[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 161 (Thursday, December 15, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13600-S13608]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND 
      RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006--CONFERENCE REPORT

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to the consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 
3010, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to 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,'' having met, have agreed that the House 
     recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate, 
     and agree to the same with an amendment, and the Senate agree 
     to the same, signed by a majority of the conferees on the 
     part of both houses.

  (The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the 
Record of December 14, 2005.)
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there will be 90 
minutes under the control of the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coburn). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, under the rule, I have 90 minutes--some of 
it has already been used up in the quorum call--to speak on the Labor, 
Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies 
appropriations bill that is now before the Senate.
  I again ask any Senator who wants to come over and speak on this time 
to try to be here before 10:30. I would be glad to yield time to 
Senators who want to come over and talk about this bill and why this 
bill should not be passed.
  At this time of the year when we are seeing all the festive holiday 
decorations, Christmas trees, all the lights around, there is a certain 
mood about Christmas. It is a mood of being generous and understanding 
that it is the season for giving. It is the season for thinking about 
those who may be less fortunate than ourselves. It is also the time of 
the year when most families of means get together and think about their 
giving, how they are going to support charities or charitable giving 
toward the end of the year. It is true in churches all over the country 
and many nonprofit organizations. This is the time of year when people 
decide to give money to the churches, to everything, the Salvation 
Army, to all kinds of nonprofits. It is the time of the year when we 
remember ``A Christmas Carol'' by Charles Dickens, the wonderful 
stories about ``A Christmas Carol'' played in high school plays and 
theaters all over the country every year at this time.
  Charles Dickens ``A Christmas Carol,'' the story of Ebenezer Scrooge. 
``Bah humbug,'' remember that? That is his familiar saying about 
Christmas, ``bah humbug''--this tight man, ungenerous, miserly, stingy, 
with no feelings of compassion whatsoever to those less fortunate.
  We all know what happened in ``A Christmas Carol.'' He is visited by 
the ghosts of Christmas past and the Christmas future. He then begins 
to see clearly that who he has been and what he has stood for is wrong.
  The wonderful thing about Charles Dickens and ``A Christmas Carol'' 
is, at the end, Scrooge becomes compassionate and generous and changes 
his ways.
  It is a wonderful story for this time of the year. If only life in 
Congress imitated that, if only Congress could follow the example of 
Ebenezer Scrooge in the final act of the play. I am sorry to say, in 
terms of the appropriations bill before us, the bill that funds those 
things that lift people up, that help the poorest in our society these 
days, to reach down, to give everyone hope, and try to make our society 
a little bit more fair and more just--that is what is in this bill. 
That is what this bill is about. But, sad to say, in this bill, as it 
is before us, Ebenezer Scrooge--the first Ebenezer Scrooge, the one 
before he changed in the final act--is in this bill. Scrooge reigns in 
this bill.

  My friend and distinguished senior member of the Appropriations 
Committee, the Senator from Hawaii, Dan Inouye, once said of the 
Defense appropriations bill that it defends America. The Labor, Health 
and Human Services, and Education bill, he said, is the bill that 
defines America. I have thought about that over the years. He said that 
a long time ago. I have thought about that over the years, as I have 
been chairman of the subcommittee and ranking member, and chairman and 
ranking member. Both Senator Specter and I have changed places on this 
subcommittee now I think going back over 15 years. I have thought about 
that, that this is really the bill that defines America.
  So how do we want to define America? As the haves with the beautiful 
Christmas tree, with all the lights, nice cars, warm clothes, good 
food, who send their kids to the best schools, live in the best 
neighborhoods? That is America? That is it, that is America? And then 
down below we have people barely scraping to get by, who don't know how 
they are going to pay the heating bills in the winter, the elderly, 
disabled, the poor, those who want to get job training, they have lost 
their job, but they want to work and are looking for job training 
assistance; families with meager means who want their kids to get a 
head start in life so they want to send their kids to a Head Start 
Program so that their kids, too, will have a decent shot at the 
American dream; or families who are low income and have poor schools to 
go to and so they want to at least have good teachers and good 
facilities and good programs and textbooks and things for their kids so 
that their kids, too, can get up on that ladder of success; or families 
who live in low-income areas who have no health care insurance, have no 
health care, and the only thing they have to go to is the community 
health center for their health needs, and that is there for them.
  I don't know. What kind of America do we want? Do we want an America 
where at least at this time of the year we think generously? In this 
beautiful country that we have, all of the riches that we have, can we 
not find it in our hearts to pass an appropriations bill that at least, 
at least, does not back down from where we were before? You would think 
that would sort of be the minimum. You would think at least at this 
time of the year we would say, well, we are not going to do any more 
for low-income people, but we are not going to cut them back any more 
either. You would sort of think that would be the bottom line.
  Sad to say, of all of the appropriations bills that this Congress has 
passed this year, this is the only appropriations bill that is cut 
below last year's level. This bill, the one that funds education and 
health, the one that reaches down to help low-income people, this is 
the one that is cut, the only one, the only one that is cut.
  Please, someone explain this to me. Interior appropriations, 
Transportation appropriations, Agriculture appropriations, Military 
Construction and Veterans, Foreign Operations, Commerce-State-Justice 
appropriations, Homeland Security, Energy and

[[Page S13601]]

Water appropriations, Legislative Branch appropriations--all above last 
year's level. Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education? Cut 
below last year's level.
  Ten days before Christmas, Congress is poised to deliver a cruel blow 
to the most disadvantaged members of our society. Sadly, unlike in the 
Dickens tale, there is no sign of remorse, no nagging conscience, no 
change of heart at the end of the day.
  This bill that we passed--and here I want to just, again, pay my 
respects and my esteem for our distinguished chairman, Senator Specter. 
He had a tough job. We worked it out. We passed a good bill, a decent 
bill in the Senate. I think it was unanimous, if I am not mistaken--I 
am sorry, it was 97 to 3. Well, that is almost unanimous, 97 votes. 
Both sides voted for the bill that Senator Specter crafted and that we 
worked together on. But then it went to conference, and the House came 
in and insisted on their position. Again, I just remind Senators and 
others that what happened is that it came out of conference--I didn't 
sign the conference report. Many of us would not sign the conference 
report because of these massive cuts. The bill went to the House last 
month, and the House rejected it. Then they reappointed conferees, as 
we did, and we met in conference on Monday evening, this last Monday 
evening, 3 days ago, for 44 minutes--44 minutes, with very little 
debate. The gavel was pounded, and we adjourned subject to the call of 
the Chair. Of course, the Chair never called us back, the Chair being 
the House Member. The House ran the conference this year. So they never 
called us back.
  Now they jiggled a few things around, I guess, dealing with rural 
health--I will have more to say about that in a second--to get the 
votes in the House. Well, the House passed this bill yesterday by two 
votes. I think it was 215 to 213, if I am not mistaken. Two votes. A 
very contentious bill, two votes. Now we have it before the Senate. 
That is sort of the history.
  Now it is up to us whether we are going to step back and say: No, we 
will not accept this bill. We will not accept cuts to these vital 
programs that I am about to go through here. But we will at least go on 
a continuing resolution until January. In January, when we come back, 
maybe there will be a little bit of change of heart and we can do a 
little better on this bill.
  This appropriations bill, as I said, funds things such as the Head 
Start Program, community health centers, special education, job 
training, programs that help the neediest in our communities. As I 
said, most people who are watching today would probably expect these 
programs to get an increase this year because we know the poverty rate 
has gone up in this country, or at least you would expect that we would 
not cut it below last year's level. As I said, this is the only 
appropriations bill cut below last year's level, and that is about $1.4 
billion less than last year. This bill cuts education for the first 
time in a decade, the first time since 1996 has education been cut. No 
Child Left Behind, all of us here, I am sure, hear a lot about that 
when we go back to our States, the comments about No Child Left Behind. 
The biggest complaint about No Child Left Behind is that they are not 
getting the money by which to meet the mandate. In other words, it is 
like an unfunded mandate on our schools.
  Now, I voted for No Child Left Behind. I was at the table when we met 
with President Bush in 2001 to get this bill through. At that time, it 
was agreed upon--at least I thought it was agreed upon--that we would 
have a funding stream to meet the mandate.
  The President agreed to that. His people agreed to it. The President 
himself agreed to that. Yet we are now $13 billion less than what we 
said we were going to be at 3, 4 years ago. So it is no surprise that 
people in our communities are upset about No Child Left Behind. They 
are being told to do certain things, but they are not being funded to 
do them.

  Well, here we are. We are cutting it again in this bill with a 3-
percent cut, so there will be $780 million this year less than last 
year. That now puts us at $13.1 billion below the authorized level. It 
leaves 120,000 children behind.
  Now, what do I say about that? That is title I. In my opening 
comments, I mentioned the fact that people who live in low-income areas 
and go to schools that do not have a lot of money need help. They need 
what we call title I services, the low-income children. It is $9.9 
billion below the authorized level. That means that title I services to 
120,000 children, who are currently eligible to receive them, will not 
receive them next year. Think about that: 120,000 children who are now 
eligible for title I services in our public schools will no longer 
receive those services next year.
  What is the American dream for those kids? What about it? What about 
the American dream for them? And because of the programs we had in the 
past--Head Start, title I, all the other programs--we have been able to 
get kids of low income through secondary school. Now they want to go to 
college. Well, back in the 1960s we passed a program called the Pell 
grants, after our distinguished Senator, Claiborne Pell. It was grants 
to low-income students so they, too, could go to college.
  Under this bill, the maximum Pell grant award is frozen for the 
fourth year in a row. For the fourth year in a row, we have frozen Pell 
grants. That means the purchasing power of a Pell grant today is about 
one-fifth of what it was 20 years ago. So if you are low income, and 
you want to go to college, it would be better if you had gotten it 20 
years ago because your Pell grant would have gotten you a lot further 
then. Today it is worth about one-fifth of what it was then.
  And special education: 28 years ago, this Congress passed the 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to meet a constitutional 
requirement that we had to provide equal and appropriate education for 
children with disabilities--a constitutional mandate. At the time we 
passed that, we said our goal was to have the Federal Government 
provide at least 40 percent of the additional cost of educating kids 
with disabilities. That was our goal: We would provide 40 percent of 
that additional cost to our local school districts. That was 27 years 
ago.
  Last year, we had reached 18 percent. In other words, by last year, 
the Federal Government was providing 18 percent of the additional cost 
of special education. Under this bill, you would think we would be 
going forward to 40 percent. This bill goes backward. We are now at 17 
percent. We are going in the wrong direction.
  How many times have we voted on this floor to fully fund special 
education? We keep voting to have special education fully funded. We 
have all these meaningless votes. When it comes down to paying for it, 
we are going in the wrong direction. We are going in the wrong 
direction, down to 17 percent this year.
  Well, that is the story in education. The story in education is very 
simple. If you come from a well-to-do family, and you live in a good 
neighborhood, and you have great schools and high property taxes, don't 
worry, the American dream is there for you. But if you live in a low-
income area, with low property values, low property taxes, you have 
poor schools, tough luck, you were not born to the right parents. Tough 
luck. That is what this bill is saying to you. That is education.
  Look at health. Look at the health programs. What do we do about 
health? Again, if you are a Member of the Senate or the Congress, work 
for the Federal Government, you have a nice Federal Employees Health 
Benefits plan--like all of us do--and you do not worry about it. We 
have great coverage. I often think many times those of us who serve in 
the Senate and the House probably think: Well, probably everybody lives 
like we do. Everybody makes $150,000 a year. You have a couple of 
houses, drive nice cars, wear nice clothes. We send our kids to great 
schools.
  Well, I don't know, if I am not mistaken, as to the population of the 
Senate, out of 100 Senators, I think--what is it--80 now are 
multimillionaires? There is nothing wrong with that. There is nothing 
wrong with having money and achieving the American dream and having 
nicer clothes, a nicer car, a nicer house. There is nothing wrong with 
that. That is a big part of the American dream. But it seems to me that 
those of us who have been blessed with good health and good fortune, 
and who have sort of made it to the top of that ladder, it is incumbent 
of us that we leave the ladder down for

[[Page S13602]]

others to climb, too, not pull it up behind us. And there are Senators 
and Congressmen in this body and in the House who are well to do, who 
have been blessed with good fortune, who understand the necessity of 
leaving the ladder down, and who fight constantly to make sure we meet 
our obligations as a Congress to reach down and help those less 
fortunate than ourselves.
  Nowhere is this more true than in health. Nowhere is this more true 
than in health. We have tried over the years, since we cannot get a 
national health insurance program passed, to at least sort of block and 
tackle, if you will, to fill in the gaps, to help make sure people of 
low income can get at least some access to decent health care.
  One of the most important of those is the community health centers. 
President Bush himself said at one time that his goal was to have a 
community health center--it was a State of the Union Message. I was 
there. President Bush said his goal was to have a community health 
center in every poor community by 2008, and we all rose and applauded. 
I believe in community health centers. Obviously, the President does, 
too. But where is the President? Where is he? Because in this bill not 
one new community health center will be authorized for next year--not 
one. Not one will be built in the United States.
  Health professions. We want to recruit qualified health professionals 
to serve in parts of the country. It is slashed by $185 million.
  National Institutes of Health: 355 new research grants will be cut. 
It is the smallest percentage increase in NIH. Actually, it is level 
funded. It is less than 1 percent, so you might as well say NIH has 
been level funded. This is the first time since 1970--35 years--that 
NIH has not received an increase.
  Rural health programs: cut by $137 million. Now, you know there was 
some talk when this bill came back out of conference that they 
``fixed'' the rural health problem. Not true. Not true. Not true. Rural 
health programs are cut by $137 million and nine vital health 
programs--trauma care, rural emergency medical services, health 
education training centers, healthy community access programs, 
geriatric education centers--are closed.
  This one I think deserves a little bit more discussion, the geriatric 
education centers. We know our society is aging. We know geriatric care 
is a kind of a specialty. We want health professionals trained in 
geriatric care so the elderly among us will be healthier, will have 
better diets and nutrition, will have better exercise, and will have 
more sociability.
  We know when you do those modest things, you keep the elderly out of 
nursing homes, you keep them out of the doctors' offices, you cut down 
on Medicare and Medicaid.
  Well, here is a map that shows States that will lose geriatric 
centers. All the stars are geriatric care centers that are going to be 
closed. Two weeks before the 78 million baby boomers in this country 
begin to turn 60--that is next month, January--we are going to close 
all these centers. In Iowa, we have a center at the University of Iowa 
School of Medicine that trains doctors, osteopaths, nurses, dentists, 
chiropractors. There is a big need. Iowa has the highest percentage of 
citizens over the age of 85--the highest of any State in the Nation. 
This bill eliminates the geriatric center at the University of Iowa. So 
that is education.
  Let's look at labor. We know that people are unemployed and they want 
to be retrained. The Department of Labor is cut in this bill by $430 
million, the biggest cut ever made to the Department of Labor--the 
biggest ever, at a time when we keep hearing stories about how China is 
training all these engineers and scientists and doing all this stuff. 
We need to get people retrained, and this bill cuts adult job training 
and youth job training. Adult job training is cut and youth job 
training is cut. I guess we are telling people that you may have had a 
job and that job has ended, but you may want to get into the new 
economy. Do it on your own. You are not going to get any help.
  People cannot do that. They are broke and out of work, and they have 
kids and families. Rather than advancing, they will go out and find 
some job that will at least put bread on the table, when they could be 
getting job training that would allow a better job and higher income in 
the future. This slashes employment services by $89 million--an 11-
percent cut in employment services.
  What are employment services? They are to help people get employed, 
to get a job. Yet we are cutting it, even though we know the rate of 
unemployment has gone up. I don't know how anybody can justify this, 
especially at this time of the year.
  Let's take one more look at LIHEAP, the Low Income Heating Energy 
Assistance Program. This bill provides no additional funding for 
LIHEAP. We know that fuel costs are skyrocketing. In Iowa, natural gas 
prices are up 40 percent from last year. Hawkeye Area Community 
Assistance in southeast Iowa reports that LIHEAP funds are likely to 
run out in mid January, one of the coldest months of the year in my 
State. This bill fails to keep up with this overwhelming need.
  I was in Iowa a couple weeks ago and I met with some people who 
applied for and are eligible for LIHEAP. I remember one individual who 
is disabled and lives by herself. Her monthly cost for fuel has gone up 
about 50 percent for what she pays every month. I think she qualifies 
for $232 in LIHEAP funding. I mentioned that to somebody after I met 
with these people. I mentioned I had this meeting and this one woman 
who was disabled lived by herself and she qualified for $232 in energy 
assistance to pay her heating bills. One of the individuals in the 
group I talked to said, ``That ought to pay her monthly bill.'' I said, 
``Wait a second, that $232 is for the year.'' They thought it was for 
the month. I said that is for the year--October, November, December, 
January, February, March, and probably April. That is $232 for 6 or 7 
months. ``I didn't realize that,'' she said, ``I thought it was for the 
month.'' I said, ``No, that is for the whole year.''
  Yet we are cutting back on that. We are not providing enough money to 
take into account the increased price of propane and heating oil and 
natural gas prices. I have heard: Don't worry, Harkin, we will come 
back in January and, if we need to, we will pass a supplemental or 
something at that time.
  Don't hold your breath. What about the people who are out there who 
don't know how to pay their heating bills, who need to get propane 
delivered, especially in rural communities such as where I live? We 
have propane tanks. I have a propane tank outside of my house. You call 
up the company to come fill it. Well, all right, you have to pay the 
bill. If you have not paid the previous month's bill, you are not going 
to get it delivered. Unlike natural gas where they cannot cut you off, 
they can cut you off of propane.
  So we are going to come back and do this in January or February. Yet 
we will let anxiety rise, let people worry about it. I can tell you 
right now, in my State of Iowa, there are people living on the edge. 
They have food stamps, they are getting LIHEAP, many are disabled, and 
many are elderly. They are thinking, I know that next month is going to 
be cold--in January and February. Maybe I should not buy the drugs I 
need now because I will need that money next month. Maybe I will cut 
back a little bit on some of the food I have been buying or I will cut 
back on some of the things I want to do in order to have the money for 
the heating bills. That is what is happening now. There is anxiety out 
there. We are saying: That is okay, be anxious; we will come back in 
January or February and fix it.
  Is that any way to treat people? Put yourself in that position. What 
if you didn't know whether you could pay your heating bill next month? 
What if you didn't know whether you were going to be able to pay? They 
say don't worry about it, we will come back in January and February and 
we will fix it.

  When we passed a continuing resolution at the end of September, I 
took the floor to beg my colleagues to reject this part of the 
continuing resolution that would cut the community services block 
grants by 50 percent. Well, we didn't get that done. Then it was put on 
the DOD bill, and they told us we will take care of that. The funding 
for community services block grants goes out to help programs such as 
Head Start and LIHEAP. In other words, if you are going to apply for 
LIHEAP, you usually go to some agency--an

[[Page S13603]]

area agency on aging or you go through one of these community action 
agencies. They help you with the paperwork and do the necessary things 
to show that you qualify. If you don't have that, chances are you 
probably would not qualify.
  In our continuing resolution, we cut that by 50 percent. We are told 
we will take care of it, we will fix it. But that was in September. We 
have gone through October, November, and December--3 months--and the 
community services block grant is still cut by 50 percent. They say we 
will take care of LIHEAP, too. When? In March, April or May?
  So whether it is health, human services, education, medical research 
at NIH--no matter what it is in this bill--what can I say; it is awful. 
This bill is awful. It is not something we ought to hold our heads up 
and be proud about. We ought to be ashamed of this, ashamed that we 
cannot find it in ourselves to meet the needs of the poorest people in 
our country, the neediest.
  This bill ought to be rejected, and we should go to an honest 
continuing resolution, not one that cuts programs but one that at least 
keeps last year's level. If we want to, then we will come back and fix 
it again next year. But this bill is not deserving of our support. It 
sends the wrong--I don't want to say it sends the wrong message, that 
is not it; it doesn't do the right thing. It doesn't do what a 
generous, compassionate nation ought to do for its neediest citizens.
  Mr. President, I see my distinguished colleague, Senator Kennedy, is 
on the floor. Again, I yield the floor to him. There has been no one 
who has fought harder for these programs in education and health and 
human services for all of his adult life, no one who has spoken more 
passionately and forthrightly about the obligation we have as public 
servants to meet the needs of our neediest citizens than Senator 
Kennedy.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I join with those on our side and I think 
most Americans in commending the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin, for his 
steadfastness and determination to make sure we are a fairer country, a 
country that is going to offer better opportunities for many of those 
who have been left out and left behind.
  I listened carefully to his excellent presentation earlier in 
outlining the choices, the alternatives for the American people 
presented in this particular legislative proposal. Once again, he has 
made the convincing case that we can, as Americans, do a great deal 
better in terms of those who have been left behind. With this 
recommendation that has come back from the conference which represents 
basically the Republican priorities, there are going to be millions and 
millions of Americans who are going to have a dimmer Christmastime this 
particular year.
  There is an extraordinary irony that we are within 9 days of 
Christmas Eve when families will gather around the Christmas tree, 
exchange gifts, will attend church services, and think about the spirit 
of Christmas. When they realize what their representatives have done in 
Congress, they know they will have a dimmer Christmas with fewer 
opportunities for their children and their parents and for the lives of 
working families in this country.
  I thank the Senator from Iowa for his excellent presentation and for 
the continued battle for decency in our country.
  As the Senator from Iowa has pointed out, this is an issue of choices 
for our Nation. Budgets are an issue of choices and priorities. He 
mentioned that during his presentation, and he has repeated the areas 
where we are going to see further reductions that are going to make it 
more difficult for families in this country.
  But you can't get away from the major fact, that a judgment and a 
decision has been made by the majority for a tax giveaway, effectively, 
to the wealthiest individuals in this country of $95 billion. Someone 
has to pay for it. The judgment that has been made by the majority 
party is that it is going to be the neediest members of our society who 
are going to have their belts tightened over this period of time. 
Nothing illustrates it better or more effectively than this chart 
illustrating where the House bill leaves tax cuts for the wealthy 
individuals under the Christmas tree but leaves middle-class families 
out in the cold. Families with incomes over $1 million will receive 
$32,000, and those families with incomes under $100,000 will receive 
$29. And people can say, Is that what this legislation is all about? 
Why in the world are you doing that?

  We just listened to the Senator from Iowa talk about all these cuts. 
What does that have to do with tax cuts? The fact is, if you are going 
to provide $32,000 in tax incentives to families making over $1 million 
in income and only $29 for families making under $100,000 in income, 
you not only have the issue of fairness if you are going to go for the 
$95 billion--it is grossly unfair in the distribution--but then you 
have to ask, How are we going to pay for all of that? The Senator has 
done a very comprehensive job in presenting that issue.
  I will take a couple of areas. We have gone through these at other 
times with the Senator from Iowa--and I commend him--in the health 
area, the neighborhood health centers, the training of personnel, all 
the range of public health programs. What I would like to do this 
morning is take a look at where we are with education funding.
  This chart shows where we have been in 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 
2002. Look what has been happening in the last 4 years, and this 
Republican bill contains a $59 million cut in education programs. Look 
at America's priorities as reflected in education. One can say money 
doesn't solve everything. It doesn't, but it is a clear reflection of a 
nation's priorities. This chart is backed up with budget figures. I 
have the budget items right here that reflect all of this. They 
indicate that this is what we are saying to Americans on the issues of 
education.
  In my State, we have made some important progress in education. We 
have made some important progress. Quite frankly, we put in place in 
our State a number of the reforms that were eventually put into No 
Child Left Behind--smaller classes and better trained teachers. In the 
NAEP test, which is the national education test, Massachusetts scored 
higher than all other states in reading, and tied for first in the 
Nation in math. In Boston, we saw a 19 point increase in the number of 
Hispanic students proficient on the math test, and a 10 point increase 
for African American students. These are the first major breakthroughs 
in the history of our country in these disparities. We are beginning to 
see progress because we have been investing in children.
  Not anymore. Here is where we are going: Right back to the good old 
bad days in terms of a nation's priorities in education.
  Today, we will have an opportunity, on the issue of education, to 
reaffirm what we did in the Senate. That was a bipartisan effort that 
produced a decent bill. We met our obligations under what they call 
reconciliation and the budget items. In a bipartisan way, led by our 
chairman, Senator Enzi, and with the assistance of Republicans and 
Democrats, what did we do? We--in our committee and on the floor--
virtually unanimously in our committee increased the maximum need based 
aid to Pell-eligible students to $4,500. Before that, we haven't been 
able to increase the maximum Pell grant. We have been flat on these 
Pell grants. These affect the neediest students. There are 400,000 
students who won't go to colleges, who are academically qualified to go 
to colleges, because they can't afford the dramatic increase in the 
cost of tuition.
  The Senate did something about it. We increased these grants to 
$4,500, and we gave an additional boost to those students in their 
junior and senior years who are going to be studying math and science. 
Why math and science? Because as all of us understand, if we are going 
to have an innovative economy, we are going to have to invest in the 
degrees that are going to permit us to have an innovative economy. That 
is necessary not only because we need an invigorated economy, but we 
need strengthened national security and defense. We were able to do 
this in the Senate.
  What has the House of Representatives done? The House of 
Representatives has raised the interest rate caps for students to 8.25 
percent.
  At that rate, the typical borrower will pay as much as $2,600 more on

[[Page S13604]]

loans. They raise the origination fees on direct loans in the short 
term, which will cost the typical borrower $400; they impose a new 1-
percent fee on all students who consolidate their loans. It is going to 
cost students, parents, and families thousands of dollars more to 
attend or to send their children to college. That is where the House of 
Representatives goes--increasing the cost of college for working 
families who are already struggling. That is why we believe it is so 
important that our negotiators hold firm to the provisions in the 
Senate bill. We meet our responsibilities, and we provide the kind of 
help which is so necessary for students in this country. That is what 
our bill does.
  We will have a chance to vote on our motion to instruct conferees 
this afternoon. We do not always have a chance to offer amendments or 
motions to instruct conferees on every subject matter but we will in 
terms of the issues on education and higher education.
  I want to mention one other item that the good Senator from Iowa has 
spoken to because I think it is enormously important to our fellow 
Americans. Here is the cover of Nature Magazine, publisher of the 
original human genome paper. The Senator from Iowa was visionary in 
ensuring that NIH was going to move forward in giving the support for 
the mapping of the human genome.
  With the mapping of the human genome, we have seen all kinds of 
possibilities in terms of health care and medical breakthroughs. We 
have seen medical breakthroughs in the historic diseases that have 
affected every family across America, including all of us in the Senate 
and the House of Representatives. We have seen breakthroughs addressing 
the problems of Alzheimer's, the problems of Parkinson's disease, the 
problems of cancer, the problems of diabetes.
  We have begun to see enormous progress that is being made. We are at 
the tip of the cusp. That is because we have had bipartisan 
cooperation. The Senate was working together, as we have in education. 
We worked together, Democrats and Republicans, all during period from 
the late 90's through 2002 to try to get investment in breakthrough 
research. Just about every scientist who has appeared before the 
Senate's Committee on Appropriations says this is the life science 
century. The possibility of achieving breakthroughs that benefit every 
family in America are virtually unlimited if we invest the resources.
  Does anyone think that is what this administration is doing? No. They 
say, let us give $95 billion more in tax breaks to the wealthiest, and 
let us cut all of that potential right off at the knees. That is what 
they have done. That is what is before us. That is why the Senator from 
Iowa has said that this is an unacceptable budget. Do not take our word 
for it. Look at the budget, the choices that have been made. If one 
goes back, at least in my State, and talks with families, they will 
probably be talking to you now about the Medicare D Program and how 
they are going to deal with the confusion. But underneath it all, when 
it comes to the end of the conversation, they will say: What are the 
possibilities of getting some real breakthroughs? My father has 
Alzheimer's, my uncle has Parkinson's disease, what are the real 
chances of doing something about these diseases? We have to take care 
of them. We love our family members, what are the possibilities of 
finding breakthrough treatments to save them?
  Every scientist and every researcher was moving along on this. We 
thought we had an agreement to consider the stem cell legislation, 
another area on which the Senator from Iowa has been a leader. We 
thought we had an agreement by the leaders that we were going to bring 
this up. The House of Representatives has acted on it. My State of 
Massachusetts has acted on it. Other States have acted on it. What is 
wrong with the Senate? They say, we have to take more time to pass more 
tax giveaways to the wealthiest individuals, we cannot afford to take 
the time to do the stem cell research. No, sir, we cannot do that. I 
say, this is the priority. That is why the Senator from Iowa is as 
worked up as he is.
  This is the reality of the NIH budget. Dr. Landis, who is the 
Director of the National Institute on Neurological Disorders and 
Stroke, says:

       If we are to fund new programs, we will have to stop 
     funding old programs. For every young investigator, a senior 
     investigator will be unfunded. For every senior investigator 
     who's refunded, it means a junior investigator won't be.

  Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield on that?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.
  Mr. HARKIN. I appreciate the Senator pointing this out because 
yesterday a big story broke in the newspapers from NIH. A lot of times 
people ask what happened with the human genome project, what is it 
leading to, mapping of the entire human genome. A couple of years ago, 
I paid my first visit to Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in New York, 
Long Island. It is run by James Watson, who is one of the codiscoverers 
of the structure of DNA. What they had embarked upon at that time was 
the beginning of mapping the genes of all of the cancers known to 
humans. It was a small project. It was funded and it went along. 
Yesterday, a story broke that Dr. Zerhouni, the distinguished and very 
capable head of the National Institutes of Health, announced that the 
National Institutes of Health was embarking upon a program to map and 
sequence the genome of every known cancer. They are going to go out and 
take cells of every cancer, take the DNA out, and map it. They think 
that it is going to take about 10 years to do. It will cost about $1 
billion to $1.5 billion.
  Is it worthy? Of course. These are the bullets we will have to really 
get at cancer. It is phenomenal in its concept and what it is going to 
do.
  Here is the problem, as the Senator from Massachusetts pointed out. 
We do not give them any extra money to do it. That means if they are 
going to embark on this, they are going to have to take money out of 
other research on Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, and 
everything else.

  Yesterday, I asked Dr. Zerhouni: Where is this money coming from? 
Already we are cutting down and cutting back on the number of grants 
that are being awarded, and now with this appropriations bill that we 
have, it is going to get even worse.
  I say to my friend from Massachusetts, when we embarked on mapping 
and sequencing the human genome back in 1991 when I was chairman, we 
did not take money from some other place. We came to the Congress and 
said this is important, let us do it, let us fund it and we did it, and 
we paid for it.
  Now, with this tremendous news yesterday that came out about mapping, 
sequencing the genomes of all known cancers, we are now cutting the 
funding basically for NIH. So I say to my friend from Massachusetts, 
what he pointed out, that is what we are confronting. We are 
confronting cutting back in other needed research to do this or maybe 
we will not do this after all. That is the dilemma we face. That is the 
position that this appropriations bill puts us in. I thank the Senator 
from Massachusetts for pointing that out.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I welcome that very important statement. What we are 
seeing from the research community is not only the progress that is 
being made in basic research, but the acceleration of breakthroughs 
through the use of advanced engineering and computers to fast track 
this kind of research.
  This chart reinforces the point that the good Senator has made. Four 
out of five new ideas will be rejected in fiscal year 2006. This chart 
states that 79 percent of grant applications to NIH will be rejected. 
This will be the highest percent of grant rejections in decades. In 
these grants lie the possibilities of life saving treatments and cures. 
When we are talking about the grants, as the Senator knows, we are 
talking about serious grants. These are not grants submitted by someone 
off the street saying: Listen, give me some dough, I think I think I 
have an idea. These grants have been researched, examined, and tested. 
They are the best, in the opinions of the scientists in that particular 
area, and are worthy of further progress. The opportunities for 
meaningful progress are in these projects. Eighty percent of those 
grants are being rejected. Why? Because we want $95 billion to go to 
the wealthiest individuals in this country. This is who is paying for 
the budget cut, this right here--the 80 percent of scientists whose 
grants will be rejected. With the budget squeeze and those few hundreds 
of

[[Page S13605]]

millions of dollars saved, we will be able to provide the additional 
tax breaks, giveaways to the wealthiest individuals.

  Finally, I want to bring up the subject on which the Senator from 
Iowa has been the leader. I want to talk about the dangers of avian flu 
and the dangers of the pandemic. I have listened to the Senator make 
the persuasive case for our Nation that avian flu is a danger. I have 
listened to him stop this Senate and say: Look, we have to take action 
on this flu legislation. We have to provide the resources to deal with 
this challenge we are facing.
  I know this chart is difficult to read, but it is a time line going 
back to 1990. It lists all the warnings from June, 1992 through today. 
We see the warnings all the way back 1992:

       Policymakers must realize and understand the potential 
     magnitude of a pandemic.

  Here's the warning in Hong Kong, 1997.
  Here it is in the GAO report:

       Federal and State influenza plans do not address key issues 
     surrounding the purchase and distribution of vaccines and 
     antivirals.

  Here it is from the World Health Organization:

       Authorities must understand the potential impact and 
     threats of pandemic influenza.

  Here it is in Vietnam. Here is the December 2003 outbreak in Korea.
  The Senator rightfully challenged this body to say we have to do 
something about the pandemic threat. And we responded. I had the 
opportunity to be at NIH when the President of the United States made 
his commitment to this deal with $7.8 billion. What happened? The money 
that had been requested by the President, the money that had been put 
into the budget by the Senator from Iowa was struck out. The President 
requested it. The Senate went on record. We have the warnings. We have 
been told about this. Secretary Leavitt has spoken passionately about 
this issue. Former Secretary Thompson has spoken out about this issue. 
But we are still falling behind on pandemic preparedness.
  This chart is familiar to the Senator from Iowa but is one I think we 
need constant reminding of. Japan had their comprehensive flu plan in 
October of 1997; Canada, February `04; Czech Republic, `04; Hong Kong, 
`05; Britain, `05. We have gone through their plans and they are 
extensive. The United States released our plan November of `05, and it 
is incomplete.
  Do we think in this budget we are giving the assurances to the 
American people that we are going to be leaders, able to deal with a 
possible pandemic? Absolutely not.
  I share the real frustration of the Senator. He had mentioned earlier 
the problems they were going to have in terms of heating oil. Under 
current funding, families in Massachusetts will receive LIHEAP 
assistance that is effectively enough for only one tank of oil. 
Basically, low-income and middle-income working families use two to 
four tanks over the course of the winter, two to four tanks. They will 
have one tank under current funding levels.
  I think of the number of people, primarily women, who are waiting to 
go back to work. There are some women who want to go to work, but they 
do not have the childcare to take care of their child so they can go to 
work. In Massachusetts, 13,000 children are on waiting lists for 
childcare slots. Most of these mothers have the opportunities to go to 
work, but they can't without childcare assistance. I think that is a 
long, difficult wait for so many of these families who are constantly 
challenged to protect their child while going out and working and 
providing for their family. They are constantly facing that every 
morning they wake up. Do you think we are helping them? Oh, no, we are 
adding more burdens to them. There will be fewer slots, under this 
particular proposal, for those families.
  I think of the 160,000 people who are unemployed in my State and the 
72,000 jobs that are out there waiting for people to be able to 
receive. The only thing that is missing is the training programs, to 
train part of the 160,000, train 72,000 so they can get those jobs. Do 
you think that is in this legislation so these families will be able to 
participate in their community, make even a greater contribution to 
their community, plus pay taxes? Oh, no. We are cutting back on that 
funding. There are further cutbacks on the training programs.
  We are cutting back or eliminating the dropout prevention programs. 
We are cutting back on the afterschool programs. The list goes on. The 
point has been made very eloquently by the Senator from Iowa. As the 
Senator from Iowa has pointed out and as I mentioned, this day is about 
choices in the Senate. It is about choices--whether, on the one hand, 
we think in our national interest it is more important to give the $95 
billion in tax giveaways to the wealthiest individuals in this country. 
It is not even a fair plan. If you were for a tax program that was 
going to be fair, at least you could make that case, I would think, and 
hold your head up. This is $95 billion, and the $32,000 to every family 
earning over the $1 million and $29 to every family earning under 
$100,000--that is not even fair, if you thought that was the Nation's 
priority, paid for by the most vulnerable people in our society.
  I do not want to hear a lot from the other side talking about the 
Christmas spirit. We have seen how the Christmas spirit is reflected in 
real terms in their votes on these issues here. It is not going to be a 
happy one.
  In our motion to instruct on higher education, which we will address 
in the afternoon, the following Senators have indicated support. There 
are others that have contacted me about it as well. Senator Harkin and 
Senator Durbin, Senator Dodd, Senator Reid, Senator Lieberman, Senator 
Kerry, Senator Reed of Rhode Island, Senator Corzine, Senator Clinton, 
and I will add others as the day goes on.
  I thank my colleague and friend from Iowa for his excellent 
presentation, for his review of all these issues and questions, and for 
posing the vital issue for the American people, almost at the time of 
Christmas Eve. He has summarized it. There is no one more knowledgeable 
or understanding, or anyone who has been a more forceful advocate of 
all of these causes, than the Senator from Iowa. I thank him for his 
energy and persuasiveness and his presentation.
  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, parliamentary inquiry: How much time do 
I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eleven and one-half minutes.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I don't know if any others want to come 
over. That is why I asked for 90 minutes to point out how bad the bill 
is.
  Looking at all the various programs that were cut, Senator Kennedy 
did an outstanding job of going over how devastating some of these cuts 
are going to be in terms of health, education, and medical research. 
Going through a big bill like this, sometimes your eyes kind of glaze 
over some of the important aspects that people do not bring to the 
forefront.
  But there is one other cut in this bill that people ought to know 
about. All the staff who are watching, the Senators who are watching, 
you ought to know about this cut. It is the maternal and child health 
block grant being cut by 3 percent. The real per-capita purchasing 
power is now 20 percent below what it was in 2002. What is the maternal 
and child health block grant? It helps low-income mothers get 
preventive health services and medical treatment for children who have 
disabilities and other special needs.
  One of the best things we have ever done here to help low-income 
families have healthy babies and to make sure those babies get the best 
start in life is the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant Program, 
which goes out to the States, and it is cut by 3 percent.
  Please justify that. When you vote later today on whether to accept 
this appropriations bill, please justify just that one thing: how you 
are going to justify cutting the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant 
Program.
  As bad as this bill is, every time I look at it, I ask: Can it get 
any worse? The answer to that is, yes. It is going to get worse. Here 
is why.

[[Page S13606]]

  This bill had a $1.4 billion cut. We have just gone over all of the 
things that are cut in this bill--the Maternal and Child Health Block 
Grant Program, to education, to medical research--all vital in defining 
the kind of country we are. Can it get worse? Yes. Here is what is 
going to happen. Hang on.
  Tomorrow or Saturday or sometime, we will be voting on a Department 
of Defense appropriations bill. That Department of Defense 
appropriations bill will have a bunch of things in it that do not deal 
with the Department of Defense. By the way, it will also have in it a 
1-percent across-the-board cut. We are already told it is in there--a 
1-percent across-the-board cut.
  All of the cuts we have talked about--Maternal and Child Health Care 
Block Grant Programs, title I funding, special education, geriatric 
training centers, and NIH--all of that is going to get an additional 1-
percent cut.
  The way that works out is, the $1.4 billion cut in this bill is going 
to be a $2.8 billion cut. It will double it.
  As bad as this bill is now with the $1.4 billion cut, by the time we 
are through here tomorrow and voting on a 1-percent across-the-board 
cut, it will be twice as bad--a $2.8 billion cut in this bill.
  That is because this bill is about $140 billion. You take a 1-percent 
across-the-board cut, that is $1.4 billion. So get ready. That is why 
this bill should not be passed in its present form because there is 
going to be that 1-percent across-the-board cut. It is going to double.
  The Senator from Massachusetts mentioned the avian flu bill. We put 
money in here for the avian flu. I offered an amendment on DOD 
appropriations back in September. In December, the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee said that is not the proper place for it, that 
it ought to be on the Labor-Health and Human Services bill. I agreed 
with him. But we didn't know if we were going to have a bill. So it was 
put on the DOD bill.
  Later on when we got this bill before us, we added $8 billion to get 
us prepared to fight perhaps the biggest flu pandemic the world has 
ever seen, one that could kill hundreds of thousands of our fellow 
citizens, one that could hospitalize up to 90 million people in this 
country. We put $8 billion in this bill. Guess what. Look at the bill. 
It is not in there. It is all gone, all taken out.
  They say they are going to put some more in the Department of Defense 
bill. We haven't seen it yet. But they took it out of this bill.
  It is going to get worse. Today is December 15. By the way, it is 
also the anniversary of the adoption of the Bill of Rights to our 
Constitution. I hope it is not too much of a leap to ask on this 
anniversary of the Bill of Rights: What about the rights of poor 
people? What about the rights of low-income people? What about the 
rights of our people to be protected from the pandemic flu? What about 
the rights of our citizens to decent health care, the rights of our 
citizens to a decent education, no matter where they live or the 
circumstances of their birth? Should the quality of your education be 
decided by geography, where you live? What about our rights? This bill 
before us speaks to rights, human rights, the basic rights of an 
American citizen to decent health, housing, education, a shot at the 
American dream. So on this December 15, 10 days before Christmas, the 
anniversary of the adoption of our Bill of Rights, throughout much of 
the world it is a season of giving, but here in Congress with this bill 
it is a season of taking away education programs, taking away job 
training, taking away home heating assistance, taking away rural health 
programs, taking away maternal and child health care.

  But what it really takes away is hope. It takes away hope from 
people, hope for a better life, hope for a better shot at the American 
dream, hope that their children will have it a little bit better than 
what they have had.
  I remember when then-Governor Bush was running for President in 2000. 
He had a saying at that time--I haven't heard it lately, but he had a 
saying that the Government can't give hope to people. Well, I beg to 
differ. Government can give hope to people. It depends on who is 
running the Government as to who is getting the hope. As the Senator 
from Massachusetts just pointed out, we have a huge tax bill, more tax 
breaks for the wealthiest in our society. If you are making over $1 
million a year, you have a lot of hope. You are going to get about 
$32,000 in your Christmas stocking. Thirty-two thousand, you are just 
going to get it, a nice tax giveaway for the most affluent in our 
society. A lot of hope has been given to them by this Government.
  But if you are low income, if you live in small rural America, if you 
are elderly, if you are disabled, if you need the help of the 
Government to lift you up and to give you some hope for a better life, 
you don't get hope. It is taken away from you.
  So what we are saying to low-income families who are working, trying 
to pay their bills, trying to scrape by, trying to keep their families 
together, trying to raise their kids, I guess what we are saying is, 
Merry Christmas, hang your stocking, and Congress is going to put a 
lump of coal in that stocking for you. That is what you get.
  I don't understand how anyone can vote for this bill, especially at 
this time of the year. I hope our conscience would come to the fore. We 
all know the wonderful story from Dr. Seuss. We recall reading it to 
our kids, ``The Grinch Who Stole Christmas.'' This bill is a bill only 
the Grinch could love. No funding for avian flu, lowest increase in NIH 
funding in 35 years, cuts education funding as No Child Left Behind 
requirements are going up, no increase in college aid, cuts job 
training. I could have added a lot more--as I said, cuts in maternal 
and child health care, cuts in geriatric training, cuts in Head Start.
  Well, if you like the Grinch, I suggest you might want to vote for 
this bill. But we need to reject it and insist that the leadership 
provide enough funding to write an acceptable bill. They have the power 
to do it. We did it in the Senate. I repeat, under the leadership of 
Senator Specter, on a bipartisan basis, we passed a bill here 97 to 3. 
We can do it. If only the President of the United States just said to 
the House leadership, We want the Senate bill, we want what the Senate 
did to be fair and just to all our citizens, we would have this. We 
would have it. That House of Representatives, they will do whatever the 
President tells them to do. And if he had waded in there and said, 
Look, we don't accept this, we will have the Senate-passed version, 
that is what we would have. We would all vote for it and hold our heads 
up high and say we did the right thing for the citizens of our country. 
Yes, leadership has the power to do it. They have the White House, the 
House, and the Senate.
  What is stopping them from giving us a decent bill? As I said, we did 
it here. We did it on a bipartisan basis in the Senate. But if we pass 
this bill now, this conference report, and give this very cruel rush--
well, we have to get out of here. We have to go home for Christmas. We 
have to pass the bill. No, we don't. No, we don't. What we need to do 
is to say no, go back to the drawing board, get us a bill that is 
acceptable, and if we have to go on a continuing resolution for a month 
until we come back, or 2 months, until February, we have done that 
before. We would be better off going on a real continuing resolution, I 
say to my friends in the Senate. We would be better off than accepting 
this bill and putting the pressure on the White House and the House to 
come back with a better bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. HARKIN. That is really the essence of it, Madam President. We 
need a better bill. We should not vote for this one.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. I share the concerns and frustrations expressed by the 
distinguished ranking member of this subcommittee, Senator Harkin, and 
I believe he will agree with me that this bill, the bill that the 
Senate passed was structured as well as we could have structured it, 
given the allocation which we had.
  Mr. HARKIN. I just said so, yes.
  Mr. SPECTER. My question to the Senator from Iowa would be, on this 
conference report, where I have already said publicly in the conference 
that I thought it was grossly inadequate, $5 billion under last year on 
health, which is our No. 1 capital asset in this country, and 
education, which is a major

[[Page S13607]]

capital asset--health so we can function, education to prepare us for 
the future, and job training in the Department of Labor, I would ask 
him if--and I have said publicly that I intend to vote against this 
bill as a protest unless my vote is needed. And I know that is unusual 
for the chairman of the subcommittee to take that position. But I 
believe that Senator Harkin and the subcommittee and full Senate and I 
have done what we can on a bill subject to limitations that we have. I 
would ask the Senator from Iowa if there is anything more we could do 
given the restrictions as to allocation of what we were facing?
  Mr. HARKIN. First, I say to my friend, and he is a dear friend of 
mine--we have exchanged chairmanships on this committee going back over 
15 years--as I said earlier in the Chamber, and I say again, the bill 
that our chairman, Senator Specter, put together and that we brought 
out on the Senate floor, we worked it. Our staff worked it. We got a 
97-to-3 vote, I say to my friend. The bill that the Chairman brought to 
the floor we passed 97 to 3. It was a good bill. We always want to do 
more, but given the restrictions, that was a good bill. That is the 
bill we ought to have before us now. The problem is that the House 
wouldn't go along with it. But that doesn't mean that we have to go 
along with it.
  I appreciate the position the chairman is in. I have been in that 
position, too, in the past. I appreciate the difficult position he is 
in. But I want the record to be clear that this chairman brought out a 
good bill, a bill that was passed 97 to 3 by the Senate. I point out 
that this chairman fought very hard for our priorities and for health 
funding. I don't want anyone to mistake what I am saying. But I am just 
saying that the House and I have to say the White House, maybe through 
inaction or not being involved, let it happen and are now confronting 
us with this conference report that is totally inadequate. That is 
totally inadequate.
  I might add to my friend from Pennsylvania that what we are facing 
now is the result of a bad budget. That is what it is. We have a bad 
budget forced on us. This is sort of the end result of that. But even 
with that bad budget, we came out with a decent bill. I say to my 
friend from Pennsylvania, I only wish the White House had been actively 
involved in this conference and came down and told the House 
leadership: We want nothing less than what the Senate did.
  If we had that, we would have had a bill out here that would pass 97 
to 3 again. It might even pass unanimously.
  So I say to my friend from Pennsylvania, we can do better than this. 
I say to my friend, I do not enjoy voting against this bill. I do not 
enjoy it. I do not enjoy not signing the conference report. But we can 
do better. We do not have to accept this. We can go on a continuing 
resolution, a real continuing resolution, and say to the White House 
and the House: No, we need to do better than this.
  That is why I say to my friend from Pennsylvania--I have the greatest 
respect and admiration for him, as he knows, and he has fought hard for 
us--sometimes at the end of the day you have to say no, we are not 
going to accept it. So that is our position and that is my position on 
this bill.
  I say to my friend from Pennsylvania, I know he has other things he 
has to work on today on different legislation and everything, but we 
have to send a signal to the House and the White House that this is 
unacceptable. I say to my friend, I thank him for his leadership and 
for bringing out a good bill here in the Senate, something we were 
proud of and voted for. I was proud to work with Senator Specter on 
that bill. I am sorry the House and, yes, I say the White House--they 
should have been involved in this--are now confronting us with a bill 
that is unacceptable.
  I thank my chairman.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, to keep America strong, we need to keep 
our families and communities strong. That is why I am very concerned 
about the fiscal year 2006 Labor, HHS and Education appropriations 
bill.
  The Senate is scheduled to take up the final conference agreement on 
this bill, and it is bad news for the American people. This bill is 
filled with the wrong priorities for our country.
  If we pass this bill as a result, it will tear apart what is left of 
America's health care safety net and provide fewer investments in 
education and workforce training.
  Instead of investing here at home--in our people, our children, and 
our communities--this bill will move us in the wrong direction and will 
undermine America's strength.
  If we can rebuild schools and hospitals in Iraq out of emergency 
funding, why can't we provide the resources our own communities need 
here at home?
  We know that rebuilding safe and stable communities in Iraq requires 
investments in education, training, and health care. And the same is 
true in communities across America.
  If we want to be strong here at home, we need to invest here at home, 
but this falls far short of what we need.
  That is really a disappointment because this bill is the most direct 
tool we have each year to improve the health and education of the 
American people.
  More than any other appropriations bill, the Labor-HHS bill directly 
impacts almost every family and every community. This is a bill that 
funds all of the Federal commitment on education. It provides funding 
for our investment in biomedical research. It funds all of the Older 
Americans Act programs. And it provides the funding to retrain our 
workers to succeed in a very competitive global economy.
  This is an important bill and it should be used to invest in America, 
but instead--this bill cuts funding by $540 million from last year's 
level. When we add in the Medicare administrative funds, the total cut 
soars to $1.4 billion.
  That means we are moving in the wrong direction--and families are 
going to feel the impact in health care, education and job training.
  Let me start with health care.
  This bill cuts total health care funding by $466 million. It cuts 
programs that help the uninsured get health care, efforts like 
community health centers, the maternal child health block grant; health 
professions training, rural health, and CDC disease prevention 
programs.
  This bill also moves us in the wrong direction on disease research. 
We can all be proud of the National Institutes of Health. It is the 
leading source of biomedical research into deadly diseases like cancer, 
MS, Parkinson's, ALS, heart disease, and AIDS. But this bill provides 
the NIH with the smallest increase since 1970. It would move us 
backward in our fight against cancer and other terminal illnesses. How 
can we expect to be able to find vaccines for new global pandemics when 
we are cutting our investment in critical research?
  This conference report will also make it harder for uninsured 
families to see a doctor. Specifically, this bill eliminates the Health 
Community Access Program, which I have fought to protect for many years 
now.
  This is a program that helps our local communities to coordinate care 
for the uninsured and provide integrated health care services for 
vulnerable families.
  I have seen the Community Access Program at work in my home State of 
Washington, and I know it is making a tremendous difference.
  These are the very programs we should be investing in today. The HCAP 
program was authorized with broad bipartisan support in 2002. But this 
bill would eliminate this successful community-based model for helping 
the uninsured.
  Not only is this bill bad news for health care, it also moves us in 
the wrong direction on education.
  This bill represents the smallest increase in education in a decade. 
Today, schools are facing increasing requirements under No Child Left 
Behind. Today, family are facing rising college tuitions. Today is no 
time to shortchange education. We know the burdens on our local 
community are growing.
  In the coming year, school districts will face higher academic 
standards, and they will have to meet new requirements for highly 
qualified teachers. That means they need more help. But the conference 
reports cuts funding for the No Child Left Behind Act by 3 percent.
  Funding in the conference report is $13.1 billion below the 
authorized funding level.

[[Page S13608]]

  This bill also marks the first time in 10 years that the Federal 
Government will slide backward on its commitment to students with 
disabilities. The Federal share of special education costs would drop 
from 18.6 percent in fiscal year 2005 to a flat 18 percent in fiscal 
year 2006.
  Every time we cut back our investment in special education, we are 
putting a higher burden on local school districts, children, and their 
families.
  In addition, funding for disavantaged students-through title I--will 
receive its smallest increase in 8 years. In fact, the funding level in 
this bill is $9.9 billion less than what Congress and President Bush 
committed to provide. The bill would leave behind 3.1 million students 
who could be fully served by title I if the program were funded at the 
committed level.
  Many students are feeling the impact of higher tuition. This year, 
tuition and fees grew by 7.1 percent at 4-year public universities. But 
the conference report fails to increase the maximum Pell grant award 
for the fourth year in a row.
  It also fails to increase funding supplemental educational 
opportunity grants, the Work-Study Programs, and the LEAP Program, 
which supports State need-based aid.
  In addition, the conference report also fails to increase funding for 
GEAR UP and the TRIO Programs, which help disadvantaged students 
complete high school ready to enter and succeed in college.
  This bill also moves us in the wrong direction on helping America's 
workers.
  We hear a great deal about economic recovery and building a strong 
economy. Yet this conference report will cut adult job training by $31 
million. It will cut youth training by $36 million. These programs 
serve over 420,000 people nationwide. How can we hope to strengthen our 
economy and help those who lost manufacturing jobs if we are reducing 
our investment in job training?
  All of the tools we need to build a strong economy--and a strong 
America--are on the chopping block in the Conference Reports.
  Worst of all, this is not the end.
  We know that there will likely be an across-the-board cut in all 
discretionary programs, including those funded in the Labor, HHS and 
Education appropriations bill.
  That means even more families will lose access to affordable health 
care, more children and schools will go without the resources they need 
to meet the Federal mandates of the No Child Left Behind Act, and more 
workers will see the American dream slip away when their plant closes.
  This is not the right message to send to our families and 
communities.
  Let's show them that we want to make America strong again and that we 
are willing to invest here at home.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this conference report and force the 
Republican leadership to invest in making America stronger.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, there is time available on the bill, 
the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education bill, for those who 
wish to speak in favor of it. If any of my colleagues wish to do so, I 
invite them to come to the floor at this time. If there are no speakers 
in favor of the bill on our time, I intend to utilize this time for a 
discussion on the PATRIOT Act, which has a very limited amount of time 
to debate and discuss these issues. But I renew my statement. If 
anybody wants to speak in favor of the bill, they should come to the 
floor at this time and we will find time for them to speak.

                          ____________________