[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.
____________________