[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.
____________________