progress it has made so that more parents could hear the good news that 
their little son or daughter is in remission.
  What an unwise choice. What a profoundly reckless judgment is being 
made in this bill. I would urge opposition to this bill for this 
reason, among many others.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick).
  (Ms. KILPATRICK asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Madam Chairman, I thank the ranking member for 
yielding me this time.
  Unfortunately, I must rise in opposition to this bill, and for many 
of the same reasons already mentioned: the underfunding of the Leave No 
Child Behind Act, the cut in the children's health programs, the LIHEAP 
energy assistance program for low-income people, Head Start, and cancer 
treatment and research.
  Today, however, Madam Chairman, I would like to speak on urban 
hospitals, the hospitals in America that treat most Americans when they 
have traumatic illnesses. Urban hospitals need help in our system, and 
we are not in

[[Page H6519]]

this bill giving them that help. Urban hospitals treat hundreds of 
thousands of people with uncompensated care, no insurance or 
underinsurance.
  It is unfortunate that our country, the richest in the world, cannot 
at this time help our hospitals that are in critical condition. I met 
with my group of doctors just this last Monday, the Michigan State 
Society of Medical Doctors. They all talked about not being able to 
treat patients, about the reimbursement rates and the underinsuring. 
Many of them are dropping patients. We have got to do better by our 
health institutions. Our health system is in critical condition. This 
Congress could help support that. This bill does not do that.
  I cannot support this bill in its present form, and I would hope we 
could go back to get a better bill to help the people of America, to 
help the seniors that have built this country, and so that our health 
care system in our urban hospitals can sustain themselves and take care 
of their mission, which is taking care of the people of America.
  Madam Chairman, I rise today to express my dismay and concern about 
H.R. 2660, the appropriations bill for the Departments of Labor, Health 
and Human Services, and Education and Related Agencies. This bill is 
being touted, even hailed, as a major achievement on behalf of 
supporting the education of our children, in addition to providing 
financial resources for our Nation's schools. The facts of the matter 
are, this bill is terribly flawed, under-funded and misrepresented.
  The bill is terribly flawed for the following reasons. First of all 
the bipartisan supported No Child Left Behind Act is a gargantuan un-
funded mandate. The President promised to revamp our educational 
system, to make schools accountable, to raise standards, to increase 
teacher competency and training, and to increase parent involvement. 
Instead, what has been delivered amounts to lip service.
  The Labor HHS bill seriously under-funds the No Child Left Behind Act 
by $8 billion and provides the smallest percentage increase in 
education funds in eight years. The bill requires school districts to 
meet student testing requirements, improve teacher quality and imposes 
other mandates. Additionally, the bill falls $350 million short of the 
$3.3 billion promised in (real terms) to states to improve teacher 
quality. Fifty-four thousand fewer teachers will receive high quality, 
federally-supported professional development.
  This bill falls $334 million short of the $1 billion in Title I funds 
promised. In my home state of Michigan, under this bill, the children 
of Michigan will lose $202 million in Title I grants below the amount 
called for by the No Child Left Behind Act. This situation is further 
compounded by the fact that after-school learning opportunities are 
being short-changed. Under this bill, Michigan will lose $23 million in 
After-School Program Funding.
  I said earlier, this bill has been misrepresented. This fact is true. 
Children and entire school systems are going to be left behind. The 
American public has been fed a feel-good diet of positive rhetoric by 
the President regarding our educational system. The reality is, the 
promises are empty, the financial cupboard is bare, administrators are 
disillusioned and our children are the losers. The insult that is added 
to the injury is that State budgets are crippled by unprecedented tax 
cuts that have been enacted, despite the reality of downward spiraling 
State economies.
  As a member of the Appropriations Committee, I have been a witness to 
the collegial discussions about the constrained budgetary environment 
we are forced to operate within, thereby causing the under-funding of 
vital programs such as No Child Left Behind. I cannot sit by idly and 
embrace the current rhetoric that our Nation's school systems and their 
students are well-served by the bill before us today. This is not a 
good bill for America's children.
  Madam Chairman, we are telling our children that the pursuit of an 
education and obtaining a degree will unlock the doors to opportunity. 
I am compelled to pose the question, where will the money come for to 
pay for students to attend school? Let us consider this, tuition at 
colleges and universities is increasing rapidly. Under this bill, 
grants such as Pell Grants, will finance only 38 percent of the cost of 
a public university--compared to 84 percent when the Pell Grant program 
was established. Students are confronted with greater costs and fewer 
means to pursue their dreams.
  I stated earlier that this bill is being touted, even hailed, as a 
major achievement on behalf of supporting the education of our 
children. Furthermore, the President has informed Americans that needed 
financial resources are being provided for our Nation's schools. The 
facts of the matter are, this bill is terribly flawed, under-funded and 
misrepresented. The bill under consideration does not best serve the 
needs of so many of our Nation's students and school systems who were 
promised a first-class funded educational system, but instead they will 
receive thrift store funding. False hopes were created and broken 
promises in the form of un-funded mandates will now be the reward. I 
urge my colleagues to reject this bill.
  We are experiencing a health care crisis in our Nation. In my 
district alone, there are two hospitals that are operating at such 
negative losses that they may be forced to close. These urban-safety 
net hospitals, like most other urban hospitals across our Nation, have 
a high percentage of uncompensated, uninsured and underinsured care. 
They do not turn anyone away. We cannot turn our backs on them as well.
  The closing of these hospitals across our Nation creates a cascading 
effect that only adds to the health care emergency in our Nation. When 
one hospital closes, other hospitals must take on the burden of 
uncompensated care and the problem continues until the next hospital 
closes. When are we going to step up to the plate and ensure that we 
provide the funds necessary to fix our shattered health care system?
  Instead of passing tax cut after tax cut that only raid our cupboards 
and benefits the wealth, Congress should take heed of the problem our 
urban hospitals are facing and provide a funding stream to help these 
important health care entities in this bill that provide a high 
percentage of uncompensated care. But no, tax cuts are more important.
  Our distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations committee, Mr. 
Obey tried to offer an amendment that would have restored Medicaid and 
SCHIP coverage to children who have been removed from those programs 
over the last two years. This amendment was defeated on a rollcall vote 
in committee. The amendment would have provided the funds by making 
modest reductions in the benefits that the highest-income taxpayers 
received under the 2003 tax bill.
  At a time when high unemployment is causing many Americans to lose 
their job-related health care coverage, the State fiscal crisis is 
leading States to cut back health coverage through Medicaid, SCHIP and 
various state-finance programs. This is acceptable to many here in 
Congress that would prefer to see massive tax cuts than a strengthened 
health care infrastructure.
  With States making the difficult decisions of cutting Medicaid and 
SCHIP eligibility, more and more individuals are joining the ranks of 
the uninsured. This in turn puts more of a burden on our hospitals that 
already are struggling to keep afloat. We need to get our priorities 
straight. We can do much better than what we have done with this bill 
to help those across our Nation.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, could I inquire as to how much time remains 
on both sides.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Regula) has 9 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey) has 32 minutes remaining.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha).
  Mr. MURTHA. Madam Chairman, let me talk a little bit about some of 
the programs that I am so concerned about.
  ALS is one program that has affected my office. I know that this 
disease is familiar to many, many people because of Lou Gehrig. It is a 
rare disease; but when you see it firsthand, you begin to recognize 
what research could do. A person becomes completely debilitated with 
this disease; and depending upon the severity of it, it happens either 
very quickly or it happens over a long period of time.
  Now, the mind remains completely clear, but physically they 
deteriorate substantially and finally die after a period of either 1 to 
5 years. So any increase in this program would be a real benefit to the 
people that have this dreaded disease.
  Also, let me talk about diabetes, because in my district I have the 
highest rate of diabetes in the country. Now, we put $10 million in the 
defense budget for research for one part of my district because 
Brownsville, Pennsylvania, has the highest rate in the district so it 
is the highest rate in the country itself. And, of course, diabetes has 
so many ramifications that are directly related to it, and this 
research is so important.
  Education, in my estimation, is the key. We have to spend some money 
convincing people that once they eat right and they do exercises they 
are going to limit their opportunity to

[[Page H6520]]

have diabetes. And I am talking about Type 2 diabetes. I am not talking 
about Type 1 diabetes. Matter of fact, we have a young woman that was 
Miss America, of I think 1999, from the district, who had Type 1 
diabetes. She has been out talking about it, and she convinced me that 
we needed to do something about this.
  Alzheimer's disease and of course Parkinson's disease are two more of 
great concern to me. Joe McDade, who served in this House for 35 years, 
developed Parkinson's disease, and I sat beside him and saw him. His 
mind was completely clear, but it debilitated his body. Now, he has 
worked his way through it with drugs, and improvements in drugs made a 
tremendous difference.
  I appreciate what this committee has done over the years in the 
research facilities and the work they have done in order to make sure 
there is as much money available as possible. I would hope that when we 
go to conference with this bill, we will be able to make sure that 
these research projects, which are so important, and which we have 
tried to supplement what you do in the defense bill with money for 
breast cancer, for ovarian cancer, for research in those areas, but I 
am hopeful you will be able to do even more in your bill this year. 
Because it has such a dramatic impact on preventing these diseases and, 
of course, actually saves us money in the long run.
  So I would urge the committee when they go to conference to make 
every effort to increase the amount of research for these very 
debilitating diseases.
  Mr. REGULA. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to point out to the gentleman who just spoke, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), that we do have report language urging NINDS 
to focus on ALS. I know it is a devastating problem for those who are 
afflicted, and we are concerned about it.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chairman, the Labor, Health and Human Services and 
Education bill has always reflected our priorities as a Nation. I 
believe we have an obligation to the people of this country to provide 
services that help us meet the most basic needs we have as a community, 
be they health, the education of our children, or scientific research 
that finds the medical cures for tomorrow.
  Wherever one stands on the distribution of tax cuts that the 
Republican leadership in this Congress has passed, it is undeniable 
that they have significantly limited this government's ability to meet 
those challenges and to do our jobs. And of all the glaring 
inadequacies in this bill, cutting funding for the National Institutes 
of Health, the largest and the most distinguished biomedical research 
organization in the world, might be the most egregious.
  It is not overstating the case to say that the NIH has prolonged or 
improved the life of every American. Childhood leukemia, because of 
research at NIH, the cure rate is now 80 percent. Diabetes, because of 
new treatments in Type 1, diabetics are now producing their own 
insulin, no longer requiring daily injections. NIH is also working on 
state-of-the-art treatments for Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and HIV.
  As someone who was diagnosed with the deadliest of gynecological 
cancers, ovarian, more than 17 years ago, I know firsthand how this 
research has changed lives. It saved mine. And today, because of a new 
test to find ovarian cancer in its earliest stages, through a simple 
blood screening, millions of women will get the treatment that they 
need when it is most effective. That is the power of the NIH.
  All of this has only been made possible because of a commitment we 
have had in the Congress to double the NIH's budget which created the 
most outstanding generation of basic and clinical scientists in 
history.
  So what does this bill do? It breaks that commitment to double the 
NIH budget. It cuts NIH funding in real dollar terms. There will be no 
room to fund new research ideas, or little room. It will threaten NIH's 
abilities to continue its support for large clinical trials that go 
well beyond what the industry can fund. And by effectively paving the 
way for smaller, less expensive studies and clinical trials, scientific 
research will often be reduced to mere suggestions and not definitive 
conclusions.
  Mr. Chairman, say what you will about the virtues of tax cuts, they 
do not save lives. Americans need to recognize that this debate is 
really about choice. It is a choice between medical research that 
touches every single American life, every life, and a trillion dollar 
tax cut that affects mainly the wealthiest in this country. And I 
guarantee that if Americans are forced to make that choice, that if the 
facts are laid before them, they would choose medical research each and 
every time.
  For generations this body has made the right choice. Oppose this 
bill. It is an abdication of our responsibility to millions of American 
families and to this institution.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time remains on 
each side.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 26 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) has 8\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).
  (Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to discuss the Impact Aid 
program, which is critically important to me and many of my colleagues 
across the country. The Sixth Congressional District of Washington 
State, which is impacted by several large and vital military 
installations. Our region willingly hosts thousands of Active Duty 
personnel, who represent a large economic force in the Pacific 
Northwest. Washington is also home to 27 federally recognized Native 
American tribes. However, with these advantages comes a drawback: the 
loss of substantial property areas from the local tax base.
  As my colleagues know, military bases and tribal lands do not pay 
most State and local taxes, but local school districts are still 
required to provide an education to children that live on these lands. 
Often this imposes millions of dollars in additional costs to these 
districts. Congress created the Impact Aid program to address this 
glaring problem.
  I was extremely disappointed when the President submitted a budget to 
Congress earlier this year that contained a cut of more than $170 
million to this important program. This proposal was very poorly 
considered, coming at a time when hundreds of thousands of troops were 
preparing for deployment around Iraq. As it becomes more and more 
apparent that large numbers of American troops will be required to 
remain in Iraq for the foreseeable future, the decision of the 
President to cut funding for educating their kids is more difficult to 
comprehend.
  I commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for coming to the rescue of Impact Aid and 
rejecting the Bush proposal. However, even with that, the Department of 
Education estimates that another $583 million is necessary to meet 
these needs. With the hundreds of billions of dollars that the Congress 
and the President have dedicated to tax cuts, it is astounding that we 
cannot find just a half billion in this budget to fully meet the needs 
of the children of our men and women who are fighting overseas on our 
behalf.
  For years I have worked closely with dozens of Democrats and 
Republicans to make this a bipartisan proposal. Again, I commend the 
chairman and ranking member for fixing part of the problem, but we 
still have more to do.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, today we see the consequences of the 
massive tax cuts of the Bush administration. Theirs is not a policy of 
benign neglect, theirs is a policy of designed neglect. It is a policy 
to defund the government in 2010 and 2015 and 2020 and 2025. That is $3 
trillion worth of tax cuts over that time frame which has already been 
passed.

[[Page H6521]]

  Well, that means that the money will not be there for nursing home 
care for the 14 million Americans who are going to end with up 
Alzheimer's, with the 5 million with Parkinson's, the money will not be 
there for nursing home care for those seniors. What is the alternative? 
The alternative is to cure Alzheimer's and Parkinson's and ALS. That 
would be the NIH budget here today. But they are only going to increase 
that budget by 2 percent.
  Now, the budget for smart bombs is unlimited; unlimited, but the 
American people want the same budget increases for smart medical 
research because it is just as important for the protection and defense 
of the family well-being of those tens of millions of families who are 
going to be afflicted by these diseases.
  The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) has a heart of gold. He really 
does. He is a wonderful man; but the overall environment of these 
massive tax cuts that the Bush administration has put in place makes it 
impossible now for us to fund either end of this spectrum, either the 
long-term nursing home care for those Americans who are going to be 
afflicted by these diseases, or the full funding, the doubling of the 
funding, the tripling of the funding which as a consequence would be 
necessary in order to cure those diseases. We cannot have it both ways. 
It is either one or the other. We must increase the NIH budget to 
protect the long-term interests of all American families.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill. As 
cochair of the Biomedical Research Caucus, the House Cancer Caucus, the 
Heart and Stroke Caucus and as founder of the House Nursing Caucus, I 
can tell Members that this bill shortchanges the health of the American 
people. It is inadequate in so many ways, but I want to focus on just 
one.
  We are missing a tremendous opportunity to support critical 
biomedical research that can save lives. Congress last year completed 
the doubling of the NIH budget after years of underfunding this 
national institution. This was a tremendous accomplishment supported by 
Members from all across the political spectrum, but now we are going to 
begin throwing away the benefits from responsibly funding NIH. It is 
terrible news for cancer patients, heart disease patients, and others 
suffering from chronic diseases.
  I watched my daughter Lisa struggle with lung cancer, pinning her 
hopes on a clinical trial. For these people to have hope, we need to 
fund new research, not just to continue existing grants. They need 
cures and treatments that have not been discovered yet. This bill will 
not allow new research. Instead, it will severely curtail new research 
opportunities.
  An optimistic assessment shows that under this bill, NIH will be only 
able to provide 21 new grants next year. The 2.5 percent increase in 
the bill does not match NIH's estimates of inflation in research costs. 
Cancer patients, heart disease patients, Alzheimer's patients, stroke 
survivors, Parkinson's patients, ALS, many others are just going to 
have to wait. This bill defers their hopes of new cures.
  As many of my colleagues have stated, we are seeing the cost of these 
tax cuts. The majority will tell us we cannot afford spending for 
institutions like NIH above the 2.5 percent increase, we cannot afford 
the benefits of life-saving medical research. The irresponsible tax 
cuts the majority has rammed through are costing us lives. We should 
reject this bill and get our priorities straight.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not want to tell the cancer patients in my 
district that their research has been blocked. Do you?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Roybal-Allard).
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, given my deep respect for the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and his sincere efforts to address 
critical needs within the restraints that he was given, I regret that I 
must rise in opposition to this bill.
  I am particularly concerned about the funding levels for the Older 
Americans Act programs and their impact on the elderly of our Nation. 
The Older Americans Act of 1965 was passed the same year that Medicare 
was enacted to meet the needs of elderly Americans and to enable them 
to live their twilight years with dignity and respect by helping them 
with nutrition, transportation, and other services that would allow 
them to stay independent and in their homes. This bill jeopardizes that 
promise.
  It is hard to overpraise the generation that our parents and 
grandparents represent. Theirs is the generation that helped to make 
this Nation great. Unfortunately, because this bill provides less than 
a 1 percent increase for programs in the Older Americans Act, even 
after the committee restored the $25 million cut in the President's 
budget, senior services critical to their quality of life will have 
inadequate funding; services such as Meals on Wheels, in-home support 
services, preventive health programs, and programs to guard against 
elder abuse and exploitation.
  This inadequate funding will also create greater headache in the 
future when one considers that one-sixth of our Nation, over 46 million 
people, are already 60 and older, and that by 2005 an estimated 13 
million more baby-boomers will join them.
  I ask my colleagues to vote against this bill and to send our elderly 
a strong message of support and appreciation for their past sacrifices 
and their right to live with dignity and respect.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode 
Island (Mr. Kennedy).
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I would like to associate 
myself with the remarks of the previous speaker, the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Roybal-Allard).
  I think it is a disgrace in this budget, although our chairman, the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), and the ranking member, the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), have made the best out of a bad situation.
  We are underfunding the Older Americans Act. At a time when our baby-
boom generation is getting ready to retire, it seems to me we ought to 
be getting prepared to deal with these issues. Instead, I will give an 
example of two programs that we severely underfund in this budget 
because of the allocation we are given; one, the Meals on Wheels 
program, and the Congregate Meals program.
  I can tell Members, having been out there with meal site workers and 
with those on the Meals on Wheels program, this is the only meal they 
get any day. I have been in the homes. These people are looking forward 
to the knock on the door. In fact, some seniors leave their door open, 
and we all know how concerned they are with someone breaking in, but 
they leave the door open when they know the meal site worker is coming 
by to deliver that hot meal. When the worker comes in, they want to 
take the dessert and the bread and put it over here because that is 
their dinner. They have one meal per day, and we are underfunding Meals 
on Wheels in this bill.
  The second issue I want to take up is the issue of the caregiver 
program. I do not understand our priorities. I thought we were about 
trying to save money and save lives. It seems to me there is no more 
valuable way to take care of our seniors than to have the very family 
members, their spouses and their children, give them the opportunity to 
take care of their parents. It is $40,000 a year to keep a senior 
citizen who has disabilities in a nursing home. Why put him in a 
nursing home when they do not want to go to a nursing home; and, two, 
and they can live independently at home with just a little support from 
a family member. We are cutting the caregivers' program. We spend $5 
per caregiver so they can take care of their loving spouse.
  To me, this budget does not reflect America's priorities. I know I am 
going to vote against it, and I think we are seeing the consequences of 
these $3 trillion tax cuts when it comes to delivering hot meals to 
seniors.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member and the 
chairman of the subcommittee for their efforts.
  I rise in support of the Obey substitute, and specifically the 
increase in

[[Page H6522]]

Low Income Home Energy Assistance funding it provides. The underlying 
bill has only $1.7 billion in regular LIHEAP funding appropriations and 
a small $100 million account for contingencies.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) wisely provides $2.25 billion 
in regular appropriations for LIHEAP. For low-income and elderly 
Americans trying to weather through the terrible energy bills in this 
country, LIHEAP is critical, and every dollar helps out.
  But for folks from the South, there is even a bigger reason to 
support the funding level in the Obey amendment. LIHEAP funding has a 
$1.9 billion threshold, which means that after funding exceeds that 
level, Southern States that use LIHEAP for cooling during the summer 
months receive a fairer portion of the funding. People die from heat 
more than from cold in our country.
  The Obey amendment provides an additional $28 million in low-income 
assistance for Texans struggling to pay their electric bills. Texas 
LIHEAP averages about $500 per family, so that means an additional 
56,000 families could be reached just in Texas alone.
  The President in his Statement of Administrative Policy says he 
believes we need more LIHEAP funding. I bet if he saw the levels in the 
Obey amendment and if he saw what it means for low-income Texans, he 
would support it, too.
  I strongly believe that the LIHEAP formula needs to be reformed to 
address the situation in the hotter Southern States. Texas receives the 
second lowest amount per low-income person in the country under LIHEAP, 
about $10. Minnesota receives $160 per low-income person. My colleagues 
know that heat causes serious health problems that can kill. According 
to the National Weather Service, in 2000 and 2001, there were 324 heat-
related deaths and 30 cold-related deaths. Heat worsens heart 
conditions, lung conditions, diabetes, circulatory conditions. During a 
Texas summer, for old folks and the disabled and those with chronic 
conditions, air conditioning is a lifesaver, not a luxury. I urge my 
colleagues to support the Obey amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Sanders).

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, let us think for a moment about what our great Nation 
can be and then think at the same time about the direction in which we 
are going. And this legislation, this appropriations bill reflects the 
fact that we are moving in a very bad direction. The reality is that in 
our great Nation, we have the capability of providing a decent life for 
all of our people. The middle class should be expanding, not declining. 
Poverty should be going down, not increasing. Unemployment should be 
going down, not up. We should be taking care of the most vulnerable 
people in our country, the elderly, the sick, the children, not seeing 
them exposed more and more to the dangers that impact upon their lives. 
We should be asking the wealthiest people in this country to help make 
our entire Nation great, not provide trillions of dollars in tax breaks 
for people who do not need it.
  That is what the United States of America is about. That is where we 
should be going, a good life for all of our people, not extraordinary 
wealth for a few, the decline of the middle class and an increase in 
poverty. In terms of our elderly, think about what millions of elderly 
people are trying to do today, as we speak, in an attempt to survive on 
Social Security. They are trying to figure out how can they afford to 
pay the outrageously high cost of prescription drugs which the 
pharmaceutical industry imposes on us. They are thinking about in the 
cold weather, States like Vermont, how can they heat their homes when 
oil prices go up and they have inadequate sums of money. They are 
thinking about what happens to their family if they need home health 
care, if they need a nursing home. They are thinking about the 
pleasures that they receive, few as they may be, when they are getting 
Meals on Wheels delivery to their homes. These are frail people who 
cannot leave their homes, who every day have someone knock on the door 
giving them sustenance. These are people who once or twice a week go to 
a congregate meal program which gets them outside of the home, which 
enables them to socialize with their friends, which enables them to see 
a social worker which adds years to their lives. And then think about 
what this bill does and what the right wing Republican agenda is all 
about. What the agenda is about is to defund the basic programs in this 
country that protect the littlest children and the oldest people, that 
provide people with a basic minimal standard of living.
  We have got to defeat this legislation, cut back on these huge tax 
breaks, and make sure that all Americans get the kind of help that they 
need.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield another 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy), who has the 
quaint idea that we should not be gutting our efforts to control child 
labor.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the 
gentleman from Wisconsin for his steadfast leadership on these issues 
of great importance.
  I would like to again ask to have the remarks of my predecessor be 
included in the Record as remarks that I would be associated with.
  And let me say to the people what this bill does in terms of child 
labor. We always complain when we see those stories about that 5-year-
old, that 12-year-old over in some part of this world that is weaving 
together a rug that will be sent back to this country and sold at Wal-
Mart for $10. And yet $10 will probably be all that child sees in any 
given year, and under this bill this administration cuts by over $100 
million the funding to inspect and enforce child labor laws around the 
world.
  Let me just give an example. Between 5 years of age and 14 years of 
age, there are over 250 million children between 5 and 14 who are 
working in violation of the International Labor Organization standards. 
Do the Members not think we ought to do something about that. Do the 
Members not think that this country has a moral obligation to ensure 
that these children are not being exploited? Apparently, the 
administration does not feel that way. They have cut the budget $100 
million.
  Right now the President is over in Africa. He is talking about HIV/
AIDS. Remember he was promising them a lot of money? Guess what. In 
this budget he cuts funding for HIV/AIDS partnerships through the ILO, 
which can help create a private sector involvement to help tackle the 
scourge, the pandemic of AIDS in Africa. That money has been cut. So we 
can most clearly see our Nation's priorities are based upon where we 
spend our money. Millionaires in this country get $87,000-a-year tax 
cuts, millionaires; but we are going to underfund inspections of child 
labor. That, I think, is a disgrace.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, the bill before us has many shortfalls that are being 
detailed today. Underlying many of them is the need for funding for 
nurse education programs. We are in the midst in this Nation of a 
growing nurse shortage. The nursing workforce is aging and approaching 
retirement. Fewer and fewer nurses are coming into the field. Today we 
are currently short 126,000 nurses. The demand for nurses will increase 
by more than 25 percent over the next 7 years; and according to the 
Bureau of Labor Statistics, we will need 1 million more nurses by 2010 
to meet the needs of this country. To make matters worse, these 
shortages will peak just as the baby boom generation begins to retire. 
The shortage is already complicating the deliver of everyday health 
care.
  As health care professionals can tell us, dealing with the nursing 
shortage is about ensuring quality patient care. The joint Commission 
on Accreditation of Health Care Organizations has studied the link 
between staffing shortages and increased medical errors and found that 
one quarter of all unexpected deaths and injuries caused by hospitals

[[Page H6523]]

can be linked to the lack of nurses. The nursing shortage is hampering 
our homeland security preparedness efforts. Who is going to administer 
smallpox vaccines or other bioterrorism treatments if we do not have 
enough nurses? Last year the Congress recognized this threat to health 
care and preparedness in our country. We have passed the new nurse 
reinvestment act to recruit and train nurses and keep current nurses on 
the job.
  But the bill before us fails the commitment we made just last year to 
address the nursing shortage. It offers no increase for funding as this 
baby boom generation approaches retirement, no way to deal with 
shortages in this bill. The nursing funding is already so low compared 
to other health care priorities that it should not be cut at all. In 
fact, in 1974 during the last serious nursing shortage, funding for 
nurse education programs was $153 million. In today's dollars that 
would be worth $533 million, almost five times what we are spending 
now.
  We can afford to make a modest increase in this underlying bill to 
address today's shortage. We must do this. If we miss this opportunity 
to make an investment in our health infrastructure and our homeland 
security efforts, we will be reaping the consequences of yet another 
reason we should not have voted for that huge tax cut. And I urge my 
colleagues to vote against this bill. Let us start over again and 
address the nurse shortage.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New 
York (Mrs. Lowey).
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to discuss some ways this bill falls 
short in our commitments to eradicating child labor and promoting core 
labor standards. Less than a month ago, Secretary Chao stood before the 
International Labor Conference and proclaimed the administration's 
solid support for ILO programs. She even announced ``new'' initiatives 
to combat child labor and to fight the scourge of AIDS. In the days 
when the credibility of the United States is strained, it is 
unconscionable to make hollow promises, and that is what Secretary Chao 
did when she implied the administration would ramp up the International 
Labor Affairs Bureau's work, including expanding HIV/AIDS prevention 
programming.
  My colleagues, like the administration's fiscal year 2004 budget, the 
bill before us provides $12.3 million for ILAB. A 92 percent reduction 
in funding for the Bureau would gut our efforts to eradicate child 
labor and promote decent labor standards abroad. Furthermore, our ILAB 
public-private partnership aimed at combating the spread of HIV/AIDS 
would be completely eliminated.
  Mr. Chairman, the International Labor Affairs Bureau's programs are 
working. Since fiscal year 1995, our child labor elimination projects 
have targeted more than 500,000 children for prevention or removal from 
exploitive work. In turn, more than 140,000 children have been either 
prevented or have been removed from exploitive work; and since October 
2002, 24,000 children have been removed from just awful conditions and 
placed in education and training programs. ILAB assistance has also 
resulted in 41 counties making commitments to initiate programs or 
expand existing projects that are designed to promote and implement 
core labor standards, including occupational safety, health, model job 
banks, mine safety programs, veterans employment and training. I 
realize that as of May 31 ILAB had only obligated 8 percent of its 
fiscal year 2003 appropriated funding.
  Please let us vote against this bill so we can work with the Senate 
and expand the numbers for this very important program.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Republican bill. Democrats 
were denied an opportunity to offer our substitute that would have 
reversed a decade-long funding stranglehold that has provided flatline 
funding on the senior citizen meal program, including Meals on Wheels. 
In the past I have offered amendments during the appropriation process 
to reverse this trend, and the Republican majority has stricken my 
amendments in conference. The funding for senior meals programs when 
translated into today's dollars has steadily been dropping when 
adjusted for inflation, and this has resulted in significant reductions 
in meals provided at senior centers. In my district, from Ironwood to 
Au Gres, senior centers have been struggling to keep their heads above 
water because funding has dwindled.
  In fiscal year 1994, we allocated $151 million for the Nutritional 
Services Incentive Program. If we were merely to just keep pace with 
inflation, the funding today should be $191 million. Instead, the 
proposal in the Republican bill cuts funding by $2 million to below 
where we were in 1994, where we are at $149 million. This decrease in 
funding ignores the large growth rate in the senior population and 
insults senior citizens who depend on these programs to feed themselves 
daily. I repeat. This Republican bill continues a decade-long flatline 
funding plus cuts another $200 million from the senior meal funding and 
ignores the needs of seniors in my district and throughout this 
country.
  I urge all Members to vote ``no'' on this appropriation bill.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, we have documented the numerous ways in which this bill 
does not meet its responsibilities to the American people. The 
situation we are in is basically this: We are going to be asking the 
majority to reconsider a decision it made just a few weeks ago to put 
all of our eggs in one basket in the form of tax cuts rather than 
reserving some of those eggs and putting them into needed health care 
and education and worker protection programs. The problem with the way 
this House is being run is that the budget system is being misused to 
hide from the American people the consequences of the actions taken by 
the majority party on tax policy.

                              {time}  1400

  They want to hide behind the House rules and say, ``Oh, look, we 
already decided the tax issue, and so now you are stuck with the room 
that is left under the budget resolution.'' We do not think that is a 
good enough reason to continue to do something that is stupid and 
unfair and, in some cases, heartless.
  What we are asking our majority Members to do is to reconsider the 
decision that decided that it was necessary to give millionaires in 
this country an $88,000 tax cut. We are asking you to use an unusual 
procedure in order to revisit that decision and instead limit that tax 
cut for those 200,000 people who make more than $1 million a year, 
limit that tax cut to $44,000 a year, so that there is some room in the 
inn left to improve the quality of education for our kids, to protect 
our workers against child labor, and to see to it that not a single 
child in this country is knocked off the health care rolls because of 
State budget crises.
  So that is a simple choice. Now, you can try to convince the press 
and convince the country that you have already made these decisions and 
so you have no choice but to move on.
  You always have choices. You always have choices. It depends on 
whether you are willing to insist on exercising them. Every person who 
votes for this bill today will be saying they would rather leave the 
tax package as is and go ahead with this bill as is. I do not think 
that is a wise decision. I do not think it is going to be an acceptable 
decision when the American people understand what you have done.
  The choice is very simple: Are we going to make kids pay for giant-
size tax cuts for the most privileged people in this society, and, in 
the process, weaken their ability to get a good education and weaken 
their ability to be taken care of when they need to see a doctor or a 
nurse? That is the simple choice.
  Mr. Chairman, with that, I would simply appeal to Members' 
consciences.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. McHugh) for a colloquy.

[[Page H6524]]

  Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Chairman, very briefly, we deeply appreciate the 
consideration the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) has given to 
the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program and we know he 
understands the importance of this vital program. Many of us remain 
concerned, however, Mr. Chairman, about the direction as it is 
contained in this bill.
  As you know, prices this year for energy are up 30 percent for 
natural gas, 60 percent higher for heating oil, 25 percent higher for 
propane, and on and on and on. We certainly think that as the process 
continues, we need to look at this issue further, and we would, in 
spite of all your good efforts to this point, urge you to continue to 
recognize the impact that our Nation's current weakened economy and the 
high price of energy on low-income and fixed-income energy consumers is 
having.
  We would certainly hope that LIHEAP could be increased to avoid a 
crisis, and urge you respectfully, Mr. Chairman, a consistent supporter 
of this initiative, to consent to working toward that $2 billion in 
funding for LIHEAP as was agreed upon by the Senate.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McHUGH. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for voicing his 
concerns. In my own State I have seen firsthand how critical LIHEAP is 
for low- and fixed-income families. I support providing an adequate 
funding level for this program.
  When the House and Senate go to conference on this appropriations 
measure, I will work with my colleagues to ensure the viability of this 
crucial program.
  Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
for his consideration.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority leader.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, this bill before us today will fund the 
Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, in my 
opinion, at the appropriate levels. It maintains fiscal discipline and 
makes necessary spending reforms, and it also sets priorities. It 
reflects America's commitment to education, Federal health initiatives 
and working families.
  The bottom line is that it meets our needs, and, of course, it does 
so without raising taxes. But raising taxes is exactly what the 
minority wants to do. It is the basis of the proposal of the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and most of the people that have spoken on 
the other side of the aisle.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin suggested earlier that he thinks 90 
percent of the people affected by his tax hike actually want higher 
taxes. I repeat, the Democrats think Americans want and deserve higher 
taxes. Now, that is a debate I wish that we could have every week, 
every day, on the floor of this House, because the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) says his tax hike, and I thank him for his candor, 
would only cost a small business $28,000. Only $28,000.
  Mr. OBEY. Will the gentleman yield? I never said any such thing. I 
never mentioned any small business.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time is controlled by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
DeLay).
  Mr. OBEY. If the gentleman is going to quote me, he ought to quote me 
accurately.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will suspend.
  Mr. OBEY. Do not use the rules to lie about what I said.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is out of order and the time is 
controlled by the gentleman from Texas.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, it is correct that it is wrong to use 
the term directed to another as a ``liar'' on the House floor, and, if 
so, I wish the gentleman's words to be taken down.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair rules on the point of order that the Member 
must avoid such personal references to other Members.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) may continue.
  Mr. DeLAY. ``Only $28,000.'' But $28,000 to a small business is a 
job. That is a salary, money a small business could use to hire a new 
employee. And they want to take it away.
  Now, Democrats want to stifle job creation to fund their big 
government programs. But, Mr. Chairman, Republicans know better. We 
understand that the economy cannot be improved without job creation, 
and we understand that 70 percent of all new jobs are created by small 
business.
  So, when the Democrats propose raising taxes on the very small 
businesses that would create these jobs, you have to understand our 
confusion, and you have to understand our excitement. After all, this 
has been a wonderful debate, and I want to thank the gentleman from 
Wisconsin and the Democrats for their clarity and their consistency. I 
want to thank them for touting this idea to raise taxes on small 
businesses and stifle job creation. I truly do.
  Though, I have to admit, when I heard about the Democrat's proposal, 
I almost forgot what year it was. I started looking around for bell-
bottom pants and aggressive chest hair. But before I dusted off my 
polyester, you will be happy to know, Mr. Chairman, that I had come to 
my senses, because, despite the earnest wishes of the Democrats, it is 
not 1977 anymore, and hiking taxes to pay for big government programs 
is as dead as disco.
  Now, I do not mean to single out the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey) or the Democrats. After all, as you can painfully see, a lot of 
bad ideas were fashionable in the 1970s. But nowadays big tax-and-spend 
hikes make as much sense as my old pink and red leisure suit.
  Mr. Chairman, thankfully most Americans had the common sense to let 
the embarrassing fashions of the 1970s go. So on behalf of everyone 
with a picture like this in their family album, I urge my colleagues to 
vote for this bill and vote against the small business tax hike of the 
disco Democrats.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DeLAY. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman, who is that 
nice-looking girl with that young guy?
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, that is one of the most beautiful women in 
the world, my wife.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes and 25 seconds to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for a colloquy.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related 
Agencies for yielding to me and for his tremendous work on this 
legislation and important issues. I also want to thank the chairman for 
working with me to provide adequate funding for Down Syndrome research, 
particularly in the area of enhancing cognition and preventing the 
early onset of dementia for people with Down Syndrome.
  This year, the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental 
Disabilities at the Centers for Disease Control recognized the need for 
studies in these two areas. The first study would develop estimates of 
the number of persons with Down Syndrome by age group and racial and 
ethnic breakdowns. The second study would document the onset and the 
course of secondary and related developmental disorders and health 
conditions of individuals with Down Syndrome. The committee report 
makes reference to these proposed studies, and I want to thank the 
chairman for including that language in the report.
  Current estimates indicate that there are approximately 350,000 
individuals living in the United States today with Down Syndrome, but 
we do not know how they break down by age group or by ethnic group. We 
also do not know why children with Down Syndrome are more at risk for 
developing secondary conditions, like autism and obsessive-compulsive 
disorder.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to know, do the gentleman agree that the funding 
of these studies should be a national priority?
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

[[Page H6525]]

  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's leadership on 
this issue and agree with him that the study of Down Syndrome should be 
a national priority. The committee has encouraged the NIH and CDC to 
place a greater priority on Down Syndrome research, which has generally 
lagged behind other kinds of disability research. The testimony that 
was provided to the subcommittee on May 13 was very informative and 
very helpful, and I look forward to working with the gentleman from 
Texas to encourage NIH and CDC to fund this important research.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to thank the 
gentleman for his comments and would ask if he would be willing to work 
with me in the conference towards funding these two studies of the CDC 
in fiscal year 2004?
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, I look 
forward with working with my friend to address these specific concerns 
in this appropriations bill.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gracious 
gentleman for his time and for his work.


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would remind all persons in the gallery that 
they are here as guests of the House, and any manifestation of approval 
or disapproval of the proceedings or other audible conversation is in 
violation of the House rules.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Nevada (Mr. Porter) for a colloquy.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I represent the Clark County School 
District in the great State of Nevada, the seventh largest school 
district in the country.
  Nevada is the fastest-growing State in our Nation and has grown more 
than 75 percent since the 1990 census. Clark County School District is 
accepting close to 12,000 new students a year, opening more than a 
dozen new schools and hiring over 1,800 teachers a year.
  Education funding levels are not keeping pace with the population 
growth occurring in Clark County, Nevada. A major problem the Clark 
County School District faces is the number of new students moving into 
the district that come from other school districts, many from other 
States, where funds previously allocated for that student are not 
following them to Nevada.
  Currently, the Census Bureau has been conducting biannual updates to 
calculate and update current population to be used in establishing 
Federal education funding in Title I of No Child Left Behind.
  Nevada, more specifically Clark County, would benefit significantly 
from an annual poverty update to be provided for in the Labor-HHS-
Education appropriations bill. I commend the committee for including 
the language to provide $3.5 million to the Census Bureau to conduct an 
annual poverty update. This language will help track population changes 
as closely as possible.
  While I appreciate the committee's efforts to address the needs of 
fast-growing States, Mr. Chairman, you understand the degree to which 
Nevada suffers Federal funding shortfalls due to our exponential 
growth.

                              {time}  1415

  Therefore, I would request that the chairman of the subcommittee 
continue to work with me to secure additional funds to help Clark 
County and the State of Nevada fill some of the funding gaps we have 
been facing.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PORTER. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's comments. I 
will be happy to work with my colleague, the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. 
Porter), as this legislation moves through the legislative process.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for his 
attention to this matter.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, let me say to the people who are watching, 
we are going to do some procedural things. We are making every effort 
to try to get this bill finished in a timely manner, so bear with us.
  Mr. JOHN. Mr. Chairman, today I intended to offer an amendment to 
fund the fight against mosquito borne illnesses such as the West Nile 
virus. However, due to the agreement for limited debated on the Labor-
HHS Appropriations legislation I was not able to offer the amendment. I 
would like to express to my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee 
the importance of addressing this issue in conference.
  I commend the CDC for the work that they have done on educating our 
constituencies on prevention and for the support they have given for 
surveillance. Unfortunately, the CDC and many others were taken by 
surprise by the aggressive nature of the virus. And although the House 
appropriators have seen fit to increase CDC funding for the West Nile 
virus it is simply not enough. Counties across this country need help 
with controlling mosquito outbreaks. Education and surveillance alone 
is not going to put an end to the spread of this virus.
  This is a major public health threat, and Congress has recognized 
this by passing the Mosquito Abatement Safety and Health Act. H.R. 342 
would provide financial assistance to localities as they attempt to 
battle the spread of such an aggressive virus. Both the House and 
Senate have recognized the importance of this legislation by passing my 
bill, and I am anxiously awaiting final negotiations on the bill so 
that it can be sent to the President for his signature.
  But an authorization is not enough, as we all know. This legislation 
needs to be funded at its authorized amount--$100 million. As of July 
7, 28 states have experienced the West Nile virus, and the first human 
case of 2003 was diagnosed last week. For many of our constituents 
there are months of West Nile activity still ahead. Most of the 4,000 
plus cases of West Nile infection in 2002 occurred in the last 6 months 
of the year.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee to 
further fund the fight to stop the spread of mosquito borne diseases 
and to appropriate funds for H.R. 342 when it is authorized--which I 
hope will happen before a conference on the Labor-HHS bill concludes.
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill.
  For the past 2 years, the Bush Administration and the GOP have 
claimed that they are about educating children. But with this bill, 
Republicans are proving that they do not.
  Where is the money that Republicans promised with the No Child Left 
Behind Act? The bill shortchanges our children by nearly $8 billion 
dollars.
  This bill slows increases in education spending from 19 percent to 4 
percent.
  Republicans have promised to leave no child behind but under this 
bill, it is clear, many many children are being left behind.
  How can we give tax cuts to the wealthy and take away from our 
children the right to a good education?
  This bill will dramatically affect many school districts around this 
nation, but it will especially hurt my community--San Bernardino County 
California.
  This bill cuts $64 million in funding for programs that help non-
English speaking students learn to speak the language.
  This bill completely ignores the needs of children in our public 
schools today. Today, 4.5 million children with limited English skills 
speak more than 460 languages.
  The number of children who need help learning English has more than 
doubled over the past decade.
  These children live in every state and are enrolled in half of our 
Nation's school districts. But I know that with this cut many children 
in my district will be left behind.
  Places like the Ontario-Montclaire school district, where more than 
half of the students have limited English.
  They need this money. Their children deserve a better chance at life 
too.
  And nearly 40 percent of the children in the Fontana school system 
and nearly seventy percent of the students in the Rialto school system 
have limited English skills.
  These school systems need this funding. How do we expect teachers to 
teach, when they do not even speak the same language as the students.
  Students who can't read or write English have a greater likelihood of 
dropping out of school and have a greater chance of being in poverty 
for the rest of their lives.
  Of the 530,000 Latino dropouts, one in three is an immigrant with 
limited English.
  But this bill not only increases the likelihood that students will 
drop out, it practically guarantees it.
  Under this bill $11 million is eliminated from the Drop Out 
Prevention Grants.
  Every year, nearly 15 percent of young Latinos between the ages of 16 
and 19 drop out of school. This is twice as high as the dropout rate 
for Anglo children.

[[Page H6526]]

  Children who drop out of school are more likely to commit a crime or 
end up in prison. And they are 67 percent more likely to become 
involved in drugs or alcohol.
  We need to find ways to motivate these students to stay in school, 
not discourage them by denying them English language skills and a 
proper education.
  I oppose this bill in the name of all of the Latino children in my 
district that will be harmed by these education cuts.
  We must find a way to get districts the money they need to help our 
children and Republicans must find a way to keep their promises.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, today, I rise in strong opposition to the 
Republican Labor-HHS appropriations bill.
  Just 2 years ago when Congress passed the Leave No Child Behind Act, 
we made a commitment to improve education for every American child. We 
promised that there would be a qualified teacher in every classroom 
within 4 years. We pledged to provide every school district with the 
resources to meet new achievement and accountability standards for 
raising academic performance. We committed to making sure after school 
programs were available to provide a safe environment for children to 
pursue extracurricular activities that help them learn.
  My how times change. Today, the President and Republicans have turned 
the promises of Leave No Child Behind into a hoax. They refuse to fully 
fund the initiatives that are vital to its success. They've passed the 
buck to the States, which simply don't have the resources to fund these 
programs but still must meet rigorous achievement standards. In this 
shortsighted and callous effort, Republicans have doomed Leave No Child 
Behind to fail. This is a slap in the face to school kids everywhere 
and to their parents who simply want their children to have good 
schools and qualified teachers from which to learn.
  You don't have to take my word for it, just look at the numbers. 
Republicans provide $334 million less than was promised for teacher 
training and recruitment. This means 54,000 teachers won't receive 
needed training next year and another 7,000 teachers won't be hired to 
provide specialized instruction in reading and math to 170,000 at-risk 
children. For Calfornia, Republicans make sure our public schools will 
lose nearly $1 billion in grants to meet new student achievement 
standards and $50 million less for grants to ensure teacher quality.
  In addition, highly successful after school programs are being 
underfunded by nearly $1 billion. California will lose out on $100 
million in funding for these activities. Grants provided under IDEA are 
$1.2 billion less than promised. So California's school districts will 
lose out on nearly $130 million for educating children with 
disabilities.
  Now, if you thought failing our children and their future was bad 
enough, consider how this bill shortchanges America's workers and their 
families. Even in the midst of this tough economy and growing 
unemployment, the Republicans can't seem to bring themselves to 
increase funding for job training. Federal job training programs are 
simply funded at last year's level. And for those Americans who are 
lucky enough to have jobs, the Republicans want to take away your right 
to earn overtime pay.

  We had the opportunity today to stop the Labor Department's proposed 
regulations expanding the number of employees who are exempt from 
receiving overtime pay when they work more than 40 hours in a week. 
Republicans defeated our Democratic amendment to make sure no funding 
was provided to enact these flawed regulations. In doing so, 8 million 
American workers could lose their right to overtime pay, which 
translates into a huge pay cut for working families who depend on 
overtime pay to maintain their standard of living. This change would 
also encourage employers to work employees longer hours, leaving them 
with less time to spend with their families. There is no question that 
working families deserve better.
  Lower income families, women and their children also deserve better 
when it comes to health care. Yet, this bill also threatens their 
ability to receive the medical services they rely on.
  Like so many programs, Title X, the nation's cornerstone health 
services and family-planning program, won't receive additional funding 
next year if this bill passes. This is despite the fact that more than 
4.8 million low-income families and their children receive basic health 
care through its 4,500 clinics nationwide.
  Title X clinics provide needed health services: screening for breast 
and cervical cancer, sexually transmitted diseases, breast and pelvic 
exams, in addition to prenatal, postpartum and well-baby care. They 
also provide educational services, counseling and information 
concerning both abstinence and contraceptive methods. By providing 
these family-planning services, Title X contributes to the reduction in 
unintended pregnancies and makes abortion less necessary.
  In the 13th District alone, these family health clinics were able to 
serve over 63,000 patients in 2002--but they could be doing more and 
they should have the resources to do it. Unfortunately, anti-choice 
lawmakers are holding funding for these clinics hostage despite the 
success of these services in preventing unintended pregnancies.
  Ideology, not science, has led Republicans to divert funding to 
ineffective ``abstinence-until-marriage'' programs. Congress now 
devotes $117 million to these entirely unproven methods while flat 
lining funding for title X programs. But, unlike Title X, abstinence-
only programs provide no actual clinical health services.
  I urge my colleagues to take a stand for the future of our children, 
working families and women in voting down this bill. We shouldn't throw 
away America's future by neglecting the education of our children, the 
economic security of working families, or the health care they need and 
rely on. I urge my colleagues to vote no on H.R. 2660.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, this body should be ashamed of 
itself.
  The healthcare and education of the citizens and residents of this 
country are in a stranglehold because of a greedy oversized tax cut, 
and we couldn't even vote to consider reducing it by just a small 
amount--to allow us to provide as better education for this country's 
children so this country itself can be better and stronger, and help to 
reduce the premature, preventable deaths that occur everyday in our 
communities of color and poor and rural areas.
  Mr. Chairman, it is a travesty that this body is moving ahead today 
with H.R. 2660 the 2004 Labor HHS appropriations bill as passed by the 
Republican members of the committee.
  Democrats did not support it for good reason, and we must oppose it 
now.
  There are many reasons why this bill is a terrible insult to the 
people of this country, but let me just focus on health care for my 
brief time:
  Even for its centerpiece--community Health centers--it provides the 
smallest increase since 1998.
  There is no increase at all for the Maternal and Child health block 
grant or for childhood immunization, further turning our back on our 
children.
  The bill provides no increase for the National Health service corps; 
it cuts programs that help students from minority and disadvantaged 
backgrounds prepare for and succeed in health professions schools, and 
freezes funding for health professions training, at a time when we are 
unprepared to meet not only our everyday health needs, but to protect 
our country from bioterrorism attacks.
  I could go on and on, but let me just end with funding for HIV and 
AIDS. Not only is the minority HIV/AIDS initiative flat funded when the 
proportion of people of color being infected is increasing, but the 
program which provides treatment to persons with AIDS, ADAP, is grossly 
under-funded, increasing the waiting list for persons with AIDS for 
treatment, putting their lives and those of others at increased risk.
  When did we become such an uncaring country, which would leave 
children unprepared for life, and others to lose theirs when we could 
do something about it?
  This appropriations bill is not worthy of this country and this body. 
I urge my colleagues to vote for the Obey substitute and against the 
base bill.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, the Republican funding for vital Education, 
Health, and Labor programs is dismal. While this country's richest one 
percent enjoys an average tax cut of $85,000,000 the country's poorest 
will see dramatic cuts in programs designed to close the gap between 
the rich and the poor. If we are to provide for ``No Child Left 
Behind'' it is imperative we fully fund programs for children with 
disabilities. The Republicans decided not to honor their commitment for 
putting this program and other NCLB programs on a path to full funding 
by 2009.
  Under this bill New York will suffer education cuts of approximately 
one billion dollars less than the levels authorized by the ``No Child 
Left Behind'' and the ``IDEA Reauthorization'' Acts. It leaves behind 
military dependents living near New York bases. It does nothing to help 
low-income college students pay for the 24-percent increase in tuition 
while freezing funding for teacher quality grants.
  The Bush administration along with the Republican led Congress has 
passed tax cuts for the wealthy and left our Nation's children behind. 
The IDEA reauthorization which provides funding for children with 
disabilities was promised an increase of $2.2 billion. This 
appropriations bill comes up 55 percent short. A promise to fund 
teacher quality grants falls $350 million short, leaving 54,000 fewer 
teachers who would have received training and development. We passed 
stronger accountability standards for schools, yet this bill falls $334 
million short in Title I funds. The NCLB pledged $6.15 billion more for 
FY04, but this

[[Page H6527]]

bill will leave nearly 2.2 million disadvantaged children behind. We 
wanted to see students achieve in reading and math. We wanted higher 
standards, but where is the common sense in underfunding these 
programs? In order to provide children with adequate facilities, 
equipment and specially trained teachers more money must be 
appropriated.
  After-school programs play an essential role in the education of 
disadvantaged children, but this bill falls $750 million short of the 
NCLB promise. As a result, more than one million children will be 
denied the opportunity to participate in after-school programs.
  Higher Education assistance through the Pell grant program is frozen 
under the Republican bill. Every one knows the way to close the gap 
between the wealthy and the working poor is through affordable 
education. Historically, the Pell grant program allowed students to 
achieve their goals without accumulating large debts, but this bill 
freezes the maximum Pell grant. When the Pell Grant program was 
initiated it financed 84 percent of a public university education. This 
bill would only finance 38 percent of the tuition cost.
  This bill stifles the National Institutes of Health by providing only 
a 0.2 percent increase for programs other than bio-defense, leaving 
cancer and other disease research underfunded. With rising medical 
costs, childhood immunizations, Community Health Centers, Maternal and 
Child Health Block Grants will receive little or no increase. No new 
funding is included for nurse education and training to help with the 
increasing nursing shortage. While the Nation's richest are having 
elective surgeries in spa-like, fully staffed hospitals, the rest of 
our Nation is woefully under-served.
  Services such as those provided by the Community Services Block Grant 
are to be reduced by $150 million, leaving our low income wage earners 
and the unemployed with little opportunity to upgrade their skills, 
hampering their ability to rise above the poverty level. In addition, 
it shuts down emergency food distribution efforts for the homeless and 
other low-income families. This bill further punishes by cutting 
funding for ``Low Income Heating Assistance'' at a time when heating 
bills could rise by double digits this winter for about half of all 
Americans.
  The Labor Department, not to be outdone by the Republican Congress, 
is intending to take more money away from 8 million workers including 
some 500,000 fire fighters, police officers and nurses. New overtime 
regulations proposed by the Department of Labor will make it much 
easier for employers to stop paying overtime compensation, demand 
longer hours and cut their employment rolls and thereby increasing 
unemployment. This decision at a time when the overall unemployment 
rate rose to 6.4 percent while the rate for African Americans rose to 
11.8 percent. This rate reflects 9.4 million people who were unemployed 
in June, a fifth of whom were unemployed for more than 6 months.
  The Obey/Miller amendment which I fully support would block these ill 
advised new Labor Department regulations.
  Working Families deserve much more. This legislation will leave its 
imprint on millions of families. It will not help with our continuing 
poverty problem, leaving our country to look more and more like a 
developing nation. A country which gives CEOs of Pharmaceutical 
companies salaries exceeding $26 million dollars cannot with good 
conscience cut key domestic programs. The FY2004 Labor-HHS-Education 
appropriations bill leaves children and families behind.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak against the Labor, 
Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations bill, H.R. 2660.
  Mr. Chairman, if this bill is enacted, the consequences to most 
Americans will be horrendous. This bill is proof positive of the 
Republican gameplan of promises made in domestic authorizing bills 
becoming promises broken when it comes time to fund them during the 
appropriations process. This bill fails all of the American people. 
That is because in this bill, significant domestic programs--K-12 and 
higher education, Title I, IDEA, after-school programs, Pell Grant 
Assistance grants, College Work Study Assistance, Perking and SEOG 
grants, health care, and healthcare research at the National Institutes 
of Health (NIH), maternal and child health programs, job training 
programs, and summer youth programs at the Department of Labor, as well 
as the LIHEAP program and the Child Care Development Block grants to 
name a few--are under-funded or level-funded. There is no fixing this 
bill, it is necessary that we scrap this bill and start over.
  Many Americans are going to wonder why if this bill is so bad that 
the Democrats are not going to offer a slew of amendments to make it 
better. Fellow countrymen, I say to you, this bill is atrocious and 
beyond repair. But in an effort to make it better, we are offering a 
comprehensive substitute under the skilled auspices of Mr. Obey that 
would add an additional $5.5 billion in funding to this bill offset by 
the recent Bush tax cut.
  This bill only offers a total $3.3 billion increase over last year's 
funding--which represents a mere 4 percent increase in education, the 
lowest increase in the past 10 years. It only provides a 1.6 percent 
increase for the No Child Left Behind Act--that's only $382 million 
more for the bill that holds States to the highest education 
accountability standards in history. Will these spartan funds carry 
through on the promises of increased achievement for our children in 
reading and math?
  It underfunds IDEA, the program that helps the 7 million children and 
youth with disabilities by $1.2 billion under the President's budget. 
It underfunds Title I by $6.1 billion below what's authorized in the No 
Child Left Behind Act--as we know Title I helps 9 million disadvantaged 
children nationwide. It allocates only $1.0 billion for afterschool 
programs for our children, when No Child Left Behind calls for almost 
twice this amount.
  This bill provides only a 2.5 percent increase to the National 
Institutes of Health, when we need at least a 3.2 percent increase to 
keep up with inflation. Needless to say, important programs related to 
ending health disparities, maternal and child health, immunizations, 
and community heath centers will suffer. There are also additional cuts 
to programs in rural health, important components of the Ryan White 
AIDS Care program, and nursing education and training programs in the 
face of a worsening nursing shortage.


                               education

  Let me continue to recount what is so bad about this bill--quickly 
since debate is always limited on important spending bills under the 
current House leadership. As we all know, this bill is supposed to fund 
K-12 and higher education. However, not only does this bill underfund 
authorized levels in the No Child Left Behind Act and those anticipated 
in the Higher Education bill, but it underfunds the President's already 
under-funded budget. Most importantly, this bill cuts the Fund for the 
Improvement of Education by 63 percent, Troops to Teachers by 31 
percent, Innovation State Grants by 12 percent, Teacher Training in 
Technology by 100 percent, Community Technology Centers by 100 percent, 
Occupational Employment Information Center by 100 percent, freezes Pell 
grants, along with similar freezes in Perkins, SEOG grants, and the 
Work Study Program.


                              job training

  This bill also fails to provide any substantial funding increases for 
vocational and adult education programs. These programs are vital to 
the nearly two-thirds of Americans that do not obtain a 4-year college 
degree and to the 25 percent that go to work directly after high 
school.


                              health care

  Again, this bill only calls for an overall increase for NIH of 2.5 
percent, when we should be increasing funding by at least 3.2 percent 
just to keep up with inflation. Although doubling funding for NIH over 
5 years was completed successfully, this bill reflects the smallest 
percentage increase in more than 15 years. Needless to say, all of the 
gains we anticipated in the areas of healthcare research, biomedical 
research, AIDS research, advances at the CDC, bioterrorism advances and 
ending healthcare disparities stand to be squandered with this sparse 
funding. It bears repeating that the community health programs, 
maternal and child health programs, Child Care Development Block grants 
and the LIHEAP program that are either cut or flat-funded will suffer 
under this bill, as will the people who rely on these services. Lastly, 
we must also mention the $170 million of underfunding in this bill to 
help end the backlog of administrative cases at our Social Security 
Administration.
  It is very disheartening to see the largest and one of the most 
important non-defense domestic funding bills on the floor of this 
House, the contents of which completely ignores the cries of the people 
who most need our help.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask what message are we sending to our children? I 
think it is that you are not as important as tax cuts to the wealthiest 
1 percent of Americans and your future is not bright if you will need a 
little help. And let's remember that with unemployment over 6 percent 
and college tuitions sky-rocketing, many more of our young people are 
going to need help getting a quality public education.
  I ask what message are we sending to American families and the 41 
million who lack healthcare coverage. Is it that your health is not as 
important as lacing the pockets of the top 200,000 families with 
$88,000 extra dollars in tax cuts?


                         Democratic substitute

  With all of the negative implications that come out of this bill on 
the floor, needless to say, I would like to lend my support to the 
thoughtful Democratic substitute crafted by Mr. Obey. This bill would 
restore funding for our nation's important domestic programs by 
increasing overall funding by at least $5.5 billion

[[Page H6528]]

over the Republican bill. It would cost us nothing since it will 
accomplish this critical increase by scaling back the President's tax 
cut for the richest 1 percent of taxpayers from $88,000 dollars to 
$60,000. $28,000! I think this is a small sacrifice to make. I think 
the American people will agree.
  The question is clear--are we going to give this $5.5 billion dollars 
to those who need it least or to those who need it the most--to help 
educate our children and to provide health care and job training 
assistance to their families during these difficult economic times? 
This bill makes the wrong choice. Support the Obey substitute.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against final passage of this bill.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word in 
opposition to H.R. 2657, the Labor, Health and Human Service, and 
Education Appropriations bill.
  This bill is the single most important appropriations bill we will 
consider. It provides funding for critical programs such as Head Start, 
the National Institutes of Health, Low-Income Energy Assistance, Pell 
Grants, the Community Access Program, the Centers for Disease Control, 
and countless other programs that directly serve most Americans.
  This is the bill that, more clearly than any other bill, shows the 
glaring differences between the parties, because this bill woefully 
underfunds almost every one of the programs I just mentioned.
  For example, many of my colleagues have mentioned that the bill 
breaks the Majority's promise made in the FY 2004 Budget Resolution to 
provide a $3 billion increase from the previous year for the Department 
of Education.
  This means less money for programs like Title I, on which my schools 
rely to help educate low-income and disadvantaged children.
  This bill falls $334 million short of the majority's promise to 
provide $1.0 billion more for the poor and minority children who aren't 
getting the education they need and deserve.
  Further, the bill eliminates other No Child Left Behind programs like 
Drop-Out Prevention Grants, freezes State Assessment Grants, and 
shortchanges Safe Schools Initiatives, only a few of the programs that 
the current legislation affects.
  In fact, annual increases in the Federal investment in discretionary 
education programs have actually spiraled downward since the act was 
signed into law--from 18.2 percent in FY 2002 to 6.4 percent in FY 2003 
to a meager 4.3 percent in FY 2004 under this bill--the smallest dollar 
increase in 4 years and the smallest percentage increase in 8 years.
  Public health programs also suffer in the proposed appropriations 
bill.
  The bill provides an overall increase for NIH of just 2.5 percent--
the smallest percentage increase in more than 15 years and a sharp 
deceleration from the 15 percent annual increases that NIH has received 
during the past 5 years under the bipartisan program to double the 
biomedical research budget.
  The bill's 2.5 percent increase would fall short of what is needed 
merely to keep up with inflation in research costs, which NIH estimates 
at 3.3 percent.
  And as I mentioned during debate on my colleague from Wisconsin's 
amendment, this legislation does not do nearly enough to provide 
funding for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP).
  LIHEAP is critical to my constituents in Houston, helping them to pay 
their cooling bills. It is 91 degrees in Houston today, with 88 percent 
humidity. This summer, temperatures can be expected to average in the 
high 90s. Senior citizens rely on LIHEAP to help protect them from 
these extreme conditions.
  Yet this legislation underfunds it by $200 million. This is a serious 
problem, and don't just take my word for it.
  Even the President of the United States, in his Statement of 
Administrative Policy, expresses his disappointment at the funding 
level, saying that this funding level ``could limit the ability to 
address the heating and cooling needs of low-income families.''
  There are so many problems with this legislation that there is simply 
no way to improve it. There is no money to shuffle from one account to 
another in this bill, because all of these programs are critical.
  We simply don't provide enough funding for them, and that's because 
we have squandered our resources on a tax cut. This bill makes that 
priorities of the leadership clear--tax cuts for the wealthy, and 
program cuts for everyone else.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this Labor, 
Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations bill. While I 
applaud many of the funding provisions in this legislation, I also 
believe that this bill makes unacceptable spending cuts to education, 
health care, worker training and other critical initiatives at a time 
when we should be investing more in our nation's future, not less.
  There is absolutely no higher priority for our families than 
providing a quality education for our children. While I support the 
intentions of last year's education reform promise to leave no child 
behind, I am also convinced that the success of this new law will be 
determined in part by the investment made in this historic reform 
effort. I am deeply disappointed that this funding plan falls more than 
$6 billion short of the resources promised for low-income and 
disadvantaged school districts, translating to a $19 million shortfall 
in North Dakota alone.
  This bill also breaks a promise made earlier this year to put us on a 
path to fully funding the Federal Government's share of the cost of 
educating a special needs student. Further, it shortchanges educational 
funding for military and Indian children in federally impacted 
districts, under funds after-school learning programs, freezes funding 
for teacher quality grants, and eliminates vocational and career 
guidance funding in my State.
  Not only does this bill fall short on critical funding for education, 
but it also includes inadequate funding for rural health care programs, 
including outreach grants and research, and slashes funding for the 
State Offices of Rural Health by more than 50 percent of last year's 
level.
  Certainly, this bill includes provisions that I support. I was 
pleased that the Rural Education Achievement Program received a $2 
million increase to help rural districts manage the No Child Left 
Behind Act's new accountability requirements. I was also pleased that 
this bill contains important funding increases for disease research at 
the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Centers for Disease 
Control (CDC), as well as critical increases in funding assistance to 
states for Medicaid funding.
  I remain hopeful that we can work on a bipartisan basis to develop a 
fiscally responsible funding plan that provides adequate resources to 
strengthen our schools, address our public health needs, and support 
our nation's workers.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the 
underlying bill and to the shortchanging of the nation's students, 
teachers, and schools.
  We often hear about the need to leave no child behind. Yet, this 
budget leaves millions of children behind by underfunding vital 
education programs.
  This bill falls short of providing funds to improve teacher quality, 
student achievement, and special education programs. The costs of 
higher education continue to increase, but this bill freezes the 
maximum Pell Grant award. We should do more to help students who face 
the daunting task of paying for a college education.
  During these uncertain economic times, many families must rely on the 
incomes of two parents or on a single parent working more than one job. 
This bill does not provide enough funding for after-school programs 
which provides children with valuable learning opportunities and also 
helps children constructively use their time at the end of the school 
day.
  While this bill will provide some funding to critical education 
programs, the bill does not do enough. It's time that we fulfill the 
promise to ``leave no child behind.'' This nation's families and 
schoolchildren deserve more.
  On a separate issue, I oppose this bill because it undermines the 
nation's progress on scientific and medical research at the National 
Institutes of Health.
  With a bipartisan effort in Congress and the leadership of the past 
two administrations, we have succeeded in doubling the budget for the 
National Institutes of Health over the last 5 years, increasing it from 
$13.6 billion in 1998 to $27.2 billion in fiscal year 2003. The hope, 
and in many instances the reality, is that these strong investments in 
biomedical research will encourage scientific advances that will 
ultimately translate into better health care for the American people, 
including better treatment and cures of devastating diseases like 
Parkinson's.
  I am proud of this past national investment. However, I am very 
troubled that today's appropriations bill does not fully support the 
work and research of the National Institutes of Health. We should 
maintain a robust level of funding for NIH. We must continue a strong 
commitment to biomedical research funding so that medical advances can 
continue. Yet, this bill includes only a 2.5 percent increase--the 
smallest percentage increase in more than 15 years. The doubling effort 
was inspired, we should not reverse course and starve the research that 
we helped to spur.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, today I sought to offer an amendment that 
would have increased funding for dislocated worker employment and 
training programs under H.R. 2660, the FY 2004 Labor, Health and Human 
Services, and Education Appropriations bill by $88 million, from $1.46 
billion to $1.549 billion, restoring funding for these essential 
services to their FY 2002 level. The bill before us today would freeze 
funding at last year's level.
  In my congressional district of El Paso, TX, 20,000 workers have lost 
their jobs as a result

[[Page H6529]]

of the North American Free Trade Agreement--more than any other 
community in the United States. These job losses have left dislocated 
workers struggling to learn new skills that will allow them to find 
jobs that pay a living wage, and they have left El Paso with an 
unemployment rate that has soared into the double digits at times.
  My district is not alone in facing these challenges. In communities 
across the country, workers have lost good jobs as a result of NAFTA. 
These workers desperately need Federal assistance to prepare them to 
successfully rejoin the workforce and provide for their families.
  At a time when the national unemployment rate is at a 9-year high, 
this bill fails to provide additional, desperately needed funding to 
ensure that all dislocated workers get the services to which they are 
entitled. Unfortunately, these programs are just a couple of the many 
critical health, education, and worker programs that are woefully 
underfunded in the bill. And yet, this Congress recently saw fit to 
give millionaires a tax cut of at least $88,000 each.
  Mr. Chairman, America's workers are the engines that drive our 
economy. We need to make sure that they have all the tools they need to 
help get it moving again, both for their sake and for the nation as a 
whole. Restoring funding for Federal dislocated worker programs would 
be a good start toward that goal, and toward putting our spending 
priorities back in proper order.
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I must oppose the 
appropriations bill before us today because it shortchanges the 
children of America. This legislature has promised to fund its broad 
mandate called No Child Left Behind, NCLB. Compared to the 
authorizations promised when that vote was solicited, Every Child Is 
Left Behind.
  Let me be specific for the children I represent.
  Title I is the foundation of NCLB. Of course, the total dollars have 
been increased by $1 billion. However, the administration deleted $1.5 
billion worth of over 40 specific, successful programs whose continued 
existence had been promised to gather support for the bill. It was then 
suggested that those programs could be paid for under the smaller 
increase in Title I, which was designed to cover additional programs 
the federal government has mandated for those students. However, even 
that increase does not match the promise. Others have noted that the 
appropriation for Title I is more than $6 billion less than the FY 2004 
authorization. For California, that is $872,616,000 less than promised 
for the neediest, low-income children.
  Similarly, when this House passed its reauthorization of the 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA, the FY 2004 
authorization was to be a $2.2 billion increase. Yet, only six weeks 
later, you are offering an increase of only $1 billion! Why would you 
cut your commitment by 60% in six weeks? This amounts to a $129,826,000 
reduction in federal support to California districts to pay this 
federal mandate. We continue to break the promise made in 1975 to fund 
40% of the excess costs these special needs students require in order 
to be able to learn.
  I represent a district with one of the largest aggregations of 
military bases and personnel in the country. The Impact Aid program 
helps provide for the school costs of military children whose families 
do not pay state income taxes, local sales taxes for commissary 
purchases, and property taxes if they live in federally supported 
housing. We are proud to have these families in our communities, but 
federal support to offset this loss of taxes is critical. Yet, this 
bill cuts is authorization commitment by $62,421,873 for California 
children.
  After-school programs are critical to the children in my district. I 
was able to author legislation in the California legislature to provide 
funding to launch these after school services, and San Diego County has 
a wonderful program coordinating organizations and services for 
children before and after school. However, we still reach a small 
proportion of eligible and needy children. Federally promised funds are 
critical. Although NCLB authorizes $1.75 billion for FY 2004, this bill 
only appropriates 57% of that amount. California children lose 
$102,831,000.

  The list could go on and on--just with promises made in NCLB--such as 
to fund teacher quality grants in order to be sure that every classroom 
will have a highly qualified teacher. Failure to adequately fund the 
level of Pell Grants for college students compared with the percentage 
of cost at a public institution that these grants initially provided is 
also highly disappointing.
  There are other critical shortfalls as well. I must mention, in 
particular, the failure to continue the improvement in funding for the 
National Institutes of Health. In San Diego, we are privileged to have 
several eminent research institutions--Scripps Institute, the Salk 
Institute, The Burnham Institute, and the University of California at 
San Diego, to name a few--working on critical issues such as 
bioterrorism, cancer, diabetes, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's 
disease and the health of minority populations.
  I understand the significance this funding holds for NIH to continue 
its work and for the numerous patients and communities that benefit 
from the results of this research. The scientific inquiries that these 
grants underwrite are the critical crucible for the incredible 
discoveries that have enabled many people with chronic and serious 
illnesses to continue to lead productive lives because of the resulting 
discoveries in drugs, medical devices, and health care strategies. 
Children will lose to preventable disease by undercutting scientific 
research.
  Though I am pleased to see an increase in funding for our nation's 
mentoring programs, I am disappointed to see that this amount still 
comprises only half of the Bush Administration's request. The President 
took an important and long-overdue step towards recognizing the 
significance of mentoring in the lives of our children by proposing a 
robust increase in these programs. The mentoring relationship provides 
children and young adults with a stronger sense of self and instills 
them with new optimism for the future. All young people can benefit 
from the support of a mentor, and we should be doing all that we can to 
encourage the expansion of these critical programs.
  We have heard repeatedly how many more dollars in specific programs 
under No Child Left Behind are appropriated in this bill. What those 
speakers don't say is how many dollars other programs authorized by the 
bill have lost. What else those speakers don't acknowledge is how much 
was promised as recently as week ago for the children of America. Smoke 
and mirrors don't belong in this debate.
  The children of California are being shortchanged by over $1 trillion 
just in these programs. Under this bill, Every California Child Is 
Being Left Behind.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in reluctant opposition to 
this Labor-HHS Appropriations bill--for the investments it refuses to 
make and the promises it fails to keep for the American people.
  I am profoundly concerned about the growing gap between what we say 
and what we do in this Congress.
  We say we want a healthy America. But this Appropriations bill 
shatters a five-year bipartisan commitment to the NIH by funding the 
world's premiere scientific and medical research organization with a 
paltry 2.5% increase--the smallest in fifteen years. And the majority's 
solution to our nation's critical nursing shortage? A funding freeze 
for the Nurse Reinvestment Act. No new money at all.
  For the growing ranks of our unemployed, a $150 million cut in the 
Community Services Block Grant program. That's less help for those left 
behind by the Bush economy--just when they need it the most.
  Perhaps nowhere is the credibility gap between the Republican 
leadership's rhetoric and its honest-to-goodness priorities more 
glaring than in the area of education. Not three years ago, President 
Bush--the self-proclaimed ``education president''--signed the No Child 
Left Behind Act into law. In exchange for higher expectations and new, 
tough accountability measures to meet them, the President and the 
Congress promised students, states and school districts the requisite 
funds to get the job done. The bill we are asked to support today falls 
$8 billion short of that promise. It is an unconscionable abdication of 
our national responsibility.
  When the Education and Workforce Committee--on which I sit--took up 
the IDEA bill this Spring, the committee's leadership repeatedly 
refused to make IDEA funding mandatory--arguing that the Republican 
party could be trusted to provide what was necessary for the proper 
education of children with disabilities. In a grandiose show of GOP 
commitment, the Chairman even went to the Budget Committee and 
announced he had secured an additional $4.6 Billion in authorized 
funding over the next two years for IDEA. Now we see the true colors: 
Less than 50% of the $2.2 billion authorized. And astonishingly, even 
less than the $1.4 billion authorized in the original bill. So much 
bluff and bluster.
  Mr. Chairman, Appropriations bill are about so much more than dollars 
and cents. They reflect who we are as a people. Our values. Our 
priorities. And the course we wish to chart for the future. I believe 
this bill charts precisely the wrong course, and I urge my colleagues 
to defeat it.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman, I will be voting against H.R. 2660, 
Department of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and 
Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2004, because, 
among many other deficiencies, the bill underfunds our nation's 
elementary and secondary schools and increases funding for the National 
Institutes of Health at a rate that does not keep up with that of 
medical research inflation. But I rise in support of language in the 
accompanying report regarding the Pension Benefit

[[Page H6530]]

Guaranty Corporation. Over the course of the past year, the PBGC has 
grown increasingly aggressive in terminating early the pension plans of 
private companies before the companies have asked PBGC to take control 
of their plans. PBGC has terminated the pension plans of many 
companies, specifically of those in the steel industry, during the last 
year to avoid paying benefits negotiated between a company and its 
workers prior to a plant's shutdown. I applaud the Appropriations 
Committee's attention to this matter and hope that the PBGC will 
discontinue this unfair practice and move to redress pensioners who 
have suffered from this past year's adjustment in policy.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, the completely inadequate appropriations 
bill before the House speaks volumes about the Majority Party's 
priorities. Over the last three years, they've locked in tax cuts that 
disproportionately benefit the very richest families in America--those 
with incomes of over $1 million a year. As a result of this reckless 
tax policy, the federal deficit has ballooned to over $400 billion this 
year and these budget shortfalls are projected to continue as far as 
the eye can see.
  Another result of this tax policy is that we don't have the resources 
needed to fulfill the promises this Congress has made to the American 
people. The Republican budget passed earlier this year, which enabled 
the latest round of tax cuts, promised a $3 billion overall increase 
for education. The bill before us breaks that promise.
  Funding for special education in this bill is $1.2 billion short of 
what was promised in the budget resolution. Funding for Pell Grants to 
help families afford the rising cost of a college education falls $410 
million short, and the maximum Pell Grant award is frozen. Title I 
funding promised in the budget to help school districts meet the new 
accountability requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act falls $334 
million short of what was promised. Funding for improving teacher 
quality and after-school programs is likewise significantly less than 
what was promised in No Child Left Behind.
  The bill before the House also shortchanges medical research, low-
income energy assistance, and healthy care for unemployed workers. The 
Majority likes to pretend that it can pass more than $2 trillion in tax 
cuts without any consequences. This is simply not true. The tax cuts--
again, the lion's share of which disproportionately benefit the very 
wealthy--are being paid for by breaking promises made to adequately 
fund education, medical research, health care and energy assistance.
  This bill is not worthy of anyone's support. I urge the House to 
defeat it.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, the Labor, Health, Human Services and 
Education appropriations bill is a logical consequence of misplaced 
priorities in the budget resolution and tax cut proposals that have 
been pushed through the House of Representatives this year. Despite the 
overwhelming support from people in my community and around the country 
for investing in the future, and for funding our commitments in the 
President's signature No Child Left Behind legislation, this bill would 
systematically undercut funding promises. This Congress has authorized 
funding levels that would help school districts implement costly new 
programs and provide Pell Grants to help low-income college students 
struggling in a difficult economy. The House finds itself allocating 
far less than it authorized just months ago for IDEA programs. The 
administration's fiscal management leaves us with shamefully low 
funding levels for these programs and soaring budget deficits.
  While our school districts fight their own fight back home, this 
Labor/HHS bill cuts education funding for Oregon's children by a total 
of $98,039,089 below the levels authorized by the No Child Left Behind 
Act and the IDEA Reauthorization Act. This is illustrative of the 
impact that will be felt in every state, and we ought to avoid this 
added burden on the nation's school systems.
  At a time when so much has been done for a few who need help the 
least with massive tax cuts, it is unconscionable that we are not 
meeting obligations under prior legislation or even the minimal levels 
established under the Republican Budget resolution.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Labor, 
Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations bill before us. 
This bill shortchanges critical education and health and human services 
programs, reverses the progress we have made in building up the 
National Institutes of Health (NIH) in recent years and fails to 
fulfill promises this Congress made to disadvantaged children. There is 
a theme developing in the 108th Congress and it is one of unfulfilled 
promises and inaction--whether it's special education, college aid or 
biomedical research--the Republican leadership talks about access and 
accountability while failing to provide for it.
  In the last five years, Congress has worked in a bipartisan fashion 
to double NIH funding, something we were all able to go home and be 
proud of. This doubling of funding signified an unprecedented federal 
commitment to research and resulted in the beginning of some remarkable 
projects--many of which have the potential to end great human suffering 
caused by disease and epidemics such as diabetes, heart disease and 
AIDS. Federal researchers are even poised to make significant 
discoveries about what causes cancer. I am sorely disappointed to see 
that this year's proposed budget for NIH contains the smallest increase 
in 15 years--one that is less than the rate of inflation and cannot 
sustain the projects we worked together to begin in recent years and at 
the same time, provide for critical new initiatives. The proposed 
amount would provide just 21 new grants for all of NIH outside of bio-
defense research. American citizens should not have to choose between 
life-saving research and bio-terrorism preparedness. Both should be 
priorities and both should be adequately funded.
  The proposed budget for education also fails to recognize the rise in 
tuition costs, as it freezes the maximum Pell Grant--the primary 
federal grant for college and university studies for 5 million 
disadvantaged students--despite its declining buying power. As a 
result, these grants would finance only 38 percent of the cost of a 
public university. When Congress established the Pell Grant program, 
they covered 84 percent of the cost of study--clearly intended to play 
a significant role in increasing access to colleges and universities 
for lower- and middle-income individuals. The funding levels in H.R. 
2660 would force students to take on increasingly large levels of debt 
to finance their college eduations--if they are able to pursue higher 
education at all.
  Last year, we passed a landmark piece of legislation called the No 
Child Left Behind Act, which promised education reform to millions of 
American students. The time has come to fund that legislation--to 
fulfill the promise--and the money is not there. H.R. 2660 falls $334 
million short of the $1 billion in Title I funds promised in the budget 
resolution to help school districts meet the challenge of new 
accountability requirements in No Child Left Behind. Just yesterday, we 
passed the Ready to Teach Act, which promised millions of dollars in 
teacher quality and preparation programs. Yet, the appropriations bill 
falls $350 million short of our earlier promise to fund teacher quality 
grants created in the No Child Left Behind Act. The result is that 
54,000 fewer teachers will receive high quality, federally-supported 
professional development.
  Earlier this year, Congress made it a priority to pass a $350 billion 
tax cut that overwhelmingly favored the wealthy--on top of the trillion 
dollar tax cut this same population benefited from in 2001. The Labor, 
Health and Human Services and Education appropriations bill--more than 
any other funding bill--sends a clear message to the children, the 
families and the working people of this country about our priorities. 
As Democrats, as Republicans, as Members of Congress--collectively, we 
know that education and health care are of the highest priority to the 
American people and that they want us to do more. Yet, the fact remains 
that the bill the Republican leadership presents us with does not 
reflect those priorities or provide the funding that they deserve. I 
urge all of my colleagues to vote against H.R. 2660.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, the bi-partisan passage of the Ready to 
Teach Act, with crucial Democratic amendments, and the teacher 
Recruitment and Retention Act of 2003 is a step in the right direction 
towards improving the standards of public education across this 
country. My Democratic colleagues and I understand that we must go 
beyond the empty promises and rhetoric of our Republican counterparts 
and put Americas tax dollars where they are truly need.
  Unfortunately, today the House will vote on a Labor/HHS/Education 
Appropriations bill that will severely underfund education. This bill 
fails to deliver on a whopping $8 million dollars that was promised, 
but not delivered by the President's ``Leave No Child Behind Act.''
  Mr. Chairman, unfortunately I am not surprised that my fellow 
Democrats and I are forced to stand here today to advocate for monies 
that are desperately needed to provide adequate education to our 
Nation's children. To make this lack of funding even more egregious, 
the Republicans promised America's children and parents last year, that 
no child would be left behind. I believe it is important that Americans 
know today that this Republican sponsored bill will:
  Cut Title I grants by $16.15 billion dollars as compared to the 
funding levels called for by No Child Left Behind (NCLB). The children 
of Michigan will lose Title I grants totaling $202,981,000 dollars 
below the amount called for by NCLB.
  Reduce IDEA grants, which are used by school districts to educate 
children with disabilities by $1.2 billion dollars as compared to that 
which was promised in the Republican IDEA Reauthorization Act. Michigan 
children with disabilities will lose $44,264,000 dollars in promised 
IDEA grants.

[[Page H6531]]

  Shortchange children in need of constructive after-school activities 
by cutting funding for After-School Programs to $750 million dollars 
below the level promised in NCLB. As a result, Michigan children will 
be shorted $23,384,000 dollars in After-School Program funding.
  Freeze funding for Teacher Quality Grants at $2.9 billion dollars. 
That is $350 million dollars less than the $3.3 billion promised in No 
Child Left Behind. Unfortunately, this translates into a loss of 
$10,172,000 dollars in promised Teacher Quality Grants for Michigan.
  Leaves Military dependents behind by cutting $583 million dollars in 
Impact Aid program funds--well below the previously authorized funding 
level. Michigan military families will lose $5,054,632 dollars in 
Impact Aid.
  Overall, abandons the promise Republicans set forth in their FY 2004 
Budget Resolution wherein they committed to provide a $3 billion 
dollars increase over FY 2003 for the Department of Education. Instead, 
this bill provides only a $2.3 billion or 4.3 percent for this year. 
That is the lowest dollar increase in four years and the smallest 
percentage increase in eight years. The children of Michigan will lost 
a total of $311,052,632 dollars in education funds authorized in both 
the No Child Left Behind legislation and the IDEA Reauthorization Act.
  Our commitment to educating our children is being undermined today. I 
appeal to my colleagues to honor our commitment to America's greatest 
treasury--our children. Let's pass an appropriations bill today that 
will fully and adequately support the education of America's children.
  Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill. Two 
years ago Congress and the President worked together on a historic 
piece of legislation: the No Child Left Behind Act. This bipartisan 
agreement exchanged tough accountability standards for significant 
financial resources to help local schools implement reforms. Everyone 
agreed that money alone would not improve schools. But, funding and 
reforms were to go hand in hand.
  I had some concerns about provisions in No Child Left Behind and the 
burdens they would place on our local schools. But, I was reassured 
that with overwhelming, bipartisan support, Congress and the President 
would deliver the needed resources to make this effort a success.
  Since the No Child Left Behind Act was signed into law in 2001, the 
federal commitment to provide the necessary resources has been broken. 
Congress has let our schools and our children down.
  Our teachers are hard working, and our administrators know what they 
are doing. They continuously do much with very little. But, we are 
pushing our education system to the breaking point. Without adequate 
resources our local schools are struggling to meet tough new 
accountability standards. Despite provisions stating that states would 
not be required to spend their own resources on federal reforms, that 
is exactly what is occurring.
  State budget shortfalls have already drained precious resources from 
our local schools. Constantly asking them to do even more with even 
less is the wrong pattern. it cannot reform or improve our schools. It 
will leave them unable to perform many of their core functions. It will 
eliminate quality, successful programs. And, it will drive teachers out 
of the education profession.
  The federal pattern continues to be: promises made, promises unkept. 
Sadly enough, the promises being broken are those made to the next 
generation.
  Providing a quality education for our children should be a top 
priority. However, as states are assembling their plans to assess and 
improve student performance, the federal government is eliminating the 
tools that would help them succeed. After-school programs that provide 
tutoring services have been cut. Resources to train and provide 
professional development for teachers are being reduced. The mandates 
should not continue if the requisite funding is not supplied.
  The cornerstone of No Child Left Behind is Title I funding for 
schools serving large proportions of disadvantaged, low-income 
students. In order to raise the academic performance of these students, 
Congress promised incremental funding increases in Title I. For this 
fiscal year, $18.5 billion was promised. However, this appropriation 
bill would only provide $12.35 billion, continuing the pattern of 
breaking federal promises. In addition, Utah would receive nearly $4 
million less than promised for after-school programs, $2 million less 
than promised for teacher quality programs, and over $8 million less 
than promised for Impact Aid that offsets the costs of education near 
military bases and Native American reservations.
  These are not just numbers; they are tools: the resources that are 
critical to meeting new standards. Without the tools, our schools 
simply cannot work.
  This legislation would also continue the pattern of failing to 
deliver on the promises made decades ago to provide 40 percent of the 
costs of special education. It would fund Utah at $11 million less than 
the amount promised by the House of Representatives this April when we 
reauthorized the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
  Our nation and my state are facing tough economic times that require 
tough choices. But, it is shortsighted not to recognize the role of 
education in the prosperity of the next generation. It is an investment 
worth making. It is an investment we cannot afford to neglect. Keeping 
our commitments regarding education funding will be critical to 
training the teachers and educating the leaders of tomorrow. It is time 
for Congress and the President to work together in a bipartisan way to 
keep our promise.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, there is not one Congressional 
District in our nation that will benefit from this Appropriations bill. 
I definitely know that my district will dramatically feel the effects 
of the cuts and the level funding for education, health care, and 
energy cost. Some of the best programs Congress has embraced and funded 
in the past suddenly seem to no longer be a priority.
  Our young people who are in desperate situations will face dramatic 
cuts in the education provided to them. Low-income children attending 
Title I schools, children with disabilities, and young people trying to 
obtain a college education are facing the most critical budget cuts 
under education. Combined these students will lose over $1.6 billion--
and this is not even including the $8 billion that is missing from 
Child Left Behind Act 2004 funding target. We are allowing an extra 
burden to be put on deficit stricken states, local school districts, 
communities, and working class families that are already trying to make 
ends meet in our sluggish economy.
  The no increase in funding and cuts extend into our health care 
system. In my District, I have 25 hospitals, four of which are teaching 
hospitals. Like in many of the hospitals in other districts, the ones 
in my district are already feeling the effects from the fiscal crisis 
facing Illinois. This bill provides no increase for child 
immunizations, the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant and the 
National Health Service Corps, which provides student loan repayment 
for doctors and dentist who work in areas with shortages of health 
providers. We are all very aware of the nursing shortage facing our 
nation's health system and I was proud that last Congress we passed the 
Nurse Reinvestment Act to assist in the shortage. Yet not only is there 
no increase in funding for those programs, there is actually $7 million 
less than the President's request for the program that provides 
scholarships to nursing students who agree to work in areas with a 
serious shortage of nurses. Although there have been great advances and 
success stories in respect to fighting HIV-AIDS, there is a cut in the 
Ryan White AIDS Care programs. I am particularly disappointed that this 
bill cuts funding by 12 percent compared to 2003, in programs that help 
students from minority and disadvantaged backgrounds prepare for and do 
well in medical school and other health professionals schools.
  Just two days ago, the Subcommittee on Education Reform had a hearing 
on the Community Service Block Grant (CSBG) and LIHEAP. I was very 
proud that one of the individuals' testifying was one of my 
constituents and also my dear friend, Dr. Mary Nelson from Bethel New 
Life, Inc. My colleagues that serve on the Subcommittee with me were 
all impressed by the great work that is being performed by Dr. Nelson 
and the other panelist. Yet we are cutting the funds that allow Bethel 
New Life, Inc. and the other organizations to expand community and 
economic development, provide energy assistance, housing, 
winterizations, nutrition and countless other exceptional programs that 
help families get out of and remain out of poverty. The CSBG will be 
cut by $151 million or 23 percent. LIHEAP is cut by 10 percent at a 
time when projections predict that natural gas prices will be at least 
50 percent higher in the coming winter as more than half of LIHEAP 
recipients rely on natural gas.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill just does not make any sense to me. Level 
funding programs may be considered sufficient but is considered a 
funding cut to me. We are hitting the programs that have already been 
cut and hit by the states. We are cutting funding for programs that are 
basic components to our society: education and healthcare. What does 
America stand for? What does out body stand for? This bill does not 
express the American values. This bill expresses that it is acceptable 
to cut the basic right of education, cut the ability to provide health 
care, encourage unequal opportunities, and keeping our citizens on the 
streets instead of having a warm place to sleep. Our body has worked 
together to pass some great pieces of legislation that will help our 
nations' schools, hospitals, and less fortunate--but those bills are 
just pieces of paper without the funding necessary to allow them to be 
effective.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, on May 30th the Administration quietly issued 
a new regulation

[[Page H6532]]

that will put an additional financial squeeze on millions of college 
students and their families by cutting their deduction for state and 
local taxes in the student financial aid eligibility formula.
  This new rule, which was finalized by the Department of Education 
without review or approval by the Congress, will effectively eliminate 
Pell Grant eligibility for some needy students and reduce Pell Grant 
awards and subsidized loans for other students.
  The Pell Grant program is the cornerstone of federal student 
financial aid, providing assistance to nearly 4 million students. These 
grants are the foundation of their financial aid packages. Without 
them, it is likely that these students will not have enough money to go 
to school. And in our new highly-skilled work environment, a college 
education is more important than ever.
  College is the best investment of a lifetime. We must take steps to 
ensure that higher education is within the reach of all Americans so 
that they are prepared to meet the challenges they will face in our 
increasingly competitive world.
  This new rule, will force students to mortgage their futures by going 
further into debt to attend college.
  For example, a family of four living in Pennsylvania, earning $63,000 
a year, with one child attending college full time, would have to pay 
about $800 per year more toward college expenses.
  A family of four living in New Jersey earning $45,000 a year with one 
child in college, attending full time, get an estimated $1,600 Pell 
Grant under the Bush regulation compared to a $1,700 Pell Grant under 
current regulations. For a middle class family, working hard to make 
ends meet in a poor economy, these are big differences.
  This is happening just as attending college gets more expensive every 
month, with states and private institutions raising tuition and other 
costs.
  The Labor, Health Human Services and Education appropriations bill 
before us does nothing to remedy this problem.
  The new student aid state tax allowances created under this rule will 
reduce the state tax percentage deduction for nearly all students at a 
time when the state and local tax burden is going up, not down, for 
many families.
  The Department's new state tax rates, however, are based on outdated 
data from 2000.
  Since then, our economy has spiraled downward, and many states and 
local communities have had to increase taxes in order to offset budget 
shortfalls.
  Nationwide, the Administration's regulation could result in the loss 
of hundreds of millions of federal assistance to students and families.
  The Department of Education estimates that 84,000 students would lose 
Pell Grant eligibility altogether as a result of the regulation.
  As the legislative process continues, I hope my colleagues will 
address this problem, which is making college less accessible to 
middle-class families.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, when the House adopted and the President 
signed the most recent tax cuts, at a time when we are at war and in 
deficit, we knew the other shoe had to drop soon. And it has, Mr. 
Speaker, with a great thud, in the form of this year's Departments of 
Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act of 2004 (H.R. 2660). The House Leadership has 
followed the passage of these irresponsible tax cuts with an 
appropriations bill which underfunds a host of important programs and 
initiatives while breaking many of the pledges the Leadership made when 
the House adopted the FY04 Budget Resolution.
  We cannot extol the virtues of programs like Head Start and 
organizations like National Institutes of Health while adopting 
legislation which threatens their very existence. These actions abandon 
this Congress' responsibility to provide resources necessary to improve 
schools, protect public health, provide for America's seniors and 
disabled, expand opportunities to higher education, and seek cures for 
diseases that threaten the health of all Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, we are starving our nation's most valuable programs. 
Last year alone, Head Start provided over 900,000 children with 
comprehensive early childhood education. But it is estimated that 
current funding levels leave behind over 40 percent of eligible 
children. This year I joined with Representative Loretta Sanchez in 
spearheading a letter signed by ninety of our House Colleagues calling 
on the House Appropriations Committee to increase funding to the Head 
Start Program by $1 billion which would result in the enrollment of 
87,000 additional children.
  I remind you, Mr. Chairman, that Head Start is an extremely popular 
and effective program. In a 1999 study released by the President's 
Management Council indexing public support for and belief in government 
programs, Head Start rated a 94 percent, tops among all government 
programs. Moreover, studies have shown that the economic benefits of 
Head Start far exceed their costs, with one study showing that for 
every $1 spent by taxpayers, they received $7 in future benefits.
  Yet, in the face of this data, with the passage of this legislation, 
we will close the door of the Head Start program to tens of thousands 
of deserving children and their families. This substandard funding 
increase means we will continue to leave nearly 40 percent of eligible 
children behind and severely undermine local Head Start organization' 
ability to provide training and technical assistance to teachers and 
parents.
  But this bill will not only leave Head Start children behind. It will 
also shatter the promises Congress made to America's school children 
when it adopted the No Child Left Behind Act and the Individuals with 
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). This legislation falls $8 billion 
short of fully funding No Child Left Behind and continues this 
Congress' deplorable record of underfunding IDEA.
  Students seeking higher education fair no better under this bill. In 
1975, when the Pell Grant program was instituted, it financed 
approximately 84 percent of the cost of attending a 4-year public 
college. Today, that number is down to 40 percent. Under this bill that 
number will drop to approximately 38 percent. In my own Southern 
California district, higher education costs have increased with 
California's growing budget deficit forcing public universities to 
substantially raise tuition costs. This same scenario is being played 
our across our nation and a continued shortage of grant assistance 
threatens the higher education aspirations of millions of young people.
  By adopting this legislation we will effectively shift a greater 
burden of college costs to students and working families and will 
undoubtedly ensure that too many of our children either leave college 
with overwhelming debt or are shut out of higher education all 
together.
  But state budget crises do not only affect education costs, they also 
endanger the health care safety net which millions of Americans have 
come to depend on for needed health care services. And yet, under this 
legislation, struggling community health centers, which provide primary 
care services to low-income Americans, find no relief.
  In Los Angeles County alone, over 30 community clinics have been 
forced to shut their doors. Under this legislation these clinics and 
those that find themselves on the brink of closure will be provided no 
relief because any funding appropriated to community health centers 
will be used to expand health center sites where they have not existed 
in the past. At this bill's funding level, the lowest since 1998, we 
are forced to choose between scaling back our expansion initiative or 
underfunding existing centers. This is simply an untenable solution to 
a growing health care crisis that affects low-income Americans.
  Finally, H.R. 2660 abandons this Congress' commitment to double the 
National Institutes of Health (NIH) budget thereby stifling 
improvements in science and medical research. This legislation increase 
NIH funding by 2.5 percent, an increase that according to NIH is not 
even enough to keep up with inflation in research costs. In comparison, 
over the last five years, Congress has adopted annual increase of 15 
percent.
  A funding increase which only allows NIH to introduce 21 additional 
research grants will not allow this agency to continue to provide our 
nation with the cutting edge research which we have come to expect.
  Mr. Chairman, this legislation is inadequate. I urge my colleagues to 
oppose it and work to adopt legislation which adequately funds 
America's priorities.
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 
2660, Department of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, 
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2004.
  Overall, the Republican Labor/HHS/Education bill under-funds the 
landmark No Child Left Behind Act by $8 billion, and provides the 
smallest percentage increase in education funds in eight years. To 
improve education, we must improve teacher training. But while the 
Republicans promise $300 million in the ``Ready to Teach Act,'' they 
have yet to fulfill their earlier promise to fund the teacher quality 
grants created in the No Child Left Behind Act.
  To improve education, we must raise student achievement in all core 
subjects and improve early education opportunities. While the 
Republicans promise $17,500 in college loan forgiveness for math, 
science and special education teachers in the ``Teacher Recruitment and 
Retention Act,'' they refuse to provide the same incentives to teachers 
in other core subject areas such as social studies and Head Start.
  To improve education, we must demand results. But the Republican 
Labor/HHS/Education appropriations bill falls way short in special 
education funding promised under the IDEA (Individuals with 
Disabilities Education Act) reauthorization bill passed earlier this

[[Page H6533]]

year. While the IDEA reauthorization bill and the Republican budget 
resolution promised an increase of $2.2 billion, the Republican Labor/
HHS/Education appropriations bill provides only $1 billion--a 55 
percent shortfall.
  To improve education, we must demand results. But the Republican 
Labor/HHS/Education appropriations bill falls $334 million short of the 
$1 billion in Title I funds promised in the GOP budget resolution to 
school districts to help meet the challenge of the new requirements in 
the No Child Left Behind Act.
  To improve education, we must provide after school programs. But the 
Republican Labor/HHS appropriations bill falls $750 million short of 
the $1.75 billion for after school centers promised in the No Child 
Left Behind Act.
  To improve education, we must expand early childhood education 
programs. But the Republican Head Start reauthorization bill would end 
the high quality federal standards and comprehensive services that have 
made Head Start the premiere early education program for American 
toddlers.
  To improve education, we must have education performance standards 
for early childhood education. But the Republican Head Start 
reauthorization bill would actually weaken standards for early 
childhood education programs.
  To improve education, we must involve parents. But the Republic Head 
Start reauthorization bill would allow states to end the parental 
involvement that makes the program so helpful to disadvantaged 
children.
  Two months ago, the Majority passed a conference report for the FY 04 
Budget Resolution that promised to provide a $3 billion increase over 
the previous year for the Department of Education. This bill falls far 
short of that commitment, and provides only a $2.3 billion (or 4.3%) 
increase--the smallest dollar increase for education in four years and 
the smallest percentage increase in 8 years.
  Included in programs proposed for flat-level funding are Pell Grants, 
Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants (SEOG), Federal Work Study, 
Perkins Loans, Leveraged Educational Assistance Program (LEAP, the 
state partnership program), and Graduate Education. Even though none of 
the programs were cut in this tight budget year, there is room for 
concern and disappointment.
  Earlier promises to increase the Pell Grant maximum (currently 
$4,050) are just one example of where the bill falls short. Providing 
lower income students with access to college is critically important, 
especially in a year when Ohio and many other states are cutting 
appropriations for higher education.
  Federal-sponsored loans, a repayable debt for students and parents, 
represent another 40% of the average financial aid package. Less than 
8% of financial aid is provided by federal grants. Roughly an equal 
amount comes from State grant programs. Compared to the 
administration's request, the bill appropriates $271 million less for 
student financial aid.

  For Pell Grants the bill appropriates $12.3 billion, which is $885 
million (8%) more than the current level, but $465 million (4%) less 
than the administration's request. The bill maintains the maximum Pell 
Grant award at its current level of $4,050.
  For Work Study this bill appropriates $1.0 billion, which is equal to 
the current level but $7 million less than the administration's 
request.
  The Pell, SEOG, and Perkins Loan programs are especially critical for 
lower income families to make college accessible and affordable. 
Congress must do more to assure that they are not left behind. National 
polls indicate that 72% of Americans believe that student aid should be 
the highest priority of Congress. The current bill does not reflect 
this priority.
  I received a letter today on behalf of the President of John Carroll 
University, Rev. Ed Glynn of the 11th Congressional District of Ohio 
that stated:

       I write to urge Congresswoman Tubbs Jones to vote against 
     the Labor, HHS, Education Appropriations bill for FY 2004 
     when it reaches the House floor, possibly as early as this 
     Thursday, July 10. . . . John Carroll University provides 
     about 45% of the financial aid that goes to our students each 
     year. This share is typical among private institutions. . . . 
     Please vote ``no'' on the bill and thereby register your 
     position that more funds be appropriated for student aid.

  I rise today to reiterate my opposition to H.R. 2660, Department of 
Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2004.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak on H.R. 2660, the 
Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Act for 
Fiscal Year 2004. This is the second largest appropriations bill, 
funding many vital social programs.
  I am pleased to report that the $138.036 billion in new budget 
authority and $134.765 in outlays for fiscal year 2004 in the 
committee-reported bill--as scored by the Congressional Budget Office--
is within the 302(b) allocation adopted by the Appropriations Committee 
on June 17th.
  Unfortunately, the spending level in the bill does breach the 
budgetary allocation ceiling for fiscal year 2003. It does so by 
shifting $2.2 billion that was advance appropriated for 2004 in last 
year's appropriations act back into 2003. This creates more room under 
the 2004 spending cap, but causes a breach of the 2003 cap. As a 
result, the legislation is in violation of section 302(f), which 
prohibits consideration of bills in excess of an appropriations 
subcommittee's 302(b) allocation of budget authority and outlays 
established in the budget resolution. The bill also violates section 
311 of the Congressional Budget Act, which prohibits consideration of 
bills providing new budget authority that would cause the total level 
of budget authority and outlays established in a budget resolution to 
be exceeded. It is my hope that this violation of the budget resolution 
is the only one that occurs this year.
  Since this bill has in the past been one of the more controversial 
spending measures, I am pleased that the House is moving this 
legislation sooner, rather than later, in the appropriations season. I 
hope that the level of appropriations for programs funded by the Labor-
H bill will be determined--and finalized--before the Congress moves on 
to complete the smaller appropriations bills. I think it makes sense to 
determine the funding level for the many large and important programs 
this bill funds as early as possible, instead of relegating such 
discussions until the very end of the appropriations cycle.

  On that score, I do have some concern that the specific levels of 
funding in this bill provided for certain high priority education 
programs may be artificially low, with funds being redirected to lower 
priority programs--many of which were recommended for reduction or 
termination by the President. Spending on IDEA, Title I and Pell Grants 
has increased rapidly in recent years, reflecting the strong support 
for these programs in the Congress. In this bill, funding for IDEA 
State Grants is $1.2 billion under the level authorized in the IDEA 
reauthorization bill passed by the House this year. The bill's $666 
million increase for Title I is not insignificant, but it may be lower 
than the level sought by the majority of members. Finally, as pointed 
out in the Statement of Administration Policy, the funding level for 
Pell Grants appears to be less than the amount necessary to fund the 
maximum grant level established in this same piece of legislation. I am 
concerned that these problematic funding levels for key education 
programs in H.R. 2660 will ultimately result in a push to increase 
overall spending levels.
  Despite these caveats, I believe the bill is a generous one. In fact, 
if the $138 billion funding level set in H.R. 2660 is enacted, the 
Labor-H bill will witness a 12.2-percent average annual growth rate 
between 2000 and 2004. This is much greater than the 7.7-percent growth 
rate in total discretionary spending during the same period. The 
budgets of two important agencies funded under the Labor-H bill--the 
Department of Education and the National Institutes of Health--have 
been doubled since the Republicans took over the Congress. I think that 
H.R. 2660 reflects the continued strong support by the Congress for 
these and other agencies funded by the Labor-H appropriations bill.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, this funding bill shortchanges an important 
program designed to prevent child abuse, reunify families, and promote 
the adoption of certain children in the foster care system. Under this 
legislation, the Promoting Safe and Stable Families program would 
receive only half its discretionary allocation. This inadequate funding 
level stands in stark contrast to President Bush's budget, which 
proposes full funding for the program. The bill also ignores a 
bipartisan plea from the Chairman and Ranking Member of the authorizing 
subcommittee to fully fund this important program.
  The Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program (Title IV-B, Subpart 2 
of the Social Security Act) provides grants to states for four kinds of 
child welfare services: family preservation, family support, time-
limited family reunification, and adoption promotion and support. The 
program represents the most significant effort by the Federal 
government to support services that may prevent child abuse and neglect 
from occurring, and that help children move quickly from foster care to 
permanent homes. With over half a million children currently in foster 
care, and nearly one million cases of child abuse or neglect 
substantiated every year, funding for this program is vitally 
important.
  If we really care about helping and protecting our most vulnerable 
children, then we should be willing to make at least a modest 
investment to achieve that goal. Congress has approved nearly $3 
trillion in tax cuts for mainly wealthy Americans in less than three 
years. Surely, we can spend a tiny, nearly imperceptible fraction of 
that amount on preventing child abuse and on helping struggling 
families. As this debate moves forward, I hope we can

[[Page H6534]]

make progress on a goal President Bush laid out not only in his budget, 
but also in his 2000 campaign for the Presidency. Let's fully fund the 
Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program.
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Chairman, we will never be able to close the 
achievement gap in education with the funding levels we see in this 
appropriations bill.
  I applaud the efforts of the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the 
Committee and Subcommittee. They truly have done the best they could 
with the funds they were allotted.
  Sadly, the majority and the administration have decided to allocate 
our federal resources elsewhere. They have chosen to squander the 
national surplus on tax breaks for the very wealthy. These tax breaks 
have been so important to them, that they have been willing to drive 
the nation into unprecedented debt to pay for them.
  Meanwhile, Hispanic children are told that there is not enough money 
for their education. The Census Bureau just confirmed that Hispanics 
are the largest minority group in America.
  Hispanics are also fueling the growth of America's workforce, 
accounting for one of every three new workers hired and are projected 
to be one of every two new workers by 2025. Yet, Hispanics continue to 
have the lowest levels of education attainment of any group in the 
country.
  If we do not invest in advanced education and training for this 
emerging population, we put our Nation's economic foundation at risk.
  The Congressional Hispanic Caucus, where I chair the Education Task 
Force, focuses on a group of Federal education programs that are 
critical to the Hispanic community.
  These include Titles I and III of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act, migrant education programs, dropout prevention, HEP and 
CAMP, TRIO, GEAR UP, Hispanic-serving institutions and adult english as 
a second language. We call these programs the Hispanic Education Action 
Plan.
  Unfortunately, the bill before us falls far short of the funding 
levels we need for these programs. I urge my colleagues to oppose the 
bill.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my 
disappointment at the failure of the Republican party to adequately 
fund vital programs in H.R. 2657, the ``Labor, HHS, Education, and 
Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2004.
  Mr. Chairman, we have failed our Nation. The Labor-HHS--Education 
Appropriations bill leaves our health care system, our schools, our 
children and our communities at risk. Sadly, my Democratic colleagues 
and I have seen the writing on the wall.
  Over the past several weeks, my fellow Democrats and I have been very 
outspoken on the Republican financially irresponsible bills. We opposed 
the Republican's tax cuts. We opposed the Republican's Medicare 
package. And now we oppose their appropriations request in H.R. 2657, 
and our opposition to the insufficient funding in this bill is directly 
due to the Republican's poor budget initiatives.
  H.R. 2657 falls short of adequately funding our education and health 
care programs, among many other valuable programs.


                               education

  H.R. 2657 fails to adequately fund our nation's schools and fails to 
live up to the many promises made by the Republican party.
  When the ``Leave No Child Behind'' legislation was passed we all 
believed we were committed in a bi-partisan way to guarantee that good 
schools were established in our communities to improve our overall 
living standards and close the gaps that divide our societies along 
economic, social and racial lines. The Republicans promised to be 
committed to bettering our education system. They have not lived up to 
that promise.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle promised in its FY 2004 
budget resolution to provide a ``$3-billion increase from the previous 
year for the Department of Education.'' Despite that promise, H.R. 2675 
bill provides only a $2.3 billion increase over FY 2003--far less than 
the promise they made.

  Another broken promise is the inadequate funding of the Title 1 
Program. The Title 1 Program is critical to enabling schools with large 
student populations of low-income children to meet the No Child Left 
Behind Act's accountability and academic mandates. These schools enroll 
students with the greatest academic deficits, but they have the least 
experienced teachers, less competitive teacher salaries, higher teacher 
turnover, less rigorous curriculum, and less than their fair share of 
resources. All of these factors negatively impact student achievement.
  The Republican's FY 2004 budget resolution promised a $1 billion 
increase over last year for the Title 1 Program. However, my colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle have failed to keep their word here as 
well. Instead of $1 billion, H.R. 2675 provides only a $666 million 
increase. The result of the Committee's action is that this bill falls 
$334 million short of the Majority's own promise. The loss of that 
money does not affect my Republican colleagues or their wealthy 
supporters. It affects millions of low-income children nationwide and 
their ability to get a quality education.
  In the area of special education, the Republicans promised in the FY 
2004 budget resolution to provide $2.2 billion over the current level. 
The Republicans repeated this promise in H.R. 1350--the bill 
reauthorizing the Individuals with Disabilities Act, adopted on April 
30th on the House floor. Instead of providing our special education 
students with the funds they desperately need, and because of their 
massive tax cuts, this bill falls $1.2 billion short of that promise. 
This massive funding shortfall will force schools to continue to absorb 
the extraordinary costs of providing special education for nearly 6.7 
million school children. Consequently, other education programs will 
have to be reduced or local taxes will have to be raised to makeup the 
funds.
  Perhaps the biggest broken promise by the Republican party is the 
destructive impact of their budgetary action on the No Child Left 
Behind Act. The Members of the Republican party put tax cuts ahead of 
their education promises in the Leave No Child Behind Act. As a result, 
H.R. 2657 falls a stunning $8 billion short of the FY 2004 funding 
targets in the No Child Left Behind Act.
  On the issue of higher education, the Republicans have harmed our 
college students as badly as they have harmed our low-income and 
special education students. As a direct result of the Republican's 
economic mismanagement over the past two years, only eight states in 
our union are not facing a severe budget crisis. The declining state 
fiscal crisis has forced states to make huge cuts in the budget of 
public colleges and universities. When states make cuts to public 
schools, the schools must raise their tuitions. The raising tuition 
costs are crushing working families who want to send their kids to 
college.


                              health care

  Health care is another area in which the Majority's bill falls short 
of meeting urgent national needs. In these tough economic times, with 
the high rates of unemployment and the loss of health insurance that 
comes with it, federal health care is even more crucial to our 
communities.
  Additionally, the state fiscal crisis are causing many States to cut 
back on eligibility and benefits under health care programs like 
Medicaid and the State Child Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), as well 
as on public health protection. The programs that are funded by the 
Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill 
help provide a crucial health care safety net for people without other 
access to care, and also help states and localities provide basic 
public health services.
  The Majority's appropriations bill provides little funding to deal 
with the growing health care crisis. There are virtually no increases 
to the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant and no increase at all for 
the National Health Service Corps, a vital program which provides 
student loan repayment aid and scholarships for doctors and dentists 
who work in areas with a shortage of health providers.
  The Committee bill also provides no increase at all for childhood 
immunization grants. That program has struggled to provide 
immunizations for children with the rising cost of vaccinations, and 
the bill will lead to further shortfalls. Additionally, while the 
Administration asked for $100 million to help us get better prepared to 
deal with an influenza pandemic, the bill provides only half of that 
request.


                               conclusion

  Mr. Chairman H.R. 2675 is yet another example of poor budgetary 
policy impacting the American people. The Majority Party's failure to 
act responsibly with America's funds has impacted our ability to fund 
our first responders so they can protect our homeland from terrorists. 
The Majority Party's failure to act fiscally responsible has resulted 
in 9.4 million Americans being unemployed. Now, through H.R. 2675, the 
Majority Party's failure to act fiscally responsible is depleting the 
resources of our schools and our health care system. This result is 
unacceptable for the hardworking Americans we represent. I oppose this 
bill, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
McHugh) having assumed the chair, Mr. LaTourette, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2660) 
making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human 
Services, and Education, and related agencies for

[[Page H6535]]

the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes, had 
come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________