[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 160 (Wednesday, December 14, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H11544-H11552]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 FURTHER CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 3010, DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH 
AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS 
                               ACT, 2006

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 596, I call up 
the further conference report on the bill (H.R. 3010) making 
appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, 
and Education, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 2006, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 596, the 
conference report is considered read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
December 13, 2005, at page H11348.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I would just like to say to my colleagues and friends on the other 
side of the aisle to take a second look at this bill. I know that, in 
our first iteration, they did not give us any votes, but let me point 
out to you that if the bill were to fail, we would end up with a CR, a 
full year's CR, because you know we are not going home without 
something in this field.
  These are important programs, over 500 of them. What would happen 
with a CR? Well, there would be $800 million less for student aid, $278 
million less for innovation and improvement programs, $178 million less 
for higher education programs, $94 million less for title I programs 
and $84 million less for special education programs. That would be a 
disastrous result that I do not think any of us on either side of the 
aisle would want to happen.
  In addition, if we were to go to a CR, if this bill were to fail, 
LIHEAP funding would be reduced by $298 million, with no contingency 
for extreme weather. Community Services Block Grant would be cut $317 
million. National Institutes of Health would be cut $198 million, with 
200 fewer research grants.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to say to all my colleagues that this is not 
something we want to make as a Christmas gift to the American people, a 
CR on this bill. This bill is a good bill. It reflects good management 
of what we had to work with.
  I might say at the outset that there are no earmarks in the bill, 
none, for anyone, either side or any person. Absolutely no earmarks, 
and no earmarks for the Senate either. But I want to tell you what 
happened to the earmarked money, because we had $1 billion in the bill 
that originally passed the House back early on. Of that money, $100 
million is going to title I to help our schools; $100 million is going 
to special education State grants to help the programs that help the 
disadvantaged students.

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. Speaker, $250 million is going to NIH for research, and we 
recognize that the challenge is great in that field to research medical 
issues. There is $317 million for Community Services Block Grant, and 
these help people with limited means. There is $176 million in LIHEAP 
and $66 million for community health centers, and community health 
centers obviously provide a place for people who do not have a family 
doctor and have limited means. It gives them a place to go. So these 
are good programs. These are good uses of the money, and I think we all 
understand that in this time of tight budgets and tight resources, we 
have to set priorities. In so doing, we set the priorities I just 
outlined rather than to go into earmarks.
  I want to say at the outset that this program is $1.4 billion under 
2005, and there is no increase from the bill we had 2 weeks ago. How 
did we manage to meet these program needs? We did it by managing 
carefully. We looked at the programs and the funds that were available.
  I want to point out to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
that I do not think you want to go home and tell people in the 
education field that you voted against an increase, let me emphasize, 
an increase of $100 million over last year in title I. I do not think 
you want to tell the parents and families of children with special 
needs that you voted against an increase in special education of $100 
million over last year. Head Start is up $6.8 million. Math and science 
partnerships, and we hear a lot about that today, these are up over 
last year. We have $100 million to develop teacher and principal 
programs, incentive programs, particularly at the elementary level.
  TRIO and GEAR-UP, the President's budget had zero, and we put those 
back in because we think those are good programs. Again, they are well 
funded. Community health centers I mentioned are up $66 million. This 
is an important program. It is important in many communities, as is 
LIHEAP. Medicare modernization, we are rolling out the new program, and 
we have $980 million in this bill to assist in getting people informed 
to meet their desires in terms of prescription drugs. That would not be 
in a continuing resolution.
  NIH is $107 million over the President's request. It is up this year 
$200-some million. People think of NIH being research at Bethesda. NIH 
is basically managing 40,000 grants going out to colleges, hospitals, 
medical services all over the country. I would guess that almost every 
Member has one or more research grants in his or her district that is 
funded out of NIH. That is very important, and we have an increase in 
that program. That is again part of the earmarked money, $28.6 billion.
  Community Services Block Grant, a program that helps people get GEDs, 
is just one example of what is done with the community services. There 
are a whole host of things to help people with limited income and who 
need additional help.
  In the Labor Department, we have $1.57 billion for Job Corps and 
$1.48 billion for dislocated workers.
  How did we manage to increase a number of programs while at the same 
time keeping the total number under last year, $1.4 billion? Well, one 
of the ways that we have gotten the necessary funding to do the items 
that I mentioned in the way of increases was to eliminate 20 programs. 
We went through the whole list of programs, the 500, and said, Does 
this work? Is this a productive program?
  The bill that left the House had about 48 programs terminated. The 
other body decided to put back some of those, but we still have 20 
programs that have been discontinued or will be

[[Page H11545]]

discontinued because, again, we recognize that we have to manage the 
resources as carefully as possible to do the important things: 
education, research at NIH, the effort in CDC to deal with the avian 
flu issue. So we tried to manage the funds available as carefully as 
possible. I think the results of that are reflected in the increases I 
mentioned.
  I might say between this and the bill we had previously, we added $90 
million for rural health programs, very important programs, obviously; 
and we did this by reducing the avian flu number because we are going 
to deal with that in another bill that will be coming along shortly.
  So all in all, I want to say again this is a very positive bill; it 
is a very responsible bill in terms of using the resources that are 
available.
  It is something that every Member can support, every Member can go 
home and say with a measure of confidence and satisfaction, I did 
something to improve education, I did something to help the special 
needs programs, the special education program, I did something to 
expand the community services programs and the Community Health 
Centers, NIH, LIHEAP, things that are extremely important to people. 
This literally is a people's bill, but it is a people's bill, too, in 
the sense that we manage their tax dollars carefully and try to give 
them as much in the way of service as possible. I hope my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle will take a second look at what we have 
tried to do in this bill.
  I recognize, of course, that you get into the tax issues, you get 
into budget issues, but this is not a tax bill. It is not a budget 
bill. This is a bill about taking resources that are available and 
using them in the best possible way to serve the people.
  We had many hearings in our subcommittee. My colleague from Wisconsin 
was very helpful in those hearings to try to find out what is important 
to people. We tried to reflect that in the bill given the fact that we 
had a limited amount of resources. I would love to have more, and I am 
sure everybody else would, but the facts were we had to work with what 
we had available. I think the bill reflects a responsible use of the 
resources that were made available. I think it is a bill that will 
serve the American public very well.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, let me stipulate from the outset that the gentleman from 
Ohio is a good man, and I think, with some exceptions, he and I have 
priorities in this bill that are pretty much the same. What I say is 
not in any way designed to be an attack upon him or his leadership of 
the subcommittee; but the fact is that this subcommittee has been given 
an inadequate allocation and as a result, this Congress is about to 
make a large mistake if it passes this bill because it will be 
shortchanging this country in terms of the long-term investments that 
we should be making in America's working families and programs that are 
focused on the needs of America's working families.
  The gentleman argues that we ought to vote for this bill because if 
we do not, then the majority will bring forth a continuing resolution 
which will do certain bad things. That is like saying, ``Save us before 
we are irresponsible again.'' I really think we understand that what 
needs to happen to this bill is that it needs to be repaired, not 
further savaged; and that is what we want to see done.
  The reason we are in this fix is because the majority, just in the 
last week and a half, passed almost $70 billion in tax cuts and a very 
large percentage, approaching 50 percent, went into the pockets of the 
most well-off 1 percent of people in this country, people who make over 
$400,000 a year. And then they pay for it, partially, by squeezing 
bills like this one.
  Let me make clear, this bill is virtually identical to the bill that 
the House rejected just a few days ago by a 209-224 vote on a 
bipartisan basis. It has moved around a small amount of money in hopes 
of picking up a few votes because of an improvement in rural health 
care, but outside of that the bill is virtually the same.
  I want to make clear when we vote against this bill today, we will be 
voting against it not just because we are unhappy with the $1.6 billion 
cut below last year that this bill represents. To understand what this 
bill is doing, you must look at it in conjunction with the next step 
that the Republican leadership of this Congress has already announced 
that they intend to take, which is to further cut this bill by 1 
percent across the board as they cut the entire discretionary budget 1 
percent across the board.
  That means that this bill will have a double hit. That means in the 
end this bill, for 1 year alone, will be $3 billion less than was 
provided for these same programs last year. Over a 5-year period, 
because this sets us on a course, over a 5-year period if we pass this 
bill, we will wind up spending $15 billion less for programs in this 
bill than we would otherwise spend if we simply stuck to last year's 
baseline.
  In addition to that, 2 weeks ago our Republican friends pushed 
through a package of rescissions and reconciliation actions which cut 
$33 billion out of programs that benefit the same people who are 
benefited by this bill. They, for instance, cut $5 billion out of child 
support enforcement which will result in women in this country over the 
next 5 years getting $24 billion less in child support money than they 
are entitled to.
  They are cutting over 200,000 kids off health care screening and 
cutting well over 200,000 families off food stamps. They are saying to 
people on disabilities, ``Sorry, but you are not going to get your full 
entitlement in your first check after you are declared eligible for 
disability.'' Right now the law says that if you apply for disability 
and if you are adjudged to be eligible, when you get your first check, 
you will be paid retroactive to the date of application.
  The bill that passed 2 weeks ago on this floor, the reconciliation 
bill, said, ``Sorry, folks, if you are declared eligible, you will get 
only the first 2 months' entitlement in that check; the rest will be 
strung out over a period of months.'' The only reason the government 
saves money under that plan is because people will die before they get 
what they are entitled to get.
  So this House has already taken all of those actions which will cut 
the assistance to middle-income families and poor families in this 
country by $33 billion, and then this bill over the next 5 years will 
wind up imposing an additional $15 billion cut in resources provided 
over that time.

                              {time}  1430

  And as far as I am concerned, it is ironic that this is happening at 
Christmastime. Usually, Mr. Speaker, at Christmastime, we fill 
children's stockings. This time around, in sort of ``Scroogenomics'' 
fashion, we are emptying those children's stockings and instead moving 
that money into the pockets of some of the wealthiest people in this 
country. I do not think that is a way to live up to the Christmas 
spirit.
  I want to point out what some of the real reductions will be. We have 
55 million children in public schools. State budgets are stretched 
thin. And yet, No Child Left Behind funding in this bill is cut $779 
million and would be cut $1 billion after the 1 percent across-the-
board cut is imposed.
  Pell grants: Both parties go home and tell people how much we want to 
help families who are trying to send their kids to colleges. The 
College Board spelled out that in the last 5 years, the cost of a 4-
year public education has increased by $3,100. The President's response 
to that was to add $100 to the Pell Grant maximum grant. So he proposed 
a $100 solution to a $3,100 problem. House Republicans said, ``Oh, no, 
that is too much.'' So, originally, this bill cut that to $50, and then 
the conference came back with nothing, zippo. So the Congress is doing 
nothing to ease the squeeze on families trying to send their kids to 
college.
  And in the reconciliation bill which they passed just 2 weeks ago, 
they are making that problem, over the next 5 years, $12 billion worse 
or, I am sorry, $8 billion worse for those same families by raising 
fees, raising interest rates on student loans. And then they say that 
they are friends of education.
  If you take a look at education technology, this bill cuts that 
program by $221 million or 45 percent. If you take a

[[Page H11546]]

look at low-income heating assistance, we have a need to at least 
double that program, given the fact that we have these huge increases 
in natural gas prices and home heating-oil prices. In fact, this bill 
freezes low-income heating assistance. And with the 1 percent across 
the board that is contemplated that will be on top of this freeze, you 
will wind up actually reducing money for low-income heating assistance.
  Our Republican friends say, ``Oh, well, we are going to try to add $1 
billion in the reconciliation bill.'' But we are already told that 
there is less than a 50/50 chance that reconciliation bill will even be 
passed before Congress leaves here for the holidays.
  Then if you take a look at the International Labor Affairs Program, 
the program which is supposed to protect American workers' wages by 
seeing to it that they do not have to compete internationally against 
slave and child labor, that program is being cut by $21 million or 22 
percent by this bill and the across-the-board cut that will shortly 
follow.
  Community health centers: Everybody on both sides of the aisle talks 
about how important they are. But there is virtually no funding for new 
community health centers beyond those approved last year. And the 
majority, in this bill, eliminates the Healthy Communities Access 
Program, $83 million gone that helps provide health care to persons who 
do not have any or who do not have health care.
  So I would say simply, Mr. Speaker, this bill is highly inadequate. 
It short sheets America's future. It does not make the investments in 
health research, in education, in worker training that any civilized, 
healthy leading society would make.
  We do not meet our obligations in this bill, and I would urge a no 
vote. And I would urge that the majority go back to the drawing board, 
give this bill a better allocation and live up to the expectations of 
the American people.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Walsh), a fellow chairman on the Appropriations Committee and 
a member of our subcommittee.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Chairman Regula for his 
leadership on this bill. This bill, of all bills, has a very, very 
strong history of bipartisanship. One of the predecessor chairmen of 
this bill was a fellow named Bill Natcher who served with great 
distinction in this House for 40 years. Never missed a vote. And when 
he would get up and ask for bipartisan support for this bill, he would 
get it. As a member of the minority, for year after year I voted for 
this bill because it is the people's bill, because the needs of the 
American public are met by this bill. And the people who pay the taxes 
benefit in large part from the services and support programs provided 
in this bill. There are over 500 programs in this bill. It is a very 
complex bill, something that our chairman, Mr. Regula, understands 
better than anyone. And he knows this bill inside and out. So I would 
appeal to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to provide the 
same level of nonpartisanship that we did when we were in the minority.
  The American public is very concerned about the level of acrimony and 
partisanship here in Washington today. Here is a day, here is a bill 
where we can set that aside and work together to provide a bipartisan 
vote to support this bill. Is it a perfect bill? No. But it is a good 
bill. And there is an old saying: Do not let the perfect be the enemy 
of the good. And this is a very good bill.
  We do not have unlimited resources in this country. We have to make 
priorities. And Chairman Regula has done that. Under his leadership, 
and since our party became the majority party, we have doubled--doubled 
the amount of Federal aid to public education. We have doubled. That is 
an astounding number. And there is an even better one. We have tripled 
the funding for the National Institutes of Health, the institute that 
provides the research, that supports the research done at American 
colleges and research institutions around the country, that gives us, 
this country, the level of quality of health care that it has, the best 
in the world. So we not only have set these priorities in a very tough 
budget year, but he has increased funding. By making further changes in 
the bill, Chairman Regula has provided an additional $100 million for 
funding for special education to States.
  Now, again, both parties have been very supportive over the years of 
the Individuals in Education Act. We, our party, I think, to our 
credit, have dramatically increased the level of funding in IDEA. The 
Democrats did their part. We are doing our part.
  We have, again, increased LIHEAP, which is very important in my part 
of the country, in the Northeast. And community health centers, for the 
people who do not have health insurance in this country, here is an 
opportunity to help them, to provide health care, good solid health 
care that we all need. So I just hope that we can set partisanship and 
some of that acrimony that we all have to deal with on a daily basis 
down here; let us set it aside on this really good, solid effort, and 
let us all support this bill.
  And I thank Chairman Regula for his leadership, and I am proud to be 
a member of this subcommittee.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Let me simply say 
with respect to IDEA, aid to the disabled children, the fact is, this 
bill cuts the Federal share of that program from 18.6 percent to 18 
percent. And under the across-the-board cut that will be coming 
shortly, it drops further to 17.8 percent. In all, the bill will 
provide $4 billion less than the glide path to full funding that the 
Republican budget resolution promised just 2 years ago.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
(Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, to my colleague on the other side of the 
aisle, I just might add that this is the people's bill. But, 
unfortunately, this particular bill is not meeting the needs of the 
American public as has been aptly pointed out by my colleague from 
Wisconsin.
  I also might say that there has been bipartisan support in the past 
because together we could come together and increase the opportunity, 
whether it was IDEA, whether it was for low-income assistance, whether 
it was for education, and it was a rallying point on a bipartisan basis 
to do something for the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, when we defeated this bill in November, it cut health 
research, college loans and low-income energy assistance. It cut 
assistance to working families and the unemployed by almost 4 percent. 
And at a time when America is falling behind competitors like China, 
whose economy is growing three times as fast as ours, it cut worker 
training. That bill failed by a bipartisan vote of 209 to 224.
  What about the bill is so different this time that it warrants 
passage? Very little. Indeed, this bill is at the same funding level, 
simply shifting money from one underfunded priority to another. If 
anything, once you consider the additional $1.4 billion in cuts that 
the Republican leadership intends to impose with a 1 percent 
government-wide across-the-board cut, this bill is worse.
  I understand that the chairman and his staff are doing their best. I 
do recognize that this bill includes many programs that the President 
had slated for elimination, especially in the area of education and 
community services block grants. But his is an impossible mission. He 
has been asked to craft a spending bill with resources that do not even 
allow for us to meet last year's levels with inflation. And why? And 
why? Not because America cannot fund these priorities. We are the 
richest country in the world. Rather, it is because the Republican 
leadership has chosen to use the funds we have for tax cuts that only 
impact Americans earning over $200,000 per year. I might add that 53 
percent of those tax cuts will go to people who make over $1 million a 
year. That is the real story behind this so-called budget crunch. That 
is what is preventing us from providing so many needed resources to 
help the good people of this country, the good people in our 
communities to look to government in times of need, and they are 
looking to government today, and we are saying to them, what government 
says is: Later for you. Forget it. We are not there when you need it.
  As I said in November, ask any middle class family today what is 
important to them, tax cuts for wealthy Americans or things like 
lowering the cost of health care, of heating their

[[Page H11547]]

homes this winter or sending their kids to college? They will tell you 
every time that all they want is something that makes a difference in 
their lives and in their family's lives. This bill fails the test. I 
urge my colleagues to oppose it.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Weldon), a member of our subcommittee.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for 
yielding, and I want to commend him for producing a very good bill, and 
I want to commend the full committee chairman, Mr. Lewis.
  I came to Congress 11 years ago, and over that 11-year time period, I 
have seen the size of this bill more than double. The working families 
in my congressional district have not seen their incomes double in that 
time period.
  We have seen unprecedented challenges that we have had to face this 
year, Hurricane Katrina, recovery from that, Hurricane Wilma, which 
significantly affected my district and the State I live in, and then, 
of course, we are fighting a war, a war on terror in this country.
  This is a very, very responsible bill. It is a good bill. I just ask 
all Members to keep in mind, you will hear statements that this bill is 
going to devastate health care in America. We have an over $13 trillion 
economy. We spend more than 17 percent on health care. The 
discretionary accounts in this bill represent less than one-tenth of 1 
percent of total health care expenditures.
  This is a very, very good bill. It is a very responsible bill, and it 
is good policy.
  I am a conservative. I came here to act in a responsible fashion, and 
that is what this bill does. I encourage all my colleagues to vote for 
it. And I again commend the chairman.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode 
Island (Mr. Kennedy).
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member, 
Mr. Obey, and I thank him and applaud him for his steadfast voice on 
behalf of those who need a voice on the hill, who always speaks up on 
behalf of those without a voice. And I want to thank the chairman for 
his steadfast work trying to make the best of a bad situation.
  You know, Mr. Chairman, I think that when you got on to that 
Republican bus and you were trying to find a seat up front for the 
people's bill, a seat up front for education, a seat up front for 
health care, a seat up front for human services, all the front row 
seats were already taken.

                              {time}  1445

  They were taken by the tax cut bill, they were taken by the corporate 
loophole bill for energy companies, and they were taken by the big 
pharmaceutical giveaways.
  I tell the chairman, in many respects, just like Rosa Parks, whose 
life we celebrated just recently, you were told to take your people's 
bill to the back of the bus.
  Right now, Mr. Speaker, that is just where all of our Nation's 
priorities are, at the back of the bus. These are priorities that ought 
to be at the front. These are priorities, like education, that are 
going to lead our country to the future.
  We are talking about a war now in the Middle East. We are going to 
have another war on our hands. It is an economic war. We used to use 
our military for political and military hegemony. Now, for us to have 
political hegemony, we need intellectual power. Our military analogy is 
our young people need to have textbooks, not tanks. They need to have 
pencils. They need to have schools that are not falling down on them. 
They need to be able to go on to higher education.
  But, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this bill represents the single 
biggest cut in higher education that we have ever seen in the history 
of this country. Imagine that at a time when our Nation's economy 
demands that our soldiers, our men and women who were trying to make a 
living for themselves, are being taken hostage because they do not have 
all the protective gear that they need. They do not have an education 
to wrap themselves around so that they can go out into that economic 
workforce and be protected and know that they can make a living for 
themselves in this new-world economy.
  So I thank the chairman for doing the best job that he could; but I 
am sure, as he knows, the people's bill, unfortunately, in this budget 
took a back seat to many other bills that, unfortunately, I do not 
believe it should have taken a back seat to.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Washington (Miss McMorris).
  Miss McMORRIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this 
time.
  I rise in support of House bill 3010, and I especially wanted to 
highlight the increased funding for critical rural health programs.
  Access to quality and affordable health care is one of my top 
priorities, and in a district that stretches 23,000 square miles 
between the Canadian, Idaho, and Oregon borders, the distance creates 
considerable challenges to ensuring quality health care. We continue to 
see an increasing shortage of health care professionals. In towns like 
Odessa, Republic, Davenport, primary care coverage is sparse. Pregnant 
women must travel over 1 hour for care. In addition, it is becoming 
nearly impossible to retain primary care physicians and dentists, let 
alone specialists. I have said it before and I will say it again: this 
is unacceptable for 21st-century health care.
  This conference report is an important step in turning this tide for 
rural health care by increasing funds for the Office of Rural Health 
and Research Policy, Rural Health Outreach Grants, and Area Health 
Education Centers. Training in primary care and dentistry will receive 
$13 million above the original conference report. These title VII funds 
have helped support Family Medicine Spokane's rural training efforts, 
which is still producing family practice doctors who want to stay in 
practice in rural areas like Washington, Wyoming, Alaska, Montana, 
Idaho. Training and recruitment of health professional students remains 
an important priority.
  When this bill was addressed on the floor in June, I spoke of the 
need for additional rural health care funds, and Chairman Regula 
assured me that he would consider increasing those funds in the 
conference report. I thank him for helping to preserve the Federal 
rural health infrastructure and increasing funding for these necessary 
programs. I appreciate his leadership on this issue.
  We have made a solid step, and I urge my colleagues to support this 
legislation as we continue to advance legislation that will strengthen 
America's rural health infrastructure.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished minority whip.
  (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me 
this time.
  This is not Mr. Regula's bill. I do not really believe it is Mr. 
Lewis' bill. It is the bill that is the result of the fiscal policies 
we have been pursuing for the last 5 years, however.
  And let us be clear. The so-called new and improved Labor-HHS bill is 
virtually identical to the conference report that the House rejected on 
November 17 in a bipartisan way. There is no reason for any Member to 
vote for it today, in my opinion. It is just like the flawed first 
version. This conference report betrays our Nation's values and, I 
think, investment in our future.
  Last week, this House majority passed more than $94 billion in 
additional tax cuts, the benefits of which go mostly to the wealthiest 
in America. This week with this bill, we are slashing discretionary 
spending for education, health care programs, worker training, and 
assistance to the most vulnerable of Americans. That is just half of 
it. If the Republican leadership gets its way, it will impose an 
across-the-board cut that nearly doubles the cuts in this bill to some 
$3 billion.
  Let no one be mistaken. When push comes to shove, this majority 
without fail puts its friends ahead of our Nation's future. I do not 
refer to the chairman of the committee or the chairman of the 
subcommittee.
  Now, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle can claim there is 
little they can do to improve the funding levels in this bill, because 
the fiscal policies they have pursued have put them

[[Page H11548]]

in a position where we have insufficient funds to fund the priorities 
of this Nation.
  They say they have no options, no alternatives. They say they are 
only complying with funding levels dictated by the Republican budget 
resolution. One of my Republican predecessors, Mr. Regula's Republican 
predecessor, refused to vote for the budget simply for that reason a 
number of years ago. He said, I cannot do this bill within the context 
of the budget that is presented.
  Now they want to conveniently ignore the undeniable truth. They voted 
for that budget resolution, which put them in the straits they now find 
themselves. They want to vote for draconian cuts in April and proclaim 
that they are getting tough on spending and then 8 months later they 
want to disclaim responsibility when those cuts are enacted.
  The inappropriate funding levels in this conference report are the 
inevitable consequence of the most irresponsible fiscal policies in the 
history of our Nation that we are pursuing, of policies that have 
spawned record deficits. This administration started with a $5.6 
trillion surplus. It is now confronted with a $4 trillion deficit. 
There are no fiscal conservatives on that side of the aisle, I tell my 
friends, of policies that this Republican majority and the 
administration have enacted to deliberately deprive our government of 
the resources that it needs and that our people know our country needs.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me say that I am particularly incensed that 
at a time of record heating costs, the subcommittee defeated Mr. Obey's 
amendment to provide an additional $2 billion for the Low Income Home 
Energy Assistance Program.
  I predict to you today, just as when we rejected funding for the 
veterans that we said was necessary and their health care, you are 
going to be back here with a supplemental funding additional energy 
costs for seniors.
  And, by the way, let me also say Mr. Obey had an amendment which was 
going to give to seniors an additional 6 months to make a determination 
to figure out this incredibly complex prescription drug bill that we 
have put on their doorstep, and that was rejected unanimously by 
Republicans while it was unanimously supported by Democrats.
  The message here, Mr. Speaker, is unmistakable and sad. While the 
wealthy have money to burn, the poor get to shiver in silence. I simply 
do not understand why the majority refused to adopt a second amendment, 
as I said, to extend time for seniors. We all know the reality. The 
Republican prescription drug plan is so complicated and confusing that 
millions of seniors need and deserve more time to weigh their options.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against their conference report. I 
regrettably say that, but I think the failures contained in it compel 
that conclusion.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, one of the previous speakers on the majority side of the 
aisle said that we have limited resources, we have to make priority 
choices. That is absolutely right. The problem is with the priority 
choices that the majority has made.
  They are fond of pointing to the fact that we have had extraneous 
expenses such as Katrina, and they say that is why we have to squeeze 
bills like this. But, in fact, under actions already taken by the 
majority party in this Congress, over the next decade they will provide 
$1.2 trillion in tax cuts for persons who make more than $400,000 a 
year, the top 1 percent of earners; and they have done virtually all of 
it by borrowing money to provide those tax cuts. I would point out that 
that $1.2 trillion is more than five times as much as the Federal 
Government will spend by anybody's estimate on repairing Katrina.
  I would say that also the actions of the last week, when they added 
$70 billion to the tax breaks that they are providing, again with 50 
percent going to the top 1 percent, demonstrate what the values and 
what the priorities of the majority party would be.
  If we ask the average family in this country what they need in order 
to be able to deal with their own problems, I think what they would say 
is they need help to see to it that they have adequate access to 
education for their children. I think they would say that if somebody 
loses a job, they need help to get decent retraining. I think they 
would ask for fair treatment in the workplace. I think they would ask 
that their family have decent health care. And I think seniors would 
ask that they be provided a secure retirement with adequate medical 
care and help to pay their drug costs. The fact is that this bill fails 
on virtually all tests.
  I would say also, as the gentleman from Maryland indicated, we did 
try to do one additional thing for senior citizens. Because of the 
incredibly confusing prescription drug program which seniors are being 
asked to sign up for, because that program is so incredibly confusing, 
we tried to get the majority to consider a 6-month delay in the 
deadline that seniors have to meet in signing up for that program. That 
motion failed on a party-line vote, unfortunately, on a 7-7 vote.
  I would hope that before this Congress ends, the Congress will 
recognize that that program is so incredibly convoluted that there must 
be a delay in the sign-up deadline so that seniors have more time to 
make what could be a very confusing and devastating choice if they make 
the wrong choice.
  Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the staff on both 
sides of the aisle for the work that they have done on this bill. It 
has taken a good number of good people to produce what I think is a bad 
product because of the allocation; but, nonetheless, I appreciate the 
hard work and I appreciate the enduring friendships that we have across 
the aisle.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. Speaker, I assume this is the last time I will speak on the floor 
before Christmas, so I want to wish everyone Merry Christmas and a 
happy new year, and enough blessings so that you will reconsider some 
of the mistakes in this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleague from Wisconsin, if you would give 
us a few votes, we would have an even merrier Christmas.
  Mr. OBEY. Unfortunately, our constituents would not.
  Mr. REGULA. Well, I am not too sure about that. I think it is going 
to be kind of tough to go home and explain how you are voting against 
an additional $100 million for title I, and I think you are going to 
have a tough time explaining to parents of children that have special 
needs that you voted against an additional $100 million for the 
programs for special needs kids. I think you are going to have a tough 
time explaining how you voted against adding $250 million in medical 
research at NIH to deal with the multitude of challenges, and to the 
communities that are earmarked for Community Health Centers, to help 
people without a doctor, without medical care. I am not sure how you 
explain to them they are going to have a merry Christmas when they are 
not getting their Community Health Centers and the Community Services 
Block Grants.
  I want to say to my colleagues, this is a good bill. I recognize we 
had limited resources. There are a lot of things that were unusual this 
year with Katrina and with other challenges, and what we have tried to 
do is do the best we can with what was available; and I think we have 
done some pretty positive things.
  I want to say to my colleagues on our side of the aisle, we are not 
getting any help from our friends on the minority side, so I would hope 
that we will have strong, strong support on our side to demonstrate 
that we can govern, that we can pass a very responsible bill with less 
money than the past because we have managed what we had in a more 
effective way.
  But also I say to my colleagues that we want to say to the public 
that we do care about education, that we do care about the teachers, 
that we do care about the students who will benefit from that extra 
$100 million in title I. We want to say to the families of special 
needs children, we do care about your problem, and we want to support 
that extra $100 million that is in this bill. And we want to say to 
people who are confronted with the whole myriad

[[Page H11549]]

of challenging medical problems, such as juvenile diabetes, that we 
want to help and we want to support an additional $250 million for NIH.
  We want to say to those that need Community Health Centers, where 
they do not have access to medical care, we want to help you with $66 
million additional, and with LIHEAP, with the Northeast in particular, 
and with the Community Services Block Grants.
  This is a bill that is caring about people. I would suggest to my 
colleagues on this side that we need to demonstrate with a very strong 
vote that even though our friends on the other side think it is not 
enough that it is going to have problems involving reconciliation; but 
this is not a Ways and Means bill, this is not a Budget bill, this is 
the people's bill with people's programs. It is not the reconciliation 
bill. That is another topic, and people will have their opportunity to 
vote on that.
  But I simply want to say that given the resources that we have, given 
the times that we are confronted with, that we have done a very 
responsible job, even to the point that Members have sacrificed their 
earmarks. They have sacrificed $1 billion worth of earmarks in order to 
do the things that I outlined before, to do more education, to do more 
health research, to do more Community Health Centers. So this is 
something that all of us are taking part in trying to serve the needs 
of the American people as effectively as possible. This is a lot of 
money, $142.5 billion, and this literally is the people's bill.
  I want to point out to my friends on the other side that when the 
Republicans became the majority party, this bill was $69 billion. 
Today, it is $142 billion, more than double what it was in 1994. That 
is pretty substantial dedication to education, to health research, to a 
whole host of things.
  I would point out in the last 10 years we have increased title I aid 
to disadvantaged students by 91 percent. We have increased special 
education by 380 percent. That is a dramatic increase. I think it is 
great that we, and I want to say historically that has had strong 
bipartisan support, that we care about people who have needs.
  I was once an elementary principal in a public school, and we did not 
have any special education program. That was the problem of the 
families. Today, we have billions of dollars spent on these programs. 
That is a credit to America, that people do care about each other; and 
it is demonstrated by the support we have for IDEA, with an increase of 
380 percent. That has been bipartisan. We have tripled the Federal 
funding for reading programs. I think we are more and more aware that 
learning to read early in your education experience is vitally 
important.
  Today, we are faced within the United States with a dropout rate of 
over 30 percent. That is a terrible waste of human talent. One of the 
things that causes that, I think, is inadequate reading programs early 
on. We are trying to address that problem. We have addressed that 
problem.
  We are also recognizing in this bill that the key to a good public 
education system is a good teacher, a good principal, a good 
superintendent, caring people. So we put in this bill some additional 
money to recruit and retrain quality public school teachers and 
principals. Parents who have worked with principals in the school 
system know how important that is.
  Pell grants, we have gone up 64 percent in the last 10 years. Again, 
we want to help those students who want to get an education who have 
limited economic resources to get an opportunity to participate in the 
American Dream. We have done this with America's Historically Black 
Colleges. We have increased their funding 182 percent. That is a 
dramatic commitment on the part of the Federal Government.
  All in all, I think we as a Congress can take some pride. This is not 
the back of the bus when you spend $142 billion. Anything but. This is 
a front-row seat. And we have tried to make sure that every American, 
every American, could be in that front-row seat on the education bus, 
on the health research bus, on the Labor Department programs for job 
retraining bus. I think this is a bill we can take pride in.
  My colleagues on my side, since we cannot get any help from our 
friends on the minority side for whatever reason, I have not quite 
figured that out, but I think our Members need to strongly support this 
bill and continue the pride we can take in our accomplishments since we 
became a majority, since 1994, as I have outlined, and particularly in 
the last 10 years.
  This is a bill that is responsible, it is a bill that reflects good 
management of resources, it is a bill that we should all support 
strongly. I hope my colleagues on the majority side will come in and 
vote in a positive way to increase education, to increase medical 
research, to increase a whole host of things that will serve our people 
throughout this land effectively.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this FY 2006 
Labor-HHS Conference Report.
  Almost a month ago, this House rejected an earlier version of this 
legislation by a vote of 209-224 because it shortchanged the nation's 
critical education, health care and job training priorities.
  Today we are being asked to pass judgment again on a virtually 
identical piece of legislation--as if shuffling $180 million between 
accounts in a $602 billion conference report can begin to compensate 
for the deficiencies in the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, the Labor-HHS Appropriations bill used to be called 
``the people's bill.'' So what are the people getting today? Here's a 
sample from this legislation's hall of shame:
  There are $779 million in cuts for No Child Left Behind, meaning 3.1 
million kids won't get the reading and math help they were promised.
  A freeze in the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LlHEAP--
despite the 44 percent increase in natural gas prices and 24 percent 
increase in home heating oil prices expected this winter. This House 
has refused to provide sufficient help to families in need despite the 
fact that it voted a few months ago to give the oil and gas industry a 
$14 billion tax subsidy.
  A cut in real terms from the National Institutes of Health that will 
result in NIH funding 505 fewer research grants than it did just two 
years ago.
  A 5 percent cut in critical services for the 7.4 million unemployed 
and displaced workers left behind by our increasingly globalized 
economy.
  Mr. Speaker, the list goes on and on.
  While this conference report is not completely without merit--ranging 
from its increased funding for rural health to the reinstatement of the 
Bureau of Labor Statistics' women worker survey--its overarching 
trajectory falls far short of what our nation and its people deserve. I 
do not believe that it reflects the values and priorities of the 
American people.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the second FY 2006 
Labor, Health Human Services and Education Conference Report.
  I opposed the first conference report last month because it 
inadequately funded virtually every area of need and slashed $1.5 
billion from our country's critical health, human services, education 
and labor programs. This new, but definitely not improved conference 
report slashes $1.6 billion from these programs actually increasing the 
total cuts to these agencies by $90 million.
  While I was pleased to see increases in the Title VII programs and 
other important health programs, this bill did not provide new funds 
for these programs, it simply robbed Peter to pay Paul. In this case, 
the Republican leadership has apparently decided that its more 
important to provide federal funding for Viagra and other erectile 
dysfunction drugs than it is to fully prepare ourselves for the threat 
of a pandemic flu, such as the Asian bird flu.
  The new conference report eliminates $120 million for pandemic flu 
preparedness in order to fund these increases with the promise that 
they will make up for it in other bills. However, you can't cram for a 
pandemic. We need to have the funds in place to prepare our public 
health system for the threat of pandemic influenza now.
  Further, the Republicans have been considering making an additional 1 
percent cut to all of the programs funded by this bill. If they do 
that, it will double the cuts in the bill, bringing the total cuts to 
$3 billion. That is $3 billion less for critical education, job 
training, health, and energy assistance programs. When you combine 
these cuts with the Republican spending cuts bill that they passed as a 
part of Reconciliation, programs that help the poor, the sick, the 
elderly and other Americans who need our help the most will be cut by 
$48 billion over the next 5 years.
  When you compare these massive cuts for the most vulnerable to the 
incredible $56 billion Republican tax cut giveaway for millionaires 
that Republicans passed last week, there is no question where the 
Republicans priorities are.
  When in the span of 2 weeks, the Republicans give the top 1 percent 
of Americans

[[Page H11550]]

who are millionaires an extra $32,000 a year and cut unemployment 
insurance and employment service offices to help the unemployed by $229 
million and cut Head Start by $11.2 million and cut Community College 
training grants by 50 percent and cut the international assistance 
grants to eradicate child labor by $20 million it is clear what the 
Republican priorities are.
  While the Bush administration has never fully funded the No Child 
Left Behind Act, this bill goes a step further by actually cutting 
total federal education funding for the first time in a decade--cutting 
No Child Left Behind so that it is now $14 billion below the authorized 
level, slashing special education, safe and drug free schools, 
education technology grants and freezing the maximum Pell grant award 
for the fourth year in a row despite rising tuition costs.
  At a time when we are trying to prepare our country for the aging of 
the baby boomers and threat of pandemic flu, this bill cuts funding for 
healthcare. It cuts the CDC's budget by $249 million and provides the 
smallest percentage increase to NIH in three decades. And if the 
Republicans make a 1 percent cut to all of the programs, NIH will get a 
real cut.
  The bill before us today would also freeze funding for the Low-Income 
Home Energy Assistance, LIHEAP, at $2.18 billion, counting both basic 
formula grants and emergency grants--the FY 2005 level. LIHEAP serves 
about 5 million households, the majority of which have at least one 
member who is elderly, disabled, or a child under age 5. The conference 
report is freezing LIHEAP even though consumers are expected to pay 52 
percent more for natural gas, 30 percent more for home heating oil, and 
11 percent more for electricity this winter.
  The Republicans won't fully fund LIHEAP because they have other 
priorities. Their budget makes that quite clear. Tax cuts for 
millionaires, tax cuts for the giant oil companies, weakening 
environmental regulations for their business cronies. Those are the 
priorities for the Republican-controlled Congress. Funding for 
education, health care and low-income home energy assistance so that 
seniors on fixed incomes, and poor families can heat their homes this 
winter, are not their priorities.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Labor, 
Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations conference 
report before us. One month ago, the House of Representatives voted 
this bill down because it failed to address the priorities of the 
American people. I am disappointed that the conferees have sent it back 
to us without significant changes.
  Before we voted on this bill in November, my constituents told me 
what was important to them. Rhode Islanders, like all Americans, are 
concerned about health care and the economy. I believe the public 
sentiment on these issues accounted for the failure of this bill last 
month. With more than 45 million uninsured Americans and 7.4 million 
unemployed Americans, now is not the time to cut health professions 
training grants by 51 percent or take $229 million away from the 
unemployment insurance and service programs. Yet, this second 
conference agreement once again proposes to do just that.
  The consequences of ignoring these societal problems are far-
reaching. Major cutbacks in the areas of education and health care will 
have a tremendous economic impact on our Nation. However, the 
Republican leadership set the stage for cuts in these critical 
programs. When Congress passed H. Con. Res. 95, the Budget Conference 
Report, they made it clear that tax cuts for the wealthy will continue 
to be paid for by slashing programs that Rhode Islanders depend on.
  Last month, I outlined my concerns about specific aspects of this 
bill--cuts for No Child Left Behind, an already underfunded mandate; 
the failure to increase the maximum Pell Grant as included in the 
original House bill; and providing insufficient funding for the 
National Institutes of Health, which would decrease the number of 
federal research grants for the second year in a row. As these concerns 
have not been addressed in the second conference report, I urge my 
colleagues to reject H.R. 3010--again.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the newer, but 
not better, Labor-HHS-Education appropriations conference report.
  Less than a month ago, the Members of this House rightfully defeated 
the previous version of this conference bill. Unfortunately, the 
Republican Majority did not get the message that Americans do not want 
Congress to cut $1.5 billion in critical programs.
  Like their previous bill, the Republicans continue their assault on 
health care programs. Even with nearly 46 million uninsured Americans, 
800,000 of whom were added last year alone, the Republicans provide 
virtually no funding for new Community Health Centers beyond those 
approved last year. They also propose cutting grants for immunizing 
children, responding to disease outbreaks and improving care for people 
with chronic diseases.
  Unbelievably, the Republicans did not stop there. Just one year after 
failing to have enough flu vaccine available and with the impending 
pandemic of avian flu, this bill cuts $100 million of funding for flu 
preparedness. Also, just one day after President Bush acknowledged that 
the current Medicare prescription drug benefit was confusing, this bill 
ensures that help will be even more difficult to come by. It cuts by 
$60 million the funding used to pay for helping seniors' choosing their 
new Medicare prescription drug benefit.
  Cuts were not limited to health care programs. This bill also cuts No 
Child Left Behind funding, education technology programs and special 
education programs. The Education for the Disadvantaged Program 
receives the smallest increase it has ever received in 8 years, 
negatively affecting 3.1 million low-income children. It is no wonder 
Republicans pushed so hard to privatize Social Security earlier this 
year. With the poorly educated workforce the Republicans are surely 
creating, there may be too few highly-trained workers to pay into 
Social Security to take care of my Republican colleagues and me in our 
retirement.
  Beyond education, this bill will literally leave people out in the 
cold. Consumers are expected to pay 44 percent more for natural gas and 
24 percent more for home heating oil this winter, yet Republicans 
failed to increase funding for programs that provide home heating 
assistance for low-income seniors and children.
  There are, regrettably, many more worthwhile programs the Republicans 
have targeted. Programs to train workers for high skill, high paying 
jobs are cut $125 million; job search assistance is cut $89 million; 
state unemployment insurance and employment service offices are cut 
$245 million eliminating help for 1.9 million people. The International 
Labor Affairs Bureau, tasked with protecting American workers from 
being undercut by child and slave labor abroad, is being cut $20 
million. Based on the Republican efforts to cut employment services, 
you'd never know this Administration has overseen the lowest rate of 
job growth since Herbert Hoover.
  America can do better than a bill that cuts education, health care 
and labor programs especially while Republicans work to propose tax 
breaks for the wealthiest among us. This bill clearly shows the 
misguided priorities of the Republican Majority. I urge my colleagues 
to join me in voting ``no'' on this harmful and dishonorable bill.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this conference 
report and thank Mr. Obey, Ranking Member of Approps Committee, for the 
time.
  This morning I greeted hundreds of faith leaders on the steps of the 
Cannon building. They gathered from across the country to march 
together and pray together and to deliver a message to Congress. Their 
message was simple: The budget is a moral document and we have a moral 
obligation to ensure its priorities reflect our values.
  Mr. Speaker, I have to ask why aren't we listening to them?
  Who better than faith leaders, who serve on the front lines, who feed 
the hungry, who clothe the naked, who house the homeless, to tell 
Congress about the impact of this immoral budget on our families and 
our communities?
  They recognize that the priorities reflected in our budget are not a 
partisan issue, but an issue of who we are as a Nation, and what our 
values are.
  We know that the Republican budget cuts and this conference report, 
which is a critical part of their budget, is nothing more than an 
assault on the least among us--and it does not reflect our values.
  That is why I encourage my colleagues to vote with their values and 
let's defeat this bill just like we did a month ago.
  Don't tell me we can't do better.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my opposition 
to H.R. 3010--the Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations bill for FY 2006. 
Just like the conference report that preceded it, and was rejected in 
the House on November 17, 2005, H.R. 3010 finances tax cuts for this 
Nation's millionaires and billionaires--those who have the most--on the 
backs of those who have the absolute least. We, as a Nation, can and 
should do better.
  H.R. 3010 strips critically important dollars from education, health 
care, job training and social programs--the very same programs that 
already were underfunded, and the very same programs that help our most 
vulnerable residents and those who have fallen on hard times have a 
chance to achieve the American dream.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3010 undermines the value and importance of 
education by cutting No Child Left Behind by $779 million. What's 
worse, the revised version will leave 3.1 million children without 
adequate reading and math help and instruction--two academic subjects 
that are among the most important and

[[Page H11551]]

in areas where the United States lags behind other countries. H.R. 3010 
will leave 6.9 million children without adequate special education 
services, and cuts safety and drug-free programs by 20 percent! 
Additionally, H.R. 3010 breaks its promise to low-income students who 
achieved what some may have thought impossible: working extremely hard 
to earn acceptance into college. The revised version does not increase 
the Pell Grant. Instead, it freezes it for the 4th year in a row, all 
while tuition at public colleges and universities has increased 34 
percent in the last 4 years. Furthermore, H.R. 3010 freezes all other 
student financial aid support and programs. Well, Mr. Speaker, as a 
parent and as someone who deeply values education, I am not willing to 
tell hard working kids who are using education as a vehicle to better 
their situations and their futures that I did not hold up my end of the 
deal.
  Mr. Speaker, I am obviously disheartened by the disastrous cuts to 
education programs that are included in H.R. 3010. However, as a 
physician who knows--first hand--how important health care access is to 
health and well being, and how beneficial health professions training 
programs are to diversifying the rising pipeline of health care 
providers, I am horrified at the extensive cuts to health care 
programs, which include the following:
  Cutting $153 million from Title VII health professions training 
programs;
  Putting an essential end to the President's community health center 
initiative;
  Freezing most Ryan White CARE Act programs that provide medical and 
dental care, and extend often life-saving support service programs to 
people living with HIV/AIDS and the families who care for them;
  Eliminating the Healthy Communities Access Program, a program that 
was designed to meet the health care needs of this nation's ever-
growing uninsured citizens; and
  Cutting the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant--which helps states 
provide mothers with important prenatal care and offer preventive 
health care and medical treatment to children, including those with 
disabilities and special needs--by $24 million.
  Mr. Speaker, I know what these cuts to health care programs will do: 
they will increase the already unacceptably high numbers of uninsured 
Americans; create insurmountable barriers to necessary health care 
services and treatments for our most medically-needy and medically-
underserved citizens; exacerbate the racial and ethnic as well as the 
rural health disparities that plague and cost our health care system; 
and leave hundreds of thousands of hard working and decent men, women 
and children in poorer health with less access to health care.
  And, Mr. Speaker, all of this just to finance tax cuts for the 
wealthiest people in this country.
  As a physician, as the Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus Health 
Braintrust and as a parent and grandparent, these funding cuts to 
education, health care, job training and other important social 
programs have me convinced that if we do not change our funding 
priorities, then we--as a Congress--will be playing an instrumental 
role in sending this Nation down the wrong path. And, Mr. Speaker, that 
is not a legacy that I am interested in leaving, and I encourage my 
colleagues--on both sides of the aisle--to oppose H.R. 3010.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I regrettably rise in opposition to 
the Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Conference Report, because it 
grossly under funds the essential programs in education, health and 
human services that help improve the quality of life of the American 
people.
  Chairman Regula has done his best to meet the needs of the most 
vulnerable in our society with the very limited resources he was given. 
Ironically, these inadequate resources are a direct result of his own 
Republican leadership putting tax cuts for the wealthiest in our 
country before the needs of working and middle-class Americans.
  This is the second time that the Labor-HHS Conference Report is 
before this House. Three weeks ago, Republicans and Democrats defeated 
the original conference report in a rare show of bipartisanship. 
Members on both sides of the aisle voted against the injustices of this 
bill, and refused to allow this 109th Congress to be defined by a 
Labor-HHS-Education bill that turned its back on the American people. 
This revised Conference Report continues the policy of shortchanging 
the needs and priorities of the majority of Americans.
  There are, however, two incremental improvements in this revised 
Conference Report. The report restores $37 million to rural health 
outreach grants and rural health research, bringing them back to last 
year's funding levels. It also adds $53 million to bring four of the 
Health Professions Training Programs back to FY 2005 levels. 
Nevertheless, these modest changes will have little impact on 
rectifying the enormous gaps created by the funding cuts in this bill. 
It is simply another version of misguided priorities and unacceptable 
choices.
  If we pass this conference report, the Departments of Labor, 
Education and Health and Human Services (HHS) will all receive less 
funding next year than they did in FY 2005. For example, the Department 
of Labor will receive $430 million less than in FY 2005, resulting in 
the elimination of skills training for 100,000 personnel in growth 
industries, and the abolishment of job search assistance for 1.9 
million unemployed workers. These are two critical programs that 
benefit the 7.6 million Americans who remain out of work. The 
Department of Education will receive $59 million less than it did in 
2005, and contrary to the administration's professed commitment to 
leave no child behind, this second conference report will reduce the 
``Even Start'' program for low-literate and low-income families by 56 
percent, freeze the English Language Training program, and fund IDEA 
with the smallest increase in over a decade. In addition, at a 
time when 45 million Americans are without health insurance, the 
Department of Health and Human Services will receive $1.1 billion less 
than the FY 2005 appropriation. The result is that this revised 
conference report will further erode the health care safety net by 
terminating the Healthy Communities Access Program, cutting $24 million 
out of the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant, and eliminating the 
Health Care Planning Access Grants that help states expand health 
coverage to the uninsured.

  The revised Labor-HHS-Education Conference Report does not even come 
close to meeting the health and social welfare needs of our families, 
the educational requirements of our children, and the responsibilities 
we have to our most vulnerable citizens. Mr. Speaker, this country was 
built on a promise of hope and equal opportunity for all of its people. 
If the majority continues to ignore these values that have set our 
country apart and contributed to its greatness, we will lose our moral 
high ground and jeopardize our place as the most powerful country in 
the world. Our children will then be forced to live with the 
consequences of an undereducated workforce, a weak economy, and a 
society where good health and social justice are only afforded to the 
most privileged. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this still 
ill conceived, unacceptable and unnecessarily under funded conference 
report.
  Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
conference report on H.R. 3010, Labor, Health and Human Services and 
Education Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2006. Like the version 
rejected by the House last month, the revised version still slashes 
health, education and jobs programs by $1.6 billion below the FY 2005 
enacted level.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the second time the House has considered the 
LHHS conference report. Sadly, a second look at the conference report 
is not better. On November 17, the conference report was rejected 
because the bill showed that the Republican-led Congress was out of 
touch with the priorities and needs of the American people.
  The bill before us today does not change the core principles rejected 
in the first conference report. The second conference report still 
underfunds key programs because of the Republican-led Congress and the 
Administration's fiscally irresponsible budget priorities, continued 
insistence on large additional tax cuts for the super rich, and the 
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Although appropriators must make tough 
choices because of these extraordinarily tight budget constraints, 
programs that help millions of Americans should not be on the chopping 
block.
  With a record 55 million children in public schools and state budgets 
stretched thin, No Child Left Behind (NCLB) funding is cut by $779 
million. Title I, which is the core of NCLB's efforts to improve 
reading and math skills, receives the smallest increase for Title I in 
8 years--only $100 million--which means 3.1 million low-income children 
will be left behind.
  Even as the cost of a 4-year public college education has increased 
by 34 percent since 2001, the maximum Pell Grant is frozen for the 
fourth straight year at $4,050, and no new funding for all other 
student financial aid and support programs is provided in this 
conference report.
  This conference report will actually cut the federal share of special 
education costs from 18.6 percent in FY 2005 to 18.0 percent by 
providing the smallest increase for the Individuals with Disabilities 
Act in a decade. The bill provides $4 billion less than what was 
promised for IDEA.
  With 7.6 million Americans out of work, Republicans cut the Community 
College Initiative's, which trains workers for high skill, high paying 
jobs by $125 million-rescinding funds provided last year and denying 
this assistance to 100,000 Americans.
  Republicans also cut job search assistance through the Employment 
Service by 11 percent and cut State Unemployment Insurance

[[Page H11552]]

and Employment Service Offices by 7 percent, eliminating help for 1.9 
million people.
  Consumers are expected to pay 52 percent more for natural gas, 11 
percent more for electricity, and 24 percent more for home heating oil 
this winter, yet this conference report failed to increase funding for 
LIHEAP home heating assistance, which helps keep the heat on for low-
income seniors and families with children.
  Nearly 46 million Americans are without health insurance yet this 
conference report provides almost no funding for new Community Health 
Centers beyond those approved last year and eliminates the Healthy 
Communities Access Program and state planning grants to improve health 
care coverage.
  Preventive Health Block Grants to state health departments help 
address critical public health problems. The bill provides less for 
responding to disease outbreaks, immunizing children, and improving 
care for people with chronic diseases, when it cuts these grants by $31 
million.
  This conference report reflects the priorities of this Republican-led 
Congress and not those of Democrats and most Americans. The country's 
priorities should be based on the shared sacrifice of all Americans, 
not just sacrifices for the poor, working class, students and seniors.
  The Labor-HHS-Education bill should fund significant health, 
education, job assistance, training and research programs that impact 
every American. This conference report is way short in meeting the 
needs of Americans. Congress is walking away from our commitment to 
equal opportunity and a better quality of life for all Americans. 
Greater access to employment training, jobs, affordable healthcare, 
quality education, and ending disparities should be our goal.
  This bill falls short of achieving those goals.
  Mr. Speaker, despite the addition of modest funding increases for 
certain rural health programs, this bill still dramatically cuts the 
core principles and programs that are important to Americans.
  I oppose this LHHS conference report and urge all of my colleagues to 
reject this bill full of misguided priorities.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, a month ago, I voted against H.R. 3010, 
the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies 
first conference report, which failed in the House with 22 Republicans 
also voting against the bill. Today, a similar bill with some minor 
tweaks to gain a few more votes for a narrow passage is before the 
House again.
  While I am glad to see $90 million restored to rural health programs, 
the overall bill is still bad. It is irresponsible to raid from one 
program to pay for another program. This bill contains $1.6 billion in 
cuts from FY 2005 to important labor, health, social services, and 
education services.
  It is unfortunate that Republicans in Congress are choosing to strip 
away essential safeguards for families in order to implement tax cuts 
benefiting the wealthiest Americans. I am voting against this bill 
because Americans deserve better.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). Without objection, the 
previous question is ordered on the conference report.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
  Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 215, 
nays 213, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 628]

                               YEAS--215

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--213

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Castle
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Wilson (NM)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--6

     DeGette
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Feeney
     Hyde
     McDermott
     Ros-Lehtinen

                              {time}  1540

  Mr. BROWN of Ohio, Mrs. McCARTHY, Mr. GUTIERREZ, and Mr. DINGELL 
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. HOEKSTRA, REYNOLDS, HEFLEY and YOUNG of Alaska changed their 
vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________