[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 13858-13930]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




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

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 337 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 3010.

                              {time}  1203


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 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, with Mr. Putnam 
in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, 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. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say at the outset here that the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and I have had a discussion about the possibility 
of trying to finish this bill today. We want to make every effort to do 
so. And that will depend, of course, on what kind of cooperation we can 
get on amendments.
  Also, I am going to ask unanimous consent to move the issue of the 
Corporation for Public Broadcasting to come up as the first issue as 
there is a lot of interest in this. We will try to limit time on both 
sides and give people a chance to vote on this.
  So all of that is an effort to expedite today's proceedings.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to emphasize, as the subcommittee chairman says, 
we are trying to help Members get out of here today. We cannot do that 
unless we get cooperation from Members on amendments and on time.
  Frankly, if I had my way, there would be one speech for this bill, 
one speech against it, and we would vote, because we are not going to 
make any significant changes in this bill given what the budget has 
done to us.
  So we might as well get on with it. I would ask Members to give us 
their cooperation. I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) for 
bringing it to the House's attention.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, and my colleagues, I am pleased to present 
before the House today the fiscal year 2006 appropriations bill for the 
Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related 
Agencies.
  By taking into consideration the priorities of the President and the 
Members of this House, we have produced a bill that meets the needs of 
all Americans. We are appreciative of the efforts of the leader of the 
House and the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Lewis), in providing a workable allocation for 
this bill.
  I would also like to acknowledge the hard work, dedication, and 
expertise of my subcommittee staff, as well as the minority staff, in 
putting together this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, we have made a commitment to reduce Federal deficits. 
With the reduction in the budget from last year, support for Pell 
grants required by the budget resolution, and that was money that has 
been spent in years past that we had to pay in this bill, and new 
implementation and processing costs of the Medicare Modernization Act, 
we had nearly $2 billion less to spend on programs that were funded in 
fiscal year 2005.
  We made some tough decisions. We eliminated four programs and did not 
initiate eight new programs proposed by the President. But when looked 
at as a whole, this bill provides $142.5 billion to over 500 
discretionary programs. It is a lot of money, and it does a lot of 
good.
  It is a responsible, fair, and balanced bill. I believe it does a 
good job in meeting the needs of the American people. Let me start with 
education. Earlier on the rule, I quoted from an editorial piece by 
David Broder today that in polling the American people, they said 
education was the number one reason for the success of this Nation. 
Education is essential to the preservation of democracy, and an 
investment in education is an investment in people.
  Mr. Chairman, Federal education spending has more than doubled since 
1996, from $23 billion to $56.7 billion, as contained in this bill. 
Education funding in this bill for fiscal year 2006 is

[[Page 13859]]

$476 million above the President's request. We added to his request. 
This is a significant commitment to the future of our Nation.
  However, we must be prudent in our funding priorities to ensure that 
these dollars are targeted to programs that most directly improve the 
education of our Nation's students.
  We have focused spending in this bill on the key areas that directly 
impact our children's education. First, and foremost, I believe that no 
child will be left behind if he or she has a quality teacher. Almost 
every teacher in our Nation's classrooms today is there for one reason: 
they care about children and want to help them reach their full 
potential.
  We applaud their hard work and dedication and support them in this 
bill by providing funding to encourage people to enter the field of 
teaching, and provide incentives for quality teachers to remain in the 
classrooms. This bill supports teachers and students by increasing 
funding for title I by $100 million. Title I provides additional 
resources to low-income schools, to help principals, teachers, and 
students close education achievement gaps.
  At the school level, Title I helps provide additional staffing, 
ongoing training, and the latest research, computer equipment, books or 
new curricula. That, coupled with strong accountability measures, helps 
disadvantaged children meet the same high standards as their more 
advantaged peers.
  I want to say that this bill really tries to help every individual to 
be sensitive to the needs of all people. We, this morning, and every 
morning when we meet, give the Pledge of Allegiance. We close by saying 
``with liberty and justice for all.'' That is what we have tried to do 
here, because education does give people liberty, it does give them 
justice, and the same thing with medical research.
  Mr. Chairman, many of my colleagues spoke with me about the financial 
demands of special education on their local school districts. We also 
hear from parents about the need to support adequate special education 
funding to ensure their special needs children receive a quality 
education.
  In this bill, funding for special education is increased by $150 
million, which brings its total to over $11 billion, a nearly 378 
percent increase since the fiscal year 1996.
  I believe that quality of classroom teachers and principals is one of 
the most important factors that affects student achievement. This bill 
provides $100 million to reward effective teachers and to offer 
incentives for highly qualified teachers to be in our Nation's high 
schools, and particularly in high-needs schools.
  Mr. Chairman, science and technology have been and will continue to 
be the engines of U.S. economic growth and national security. 
Excellence in discovery, innovation in science and engineering is 
derived from an ample and well-educated workforce. To ensure competency 
in a rapidly changing global market, this bill provides $190 million 
for the math and science partnership program. This program supports 
State and local efforts to improve student academic achievements in 
mathematics and science by promoting strong teaching skills for 
elementary and secondary school teachers.
  Many of you already know that First Lady Laura Bush supports the 
Troops to Teachers programs, and has visited military bases to inform 
our troops about the opportunity to enter the field of teaching upon 
completion of their military service.
  With maturity, training in mathematics or science, and assistance in 
appropriate courses for teaching, members of our Armed Forces make 
outstanding classroom teachers. And in fields where we currently have 
teacher shortages, this bill provides $15 million for the Troops to 
Teachers program.
  During the 2001-2002 school year, approximately 42 percent of the 
Nation's schools were located in rural areas or small towns, and 
approximately 30 percent of all students attended these schools. The 
average rural or small town school serves 364 students, compared to 609 
students served by the average urban school.
  The small size of many rural schools and districts presents a 
different set of problems from those of urban schools and districts. 
This bill provides over $171 million to meet the needs of schools in 
rural communities.
  TRIO, GEAR UP, Vocational Education State grants and adult education 
programs have strong support from Members of this body. These programs 
were proposed for termination in the President's budget. However, we 
have allocated over $3 billion for the continuation of these important 
efforts.
  Title III programs are designed to strengthen institutions of higher 
education that serve a high percentage of minority students and 
students from low-income backgrounds. Federal grants made under those 
programs go to eligible institutions to support improvements in the 
academic quality, institutional management, endowments and fiscal 
stability. Funding is targeted to minority-serving and other 
institutions that enroll a large proportion of financially 
disadvantaged students and have low per-student expenditures.

                              {time}  1215

  Fiscal year 2006 spending for Title III programs is at $506 million; 
combined with the funding for Howard University, our commitment to 
minority serving institutions exceeds $747 million.
  The sharp rise in college costs continues to be a barrier to many 
students. Pell grants help ensure access to postsecondary education for 
low- and middle-income undergraduate students by providing financial 
assistance. This bill increases the maximum award of a Pell grant to 
$4,100, the highest level in history. As required by the budget 
resolution, the bill provides $4.3 billion to retire the shortfall that 
has accumulated in the program over the last several years because of 
higher-than-expected student participation in the program. And, that is 
good, that more students are participating.
  Health care is a critical part of the Nation's economic development. 
To assist in protecting health of all Americans and provide essential 
human services, this bill provides the Department of Health and Human 
Services over $63 billion for fiscal year 2006. Mr. Chairman, similar 
to the Department of Education, we have more than doubled the funding 
for HHS since 1996 from $28.9 billion in fiscal year 1996 to $63.1 
billion in this bill.
  At the forefront of new progress in medicine, the National Institutes 
of Health supports and conducts medical research to understand how the 
human body works and to gain insight into countless diseases and 
disorders. It supports a wide spectrum of research to find cures 
covering many medical conditions that affect people. As a result of our 
commitment to NIH, our citizens are living longer and better lives. In 
1900, the life expectancy was only 47 years. By 2003 it was almost 78 
years. And I am sure that it would be even more today.
  The 5-year doubling of the NIH budget completed in fiscal year 2003 
both picked up the pace of discovery and heightened public 
expectations. We now expect NIH to carefully examine its portfolio and 
continue to be a good steward of the public's investment. Funding for 
NIH has increased by over $142 million, bringing its total budget to 
$28.5 billion.
  It is certainly a serious commitment to health research. All the 
information and advances we have gained from NIH would be useless if it 
does not make its way to health care providers and individuals, those 
most responsible for their own health. Thus, the work for Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention, better known as CDC, is critical to 
protecting the health and safety of people both at home and abroad. 
Infectious diseases such as SARS, West Nile Virus, HIV/AIDS, and 
tuberculosis have the ability to destroy lives, strain community 
resources, and even threaten nations. In today's global environment, 
new diseases have the potential to spread across the world in a matter 
of days, or even hours, making early detection and action more 
important than ever.

[[Page 13860]]

  As the CDC director, Dr. Gerberding, and National Institutes of 
Health director, Dr. Zerhouni, have said, infectious disease and 
bioterrorism are one of the greatest threats to our safety and security 
today. CDC plays a critical role in controlling these diseases. 
Traveling at a moment's notice to investigate outbreaks both abroad and 
at home, CDC is watching over these particular and dangerous medical 
issues.
  Recognizing the tremendous challenges faced by the CDC, we have 
provided nearly $6 billion for their budget in fiscal year 2006.
  Mr. Chairman, as you know, many of the community health centers have 
served as America's health care safety net for the Nation's underserved 
populations. Health centers operating at the community level provide 
regular access to high-quality, family-oriented, comprehensive primary 
and preventative health care, regardless of ability to pay, and improve 
the health status of underserved populations living in inner-city and 
rural areas.
  The health centers' target populations have lower life expectancy and 
higher death rates compared to the general population. These patients 
have less purchasing power and many are unable to afford even the most 
basic medical or dental attention. In 2003, the Community Health 
Centers served more than 12 million patients and I am sure many more in 
the last couple of years. Funding for the community health centers is 
$1.8 billion; again, an increase of $100 million over last year.
  Children's hospitals across the Nation are the training grounds for 
our pediatricians and pediatric specialists. Many of these hospitals 
are regional and national referral centers for very sick children, 
often serving as the only source of care for many critical pediatric 
services. This bill provides $300 million to train these important 
caregivers who will care for America's youngest population, its 
children.
  The AIDS Drug Assistance Program for funding is increased by $10 
million and brings the Ryan White AIDS program total to over $2 
billion. The increase in funding assists those infected with the virus 
in receiving vital medical attention.
  We have provided nearly $6.9 billion for Head Start, a program 
designed primarily for preschoolers from low-income families. Head 
Start promotes school readiness by enhancing the social and cognitive 
development of children through the provision of educational, health, 
nutritional, social and other services.
  The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program ensures that low-income 
households are not without heating or cooling, and provides protection 
to our most vulnerable populations: the elderly, households with small 
children, and persons with disabilities. The funds are distributed to 
the States through a formula grant program and we have provided nearly 
$2 billion for fiscal year 2006.
  Mr. Chairman, our society is judged not only by the care we provide 
to our young, but also how we treat our elderly. We owe a profound debt 
of gratitude to a generation of older Americans whose hard work, 
courage, faith, sacrifice, and patriotism helped to make this Nation 
great.
  Funding in the nutrition programs, including Meals On Wheels for the 
elderly, are increased by over $7 million. This bill provides nearly 
$1.4 billion to the Administration on Aging to enhance health care, 
nutrition, and social supports to seniors and their family caregivers.
  The Labor Department. We ought to support the aspirations of people: 
good health, security, meaningful work, creative and intellectual 
pursuits. The Department of Labor places a key role in many important 
worker training and protection programs. Therefore, we have restored 
funding to core job training and employment assistance programs.
  A number of communities continue to experience plant closings and 
other layoffs, and we understand the need to support dislocated worker 
training programs that can assist workers return to gainful employment. 
In this bill we restore funding for dislocated worker assistance 
programs to over $1.4 billion, an increase of $62 million over the 
budget request.
  The Job Corps program provides a comprehensive and intensive array of 
training, career development, job placement and support services to our 
disadvantaged young people between the ages of 16 and 24. Many people 
who enroll in a Job Corps Center never completed their high school 
education and may have other barriers to sustaining a job. This program 
ensures that disadvantaged young people are afforded an opportunity to 
successfully participate in the Nation's workforce.
  For fiscal year 2006 this bill provides over $1.5 billion for this 
program, an increase of $25 million over the President's request.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate my 
chairman yielding. I rise just for a moment.
  As you know, over the years in the Committee on Appropriations. I 
have not had the chance to serve on the gentleman's great subcommittee. 
Since I have the job chairing the whole committee now, I have involved 
myself in the gentleman's work; and I must say to my colleagues, our 
Members, as well as the public-at-large, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Regula) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) over the years have 
done a fabulous job, especially this year in a year of some constraint.
  We may have to come up with some money for a sound system for 
ourselves.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want my colleagues to know how impressed I am 
with the work both the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) have done on behalf of the American 
public, whether it be Indian health care, or preschool, or dealing with 
labor issues that can be very contentious, a fabulous job of 
priorities.
  I particularly want to compliment the gentleman for the priority he 
has given to the kind of research and development that is extending the 
good health as well as the lives of our citizens. I have been very 
impressed with those people from NIH but also from the Centers for 
Disease Control, fabulously involving America in the most important 
work; that is, healthy lives and longer lives for our citizens. I 
compliment the gentleman and thank him very much for the time.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments.
  Reclaiming my time, the Job Corps provides a comprehensive and 
intensive array of training, career development, job placement, and 
support services to disadvantaged young people between the ages of 16 
and 24. Many people enrolled in the Job Corps Center never completed 
their high school education and have other barriers.
  For fiscal year 2006, this bill provides over $1.5 billion for these 
programs and this is an increase. And we likewise protect the safety of 
workers.
  Mr. Chairman, in order to implement more than 400 provisions of the 
Medicare Modernization Act and ensure that senior citizens receive the 
prescription drug benefits that we provide in MMA, we have allocated 
more than $1 billion over the fiscal year 2005 level to the Centers for 
Medicare and Medicaid Services and Social Security Administration.
  While benefits that both of these agencies provide come through 
mandatory spending by way of the Committee on Ways and Means, this bill 
provides the funding for the agencies' administrative costs. Centers 
for Medicare and Medicaid Services pay about one-third of national 
health care expenditures and pay for more than one-half of all senior 
health care costs.
  Let me repeat that. Medicare and Medicaid pay for more than one-half 
of all senior health care costs. More than 85 million Americans rely on 
these programs for health care coverage. Last year the Centers for 
Medicare and Medicaid Services processed over 1 billion claims, 
answered over 52 million inquiries and reviewed nearly 8 million 
appeals.
  SSA, Social Security Administration, will also play a vital role in 
the

[[Page 13861]]

implementation of the Medicaid Modernization Act, as they will identify 
low-income beneficiaries who might be eligible for drug benefit 
subsidies, make low-income subsidy determinations, withhold premiums 
appropriate to beneficiaries' selected plans, and calculate Part B 
premiums for high-income beneficiaries.
  The increases provided to CMS and SSA will enable them to implement 
and improve delivery of benefits and expedite the processing of 
disability claims, and that is very important. This bill meets our 
financial commitment for effective administration of these programs and 
ensures efficient services to recipients.
  In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, much more could be said about this bill 
which touches every American at some point in life. We are mindful of 
the fiscal limitations on our bill and we have tried to use the 
allocation to fund our highest priorities. This bill does its part, its 
best, to meet the American people's needs.
  I want to say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and 
also on our side, it was a great subcommittee. Both Republican and 
Democrat members worked very well together, and we may have some 
disagreements on the amounts of money, but I think within the confines 
of what was available, we pretty much are in agreement with the 
assignment of priorities that were made. All the members participated 
very effectively.
  It is a responsible, fair, and balanced bill and I ask my colleagues 
to support it.
  Mr. Chairman, the following is a detailed table of the bill:

[[Page 13862]]

TH23JN05.001



[[Page 13863]]

TH23JN05.002



[[Page 13864]]

TH23JN05.003



[[Page 13865]]

TH23JN05.004



[[Page 13866]]

TH23JN05.005



[[Page 13867]]

TH23JN05.006



[[Page 13868]]

TH23JN05.007



[[Page 13869]]

TH23JN05.008



[[Page 13870]]

TH23JN05.009



[[Page 13871]]

TH23JN05.010



[[Page 13872]]

TH23JN05.011



[[Page 13873]]

TH23JN05.012



[[Page 13874]]

TH23JN05.013



[[Page 13875]]

TH23JN05.014



[[Page 13876]]

TH23JN05.015



[[Page 13877]]

TH23JN05.016



[[Page 13878]]

TH23JN05.017



[[Page 13879]]

TH23JN05.018



[[Page 13880]]

TH23JN05.019



[[Page 13881]]

TH23JN05.020



[[Page 13882]]

TH23JN05.021



[[Page 13883]]

TH23JN05.022



[[Page 13884]]

TH23JN05.023



[[Page 13885]]

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill is the clearest demonstration that I can 
think of of what happens when Congress puts $140,000 tax cuts for 
people who make $1 million a year or more ahead of our investment needs 
in our children, ahead of our investment needs in our health care 
system, and ahead of supporting programs that will help our workers 
compete in world markets. This bill, make no mistake about it, is a 
prescription for a second-class economy.
  I know most of the discussion today will be focused on public 
broadcasting. I will be offering an amendment to add back $100 million 
that the committee cut out. Previously in the committee, I offered 
another amendment which added $400 million for this year's funding. We 
are simply trying to get it back up to last year's level. That is an 
important issue, and I hope that the House will vote for the amendment.
  I want to make clear that even though the press has focused 90 
percent of its attention on public broadcasting, in one sense that is 
fortunate because at least the people who pay attention to public 
broadcasting do have a megaphone of sorts, and they can get their 
message known. I believe our amendment today will pass, but even if it 
does, I would hope that the Members of this House and the members of 
the press would understand that that is far from the most important 
issue in this bill.
  The most important thing about this bill is what it does to hurt the 
future of our children, what it does to avoid meeting the needs of 
people in this society who are sick and without health insurance, what 
it does to help our workers in the world economy.
  The distinguished majority leader in discussing the budget resolution 
earlier this year said this: ``This is the budget the American people 
voted for when they elected a Republican House, a Republican Senate and 
a Republican White House.'' I quite agree, and this bill is also, 
unfortunately, the kind of bill that the American people are going to 
get because they voted for a Republican House, a Republican Senate, and 
a Republican White House.
  Last year, the programs in this bill were $3.5 billion above the 
previous year. This year, this bill in a program-to-program basis cuts 
$1.6 billion from these programs.
  Now, what does that mean? It means, for instance, that this bill even 
cuts into the President's signature programs in training, in health 
care and education. It cuts back substantially the President's 
recommendation for community college skills, for community health 
centers and high school reform. Let us take a look at what it does in 
other key areas of our economy.
  For our workers, the administration is about to bring forth CAFTA, 
yet another misguided, misbegotten trade agreement. The administration 
is breaking arms and promising the Moon in order to get people to vote 
for that amendment; and yet this bill cuts the program that is supposed 
to be the traffic cop that protects American workers against having to 
compete against child and slave labor. It cuts that program by 87 
percent. I do not think that the American people would agree with that.
  This bill disinvests in job training and help for the unemployed. 
This bill for adult training grants is the lowest funding level in 10 
years. It even cuts the Job Corps below current services level. And if 
you take a look at the health care area, of the 11 programs that we had 
on the books to help us develop the kind of health profession that we 
need, so that you have enough in rural areas and enough in your major 
metropolitan areas, this bill cuts 10 of those 11 programs. Only one is 
remaining, and 84 percent of that portion of the budget is gone. It 
also eliminates a community access program that is a key program that 
helps deliver health care services to the uninsured.
  National Institutes of Health. There is not a politician in this 
House who does not go home and tell your constituents what you are 
doing on cancer research or Alzheimer's or Parkinson's. And what does 
this bill do? It means the National Institutes of Health are going to 
have 500 fewer grants to put out to scientists around the country than 
they had 2 years ago. We are backing off on the attack on disease.
  Low Income Home Energy Assistance program. That is a program that 
helps low-income people and seniors avoid having to choose between 
heating their houses and feeding themselves. The program is cut by $200 
million.
  Education. Effectively, this is the first freeze on education funding 
in a decade. This bill cuts No Child Left Behind programs by $800 
million. You have the mother of all mandates, telling the States and 
school districts what they must do here, what they must do there. That 
costs money. But the Federal Government is welshing on its 
responsibility and on its promise to help pay those costs. It is 
backing off.
  On IDEA, the program that helps local units, or local school 
districts, pay for educating disabled kids. What does this bill do for 
that? Well, the Republican majority promised a few years ago that the 
Feds would pay 40 percent of the cost of that program. Today, this bill 
actually cuts the share of Federal participation from 18.6 to 18.2 
percent of that program, welshing on another promise.
  It freezes after-school centers for the fourth year in a row. It 
slashes education technology at a time when that has never been more 
important. It eliminates comprehensive school grants for 1,000 high-
poverty school districts by eliminating the program. It freezes Impact 
Aid.
  On Pell grants, the main program we use to help kids go to college, 
what does it do? On Pell grants, we are told by the College Board that 
the cost of a 4-year public university has increased $2,300 during the 
last 4 years. What is our response to it? The President says, well, we 
will fix the problem with a hundred bucks add-on to Pell grant. That 
takes care of 4 percent of the problem. This bill cuts that to 2 
percent. It provides a measly $50 increase in the Pell grant program, 
and that does not address the fact that because the IRS has changed the 
eligibility tables there are going to be thousands and thousands of 
kids who are tossed off the program entirely. In fact, it is going to 
raise costs in my State by about $187 per student.
  So what I would say is that this is the main legislation we will deal 
with this year that deals with the economic and social problems of the 
country. The main issue in this country the next 40 years is going to 
be how we gear ourselves up to economically compete with countries like 
China and India. We need to invest in all of the technology, all of the 
education that we can possibly invest in. This bill walks away from 
that obligation, and that is why I say it is a prescription for a 
second-rate economy. It walks away from our obligation to workers, and 
we will long regret it if we pass this bill.
  I would urge a ``no'' vote on the bill. The problems with this bill 
have nothing to do with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula). He is a 
fine man and a fine chairman, but this bill implements the Republican 
budget resolution in the broadest possible areas in our economy and our 
country. It is a major social and economic mistake, and it certainly 
does not represent my values, and I do not believe it represents the 
values of the American people.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REGULA. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), a very fine member of our subcommittee.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Madam Chairman, I want to congratulate the gentleman from 
Ohio (Chairman Regula) for producing a solid bill under very 
challenging circumstances; but rather than talking about the entirety 
of the bill, I want to address myself to one particular process.
  During the amendment process, there will be an amendment offered to 
add more funding to public broadcasting. I will oppose that amendment.
  We should recognize two things: first, Big Bird and his friends can 
fly on

[[Page 13886]]

their own; and, second, Americans have access to a wide variety and 
multitude of educational, cultural, and children's programming that are 
provided by a vast variety of diverse networks that we have today.
  Public broadcasting has developed a major base of private donors, 
corporate donors and licensing fees and royalties from programs. 
Because of this, Federal funding is only 15 percent, $1 in $7, of the 
budget for public broadcasting; and this bill only reduces a fraction 
of that 15 percent, about a 4 percent overall reduction for public 
broadcasting's budget. This will not jeopardize any program or any 
station, because they have ample resources already on hand to make up 
that difference.
  Public broadcasters have accumulated major financial resources, 
hundreds of millions of dollars that they have invested in stocks, 
bonds and other securities, in addition to owning their broadcast 
facilities. In other words, Big Bird and his friends can fly on their 
own. But there is another factor.
  Public broadcasting is not the only place to find education, 
cultural, historical documentaries and children's programs. We have 
achieved variety and diversity, thanks to networks that do not ask for 
Federal money. C-SPAN carries the proceedings of Congress to the world 
without a Federal subsidy. We have the Discovery Channel, the History 
Channel, Nickelodeon, the Arts and Entertainment Network, Lifetime TV, 
Family Channel, Food Network, Science Channel, and so forth.
  We do not need a nationwide subsidy either to reach a few targeted 
households. I heard somebody say, well, we need public broadcasting to 
provide TV for the poor. Let us understand what we call poverty in the 
U.S.A. is not like poverty in Bangladesh, the Sudan, Haiti or anyplace 
else. In the United States, not only does almost every poor household 
have a TV, but two-thirds of them have cable television with full 
access to a vast diversity of programs.
  It is getting harder and harder to distinguish public TV from the 
rest of broadcasting because other broadcasters, a great many, carry 
the same type of programs today, and each year public broadcasting 
looks more and more like other networks.
  Public radio has even moved away from classical music and more toward 
talk radio that is common to the profit sector. Much of public TV has 
the same movies and old TV shows that we see on other networks, even as 
those other networks are adding more documentaries and more special 
programs.
  Madam Chairman, as the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) has 
said, we have higher priorities than subsidizing one segment of 
America's broadcasters. The gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) has 
made tough decisions about those priorities, and we should support his 
decisions.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished minority whip.
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member 
and congratulate him on the extraordinary job he does as the ranking 
member not only on this subcommittee but on all the subcommittees.
  Let me begin with a traditional disclaimer, and that disclaimer is I 
do not hold the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) personally responsible 
for this product. He has done the best he could with the resources that 
were given to him, and I congratulate him and thank him for that.

                              {time}  1245

  Nor do I hold the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) responsible, 
but I do hold responsible the policies that have been adopted by the 
Committee on Ways and Means, by the Committee on the Budget, and by 
this House.
  Madam Chairman, just 3 months ago the Republican majority leader, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) stood on this House floor and with 
great passion stated, ``The one major responsibility of a government is 
to protect the innocent, vulnerable people.'' On that very same day in 
March, the President of the United States stated, ``The essence of 
civilization is that the strong have a duty to protect the weak.''
  I served under Bill Natcher from Kentucky who chaired this committee 
for many years. He used to say as long as we take care of the education 
of our children and the health of our people, we will continue to live 
in the strongest and greatest Nation on the face of this earth. But now 
the political party that exploits every opportunity to talk about the 
culture of life, virtually ignores and dismisses what I call the 
culture of the living: the innocent, the vulnerable, the weak, who are 
living, breathing, members of the American family.
  Today, this bill demonstrates in concrete terms how the Republican 
Party's misguided, irresponsible tax and budget policies have harmful 
consequences for so many living Americans.
  Just yesterday President Bush visited my congressional district in 
Maryland. He stated, ``I know some workers are concerned about jobs 
going overseas.'' Yet this bill cuts job training for unemployed by 
$346 million. This bill cuts the President's community college skills 
training initiative in half. This bill cuts the International Labor 
Affairs Bureau by 87 percent which helps enforce child and slave labor 
abroad.
  Mr. President, you are not meeting the concerns. He went on to say, 
``I know some are concerned about gaining the skills necessary to 
compete in the global market that we live in.'' Yet this bill cuts No 
Child Left Behind by $806 million. This is $13.2 billion short of 
authorization and $40 billion short of what the President said we were 
going to fund when he signed the bill.
  This bill provides only a $50 increase in Pell grants, 
notwithstanding hundreds of dollars of increases in college costs. This 
bill cuts education technology by 40 percent. This bill cuts the 
Community Services Block Grant in half. This bill cuts the 
administration's proposal for title I by $603 million.
  Mr. President, you know the American people are concerned, but you 
have not responded. He went on to say this: ``I know that families are 
worried about health care and retirement. And I know moms and dads are 
worried about their children finding good jobs.''
  Yet, Madam Chairman, this bill eliminates 10 out of the 12 title VII 
health profession training programs. These programs help alleviate the 
shortage of doctors and dentists in underserved areas to meet that 
concern that he recognizes the American people have.
  This bill eliminates the Health Communities Access Program which 
helps health centers and public hospitals better serve the uninsured. 
This bill cuts the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant program by $24 
million. This bill freezes after-school centers for the fourth year in 
a row. This bill provides only a half a percent increase, far less than 
inflation, which means they will do less for the National Institutes of 
Health which researches the afflictions which confront Americans, like 
heart disease, cancer, and diabetes.
  Madam Chairman, I have the utmost respect for those who speak about 
the culture of life. But we must ask, what about the culture of the 
living? What about the people who are served by this bill, who need 
this bill, whose quality of life is critically affected by this bill? 
This bill is perhaps the most important piece of domestic legislation 
that this Congress considers every year. It is a statement of national 
and moral principle. But today it is nothing more than Exhibit A for 
the Republican Party's culture of fiscal irresponsibility.
  Mr. REGULA. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman 
for yielding me this time.
  Madam Chairman, I rise to congratulate the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Regula) and the subcommittee for doing a remarkable job in funding our 
Nation's education, health and workforce priorities in a time of 
intense fiscal restraint.
  This legislation includes in education: increased funding for special 
funding, for No Child Left Behind, and

[[Page 13887]]

for Head Start. It has a tremendous increase in the Pell grant area 
which will help our young people go to college, get the education they 
need to succeed and contribute. It holds firm on TRIO and GEAR UP, so 
important to kids who are the first in their family to go to college. 
So in education, while it does not do everything, it does some 
important things for our children, and I thank the gentleman. I hope in 
conference we will find a little more additional money for title I, but 
this is a good start.
  In health, it also has some very important accomplishments. By 
increasing Community Health Center funding, it decidedly reaches out to 
additional uninsured people. It provides the support vitally needed for 
the important initiative to implant information technology in our 
health care sector, which is our best hope of both improving quality 
and reducing long-term costs, and it provides the money needed for the 
government to educate our seniors about the important, generous 
prescription drug program that will go into effect January 1. I thank 
the gentleman for those very important education dollars.
  There are, of course, as always, areas of concern. I hope that in 
conference there will be more money for the Community Services Block 
Grant because that is the critical, flexible money that cities, 
particularly, use to fill the holes in the safety net programs, to 
provide day-care for women returning to work, and so on.
  In HCAP, I hope we will restore the funding and thoughtfully review 
some of the other problems in the bill. But this is a fine job done, 
and I commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula).
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Lowey).
  Mrs. LOWEY. Madam Chairman, I want to express my appreciation as well 
to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and the ranking member, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), for their hard work in crafting 
this legislation. I know they did the best they could with the 
allocation, and this bill does include many of our most important 
priorities, from education funding and worker training, to biomedical 
research and public health activities, and impacts the lives of 
virtually every American.
  I am pleased that the bill makes significant investments in preparing 
for and responding to a potential pandemic influenza outbreak, and 
restores funding to the TRIO and GEAR UP programs, and partial funding 
to the Preventive Health Block Grant.
  However, because of this limited budget allocation, many important 
needs will remain underfunded. For example, the bill provides the 
smallest increase for the National Institutes of Health in 36 years, 
squandering the momentum we built up in the 5 years completed in 2003. 
And despite an average 26 percent tuition increase in the last 2 years, 
the bill fails to adequately increase the maximum Pell grant award, and 
does nothing to stop the new financial aid formula that severely 
impacts the ability of low- and middle-income students to attend 
college. These changes will affect more than 1.3 million students 
nationwide, including 4,600 students in Westchester, New York.
  The bill provides the smallest increase for elementary and secondary 
education in a decade, allows Congress to continue to renege on its 
promise to fully fund special education, IDEA.
  The bill cuts the Corporation for Public Broadcasting base account by 
$100 million, and I urge my colleagues to support an amendment that I 
will be offering with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) to restore funding to CPB.
  Madam Chairman, I also want to express my continued concern with the 
Weldon refusal clause provision included in the bill. For over 30 years 
there have been Federal laws which allow doctors, hospitals, and nurses 
to refuse to provide abortion services because of their religious 
beliefs. However, this provision extends that protection to HMOs and 
insurance companies. And just as the law protects religious and moral 
objections to performing medical services, it protects patients' access 
to accurate and complete medical information when making decisions 
about their health. The Weldon provision would unravel these 
protections. I want to make it very clear that States that attempt to 
protect access to these health services can be denied all of their 
Federal health, education, and labor funding. I will work to remove 
this provision from the final bill.
  Madam Chairman, this legislation has significant flaws. However, I 
hope that as it moves through the process, we can work together to make 
necessary improvements to the final measure. I will vote ``no'' today.
  Madam Chairman, I want to express my appreciation to Chairman Regula 
and Ranking Member Obey for their hard work in crafting this 
legislation.
  This bill includes many of our most important priorities--from 
education funding and worker training to biomedical research and public 
health activities. The programs and policies in this legislation impact 
the lives of virtually every American.
  I am pleased that the bill makes significant investments in preparing 
for and responding to a potential pandemic influenza outbreak and 
restores funding to the TRIO and GEAR UP programs and partial funding 
to the Preventive Health Block Grant.
  However, because of the limited budget allocation many important 
needs will remain under-funded. For example,
  This bill provides the smallest increase for the National Institutes 
of Health in 36 years, squandering the momentum we've built up over the 
last five years.
  Despite an average 26 percent tuition increase in the last two years, 
the bill fails to adequately increase the maximum Pell grant award and 
does nothing to stop the new financial aid formula that severely 
impacts the ability of low-and-middle-income students to attend 
college. These changes will affect more than 1.3 million students 
nationwide, including 4,600 students in Westchester County, New York.
  The bill provides the smallest increase for elementary and secondary 
education in a decade and allows Congress to continue to renege on its 
promise to fully fund special education. And frankly, I was appalled 
that the majority chose to completely eliminate the Foreign Language 
Assistance Program (FLAP). There is little disagreement that the nation 
continues to face a shortage of language experts after the attacks of 
September 11th. FLAP is the only federal program that supports language 
education for students in elementary and secondary schools.
  The bill cuts the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant, Healthy 
Start, training grants for health care workers and grants for public 
health and hospital preparedness, and eliminates $100 million for the 
Global Fund to fight HIV/AIDS, Malaria and Tuberculosis.
  The bill cuts the Corporation for Public Broadcasting's base account 
by $100 million. I hope that my colleagues will support an amendment 
that I will be offering with Ranking Member Obey and Representative 
Leach to restore funding to CPB.
  I'm also disappointed that when so many other programs faced the 
chopping block this year, the bill provides a $10 million increase for 
abstinence-until-marriage programs despite mounting evidence of the 
scientific and medical inaccuracy of their curricula and ineffective 
results. We all agree that we must teach our children that abstinence 
is the best way to prevent pregnancy and STDs. However, federal dollars 
should be invested only in programs with strong evaluation components 
and those found to provide medically and scientifically sound 
information to young people.
  Madam Chairman, I also want to express my continued concern with the 
Weldon refusal clause provision included in the bill. For over thirty 
years, there have been Federal laws that allow doctors, nurses, and 
hospitals to refuse to provide abortion services because of their 
religious beliefs. However, this provision extends that protection to 
HMOs and insurance companies.
  And just as the law protects religious or moral objections to 
performing medical services, it protects patients' access to accurate 
and complete medical information when making decisions about their 
health. The Weldon provision would unravel these protections, gutting 
the stipulations included in the Title X family planning program which 
require that all legal options are presented to a woman; denying rape 
and incest survivors access to legal abortion services; and overriding 
state constitutional patient protections. States that attempt to 
protect access to these health services can be denied all of their 
federal health, education and labor funding.

[[Page 13888]]

  I will work to remove this provision from the final bill.
  Madam Chairman, this legislation has significant flaws, however, I 
hope that as it moves through the process we can work together to make 
necessary improvements to the final measure.
  I will vote ``no'' today.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Jackson).
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Madam Chairman, I do not know what to say 
about H.R. 3010. I know the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and the 
subcommittee staff did the best they could under the circumstances. But 
to virtually eliminate title VII health professions is draconian and 
unconscionable.
  Since I started serving on this subcommittee almost 6\1/2\ years ago, 
I have fought to end disparities, disparities in employment, 
disparities in education, and especially disparities in health.
  Health disparities are real. If you are black in this country, your 
life expectancy is 66 years. If you are white in this country, your 
life expectancy is 74 years. Infant mortality is twice as high for 
African American babies than white babies.
  Fortunately, institutions like the Institute of Medicine and the 
National Academy of Sciences have laid out a framework on how to end 
these disparities. One of the recommendations of the IOM was to 
increase the number of health professions, and this bill virtually does 
the opposite. It essentially eliminates health professions, a cut of 
$250 million.
  I think a society says a lot about the way it treats the weakest and 
most vulnerable of its citizens. I believe we live in a ``united'' 
States, and like a chain, we are only as strong as our weakest link. By 
leaving some of our citizens behind, we prove that we are not strong 
and compassionate, but weak and uncaring.
  There is a phrase that former Labor-HHS Chairman Porter was fond of 
saying, ``Noblesse oblige,'' the belief that the wealthy and privileged 
are obliged to help those less fortunate. In Luke, chapter 12, verse 
48, Jesus simply says, ``To who much is given, much is expected.''
  We are the wealthiest country in the world. We spend more money on 
our military than the entire world combined, with the sole mission of 
protecting this country and advancing U.S. interests, interests which 
should include a high-quality education and high-quality health care 
for every American.
  I keep hearing members of this committee and the House leadership say 
that this is a tight budget year. Well, this tight budget year did not 
occur because of immaculate conception. Congress voted to make it a 
tight budget year. Congress approved the budget resolution. Saying it 
is going to be a tough budget year is like a farmer saying he is going 
to have a bad harvest because he did not plant any seeds.
  Madam Chairman, when Congress approved the budget resolution, we did 
not plant any seeds. Nothing will grow this year. This is not a natural 
disaster like a drought. This is a disaster of our own making.
  What does it say about a society that approves tax cuts for 
millionaires instead of trying to solve why babies of color die sooner? 
What does it say about a society that approves tax cuts for 
millionaires instead of trying to solve what ails the weakest amongst 
of us?
  Madam Chairman, I know the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and the 
subcommittee staff were dealt a bad hand and did the best job they 
could under the circumstances, but we should be ashamed of this budget 
that has produced the product that is before us today.

                              {time}  1300

  In Matthew 6:21, Jesus says, ``For where your treasure is, there will 
your heart be, also.'' If this verse is true, what does it say about 
us, about this Congress, about our government, that we pass a budget 
resolution every year that spends almost half of our discretionary 
dollars on defense and hundreds of billions on all kinds of tax cuts 
for the most well off?
  Madam Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to vote against this bill. 
In good conscience, none of us should support H.R. 3010.
  Madam Chairman, I don't know what to say about H.R. 3010. I know 
Chairman Regula and his subcommittee staff did the best they could 
under the circumstances, but to virtually eliminate Title VII Health 
Professions I think is draconian and unconscionable.
  Since I started serving on this subcommittee almost six-and-a-half 
years ago, I have fought to end disparities--disparities in employment, 
disparities in education and especially disparities in health.
  Health disparities are real. If you are black in this country, your 
life expectancy is 66 years. If you are white in this country, your 
life expectancy is 74 years. Infant mortality is twice as high for 
African American babies than for white babies.
  Fortunately, institutions, like the Institute of Medicine of the 
National Academy of Sciences, have laid out a framework on how to end 
these disparities. One of the recommendations of the IOM was to 
increase the number of health professions. This bill does exactly the 
opposite. It essentially eliminates health professions--a cut of $250 
million.
  I think a society says a lot by the way that it treats the weakest 
and most vulnerable of its citizens. I believe we live in a `united' 
states, and like a chain, we are only as strong as our weakest link. By 
leaving some of our citizens behind, we prove that we are not strong 
and compassionate but weak and uncaring.
  There is a phrase that former Labor-HHS Chairman Porter was fond of 
saying, ``Noblesse oblige'', the belief that the wealthy and privileged 
are obliged to help those less fortunate. In Luke, chapter 12, verse 
48, Jesus simply says, ``To whom much is given, much is expected.''
  We are the wealthiest country in the world. We spend more money on 
our military than the entire world combined with the sole mission of 
protecting this country and advancing U.S. interests. Interests which 
should include a high quality education and high quality health care 
for all Americans.
  I keep hearing members of this committee and House leadership say 
that this is a tight budget year. Well this tight budget year did not 
occur by immaculate conception. Congress voted to make it a tough 
budget year. Congress approved the budget resolution. Saying it is 
going to be a tough budget year is like a farmer saying he is going to 
have a bad harvest because he didn't plant any seeds. Madam Chairman, 
when Congress approved the budget resolution we didn't plant any seeds. 
Nothing will grow this year. This is not a natural disaster like a 
drought. This disaster was of our making.
  What does it say about a society that approves of tax cuts for 
millionaires instead of trying to solve why babies of color die sooner? 
What does it say about a society that approves tax cuts for 
millionaires instead of trying to solve what ails the weakest among us?
  Chairman Regula, I know you and your staff were dealt a bad hand and 
did the best job you could under the circumstances, but we all should 
be ashamed of the budget that has produced the product before us today.
  In Matthew chapter 6, verse 21 , Jesus said, ``For where your 
treasure is, there will your heart be also.'' If this verse is true, 
what does it say about us, about Congress, about our government that we 
pass budget resolutions each year that spend almost half of our 
discretionary dollars on defense, and hundreds of billions on all kinds 
of tax cuts for the most well off. I have a masters in theology from 
the Chicago Theological Seminary and have read my bible from cover to 
cover, and nowhere does it say, ``only clothe the naked and feed the 
poor if it fits into your annual budget resolution.'' Noblesse oblige, 
Madam Chairman.
  In 1984, referring to Marxist-ruled Ethiopia, President Ronald Reagan 
said, ``a hungry child knows no politics.'' I would also add that a 
hungry child, or a sick child, doesn't know a 302(b) allocation from a 
point-of-order.'' All he knows is that he is hungry or sick.
  Every day I am proud to say I am a Member of the United States 
Congress. Since December 1995, I have gone home every night and held my 
head high knowing I worked to improve the lives of all Americans. 
Tonight I will not be able to do that.
  Madam Chairman, fellow Members of the House, I have dedicated my 
service on this subcommittee to ending disparities in health, education 
and employment. This bill will only increase them. In good conscience, 
I cannot support H.R. 3010.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy), also a member of the 
subcommittee.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the 
chairman and ranking member for giving me

[[Page 13889]]

the opportunity to serve on this committee and to work with them on so 
many of these important issues. I know this would be a different bill 
if the budget had provided the gentleman from Ohio more dollars to work 
with. I just want to explain some of the things that this bill does 
that will impact my State of Rhode Island.
  In the area of education, the Leave No Child Behind Act is crushing 
each and every one of our communities because it is driving our 
property taxes up. All of our local school committees are in an outrage 
because of the Leave No Child Behind and we do not properly fund it.
  In IDEA, Rhode Island is the number one State in the country with the 
most kids in IDEA, so the cuts to IDEA will obviously affect us 
disproportionately.
  And, Mr. Chairman, we also have the case of military families. Rhode 
Island is home to the Navy. We have many families from the Navy, 
children, and they do not get the Impact Aid dollars that they need to 
properly get a decent education.
  As has been said before, child labor has not been properly funded. 
Actually it has been cut by 87 percent, inspections. Medical research 
has gone up less than it has in 32 years.
  But let me also, to the credit of Chairman Regula, point out some of 
the good things that the bill does. The bill does restore money for 
elementary school counseling and the foundations for learning, both of 
which are programs that help deal with the emotional needs of our young 
people. In the area of mental health, the seniors mental health program 
has been restored, the child mental health block grant has been 
restored, and the youth suicide are restored. Suicide is twice the rate 
of homicide in this country. In the next year, we will lose 1,400 young 
people in our colleges and universities to suicide, and I am glad that 
those dollars have finally been restored in the budget. They should 
have never been cut by the President in the first place.
  Finally, I am glad that this budget includes dollars to fund health 
information technology. We lose 98,000 people every year of preventable 
medical errors because providers do not have the information that they 
need at the point of service to give the best quality care that they 
can provide, and I am glad that we provided money in this bill to 
enable those providers to make those proper decisions and to save lives 
in our country.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy.
  Mr. Chairman, I listened to my friend from Oklahoma talk about public 
broadcasting, flush with money, lots of other free choices, and that 
the quality of public broadcasting does not distinguish it from others. 
I would suggest strongly that he and anybody else who is confused about 
this go check with the people back home. They would be foolish to 
eliminate their assets, most stations are not flush in the first place. 
Asking them to eat their seed corn to continue operations would be 
criminal.
  And if you are confused about the quality, watch it. Nobody has any 
difficulty telling the difference between the commercial opportunities 
and the high quality that is offered by public television. The number 
does not equal quality, and even the good commercial efforts are a pale 
imitation of the award-winning opportunities that are given to us by 
public television. But most critically, are the offerings for children. 
Look at what is on television every day, all day long, for kids in the 
commercial arena. Then compare it to public broadcasting, and I do not 
think anybody would agree with my friend from Oklahoma.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).
  Mr. TIERNEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I think that this budget as well as these spending 
bills are clear expressions of the values of the majority party and the 
White House, but they are clearly not the expression of the values of 
this country. This country believes in moving forward and investing in 
its future. It believes in having education for its children, 
opportunity for everyone, health care.
  We are cutting to the bone. This is not a debate about cutting waste 
and fraud. This is a decision that has been made to give enormous 
amounts of money back to people that are already very, very wealthy; 
and the choice was to get that money to cut into education, not to fund 
No Child Left Behind, not to fund community health clinics, not to fund 
job training programs, not to fund those things that make this country 
strong and give us a promise for opportunity and prosperity.
  This is the wrong way for us to go. The American people understand 
that this majority is not talking to the issues that matter most to 
them. The issues that matter for them are the future of this country 
and not just arbitrarily giving money back to people who, frankly, have 
not asked for it and do not need it. At a time when our country is 
stretched, there is a need of making sure that we have a competitive 
strategy. Other countries are moving forward. We need to get even, move 
ahead, and do what this country is capable of doing, and that is lead.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  I just want to address one issue because it has been raised twice on 
the floor today, Mr. Chairman. The argument our friends on the majority 
side make is that we should be happy because the education budget has 
gone up considerably since they took over control of Congress.
  Let me point out what the record of the majority party has been on 
education. When the Republicans took control of the Congress, they did 
so with the promise to abolish the U.S. Department of Education. Their 
first act was to rescind $1.8 billion in fiscal year 1995 in education 
funding. In the next year they tried to do the same to the tune of $3.7 
billion. In the 7 years between 1995 and 2001, each of the Labor-Health 
bills passed by the House Republicans was below President Clinton's 
request for education. The net result is that there would have been 
nearly $19 billion less spent on education between 1995 and 2005 if we 
had enacted the Republican Labor-Health bills into law.
  Title I. If Congress had approved the House Republican Labor-H bills, 
we would have spent $2.8 billion less than we actually spent. After-
school centers. If the Congress had approved the House Republican 
Labor-H bills, we would have spent $516 million less for after-school 
centers. Special education. If Congress had approved the House 
Republican Labor-H bills, we would have spent $2.7 billion less for 
special education. On Pell grants, for the last 3 years, the Republican 
majority has proposed to freeze Pell grants. If the Republican 
proposals in fiscal year 2006 are adopted, the purchasing power of Pell 
grants will continue on a downward spiral.
  The plain fact is yes, the money went up for education because 
Democrats dragged the Republican Party, kicking and screaming, to those 
higher numbers. So I am glad the Republicans are now trying to take 
credit for something they were pushed into. It does not matter who gets 
the credit so long as the school districts get the money.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi), the minority leader.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to this 
bill. I say reluctant, because I along with many of my colleagues in 
the House have a proud tradition of supporting it.
  I salute the distinguished chairman of the Labor, Health and Human 
Services and Education Subcommittee. The gentleman from Ohio follows a 
tradition of excellence on both sides of the aisle in the leadership of 
this committee. Before him, our committee was led by John Porter of 
Illinois who acted in a very bipartisan way addressing the needs of 
America's families. Before that, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey) chaired the committee. Before that, Mr. Natcher who chaired it 
for a long time. Mr. Natcher again acted in a very bipartisan way.

[[Page 13890]]

He used to say of this bill, this is the people's bill. He knew full 
well that this is the one piece of legislation that addressed the 
aspirations of the American people, that tried to allay the concerns 
that kept them up at night, the economic security of their families, 
meaning the security of their jobs, the security of their pensions, the 
health and well-being of their families as well, and, of course, the 
education of their children, our investment in America's future.
  So it is very sad to see the place that we are today. And why are we 
here? We are here because a very, very skimpy, in terms of investments 
in America's future. And generous in terms of tax cuts for the 
wealthiest Americans, budget placed us in a place where the allocation 
for this subcommittee was one that made decisions very difficult. We 
say of this bill that it is ``lamb eat lamb.'' There is no way you can 
go into the bill and say, well, if we want to spend more money on 
education, we will just take it out of what? Children's health? Pension 
security? There is no good place to take money from in order to try to 
improve the situation or mitigate for the damage that has been caused 
by the cuts. Imagine, as our population growing and with inflation, 
this bill is about $6 billion effectively in cuts over last year; and, 
without even those considerations, $1.6 billion over fiscal year 2005.
  Economists will tell you, and we all know just because we can observe 
it ourselves, that one of the best investments we can make for 
America's future, for America's competitiveness and for the self-
fulfillment of the American people and our children is our investment 
in education. In fact, economists will tell you that nothing brings 
more money back to the Treasury or grows the economy more than the 
education of the American people, early childhood education, K-12, 
higher education, postgraduate and lifetime learning for our workers. 
All of that is considered in this bill. All of that is shortchanged in 
this bill.
  For one example, No Child Left Behind legislation. By the President's 
own legislation, not my figure, President Bush's figure, this bill for 
the fourth year straight cuts No Child Left Behind in terms of the 
authorization. We are now $40 billion in shortchanging No Child Left 
Behind, leaving millions of children behind. How can that be right? And 
children in title I, children who need special help in terms of 
reading, many of these children, 3 million of these children will not 
get help with reading and math that they were promised because this 
bill gives it $9.9 billion less than it deserves.
  Remember, these are investments. How are they paid for? They pay for 
themselves because they return to the Treasury more than any tax cut 
and any kind of tax credit, any other instrument you can name. 
Educating the American people is a very wise investment.
  The list goes on about the problems with the underfunding in terms of 
education. But the point to be made is in these cases, we have given 
the States a mandate to do a particular job, to reform education, and 
we have fallen $40 billion short in the money to match the mandates. No 
wonder people are squawking about No Child Left Behind. The money was 
not there to match the mandate.
  And then on the issue of health care, there are so many examples of 
where this bill falls short. I will just focus on one, the National 
Institutes of Health. Many of us were part of the challenge to double 
the National Institutes of Health funding through the nineties. It 
seemed like a big task. We were determined to get it done. We realigned 
our priorities so that it would happen. We had a cooperative President 
in the White House, and it has happened.

                              {time}  1315

  But now in this bill, it will receive the lowest increase, .05 
percent; but that represents a cut when we take into consideration 
inflation, and what it translates to is over 500 grants, since 2 years 
ago, 500 fewer grants will be able to be made.
  People look to the National Institutes of Health with almost a 
reverential approach. They have the power to cure. Research is the 
answer for so many families in America. Every one of us, every family, 
is just one telephone call away from receiving a diagnosis or learning 
of an accident, which necessitates research at the National Institutes 
of Health.
  And yet we are shortchanging the National Institutes of Health, which 
also has a pragmatic, practical aspect to it because, in order to be 
preeminent and excellent in science, we must be number one; and we 
cannot be number one if we must compete with a shortchanged budget for 
the National Institutes of Health. The list goes on, these disparities, 
whether we are talking about the cut in the bill that trims 84 percent, 
or $252 million taken from the health professions training.
  This is one place where we can address health disparities in our 
country because by doing this, we will reduce the number of minority 
students who can enter the health professions. We will reduce the 
number of students, medical students, who will become primary care 
physicians. We will reduce the number of physicians who will be able to 
attend to the health needs of rural America, which is a very important 
aspect of the life of our country.
  The bill cuts funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, we 
all know, by $100 million. It underfunds Head Start; freezes child care 
moneys; fails to raise the Pell grant by $100, as promised; freezes 
funding for most Ryan White programs to combat AIDS; and slashes the 
Community Services block grant in half. The list goes on and on. That 
is opposed to what this committee used to do and what this bill used to 
do.
  In the late 1980s and the 1990s, especially in the 1990s, this 
subcommittee rose to the challenge of HIV/AIDS as it was making its 
assault on our country, with increasing the research, care, and 
prevention program initiatives in the bill. It has risen to the 
occasion by increasing funding drastically for breast cancer research 
and prostate cancer research and the rest. And now what are we doing 
but effectively giving a cut to the National Institutes of Health.
  No bill better illustrates, I think, how America is great, because 
America is good, than this bill, Labor, Health and Human Services, and 
Education, because we met the needs of the American people. We did 
before, but not today. No bill illustrates how out of touch our budget 
priorities are, how completely out of touch the Republicans are in 
terms of meeting the needs of the American people. The bill should be 
about crucial investments in the future of America. They are grossly 
underfunded.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill does not meet the needs of America's 
children. It does not meet the needs of America's workers. It does not 
meet the needs of America's seniors. It does not deserve our support.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to state my concern with the 
manner in which Title I funds for No Child Left Behind are distributed.
  Title I, the funds meant to provide aid to states and school 
districts to help educationally disadvantaged children achieve the same 
high standards as all other students, are increased in this bill by 
$100 million over last year, bringing the total funding to $12.7 
billion.
  However, Title I funds for Bridgeport, Connecticut, will be cut this 
year for the fourth year in a row under NCLB. According to the 
Department of Education, Bridgeport will receive $678,000 less in Title 
I funds for the next school year, going from $13.7 million to just over 
$13 million, and down from a high of $14.8 million in 2002.
  I voted for NCLB. I support this legislation because it is a 
monumental step forward for American public education. I also believe 
NCLB grants unprecedented flexibility to local school districts, 
demands results in public education through strict accountability 
measures, empowers parents and provides a safety valve for children 
trapped in failing schools.
  It is hard for me to fathom, however, that while we have increased 
funding for Title I by 52 percent since 2001, Bridgeport, one of the 
most disadvantaged school districts in the country, has received a cut 
of $1.8 million. I believe the law should make sense. The spirit of the 
bill is to provide funding to the neediest districts, and, quite 
frankly, cutting Bridgeport funding does not seem to reflect that 
intention.

[[Page 13891]]

  While I realize it is not necessarily within the purview of this 
committee, I believe the formula needs to be fixed.
  Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) program.
  The Community Services Block Grant provides the core funding for our 
local community action agencies, allowing them to address the problems 
that leave individuals in poverty.
  Through job skills and employment programs, through educational 
opportunities for young children like Head Start, and through 
nutritionally sound programs like WIC, community action agencies work 
to make their community a better place to live and to offer 
opportunities for the economically disadvantaged to be successful and 
break the chains of poverty.
  This Congress has continually demonstrated its support for CSBG. In 
fact, the Conference Agreement on the FE 2006 Budget Resolution added 
$600 million to maintain CSBG funding at its current level and the 
letter I circulated with my colleagues, Representatives Phil English 
(R-PA) and Brian Baird (D-WA) in support of level funding for CSBG 
garnered 122 bipartisan signatures.
  Yet the bill we are considering today cuts CSBG funding in half. At a 
time when demands on our community action agency services from the 
working poor, older Americans, and families struggling with 
unemployment continue to increase, it is essential that Congress 
maintain its commitment to CSBG.
  In my home state of Connecticut, this 50% reduction in funds to CSBG 
will result in a serious reduction of social services to our most 
vulnerable communities, reduction in services assisting families moving 
from welfare to work, and will seriously impact our community action 
agencies' ability to leverage other community dollars. The Thames 
Valley Council for Community Action in New London County, for example, 
generates and leverages $27 in other resources for every $1 funded 
under CSBG.
  Mr. Chairman, it is clear the CSBG dollars are a smart investment for 
this Congress and are essential to our nation's most vulnerable 
citizens. While my colleagues and I intend to withdraw our amendment 
today, I thank the distinguished Chairman for the opportunity to debate 
this important issue here today and I look forward to working with him 
to increase funding through the remainder of the legislative process.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to state my opposition to the 
extension of the refusal clause provision.
  The refusal clause exempts health care companies from any federal, 
state or local government law that ensures women have access to 
reproductive health services, including information about abortion.
  If extended, this provision will continue to have many negative 
effects by overriding federal Title X guidelines that ensure women 
receive full medical information. A fundamental principle of Title X, 
the national family planning program, ensures pregnant women who 
request information about all their medical options, including 
abortion, be given that information, including a referral upon patient 
request.
  I am also concerned this bill does not include an increase in funding 
for Title X. Each year approximately 4.5 million low-income women and 
men receive basic health care through 4,600 clinics nation wide that 
receive Title X funds. This program reduces unintended pregnancies and 
makes abortion less necessary. Had funding for Title X kept pace with 
inflation since 1980, with no additional increases, it would be funded 
today at double its current budget.
  While Title X is receiving flat funding from last year, the Labor, 
Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations Act of 2006 
gives abstinence-only sex education programs an increase of $11 
million, to an all time funding high of $168 million. Unlike Title X, 
abstinence-only programs do not provide clinical health services.
  Additionally, research shows comprehensive sex-education programs, 
which teach both abstinence and contraception, are the most effective. 
There is no federal program that earmarks dollars for comprehensive sex 
education.
  I support a woman's right to choose whether to terminate a pregnancy 
subject to Roe v. Wade, but we can all recognize the importance of 
preventing unintended pregnancies.
  Abortion is a very personal decision. While a woman's doctor, clergy, 
friends, family and public officials may have an opinion, the ultimate 
decision rests solely with her. It is vital for every woman to have 
access to as much information as she needs in order to make this 
decision.
  I oppose these provisions and encourage my colleagues to do so as 
well.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, there was an oversight in the No Child 
Left Behind Act, NCLB required teachers to meet their states highly 
qualified teacher requirement by the end of the 2005-2006 school year, 
about a year from now. Paraprofessionals were required to meet their 
requirements four years after enactment of NCLB. That would be January 
8th of next year, halfway through the school year. Everyone agrees that 
it was an oversight and that these two dates should be aligned. I 
discussed various ways to fix this oversight with the Education and 
Workforce Committee Chairman Boehner and the staff, with the Deputy 
Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education Raymond Simon, and with 
the National Education Association.
  Last week I received a letter from Deputy Secretary Simon which reads 
in part ``to enable the Department to enforce these two requirements in 
an efficient, effective and coordinated manner, the Department will 
align the paraprofessional timeline with the teacher timeline.'' I will 
include the entire letter for the Record.
  I want to thank the Department of Education, Dep. Sec. Simon, 
chairman of the Education and Workforce Committee John Boehner and the 
staff, particularly, Sally Lovejoy and the National Education 
Association for working to resolve this oversight in a quick and 
efficient manner.

                                 U.S. Department of Education,

                                                    June 15, 2005.
     Hon. Mike Simpson,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Simpson: Thank you for your recent 
     questions about the time frame within which all 
     paraprofessionals working in Title I-funded programs must 
     meet certain qualifications.
       The relevant qualifications and time frame for 
     paraprofessionals are detailed in section 1119( d) of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended by 
     the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). In general, this 
     section states that all Title I paraprofessionals hired 
     before enactment of NCLB must demonstrate competency by no 
     later than four years after the law's enactment, i.e., 
     January 8. 2006.
       As you may know, the ESEA permits all veteran teachers of 
     core academic subjects to have until the end of the 2005-2006 
     school year to demonstrate that they meet the requirements of 
     NCLB; yet, as mentioned above. Title I paraprofessionals have 
     only until January 8, 2006-the middle of the school year. We 
     agree that it is unusual to have a deadline in the middle of 
     the school year, and believe that the paraprofessional and 
     highly qualified teacher provisions should be consistent. The 
     Department will continue to be supportive of States, school 
     districts and schools, in implementing these particular 
     requirements.
       You have suggested that the timeline for Title I 
     paraprofessionals be consistent with the timeline for 
     teachers. Your suggestion is reasonable and practical. 
     Therefore, to enable the Department to enforce these two 
     requirements in an efficient, effective and coordinated 
     manner. the Department will align the paraprofessional 
     timeline with the teacher timeline.
       Thank you again for contacting me.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Raymond Simon.

  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, this LHHS appropriation bill not only 
undermines what would otherwise be our nations greatest resource, its 
people, but as a document is not worthy of what I believe this country 
stands for.
  As a matter of fact, as I look at what the Republican leadership lays 
out in this budget, I just don't know any more what we as a Nation 
stand for.
  We obviously don't stand for equal and the best health care for every 
American, when you look at the imposition of an 11.9% cut in the 
programs of the Health Resources and Services Administration and the 
elimination of Sickle Cell programs, Universal Newborn Hearing, and 
Emergency Medical Services for Children.
  We also don't believe that in this increasingly diverse country that 
our residents should be able to communicate fully with their healthcare 
provider--the health professions programs that are key to eliminating 
health care disparities are decimated.
  It appears we don't understand or don't care that the African 
American community which is so devastated by HIV/AIDS has to have the 
resources itself to reverse its toll.
  And we obviously don't care that an ounce of prevention is worth a 
pound of cure. This country would rather neglect prevention and early 
care in favor of the high tech, more expensive treatments that come too 
little and too late if at all to the poor, the rural, the people of 
color to make a significant difference.
  But that is fully in keeping with why we are where we are in this 
bill in the first place. This is a country that prefers to have the 
poor and the middle class citizens bear every burden from war to 
illness to environmental pollution, just so the richest people in this 
country can get richer.

[[Page 13892]]

  What have we come to? We reject the crumbs from the table of the 
rich. We want what we deserve, good health a decent education and the 
opportunity for a good job with a living wage.
  Apparently the White house and the Republican leadership which has 
pushed this appropriation to the floor doesn't think so.
  The culture of life they talk about apparently does not extend past 
birth.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no on this, to do whatever we can to 
block the tax cuts and to take our country back.
  Let's really fund a culture of life by rejecting the tax cuts in 
favor of sharing the burdens and the bounty, and really have a budget 
that supports life.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to address 
something of great concern to the tens of thousands of students of all 
ages in my district: the need for more responsible funding for 
education.
  The President's budget would have eliminated over 50 programs that 
benefit students. Unfortunately, the President called for the 
elimination of programs such as TRIO, GEAR UP and the Perkins program.
  I was shocked to find these programs on the President's chopping 
block because they benefit the students who come from lower income 
families and are trying to be the first person in their family to go to 
college, and in some cases, to graduate from high school.
  I commend Chairman Lewis and Ranking Member Obey for agreing to keep 
these programs so that many more students can achieve their goals of 
getting a good education.
  While I'm glad to see TRIO and Perkins programs in this bill, it 
still does not do enough for students in districts like mine. 
Enrollment rates are increasing in our area and throughout the country. 
Yet we increase funding for education to a level that can not begin to 
meet that need. Every Congress, we shrink the amount of funding 
increases to education. This time, we've brought it to a new low by 
raising our education funding by 3.6 percent.
  Under this bill, Title I funding is increased by $1 billion. The 
thousands of students who benefit from Title I funds will greatly 
appreciate this increase. However, this is still $7 billion short of 
what is authorized for Title I under No Child Left Behind.
  I support the efforts the committee has made to restore the TRIO and 
Perkins programs and increase Title I funds. We should always do our 
best to fully fund these initiatives. This bill falls short of what we 
should be investing in education.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to a bill that does 
not value America's children and families.
  The average American wants Congress to do more to ensure that our 
children receive the help they need to succeed in school and in life.
  Instead, this bill implements a budget that values tax cuts for the 
wealthiest Americans more than it values education for the least 
wealthy Americans.
  In 2001, Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act. We and the 
President agreed, or at least I thought we did, that Federal education 
policy must include both reforms and resources.
  I strongly support NCLB's goals, although as we move forward, I want 
us to look closely at what needs to be done to make it work best.
  But, I can tell you right now that one thing that needs to be done is 
to keep the promise that Congress and the President made to the 
American people to fully fund NCLB.
  Yet, not only would this bill provide $13 billion less than was 
promised for NCLB for this year, it would actually cut funding for NCLB 
compared to last year.
  Over 4 years, this Congress has underfunded NCLB by more than $40 
billion.
  This bill would increase funding for Title I by less than 1 percent, 
at a time when we need to do more than ever to close the achievement 
gap not only within our country, but between our country and many of 
our economic competitors around the world.
  It would freeze funding for teacher training, even as we face a 
looming teacher shortage--and we know that the most important factor in 
child's education is a good teacher.
  It would freeze funding for after-school centers, even though last 
year we were only able to fund 38 percent of applications.
  And this bill would cut funding for education technology by 40 
percent, even as technology becomes more and more important to 
learning.
  Another area in which this bill would do less is special education.
  I think every member knows that in 1975, Congress and the President 
promised to fund 40 percent of schools' special education costs. Last 
year, 30 years after we passed the Individuals with Disabilities 
Education Act, we funded only 19 percent of those costs. Under this 
bill, that percentage would go down to 18 percent. That's what this 
bill does--or more accurately, doesn't do--for elementary and secondary 
education.
  For younger children, even though we're only serving about half of 
the children who are eligible for Head Start, this bill would increase 
funding by less than 1 percent.
  And for college students, it would provide only a $50 increase for 
Pell grants, even though tuition at the average public college has gone 
up by $2,300 since 2001.
  Finally, this bill would make drastic cuts to the Corporation for 
Public Broadcasting, which does so much to promote a diverse and 
freethinking society.
  Public broadcasting provides forums for many voices that otherwise 
would not be heard.
  It provides our children with the best educational programs on 
television, such as Sesame Street, and is a valuable source for 
reliable news programs for millions of Americans.
  By cutting funding for CPB, we are weakening our strongest source of 
unbiased, diverse, educational and cultural programming.
  In short, this bill is a step backward--a step we can't afford.
  In his new book, ``The World is Flat,'' the New York Times' Thomas 
Friedman explains that America's historical economic advantages have 
disappeared now that ``the world is flat, and anyone with smarts, 
access to Google and a cheap wireless laptop can join the innovation 
fray.''
  Mr. Friedman's and others' remedy is to ``attract more young women 
and men to science and engineering.''
  But, it will be impossible for our country to continue to lead the 
world in innovation as long as Congress and the President choose tax 
cuts for millionaires over investment in education.
  Mr. Chairman, that choice does not reflect the values of the people 
in my district, nor do I think it reflects the values of most 
Americans.
  And so, I ask my colleagues to join me in opposition to this bill.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3010 falls far short of 
helping rectify many of the problems facing our Nation's and 
specifically, my constituents' healthcare needs. There are a number of 
areas of this appropriations bill that will have a significant impact 
on the future of healthcare delivery for the underserved communities of 
this country. As the number of uninsured and underinsured continues to 
rise, the government programs which act as a safety net continue to be 
challenged to provide more care with less funding. While the President 
and his administration support the funding of Community Health Centers, 
CHCs, the implication of the funding shortfall with regards to the 
training of health care professionals is that there will be a lack of 
future physicians and health care providers to staff these very 
centers.
  Specifically, three HHS programs targeting underrepresented 
minorities in the healthcare professions have been completely 
eliminated by this bill with no explanation from the committee. This 
evisceration totals $158 million that would otherwise directly lead to 
underrepresented minorities entering healthcare professions and 
potentially serving the very communities they grew up in and are 
hurting the most from the lack of access. The ``Centers of Excellence'' 
program, which last year contributed $33.6 million to health 
professions schools with significant minority enrollment, will no 
longer exist under this appropriations bill. In my district, the 
University of Illinois at Chicago has benefited from this program and 
stands to lose necessary funding to train a greater number of minority 
students.
  The ``Health Careers Opportunity Program,'' HCOP, is also effectively 
eliminated by the $35.7 million cut from last year's funding again with 
no explanation from the committee. This program strives to build 
diversity in the health professions by developing a more competitive 
applicant pool. The program provides students from disadvantaged 
backgrounds an opportunity to develop the skills needed to successfully 
compete for admission to and graduation from health professions 
schools.
  Lastly, the ``Training in Primary Care Medicine and Dentistry'' 
program is effectively eliminated by the $88.8 million cut, again with 
no explanation from the committee. The aim of this program is to 
improve access to quality health care through the appropriate 
preparation, composition and distribution of the health professions 
workforce. The program emphasizes diversity, distribution and the 
quality of the health professions workforce as a means of improving 
access to care. Grants for training in primary care medicine and 
dentistry support academic administrative units, residency training, 
pre-doctoral training, faculty development, physician assistants, and 
general and pediatrics dentistry program areas.

[[Page 13893]]

Like the previous two programs eliminated, this program specifically 
aims at increasing underrepresented minorities in healthcare 
professions with a focus on meeting the increased demand for primary 
care physicians and health care providers.
  Overall, these programs are vital to meeting the needs of underserved 
communities in my district as well as those all around America. 
Eliminating their funding will create more holes in an already 
fragmented and fractured healthcare system. As the number of uninsured 
and underinsured Americans continues to rise, a greater number of 
health professionals will be needed to meet their demands. Cutting 
funding that would increase the numbers of these health professionals 
is not in the best interest of our constituents that are in need of 
increased access, quality professionals, and overall better care.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3010, the 
Fiscal Year 2006 Labor HHS Appropriations Act.
  This bill contains funding for many important programs to protect our 
working men and women, provide for the education of our Nation's 
children, and support healthcare needs.
  Specifically, I want to commend Chairman Regula and the 
Appropriations Committee for working with me to include increased 
funding in this bill to ensure that our country is better prepared 
against the emerging threat of a pandemic influenza. As the chairman 
noted so eloquently in his opening statement, this bill is about 
setting priorities and the chairman has rightfully focused increased 
resources on this very real threat to our Nation's health and security.
  The chairman has rightfully included in this bill $530,000,000 for 
the Strategic National Stockpile, which is $63 million above the 2005 
funding level to expand our Nation's strategic national stockpile of 
antiviral treatments as well as $120 million to ensure a year-round 
influenza vaccine production capacity in the U.S. and the development 
and implementation of rapidly expandable influenza production 
technologies.
  The avian flu is a huge health risk and national security concern 
that we cannot ignore.
  The Centers for Disease Control and U.S. Department of Health and 
Human Services have both acknowledged that the avian flu is a leading 
and quickly emerging threat to our population and that of other 
nations.
  Currently, the avian flu is very contagious among birds, including 
chickens, ducks, and turkeys. It is believed that most cases of this 
flu in humans has resulted from contact with sick birds.
  Health experts warn that a global pandemic could occur if avian flu 
eventually undergoes genetic changes, making it easily contagious among 
humans. Such an event could create a global pandemic, resulting in the 
deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in the U.S. and worldwide.
  Already, the avian flu has killed 54 people in Southeast Asia in the 
past year, and just last week we learned of new human cases in Vietnam 
and a new case in Indonesia.
  In response, the World Health Organization has again issued warnings 
to all governments urging them to act swiftly to control the spread of 
flu before it mutates into a form that can be easily transmitted among 
humans and become far deadlier. And further, these same health experts 
have urged all countries to increase their stockpiles of available 
antiviral treatments so that we are prepared for a worst case scenario.
  This morning, I read with great interest Mort Kondracke's column in 
Roll Call, where he cited a cover story in the summer edition of the 
journal Foreign Affairs as saying avian flu could be ``the next 
pandemic.'' According to his column, the journal goes on to refer to 
avian flu as being ``far more dangerous than the Spanish flu that 
killed 50 million people worldwide in 1918 and 1919, including 675,000 
in the United States.''
  Mr. Chairman, we must prevent what is happening in Southeast Asia 
from spreading and reaching the American continent. If Americans are 
left unprotected and unprepared for an outbreak, there could be dire 
consequences.
  Today, the national Strategic Stockpile includes antiviral treatment 
for just one percent of the population. If an avian flu pandemic 
occurred today, this would leave millions of Americans susceptible to 
infection, and possibly death.
  The threat of avian flu spreading across our borders is not going 
away, and neither can our commitment to protecting the American people 
from such a risk. The funding included in this bill for the purchase of 
antiviral vaccines and ongoing efforts to develop an effective vaccine 
against the avian flu is hugely necessary for the security and health 
of all Americans.
  Again, I commend the chairman for placing the highest priority on 
this urgent need and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Community 
Service Block Grant and in opposition to the cuts to this program. The 
Community Services Block Grant program distributes Federal money to 
more than 1,100 community action agencies nationwide that use those 
funds to lessen the effects of poverty.
  In my Congressional District, there are six Community Action 
Agencies: Blue Valley Community Action, Central Nebraska Community 
Services, Community Action Partnership of Mid-Nebraska, Kearney, 
Goldenrod Hills Community Services, Northwest Community Action, and 
Panhandle Community Services. Each of these agencies provide invaluable 
services to the citizens of Nebraska.
  Many people have asked about what CSBG funds do. In short, CSBG funds 
provide the glue that help Community Action Agencies coordinate funding 
and services across the spectrum of what families might need. An 
example of the success of CSBG was shared with me by Shelley Mayhew of 
the Blue Valley Crisis Intervention. Shelley worked with a young mother 
with a 5-year-old child who was abandoned, with no money or car, by her 
abusive and violent fiance.
  Unable to search for a job because of her inability to pay for 
childcare, lack of extended family support, lack of domestic violence 
services, and her lack of a car, since in rural Nebraska we have no 
mass transit system, this young mother was referred to Blue Valley 
Community Action Crisis Intervention. There, through the actions of 
staff at Blue Valley, the child was enrolled in school, the family 
received domestic violence counseling and found affordable housing, and 
the mother found a job that allows her to support her family. Today, 
this young mother is even enrolled in a program to help her prepare for 
homeownership. Shelly's caseworker says, ``I watched a family 
struggling and hopeless become self-sufficient and optimistic about the 
future. I feel very fortunate to be part of an agency that makes a 
difference in so many people's lives.''
  This is just one story from my Congressional District. CSBG is a true 
State block grant program that allows States to establish and operate 
anti-poverty programs that meet the unique needs of their low-income 
communities. In Nebraska, it is critically important. I hope that the 
funding for this important program can be restored during the 
Conference Committee.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I offer my amendment no behalf of the 
thousands of women fighting a fierce battle against gyneocologic 
cancers. I would like to first thank Chairman Lewis and Chairman Regula 
for giving me the opportunity to speak on a topic that is not only a 
legislative priority, but a personnel commitment.
  My amendment would simply redirect $5 million within the HHS budget 
to the Office of Women's Health to coordinate a national education 
campaign to educate the public on gynecologic cancers.
  Every 7 minutes a woman is diagnosed with a gynecologic cancer. In 
2005, over 82,000 will be diagnosed with a gynecologic cancer and over 
27,000 women will die. The most common gynecologic cancers include 
ovarian, cervical and uterine cancers.
  Too many women are dying because they were diagnosed too late. 
Education and early detection are the keys to saving women's lives and 
reducing these statistics. If diagnosed in the early stages, the 5 year 
survivability rates are as high as 95 percent.
  Gynecologic cancers, when detected early, can often be prevented from 
becoming fatal. Since all women are at risk--no matter their ethnic 
background or socioeconomic status--it is critical that we find a way 
to inform women about the steps they can take to maintain their health.
  Due to the private and intimate nature of these cancers, oftentimes 
women are uncomfortable discussing issues surrounding gynecologic 
cancers with friends and family. It is vital that we have a national 
dialogue to provide accurate and timely information to the public.
  By simply educating women about these cancers, we have an opportunity 
to save lives. The messages are simple: learn the symptoms, have an 
annual exam and talk to your doctor. Unfortunately, most women do not 
know these messages, which is why we need to pass today's amendment.
  Dollars spent on education are an appropriate use of federal 
resources. Education empowers individuals to make the best choices 
regarding their health care.
  Last year, I discovered first-hand how important early diagnosis and 
education can be. My Legislative Director was diagnosed with cervical 
cancer. Her journey led me to work with Representatives Sander Levin, 
Kay

[[Page 13894]]

Granger and Rosa DeLauro and introduce H.R. 1245, ``the Gynecologic 
Education and Awareness Act of 2005,'' which has 193 bipartisan 
cosponsors.
  This bill, also know as ``Johanna's law,'' has allowed me the 
privilege and honor to meet and work with an amazing group of 
survivors, patients, doctors, and families who have lost loved ones to 
these awful cancers.
  I would like to personally thank Sheryl Silver, who started this 
whole effort over 4 years ago. In honor of her sister, Johanna, who 
died of ovarian cancer, Sheryl focused her energy and resources on 
writing, lobbying and working this bill. It is a model of how our 
democracy should work.
  In addition, I would like to thank the Society of Gynecologic 
Oncologists (SGO) and the Gynecologic Cancer Foundation for their 
tireless efforts in saving women's lives. They have been invaluable to 
this Legislative effort. Dr. Beth Karlan, from Cedars Sinai Medical 
Center, is the President of SGO and the doctor who saved my Legislative 
Director's life and deserves a special note of heartfelt gratitude.
  I appreciate the opportunity in raising this issue today. I look 
forward to working with Chairman Jerry Lewis and Chairman Ralph Regula 
and appreciate their hard work and their willingness to work with all 
members on their issues.
  Mr. HIGGINS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to add my voice to those of 
millions of Americans who are outraged at the dramatic reduction in 
much-needed support for public television stations across the country. 
Under the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and 
Education Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006, the Public 
Broadcasting Corporation will lose $100 million, a 25 percent reduction 
from last year's funding. In addition to such cuts, this measure also 
proposes the elimination of the highly successful ``Ready to Learn'' 
children's education service, as well as funds needed to upgrade aging 
satellite technology and make the conversion to digital programming 
that has been mandated by this very body. All told, these reductions 
amount to a nearly 50 percent decrease in funding for public 
broadcasting.
  These reductions target a thriving network responsible for a wide 
range of intellectual and creative programming, much of it targeted 
toward children. Recently many Americans, and many in this chamber, 
have inveighed against the proliferation of sex and violence on 
television. They have rightly expressed frustration at the increasing 
difficulty of monitoring the objectionable material that appears on 
network stations. Yet these same members are now proposing a 
debilitating reduction in much-needed funding for the very network that 
provides quality substantive programming for children and serves as an 
educational resource for parents and teachers. These cuts will most 
dramatically impact local public television and radio stations, 
especially those in rural areas and those servicing minority audiences.
  These budget cuts target the ``Ready to Learn'' children's program 
that has helped more than eight million American children improve their 
reading skills. This program has supported more than 6.5 hours of 
educational programming each weekday, and has even financed workshops 
for parents interested in helping their children learn how to read.
  The cuts will also significantly affect the financial security of 
local public broadcasting affiliates; nearly 70 percent of funding 
allocated for the Public Broadcasting Corporation is transferred 
directly to these local stations. With these funds, local PBS stations 
like WNED and WBFO in my district in Western New York purchase national 
programs and produce their own local programming. In an age dominated 
by giant media conglomerates, PBS affiliates are often the only 
television station offering shows that are specifically targeted to 
their locality. This local perspective is particularly important in 
rural areas, like much of my district, that are deemed unprofitable by 
larger, for-profit media conglomerates. Moreover, Americans 
overwhelmingly trust and support PBS, even as their respect for the 
news media at-large has substantially decreased. As the sixth most-
watched media outlet, PBS attracts the attention of more than 70 
percent of American households at least once a month.
  I have received hundreds of phone calls and letters from my 
constituents in Western New York who are outraged at this targeted 
attack on public broadcasting. I firmly believe that this Congress has 
a responsibility to fully support substantive programming for our 
constituents, particularly our youngest constituents. In an era when 
partisan bickering and raucous shouting matches have become 
increasingly prevalent on our Nation's television and radio stations, 
we have an opportunity to elevate the level of public discourse by 
supporting programming that seeks not only to entertain but also to 
educate.
  By fully funding public broadcasting, we provide an unbiased, 
intellectual outlet for those Americans who do not have access to the 
gilded museums and vaunted cultural institutions of our nation's 
wealthiest cities. In a broadcast space increasingly dominated by 
rampant consumerism and the extreme elements of the political spectrum, 
we have an opportunity to back an enterprise devoted not to the 
acquisition of greater wealth, but to the betterment of our common 
culture. We must not allow our partisan differences to obscure the very 
real contribution of the Public Broadcasting Service, if not for 
ourselves than for the youngest members of our society.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, Americans have long relied on the Pell Grant 
program to help pay for higher education. For decades, the program has 
supported students as they strive to reach their potential. Now, at a 
time when tuition costs are rising significantly every year, the Pell 
Grant program has become even more important.
  This year it is projected that 1.3 million students will see their 
Pell grants reduced, and another 90,000 will become ineligible entirely 
due to the administration formula tax table changes. I was going to 
offer an amendment with my colleague Tim Bishop today which would have 
stopped future formula changes cutting more students. The amendment 
would have been ruled out of order.
  Though the Bush Administration's change to the federal student aid 
formula was subtle, its effect is not. Just as states are raising the-
price tags for higher education, the Bush Administration tells students 
and their families that they must shoulder a greater share of the 
burden. Due to the fact the Pell grant formulas effect the rest of 
student aid the Bush student aid reduction will force students and 
families to pay $3.2 billion more overall for college this year.
  And these aid cuts come at a time when tuition is rising at double-
digit rates. Even without these cuts, students and working families are 
straining to pay for higher education. According to the College Board, 
tuition, room, and board at a 4-year public university costs an average 
of $11,354, which is $824 more than last year and $1,775 more than 2 
years ago. In other words, tuition at public institutions has been 
increasing by almost ten percent each year. In fact, according to the 
National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, 
tuition and fees at public institutions in New Jersey have increased by 
more than 40 percent over the past 5 years. In some states, the 
increase is more than 60 percent.
  Given rising college costs, reducing eligibility for financial aid 
seems short-sighted at best, and at worst, insensitive and 
uncompassionate.
  Five million students rely on these grants to help pay for college. 
However because of these changes 36 percent of the 5 million students 
who receive Pell will have their awards reduced. The Pell Grant program 
has long embodied what government can and should do: serve as a pillar 
to lean on for individuals working hard and using their talents to 
achieve their dreams. Unfortunately and inevitably, these cutbacks have 
priced students out of college, forcing them to postpone their 
education and put career goals on hold. And those who do go on to 
college do so only by taking on larger burdens, including private loans 
that must be repaid starting immediately after graduation.
  We believe the current course is taking us in the wrong direction. At 
a time when the country faces international competition and 
outsourcing, at a time when education has never been more important, 
Congress should be expanding college opportunity, not shrinking it. 
More than just an individual accomplishment or a point of pride for a 
family, college education is a public good. Our economy, culture, and 
communities benefit from having more college graduates.
  I ask my colleagues to work with us to ensure that no students see 
their student aid reduced.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, the Labor-HHS Education Appropriations 
bill (H.R. 3010) that we are considering today is a sad reflection of 
Congress' commitment to our Nation, as it represents a gross 
underfunding of key domestic priorities as well as widens the 
disparities gap.
  Access to an affordable, high-quality, public education helps save 
our children and generations yet unborn from the clutches of poverty, 
crime, drugs, and hopelessness. I would ask what could be more 
important or more necessary than to make sure that those who wish to 
better themselves through a high quality education are able to achieve 
that goal unobstructed by the barriers of financial disadvantage?
  Regrettably, this bill would close the door of opportunity to more 
students by providing the

[[Page 13895]]

smallest increase in education funding in 10 years.
  Specifically, H.R. 3010 eliminates 24 important education programs. 
It freezes funding for after school centers, maintains the broken 
promise of IDEA full funding, and underfunds Title I by $9.9 billion 
below the investment promised in NCLB, leaving 3 million needy children 
to struggle without the academic assistance we pledged to provide. 
Despite the need to expand the affordability of higher education, this 
bill would provide only a paltry $50 increase to the maximum Pell Grant 
award.
  Mr. Chairman, I am also deeply troubled by the fact that this bill 
fails to move America in a direction in which being a minority is not a 
mortality factor.
  The National Institute of Medicine concluded that: Americans of color 
tend to receive lower-quality health care than do Caucasians; Americans 
of color receive inferior medical care--compared to the majority 
population--even when the patients' incomes and insurance plans are the 
same; and these disparities contribute to higher death rates from heart 
disease, cancer, diabetes, HIV/AIDS and other life-endangering 
conditions.
  H.R. 3010 would expand the disparity in health care access by 
eliminating the Healthy Communities Access Program and ten health 
profession training programs. It would also cut by $871 million the 
Health Resources and Services Administration and freeze nearly all Ryan 
White AIDS Care programs at a time when AIDS disproportionately ravages 
communities of color.
  H.R. 3010 would also leave the neediest with even less help by 
cutting the Community Services Block Grant by 50 percent.
  Lastly, I know I echo the sentiments of many of my constituents and 
those around the country when I say--restore the funding for the 
Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). I received almost 200 calls 
from constituents concerned about the detrimental impact cuts to the 
CPB will impose.
  In my state, the $100 million rescission in the bill means that 
Maryland Public Television will be cut by $1,192,198. For Maryland's 
public radio stations, it also translates into significant decreases in 
funding--WBJC by over $84,000; WESM by almost $63,000; WSCL by $55,000; 
and WEAA and WYPR, both based in my district, by $78,673 and $138,029 
respectively. The CPB is an invaluable part of the educational and 
informational structure of our Nation--for both those young and the 
old. We should not deafen its voice by cutting nearly 50 percent of its 
budget.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3010 represents a misguided attempt to restore 
fiscal sanity on the backs of those least able to bear the heavy 
burden.
  Our collective belief in the principles of fairness and equality 
demand that we do more than the Bush Administration and House 
Leadership--who only offer hollow promises to address these 
disparities. We should hold them accountable and force an actual 
delivery on these promises by restoring funding for the numerous 
critical domestic programs in this bill. America expects and deserves 
this accountability.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, today I rise to express my concern that this 
bill zeroes out funding for the Foreign Language Assistance Program 
(FLAP) within the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education 
Appropriation Bill. FLAP is currently the only federal program that 
supports foreign language education at the elementary and secondary 
school level. It is widely understood that early language education is 
the key to language proficiency later on.
  In order to start addressing the pressing need for skilled linguists 
and other language professionals that currently exist, forty of my 
colleagues and I sent Chairman Regula and Ranking Member Obey a letter 
requesting $30 million for this program.
  In the past, FLAP grants have helped elementary and secondary schools 
create and maintain high quality language programs in areas such as 
Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Spanish and French.
  Our Nation's language capabilities are underdeveloped because we have 
neglected to provide the language programs that currently exist. An 
increase in FLAP funding will pay large dividends in the future as new 
generations of Americans are exposed to foreign languages and cultures 
at a young age. Currently the demand for language services in the 
United States is greater than ever before. For reasons such as economic 
development, cultural growth and national security, Americans are 
learning that we need to have much better facility with all languages 
and dialects.
  I understand that language education is one of the most pressing 
national security issues facing our Nation today. While the Defense 
Department, the State Department and our intelligence agencies have 
recently turned their attention to the language problem, their approach 
remains focused on immediate needs. However, programs such as FLAP are 
critical in addressing the long term problem by increasing interest in, 
and access to, language education.
  The House has already gone on record this year in strong support of 
language education when it unanimously approved H. Res. 122, and 
established 2005 as the Year of Languages. I believe that an increase 
in FLAP funding would be an appropriate way to further show 
Congressional support for language education.
  As this bill goes to conference I ask my colleagues to join me in 
demanding funding for foreign language education.
  Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I rise to voice my opposition to 
the existing law that provides an automatic annual cost-of-living pay 
increase for Members of Congress.
  While I appreciate the hard work of my colleagues on this bill, I 
object to the process and believe it should be reformed. Failure to 
allow an up or down vote on this issue only serves to increase cynicism 
towards the political process and confirms the feeling of many voter 
that their representatives are out of touch. The American public 
deserves better. Members of Congress should be on record with our 
constituents as to whether we believe an increase in our salary is 
justified. Given the opportunity, I would vote ``no''.
  Fiscal discipline must start with Members of Congress. While our 
nation's economy continues to improve, our national debt remains at 
unprecedented levels and many rural Americans are struggling. 
Struggling to put food on the table. Struggling to make their farms and 
businesses profitable. Struggling to pay skyrocketing medical costs. 
Struggling to educate their children. Struggling to save for 
retirement. The people we represent deserve responsible government and 
Congress should not receive an automatic cost-of-living increase during 
these challenging economic times.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule. During consideration of the bill for 
amendment, the Chair may accord priority in recognition to a Member 
offering an amendment that he has printed in the designated place in 
the Congressional Record. Those amendments will be considered read.
  The Clerk will read.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, for the purpose of entering into a colloquy, I yield to 
the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding to me.
  I rise today with the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) for the 
purpose of engaging the chairman in this colloquy about the National 
Youth Sports Program.
  Mr. Chairman, this year due to funding constraints, the National 
Youth Sports Program was not funded in this appropriation bill. The 
National Youth Sports Program is an educational partnership that has 
worked successfully for 37 years. It provides low-income children, ages 
10 to 16, a 5-week summer program offering sports and academic programs 
at colleges and universities nationwide.
  This proven program also reaches beyond academics and sports to 
provide opportunities for learning about good nutrition, developing 
leadership skills, and developing good character. Currently, the 
program serves about 76,000 kids at 201 colleges and universities 
across the country. Participants benefit from close contact with caring 
adults and learn about discipline and self-esteem that organized sports 
provide. In addition, NYSP gives many participants the first 
opportunity to experience a college or university campus from the 
inside. In my home State of Wisconsin, close to 1,600 young people 
participate in this program.
  Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska.
  Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, 
and I thank him for his work on this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, over 36 years of dealing with young people as a coach, 
recruiting, and as a teacher, I have witnessed an unraveling of our 
Nation's families. Young people in America currently face more 
overwhelming obstacles than ever before. Nearly one half

[[Page 13896]]

of all children grow up without one biological parent or are in some 
difficult home environment.
  The main value of this program, as I see it, Mr. Chairman, is that it 
does give some very needy children on a college campus great 
supervision and through the vehicle of sports encourages them to do 
well in school, provides some character-building experiences. I have 
experienced personally these programs. I have participated in them; so 
I see great value and really appreciate the chairman's willingness to 
at least consider our proposal.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the committee 
acknowledges the good work that is done by the National Youth Sports 
Program, but was unfortunately unable to fund this program due to 
funding constraints.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, as the chairman is aware, earlier this year 
we did have a bipartisan letter of support from over 50 of our 
colleagues requesting a $20 million appropriation for NYSP. Given the 
importance of this program to many children throughout the country and 
the fact that NYSP has successfully leveraged Federal funding to secure 
substantial matching community investments, we would hope that if the 
funding is found on the Senate side that the House could be supportive, 
that the chairman could be supportive of the funding level coming out 
of the Senate in conference.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the committee will do 
its best in the conference if additional funding is available to 
preserve the National Youth Sports Program.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition 
to the legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose the Republican education appropriations bill 
because it makes huge cuts to our critical education programs.
  The Republican education measure will force millions of students, 
elderly, disabled and veterans to foot much of the bill for billions in 
unprecedented tax giveaways to corporations and the super rich.
  This bill compromises our ability to build a highly skilled workforce 
and strong economy, just at the time when we need the investment the 
most.


        The Republican Education Bill Cuts No Child Left Behind

  The Republican education bill actually cuts overall funding for No 
Child Left Behind by 806 million dollars this year.
  The timing could not be worse. Schools are continuing to work to meet 
the challenges of NCLB.
  In 2006, all students are to be taught by a highly qualified teacher 
for the first time.
  These reforms are critically needed, yet we aren't meeting our 
commitment to fund them.
  Since its passage, President Bush and the Republican controlled 
Congress have broken their pledge to fully fund NCLB by a total of 
nearly $40 billion.


   Denying critical math and reading services to millions of school 
                                children

  The Republican education bill cuts the Administration's Title I 
funding increase by 83 percent.
  As a result, more than 3 million children will be denied critical 
services to improve their math and reading skills.
  Current funding for Title I grants--which help low-income children 
improve their academic skills--is now $10 billion short of what 
President Bush and the Congress promised under NCLB.


 The Republican education bill makes it even harder to pay for college

  Millions of students and families continue to struggle to cover 
rising college costs and soaring loan debt.
  Yet this bill provides no real relief.
  Instead, the Republican education bill provides a meager $50 increase 
to the maximum Pell grant scholarship--which doesn't even cover the 
rise of inflation.
  In addition, it falls nearly $1,000 short of President Bush's $5,100 
maximum Pell promise--despite the fact that last year's maximum Pell 
grant scholarship was worth nearly $800 less, in real terms, than it 
was 30 years ago.
  As a result, students will shoulder huge new debts as college 
expenses continue to rise.
  The Republican education bill also shortchanges teacher training by 
freezing Teacher Quality State Grants--which have been frozen or cut 
for 3 years in a row.
  As a result, 56,000 fewer teachers would receive the high quality 
training promised under NCLB.
  This education bill marks the first year in nearly a decade that we 
are actually losing ground on IDEA.
  The Republican education bill funds IDEA at less than half of the 
amount we promised when we enacted the law.
  Congress promised to cover 40 percent of the costs of education for 
children with special needs--yet this year, we'll only cover 18 
percent.
  We need to move forward to close the gap between the amount Congress 
promised and the amount that we provided--not backwards, as this bill 
does.
  This bill raids critical services to children, the disabled, veterans 
and college students to pay for billions in unprecedented tax giveaways 
to corporations and the super rich.
  I strongly oppose the Republican education bill because it will force 
massive cuts to our key education programs and shortchange millions of 
American children, students and workers.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the Republican education 
appropriations bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 3010

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, 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, namely:

                      TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

                 Employment and Training Administration

                    Training and Employment Services


                        (including rescissions)

       For necessary expenses of the Workforce Investment Act of 
     1998, including the purchase and hire of passenger motor 
     vehicles, the construction, alteration, and repair of 
     buildings and other facilities, and the purchase of real 
     property for training centers as authorized by such Act; 
     $2,658,792,000 plus reimbursements, of which $1,708,792,000 
     is available for obligation for the period July 1, 2006, 
     through June 30, 2007; except that amounts determined by the 
     Secretary of Labor to be necessary pursuant to sections 
     173(a)(4)(A) and 174(c) of such Act shall be available from 
     October 1, 2005, until expended; and of which $950,000,000 is 
     available for obligation for the period April 1, 2006, 
     through June 30, 2007, to carry out chapter 4 of such Act: 
     Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, of 
     the funds provided herein under section 137(c) of such Act of 
     1998, $212,000,000 shall be for activities described in 
     section 132(a)(2)(A) of such Act and $1,193,264,000 shall be 
     for activities described in section 132(a)(2)(B) of such Act: 
     Provided further, That $125,000,000 shall be available for 
     Community-Based Job Training Grants: Provided further, That 
     $7,936,000 shall be for carrying out section 172 of such Act: 
     Provided further, That, notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law or related regulation, $75,759,000 shall be for 
     carrying out section 167 of such Act, including $71,213,000 
     for formula grants, $4,546,000 for migrant and seasonal 
     housing (of which not less than 70 percent shall be for 
     permanent housing), and $500,000 for other discretionary 
     purposes: Provided further, That notwithstanding the transfer 
     limitation under section 133(b)(4) of such Act, up to 30 
     percent of such funds may be transferred by a local board if 
     approved by the Governor: Provided further, That funds 
     provided to carry out section 171(d) of such Act may be used 
     for demonstration projects that provide assistance to new 
     entrants in the workforce and incumbent workers: Provided 
     further, That no funds from any other appropriation shall be 
     used to provide meal services at or for Job Corps centers.

  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to enter into a colloquy with the 
gentleman from Texas (Chairman Barton) of the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce to discuss an amendment which I introduced and which was 
adopted by the Committee on Appropriations to the Departments of Labor, 
Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Fiscal 
Year 2006 appropriations bill. The Committee on Appropriations adopted 
my amendment, which blocks convicted sex offenders from receiving 
federally funded medication such as Viagra and other similar 
medication.
  As the chairman may know, more than 800 sex offenders in 14 States 
have been reimbursed for Viagra and similar medication. The sex 
offenders being tracked for these statistics are level three sex 
offenders, which are the most threatening and dangerous of all 
convicted sex offenders.
  The amendment, already incorporated in the bill before us, will 
prohibit any Federal funds under this act

[[Page 13897]]

to be used for reimbursement to convicted sex offenders for Viagra or 
similar medication. Since this is an appropriations bill, it means that 
the effect of these provisions will last only for 1 year. I look 
forward to working with the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Barton) on 
the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the gentleman from California 
(Chairman Thomas) on the Committee on Ways and Means on legislation to 
stop this practice quickly and permanently.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
California, the author of the amendment, section 519 of the Departments 
of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related 
Agencies Fiscal Year 2006 appropriation bill, for yielding to me.
  Section 519, as authored by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Doolittle), would prohibit Medicare, Medicaid, and other public health 
agencies from paying for erectile dysfunction medications to convicted 
sex offenders by modifying the medication coverage policies of 
entitlement programs established under the statutes within the 
jurisdiction of the Committee of Energy and Commerce, which I chair.
  This provision is clearly, and I repeat, clearly, legislating on an 
appropriations bill, a clear violation of clause 2 of rule XXI of the 
rules of the House. Legislative changes affecting these public health 
programs should be properly considered by the authorizing committee of 
jurisdiction and not in an appropriations bill.
  I am, however, very sympathetic to the goals of the sponsor of this 
provision, what the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) is trying 
to accomplish. I have with me a press report by the Associated Press 
just released today that says in California, the State that the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) is from, last year their 
program paid for 137 sex offenders to get these types of drugs, and I 
know the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) wants to prevent 
that.
  So I am not going to object today because I believe that under no 
circumstances should taxpayers' dollars be used to pay for providing 
these medications to convicted sex offenders. We do not want to send 
the wrong message to these individuals or to the State public health 
officials that have allowed this to happen.
  I did send a letter to the Committee on Rules asking that this 
language remain subject to a point of order on the floor today; but 
given these unique circumstances, I have agreed to allow this provision 
to be included in the bill today.
  I want to put the House on notice and the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Lewis), chairman of the full committee, and the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Regula), chairman of the subcommittee, that the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce will move legislation prohibiting convicted sex 
offenders from gaining access to these medications before the 
conference on this appropriations bill is complete.
  This is the proper way for the House to address the issue. I would 
hope that all Members will support this legislation when it comes to 
the floor in the very near future.

                      [From the Associated Press]

  State Agencies Directed To Stop Providing Such Drugs to Ex-Convicts

       San Francisco.--California taxpayers helped pay for Viagra 
     and other impotence drugs for at least 137 registered sex 
     offenders in the past year, the state Attorney General's 
     office said.
       An audit found that Medi-Cal--the state Medicaid agency 
     that funds some health services programs for California's 
     poor--spent $2.6 million to provide 5,855 men with Viagra and 
     other erectile dysfunction drugs, including 137 men who were 
     registered sex offenders, Nathan Barankin, spokesman for 
     Attorney General Bill Lockyer, said Wednesday.
       Lockyer's office received a list of Medi-Cal-funded Viagra 
     recipients from the Department of Health Services and ran 
     that list against the men whose whereabouts are registered 
     with local law enforcement, Barankin said.
       Last month, under federal pressure to prevent sex offenders 
     from obtaining taxpayer-funded Viagra, Gov. Arnold 
     Schwarzenegger directed state agencies to stop providing such 
     ex-convicts with erectile dysfunction drugs.
       The federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services even 
     warned it might cut federal funding for states that do not 
     make serious efforts to cut convicted sex offenders off from 
     these drugs.
       State authorities across the country have been searching 
     their databases after a New York state audit showed that 198 
     sex offenders there received government-reimbursed Viagra 
     between January 2000 and March 2005.

  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  I too support the spirit and intent of the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Doolittle). And if there ever was common sense, it is the fact 
that taxpayer money should not be used to provide Viagra and similar 
medications to convicted sex offenders, those among the worst in the 
country. So this is a short-term solution; but we need a long-term 
solution, a bill that I have introduced; and it is understood that the 
chairman will move that legislation. It focuses on drug utilization 
review programs that provide the States with the flexibility to prevent 
convicted sex offenders from obtaining Viagra with taxpayer money.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank both these 
gentlemen and commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella), the 
author of the permanent legislation, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Barton), the chairman of the primary committee with jurisdiction over 
this. This definitely needs to be made permanent. This is really just 
an interim step until that legislation can move.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio 
(Chairman Regula) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), ranking 
member, for letting us have this colloquy.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to begin my remarks by acknowledging the 
obvious. The gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) and the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), ranking member, dealt the hand 
that was given to them.

                              {time}  1330

  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Ranking Member Obey) of the 
subcommittee and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the chairman of 
the subcommittee, dealt the hand that was given to them.
  But, my friends, when the budget is cut by $16 billion and you expect 
that the most vulnerable of America can raise their head and survive, 
you understand that a crisis is in the midst.
  Now, I was prepared today to offer two amendments, because I believe 
that in helping that we can all work together. But I realize that the 
ranking member and the chairman have done everything that they could 
possibly do, and I buy into our leader's concept that this is simply 
borrowing from the lambs, the most vulnerable.
  But I do want to acknowledge the two amendments that I would have 
offered today and share with my colleagues the reason for withdrawing 
them, because I hope that we will battle all the way to conference, 
restore the $16 billion that takes away from the most needy, but also 
from the Americans who depend on us the most.
  Just a couple of days ago, the Subcommittee on Defense of the 
Committee on Appropriations stood on the floor of the House and they 
said they came in $3.5 billion under mark, meaning that they spent less 
than they were authorized or able to do. But even with that $3.5 
billion, we find ourselves cutting over 20 Health and Human Services 
programs and over 25 educational programs to educate our children.
  I would have offered the following two amendments, one dealing with 
the hepatitis C virus, and I pay tribute to

[[Page 13898]]

a former constituent of mine, Ed Wendt, who lost his life in the battle 
with hepatitis C and liver disease, a Vietnam war veteran, somebody 
with whom I stood in front of the Justice Department fighting against 
the discrimination of veterans who have hepatitis C virus. Although 
many of them do not know it, nearly 4 million Americans are currently 
infected and 35,000 new infections occur each year. HCV costs millions 
of dollars in health care and lost wages, and this amendment would have 
offered an additional $1.5 million to deal with this issue.
  Hepatitis C impacts African Americans, children, and adolescents, 
renal dialysis patients, HIV-positive patients. We need help.
  But I will not offer this amendment to continue the battle for more 
dollars for all Americans on all issues. Today on the floor of the 
House I saw a former colleague, Congresswoman Meek. Carrie Meek was a 
soldier on the battlefield for lupus research, and I was prepared to 
offer an amendment to increase the dollars for lupus because we have 
not determined the cause of lupus. But because of the need to spread 
the wealth and the need to provide resources that we do not have 
because the majority determined that the most vulnerable of America do 
not need our attention, I will not offer that amendment.
  I rise to offer the impact or to emphasize the impact that we will be 
facing. Do my colleagues realize that we are cutting dollars from 
community health clinics, we are cutting dollars from training and 
primary care medicine and dentistry, sickle cell demonstration projects 
are being zeroed out, early learning opportunities programs are being 
zeroed out? In education, we are zeroing out comprehensive school 
reform, parental information and resource centers. We are zeroing out 
arts and education, alcohol abuse reduction; all of those are being 
zeroed out. And even though I will be supporting my colleagues on the 
Congressional Black Caucus, because we are appreciative of being able 
to save TRIO, we will also be standing here to say that because we 
believe in the mandate of the gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman 
Watt) for this Congress, closing the disparities gap for Americans, 
particularly minority Americans and African Americans, we can stand 
here today and say that this legislation is a travesty, for it impacts 
the elderly, it impacts the most vulnerable, the sickest of Americans, 
it impacts the youngest of Americans.
  In Texas alone we will be losing some $9 billion in language 
acquisition in education, we will be losing $62 billion in education 
technology, $7 billion in assessments. We will be losing $27 billion in 
innovative education. We will be losing $13 billion in rural education. 
We will be losing another amount in special ed.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill needs to go back to address the needs of the 
most vulnerable Americans and to close the disparities gap.
  Mr. Chairman, let me first say thanks to you and the Ranking Member 
for your work on this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I had planned to offer two amendments but have decided 
to withdraw them due to existing funding cuts in the bill and the fact 
that there is not much room to transfer monies throughout the bill. 
Nevertheless, I feel it is very important to briefly discuss these 
amendments for they deal with two very pressing health issues (Lupus 
and Hepatitis-C). My first amendment, which was two fold, would have 
increased funding for the ``Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-
Disease Control, Research, and Training'', by $2.5 million. The second 
half of this amendment would have increased funding to the ``National 
Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities'' by $1.5 million. The 
purpose of these funding increases would have been to increase 
educational programs on Lupus for health care providers and the general 
public. In addition, my first amendment would have sought to expand the 
operation of the National Lupus Patient Registry. Lupus is a chronic, 
disabling, and potentially fatal condition in which the immune system 
attacks the body's own organs and tissues. Lupus strikes primarily 
women and is twice as common among people of color. Currently, it is 
estimated that 1.5 to 2 million Americans have Lupus. There is no cure 
for Lupus, no new drugs have been approved to treat the disease in 
nearly forty years, and no valid medical measure to diagnose and track 
the disease's progression exists. This is a serious disease and we must 
focus more attention on it if we are to find a cure.
  My second amendment would also have increased funding for ``Centers 
for Disease Control and Prevention-Disease Control, Research, and 
Training'' for the purpose of increasing Hepatitis-C research 
activities. Particularly at risk for Hepatitis-C are African-Americans, 
children and adolescents, renal dialysis patients, HIV/HCV positive 
patients, and patients with hemophilia. Although many of them do not 
know it, nearly four million Americans are currently infected, and 
35,000 new infections occur each year. This insidious virus takes 
thousands of lives annually--primarily through cirrhosis and liver 
cancer. HCV costs millions of dollars in healthcare and lost wages each 
year, but it receives inadequate attention from the public, the medical 
field, and the federal government.
  Hepatitis-C is an inflammation of the liver including tenderness, and 
sometimes permanent damage. Hepatitis-C can be caused by various 
viruses or by substances such as chemicals, drugs, and alcohol. 
Hepatitis C virus is one of six known types of the hepatitis virus. I 
would urge my colleagues to take a closer look at this devastating 
disease.
  I would also like to take a moment to express my concerns with some 
of the many funding cuts for Title VII programs in this year's 
appropriations bill. While I am pleased to see that funding was 
provided for Minority Centers of Excellence ($12 million) and 
Scholarships for Disadvantaged Students ($35 million), I am 
disappointed that Area Health Education Centers, Health Education and 
Training Centers, and Health Professions Training Programs were all 
zeroed out. These programs have been addressing the needs of medically 
underserved communities in Texas since 1991 by playing a key role in 
providing health services and health care professionals for our most 
vulnerable populations. I would hope that I would be able to work with 
the Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member as this bill moves through 
conference to see if we can find some funding for these very important 
programs.
  I am pleased to see that the Committee provided an increase over last 
year's funding level for Ryan White AIDS Programs. Specifically, the 
bill appropriates $2.1 billion for the programs, which is $10 million 
(2%) more than the current level but equal to the administration's 
request. This total includes $610 million for the emergency assistance 
program--which provides grants to metropolitan areas with very high 
numbers of AIDS cases--$1.1 billion for comprehensive-care programs, 
$196 million for the early-intervention program, and $73 million for 
the Pediatric HIV/AIDS program.
  Head Start also received an increase in funding. The bill provides 
$6.9 billion for the program. This is $56 million more than the current 
level but slightly less than the administration's request. I would like 
to work with the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member to increase 
funding to the Administration's request during conference. The total 
for Head Start includes $5.5 billion in FY 2006 billion in advance 
appropriations from a prior year. The measure also includes $1.4 
billion in advance FY 2007 appropriations.
  Unfortunately, the bill only provides $14.7 billion for the Education 
for the Disadvantaged Children Program. It saddens me to say that this 
amount is $115 million less than the current level and $1.7 billion 
less than the Administration's request. I hope more funding can be 
provided for this important program during conference.
  Before closing, I would like to express my dismay with the $100 
million decrease in funding for Corporation for Public Broadcasting. A 
loss in CPB funding would seriously hamper PBS' ability to acquire the 
top quality children's educational programming that is used in 
classrooms, day care centers and millions of American households to 
educate, entertain and provide a safe harbor from the violent, 
commercial and crass content found in the commercial marketplace. PBS 
provides valuable services that improve classroom teaching and assist 
homeschoolers. These could be reduced or eliminated if federal funding 
is cut. These services include PBS TeacherSource, a service that 
provides pre-K through 12 educators with nearly 4,000 free lesson 
plans, teachers' guides, and homeschooling guidance; and PBS 
TeacherLine, which provides high-quality professional teacher 
development through more than 90 online-facilitated courses in reading, 
mathematics, science and technology integration. We must not cut 
funding for this valuable program.
  Again, I thank the Chairman and the Ranking Member for their work on 
this bill, and I

[[Page 13899]]

hope we can all work to further fund the programs mentioned in my 
statement as we move to conference.
  Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I had two amendments that I was going to offer on the 
Corporation of Public Broadcasting, and they have to do with 
restricting funding for opening a new office that would monitor 
dissenting and ideological statements.
  Mr. Chairman, today I am offering an amendment that will help end the 
partisan attacks on public broadcasting by prohibiting the funding of 
the new Office of Ombudsmen at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. 
The creation of such office is partisan, unnecessary, and contrary to 
the spirit of the law that created CPB, and I strongly urge my 
colleagues to support this amendment.
  Corporation of Public Broadcasting, CPB, Chairman, Kenneth Tomlinson, 
has inserted politics into our public media and has taken the public 
out. Recently we learned that Mr. Tomlinson secretly coordinated with a 
White House official to formulate ``guiding principles'' for the 
appointment of two partisan ombudsmen to monitor and critique all 
public broadcasting content. Furthermore, the ombudsmen were appointed 
by Tomlinson based on their purported political ideology--``one for the 
left and one for the right.'' These actions are in violation of the 
original mandate established by the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967. 
This historic act forbids ``political or other tests'' from being used 
in employee actions and prohibits interference by Federal officials 
over public media content. Congress intended that the CPB serve as a 
firewall against outside political pressures, and the creation of the 
ombudsmen office at the CPB clearly contradicts that spirit.
  Secondly, hiring outside ombudsmen at CPB is completely unnecessary. 
NPR already has an in-house ombudsman. In response to the unfounded 
accusations of liberal bias, the PBS board recently selected an 
independent ombudsman that is in line with the original bill's 
language, which states that the ``production and acquisition of 
programs'' is supposed to be ``evaluated on the basis of comparative 
merit by panels or outside experts, representing diverse interests and 
perspectives appointed by the corporations.'' There is clearly no need 
to spend additional taxpayer's money for the monitoring of public 
broadcasting programming, especially through the lens of political 
ideology.
  The amendment I am offering today simply restores what was already in 
place by legal precedent by prohibiting the funding of the Office of 
Ombudsmen at CPB. This amendment is in the spirit of the 1967 act, 
which forbade ``any direction, supervision, or control over the content 
or distribution of public telecommunications programs and services.''
  The American people, in poll after poll, have judged PBS to be ``fair 
and balanced'' compared to network and cable television. We do not need 
outside operatives to intervene. Furthermore, in these times of fiscal 
crisis for PBS, the last thing we need is to spend taxpayers' money on 
partisan media police. My amendment will help return balance and 
objectivity to our public media, and I urge my colleagues to support 
this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, once again our public broadcasting system is under 
attack by reactionary forces inside the beltway. This time, it is 
suffering a two-pronged assault; one on content, one on funding, and 
both politically motivated.
  Congressman Hinchey and I are offering an amendment to reinforce 
existing law and buffer PBS from the kind of political attacks that 
Corporation of Public Broadcasting, CPB Chairman, Kenneth Tomlinson, 
has brought upon Big Bird and Elmo. Mr. Tomlinson has revealed his 
personal crusade to discredit and destroy public broadcasting by 
unjustly accusing PBS and NPR of liberal bias, and working behind the 
scenes to stack the CPB's board and executive offices with operatives 
who share his ideological views.
  According to recent reports, Tomlinson is promoting Patricia 
Harrison, the former co-chairwoman of the Republican National 
Committee, to be CPB's next president. Mr. Tomlinson also secretly 
coordinated with a White House official to formulate ``guiding 
principles'' for the appointment of two partisan ombudsmen to monitor 
and critique all public broadcasting content. Tomlinson suppressed a 
public poll showing that 80 percent of Americans judge PBS to be ``fair 
and balanced'' compared to network and cable television. Finally, 
Tomlinson diverted taxpayers' money to hire a partisan researcher for a 
stealth study to track ``anti-Bush'' and ``anti-Tom DeLay'' comments by 
the guests of NOW with Bill Moyers--a move that currently is being 
investigated by the Inspector General.
  Mr. Chairman, the law is clear on this. The Public Broadcasting Act 
of 1967 clearly forbids ``any direction, supervision, or control over 
the content or distribution of public telecommunications programs and 
services.'' Congress established the Corporation for Public 
Broadcasting to ``encourage the development of public radio and 
television broadcasting'' and to ``afford (public broadcasting) maximum 
protection from extraneous interference and control.'' Under the 
direction of Tomlinson, however, the CPB has engaged in a deliberate 
campaign to inject politics into public broadcasting.
  The taxpayer-funded CPB is supposed to serve as a firewall between 
Washington, DC, politics and public broadcasting. Mr. Chairman, we must 
take the politics out of public broadcasting--and put the public back 
in. Our amendment will prohibit Mr. Tomlinson from exercising any 
direction, supervision, or control over the content or distribution of 
public broadcasting. It would also reaffirm the long-standing policy 
that public broadcasting must be free from outside interference. This 
is about the future of a vital public trust, a resource that is owned 
and enjoyed by everyone, and not allowing it to be hijacked by the 
nefarious agenda of a few political operatives. It is a shame that it 
has even come to arguing for safeguards we used to take for granted, 
but the actions of Mr. Tomlinson demand it. I urge my colleagues to 
support our amendment.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Obey:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. The amounts otherwise provided in this Act for the 
     following accounts and activities are hereby reduced by the 
     following amounts, and none of the funds made available in 
     this Act may be used to carry out the rescission specified in 
     this Act under the heading ``Corporation for Public 
     Broadcasting'':
       (1) ``Department of Labor--Employment and Training 
     Administration--Training and Employment Services'', 
     $58,000,000.
       (2) ``Department of Labor--Departmental Management--
     Salaries and Expenses'', $4,640,000.
       (3) ``Department of Health and Human Services--Health 
     Resources and Services Administration--Health Resources and 
     Services'', $2,920,000.
       (4) ``Department of Education--Higher Education'', 
     $27,000,000.
       (5) ``Department of Education--Departmental Management--
     Program Administration'', $8,380,000.

  Mr. OBEY (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this 
amendment and any amendments thereto be limited to 30 minutes to be 
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself as the 
opponent.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment will be considered at 
this point in the reading and, without objection, the debate will be 
considered within the time specified.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, we all know what this amendment is. It is very simple, 
and I will not take very much time on explain it.
  We simply strike the $100 million rescission that was included in the 
Labor-HHS bill for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. This 
restores the $100 million in funding for CPB, which distributes the 
majority of those funds to over 1,000 public television and radio 
stations nationwide, and uses the remaining funds to support national 
programming and public broadcasting systems.
  It is offset by modest reductions in low-priority demonstration 
programs and administrative accounts in the Labor, Health and Human 
Services, and Education Department. I think those reductions will not 
do serious harm to any of the administrative budgets involved.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.

[[Page 13900]]


  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New 
York (Mrs. Lowey).
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to offer this amendment with 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Ranking Member Obey) and the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. Leach).
  What we have today is a new remake of an old show: the misguided 
effort to deny the American people the quality, thought-provoking, and 
insightful programming of PBS.
  Ten years ago, when the right wing launched an all-out assault on 
public television, Americans understood what was at stake and rallied 
around PBS. The Republican leadership retreated, and public 
broadcasting was saved.
  Today, the majority is again trying to pull the plug on public 
television and radio. This time, well over a million Americans have 
signed petitions calling for the restoration of CPB's operating funds, 
and thousands more have contacted congressional offices in opposition 
to these devastating cuts.
  Families across the country turn to public radio and television for 
educational programs, job training, the latest digital services, 
balanced news, local information; the very types of programs and 
services commercial television stations simply do not offer because 
they just are not profitable.
  Local public stations are already struggling to provide these quality 
programs with limited dollars. This $100 million rescission, 25 percent 
of CPB's operating budget, could force many stations to fade to black.
  Do we want to live in a society where pop culture dictates all that 
is offered on the airwaves? Do we want to live in a society in which 
the only characters that appear on Sesame Street and other children's 
programs are the ones that gross the highest profits, rather than those 
who deliver the most compelling lessons to our kids?
  We have an opportunity today to send the same strong and successful 
message that beat back these cuts to public broadcasting 10 years ago. 
I urge my colleagues to restore this critical funding to CPB by voting 
in favor of the Obey-Lowey-Leach amendment.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy).
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman, I understand one of the objections to the 
Obey amendment will be that it takes money from worker training 
programs and community health services. But I want to state that as a 
child psychologist, I cannot overstate the need to make the ability of 
quality, wholesome media a priority for our children, and I am 
certainly concerned about reducing these funds that would affect 
children's programming, as I am sure every Member is.
  In southwestern Pennsylvania, it has been the home of WQED, the first 
community-owned TV station, production center for many PBS programs, 
and also the home for Fred Rogers' programs with Mr. Rogers' 
Neighborhood.
  It is extremely important, and I am hoping in conference, as I expect 
this amendment may fail, in conference the chairman may work to help 
restore some programming funds for public broadcasting. I believe it is 
important to have nonviolent, noncommercial programs, because so many 
other programs still have so much in there that appears to be just 
infomercials for children's programming.
  So I ask that as this proceeds, that the chairman work in conference 
and in other areas to help restore some of the programming funds that 
would help us with such important children's programming.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), one of the cosponsors of the 
amendment, and I appreciate very much his involvement in this activity.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I thank my distinguished friend for yielding 
me this time.
  I would like to just take a moment to discuss what might seem 
esoteric, that is a definitional issue. The word ``public'' means ``of 
or pertaining to the whole community.''
  I mention this because public broadcasting is not intended to be a 
reflection of the views of any government. It is not government 
broadcasting we are talking about; it is public broadcasting. That was 
made clear when Congress created this particular program that so many 
of Americans hear and feel every day of their lives.
  Public broadcasting simply was not to be the microphone of the 
government. Perspectives reflected are expected to be honest and of the 
highest quality, hopefully reflecting a variety of views. But all 
governments, Republican or Democratic, all government officials, left, 
right and center, should expect to be criticized and find views 
reflected that they do not agree with. It is simply better for society 
to have a questioning, skeptical press and, most particularly, a 
skeptical, questioning public broadcasting system than one that is 
slavishly supportive of any perspective, especially a perspective that 
might be considered a government one.
  Here, all of us have heard a lot of criticism of public broadcasting, 
particularly journalists like Bill Moyers and Dan Schorr. Let me say, I 
do not think either would consider themselves a card-carrying arch-
conservative. But the fact of the matter is that there have probably 
been no journalists in the last several generations who have uplifted 
public discourse more than these two men. We, all of us, will not agree 
with anything or everything that they say, but we certainly can respect 
them.
  Let me end for the moment with the notion that public broadcasting is 
about increasing the civility level of public discourse. It is also 
about increasing the appreciation level for the American arts. I cannot 
think of any publicly funded endeavor that has done more for uplifting 
what we consider to be the values that underpin public policy rather 
than simply reflect perspectives on public policy itself. I cannot 
think of any publicly funded endeavor that has done more to bring out 
the best in the American arts.

                              {time}  1345

  And so I would strongly urge my colleagues to reflect that these 
institutions of the Public Broadcasting System deserve our respect and 
our support.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, it is a privilege to yield 3 
minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Chairman, today we are talking 
about deficits, debt and tight spending. We are talking about tight 
veterans budgets and funding our troops. But the other side of the 
aisle will not let us even cut from the most obvious sources. I would 
like to let them know, and the other Members, let them know what PBS 
does not want you to know, Big Bird is a billionaire.
  What they do not want you to know is that the marketing rights for 
Sesame Street and Barney total $1.3 billion. Merchandise from PBS can 
be found in every toy store across America, and yet that money does not 
appear on the Corporation for Public Broadcasting's balance sheet. 
Americans should be shocked.
  This is the height of absurdity, a massive corporation shielding its 
profits so that it can continue to feed at the Federal trough. Where is 
the Democratic outrage at this? If this were a Fortune 500 company, we 
would be hearing breathless condemnations from the other side. But 
there is actually more. The average household income of a listener of 
NPR is approximately $75,000. Guess what? This means the taxpayers are 
being soaked so that the affluent people can get their news commercial-
free.
  This debate shows that many people have truly met a government 
program they could not cut. Mr. Speaker, Big Bird is strong enough to 
fly on his own. If we cannot get this billionaire off the public 
trough, than I ask how can we ever hope to cut spending.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the point that is 
being made. I think the listening public, the interested public, should 
know

[[Page 13901]]

that the Federal funding for programs like Sesame Street, the popular 
children's programs, frankly only 2.5 percent of that comes from the 
Federal Government. Indeed, the billionaire could clearly take care of 
that.
  And one more point. For all those people who are calling our offices 
from San Francisco and New York and otherwise across the country, if 
each would just send another dollar, they would not have to bother with 
this; they would save that in the phone bills.
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I could not agree 
with you more. And that exactly should be the message, that those who 
want to support public broadcasting should do it through their personal 
checkbook.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is necessary because my 
friends on the other side know the cost of everything and the value of 
nothing. I rise in strong support of the amendment to restore funding 
to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
  This is money already authorized by the Congress. Now my friends on 
the other side of the aisle are trying to take it away. Today's debate 
is laced with irony because to millions of Americans there is simply no 
debate over how important public broadcasting is to them and their 
children.
  It is an educational and cultural enrichment to our whole society, 
and it is a success story of which we can be proud. I urge that we 
adopt the amendment which actually should be $200 million, instead of 
$100 million, because that is the amount that has been cut over here.
  I urge my colleagues to adopt the amendment. I commend the authors, 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the gentlewoman from New York 
(Mrs. Lowey), and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) for their 
amendment.
  The amendment should not have been needed. But the House can cure the 
mistakes of the Appropriations Committee by adopting the amendment by 
an overwhelming vote. Public broadcasting is a highly valued national 
investment. It generates extraordinary returns for local communities 
across our Nation. It preserves the highest quality programming and 
commitment to public service.
  Public broadcasting must remain not only fully funded but insulated 
from political pressures which are now being placed upon it. Every 
Democratic Member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce recently 
signed a letter in support of restoring full funding to the Corporation 
for Public Broadcasting, including funding for the digital conversion 
and an upgraded satellite interconnection system.
  Some of these vital items remain zeroed out. But I hope we can 
rectify those matters later. Mr. Chairman, this important amendment 
values our children, and the in-depth journalism and life-long learning 
that sustains our democracy. I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment. If we do not, we will be sorry and the Nation will 
disapprove of our decision.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment. I want to point out a 
number of reasons, not that I dislike public broadcasting or public 
television; I think they do great programming. My grandchildren love 
Elmo and Big Bird, and Between the Lions. I like a number of the 
programs.
  But keep in mind, that this was created at a time, what, some 30-plus 
years ago when we did not have the huge variety of programming that is 
available today. And keep in mind, of course, that we have limited 
amounts of money.
  I know that there has been a lot of conversation out across the 
country and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is involved here, 
and National Public Radio, they have the microphones available to reach 
people who are calling us. But I am not sure that those who call 
realize what would be eliminated if we were to adopt this amendment.
  Just let me enumerate those. What this amendment does to make up the 
100 million for CPB is takes $58 million out of the Department of 
Labor. For what purpose? Employment and training and administration, 
training and employment services. Takes away from young people's 
training opportunities. That is extremely important in today's world, 
where we have 32 percent of our high school graduates, not graduates, 
32 percent of our high school students that do not graduate.
  That is a national statistic. And we offer programs here, GEDs, 
training, all kinds of things to give them a chance later on as they 
realize their mistake in not finishing high school.
  But this would take away, this amendment would take away from the 
Department of Labor employment and training administration services, 
$58 million. So that means some young man and some young woman across 
this Nation who suddenly realize how important it is to their future 
and to their country and to their community and to their family that 
they get additional training would not have that opportunity so that we 
can have public broadcasting.
  Now, I point out that only 15 percent of the money that provides for 
the Corporation for Public Broadcasting comes from the Federal 
Government. And it has been pointed out that this would eliminate a 
number of these programs. But I would point out that Elmo and Big Bird 
and the Lions all make a lot of money, as was brought to our attention 
earlier today.
  And they have opportunities to raise a lot of funds. All of us have 
seen the fund-raising. But we do not see fund- raising out there to 
give young people a new opportunity to be retrained so that they can be 
employed. So let us not take that away. Another item that this would 
take away: the Department of Labor salaries and expenses.
  We need people at the Department of Labor to manage the programs, to 
ensure that workers' safety is taken care of, to ensure that workers' 
rights are protected. We are not going to have a fund-raising program 
to do that, as can be the case with public broadcasting.
  Third item. Takes away from the Department of Health and Human 
Services, health resources and services administration, health 
resources and services, $2.9 million.
  Well, what is important to the people in this Nation is health: 
health research, health management; NIH. Keep in mind that the National 
Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control are both part 
of the Department of Health and Human Services. We do not do fund-
raising for them. But we are going to take the money away, or propose 
to take it away, for the public broadcasting where they have lots of 
opportunity to raise money in the private sector.
  Fourth item that is taken away by this amendment, that would be 
reduced, is the Department of Education, higher education. $27 million 
would be taken out of the Department of Education to fund the 
Corporation for Public Broadcasting. We have heard a lot of discussion 
today how important it is to have higher education, Pell grants, not 
enough. We have heard other items are not enough; and yet here we are 
proposing, in an amendment, to take away $27 million that is vital to 
the future of young people in higher education programs.
  Lastly, Department of Education, program administration, $8 million-
plus. Someone has commented today that we originally wanted to get rid 
of the Department of Education. But we are not. We have a great number 
of programs here in the Department of Education to improve teacher 
quality, principals, to improve opportunity for young people, to 
provide, through the TRIO and through the other programs of that type, 
an opportunity to provide for the historically black colleges. All of 
this money has to be administered.
  And this would take away the money to do part of that. So I want to 
say to all of my colleagues, I realize all that you have been getting 
in the way of phone calls; but I dare say that if you said to those 
that call you, well, if we do what you are requesting me to do, would 
you be willing to eliminate the Department of Labor training services;

[[Page 13902]]

the Department of Labor management; department of Health and Human 
Services resources; Department of Education higher education, and so 
on, I suspect that, if they were given the choice, that they would say, 
oh, wait a minute, these are important to us. They are important to my 
family. They are important to my community. They are important to the 
young people who are my neighbors and friends.
  And given the fact that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting has 
the ability to raise a lot of money, has the ability to fund the 
development of programs like Elmo and Big Bird. Go into a store, you 
will see a lot of these things on sale. I know that they produce a lot 
of profit for those that sell them.
  So let me say to my colleagues today, when you cast this vote, keep 
in mind that you are trading off to give CPB more money, that they are 
very successful in raising money in the private sector; you are trading 
off against that all of these educational opportunities that will be 
limited to the tune of $100 million total.

                              {time}  1400

  Members should weigh which is more beneficial to the constituents we 
represent.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, how much remains on both sides?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 7 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) has 3 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous 
consent request to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Obey-Lowey-Leach 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Obey/Lowey/Leach amendment to 
H.R. 3010, the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education 
Appropriations Act of 2006.
  This amendment would restore the $100 million that this bill cuts 
from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, CPB.
  I support CPB, NPR and PBS because they provide Americans of all ages 
with a broad range of valuable programmIng.
  CPB helps fund local stations all across America, and if we implement 
these cuts, the impact on local services, community support and vital 
programming will be significantly damaging.
  Local public broadcasting stations are leaders in education, news and 
information, and are attracting growing numbers of listeners as they 
air unique programs.
  Restoring the $100 million cut will allow CPB to continue funding the 
important community service contributions of local public television 
and radio stations.
  I support this amendment and encourage my colleagues to do so as 
well.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I cannot believe some of the comments I have just heard 
from my good friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula).
  Let me simply say with respect to the offsets we have in this 
amendment, with respect to the Labor Department all this does is to 
reduce funding for pilot and demonstrations in the department from $74 
million in the committee bill to $16 million. It still leaves a 
significant amount of money in this account.
  This is an area where the committee itself has indicated that they do 
not have sufficient information from the agency to even know how they 
are spending that money. So it seems to me that we are simply following 
the committee shot across the agency bow.
  With respect to the Labor Department, departmental management, this 
essentially cuts the increase over last year for departmental 
management, excluding the International Labor Affairs Bureau. Large 
amounts of money in that department are being spent for activities that 
are clearly not authorized, and some procurement practices now being 
exercised by the agency do not meet the standards that we will want to 
have to defend in public.
  With respect to HRSA program management, I cannot believe any 
objection is being made to the reduction in this account. The bill 
itself eliminates 11 programs in HRSA. If all of these programs are 
going to be eliminated, certainly there are fewer bodies that are 
needed to manage them, and this is simply consistent with the 
programmatic actions already taken by the committee.
  With respect to the funds for the improvement of education, this 
amendment merely trims the additional funding provided in the committee 
over the administration's request for this item. None of these items 
are going to have any significant impact on the accounts involved.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Pence).
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. 
More importantly, I thank the chairman for bringing fiscal discipline 
and leadership to the appropriations process.
  I rise today not so much as a Member of Congress from Indiana but as 
the chairman of the largest caucus in the House of Representatives. The 
Republican Study Committee boasts over 100 members, men and women who 
are committed to fiscal discipline and traditional moral values. And so 
when the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) brings to the floor a 
Labor-HHS appropriations bill that makes the tough decisions to put our 
fiscal house in order, I have to rise, even on a controversial issue 
like Big Bird, to stand with this chairman and to thank him.
  The stakes are high; $7.7 trillion is the current running money on 
the national debt. According to CBO, our fiscal 2004 national deficit 
number is $413 billion. In order to bring this bill in and to keep 
discretionary spending below last year's level, this legislation 
literally eliminates 57 programs encompassed in this bill and asks many 
programs to accept up to a 50 percent cut. Asking the Corporation for 
Public Broadcasting that receives only 15 percent of its funding from 
the Federal Government to accept what amounts to a 22 percent reduction 
as we attempt to put our fiscal house in order is reasonable and 
responsible and precisely that which the American people elected the 
Republican majority to do.
  We have no higher stewardship, no higher calling than to come onto 
this floor and into this Chamber and make the tough decisions. And put 
in the context of recognizing that the Corporation for Public 
Broadcasting receives 85 percent of its funding from sources beyond the 
Federal Government, in the context of its overall budget we are simply 
asking them to do with 4 percent less.
  I rise in opposition to the amendment. I stand in strong conservative 
support of the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) and his desire to 
make the tough decisions and put our fiscal house in order.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Gillmor). The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey) has 5 minutes remaining.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous 
consent request to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Obey 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Obey-Lowey-Leach 
amendment to restore funding to the Corporation for Public 
Broadcasting.
  PBS is exceptional because it's local. Unlike the mammoth 
international media conglomerates that dominate commercial TV, who 
answer only to their shareholders, the 348 PBS stations are locally 
owned and operated--accountable to the local communities they serve.
  The bulk of CPB funding--67 percent--goes directly to local stations, 
allowing them to serve their communities with the excellent and highly 
valued programming that is the hallmark of PBS. This cut will slice 
between 30-40 percent out of most stations' overall budgets.
  My district in New York is served by PBS channel Thirteen/WNET. If 
this cut to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is passed, 
Thirteen's budget would be cut by as much as $5 million. I want to be 
very clear about what that means for my constituents: A substantial

[[Page 13903]]

number of local programs produced entirely out of discretionary funding 
would be eliminated. These are programs like New York Voices, Inside 
Albany, REEL New York, Women's History Month, Cantos Latinos, Harmony & 
Spirit: Chinese Americans in New York, Korean-American Spirit, The 
Irish in America, and New York Kids, outreach service programs to 
schools and other community partners would be completely cut, at least 
40 jobs would be lost, and in addition the indirect impact of cuts 
would affect nation-wide programing like Great Performances, Wide 
Angle, and the Newshour with Jim Lehrer, and of course Sesame Street, 
as we've heard so much about today.
  With its gold standard historical and cultural programming, PBS 
captures the culture and history of America. As we Americans face vast 
new challenges in a post-9/11 world, PBS helps us to understand who we 
are and where we have been--and to help us to see where we're going.
  It is imperative that we restore CPB funding to ensure PBS's ability 
to continue to serve our country and our local communities in this 
vital role.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) has 1 
minute remaining. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 5 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. Leach).
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I think by perspective we should understand 
that there is no possibility all Americans can agree all the time or 
appreciate equally all aspects of the American arts. But what we all 
can do is respect honesty and quality and first amendment rights. And 
it is these qualities exercised in an uplifting, nondivisive way that 
public broadcasting symbolizes. So I again urge my colleagues to 
support this amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous 
consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Obey 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment because it is our 
only chance to restore the $100 million that have been cut from public 
broadcasting.
  Mr. Chairman, the cuts to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting in 
this bill are stunningly shortsighted.
  At a time when we're all concerned about the lack of decent 
programming on television and radio, public broadcasting offers 
consistent quality.
  Yet the majority is cutting 46 percent from the budget that supports 
the broadcast of programs like the News Hour with Jim Lehrer and 
National Public Radio's All Things Considered, as well as documentary 
programs like The American Experience.
  The majority also completely eliminates the program that helps fund 
Sesame Street, Arthur, Between the Lions, and other broadcasts that 
help prepare children for school.
  For parents concerned about what their children are exposed to on 
television, what are the alternatives to PBS's educational shows? In 
looking at the television section of the Washington Post, here are some 
of the television section of the Washington Post, here are some of the 
programs running opposite Sesame Street: Jerry Springer, Divorce Court, 
Maury, Texas Justice, Judge Hatchett, Judge Joe Brown, Family Feud, 
Guiding Light and General Hospital.
  So why does the majority want to cut this funding? They say it's to 
reduce the deficit. What they are ensuring is a deficit of education, 
information, and analytical thinking.
  Does the majority expect the American people to take their argument 
seriously?
  Already this year the majority has rammed through a $290 billion tax 
cut for the country's wealthiest families and an energy bill larded 
with billions for oil and gas producers. None of these costs are 
accounted for in their budget.
  And now we're going to plug the budget deficit by cutting Sesame 
Street?
  Mr. Chairman, the argument for these cuts are ridiculous. We should 
reinstate the budget for public broadcasting. Vote for the Obey 
amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), ranking member on the 
subcommittee with jurisdiction in this matter.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Obey-Lowey-
Leach amendment.
  To the Republicans: Keep your hands off of Big Bird. Sesame Street is 
balanced. Big Bird is there, but so is Oscar the Grouch to represent 
the Republican point of view. So every program has a balance to it.
  But Ken Tomlinson, this new Republican head of the Corporation for 
Public Broadcasting, has decided that there is a problem with public 
television and he has gone out to find the problem. And when he looks 
in the mirror the problem is he.
  We are out here today because Ken Tomlinson has now opened the 
floodgates of criticism for a network which in polling is recognized as 
the most respected network in America. And after national security, in 
polling decided by the American people, it is the Federal program they 
like most after the Defense Department. But the Republicans and Ken 
Tomlinson today have named the former co-chairwoman of the Republican 
National Committee to be the new head, the new President of the 
Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
  So Tomlinson's answer to the absence of political balance is to name 
the Republican co-chair of their national committee. That is all you 
have to know about what the Republican Party is doing here on the House 
floor today.
  Here is what public television is from 6 a.m. in the morning on, for 
12 hours in a row: It is Zoom; it is Maya and Miguel; it is Arthur; it 
is the Berenstein Bears; Clifford the Big Red Dog; Dragon Tales; George 
Shrinks; Barney and Friends; Sesame Street. Until you hit 6 o'clock, 
when it is the News Hour with Jim Lehrer. It is NOVA. It is The 
American Experience.
  They are attacking the Children's Television Network. They are 
turning CPB from Corporation for Public Broadcasting into Corporation 
for Political Boondoggle. That is the whole agenda that they have here 
today.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) has 1 
minute remaining. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 2\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous 
consent request to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown).
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
Obey amendment and also the 81 percent of the American people who said 
the Republican-controlled Congress is out of tune with their values and 
this is a perfect example.
  Once again, the Republicans are out of step with mainstream America. 
This fact is made evident in the recent CBS poll taken that showed that 
the Republican dominated Congress's popularity is hovering around 30 
percent, an outright embarrassing figure.
  Public broadcasting is extremely important, and should not be simply 
ignored by conservatives here in Congress. For millions of parents, 
public broadcasting represents a children's television network of 
amazing excellence and value. At a cost of just over $1 per year per 
person, what parents and children get from free, over-the-air public 
television and public radio is an incredible bargain.
  Now, I say to my colleagues, we are talking about a corporation (The 
Corporation for Public Broadcasting or CPB) that is a taxpayer-funded 
agency that provides critical dollars to public broadcasting across the 
country, and is considered by many, if not most of America, to be a 
``highly reliable source of information.''
  I remember when I first came to Congress, and Speaker Newt Gingrich 
had a similar plan, which was to ``zero out'' public broadcasting 
altogether. At that time, just as they are doing now, the Republicans 
were claiming that there was an extreme liberal bias in the 
programming. And then, as now, they tried to do away with the 
programming, but more practical voices prevailed and the funding was 
eventually restored. So here once again, led by Kenneth Tomlinson, the 
Republican who is now chairman of the corporation, the Republican Party 
wants to move PBS to the right wing of the political spectrum, and at 
the same time streamline their funding. I say to them that, along with 
Representative Obey, I emphatically will fight to have this horrific 
cut in funding restored, and strongly support this amendment.


                  Announcement by The Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Members recognized for unanimous-consent 
requests should not embellish such requests with oratory.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a 
unanimous-

[[Page 13904]]

consent request to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Ms. Carson).
  Ms. CARSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of public broadcasting.
  Mr. Chairman, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting provides an 
essential public service and we ought to pass this amendment to restore 
funding for a program that works.
  This budget cut hurts our children and the least fortunate in our 
community the most. PBS is especially critical for low-income Americans 
who may not be able to send their children to preschool. For millions 
of Americans, PBS programs like Sesame Street and Reading Rainbow are 
the only educational resources available to their children. PBS 
programs produce the most popular videos used by American teachers in 
the classroom.
  According to a recent poll, 82% of the public thinks money given to 
PBS is money well spent. But if this amendment doesn't pass, PBS 
affiliate WFYI in my district will lose $1 million, or \1/3\ of the 
entire payroll for a station that reaches over a million households and 
500,000 viewers every week. This is unacceptable.
  But even more unacceptable is the threat this poses to the community 
services that WFYI provides on a daily basis to people in my district.
  It provides workshops in day care centers for the most disadvantaged 
in Indiana.
  For millions of Americans, PBS programs like Sesame Street and 
Reading Rainbow are the only educational resources available to their 
chIldren at home.
  But WFYI also helps prepare low-income pre-schoolers for the first 
grade.
  My hometown station sponsors over 400 volunteers who read to more 
than 2,000 Hoosiers who can't see the printed word. And there's much, 
much more.
  Mr. Chairman, this station is not the exception. It is the norm. 
These services are the most threatened by this budget cut. No other 
broadcaster will ever offer the same level of community service that 
public television provides.
  Let us pass the Obey amendment and restore full funding for public 
broadcasting.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous 
consent request to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I enthusiastically support 
the Obey amendment to restore PBS funds.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Obey, that seeks to prevent the use of 
funds in H.R. 3020 to carry out the recission of the ``Corporation for 
Public Broadcasting.'' This recission would have amounted to a 45 
percent cut to local Public Radio and Television stations in FY 2006.
  Under the legislation as drafted, rural stations and those serving 
minority populations would suffer greatly with respect to their 
operating budget. The grants that fall under the account affected 
comprise anywhere from 15 to 85 percent of their budgets. Most stations 
would be forced to layoff employees, to shut down local production--
which would include local public affairs programs--and to cut back on 
local outreach. Mr. Chairman, public television is the backbone of mass 
media communications for most of the minority population--which 
includes in large part, our children who need guidance and education.
  In Houston, to be specific, KUHF-FM would have suffered a cut of 46.4 
percent or $228,197 of its funding. Similarly, KUHT-TV would have 
suffered a 44.4 percent or $679,049 cut of its funding. These amounts 
translate to severe loss in operating budget for these stations.
  Relative to the State of Texas, over $6,263,296 or 42.8 percent of 
its funding would have been cut under the bill as drafted.
  For the reasons stated above, Mr. Chairman, I fully support the Obey 
amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon 
(Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  I am a little tired, frankly, about hearing how wealthy Big Bird is. 
Your own witnesses here indicate that a very small amount of the money 
that we are talking about here goes to Sesame Street and Big Bird.
  The money goes where you are cutting: the infrastructure. Big Bird 
will be around, but many small stations will not. We will lose the 
ability to create more ``Big Birds'' in the future. And it may well be 
to the point that as you slowly starve the infrastructure for public 
broadcasting, that the only way Big Bird will be watched is on a 
commercial station, on a cable station with commercials on it.
  But where are we going to provide the other educational elements? 
Already there are a whole range of items here that you are ignoring, 
and you are undermining the fabric of that public station 
infrastructure that allows it to be seen in the first place.
  Ask your local stations about the impact of what you are doing to 
their ability for people to be able to watch this quality programming.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on each side?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 1\1/
2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) has 1 minute 
remaining.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous 
consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Obey amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, now we've heard it all. The Majority in the House has 
attacked the poor and the sick with their cuts to Medicaid; they have 
given away billions of dollars in tax breaks to corporations and the 
rich, and now they want to string up Big Bird.
  The drastic cuts that this bill will inflict on the Corporation for 
Public Broadcasting are dangerous to our freethinking and diverse 
society. Public broadcasting provides a forum for groups who otherwise 
would not be heard and provides underserved areas with quality 
programming.
  It helps to teach our children with the best educational programs on 
television like Sesame Street and Arthur. These shows not only help our 
children learn, but also motivate them to turn off the TV and pick up a 
book to read about their favorite characters featured on these shows.
  Public broadcasting is a favorite source for reliable information for 
Americans. Shows like Now and The Newshour are trusted by Americans to 
give them the straight story about current events in our world. By 
cutting funding to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting we are 
attacking our strongest source of unbiased, diverse, and cultured 
programming available.
  These proposed cuts are just another step in the Bush 
Administration's agenda to dismantle Public Broadcasting and silence 
one of the last objective voices in American media. The President's 
recent attempts to politicize PBS by bringing in a partisan activist to 
be President of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting are shameful.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Obey amendment to restore the 
funding it needs and protect the Corporation for Public Broadcasting as 
a powerful voice of the people.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous 
consent request to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of 
this amendment in support of public broadcasting.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Obey-Lowey-Leach 
Amendment that would recoup full funding for the Corporation of Public 
Broadcasting for Fiscal Year 2006 because it will maintain the highest 
quality programming available to the American people today.
  The Labor-HHS Appropriations Act before us today will eliminate $100 
million in Federal funding for the CPB.
  This bill will eliminate existing funding earmarked for 
interconnecting local stations and the transition to digital 
broadcasting--both necessary modernizations to carry public 
broadcasting through this century. Money to fund these improvements 
will be taken from general operating expenses, further limiting public 
broadcasters' resources.
  Public broadcasting provides unique programming not found on major 
broadcast stations or cable television. Its programming aims to 
increase awareness, provide multiple viewpoints, treat complex social 
issues completely, and provide objective forums for deliberation. 
Public broadcasting serves no partisan master.
  It is the most ``fair and balanced'' programming available. Its 
listening audience, polls have shown, is \1/3\ liberal, \1/3\ 
conservative, and \1/3\ middle of the road politically.
  Newt Gingrich tried to zero out public broadcasting subsidies 10 
years ago. He acknowledged before an audience recently an ironic 
evolution. He listens to NPR every morning now as he drives to work.
  While most television programming provides few outlets targeted and 
appropriate for young children, public broadcasting offers families

[[Page 13905]]

unparalleled excellence and value. Whether it is Sesame Street or 
Reading Rainbow, public programs have taught generations of children 
practical grammatical and arithmetic skills while expanding their 
imagination and creativity. At a cost of just over $1 per year per 
person, what parents and children get from free, over-the-air public 
television and public radio is an incredible bargain and a national 
asset.
  In Arlington, WETA, an invaluable FM and television station that 
serves us in Northern Virginia and Washington, DC, estimates that the 
proposed cuts will result in the loss of $1.6 million. Like most 
stations, WETA operates on a limited budget and the magnitude of this 
cut threatens the cancellation of programming such as ``Talk of the 
Nation'', ``Sesame Street'' or ``Marketplace.'' I'm even more afraid 
for rural radio and television stations that are even more reliant on 
public funding.
  America won't accept a cut in these services. The harm they would do 
to children's education and the marketplace of ideas outweighs what 
little effect these cuts would have in the reduction of government 
spending. The Ameircan people understand we have a robust economy 
today. These cuts in programming are to pay for the tax cuts we've 
enacted over the last 5 years for the wealthiest among us.
  If anything, we demand an expansion of public broadcasting. We want 
more programming that promotes detail, diversity, and balance. We need 
programs that take creative risks to engage the public in thoughtful 
discourse.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Obey-Lowey-Leach Amendment and 
restore funding for the CPB. Do it for your own children.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I know the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) 
has the right to close. How much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 1\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say the choice before the House is simple. I 
think the American people recognize that public television and public 
radio are both national treasures. I think also that we all recognize 
that there has been a systematic attack on both for quite some time.
  What is before us today is a very simple choice. We can either stand 
with those who are determined to see to it that public radio and public 
television continue to function reasonably effectively, or we can take 
an action today which will gut the ability of many of the stations to 
continue to produce quality programming and meet the needs of local 
areas.

                              {time}  1415

  Some objection has been raised to the offsets. The fact is, under the 
budget resolution, tough choices are required. You cannot get the 
offsets out of thin air. These offsets do as little damage to 
management accounts as is humanly possible. If anyone does not like the 
offsets involved, then I would suggest they amend the budget resolution 
so that we do not have to provide them.
  But the choice is very simply: Are you going to support public 
broadcasting or are you not? And the vote will tell the tale.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say, reiterate, I am a fan of public 
broadcasting and public radio; and, of course, my family members like 
Elmo and Big Bird and Between the Lions.
  I do not have a closed mind on this subject. I am sure it will come 
up in conference in making agreement with the other body; but let me 
say to my colleagues, right now you are choosing between public 
television, and we provided $300 million in the bill, keep in mind 
there. We are not taking it all away. There is $300 million there. This 
is only 25 percent of this that we are talking about.
  On the other side of the scales, you are going to hurt employment and 
training for young people. You are going to hurt the Department of 
Labor. You are going to hurt the Department of Health and Human 
Services that provides the Centers for Disease Control, that provides 
the National Institutes of Health on health research. You are going to 
hurt the Department of Education and their higher education programs 
and their departmental management.
  I think when we put it on the scale, on one side is public 
television, we are giving them $300 million in this bill. They have the 
capacity to raise a lot of money in the public sector. On the other 
side of the scale are young people that need an opportunity for job 
retraining, that need an opportunity to participate in the American 
Dream. Those Departments have no ability to go out and raise money as 
does the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. It is not the 
last word on this subject, but understand the trade-offs that I think 
are very damaging to young people and their opportunities in terms of 
higher education and job retraining.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Obey-Lowey-
Leach amendment, which restores the full, previously appropriated level 
of funding to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, or CPB. As 
someone who has contributed personally to both NPR and PBS, the 
committee's scant proposal for CPB funding comes as a supreme 
disappointment.
  Public television and radio stations are locally controlled. The 
primary mission of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is to enable 
those local stations to remain independent and free of advertising by 
providing a guaranteed, content-independent source of funding. For this 
reason, the Corporation's funding is set 2 years in advance. Mr. 
Chairman, I hope my colleagues can keep that in mind: the funding that 
the Obey-Lowey-Leach amendment seeks to restore has already been 
passed. In 2003, I voted along with 241 of my colleagues to appropriate 
$400 million for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting in fiscal year 
2006. That the committee now seeks to override the will of the whole 
House is simply unfair to the stations and their viewers.
  Each week, more than 80 million people watch PBS. Without even 
counting the 30 million who listen to NPR during that same period, 
that's a minimum of 80 million Americans who ask us each week to 
support this amendment. They may not leave their family rooms, they may 
not pick up the phone, but make no mistake: they're voting with their 
remote controls. Each and every week, they're telling us how they feel.
  Opponents of CPB funding regularly claim that Federal funding cuts 
will have no significant effect on public programming, and that public 
television can easily absorb any funding cut. But look at the facts: 
the Corporation for Public Broadcasting provides critical, 
irreplaceable support to some of public television's most popular 
programs. Had the proposed funding cuts been enacted for the current 
year, they would have caused a 20 percent drop in funding for Reading 
Rainbow. A 20 percent drop in funding for Sesame Street. A 54 percent 
drop in funding for Mister Rogers. A 27 percent drop in funding for 
NOVA, and a 27 percent drop in funding for the NewsHour, to which 
millions turn each night for balanced news coverage. And opponents call 
that ``no significant effect''?
  Under the No Child Left Behind Act, Congress established two public 
television programs designed to facilitate education and learning: 
Ready to Learn, and Ready to Teach. Together, these two programs 
requested a total of $49 million for the coming budget year, which they 
would use to support educational programming like Sesame Street, 
Reading Rainbow, and Clifford the Big Red Dog. Rather than meet their 
request, the Appropriations Committee chose to rescind all 2006 funding 
from each of these programs, which we established just 3 years ago.
  Mr. Chairman, these cuts are unwise. Entire generations of children 
have grown up watching Big Bird and Snuffleupagus; entire generations 
have learned to love books while reading along with LeVar Burton; 
entire generations have been taught to follow their dreams by Mister 
Fred Rogers and his characters. In an age when more and more children 
are spending more and more time in front of the television, public TV 
is one of the very last cuts we can afford to make. For that reason, 
Mr. Chairman, and for all the reasons above, I urge my colleagues to 
support the Obey-Lowey-Leach amendment, and to restore full funding to 
the CPB.
  Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in absolute opposition to the 
proposed appropriation cuts to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
  The CPB has been funding great American treasures including PBS and 
National Public Radio, free of political influence or favoritism. These 
entities have become staples of society

[[Page 13906]]

and to cut or diminish their badly needed funding is plainly wrong.
  Mr. Chairman, during a time in which this body claims to be the 
saviors of family values, I find it odd that it chooses to undermine 
public broadcasting, which truly embodies family values and clean 
programming.
  The television and radio can be a precarious place for young and 
impressionable minds.
  Much of what is sent over the airwaves is unsafe for the development 
children. The excessive violence and sex that is often found on TV is 
alarming to parents who are constantly looking for a viable alternative 
to the negative influences prevalent on television.
  Mr. Speaker, PBS has been that oasis and refugee for families. Its 
educational and wholesome programming allows parents and children 
alike, to watch shows that place an emphasis on the positive aspects of 
American culture. Too often modern entertainers glorify the worst of 
our society and it is imperative that we counter that influence with 
the positive shows found on PBS and NPR.
  I urge my colleagues here today to rise up in support of CPB, 
wholesome broadcasting and family values by rejecting these cuts to 
CPB.
  Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Chairman, for years, the Corporation for Public 
Broadcasting has provided countless Americans of all ages with high-
quality, innovative programming.
  But today, House Republicans have renewed their efforts against 
public broadcasting by reducing funding to the Corporation for Public 
Broadcasting by $100 million. That is a 25 percent reduction in funding 
and would have a devastating effect on public television and public 
radio. If enacted, public broadcasting stations in Kansas City, 
Missouri serving my Congressional District would stand to lose over 
half a million dollars.
  As a former radio talk show host on KCUR, the Kansas City affiliate 
of National Public Radio, I understand the importance of public 
broadcasting. These days, commercial television and radio provides us 
with more information about the runaway bride than the runaway budget, 
and more about the Desperate Housewives than the desperate lives of 
those whose Medicaid has been cut. Public broadcasting has, for over 40 
years, provided the American people with the type of excellent 
educational, cultural and news programming that is rarely found on 
television. Whose children didn't grow up watching Big Bird, Arthur, or 
Clifford?
  We cannot afford to lose this important national resource. So today, 
I will vote in favor of the Obey-Lowey-Leach amendment to restore the 
$100 million that was cut from public broadcasting. I urge my 
colleagues to do the same.
  Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
Obey-Lowey-Leach amendment to H.R. 3010. This amendment would restore 
$100 million that was cut from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting 
in subcommittee earlier this month. Public broadcasting is important 
for small communities across the country, even all the way out in the 
U.S. Territory of Guam. Small public broadcasting stations like KGTF 
Channel 12 in Guam are an important avenue for expression of local 
identity and community discussion.
  I am particularly concerned that the proposed cuts to the Corporation 
for Public Broadcasting (CPB) may disproportionately affect the CPB's 
commitment to quality programming for minority communities through the 
National Minority Consortia. For example, Pacific Islanders in 
Communications (PIC), which primarily receives its funding from CPB, 
develops Pacific Island media content and talent that leads to a deeper 
understanding of Pacific Island history, culture, and contemporary 
issues. Without continued funding from CPB, PIC would be unable to 
produce meaningful programs like Dances of Life or The Meaning of Food 
that have given indigenous communities in the Pacific a voice in our 
national conversation on race and culture. This August, PIC will be 
conducting a filmmaking workshop in Guam to build a greater capacity 
for cultural expression in the video medium.
  As KGTF celebrates its 35th year broadcasting in Guam, I hope to be 
able to tell them that the future looks bright for public broadcasting 
and that Congress is appreciative and supportive of their excellent 
work. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment and 
restore funding to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in recognition of House 
Amendment 343 to House Resolution 3010, to restore full funding to the 
Corporation of Public Broadcasting.
  The passage of this amendment preserves public broadcasting, a 
longstanding American tradition. This amendment enables the Corporation 
of Public Broadcasting to continue providing countless benefits to our 
society, including unbiased and nonpartisan information and news, 
educational and developmental programming and services, and arts and 
entertainment to the American public.
  I would like to commend my fellow colleagues on their cooperation and 
nonpartisanship in voting to preserve the American institution of 
public broadcasting. I was unable to vote on the amendment because I 
was paying my respects to the family of a brave soldier who made the 
ultimate sacrifice for his country in Operation Iraqi Freedom.
  I am strongly against the cuts proposed by House Republicans that 
were even more severe than the President's suggested budget cuts. While 
the President recommended a cut of approximately ten million dollars in 
funding to the Corporation of Public Broadcasting, the House 
Appropriations Committee and other subcommittees recommended a total 
cut of $246.2 million, or 44.9 percent of the current funding. While I 
recognize the importance of fiscal responsibility, especially in the 
midst of a severe budget deficit, I believe that we must properly 
prioritize funding provided by taxpayer dollars. The majority of 
Americans, according to a recent poll, rank public broadcasting as the 
second most important publicly provided service, after military 
defense; additionally the majority of Americans believe not only that 
their tax dollars are well spent on public broadcasting, but actually 
support an increase in its funding.
  The proposed cuts to public broadcasting are clearly contrary to 
public opinion. Moreover, these cuts would result in the loss of 
invaluable services that Americans trust and rely upon, and would harm 
local economies in the form of closed local stations and lost jobs. For 
these reasons, I celebrate the passage of this amendment, and pledge my 
support to continuing funding the Corporation of Public Broadcasting.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Gillmor). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey) will be postponed.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I do so to try to report to the House what is happening 
with respect to a unanimous consent request.
  The gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) announced to the House 
earlier, and I concurred, that we are trying to make an attempt to get 
the House out today. We indicated that would require a lot of 
cooperation from both sides.
  I think everyone understands how this bill is going to wind up. Much 
as I detest this bill and will vote against it, it is not going to be 
changed very much between now and the time it finally reaches final 
passage. No amount of fixing can fix this bill, in my view, because of 
the inadequate allocation.
  The problem we have is that despite the gentleman from Ohio's (Mr. 
Regula) best efforts and my best efforts and that of our staffs, at 
this point, there are still some 20 Republican amendments that people 
seem to be hell-bent on offering, and there are approximately 27 
Democratic amendments that people seem to be hell-bent on offering.
  If all of those amendments are offered, we will have to have at least 
6\1/2\ hours of debate time. In order to finish today, because of 
events beyond our control, we have to be finished with debating by 
4:30. Obviously, unless we get a much greater sense of give, not only 
will we be here tomorrow, we will be here a long time tomorrow.
  So if Members are serious about wanting to get out today, it would be 
nice if they recognized that that means that we cannot dispose of 47 
amendments in 2 hours.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) makes it very clear. We are 
trying to eliminate some potential amendments with colloquies, and I 
hope that some of the Members will consider withdrawing their 
amendments.
  We are making a real effort to try to finish it today; and with 
cooperation of all the Members, I think this can be accomplished. As 
the gentleman from

[[Page 13907]]

Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) points out, I do not think the bill will be 
changed much in the final analysis by whatever amount of discussion we 
have.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Fossella

  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Fossella:
       Page 10, strike lines 3 through 7, and insert the 
     following:


                     workers compensation programs

       Of the amounts made available under this heading in chapter 
     8 of division B of the Department of Defense and Emergency 
     Supplemental Appropriations for Recovery from and Response to 
     Terrorist Attacks on the United States Act, 2002 (Public Law 
     107-117), $50,000,000 shall be available for payment to the 
     New York State Uninsured Employers Fund for reimbursement of 
     claims related to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 
     and for reimbursement of claims related to the first response 
     emergency services personnel who were injured, were disabled, 
     or died due to such terrorist attacks, and $75,000,000 shall 
     be made available upon enactment of this Act for purposes 
     related to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, with 
     priority given to administer baseline and follow-up screening 
     and clinical examinations and long-term health monitoring, 
     analysis, and treatment for emergency services personnel and 
     rescue and recovery personnel: Provided, That such amounts 
     are each designated as an emergency requirement pursuant to 
     section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th Congress), the 
     concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006.

  Mr. FOSSELLA (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this 
amendment and any amendments thereto be limited to 15 minutes to be 
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself, the 
opponent.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella) is 
recognized for 7\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  First, I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) for 
not only the great work he does but also entertaining this, allowing us 
to submit this amendment and engaging in a colloquy.
  We all know that September 11, 2001, was many things. It was the 
worst attack in our country's history. It was a devastating loss. 
Almost 3,000 individuals lost their lives. We are still recovering from 
the ravages of what happened on that day; and after that, bringing 
America together, Congress, along with the President of the United 
States, committed itself to New York. This has been appreciated.
  But sadly, what has happened is for many people who rushed into 
Ground Zero selflessly, not thinking of themselves or their well-being, 
in an effort to rescue others who could have been victim to that 
dreadful attack, they became the heroes of our time. What has happened 
is many of those individuals who were injured immediately have been 
dealt with, whether it is worker's compensation or providing for their 
health care; but there is that segment of the population, those heroes, 
thousands of them perhaps, who rushed into Ground Zero who are now 
discovering the health effects of having to give almost their lives to 
rescue others.
  We also know that it could be weeks, months, or years before some of 
these side effects show up, perhaps a respiratory problem, perhaps leg 
or arm injuries, that will only get worse over time.
  What we intend to do today is to seek the restoration of $125 million 
to this appropriations budget. We believe, in a bipartisan way, that 9/
11 is not over. Many, many people who thought nothing about giving of 
themselves for the sake of their fellow man are now just coming to 
learn that they may need our help.
  Congress, rightly, responded to say to New York, we will be there to 
help; we will continue in our efforts to ensure that happens. It is 
imperative that this at least $125 million be restored, that the 
rescission that occurred be undone; and it is, I think, paramount that 
we stand united to show and to demonstrate to anybody who rushed into 
those burning buildings on 9/11, that this country will not forget the 
heroics, will not forget their efforts, and we will stand with them as 
long as they need our help.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  We understand the importance of this, and originally we provided, 
that is, the government, the Federal Government, $175 million for this 
purpose; but only a limited amount of that has been spent in the last 
2\1/2\ years, to be exact, $51 million out of the $175 million. In 
2003, $44 million; in 2004, $6 million; in 2005, no money.
  So what we are proposing is to rescind this and urging that it be 
reappropriated as the needs arise to meet whatever challenges. I think 
there is a problem a little bit in the language in that the money 
cannot really address the needs that are out there, and this is why a 
reappropriation or reauthorization would make it possible.
  I think all of us are in agreement that we want to provide the money. 
It is just that the mechanics of it and doing that are not appropriate 
at this point.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Maloney), my colleague.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time, and I thank him and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) for 
their commitment and work on restoring these moneys; and I thank the 
gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) for agreeing to this colloquy. I 
know that the rescission of 9/11 funds was not the gentleman's idea and 
that he has been put into a difficult position with OMB; but we 
sincerely appreciate the gentleman's help.
  I would also like to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman 
Lewis) and, of course, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Ranking Member 
Obey), and all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who 
responded with great commitment in helping New York City with the 
recovery.
  Finally, I need to mention the names of some of the rescue workers 
who have come here today to Washington to put a human face on those who 
selflessly gave of themselves on 9/11 and still need our help. They are 
here with us today in the gallery. They are Marvin Bethea; John Feal; 
Mike McCormack, the rescue worker who literally found the flag on 9/11; 
John Sferarzo; Scott Shields; and Ron Vega. These men responded 
selflessly to the largest emergency of our time. They risked their 
lives to save others; and, today, they are first responders once again, 
but this time to save the health and compensation aid needed for their 
fellow workers at Ground Zero. They should be proud of the progress 
that we are making here today, but there is still much more that needs 
to be done.
  It has been reported that 10 times the claims have been turned down 
by worker's compensation in New York State, and there is no question 
that there are still many workers who need health aid. Many of them are 
literally here today trying to speak with my colleagues on both sides 
of the aisle about their need.
  I think it is absolutely an insult not only to the 9/11 workers but 
to all emergency aid workers to deny them the aid and compensation that 
they need, especially those that were hurt on 9/11.
  We are asking for this money to be restored. It was allocated. It was 
part of the commitment this country made to helping New York and its 
workers and its people recover, and I will say

[[Page 13908]]

that the New York delegation is totally united on this in our effort to 
preserve this money for the rescue workers and volunteers.
  Again, we thank all for their commitment and hard work.
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from upstate New York (Mr. Walsh), who has really led the 
effort to secure the funding for New York since 9/11.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me and for his leadership on this really, really emotional and 
important issue for our State and our Nation.
  In the ensuing Federal action, we provided almost $21 billion to 
rebuild New York City and to rebuild the lives of these individuals. 
Less than $1 billion is going toward the health and well-being of human 
beings. All the other $20 billion went to rebuild the city. Of that, we 
are now being asked to rescind $125 million that was not spent on 
worker's compensation claims.
  Today, I also met with some of these individuals. Some of them are 
sick. They have mental health problems. They have physical health 
problems. Some of them have no health insurance. We need to find a way, 
and I appreciate the gentleman from Ohio's (Chairman Regula) statement 
about finding a way, because we do want this money to be spent. We do 
not want to leave any soldiers on the battlefield. We do not want to 
leave any wounds unhealed.
  So with the gentleman from Ohio's (Mr. Regula) help as we go forward, 
I think we can find a way to get this resolved, and I thank the 
gentleman.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Lowey).
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
thank my colleagues for their commitment and work on restoring these 
monies. None of us could have imagined that we would find ourselves 
here today, fighting to hold onto $125 million set aside for workers 
and responders who helped search for survivors and assist victims in 
the aftermath of September 11.
  In my judgment, the committee's rescission of $125 million 
appropriated by Congress for New York State workers' compensation 
claims and related expenses breaks the President's promise to New York. 
The Office of Budget and Management has argued that these funds are no 
longer needed, but nothing could be further from the truth. What we do 
know is that the health needs of September 11 responders continue to be 
great and the Federal response continues to be incomplete. There have 
been ongoing concerns about the injuries and chronic illnesses 
sustained by first responders and other individuals who work or 
volunteered at the site in the weeks and months following the attack. 
The men and women were exposed to toxic materials, included asbestos, 
fiberglass, PCBs; and many may not even exhibit symptoms of sickness 
for years to come.
  We simply cannot rescind the funds to assist those victims before we 
even review the full needs of September 11.
  I rise in support of the Maloney amendment and thank my colleague 
from New York for her leadership on this issue.
  When President Bush stood on the rubble of the World Trade Center, 
and when he sat in the Oval Office with New York's Congressional 
delegation almost four years ago, no one doubted his promise to give 
our State and city the funds we needed to recover from the terrorist 
attack on our Nation.
  None of us could have imagined that we would find ourselves here 
today, fighting to hold onto $125 million set aside for workers and 
responders who helped search for survivors and assist victims in the 
aftermath of September 11.
  In my judgment, this Committee's rescission of $125 million 
appropriated by Congress for New York State Worker's Compensation 
claims and related expenses breaks the President's promise to New York.
  The Office of Budget and Management has argued that these funds are 
no longer needed, but nothing could be farther from the truth.
  What we do know is that the health needs of September 11th responders 
continue to be great, and the federal response continues to be 
incomplete.
  Since September 11, there have been ongoing concerns about the 
injuries and chronic illnesses sustained by first responders and other 
individuals who worked or volunteered at the site in the weeks and 
months following the attack.
  These men and women were exposed to toxic materials, including 
asbestos, fiberglass, and PCBs, and many may not even exhibit symptoms 
or sickness for years to come. We simply cannot rescind the funds to 
assist those victims before we even review the full needs of September 
11 responders.
  If any of these funds are not needed for workers compensation 
payments, then we should redirect the money to supplement the federal 
response to the ongoing medical needs of September 11th responders.
  When New York needed help, volunteers from New Jersey, Connecticut, 
Massachusetts, Ohio, and even as far as Florida and California--and the 
list goes on--came to aid the victims of this tragic attack. I hope you 
will join me in fighting to preserve the funds to assist these 
individuals should they become ill as a result of their efforts in the 
aftermath of September 11th.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, the World Trade Center was in my district. 
I have dealt with hundreds of first responders who responded. The 
majority of all the first responders have now come down with 
respiratory ailments, and yet the State has betrayed them and we are 
betraying them because the insurance company that handles workers' comp 
has contested the worker comp claims at a rate of 10 times the normal 
rate of contest. And now we are going to rescind the money?
  We have a hero who testified at a hearing last week that he got 
awards for rescuing people, and then at the workers' comp hearing, they 
said he was not even there.
  The fact is thousands of people have come down with illnesses. 
Thousands more probably will. It would be the height of hypocrisy to 
rescind these funds and not have these funds available for the medical 
treatment of these people whom we know are sick. And, unfortunately, we 
know more will get sick, and the funds to treat those already sick are 
not there. I urge adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Sweeney).
  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in full and strong support of this 
amendment. I agree with the comments of colleagues in support of this 
amendment. I know that our great chairman is working very diligently 
and hard to make sure that what I consider to be a mistake does not 
indeed happen. I think we all need to focus on a number of points.
  One of those points is this was decided by somebody at OMB in an 
effort to do a good thing, which was try to save some money; but it was 
not well-thought-out. It overturns the intent of this body and the 
intent of the other body a couple of years ago. We ought not let that 
process continue.
  This is not just about New Yorkers. This is about all of us. This is 
about the commitments we make. There were 40,000 volunteers who went to 
the site. They were from all over the Nation. We need to honor that 
commitment.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I understanding we are in tight fiscal 
times. However, given the circumstances the workers face, will you work 
with me and my New York colleagues and others as we move towards 
conference and think creatively on this issue and work with the 
administration to attempt to find a restoration of this much-needed 
funding?
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's comments and 
recognize this is a legitimate and important issue that needs to be 
addressed. The brave people who responded to the attacks on September 
11

[[Page 13909]]

will always be remembered in the hearts of Americans, and I recognize 
that they need additional help.
  While there is concern about the dormancy of this funding over the 
last few years, and questions over whether or not the needs match the 
available funding, I am pleased to hear that the State of New York 
plans on starting an actuarial review to determine just how much money 
is needed to address the problem.
  In light of the gentleman's comments today, I will work with the 
gentleman, the administration, and the other body in an attempt to find 
ways of addressing these workers' needs as the bill moves forward.
  Over the long term, I look forward to examining the needs of 9/11 
responders in light of the actuarial review results, and working with 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella) and colleagues from New York 
State to maintain Congress' commitment to these heroes.
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Gillmor). Is there objection to the request 
of the gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  In order to avoid offering an amendment, I rise today to engage the 
chairman in a colloquy to discuss funding for the Healthy Communities 
Access Program, HCAP. HCAP funds the development of community-wide 
health care networks which organize and coordinate care for low-income 
and uninsured individuals. Through shared resources, HCAP networks help 
improve health care access, reduce emergency room use, and save a lot 
of money. HCAP is a flexible, bottoms-up approach that can be tailored 
to meet a community's unique needs. Without a coordinated community-
based approach, the uninsured simply end up in the emergency room or go 
without care. Both results add to our growing health care crisis.
  Since 2000, HCAP has leveraged $6 in the community for every $1 in 
Federal grant funds, and has saved $1.9 billion annually through 
increased efficiency in health care systems. It has provided access to 
health care for 6.2 million more uninsured and vulnerable people.
  Five communities in my State of Tennessee have won HCAP grants since 
2000, and I have worked closely with one of our current grantees, the 
Medical Foundation of Chattanooga. The HCAP coalition partners in 
Chattanooga have used this small investment to serve the uninsured.
  While I understand well this year's budgetary constraints, I strongly 
believe programs like HCAP are providing essential support for 
improving access to care, reducing cost to the Federal Government, and 
making communities more self-sustaining. The HCAP program embodies 
exactly the kind of innovative approach to health care access and cost 
we must address across the Nation.
  I ask the chairman to continue to work with me throughout the process 
to ensure this program can continue.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WAMP. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Tennessee for yielding and thank him for his work on the Committee on 
Appropriations to restore the HCAP funding.
  The subcommittee has worked wonders with the allocation you have been 
given, and I know you are supportive of the HCAP program and have seen 
the tremendous outcomes achieved in communities with HCAP funding.
  In Houston, we have utilized CAP funding to put together the 
necessary collaboratives to help solve our health care access problems. 
Unfortunately, this bill completely eliminates the CAP program at a 
time when the level of uninsured individuals in this country has 
reached 45 million and growing.
  We know all too well that now is not the time to limit access to 
primary and preventive health care services in our community. Without 
this health care access, our uninsured constituents tend to seek health 
care from our hospital emergency rooms where costs are skyrocketing and 
beds are scarce.
  In Harris County, 57 percent of diagnoses in our safety net hospital 
ERs could be treated in a primary care clinic. With HCAP funds, 
communities can shepherd folks to the appropriate health care home and 
put together the partnerships needed to develop additional community 
health centers for all of our uninsured.
  This is truly a case where an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of 
cure. I appreciate the willingness of the chairman to work with us on 
this issue, and hopefully we can restore the funding on this worthy 
program in conference.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WAMP. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I know that many Members support the 
Healthy Communities Access Program. I have seen an HCAP program in Ohio 
that seemed to work very well.
  The President's budget proposed to terminate HCAP; and given Members' 
interest in other programs that were not funded in the budget, we felt 
we had to accept the President's proposal to restore others, like the 
pediatric GME program. And, of course, we increased the community 
health centers programs.
  I will certainly try to work with our Senate colleagues to provide 
some funding for the HCAP in conference.
  Mr. POE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage in a colloquy, and I appreciate 
the tough spending decisions the gentleman has had to make on this 
bill. I intended to offer two amendments in the Labor-HHS-Education 
appropriation bill because I am concerned about the money that is being 
spent the wrong way by the National Institutes of Health and the 
Centers for Disease Control.
  At the NIH, the Institute of Child Health and Human Development has 
been commissioned by Congress to promote research to improve and save 
kids lives in the areas of Down syndrome, autism, vaccination, birth 
defects and infectious disease; but they are spending money in other 
nonresearch ways.
  Since 1997, the NIH has been spending up to $175,000 a year to 
operate the Milk Matters Campaign, which was first created in the 
1990s. The campaign features Bo Vine, the spokescow. This is a drawing 
of Bo Vine the spokescow. Also, money is spent not on research for 
disease but on coloring books. Here is one that the taxpayers fund 
called ``Milk Matters'' with Buddy the Brush.
  Taxpayers fund these programs, but the money authorized by Congress 
was to go for research in these two areas. Some say it is not much 
money, but we need to keep Bo Vine the spokescow from becoming a herd 
and stampeding through the trough of taxpayer money.
  Every year Congress is lobbied to increase funding for live-saving 
programs at the National Institutes of Health, and every year we are 
presented with a plea that more money is needed for research. So the 
money Congress takes from the taxpayers of America should be spent on 
saving lives and not on Web games and Bo Vine the cow.
  Also in this bill is funding for a program at the Center For Disease 
Research. It is called the VERB youth activity program to Federal fund 
things like basketball games. This program's authorization has expired 
and the President has asked for the program to be terminated; yet today 
we are funding this program with $11.2 million of taxpayer money. The 
Centers for Disease Control is asking for more money for life-saving 
research, yet they are spending money on programs that are not 
authorized anymore.
  Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman be willing to work with me and 
other fiscally responsible colleagues to protect taxpayer money from 
wasteful spending at the NIH and the CDC, and

[[Page 13910]]

work with us to ensure that NIH and the CDC spend the money in the way 
it is appropriated in fiscal year 2006?
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. POE. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I do not think the gentleman is questioning 
the value of milk as a healthy food, but maybe the way it is being 
sold.
  I look forward to working with the gentleman as we head into 
conference. We do not want these things to happen either.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       For necessary expenses of the Workforce Investment Act of 
     1998, including the purchase and hire of passenger motor 
     vehicles, the construction, alteration, and repair of 
     buildings and other facilities, and the purchase of real 
     property for training centers as authorized by the Act; 
     $2,463,000,000 plus reimbursements, of which $2,363,000,000 
     is available for obligation for the period October 1, 2006, 
     through June 30, 2007, and of which $100,000,000 is available 
     for the period October 1, 2006, through June 30, 2009, for 
     necessary expenses of construction, rehabilitation, and 
     acquisition of Job Corps centers.
       Of the funds provided under this heading in division G of 
     Public Law 108-7 to carry out section 173(a)(4)(A) of the 
     Workforce Investment Act of 1998, $20,000,000 is rescinded.
       Of the funds provided under this heading in division B of 
     Public Law 107-117, $5,000,000 is rescinded.
       Of the funds provided under this heading in division F of 
     Public Law 108-447 for Community-Based Job Training Grants, 
     $125,000,000 is rescinded.
       The Secretary of Labor shall take no action to amend, 
     through regulatory or administration action, the definition 
     established in 20 CFR 667.220 for functions and activities 
     under title I of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 until 
     such time as legislation reauthorizing the Act is enacted.


            Community Service Employment for Older Americans

       To carry out title V of the Older Americans Act of 1965, as 
     amended, $436,678,000.

              Federal Unemployment Benefits and Allowances

       For payments during the current fiscal year of trade 
     adjustment benefit payments and allowances under part I and 
     section 246; and for training, allowances for job search and 
     relocation, and related State administrative expenses under 
     part II of chapter 2, title II of the Trade Act of 1974 
     (including the benefits and services described under sections 
     123(c)(2) and 151 (b) and (c) of the Trade Adjustment 
     Assistance Reform Act of 2002, Public Law 107-210), 
     $966,400,000, together with such amounts as may be necessary 
     to be charged to the subsequent appropriation for payments 
     for any period subsequent to September 15 of the current 
     year.

     State Unemployment Insurance and Employment Service Operations

       For authorized administrative expenses, $130,985,000, 
     together with not to exceed $3,299,381,000 (including not to 
     exceed $1,228,000 which may be used for amortization payments 
     to States which had independent retirement plans in their 
     State employment service agencies prior to 1980 and including 
     $10,000,000 which may be used to conduct in-person 
     reemployment and eligibility assessments of unemployment 
     insurance beneficiaries in one-stop career centers), which 
     may be expended from the Employment Security Administration 
     Account in the Unemployment Trust Fund including the cost of 
     administering section 51 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986, as amended, section 7(d) of the Wagner-Peyser Act, as 
     amended, the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, the Immigration 
     Act of 1990, and the Immigration and Nationality Act, as 
     amended, and of which the sums available in the allocation 
     for activities authorized by title III of the Social Security 
     Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 502-504), and the sums available 
     in the allocation for necessary administrative expenses for 
     carrying out 5 U.S.C. 8501-8523, shall be available for 
     obligation by the States through December 31, 2006, except 
     that funds used for automation acquisitions shall be 
     available for obligation by the States through September 30, 
     2008; of which $130,985,000, together with not to exceed 
     $672,700,000 of the amount which may be expended from said 
     trust fund, shall be available for obligation for the period 
     July 1, 2006, through June 30, 2007, to fund activities under 
     the Act of June 6, 1933, as amended, including the cost of 
     penalty mail authorized under 39 U.S.C. 3202(a)(1)(E) made 
     available to States in lieu of allotments for such purpose: 
     Provided, That to the extent that the Average Weekly Insured 
     Unemployment (AWIU) for fiscal year 2006 is projected by the 
     Department of Labor to exceed 2,984,000, an additional 
     $28,600,000 shall be available for obligation for every 
     100,000 increase in the AWIU level (including a pro rata 
     amount for any increment less than 100,000) from the 
     Employment Security Administration Account of the 
     Unemployment Trust Fund: Provided further, That funds 
     appropriated in this Act which are used to establish a 
     national one-stop career center system, or which are used to 
     support the national activities of the Federal-State 
     unemployment insurance or immigration programs, may be 
     obligated in contracts, grants or agreements with non-State 
     entities: Provided further, That funds appropriated under 
     this Act for activities authorized under the Wagner-Peyser 
     Act, as amended, and title III of the Social Security Act, 
     may be used by the States to fund integrated Employment 
     Service and Unemployment Insurance automation efforts, 
     notwithstanding cost allocation principles prescribed under 
     Office of Management and Budget Circular A-87.
       In addition to amounts made available above, and subject to 
     the same terms and conditions, $10,000,000 to conduct in-
     person reemployment and eligibility assessments of 
     unemployment insurance beneficiaries in one-stop career 
     centers, and $30,000,000 to prevent and detect fraudulent 
     unemployment benefits claims filed using personal information 
     stolen from unsuspecting workers: Provided, That not later 
     than 180 days following the end of fiscal year 2006, the 
     Secretary shall provide a report to the Congress which 
     includes:
       (1) the amount spent for in-person reemployment and 
     eligibility assessments of UI beneficiaries in One-Stop 
     Career Centers, as well as funds made available and expended 
     to prevent and detect fraudulent claims for unemployment 
     benefits filed using workers' stolen personal information;
       (2) the number of scheduled in-person reemployment and 
     eligibility assessments, the number of individuals who failed 
     to appear for scheduled assessments, actions taken as a 
     result of individuals not appearing for an assessment (e.g., 
     benefits terminated), results of assessments (e.g., referred 
     to reemployment services, found in compliance with program 
     requirements), estimated savings resulting from cessation of 
     benefits, and estimated savings as a result of accelerated 
     reemployment; and
       (3) the estimated number of UI benefit claims filed using 
     stolen identification that are discovered at the time of 
     initial filing, with an estimate of the resulting savings; 
     and the estimated number of ID theft-related continued claims 
     stopped, with an estimate of the amount paid on such 
     fraudulent claims and an estimate of the resulting savings 
     from their termination.

        Advances to the Unemployment Trust Fund and Other Funds

       For repayable advances to the Unemployment Trust Fund as 
     authorized by sections 905(d) and 1203 of the Social Security 
     Act, as amended, and to the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund 
     as authorized by section 9501(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1954, as amended; and for nonrepayable advances to 
     the Unemployment Trust Fund as authorized by section 8509 of 
     title 5, United States Code, and to the ``Federal 
     unemployment benefits and allowances'' account, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2007, $465,000,000.
       In addition, for making repayable advances to the Black 
     Lung Disability Trust Fund in the current fiscal year after 
     September 15, 2006, for costs incurred by the Black Lung 
     Disability Trust Fund in the current fiscal year, such sums 
     as may be necessary.

                         Program Administration

       For expenses of administering employment and training 
     programs, $118,123,000, together with not to exceed 
     $87,988,000, which may be expended from the Employment 
     Security Administration Account in the Unemployment Trust 
     Fund: Provided, That not to exceed $3,000,000 shall be 
     available for contracts that are not competitively bid.

                     Workers Compensation Programs


                              (rescission)

       Of the funds provided under this heading in the Emergency 
     Supplemental Act, 2002 (Public Law 107-117, division B), 
     $120,000,000 is rescinded.

               Employee Benefits Security Administration


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses for the Employee Benefits Security 
     Administration, $137,000,000.

                  Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation

               Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation Fund

       The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation is authorized to 
     make such expenditures, including financial assistance 
     authorized by section 104 of Public Law 96-364, within limits 
     of funds and borrowing authority available to such 
     Corporation, and in accord with law, and to make such 
     contracts and commitments without regard to fiscal year 
     limitations as provided by section 104 of the Government 
     Corporation Control Act, as amended (31 U.S.C. 9104), as may 
     be necessary in carrying out the program, including 
     associated administrative expenses, through September 30, 
     2006, for such Corporation: Provided, That none of the funds 
     available to the Corporation for fiscal year 2006 shall be 
     available for obligations for administrative expenses in 
     excess of $296,977,728: Provided further, That obligations in 
     excess of such

[[Page 13911]]

     amount may be incurred after approval by the Office of 
     Management and Budget and the Committees on Appropriations of 
     the House and Senate.

                  Employment Standards Administration


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses for the Employment Standards 
     Administration, including reimbursement to State, Federal, 
     and local agencies and their employees for inspection 
     services rendered, $414,284,000, together with $2,048,000 
     which may be expended from the Special Fund in accordance 
     with sections 39(c), 44(d) and 44(j) of the Longshore and 
     Harbor Workers' Compensation Act: Provided, That the 
     Secretary of Labor is authorized to establish and, in 
     accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3302, collect and deposit in the 
     Treasury fees for processing applications and issuing 
     certificates under sections 11(d) and 14 of the Fair Labor 
     Standards Act of 1938, as amended (29 U.S.C. 211(d) and 214) 
     and for processing applications and issuing registrations 
     under title I of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker 
     Protection Act (29 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.).

                            Special Benefits


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the payment of compensation, benefits, and expenses 
     (except administrative expenses) accruing during the current 
     or any prior fiscal year authorized by title 5, chapter 81 of 
     the United States Code; continuation of benefits as provided 
     for under the heading ``Civilian War Benefits'' in the 
     Federal Security Agency Appropriation Act, 1947; the 
     Employees' Compensation Commission Appropriation Act, 1944; 
     sections 4(c) and 5(f) of the War Claims Act of 1948 (50 
     U.S.C. App. 2012); and 50 percent of the additional 
     compensation and benefits required by section 10(h) of the 
     Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, as amended, 
     $237,000,000, together with such amounts as may be necessary 
     to be charged to the subsequent year appropriation for the 
     payment of compensation and other benefits for any period 
     subsequent to August 15 of the current year: Provided, That 
     amounts appropriated may be used under section 8104 of title 
     5, United States Code, by the Secretary of Labor to reimburse 
     an employer, who is not the employer at the time of injury, 
     for portions of the salary of a reemployed, disabled 
     beneficiary: Provided further, That balances of 
     reimbursements unobligated on September 30, 2005, shall 
     remain available until expended for the payment of 
     compensation, benefits, and expenses: Provided further, That 
     in addition there shall be transferred to this appropriation 
     from the Postal Service and from any other corporation or 
     instrumentality required under section 8147(c) of title 5, 
     United States Code, to pay an amount for its fair share of 
     the cost of administration, such sums as the Secretary 
     determines to be the cost of administration for employees of 
     such fair share entities through September 30, 2006: Provided 
     further, That of those funds transferred to this account from 
     the fair share entities to pay the cost of administration of 
     the Federal Employees' Compensation Act, $45,001,000 shall be 
     made available to the Secretary as follows:
       (1) for enhancement and maintenance of automated data 
     processing systems and telecommunications systems, 
     $13,305,000;
       (2) for automated workload processing operations, including 
     document imaging, centralized mail intake and medical bill 
     processing, $18,454,000;
       (3) for periodic roll management and medical review, 
     $13,242,000; and
       (4) the remaining funds shall be paid into the Treasury as 
     miscellaneous receipts:

     Provided further, That the Secretary may require that any 
     person filing a notice of injury or a claim for benefits 
     under chapter 81 of title 5, United States Code, or 33 U.S.C. 
     901 et seq., provide as part of such notice and claim, such 
     identifying information (including Social Security account 
     number) as such regulations may prescribe.

               Special Benefits for Disabled Coal Miners

       For carrying out title IV of the Federal Mine Safety and 
     Health Act of 1977, as amended by Public Law 107-275, (the 
     ``Act''), $232,250,000, to remain available until expended.
       For making after July 31 of the current fiscal year, 
     benefit payments to individuals under title IV of the Act, 
     for costs incurred in the current fiscal year, such amounts 
     as may be necessary.
       For making benefit payments under title IV for the first 
     quarter of fiscal year 2007, $74,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended.


    Administrative Expenses, Energy Employees Occupational Illness 
                           Compensation Fund

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses to administer the Energy Employees 
     Occupational Illness Compensation Act, $96,081,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That the Secretary of 
     Labor is authorized to transfer to any executive agency with 
     authority under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness 
     Compensation Act, including within the Department of Labor, 
     such sums as may be necessary in fiscal year 2006 to carry 
     out those authorities: Provided further, That the Secretary 
     may require that any person filing a claim for benefits under 
     the Act provide as part of such claim, such identifying 
     information (including Social Security account number) as may 
     be prescribed.

                    Black Lung Disability Trust Fund


                     (including transfer of funds)

       In fiscal year 2006 and thereafter, such sums as may be 
     necessary from the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund, to 
     remain available until expended, for payment of all benefits 
     authorized by section 9501(d) (1), (2), (4), and (7) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended; and interest on 
     advances, as authorized by section 9501(c)(2) of that Act. In 
     addition, the following amounts shall be available from the 
     Fund for fiscal year 2006 for expenses of operation and 
     administration of the Black Lung Benefits program, as 
     authorized by section 9501(d)(5): $33,050,000 for transfer to 
     the Employment Standards Administration ``Salaries and 
     Expenses''; $24,239,000 for transfer to Departmental 
     Management, ``Salaries and Expenses''; $344,000 for transfer 
     to Departmental Management, ``Office of Inspector General''; 
     and $356,000 for payments into miscellaneous receipts for the 
     expenses of the Department of the Treasury.

             Occupational Safety and Health Administration


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses for the Occupational Safety and 
     Health Administration, $477,199,000, including not to exceed 
     $92,013,000 which shall be the maximum amount available for 
     grants to States under section 23(g) of the Occupational 
     Safety and Health Act (the ``Act''), which grants shall be no 
     less than 50 percent of the costs of State occupational 
     safety and health programs required to be incurred under 
     plans approved by the Secretary under section 18 of the Act; 
     and, in addition, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, the 
     Occupational Safety and Health Administration may retain up 
     to $750,000 per fiscal year of training institute course 
     tuition fees, otherwise authorized by law to be collected, 
     and may utilize such sums for occupational safety and health 
     training and education grants: Provided, That, 
     notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, the Secretary of Labor is 
     authorized, during the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, 
     to collect and retain fees for services provided to 
     Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratories, and may utilize 
     such sums, in accordance with the provisions of 29 U.S.C. 9a, 
     to administer national and international laboratory 
     recognition programs that ensure the safety of equipment and 
     products used by workers in the workplace: Provided further, 
     That none of the funds appropriated under this paragraph 
     shall be obligated or expended to prescribe, issue, 
     administer, or enforce any standard, rule, regulation, or 
     order under the Act which is applicable to any person who is 
     engaged in a farming operation which does not maintain a 
     temporary labor camp and employs 10 or fewer employees: 
     Provided further, That no funds appropriated under this 
     paragraph shall be obligated or expended to administer or 
     enforce any standard, rule, regulation, or order under the 
     Act with respect to any employer of 10 or fewer employees who 
     is included within a category having a Days Away, Restricted, 
     or Transferred (DART) occupational injury and illness rate, 
     at the most precise industrial classification code for which 
     such data are published, less than the national average rate 
     as such rates are most recently published by the Secretary, 
     acting through the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in accordance 
     with section 24 of that Act (29 U.S.C. 673), except--
       (1) to provide, as authorized by such Act, consultation, 
     technical assistance, educational and training services, and 
     to conduct surveys and studies;
       (2) to conduct an inspection or investigation in response 
     to an employee complaint, to issue a citation for violations 
     found during such inspection, and to assess a penalty for 
     violations which are not corrected within a reasonable 
     abatement period and for any willful violations found;
       (3) to take any action authorized by such Act with respect 
     to imminent dangers;
       (4) to take any action authorized by such Act with respect 
     to health hazards;
       (5) to take any action authorized by such Act with respect 
     to a report of an employment accident which is fatal to one 
     or more employees or which results in hospitalization of two 
     or more employees, and to take any action pursuant to such 
     investigation authorized by such Act; and
       (6) to take any action authorized by such Act with respect 
     to complaints of discrimination against employees for 
     exercising rights under such Act:
     Provided further, That the foregoing proviso shall not apply 
     to any person who is engaged in a farming operation which 
     does not maintain a temporary labor camp and employs 10 or 
     fewer employees: Provided further, That not less than 
     $3,200,000 shall be used to extend funding for the 
     Institutional Competency Building training grants which 
     commenced in September 2000, for program activities for the 
     period of September 30, 2006, to September 30, 2007, provided 
     that a grantee has demonstrated satisfactory performance: 
     Provided further, That none of the funds

[[Page 13912]]

     appropriated under this paragraph shall be obligated or 
     expended to administer or enforce the provisions of 29 CFR 
     1910.134(f)(2) (General Industry Respiratory Protection 
     Standard) to the extent that such provisions require the 
     annual fit testing (after the initial fit testing) of 
     respirators for occupational exposure to tuberculosis.

                              {time}  1445


        Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania

  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Gillmor). The Clerk will designate the 
amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 22 offered by Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania:
       Page 16, line 4, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(reduced by $37,336,000)''.
       Page 25, line 16, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(increased by $37,336,000)''.

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this 
amendment and any amendments thereto be limited to 15 minutes to be 
divided equally and controlled by the proponent and myself, the 
opponent.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume. I have great respect for the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Regula) and the incredibly difficult task he and his staff have had 
before them to write this bill. I think he did a remarkable job and I 
want to commend him.
  My amendment would simply make a modest adjustment to the bill by 
restoring funding for two vital rural health programs to their fiscal 
year 2005 levels. Specifically, my amendment allows for increases to 
rural outreach grants by $28.511 million and $8.825 million to rural 
health research. This $37 million increase is offset by a reduction to 
OSHA.
  As Members may know, rural programs across the Federal budget 
continue to be proposed for cuts or elimination. As cochairman of the 
Congressional Rural Caucus, I feel obligated to rise and share my 
concern. Some argue that the Medicare bill we passed last year fixed 
rural health care and that we do not need to continue to fund rural 
programs, but this is comparing apples to oranges. The Medicare bill 
increased reimbursements for rural hospitals and doctors, while 
outreach grants that we are dealing with generally do not involve 
hospitals. Outreach funds go to a variety of providers that saw no 
benefit from the Medicare prescription drug bill, such as public health 
departments, community health centers, rural health clinics, mental 
health providers, and other community-based organizations that provide 
the finest care to our poorest.
  Outreach grants run for 3 years with applicants being eligible for up 
to $200,000 per year. Outreach grants emphasize collaboration by key 
community groups, requiring at least three health care providers to 
come together to apply for the funding. The idea of the grants is to 
provide start-up funds to innovative approaches to health problems in 
rural areas with the applicants using the 3 years to make the program 
self-sustaining. According to a study by the University of Minnesota, 
more than 80 percent of programs established with outreach grants were 
still operating 5 years after Federal funding expired.
  My amendment also restores funding for the $9 million rural health 
research program. This money supports eight rural health research 
centers around the country and also supports the Secretary's National 
Advisory Committee on Rural Health, which is composed of national 
leaders on rural health care and has an important role in shaping 
administration policy. The rural research centers help us understand 
how CMS payments interact with the reality of rural health practice, 
including the wage index issues researched by the University of North 
Carolina and physician payment issues researched in the past by the 
Rural Policy Research Institute in Nebraska.
  The rural research line also funds the Secretary's National Advisory 
Committee on Rural Health which submits an annual report to the 
Secretary, the only rural-specific report our Secretary of Health may 
ever see in a given year. This funding line also carries out the 
function of evaluating Federal regulations within the Office of Rural 
Health Policy. Eliminating this program would effectively cut off the 
only rural policy shop within HHS.
  If rural health fails, there are no winners. People travel long 
distances to more affordable, less accessible health care settings in 
our suburban areas. No one wins. Families are displaced, people are 
long distances from their loved ones and their support team, and the 
system pays considerably more, so there is no savings.
  This is the worst possible time to eliminate funding for these 
programs. As the health care world continues to evolve, we have to 
ensure that rural America has a seat at the table of Congress and the 
administration. We need to restore funding for these two vital rural 
health programs I have just shared with you.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I have to reluctantly rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment. He is a valuable member of our subcommittee and is certainly 
a strong voice for programs providing health care in rural areas. As 
the gentleman knows, we have tried to respond as much as possible 
within the constraints of the budget. That program seemed to be the 
highest priority rural health program for our Members. I realize the 
outreach program is popular among Members but we just felt we had to 
restore some of the other cuts proposed, like pediatric GME.
  Unfortunately, the offset in the amendment is unacceptable and any 
cut in OSHA would savage the agency's ability to maintain its safety 
programs. This is a clear example of we wish we had more money, but we 
do not, and we are trying to make the best use of what we have.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I am strongly opposed to this amendment. I 
take a back seat to no one in my support for rural health care. I have 
offered numerous amendments in the past to add to its budget. But this 
amendment gets the money to restore funding for rural health care in an 
outrageous fashion, because it takes it from the agency that is 
supposed to protect workers' health and lives.
  In 2003, more than 5,500 workers were killed in this country by job 
injuries. That is 15 workers every day. In the steel industry, there 
has been a major increase in workplace fatalities the last 2 years. The 
impact of those fatalities is enormous. According to Liberty Mutual, 
the Nation's largest Workmen's Compensation company, the direct cost of 
these injuries and illness is $1 billion a week, and the total cost is 
between $200 and $300 billion a year.
  The present budget proposal for OSHA in this bill is $477 million, 
which is less than $4.60 for every private sector worker. Under the 
current OSHA budget, OSHA can inspect workplaces on an average of once 
every 108 years, and this amendment will make that worse.
  This is a case where, again, the budget resolution is totally 
inadequate. Neither of these programs should be cut. The problem is 
that this amendment takes money away from a program which will save 
workers' lives. I would urge a ``no'' vote. I most reluctantly take 
this position because I am strongly in favor of rural health care but 
not at the expense of workers' lives.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  I am not going to take a lot of time here to defend the cut in OSHA, 
but I will say that I have a lot of friends that work in plants and 
refineries and mills in my district, and if there is an

[[Page 13913]]

agency that could better utilize their enforcement dollars, it is OSHA. 
I have many union workers, close friends of mine, that talk about the 
nonsense-type things that OSHA comes in and tinkers with when they 
could come in and instruct, because most employers today want to run a 
safe shop. If they had the process where they would come in and 
instruct, go after the real safety issues instead of the nit-picking 
issues that they do, I do not believe this small cut in OSHA would cost 
us one life. If OSHA used modern technology, they could double what 
they do in saving lives.
  I want to say this in conclusion. Rural health care is struggling in 
America. We have always been at the short end of the payment system. We 
have always had to deal with less payment for the very same procedures. 
I was in the food business. I was in the retail business. Only in 
health care does the smallest get paid the least. When you go to a 
small store, you expect to pay a little more. But the big hospitals, 
the big institutions who have the volume, who have the multitude of 
customers and use those expensive pieces of equipment morning, noon, 
and night get paid more. It is the most unfair part. And why should 
rural citizens not have adequate equal access to good health care?
  But let me tell you what happens too often. They leave their 
families, drive hundreds of miles away to an urban center that they are 
not even comfortable in, and the system will pay 50 percent more for 
the same health care that could be given to them in their own 
community. Nobody wins. And sometimes people die.
  Mr. Chairman, I will reluctantly withdraw this amendment in hopes 
that the chairman and the ranking member will see that these two 
programs do not go unfunded in the final conference report.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I am 
sympathetic. I come from a rural district myself and live on a farm, as 
a matter of fact. I understand what the gentleman is saying. He 
illustrates the fact that we have had to make very difficult priority 
judgments. Certainly I for one, and I know the gentleman from Wisconsin 
has a rural district, too, would be sympathetic to this in conference. 
We obviously cannot promise anything, but I hear my colleague's 
comments and his arguments and would certainly keep these in mind.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. I thank the chairman and the ranking 
member. I will hope and pray that they come through for rural America.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Owens

  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Owens:
       In title I, in the item relating to ``Occupational Safety 
     and Health Administration--salaries and expenses'', strike 
     ``: Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated 
     under this paragraph shall be obligated or expended to 
     administer or enforce the provisions of 29 CFR 1910.134(f)(2) 
     (General Industry Respiratory Protection Standard) to the 
     extent that such provisions require the annual fit testing 
     (after the initial fit testing) of respirators for 
     occupational exposure to tuberculosis''.

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the debate on 
this amendment and any amendments thereto be limited to 10 minutes to 
be equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself, the 
opponent.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1500

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Gillmor). The Chair recognizes the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Owens).
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment in support of OSHA and the 
safety of workers, in contrast to the last amendment offered which 
tried to trivialize the importance of workers' safety. My amendment is 
to protect first responders and receivers from bioterrorism and its 
deadly consequences. Several distinguished colleagues have joined me in 
offering this amendment: they are the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
LaTourette), who co-chairs the Nurse Caucus; the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller), who is senior Democrat on the Committee 
on Education and the Workforce; and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. 
Thompson), who is the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Homeland 
Security.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply strikes a dangerous provision in 
the underlying bill that would leave first responders and receivers 
without the most basic protection against bioterrorist attacks. This 
provision bans the annual fit testing of respirators or masks for our 
front-line heroes. Why is such a provision there? It is part of the 
effort to trivialize the whole concept of workers' safety. Why single 
out a small matter like this and deny the fit testing of respirators 
and masks for our front-line heroes?
  Unless this provision is deleted, let me spell out the commonsense 
consequences, and bear in mind the fact that even on the Hill here when 
we had the anthrax attacks, the danger of people being exposed who were 
not protected was dramatized; and during the series of anthrax attacks, 
the two people who were casualties, who are unrecognized, unsung 
heroes, they are dead, were postal workers who died as a result of not 
being protected from anthrax. So to trivialize this situation, I think, 
is one more step in the attempt by the majority party to make OSHA seem 
like an irrelevant inconsequential agency.
  In the event of an attack, emergency medical technicians from a local 
fire department would be the first on the scene to help scores of 
victims with the same unexplained illness. Unless they have respirators 
that fit properly, these emergency medical workers would themselves 
face exposure to the deadly bio-agent. Likewise, nurses in a local 
hospital would routinely have first contact with patients brought in 
with similar unexplained symptoms. Unless they had respirators, they 
would pass it on to other people.
  Mr. Chairman, the provision in this bill that bans such fit testing 
of respirators clearly undermines a core tenet of preparedness in the 
event of a bio-terrorist attack. I would urge each Member to consider 
the fact that we were given opportunities to go get fitted for masks, 
to get used to how the masks go on, and most Members of Congress did 
not go; but those who did go found just to be fitted with a mask and 
get used to the idea is very difficult. By the time such an attack is 
under way, it is flat out too late to start fit testing respirators for 
individual workers.
  The only Federal rule we have that requires the annual fit testing of 
respirators for these workers is the Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration's tuberculosis prevention standard. Yet the bill we are 
now considering would prohibit OSHA from enforcing this requirement.
  At a time when the Bush administration continues to issue daily 
color-coded terrorist alerts, it makes absolutely no sense to weaken 
the only standard we have to protect first responders and receivers 
from bioterrorism. We already know that in the hands of terrorists, 
airborne pathogens would quite literally become weapons of mass 
destruction capable of causing life-threatening illnesses and death for 
hundreds of thousands, and perhaps millions, of Americans.
  Examples of these pathogens include multidrug-resistant TB, smallpox, 
and pneumonic plague, among others. Elsewhere in this bill, we are 
appropriating $500 million for hospitals to purchase equipment for this 
purpose. We also are appropriating $30 million for hospitals to educate 
their workers, but we picked out this situation that says but we cannot 
have a standard which ensures responders and receivers would be 
protected by having a prefitting.
  It would only cost about $11.7 million to fit test all the first 
responders and receivers in fiscal year 2006, and one

[[Page 13914]]

third of the amount appropriated for hospital funding for workforce 
education on bioterrorism could be used for this purpose. Talk about a 
lack of common sense and egregious failure to act responsibly, this is 
it. And it is only there because of this great contempt for workers' 
safety and for OSHA.
  The respirators first responders use, N95 masks, are 95 percent 
efficient at deterring pathogens if and only if they fit properly. 
According to the manufacturer of these respirators, and this is laid 
out in the instructions for use, there must be annual fit testing to 
ensure a proper fit. Even slight changes posed by weight gain or loss, 
dental work, or normal aging can interfere.
  If we are going to carry out our duties in terms of homeland 
security, then this small step must be taken. Remove and ban this 
provision.

                                                    June 22, 2005.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of nearly one million first 
     responders and nurses represented by our organizations, we 
     are writing to urge you to support an amendment to the Labor-
     Health and Human Services-Education Appropriations bill that 
     would protect health care workers and first responders from 
     unnecessary risk when exposed to tuberculosis (TB) as well as 
     other natural or man-made airborne biological agents. The 
     amendment to be offered by Representatives Major R. Owens and 
     Steven C. LaTourette would remove a provision in the bill 
     that prohibits the Occupational Safety and Health 
     Administration (OSHA) from enforcing the annual fit testing 
     of respirator masks that employers are required to provide 
     workers who are at risk of exposure to TB.
       In December 2003, OSHA extended its respirator standard (29 
     CFR 1910.134) to apply to workplaces where there is a risk of 
     exposure to TB. This requirement would protect nurses, first 
     responders and other health care workers in workplaces where 
     tuberculosis cases have previously presented. As part of the 
     respirator standard, employers are required to conduct an 
     annual fit test, to ensure that an employee's respirator mask 
     fits properly and provides the expected protection. When 
     developing the respirator standard, OSHA determined that an 
     annual fit test was necessary due to changes in a worker's 
     weight, dental work and other factors that affect the facial 
     seal of the respirator mask.
       Properly fitted respirators not only safeguard against TB, 
     but against additional airborne hazards such as SARS, 
     anthrax, avian flu, monkey pox and other biological agents 
     that could be released in a terrorist attack. Annual fit 
     testing against TB will ensure that nurses and responders are 
     prepared in advance from airborne biological threats. The 
     need for a properly fitted respirator mask was demonstrated 
     in Toronto during the SARS outbreak when several health care 
     workers whose respirators had not been fit tested contracted 
     SARS. Because the cost of the annual fit testing is small--
     estimated by OSHA at $10.7 million nationally--it is a wise 
     investment to be made for those most vulnerable to TB and on 
     the frontline of any biological threat or attack.
       While many states have made progress against TB infection 
     rates since the early 1990s, it is still a serious threat to 
     many nurses and first responders. Furthermore, drug resistant 
     TB is still a daily risk for nurses and first responders who 
     care for immigrant, homeless, incarcerated and long-term 
     populations.
       The annual fit testing requirement is not unique to 
     tuberculosis. The respirator standard requires other 
     industries to conduct an annual fit test where there is risk 
     of exposure to other airborne hazards. Indeed, health care 
     facilities are required to conduct annual fit testing when 
     the presence of other contaminants, such as ethylene oxide 
     and formaldehyde, require the use of respirators. First 
     responders and nurses at risk of exposure to tuberculosis 
     should be afforded the same protections as workers who are at 
     risk of exposure to other airborne hazards. Moreover, the 
     annual fit test serves the public interest by reducing the 
     possibility that first responders and nurses will become 
     vectors of TB and other diseases.
       For all of these reasons, we strongly urge you to support 
     the Owens-LaTourette amendment and to help protect first 
     responders and nurses from unnecessary and serious health 
     risks.
           Sincerely,
       AFL-CIO; American Federation of State, County and Municipal 
     Employees; American Federation of Teachers; American Nurses 
     Association; Communications Workers of America; International 
     Association of Fire Fighters; International Brotherhood of 
     Teamsters; International Union, United Auto Workers; Service 
     Employees International Union; United American Nurses; United 
     Food and Commerical Workers International Union; United 
     Steelworkers.

  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York has expired.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman 
Regula) for yielding me this time.
  I join the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) in opposing the 
Owens amendment and would submit to my colleagues that this amendment 
offers this very straightforward question to Members of the House 
today: whether to continue the effective job that the Centers for 
Disease Control are doing currently to fight tuberculosis in the United 
States or whether, on the other hand, to adopt the Owens amendment and 
implement an expensive new regulation to allow OSHA to become involved 
in infectious disease control. That is the basic question.
  I know that many of us in the House of Representatives and many 
people across the country are concerned about the issue of rising 
health care costs. And I will tell the Members that this amendment, if 
adopted today, would increase the cost of health care for Americans. It 
may sound reasonable and narrowly drawn at first, dealing only with the 
fit testing of respirators used to prevent tuberculosis; but I would 
invite Members to call their hospital administrators and find out what 
they have to say about this amendment, and what they will tell them is 
this will be an expensive new regulation for hospitals, and it will 
increase health care costs for Americans.
  I think most of us agree that the correct people to fight infectious 
disease are the health care professionals in our hospitals, and the 
best agency to regulate and provide guidelines for these health care 
professionals is the Centers for Disease Control. They have been doing 
it since 1992, and they have been doing a good job of it.
  This amendment is a back-door method of allowing OSHA a foothold in 
the regulation of infectious diseases, and I do not think we want to do 
that today. And one reason we do not want to do it is the success of 
CDC.
  I direct the attention of my colleagues to this chart here. I do not 
know if every Member can see it, but we can see that tuberculosis rates 
are the lowest they have been since 1953, and they continue to drop. On 
the other chart, ``Reported TB cases in the United States, 1982 to 
2003'', along about 1992 when CDC started providing guidelines for our 
health care facilities for regulation of tuberculosis, the TB rate 
started to drop, and it has continuously dropped.
  CDC is winning the war against tuberculosis in this country. I thank 
the chairman for including this in the legislation last year. It is now 
the law of the land. I thank the chairman for keeping the legislation 
this year, and I urge my colleagues to stay with a proven record in 
fighting tuberculosis by voting ``no'' on the Owens amendment.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in opposition to the amendment. It was included in the bill 
last year. It was offered as an amendment in full committee markup and 
passed and was retained in the conference report. This is good 
language, allows the committee to exercise its oversight rights, and 
tuberculosis outbreaks and hospitals ought to be regulated by the CDC, 
not OSHA. CDC is this Nation's primary infectious disease control 
agency, and we do not need other agencies to enact regulations that are 
not backed up by sound science in a misguided attempt to control 
infectious diseases. That is the CDC role. For that reason I oppose the 
amendment.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of 
the amendment offered by my friend and colleague from New York.
  As public officials, we face many difficult decisions. This issue 
should not be one.
  The amendment before us this morning would strike a provision in this 
bill that bans OSHA from conducting fit tests of the respirator masks 
worn by our first responders.
  These masks are crucial to the survival of our first responders and 
it is only common sense that these masks must fit properly to perform 
as expected.
  We would never ask our soldiers on the battlefield to go into combat 
with equipment that may or may not perform as expected. Our first

[[Page 13915]]

responders who are our domestic defenders deserve the same treatment.
  We must do everything we can to help those who sacrifice so much to 
protect us.
  Only yesterday, a group of 80 arms control and security experts 
released a survey commissioned by Senator Lugar of Indiana which says 
that they believe there is a 70 percent chance of a WMD attack in the 
next 10 years.
  We all agree that we should focus our efforts on preventing any 
future WMD attack, but we must ensure that our first responders are 
adequately protected should an attack take place.
  I strongly support the amendment offered by Mr. Owens and urge my 
colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of 
the amendment by Representatives Steven LaTourette, George Miller, 
Major Owens, and Bennie Thompson, to the Labor/HHS appropriations bill 
to strike a provision that bans the annual fit-testing of respirators 
for first responders and first receivers.
  As many working Americans know, this ban on annual fit-testing 
undermines our national preparedness and that of our first responders 
in the event of a bio-terrorism attack. In the wake of the tragedies of 
September 11, 2001, it seems irresponsible for us to ban the annual 
fit-testing of respirators.
  We all have heard about the dangers of air-borne pathogens becoming 
``weapons of mass destruction.'' The only federal rule mandating annual 
fit-testing of respirators for workers is the Occupational Health and 
Safety Administration's, OSHA, TB prevention standard. The bill before 
us would prohibit OSHA from enforcing this requirement.
  This amendment is supported by the AFL-CIO, AFSCME, American Nurses 
Association, ANA, International Association of Fire Fighters, IAFF, and 
the International Safety Equipment Association, ISEA.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens) 
will be postponed.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
English).
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I, along with the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Simmons) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird), was considering 
proposing an amendment to restore funds for the Community Service Block 
Grant program. Earlier this year, 121 of my colleagues and I sent a 
letter to the chairman and to the ranking member respectfully 
requesting that adequate funding be provided for the CSBG program. 
Recognizing the challenges that the chairman faced, we were 
disappointed that the bill provided 50 percent less funding than the 
previous year.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, we did receive their 
correspondence, and I appreciate the gentleman's concerns. They are not 
unlike the supporters of many other popular programs. I would also 
thank the gentleman for understanding the tight fiscal constraints that 
my committee is facing this year.
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, the chairman is absolutely 
right. We do not intend to diminish attention and concern for other 
programs within this measure, which we recognize represents a very 
tight balancing act. However, I would like to bring to the attention of 
my colleagues in the House the ramifications of cutting this vital 
program.
  CSBG ensures that America's low-income families and communities have 
access to quality programs that help meet their local needs. If this 
cut were to take place, current and future services would be eliminated 
or disrupted for about 6.5 million low-income individuals and 3 million 
families, including almost 2 million children.
  As the chairman knows, CSBG supplies the core funding for more than 
1,100 grantees, primarily Community Action Agencies nationwide. A cut 
in funding would put many important services provided by these agencies 
at risk. This includes domestic violence services, food banks, health 
and dental clinics, entrepreneurship skills and financing, asset 
development, job development and skills training, and youth training. 
And the list goes on.
  I would like to use an example of one such organization in my 
district, the Greater Erie Community Action Committee, or GECAC. This 
cut would considerably limit GECAC's ability to provide tailor-made 
services and initiatives that help vulnerable families in Erie, 
Pennsylvania. An important facet of CSBG is the flexibility that allows 
GECAC to deliver community-designed responses to our unique needs.
  Mr. Chairman, the bottom line is that we have seen great progress for 
many of America's poorer families as a result of this program. CSBG has 
provided invaluable assistance to our neediest families and gives 
individuals the necessary tools to help them get back on their feet.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, certainly I appreciate 
the gentleman's concerns, and I hope that we can work together in the 
coming months.
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will 
further yield, I thank the gentleman for the opportunity to discuss 
this important issue this afternoon.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the colloquy 
between the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English) and Chairman 
Regula that highlights the importance of restoring funding for the 
Community Service Block Grant Program.
  Mr. Chairman, while I certainly understand the difficult work of the 
Appropriations Committee as it strives to keep the 2006 budget process 
under strict allocations, it is my hope that we can somehow find 
additional funding for the C-S-B-G Program. While the President sought 
to consolidate the program in his 2006 budget to the Congress, I was 
pleased to support language in the House-passed budget package, which 
states that:

       Community Service Block Grants provides invaluable 
     assistance to low-income families and communities. These 
     funds are used to build healthy and stable communities. Due 
     consideration should be given to this program before Congress 
     implements any changes.

  Mr. Chairman, thousands of community action agencies provide services 
that help low-income individuals: Train for gainful employment, obtain 
quality living environments and generally move toward self-sufficiency. 
One of those agencies is ``Total Action Against Poverty,'' in my 
congressional district, which has provided much-needed services to the 
Roanoke Valley and southwest Virginia for nearly 30-years.
  I Believe a major reason for the effectiveness of organizations like 
``Total Action Against Poverty'' are that they are locally controlled. 
Rather than seeking guidance from a know-it-all bureaucracy in 
Washington, DC, community action agencies can resolve community 
problems with community solutions. These organizations are grassroots-
based, and are led by local boards and volunteers, with diverse 
memberships and strong roots in their communities. By nature, these 
groups are invested in their communities--and have the ability to 
leverage C-S-B-G funds with significant resources from private 
organizations including corporations and foundations with a stake in 
promoting the wellness of their neighborhoods, rather than pleasing 
constituencies in Washington.
  Mr. Chairman, it is my belief that C-S-B-Gs are the kind of good-
government programs that Congress should continue to support. I hope 
that conferees can support the C-S-B-G program.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I rise for the purpose of entering into a colloquy with the 
gentlewoman from Washington (Miss McMorris).
  Miss McMORRIS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentlewoman from Washington.
  Miss McMORRIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose of entering into 
a

[[Page 13916]]

colloquy with the chairman, and I thank the gentleman for yielding to 
me.
  I appreciate the chairman's leadership on the Labor-HHS and Education 
bill, and I especially appreciate his allowing me some time to 
highlight the significant role training in primary medicine plays in 
rural health and dental care.
  My district in eastern Washington stretches from the Canadian border 
to the Oregon border and covers 23,000 square miles. As I travel around 
the district and hear from doctors, individuals, and families, I am 
told of the many challenges facing small rural communities in terms of 
access to health care.

                              {time}  1515

  In Congress, one of my top priorities is to ensure those in my 
district from Spokane, which is the largest medical center between 
Seattle and Minneapolis, to the more rural communities have access to 
quality, affordable health care.
  It concerns me that eastern Washington and throughout rural America, 
we are seeing an increasing shortage of health care professionals. 
Already, 20 percent of the United States is impacted by health care 
personnel shortages. We need doctors, nurses, lab technicians and, 
especially in rural areas, we have a critical need for training in 
primary care medicine and dentistry.
  Congress has recognized these challenges and has worked to preserve 
rural communities' access to health care by investing in the Training 
in Primary Care Medicine and Dentistry program under Title VII of the 
Public Health Care Service Act, and administered in the Health 
Resources and Services Administration of the Department of Health and 
Human Services. This funding plays a critical role in supporting 
programs that help train and bring health care professionals to rural 
areas of our country.
  One of the regional programs that has benefited from Title VII grants 
is the rural health training program, referred to as WWAMI, which 
stands for Washington, Wyoming, Alaska, Montana, and Idaho. This rural 
health training residency network trains its graduate students at rural 
sites within these five States, with the supposition that doctors 
practice where they were trained. Statistics show that this method has 
proven itself effective time and time again. Retention rates of doctors 
who have been trained in rural areas within these States show that 89 
percent of physicians who have been trained in rural areas have chosen 
to practice in those rural areas. Federal grants have been instrumental 
in the development of this innovative program. Congress needs to 
continue to invest in training in primary care medicine and dentistry 
because, in areas of critical need, it is a vital resource used to 
ensure access to health care.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope that the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) 
will be able to address this issue in conference so that primary care 
training programs receive some Federal funding in fiscal year 06.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentlewoman 
for bringing the issue of training primary care physicians for service 
in rural areas to the attention of all of the Members.
  All of us who represent rural areas share the gentlewoman's concern. 
It is very difficult for me to recommend not funding many of the health 
professions training programs. I certainly pledge to the gentlewoman 
that I will try to address this problem when we are in conference with 
our Senate colleagues.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. 
Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me 
time, and I apologize for speaking out of order on an amendment that I 
did not understand the rules for providing debate time for.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Owens-LaTourette amendment. 
This bill before us endangers the lives of our Nation's nurses and our 
first responders, and it threatens the ability of our country to keep 
control of tuberculosis, and it blocks a critical requirement that 
nurses, EMTs, firefighters, and other first responders are fitted 
annually for tight-fitting respirators.
  Mr. Chairman, these respirators are masks that protect these 
emergency responders, these health care professionals, from being 
exposed to deadly diseases like tuberculosis or anthrax or any of the 
bioterrorist agents that could be used in a terrorist attack.
  For these respirators to be effective, they must fit properly. And 
since people's faces change over the years as they gain or lose weight, 
they must be checked on an annual basis, which is currently required by 
law. It is a commonsense law.
  Language inserted into this bill would eliminate that requirement. 
The Owens-LaTourette amendment would protect current law and the 
requirement for annual fit-testing of respirators. Retaining the 
requirements that respirators be fit-tested annually is essential to 
our efforts to control tuberculosis and to respond to bioterrorism.
  If these respirators do not fit properly, the emergency responders we 
are counting on to prevent the spread of contagion, disease, and death 
may become infected themselves, and that would increase the number of 
patients we have to deal with and reduce our ability to effectively 
respond. It would certainly affect the ability of caregivers to 
respond. This is not the right way to prepare our Nation for 
bioterrorism or public health emergencies.
  I urge my colleagues to support nurses, to support EMTs, 
firefighters, and other first responders by voting for the Owens-
LaTourette amendment.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the time be extended by 10 
additional minutes, for a total of 15 minutes in time, and that I be 
allowed to yield that time to other Members.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I am here as chairman of the Congressional 
Black Caucus, and to talk about the bill before us.
  When I became Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus earlier this 
year, I encouraged my colleagues in the caucus to refocus their 
energies, and they agreed to do so, on the basic historical purpose of 
the Congressional Black Caucus: closing disparities that exist between 
African Americans and other Americans in this country.
  That enabled us to develop, in a daylong retreat, an agenda around 
closing disparities in this country. It enabled us to give that agenda 
to the President of the United States on January 17 of this year, and 
to say to the President of the United States, we will not evaluate you 
on whether you are a Republican or a Democrat; we will evaluate you 
solely on whether you are proposing an agenda, an appropriation, a 
proposal that will close or widen the disparities that exist between 
African Americans and other Americans in this country. It enabled us to 
come, when we engaged in this debate on the budget and offer a 
Congressional Black Caucus budget that focused on the agenda of closing 
disparities between African Americans and other Americans. It enabled 
us to develop a legislative and an appropriations agenda that focused 
on that same objective.
  So why are we here today? Because this bill literally blows up our 
whole domestic agenda that the Congressional Black Caucus has adopted. 
In health care, in education, in justice, and in all of the things that 
we believe are important, we believe this bill moves us in the wrong 
direction.
  In our CBC budget, we proposed to roll back the tax cuts on people 
who make the highest amount of money in our country, people over 
$200,000 a year, and to get $20 billion, approximately, out of that 
rollback from which we could do our agenda. That was not allowed.
  We cannot do what we want to do in the context of this bill because 
the only thing we could do in this bill, if we offered an amendment, 
would be to rob Peter to pay Paul. We would be

[[Page 13917]]

taking from one worthy purpose to give to another.
  But we cannot sit by and allow this bill, which rolls back adult 
training grants, U.S. employment services, youth training grants, Job 
Corps, community service block grants, LIHEAP, No Child Left Behind, 
and zeroes out a total of 48 programs that would have the effect of 
closing disparities between us and other Americans.
  We must stand, and that is why we have asked for the time today.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands 
(Mrs. Christensen) to talk about the health disparities that this bill 
will not help close.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, this bill not only undermines our 
Nation's greatest resources, our people, but as a document, it is not 
worthy of what this country stands for. As a matter of fact, when I 
look at it, I just do not know what the Nation stands for.
  It obviously does not stand, this bill says that it does not stand 
for equal and the best health care for every American when we look at 
the cuts in programs that provide needed services, maternal and child 
health, sickle cell programs, the HCAP program, rural health program, 
community health centers, and the failure to extend full Medicaid to 
the territories. It also says that the country does not believe that in 
this increasingly diverse country, that our residents should be able to 
communicate with their health care provider.
  The health profession programs that are key to eliminating health 
care disparities are decimated, an 84 percent cut. That is 
scholarships, loan repayments, and outreach programs. It appears that 
they do not accept that the African American community, which is so 
devastated by HIV/AIDS, has to have adequate resources itself to 
reverse its toll, and that AIDS patients across this country need 
adequate ADAP funding to get the treatment they need.
  This budget does not care, obviously, that an ounce of prevention is 
worth a pound of cure. This country, it says that this country would 
rather neglect prevention and early care in favor of high-tech, more 
expensive payments that come too little too late, if at all, to the 
poor, the rural, and the people of color to make a difference. This 
bill would make this country one that prefers to have the poor and the 
middle-class citizens bear every burden, from war to environmental 
pollution and to illness, just so that its richest people can get 
richer.
  On behalf of my constituents and people of color across this country, 
I say we reject the crumbs from the tables of the rich. We want what we 
deserve: good health, a decent education, and the opportunity for a 
good job with a living wage.
  This bill sends the wrong message. The culture of life that we hear 
so much about, apparently, this bill does not want it extended past 
birth.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill, to do whatever we 
can to block the tax cuts, and to take our country back. I say, let us 
really fund our culture of life. Let us fund those programs that are 
being eliminated from sickle cell, from training, and maternal and 
child health and, all of the programs that keep our communities 
healthy. Let us really fund the culture of life by rejecting tax cuts 
in favor of sharing the burdens and the bounty of this country, by 
investing in our people and their health, and really have a budget that 
supports life.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Owens).
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, the Congressional Black Caucus has always 
held up education as our number one priority. At the heart of our 
agenda to end disparities this year is a bill which calls for the 
Federal Government to require that all States equalize their 
distribution of education funds. It is a major problem across the 
country. Columbia University has recently started a project which 
identifies 28 States where there are lawsuits underway, just requiring 
basically that the States distribute education funds equally to 
minority areas and to rural areas as a first step toward ending 
disparities.
  When Lyndon Johnson proposed Title I in the Elementary Education 
Assistance Act, he proposed it to go into the areas with the greatest 
needs, the greatest poverty. He was offering a way to help eliminate 
disparities. When we proposed that Title I funding be raised to the 
level of the promise, we promised enough money for it to have $13.2 
billion this year and over the period of time that the legislation has 
existed. If we had lived up to the promise, we would have had $40 
billion going into the system which basically is designed to help end 
disparities.

                              {time}  1530

  Title I money goes to the poorest areas of our country. Title I money 
goes, in big cities, to areas like my district. Title I money goes to 
areas where you will find the largest amount of health problems, you 
find the largest amount of people who are being put in prisons.
  You will find the greatest rate of unemployment. So title I money is 
targeted to help end disparities. But it is not happening at the rate 
that it should, because of the fact that we are cutting back on our 
investment in education.
  The people who live in the areas helped by title I funds are people 
who are important to the America of the future as anyone else. These 
are major human resources. We should invest in these human resources, 
follow the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) in terms of setting 
aside money for priority education programs.
  If you reached into the tax cuts and gave less of a cut to the 
richest people in America, you could easily fund the promise of title I 
as well as many of these other education programs. But this budget 
reverses what has been happening over the last few years. For the first 
time, we have frozen education and actually gone backwards in some 
instances, because the rising cost of living means that you cannot have 
the same funding and get the same results when the costs are going up.
  Not only has No Child Left Behind received what is really a cut, but 
the promise of funding IDEA, Individuals With Disabilities Education 
Act, with greater funds has been thrown away. The bill freezes after-
school centers; education technology has been slashed. And on and on it 
goes. We are not investing in a major area of human resources that our 
Nation needs.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, solely for the purpose of a unanimous consent 
request, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise to associate myself 
with my colleagues to promote a better quality of life for all 
Americans and African Americans who are suffering greatly from the 
disparities that are found in health and education.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, solely for the purpose of a unanimous consent 
request, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green.)
  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I too would like to associate 
myself with the comments from the Congressional Black Caucus. I would 
want to assure the chairman of the caucus that I think that what we are 
doing now is most appropriate.
  Mr. Chairman, let me first say thanks to you and the Ranking Member 
for your work on this bill.
  Despite the hard work that went into this bill, I will not be voting 
in favor of the bill.
  More specifically, the bill cuts all funding for Area Health 
Education Centers, Health Education and Training Centers, and Health 
Professions Training Programs. All of these programs fall under Title 
VII and are very important to my constituents. These programs have been 
addressing the needs of medically underserved communities in Texas 
since 1991 by playing a key role in providing health services and 
health care professionals for our most vulnerable populations.
  The bill also cuts funding in other important programs. For example, 
the bill provides the smallest increase for NIH in 36 years. It reduces 
the overall Centers for Disease Control and Prevention budget. Further 
it ends HHS contributions to the Global AIDS Fund. The bill also cuts 
substance abuse prevention and treatment and produces a continued 
decline in the number of research grants. While the bill provides a 
small increase for Head Start, it does not adopt the President's 
proposal to spend $45 million on new pilot programs

[[Page 13918]]

under which State governments would take over management of the program 
in nine States. The bill also freezes appropriations on the Child Care 
Block Grant at the FY05 level of $2.083 billion, making it the fourth 
year in a row which this program has been either frozen or cut.
  Unfortunately, the bill only provides $14.7 billion for the Education 
for the Disadvantaged Children Program. It saddens me to say that this 
amount is $115 million less than the current level and $1.7 billion 
less than the Administration's request. I hope more funding can be 
provided for this important program during conference.
  Before closing, I would like to express my dismay with the $100 
million decrease in funding for Corporation for Public Broadcasting. A 
loss in CPB funding would seriously hamper PBS's ability to acquire the 
top quality children's educational programming that is used in 
classrooms, day care centers and millions of American households to 
educate, entertain and provide a safe harbor from the violent, 
commercial and crass content found in the commercial marketplace. PBS 
provides valuable services that improve classroom teaching and assist 
homeschoolers. These could be reduced or eliminated if federal funding 
is cut. These services include PBS TeacherSource, a service that 
provides pre-K through 12 educators with nearly 4,000 free lesson 
plans, teachers' guides, and homeschooling guidance; and PBS 
TeacherLine, which provides high-quality professional teacher 
development through more than 90 online-facilitated courses in reading, 
mathematics, science and technology integration. We must not cut 
funding for this valuable program.
  Let me also take a moment to speak on the Congressional Black Caucus 
Closing Disparities Agenda. Closing the achievement and opportunity 
gaps in education, assuring quality health care for every American, 
focusing on employment and economic security, building wealth and 
business development, ensuring justice for all, guaranteeing retirement 
security for all Americans, and increasing equity in foreign policy are 
all important issues that we as members of the Congressional Black 
Caucus strive to make advancements in every day.
  The CBC acknowledges the unfortunate fact that disparities between 
African-Americans and white Americans continue to exist in 2005 in 
every aspect of our lives and that the historical mission of the CBC 
has not yet been fully accomplished. It is important to note that 
providing high-quality education to all public school students is very 
critical to achieving our objectives in all areas of our Agenda.
  More specifically, we must continue supporting early childhood 
nutrition, Head Start and movements toward universal pre-schools. 
Providing education and assistance appropriate to the needs of each 
individual student to fulfill the promise of No Child Left Behind, 
dropout prevention, after-school programs, school modernization and 
infrastructure and equipment enhancement is important.
  Increasing the availability of Pell Grants, scholarships, loan 
assistance and other specialized programs to enable and provide 
incentives to more African-American students to obtain college, 
graduate or professional degrees or otherwise receive training and 
retraining to meet changing job needs is also very important. The 
preservation and improving of Historically Black Colleges and 
Universities is also essential to our growth as a people. The following 
are some of the dramatic disparities that the CBC believes would be 
reduced by the above priorities:
  In 2003, 39 percent of African-American 4th grade students could read 
at or above a basic reading level compared to 74 percent of white 4th 
grade students, and 39 percent of African-American 8th grade students 
performed at or above a basic math level compared to 79 percent of 
white 8th grade students;
  High school completion rates--83.7 percent for African-Americans, and 
91.8 percent for whites;
  Bachelor Degree recipients--16.4 percent for African-Americans, and 
31.7 percent for whites; and
  Digital Divide--41.3 percent of African-Americans are capable of 
accessing the Internet, compared to 61.5 percent of whites.
  Another important area of the CBC agenda centers on health care 
disparities. The twentieth century saw major advances in health care, 
health status, and longevity. Despite these gains, differential 
morbidity and mortality between Caucasian populations and people of 
color persist; creating what the CBC believes is one of the most 
pressing health problems affecting America today. Recent reports on 
racial and ethnic health disparities document the relatively poor 
health of African Americans, American Indians, Latinos, Asian 
Americans, and other underrepresented groups when compared to white 
Americans. Not only are these groups often less healthy, but they also 
tend to have shorter life expectancies, greatly increased rates of 
infant mortality, high rates of chronic disease such as diabetes, worse 
outcomes once diagnosed with an illness, and less access to health 
care.
  Among the dramatic disparities the CBC believes could be reduced by 
taking action are:
  In December 2004, the American Journal of Public Health reported that 
886,000 more African-Americans died between 1991 and 2000 than would 
have died had equal health care been available;
  While African-Americans comprised approximately 12 percent of the 
U.S. population in 2000, they represented 19.6 percent of the 
uninsured;
  African-American men experience twice the average death rate from 
prostate cancer;
  In 2002, the African-American AIDS diagnosis rate was 11 times the 
white diagnosis rate (23 times more for women and 9 times more for 
men);
  African-Americans are two times more likely to have diabetes than 
whites, four times more likely to see their diabetes progress to end-
stage renal disease and four times more likely to have a stroke; and
  African-Americans are only 2.9 percent of doctors, 9.2 percent of 
nurses, 1.5 percent of dentists and 0.4 percent of health care 
administrators, yet African-Americans comprise 12 percent of the 
population.
  As Congressional Black Caucus members, we will continue to work 
towards closing the gaps in education, health care, and employment.
  I thank the Chairman for my time.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, solely for the purpose of a unanimous consent 
request, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green.)
  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I too would like to associate 
myself with the comments from the Congressional Black Caucus. I would 
want to assure the chairman of the caucus that I think that what we are 
doing now is most appropriate.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, solely for the purpose of seeking a unanimous 
consent request, I yield to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver).
  Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the bill.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, today I rise to say this: you know for the 
sake of $140,000 tax cuts for those making more than a million dollars, 
Republicans continue to force working men and women, our children, and 
the poor to pay, putting the priorities of the wealthy over basic 
investments in education, health care in our communities. It is 
immoral; it is just downright wrong.
  This bill widens the disparities which the Congressional Black Caucus 
is trying to close. The Republican leadership is totally detached from 
the realities on AIDS funding, by freezing funding for the Ryan White 
AIDS Care Program and ending the Global AIDS Fund Contribution. 
Critical support for HIV/AIDS patients is totally denied. They are 
detached from the reality on human services. Slashing the community 
services block grant program in half only hurts the poorest who have no 
other place to turn. They are detached from the reality of job 
training, cutting adult job training programs by $31 million, which 
makes it much more difficult for the 7.6 million Americans who are out 
of work to get ahead.
  The Republican leadership is detached from the reality on youth 
services. Cutting services for successful programs by 36 million young 
people not only undermines our efforts to help our youth and become 
successful in life, but it helps generate a whole cycle of hopelessness 
and despair.
  Let me just say, I think the Republican leadership is totally 
detached from the reality on education. Cutting funding for No Child 
Left Behind by $806 million only shortchanges public education. This 
bill fails to live up to any standard of morality. In fact, it really 
does take morality to a new low.
  If this bill is to reflect our values of compassion, Mr. Chairman, it 
needs to stop taking from the poor and giving to the rich. This bill 
does nothing to close the glaring disparities put forth by the 
Congressional Black Caucus that we are trying to close.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.

[[Page 13919]]


  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Davis.)
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, recognizing the fact that 
serious disparities continue to exist for African Americans in 
practically all aspects of life, the Congressional Black Caucus has 
focused much of its attention this session on closing these gaps and 
reducing those disparities.
  Unfortunately, this budget, this appropriation in many ways dashed 
the hopes of those who had thought and hoped that maybe it would 
provide some help. Instead, it cuts at the heart of many of these 
programs and areas of concentration, which are absolutely essential if 
we are to reduce these gaps. This budget cuts job training, job 
development programs, health services, education.
  We reduce educational opportunities and cut funds for prisoner 
reentry and successful reintegration of these individuals back into 
normal life as self-sufficient and contributing members of society.
  I would hope, I would urge, I would implore, I would importune 
conferees that as you go to conference, please look seriously at 
putting money back into reentry programs so that these individuals, 
both juveniles and adults, can lead happy, productive, contributing 
lives; and let the 630,000 individuals who come home from prison each 
year have some help to become productive citizens.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, we have very many disparities in 
the criminal justice system, particularly the juvenile justice system. 
But many of these programs have been terminated to fund tax cuts, 
primarily for those with incomes over $200,000.
  One of those programs is the Reintegration of Youthful Offenders 
program sponsored by the Department of Labor. It helps young people get 
jobs, and we know that those with jobs are much less likely to commit 
crimes in the future.
  We could fund this program by eliminating the earmark of $10 million 
for random nonsuspicion-based drug testing. Studies show that that drug 
testing does not reduce drug use, and that is why that kind of drug 
testing is opposed by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American 
Public Health Association, and the National Education Association.
  I would hope that as we go forward, adjustments in the budget to re-
fund the Reintegration of Youthful Offender program and un-fund the 
earmark for $10 million for the random nonsuspicion-based drug testing 
could be made.
  This amendment would be supported by the American Correctional 
Association, the Association for Addictive Professionals, and the 
National Association of Social Workers.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield for a unanimous consent request to 
the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney).
  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise because the racial disparity in 
unemployment, median family income, average household net worth, over-
65 poverty rate, and infant mortality is not decreasing, it is 
increasing.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield solely for purposes of a unanimous 
consent request to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise to say that there are 
extraordinary discrepancies faced by African Americans and associate my 
remarks with the eloquent remarks of those who have preceded me from 
the Congressional Black Caucus.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield solely for a unanimous consent 
request to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise against this 
bill. It has cut every program to help the poor and elderly in the 
entire government. It would be shameful to vote for it.
  I object to this bill. This bill cuts every program designated to 
assist poor children and the elderly. It's shameful that anyone will 
vote for it.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to say to my colleagues, 15 minutes, 
an hour and 15 minutes, 15 days would not be enough time for us to tell 
you how bad this bill is and how devastating it will be in opening 
disparities that already exist wider and wider and wider.
  When we rise into the full House, we intend to offer a copy of the 
Congressional Black Caucus agenda, the legislative agenda, and a 
listing of 48 programs that are zeroed out by this bill. I do not know 
how we think there is going to be any kind of movement toward a closing 
of the disparities that exist between rich and poor, black and white in 
this country if we continue to go down the road we are going.
  We have drained all of our resources off to war, to tax cuts, and 
left nothing to address the needs of our own country and our own 
people.


           Amendment Offered by Mr. Bradley of New Hampshire

  Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Bradley of New Hampshire:
       Page 16, line 4, insert ``(reduced by $25,000,000)'' after 
     the aggregate dollar amount.
       Page 70, line 23, insert ``(increased by $50,000,000)'' 
     after the aggregate dollar amount.
       Page 78, line 15, insert ``(reduced by $25,000,000)'' after 
     the aggregate dollar amount.

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the debate on 
this amendment and any amendments thereto be limited to 10 minutes, to 
be equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself, the 
opponent.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by thanking the graciousness of 
the chairman of the subcommittee, as well as the chairman of the full 
committee, and the staff who have worked with us today to try and find 
an acceptable offset so that we can increase the amount of dollars in 
special education funding in this appropriations bill.
  Unfortunately, we were unable to reach an agreement, and so I am 
proceeding with this amendment to increase appropriated dollars in this 
bill by $50 million and to take $25 million from OSHA, as well as $25 
million from the Department of Education, both from the administrative 
accounts, in both of those Departments, to fund this additional request 
for special education.
  Mr. Chairman, as you know, and as the chairman of the subcommittee 
and the chairman of the full committee know, we have made tremendous 
progress in funding our commitment to special education over the years. 
Yet we are falling short.
  Since 1976, we have increased the percentage of special education 
from about 7 percent to now approximately 20 percent. But having said 
that, and having talked about the progress that we have made, when we 
first passed the Individuals with Education Disability Act in 1975, the 
Federal Government committed to fund 40 percent of the cost of special 
education. Today, though we have made significant progress, as I said, 
going from 7 percent to 20 percent, we are still 20 percent short.
  Since I have been a Member of Congress, we have also appropriated in 
each budget that I have voted for, and the corresponding appropriations 
bills, nearly $1 billion more for special education in 2003 and in 
2004. And in the 2005 budget this year, we budgeted $500 million, which 
I believe during tight budget times was an appropriate figure.
  Unfortunately, in the appropriations process, that figure of $500 
million was cut to $150 million. My amendment today, if accepted, would 
restore $50 million of that funding and increase the special ed 
funding.

                              {time}  1545

  Now, as I suspect most of my colleagues find when they do town hall

[[Page 13920]]

meetings, as I do, that a constant question arises, When will the 
Federal Government fully fund its commitment to special education?
  This is a question that I answer repeatedly in my home State of New 
Hampshire. As people struggle with the high cost of property taxes and 
all of the mandates that are put upon them both by the Federal 
Government and by State governments, they ask me when will the Federal 
Government fulfill its commitment to fully funding special education.
  Well, I realize this amendment is a modest amendment, adding $50 
million to the appropriated level for special education; nevertheless, 
it is important to continue to seek to do everything that we can to 
maintain our commitment to special education funding.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I reluctantly rise in opposition to this amendment. I am a very 
strong supporter of the IDEA programs and we did put additional money 
in, as much as we were able to do given the constraints of what was 
given to us to work with. It is quite obvious there are a lot of good 
programs that we are not able to fund to the level we would like to. We 
did put $150 million increase in this bill, and anyone that has been 
listening to the debate today knows that there are a lot of favorite 
programs and a lot of good programs that we are not able to give the 
level of funding to that people would like to have.
  But here we are talking about offsetting this, taking this money out 
of OSHA. Now, I understand the concern for these children, these 
students, but I also have a great concern for people who are in the 
workplace and need to be protected with safety inspections, need to be 
protected with the OSHA efforts to ensure that the workplace is safe 
and so on. And if we cut the funding for OSHA to fund this program, I 
do not think we are being fair to people who depend on OSHA to ensure 
that they have a safe place to work. And also it would have the effect 
of denying OSHA the money they need to go into places of employment and 
give them advice on how to make it safer.
  Well, that is very important to the employer. It is important to the 
employee, and it is important to all the people who are part of this 
Nation's workforce. And here we have got a perfect example of having to 
make some very difficult trade-offs because IDEA is vital, too, in 
terms of opportunity for young people who have some type of a special 
need.
  I wish we could do both. But we had to make priority judgments when 
we put this bill together. So we tried to increase IDEA and at the same 
time maintain OSHA to a level that would ensure worker safety. And for 
this reason I have to oppose this amendment because this, like many 
others, has a wonderful and a worthy intent; but in terms of priorities 
between the safety of the workplace and putting more in, and we do put 
a lot into the IDEA program, over $11 billion, we just have to make the 
choice.
  Under those circumstances I would have to oppose the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the 
balance of my time to close on this amendment.
  With all due respect to the chairman of the subcommittee, who I know 
has worked very hard over the years to increase our commitment to 
special education, I thank him for that and fully respect him for that. 
And I also understand the difficulty of the choices that we have to 
make.
  Nevertheless, my amendment will help us, in some small but 
significant way, keep the commitment that the Federal Government made 
in 1975 when it passed the IDEA law, keep the commitment to local 
taxpayers, to State-funded and local-funded education efforts that we 
mandate right here in Washington. It will help us keep that commitment, 
and I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bradley).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, 
and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. 
Bradley) will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe the budget we pass is reflective of the 
values we hold as a country and the vision we have for our Nation. And 
the budget resolution and appropriations bills, such as the ones we are 
debating here, are moral documents and we should treat them as such.
  The bill before us is in clear disregard of the values that makes 
this country great. This is a bill that will do a disservice to our 
Nation and will only weaken its future. At a time when we can find the 
money to fund tax cuts of $140,000 for the lucky few who make over a 
million dollars a year, at a price tag of $10.7 billion next year 
alone, it is inexcusable and I find it immoral, that the first thing 
that goes is our investment in our children's future.
  Mr. Chairman, educators in schools across the country have been 
working hard to implement the changes No Child Left Behind asked of 
them to achieve: to raise proficiency, to demonstrate results. And they 
have been working to do this despite a persistent underfunding of the 
law totaling nearly $30 billion in the 4 years since we passed No Child 
Left Behind. This bill would increase that deficit to $40 billion.
  Now we are asking more of our schools than ever before. And yes, they 
can meet higher standards and they can increase performance, but we 
must provide them with the resources that we promised in this 
legislation.
  Now, I served on a school board, Mr. Chairman. I know the struggle of 
impossible budgets and having to choose between new textbooks, better 
technology, music classes and meeting the capital challenges of a 
school district. No Child Left Behind promised a strong Federal 
partnership for our schools and educators, but this works only if we 
act as true partners. Yet this bill actually cuts funding for No Child 
Left Behind by more than $800 million from last year and by more than a 
billion dollars less than even the President's request.
  In addition to slashing a number of the President's requests, this 
bill provides only half of his proposed increase for Pell grants, 
something the President himself has touted as a top priority.
  Now, instead, this bill flat-funds, or cuts program after program. I 
believe it is a slap in the face to our young people that as we ask 
them to reach new heights and as they find themselves reaching higher 
costs in terms of college tuition, the only increase to financial aid 
in this bill, the only increase is a mere $50 to the maximum Pell 
grant. College tuition for a public university in my State has risen 
more than $1,500 over 4 years. In that time, the actual average Pell 
award increased a meager $432.
  Mr. Chairman, I know the value of a Pell grant. I benefited from one. 
As the first in my family to attend college, receiving that aid gave me 
critical financial support, but also a boost of confidence that I could 
succeed. There are now nearly 5 million students who benefit from Pell 
grants, approximately 100,000 in my State alone. But not for long. 
Under a formula change by this administration, at least 90,000 students 
would lose their award and another 1.3 million would see reductions in 
their awards this year.

[[Page 13921]]

  So in the end, what is the real value of a $50 increase? Not much, 
Mr. Chairman. Our young people deserve a real effort to help them 
finance their dreams of college. But that is not part of the vision 
Republicans have for our country. And we see clearly in this bill what 
their vision is not.
  It is not a vision that includes the opportunity for all children 
regardless of background or income to attend college, or the chance for 
every child to have the best teachers, the best education, and the best 
chance to succeed regardless of the happenstance of where they were 
born.
  Instead, what we get is the realization of the priorities of the 
President and this Republican Congress.
  Tax cuts in the name of our children's future are not my priorities, 
Mr. Chairman. Our children deserve better. Our country deserves better. 
This bill does not represent our values. It does not represent the 
values of families in this country, and it certainly does not represent 
the values of the people I serve in New Jersey.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the bill. At the end of the day, 
it is a poor excuse for providing the caliber of education that the 
future of the country deserves.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding to me 
so that I might engage in a colloquy with him to discuss the funding 
for the consolidated health centers program.
  The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), as we all know, has been a 
tremendous supporter of health centers, and I appreciate his taking the 
time today to discuss how we can strengthen and expand the program next 
year.
  As the gentlemen is well aware, Members of both sides of the aisle 
have risen in support of this critically important program over the 
years and I thank him for his great leadership in this regard. Within 
this bill and under these tight allocations, the subcommittee was able 
to provide an increase of $100 million for this program for fiscal year 
2006, bringing overall spending to $1.817 billion.
  While this is a step in the right direction, it is my hope that the 
gentleman will continue to work throughout the process to increase 
funding for the program closer to the President's request of $2.038 
billion. As we search for ways to control Medicaid cost, reduce 
emergency room visits and keep people healthy, community health centers 
have served as a shining example, Mr. Chairman, of what works. The only 
problem is that we do not have more them of them across the country in 
communities of need.
  This bill is the means to expand the program to more people, 
especially those who lack health insurance. And it is my hope that we 
do as much as possible in this regard to save money and keep people 
healthy in the future. I cannot emphasize strongly enough the important 
role that community health centers play in providing care to the 
millions of Americans who lack health insurance. For some, the only 
medical attention they receive comes from the local health center.
  I applaud the subcommittee's approval of a $100 million increase. 
Much of that funding, unfortunately, is already committed, leaving very 
few additional resources to strengthen current health centers or expand 
to new communities outside the President's new initiative for poor 
counties. This year HHS actually canceled the last competition for new 
health centers site funding due to the lack of available funds. As the 
chairman is very well aware, many communities apply numerous times 
before they are selected. And with fewer and fewer opportunities, many 
communities may become discouraged by the process and withdraw from 
this model of care.
  So I would ask the chairman to work throughout the process to 
increase the funding for this program to further expand access to care 
in a manner closer to the $304 million increase by the President. And a 
letter to that effect was signed by more than half of the House earlier 
this year.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for his 
time and greatly appreciate his leadership on behalf of health centers 
across the country. I also appreciate the years of work that the 
gentleman from Florida has put in on behalf of health centers, and I 
dare say the current expansion would not have occurred without his 
leadership.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to add to the gentleman's remarks by 
discussing the need to strengthen existing centers, like the one in my 
congressional district, Uvalde County Clinic. Although Uvalde County 
Clinic has a remarkable record of controlling costs while serving 
thousands of patients, they are still seeing cost increases that are 
forcing them to make decisions on what services to continue and which 
to cut back if increased funding is not available.
  As a matter of fact, their funding has been cut this year since HHS 
has not yet sent out the base grant adjustments provided by this bill 
last year due to the new policy of reducing each center's grant by the 
across-the-board cuts approved last year.
  As the chairman is aware, over the past few years, the President's 
budget has not included increased funding for existing centers to meet 
the rising costs, but each year we have ensured that some portion of 
the increase was provided for base grant adjustments. Unfortunately, 
this bill does not include any funding for base grant adjustments, and 
I would hope as we move through the process we are able to find a way 
to set aside some funding for existing centers for base grant 
adjustments.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's commitment to this program 
and hope that he will continue to work through the legislative process 
to ensure that the funding for the health centers program can be closer 
to the President's request and also include specific funding for base 
grant adjustments in the final bill.
  Again, Mr. Chairman, the chairman has been a true champion of the 
health center program, and I look forward to our continued work 
together to expand community health centers to those most in need.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I thank both gentlemen, and I think what 
they are discussing is vitally important. I wish we could do more. I am 
a big fan of the community health centers. They help with the relief, 
the pressure on emergency rooms; and they give people without any other 
access to health care a place to go in an emergency.
  I am pleased that both gentlemen are actively pushing; and I might 
also tell my colleagues, we have a great ally in the President of the 
United States. He believes in the health center program. In fact, we 
were not able to do as much as he requested in his budget because of 
other competing needs, but I hope as this body in the years to come 
will continue to strengthen the health centers.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                 Mine Safety and Health Administration


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses for the Mine Safety and Health 
     Administration, $280,490,000, including purchase and bestowal 
     of certificates and trophies in connection with mine rescue 
     and first-aid work, and the hire of passenger motor vehicles, 
     including up to $2,000,000 for mine rescue and recovery 
     activities; in addition, not to exceed $750,000 may be 
     collected by the National Mine Health and Safety Academy for 
     room, board, tuition, and the sale of training materials, 
     otherwise authorized by law to be collected, to be available 
     for mine safety and health education and training activities, 
     notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302; and, in addition, the Mine 
     Safety and Health Administration may retain up to $1,000,000 
     from fees collected for the approval and certification of 
     equipment, materials, and explosives for use in mines, and 
     may utilize such sums for such activities; the Secretary is 
     authorized to accept lands, buildings, equipment, and other 
     contributions from public and private sources and to 
     prosecute projects in cooperation with other agencies, 
     Federal, State, or private; the

[[Page 13922]]

     Mine Safety and Health Administration is authorized to 
     promote health and safety education and training in the 
     mining community through cooperative programs with States, 
     industry, and safety associations; the Secretary is 
     authorized to recognize the Joseph A. Holmes Safety 
     Association as a principal safety association and, 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, may provide funds 
     and, with or without reimbursement, personnel, including 
     service of Mine Safety and Health Administration officials as 
     officers in local chapters or in the national organization; 
     and any funds available to the department may be used, with 
     the approval of the Secretary, to provide for the costs of 
     mine rescue and survival operations in the event of a major 
     disaster.

                       Bureau of Labor Statistics


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses for the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 
     including advances or reimbursements to State, Federal, and 
     local agencies and their employees for services rendered, 
     $464,678,000, together with not to exceed $77,845,000, which 
     may be expended from the Employment Security Administration 
     Account in the Unemployment Trust Fund, of which $5,000,000 
     may be used to fund the mass layoff statistics program under 
     section 15 of the Wagner-Peyser Act (29 U.S.C. 49l-2).

                 Office of Disability Employment Policy


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses for the Office of Disability 
     Employment Policy to provide leadership, develop policy and 
     initiatives, and award grants furthering the objective of 
     eliminating barriers to the training and employment of people 
     with disabilities, $27,934,000.

                        Departmental Management


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses for Departmental Management, 
     including the hire of three sedans, $244,112,000 of which 
     $6,944,000 to remain available until September 30, 2007, is 
     for Frances Perkins Building Security Enhancements, and 
     $29,760,000 is for the acquisition of Departmental 
     information technology, architecture, infrastructure, 
     equipment, software and related needs, which will be 
     allocated by the Department's Chief Information Officer in 
     accordance with the Department's capital investment 
     management process to assure a sound investment strategy; 
     together with not to exceed $311,000, which may be expended 
     from the Employment Security Administration Account in the 
     Unemployment Trust Fund.


                    Veterans Employment and Training

       Not to exceed $194,834,000 may be derived from the 
     Employment Security Administration Account in the 
     Unemployment Trust Fund to carry out the provisions of 38 
     U.S.C. 4100-4113, 4211-4215, and 4321-4327, and Public Law 
     103-353, and which shall be available for obligation by the 
     States through December 31, 2006, of which $1,984,000 is for 
     the National Veterans' Employment and Training Services 
     Institute. To carry out the Homeless Veterans Reintegration 
     Programs (38 U.S.C. 2021) and the Veterans Workforce 
     Investment Programs (29 U.S.C. 2913), $29,500,000, of which 
     $7,500,000 shall be available for obligation for the period 
     July 1, 2006, through June 30, 2007.

                      Office of Inspector General

       For salaries and expenses of the Office of Inspector 
     General in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector 
     General Act of 1978, as amended, $65,211,000, together with 
     not to exceed $5,608,000, which may be expended from the 
     Employment Security Administration Account in the 
     Unemployment Trust Fund.

  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from California 
(Chairman Lewis) and the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula). I 
planned to offer an amendment, which is at the desk, but after 
discussing at length the merits of it with the chairman of the full 
committee and the chairman of the subcommittee, we reached an 
understanding that the importance of women's health and, particularly, 
gynecological awareness, is sufficient that we will be able to make 
every effort to try to find dollars to move gynecological awareness 
through the ordinary process without an amendment.
  I certainly want to thank the chairman for his help on this. I want 
to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) and the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Burton), who also wants to quickly make a couple of 
comments on the effort to raise gynecological awareness, one of the 
great and unheard-of killers of American women.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ISSA. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding. Excuse my froggy voice, I have got a little bit of a cold.
  This is a silent killer. Even a primary physician many times misses a 
woman who has a gynecological cancer, and it is something where 
education is extremely important, very important.
  I join with my colleague in asking the chairman of the committee in 
conference to do whatever funding is necessary or agreeable to make 
sure that there is an educational process so that women are informed on 
what can be done to protect themselves. If they get this cancer early, 
95 percent of the women can survive more than 5 years, but this year 
27,000 women will die because they do not know about it.
  I join with the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) in urging the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), our chairman, to deal with this 
problem.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ISSA. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan, the coauthor of 
this legislation.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much for 
yielding, and I want to join all of my colleagues in emphasizing the 
importance of this and congratulating the chairman and everybody 
concerned with willingness to take action on this.
  As mentioned, this indeed is a serious problem. Each year about 
80,000 women are diagnosed with gynecological cancers. If they are 
detected early, they are among the most curable. If they are not, they 
are among the most deadly, and so this education effort is so critical.
  So I know the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) cares so much 
about this. I do hope and trust that a way will be found to address 
this issue. So many lives are at stake.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ISSA. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from San 
Diego for his bringing this item to our attention. I also thank very 
much the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) and the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Burton).
  There is no doubt that the committee is very interested in this 
challenge. We intend to take their message to the conference and look 
forward to working with them and doing everything that is possible in 
the conference agreement.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                          Working Capital Fund

       For the acquisition of a new core accounting system for the 
     Department of Labor, including hardware and software 
     infrastructure and the costs associated with implementation 
     thereof, $6,230,000.

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 101. None of the funds appropriated in this title for 
     the Job Corps shall be used to pay the compensation of an 
     individual, either as direct costs or any proration as an 
     indirect cost, at a rate in excess of Executive Level II.


                          (transfer of funds)

       Sec. 102. Not to exceed 1 percent of any discretionary 
     funds (pursuant to the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended) which are appropriated for 
     the current fiscal year for the Department of Labor in this 
     Act may be transferred between appropriations, but no such 
     appropriation shall be increased by more than 3 percent by 
     any such transfer: Provided, That an appropriation may be 
     increased by up to an additional 2 percent subject to 
     approval by the House and Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations: Provided further, That the transfer authority 
     granted by this section shall be available only to meet 
     emergency needs and shall not be used to create any new 
     program or to fund any project or activity for which no funds 
     are provided in this Act: Provided further, That the 
     Appropriations Committees of both Houses of Congress are 
     notified at least 15 days in advance of any transfer.
       Sec. 103. In accordance with Executive Order No. 13126, 
     none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available 
     pursuant to this Act shall be obligated or expended for the 
     procurement of goods mined, produced, manufactured, or 
     harvested or services rendered, whole or in part, by forced 
     or indentured child labor in industries and host countries 
     already identified by the

[[Page 13923]]

     United States Department of Labor prior to enactment of this 
     Act.
       Sec. 104. For purposes of chapter 8 of division B of the 
     Department of Defense and Emergency Supplemental 
     Appropriations for Recovery from and Response to Terrorist 
     Attacks on the United States Act, 2002 (Public Law 107-117), 
     payments made by the New York Workers' Compensation Board to 
     the New York Crime Victims Board and the New York State 
     Insurance Fund before the date of the enactment of this Act 
     shall be deemed to have been made for workers compensation 
     programs.
       This title may be cited as the ``Department of Labor 
     Appropriations Act, 2006''.

           TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

              Health Resources and Services Administration

                     Health Resources and Services

       For carrying out titles II, III, IV, VII, VIII, X, XII, 
     XIX, and XXVI of the Public Health Service Act, section 
     427(a) of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act, title 
     V and sections 1128E, 711, and 1820 of the Social Security 
     Act, the Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986, as 
     amended, the Native Hawaiian Health Care Act of 1988, as 
     amended, the Cardiac Arrest Survival Act of 2000, and the 
     Poison Control Center Enhancement and Awareness Act, as 
     amended, and for expenses necessary to support activities 
     related to countering potential biological, disease, nuclear, 
     radiological and chemical threats to civilian populations, 
     $6,446,357,000, of which $39,180,000 from general revenues, 
     notwithstanding section 1820(j) of the Social Security Act, 
     shall be available for carrying out the Medicare rural 
     hospital flexibility grants program under section 1820 of 
     such Act: Provided, That of the funds made available under 
     this heading, $222,000 shall be available until expended for 
     facilities renovations at the Gillis W. Long Hansen's Disease 
     Center: Provided further, That in addition to fees authorized 
     by section 427(b) of the Health Care Quality Improvement Act 
     of 1986, fees shall be collected for the full disclosure of 
     information under the Act sufficient to recover the full 
     costs of operating the National Practitioner Data Bank, and 
     shall remain available until expended to carry out that Act: 
     Provided further, That fees collected for the full disclosure 
     of information under the ``Health Care Fraud and Abuse Data 
     Collection Program'', authorized by section 1128E(d)(2) of 
     the Social Security Act, shall be sufficient to recover the 
     full costs of operating the program, and shall remain 
     available until expended to carry out that Act: Provided 
     further, That $26,000,000 of the funding provided for Health 
     Centers shall be used for high-need counties, notwithstanding 
     section 330(s)(2)(B) of the Public Health Service Act: 
     Provided further, That no more than $45,000,000 is available 
     until expended for carrying out the provisions of Public Law 
     104-73: Provided further, That of the funds made available 
     under this heading, $285,963,000 shall be for the program 
     under title X of the Public Health Service Act to provide for 
     voluntary family planning projects: Provided further, That 
     amounts provided to said projects under such title shall not 
     be expended for abortions, that all pregnancy counseling 
     shall be nondirective, and that such amounts shall not be 
     expended for any activity (including the publication or 
     distribution of literature) that in any way tends to promote 
     public support or opposition to any legislative proposal or 
     candidate for public office: Provided further, That 
     $797,521,000 shall be for State AIDS Drug Assistance Programs 
     authorized by section 2616 of the Public Health Service Act: 
     Provided further, That in addition to amounts provided 
     herein, $25,000,000 shall be available from amounts available 
     under section 241 of the Public Health Service Act to carry 
     out Parts A, B, C, and D of title XXVI of the Public Health 
     Service Act to fund section 2691 Special Projects of National 
     Significance: Provided further, That, notwithstanding section 
     502(a)(1) of the Social Security Act, not to exceed 
     $116,124,000 is available for carrying out special projects 
     of regional and national significance pursuant to section 
     501(a)(2) of such Act.


            Amendment Offered by Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut

  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut:
       Page 25, line 16, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $11,200,000)''.
       Page 29, line 1, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $11,200,000)''.

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 
the debate on this amendment and any amendment thereto be limited to 10 
minutes to be equally divided and controlled by the proponent and 
myself, the opponent.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. OBEY. Could the Clerk reread the amendment again?
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read the amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
(Mrs. Johnson) will control 5 minutes and the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Lewis) will control 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
(Mrs. Johnson).
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  I offer this amendment because one of the things that has concerned 
the Members of this body is the plight of the uninsured in America. The 
community health centers reach out to help the uninsured, and they are 
very effective and very important to that health care system, available 
to those who are either underinsured or uninsured.
  But the HCAP grants are becoming equally important because they 
enable the community health centers to create a whole network in 
neighborhoods and urban communities that can reach out to the uninsured 
and the underinsured and bring them into the system and provide them 
with a patient home and the kind of support that they need.
  Many of these people have chronic illnesses. Many of these people are 
a very high cost to the system because they do not get care until they 
land in the emergency room or the hospital.
  This amendment to provide some funds for the HCAP program is modest. 
It merely moves money from the CDC budget, from the VERB program, which 
is funding for an anti-obesity media campaign that is now duplicative 
of Federal and private sector programs. Even the Bush administration's 
OMB says, ``There is no longer a need for this Federal program.''
  I would maintain that now that every school board is conscious of the 
problem of obesity and so many groups, including McDonald's, have taken 
on this cause, that it is not necessary to spend the Federal money on 
the obesity campaign; but it is absolutely crucial that we put some 
placeholder dollars in the budget for the HCAP program.
  This program is in 45 States across the country and has already 
provided access to care for 6.2 million uninsured and vulnerable 
Americans and has placed about the same number of children and parents, 
children and adults, into either Medicaid or CHIP.
  In Waterbury, Connecticut, the biggest city in my district, the HCAP 
program started only a year and a half ago. It has already provided 750 
low-income city residents with case managers who help them coordinate 
complex care regimens, make sure they have access to low-cost 
medications and track their progress. This same program has enrolled 
450 patients, HIV/AIDS patients and diabetes patients in the 
appropriate kind of management program to monitor their conditions and 
keep them healthy and out of the hospital, better quality of life to 
the patient, savings to society.
  Eighty physicians because of HCAP, 80 physicians from Waterbury have 
signed up to provide their fair share of specialty care to this 
uninsured population, and the hospitals have donated lab services.
  Ultimately, this HCAP grant is going to electronically provide 
electronic health records for 120,000 patients in the greater Waterbury 
area through every hospital and doctor's office so that this kind of 
patient coming into the system with no insurance but complex needs can 
immediately have their medical record accessed by their physician; 
their medication protocol accessed by their physician; the history of 
their care accessed by their physician. Therefore, the physician is 
able to provide to these uninsured and very ill people timely, fast, 
high-quality care.
  So the HCAP program has been extremely helpful to building beyond the 
community health centers out into the community a system to provide 
access to medical care for uninsured people, and that is why I am so 
interested in

[[Page 13924]]

the passage of my amendment that just would move a little money from a 
program that is at the end of its useful life into this critical area 
so there would be a placeholder on which we could build in conference.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Let me say to the gentlewoman, I am very empathetic to the question 
that she is raising. I must say that at this moment the committee is 
quite anxious to see us go forward with the funding in the VERB 
program, to measure further its effectiveness.
  We are very empathetic to that which the gentlewoman is discussing, 
and we do intend to raise this question with the Senate. It is not an 
issue that will go undiscussed, and I am very hopeful as we will go 
forward that we will be able to be responsive to the gentlewoman's 
request.

                              {time}  1615

  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman feel 
confident even without any placeholder, should, say, the Senate fail to 
provide a placeholder, as they have in the past, that we will be able 
to address this in conference?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I have every reason to believe that we will 
be able to address it in conference.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would 
continue to yield, I appreciate the good work the Committee on 
Appropriations and the subcommittee has done.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Putnam). Is there objection to the request 
of the gentlewoman from Connecticut?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

           Health Education Assistance Loans Program Account

       Such sums as may be necessary to carry out the purpose of 
     the program, as authorized by title VII of the Public Health 
     Service Act, as amended. For administrative expenses to carry 
     out the guaranteed loan program, including section 709 of the 
     Public Health Service Act, $2,916,000.

             Vaccine Injury Compensation Program Trust Fund

       For payments from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program 
     Trust Fund, such sums as may be necessary for claims 
     associated with vaccine-related injury or death with respect 
     to vaccines administered after September 30, 1988, pursuant 
     to subtitle 2 of title XXI of the Public Health Service Act, 
     to remain available until expended: Provided, That for 
     necessary administrative expenses, not to exceed $3,500,000 
     shall be available from the Trust Fund to the Secretary of 
     Health and Human Services.

               Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

                Disease Control, Research, and Training

       To carry out titles II, III, VII, XI, XV, XVII, XIX, XXI, 
     and XXVI of the Public Health Service Act, sections 101, 102, 
     103, 201, 202, 203, 301, and 501 of the Federal Mine Safety 
     and Health Act of 1977, sections 20, 21, and 22 of the 
     Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, title IV of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act, and section 501 of the 
     Refugee Education Assistance Act of 1980, and for expenses 
     necessary to support activities related to countering 
     potential biological, disease, nuclear, radiological and 
     chemical threats to civilian populations; including purchase 
     and insurance of official motor vehicles in foreign 
     countries; and purchase, hire, maintenance, and operation of 
     aircraft, $5,945,991,000, of which $30,000,000 shall remain 
     available until expended for equipment, and construction and 
     renovation of facilities; of which $30,000,000 of the amounts 
     available for immunization activities shall remain available 
     until expended; of which $530,000,000 shall remain available 
     until expended for the Strategic National Stockpile; and of 
     which $123,883,000 for international HIV/AIDS shall remain 
     available until September 30, 2007. In addition, such sums as 
     may be derived from authorized user fees, which shall be 
     credited to this account: Provided, That in addition to 
     amounts provided herein, the following amounts shall be 
     available from amounts available under section 241 of the 
     Public Health Service Act:
       (1) $12,794,000 to carry out the National Immunization 
     Surveys;
       (2) $3,516,000 to carry out the National Center for Health 
     Statistics surveys;
       (3) $24,751,000 to carry out information systems standards 
     development and architecture and applications-based research 
     used at local public health levels;
       (4) $463,000 for Health Marketing evaluations;
       (5) $31,000,000 to carry out Public Health Research; and
       (6) $87,071,000 to carry out research activities within the 
     National Occupational Research Agenda:
     Provided further, That none of the funds made available for 
     injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease 
     Control and Prevention may be used, in whole or in part, to 
     advocate or promote gun control: Provided further, That up to 
     $30,000,000 shall be made available until expended for 
     Individual Learning Accounts for full-time equivalent 
     employees of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: 
     Provided further, That the Director may redirect the total 
     amount made available under authority of Public Law 101-502, 
     section 3, dated November 3, 1990, to activities the Director 
     may so designate: Provided further, That the Congress is to 
     be notified promptly of any such transfer: Provided further, 
     That not to exceed $12,500,000 may be available for making 
     grants under section 1509 of the Public Health Service Act to 
     not more than 15 States, tribes, or tribal organizations: 
     Provided further, That without regard to existing statute, 
     funds appropriated may be used to proceed, at the discretion 
     of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, with 
     property acquisition, including a long-term ground lease for 
     construction on non-Federal land, to support the construction 
     of a replacement laboratory in the Fort Collins, Colorado 
     area: Provided further, That of the funds appropriated, 
     $10,000 is for official reception and representation expenses 
     when specifically approved by the Director of the Centers for 
     Disease Control and Prevention: Provided further, That 
     employees of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
     or the Public Health Service, both civilian and Commissioned 
     Officers, detailed to States, municipalities, or other 
     organizations under authority of section 214 of the Public 
     Health Service Act for purposes related to homeland security, 
     shall be treated as non-Federal employees for reporting 
     purposes only and shall not be included within any personnel 
     ceiling applicable to the Agency, Service, or the Department 
     of Health and Human Services during the period of detail or 
     assignment.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Capuano

  Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Capuano:
       Page 29, line 1, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(increased by $5,000,000) (reduced by 
     $5,000,000)''.

  Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Chairman, this is a very small problem, but a very 
big problem to a handful of small people that need our help.
  Basically, there is a program now run out of the CDC. It is called 
Reach 2010. It allows community-based coalitions, mostly community 
health centers, to focus on eliminating racial and ethnic health 
disparities in six priority areas: infant mortality, breast and 
cervical cancer, cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, HIV-AIDS and child 
immunizations.
  The reason this issue has come up is because in the last several 
years this program has received money from the NIH National Center For 
Minority Health and Health Disparities. But because of the budget 
crunches they have faced, they have let it be known they intend to cut 
back their portion of the program, which will definitely cut programs 
on the street that are truly helping people.
  This proposal would restore that $5 million into the CDC budget by 
reducing another part of the budget that, even with this cut, will 
still be $50 million above the President's request.
  I know most Members already know there are health disparities in the 
country, but just a few statistics to frame the debate. When it comes 
to infant mortality, black infants are 2.3 times more likely to die 
than white infants.
  Cardiovascular disease, African Americans have a 30 percent higher 
rate of cardiovascular disease and a 41 percent higher rate of strokes. 
Just today, a coalition of health care providers in Boston came out 
with a study that confirmed what everybody knew. The black men in 
Boston die, on average, 5 years sooner than white men. Blacks are twice 
as likely to die from diabetes as whites.
  Again, these are not new statistics, this is not a new issue to 
people. It is an issue we have been trying to deal

[[Page 13925]]

with, and because of the budget crunch so many people are facing, this 
particular program faces a small, yet important cut that we are trying 
to restore.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CAPUANO. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me say I think the gentleman's amendment 
is a good one. It is an important program and an important initiative, 
and I would hope that the committee would accept it.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Capuano) bringing this to our attention. The gentleman knows the 
difficulty we are facing in terms of funding overall, but it was very 
significant that the gentleman brought this matter to the committee's 
attention, and your advocacy is going to be very helpful to us as we go 
to conference.
  Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the 
amendment, understanding that this is an issue that has sort of crept 
up on Members, and the chairman will do his best.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                     National Institutes of Health

                       National Cancer Institute

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to cancer, $4,841,774,000, of 
     which up to $8,000,000 may be used for facilities repairs and 
     improvements at the NCI-Frederick Federally Funded Research 
     and Development Center in Frederick, Maryland.

               National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to cardiovascular, lung, and 
     blood diseases, and blood and blood products, $2,951,270,000.

         National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to dental disease, 
     $393,269,000.

    National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to diabetes and digestive and 
     kidney disease, $1,722,146,000.

        National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to neurological disorders and 
     stroke, $1,550,260,000.

         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to allergy and infectious 
     diseases, $4,359,395,000: Provided, That up to $30,000,000 
     shall be for extramural facilities construction grants to 
     enhance the Nation's capability to do research on biological 
     and other agents.

             National Institute of General Medical Sciences

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to general medical sciences, 
     $1,955,170,000.

        National Institute of Child Health and Human Development

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to child health and human 
     development, $1,277,544,000.

                         National Eye Institute

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to eye diseases and visual 
     disorders, $673,491,000.

          National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences

       For carrying out sections 301 and 311 and title IV of the 
     Public Health Service Act with respect to environmental 
     health sciences, $647,608,000.

                      National Institute on Aging

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to aging, $1,057,203,000.

 National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to arthritis and 
     musculoskeletal and skin diseases, $513,063,000.

    National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to deafness and other 
     communication disorders, $397,432,000.

                 National Institute of Nursing Research

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to nursing research, 
     $138,729,000.

           National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to alcohol abuse and 
     alcoholism, $440,333,000.

                    National Institute on Drug Abuse

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to drug abuse, 
     $1,010,130,000.

                  National Institute of Mental Health

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to mental health, 
     $1,417,692,000.

                National Human Genome Research Institute

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to human genome research, 
     $490,959,000.

      National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to biomedical imaging and 
     bioengineering research, $299,808,000.

                 National Center for Research Resources

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to research resources and 
     general research support grants, $1,100,203,000: Provided, 
     That none of these funds shall be used to pay recipients of 
     the general research support grants program any amount for 
     indirect expenses in connection with such grants.

       National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to complementary and 
     alternative medicine, $122,692,000.

       National Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to minority health and health 
     disparities research, $197,379,000.

                  John E. Fogarty International Center

       For carrying out the activities at the John E. Fogarty 
     International Center, $67,048,000.

                      National Library of Medicine

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to health information 
     communications, $318,091,000, of which $4,000,000 shall be 
     available until expended for improvement of information 
     systems: Provided, That in fiscal year 2006, the Library may 
     enter into personal services contracts for the provision of 
     services in facilities owned, operated, or constructed under 
     the jurisdiction of the National Institutes of Health: 
     Provided further, That in addition to amounts provided 
     herein, $8,200,000 shall be available from amounts available 
     under section 241 of the Public Health Service Act to carry 
     out National Information Center on Health Services Research 
     and Health Care Technology and related health services.

                         Office of the Director


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For carrying out the responsibilities of the Office of the 
     Director, National Institutes of Health, $482,216,000, of 
     which up to $10,000,000 shall be used to carry out section 
     217 of this Act: Provided, That funding shall be available 
     for the purchase of not to exceed 29 passenger motor vehicles 
     for replacement only: Provided further, That the Director may 
     direct up to 1 percent of the total amount made available in 
     this or any other Act to all National Institutes of Health 
     appropriations to activities the Director may so designate: 
     Provided further, That no such appropriation shall be 
     decreased by more than 1 percent by any such transfers and 
     that the Congress is promptly notified of the transfer: 
     Provided further, That the National Institutes of Health is 
     authorized to collect third party payments for the cost of 
     clinical services that are incurred in National Institutes of 
     Health research facilities and that such payments shall be 
     credited to the National Institutes of Health Management 
     Fund: Provided further, That all funds credited to the 
     National Institutes of Health Management Fund shall remain 
     available for 1 fiscal year after the fiscal year in which 
     they are deposited: Provided further, That up to $500,000 
     shall be available to carry out section 499 of the Public 
     Health Service Act: Provided further, That in addition to the 
     transfer authority provided above, a uniform percentage of 
     the amounts appropriated in this Act to each Institute and 
     Center may be transferred and utilized for the National 
     Institutes of Health Roadmap for Medical Research: Provided 
     further, That the amount utilized under the preceding proviso 
     shall not exceed $250,000,000 without prior notification to 
     the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate: Provided further, That 
     amounts transferred and utilized under the

[[Page 13926]]

     preceding two provisos shall be in addition to amounts made 
     available for the Roadmap for Medical Research from the 
     Director's Discretionary Fund and to any amounts allocated to 
     activities related to the Roadmap through the normal research 
     priority-setting process of individual Institutes and 
     Centers: Provided further, That of the funds provided $10,000 
     shall be for official reception and representation expenses 
     when specifically approved by the Director of NIH.


                        Buildings and Facilities

       For the study of, construction of, renovation of, and 
     acquisition of equipment for, facilities of or used by the 
     National Institutes of Health, including the acquisition of 
     real property, $81,900,000, to remain available until 
     expended.

       Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

               Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services

       For carrying out titles V and XIX of the Public Health 
     Service Act (``PHS Act'') with respect to substance abuse and 
     mental health services, the Protection and Advocacy for 
     Individuals with Mental Illness Act, and section 301 of the 
     PHS Act with respect to program management, $3,230,744,000: 
     Provided, That notwithstanding section 520A(f)(2) of the PHS 
     Act, no funds appropriated for carrying out section 520A are 
     available for carrying out section 1971 of the PHS Act: 
     Provided further, That in addition to amounts provided 
     herein, the following amounts shall be available under 
     section 241 of the PHS Act:
       (1) $79,200,000 to carry out subpart II of part B of title 
     XIX of the PHS Act to fund section 1935(b) technical 
     assistance, national data, data collection and evaluation 
     activities, and further that the total available under this 
     Act for section 1935(b) activities shall not exceed 5 percent 
     of the amounts appropriated for subpart II of part B of title 
     XIX;
       (2) $21,803,000 to carry out subpart I of part B of title 
     XIX of the PHS Act to fund section 1920(b) technical 
     assistance, national data, data collection and evaluation 
     activities, and further that the total available under this 
     Act for section 1920(b) activities shall not exceed 5 percent 
     of the amounts appropriated for subpart I of part B of title 
     XIX;
       (3) $16,000,000 to carry out national surveys on drug 
     abuse; and
       (4) $4,300,000 to evaluate substance abuse treatment 
     programs.

               Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

                    Healthcare Research and Quality

       For carrying out titles III and IX of the Public Health 
     Service Act, and part A of title XI of the Social Security 
     Act, $318,695,000; and in addition, amounts received from 
     Freedom of Information Act fees, reimbursable and interagency 
     agreements, and the sale of data shall be credited to this 
     appropriation and shall remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That no amount shall be made available pursuant to 
     section 927(c) of the Public Health Service Act for fiscal 
     year 2006.

               Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services

                     Grants to States for Medicaid

       For carrying out, except as otherwise provided, titles XI 
     and XIX of the Social Security Act, $156,954,419,000, to 
     remain available until expended.
       For making, after May 31, 2006, payments to States under 
     title XIX of the Social Security Act for the last quarter of 
     fiscal year 2006 for unanticipated costs, incurred for the 
     current fiscal year, such sums as may be necessary.
       For making payments to States or in the case of section 
     1928 on behalf of States under title XIX of the Social 
     Security Act for the first quarter of fiscal year 2007, 
     $62,783,825,000, to remain available until expended.
       Payment under title XIX may be made for any quarter with 
     respect to a State plan or plan amendment in effect during 
     such quarter, if submitted in or prior to such quarter and 
     approved in that or any subsequent quarter.

                  Payments to Health Care Trust Funds

       For payment to the Federal Hospital Insurance and the 
     Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds, as 
     provided under section 1844, 1860D-16, and 1860D-31 of the 
     Social Security Act, sections 103(c) and 111(d) of the Social 
     Security Amendments of 1965, section 278(d) of Public Law 97-
     248, and for administrative expenses incurred pursuant to 
     section 201(g) of the Social Security Act, $177,742,200,000.
       In addition, for making matching payments under section 
     1844, and benefit payments under 1860D-16 and 1860D-31 of the 
     Social Security Act, not anticipated in budget estimates, 
     such sums as may be necessary.

                           Program Management

       For carrying out, except as otherwise provided, titles XI, 
     XVIII, XIX, and XXI of the Social Security Act, titles XIII 
     and XXVII of the Public Health Service Act, and the Clinical 
     Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988, not to exceed 
     $3,180,284,000, to be transferred from the Federal Hospital 
     Insurance and the Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance 
     Trust Funds, as authorized by section 201(g) of the Social 
     Security Act; together with all funds collected in accordance 
     with section 353 of the Public Health Service Act and section 
     1857(e)(2) of the Social Security Act, and such sums as may 
     be collected from authorized user fees and the sale of data, 
     which shall remain available until expended: Provided, That 
     all funds derived in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 9701 from 
     organizations established under title XIII of the Public 
     Health Service Act shall be credited to and available for 
     carrying out the purposes of this appropriation: Provided 
     further, That $24,205,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2007, is for contract costs for CMS's Systems 
     Revitalization Plan: Provided further, That $79,934,000, to 
     remain available until September 30, 2007, is for contract 
     costs for the Healthcare Integrated General Ledger Accounting 
     System: Provided further, That funds appropriated under this 
     heading are available for the Healthy Start, Grow Smart 
     program under which the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid 
     Services may, directly or through grants, contracts, or 
     cooperative agreements, produce and distribute informational 
     materials including, but not limited to, pamphlets and 
     brochures on infant and toddler health care to expectant 
     parents enrolled in the Medicaid program and to parents and 
     guardians enrolled in such program with infants and children: 
     Provided further, That the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services is directed to collect fees in fiscal year 2006 from 
     Medicare Advantage organizations pursuant to section 
     1857(e)(2) of the Social Security Act and from eligible 
     organizations with risk-sharing contracts under section 1876 
     of that Act pursuant to section 1876(k)(4)(D) of that Act.

      Health Maintenance Organization Loan and Loan Guarantee Fund

       For carrying out subsections (d) and (e) of section 1308 of 
     the Public Health Service Act, any amounts received by the 
     Secretary in connection with loans and loan guarantees under 
     title XIII of the Public Health Service Act, to be available 
     without fiscal year limitation for the payment of outstanding 
     obligations. During fiscal year 2006, no commitments for 
     direct loans or loan guarantees shall be made.

                Administration for Children and Families

  Payments to States for Child Support Enforcement and Family Support 
                                Programs

       For making payments to States or other non-Federal entities 
     under titles I, IV-D, X, XI, XIV, and XVI of the Social 
     Security Act and the Act of July 5, 1960 (24 U.S.C. ch. 9), 
     $2,121,643,000, to remain available until expended; and for 
     such purposes for the first quarter of fiscal year 2007, 
     $1,200,000,000, to remain available until expended.
       For making payments to each State for carrying out the 
     program of Aid to Families with Dependent Children under 
     title IV-A of the Social Security Act before the effective 
     date of the program of Temporary Assistance for Needy 
     Families (TANF) with respect to such State, such sums as may 
     be necessary: Provided, That the sum of the amounts available 
     to a State with respect to expenditures under such title IV-A 
     in fiscal year 1997 under this appropriation and under such 
     title IV-A as amended by the Personal Responsibility and Work 
     Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 shall not exceed the 
     limitations under section 116(b) of such Act.
       For making, after May 31 of the current fiscal year, 
     payments to States or other non-Federal entities under titles 
     I, IV-D, X, XI, XIV, and XVI of the Social Security Act and 
     the Act of July 5, 1960 (24 U.S.C. ch. 9), for the last 3 
     months of the current fiscal year for unanticipated costs, 
     incurred for the current fiscal year, such sums as may be 
     necessary.

  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, in 1992 this Congress passed the Energy Policy Act of 
1992. In that act was a requirement that all Federal agencies have to 
make sure that 75 percent of all vehicles they purchase each year are 
alternatively fueled vehicles. These vehicles run on ethanol or 
biodiesel or other alternatives fuels. However, very few agencies are 
actually meeting this requirement. In fact, highlighted in a recent 
lawsuit, the Federal Government was found not to be in compliance with 
the act, but no agency did worse than the Department of Labor last 
year. The Department of Labor was only able to achieve a 19 percent 
goal.
  The goal of EPAct was to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by 30 
percent by 2010. The department only purchased 5,000 gallons of E85 and 
200 gallons of biodiesel, yet it purchased over 5.3 million gallons of 
gasoline and diesel fuel. Not only is this bad in terms of helping us 
reduce our dependence on foreign oil, it is also a bad fiscal move as 
E85 is selling for less than regular gasoline in many areas of the 
country.
  Mr. Chairman, it is my hope that when this bill is in conference, 
some language can be added that will encourage the department to do a 
better job at meeting the requirements set

[[Page 13927]]

forth by Congress to help reduce our dependence on foreign oil. How can 
we expect the average consumer to reduce oil use when we cannot even 
get our own Federal agencies to take the steps necessary to make our 
Nation more secure?
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHIMKUS. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Illinois makes a very 
good point. We should be leading the way. The Federal Government should 
be a model. With the energy problems that confront us, we have to look 
to alternative fuels as one of the ways through which this can be 
achieved. I commend the gentleman for his comments and hope that the 
Department of Labor is listening.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                   Low-Income Home Energy Assistance

       For making payments under title XXVI of the Omnibus Budget 
     Reconciliation Act of 1981, $1,984,799,000.

                     Refugee and Entrant Assistance

       For necessary expenses for refugee and entrant assistance 
     activities and for costs associated with the care and 
     placement of unaccompanied alien children authorized by title 
     IV of the Immigration and Nationality Act and section 501 of 
     the Refugee Education Assistance Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-
     422), for carrying out section 462 of the Homeland Security 
     Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-296), and for carrying out the 
     Torture Victims Relief Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-179), 
     $560,919,000, of which up to $9,915,000 shall be available to 
     carry out the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2003 
     (Public Law 108-193): Provided, That funds appropriated under 
     this heading pursuant to section 414(a) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act and section 462 of the Homeland Security 
     Act of 2002 for fiscal year 2006 shall be available for the 
     costs of assistance provided and other activities to remain 
     available through September 30, 2008.

   Payments to States for the Child Care and Development Block Grant

       For carrying out sections 658A through 658R of the Omnibus 
     Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (The Child Care and 
     Development Block Grant Act of 1990), $2,082,910,000 shall be 
     used to supplement, not supplant State general revenue funds 
     for child care assistance for low-income families: Provided, 
     That $18,967,040 shall be available for child care resource 
     and referral and school-aged child care activities, of which 
     $992,000 shall be for the Child Care Aware toll-free hotline: 
     Provided further, That, in addition to the amounts required 
     to be reserved by the States under section 658G, $270,490,624 
     shall be reserved by the States for activities authorized 
     under section 658G, of which $99,200,000 shall be for 
     activities that improve the quality of infant and toddler 
     care: Provided further, That $9,920,000 shall be for use by 
     the Secretary for child care research, demonstration, and 
     evaluation activities.

                      Social Services Block Grant

       For making grants to States pursuant to section 2002 of the 
     Social Security Act, $1,700,000,000: Provided, That 
     notwithstanding subparagraph (B) of section 404(d)(2) of such 
     Act, the applicable percent specified under such subparagraph 
     for a State to carry out State programs pursuant to title XX 
     of such Act shall be 10 percent.

                Children and Families Services Programs

       For carrying out, except as otherwise provided, the Runaway 
     and Homeless Youth Act, the Developmental Disabilities 
     Assistance and Bill of Rights Act, the Head Start Act, the 
     Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, sections 310 and 
     316 of the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act, as 
     amended, the Native American Programs Act of 1974, title II 
     of Public Law 95-266 (adoption opportunities), the Adoption 
     and Safe Families Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-89), sections 
     1201 and 1211 of the Children's Health Act of 2000, the 
     Abandoned Infants Assistance Act of 1988, sections 261 and 
     291 of the Help America Vote Act of 2002, part B(1) of title 
     IV and sections 413, 429A, 1110, and 1115 of the Social 
     Security Act, and sections 40155, 40211, and 40241 of Public 
     Law 103-322; for making payments under the Community Services 
     Block Grant Act, sections 439(h), 473A, and 477(i) of the 
     Social Security Act, and title IV of Public Law 105-285, and 
     for necessary administrative expenses to carry out said Acts 
     and titles I, IV, V, X, XI, XIV, XVI, and XX of the Social 
     Security Act, the Act of July 5, 1960 (24 U.S.C. ch. 9), the 
     Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981, title IV of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act, section 501 of the Refugee 
     Education Assistance Act of 1980, sections 40155, 40211, and 
     40241 of Public Law 103-322, and section 126 and titles IV 
     and V of Public Law 100-485, $8,688,707,000, of which 
     $31,846,000, to remain available until September 30, 2007, 
     shall be for grants to States for adoption incentive 
     payments, as authorized by section 473A of title IV of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 670-679) and may be made for 
     adoptions completed before September 30, 2006: Provided, That 
     $6,899,000,000 shall be for making payments under the Head 
     Start Act, of which $1,400,000,000 shall become available 
     October 1, 2006, and remain available through September 30, 
     2007: Provided further, That $384,672,000 shall be for making 
     payments under the Community Services Block Grant Act: 
     Provided further, That not less than $7,242,000 shall be for 
     section 680(3)(B) of the Community Services Block Grant Act: 
     Provided further, That in addition to amounts provided 
     herein, $8,000,000 shall be available from amounts available 
     under section 241 of the Public Health Service Act to carry 
     out the provisions of section 1110 of the Social Security 
     Act: Provided further, That to the extent Community Services 
     Block Grant funds are distributed as grant funds by a State 
     to an eligible entity as provided under the Act, and have not 
     been expended by such entity, they shall remain with such 
     entity for carryover into the next fiscal year for 
     expenditure by such entity consistent with program purposes: 
     Provided further, That the Secretary shall establish 
     procedures regarding the disposition of intangible property 
     which permits grant funds, or intangible assets acquired with 
     funds authorized under section 680 of the Community Services 
     Block Grant Act, as amended, to become the sole property of 
     such grantees after a period of not more than 12 years after 
     the end of the grant for purposes and uses consistent with 
     the original grant: Provided further, That funds appropriated 
     for section 680(a)(2) of the Community Services Block Grant 
     Act, as amended, shall be available for financing 
     construction and rehabilitation and loans or investments in 
     private business enterprises owned by community development 
     corporations: Provided further, That $75,000,000 is for a 
     compassion capital fund to provide grants to charitable 
     organizations to emulate model social service programs and to 
     encourage research on the best practices of social service 
     organizations: Provided further, That $14,879,000 shall be 
     for activities authorized by the Help America Vote Act of 
     2002, of which $9,919,000 shall be for payments to States to 
     promote access for voters with disabilities, and of which 
     $4,960,000 shall be for payments to States for protection and 
     advocacy systems for voters with disabilities: Provided 
     further, That $110,000,000 shall be for making competitive 
     grants to provide abstinence education (as defined by section 
     510(b)(2) of the Social Security Act) to adolescents, and for 
     Federal costs of administering the grant: Provided further, 
     That grants under the immediately preceding proviso shall be 
     made only to public and private entities which agree that, 
     with respect to an adolescent to whom the entities provide 
     abstinence education under such grant, the entities will not 
     provide to that adolescent any other education regarding 
     sexual conduct, except that, in the case of an entity 
     expressly required by law to provide health information or 
     services the adolescent shall not be precluded from seeking 
     health information or services from the entity in a different 
     setting than the setting in which abstinence education was 
     provided: Provided further, That within amounts provided 
     herein for abstinence education for adolescents, up to 
     $10,000,000 may be available for a national abstinence 
     education campaign: Provided further, That in addition to 
     amounts provided herein for abstinence education for 
     adolescents, $4,500,000 shall be available from amounts 
     available under section 241 of the Public Health Service Act 
     to carry out evaluations (including longitudinal evaluations) 
     of adolescent pregnancy prevention approaches: Provided 
     further, That $2,000,000 shall be for improving the Public 
     Assistance Reporting Information System, including grants to 
     States to support data collection for a study of the system's 
     effectiveness.

                   Promoting Safe and Stable Families

       For carrying out section 436 of the Social Security Act, 
     $305,000,000 and for section 437, $99,000,000.

       Payments to States for Foster Care and Adoption Assistance

       For making payments to States or other non-Federal entities 
     under title IV-E of the Social Security Act, $4,852,800,000.
       For making payments to States or other non-Federal entities 
     under title IV-E of the Act, for the first quarter of fiscal 
     year 2007, $1,730,000,000.
       For making, after May 31 of the current fiscal year, 
     payments to States or other non-Federal entities under 
     section 474 of title IV-E, for the last 3 months of the 
     current fiscal year for unanticipated costs, incurred for the 
     current fiscal year, such sums as may be necessary.

                        Administration on Aging

                        Aging Services Programs

       For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided, the 
     Older Americans Act of 1965, as amended, and section 398 of 
     the Public Health Service Act, $1,376,217,000, of which 
     $5,500,000 shall be available for activities regarding 
     medication management, screening, and education to prevent 
     incorrect medication and adverse drug reactions.

                        Office of the Secretary

                    General Departmental Management

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided, for general 
     departmental management, including hire of six sedans, and 
     for

[[Page 13928]]

     carrying out titles III, XVII, XX, and XXI of the Public 
     Health Service Act, the United States-Mexico Border Health 
     Commission Act, and research studies under section 1110 of 
     the Social Security Act $338,695,000, together with 
     $5,851,000 to be transferred and expended as authorized by 
     section 201(g)(1) of the Social Security Act from the 
     Hospital Insurance Trust Fund and the Supplemental Medical 
     Insurance Trust Fund, and $39,552,000 from the amounts 
     available under section 241 of the Public Health Service Act 
     to carry out national health or human services research and 
     evaluation activities: Provided, That of the funds made 
     available under this heading for carrying out title XX of the 
     Public Health Service Act, $13,120,000 shall be for 
     activities specified under section 2003(b)(2), all of which 
     shall be for prevention service demonstration grants under 
     section 510(b)(2) of title V of the Social Security Act, as 
     amended, without application of the limitation of section 
     2010(c) of said title XX: Provided further, That of this 
     amount, $52,415,000 shall be for minority AIDS prevention and 
     treatment activities; and $5,952,000 shall be to assist 
     Afghanistan in the development of maternal and child health 
     clinics, consistent with section 103(a)(4)(H) of the 
     Afghanistan Freedom Support Act of 2002.

                            Medicare Appeals

       For expenses necessary for administrative law judges 
     responsible for hearing cases under title XVIII of the Social 
     Security Act (and related provisions of title XI of such 
     Act), $60,000,000, to be transferred in appropriate part from 
     the Federal Hospital Insurance and the Federal Supplementary 
     Medical Insurance Funds.

                     Health Information Technology

       For expenses necessary for the Office of the National 
     Coordinator for Health Information Technology, including 
     grants, contracts and cooperative agreements for the 
     development and advancement of an interoperable national 
     health information technology infrastructure, $58,100,000: 
     Provided, That in addition to amounts provided herein, 
     $16,900,000 shall be available from amounts under section 241 
     of the Public Health Service Act to carry out health 
     information technology network development.

                      Office of Inspector General

       For expenses necessary for the Office of Inspector General, 
     including the hire of passenger motor vehicles for 
     investigations, in carrying out the provisions of the 
     Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, $39,813,000: 
     Provided, That of such amount, necessary sums are available 
     for providing protective services to the Secretary and 
     investigating non-payment of child support cases for which 
     non-payment is a Federal offense under 18 U.S.C. 228.

                        Office for Civil Rights

       For expenses necessary for the Office for Civil Rights, 
     $31,682,000, together with not to exceed $3,314,000 to be 
     transferred and expended as authorized by section 201(g)(1) 
     of the Social Security Act from the Hospital Insurance Trust 
     Fund and the Supplemental Medical Insurance Trust Fund.

     Retirement Pay and Medical Benefits for Commissioned Officers

       For retirement pay and medical benefits of Public Health 
     Service Commissioned Officers as authorized by law, for 
     payments under the Retired Serviceman's Family Protection 
     Plan and Survivor Benefit Plan, and for medical care of 
     dependents and retired personnel under the Dependents' 
     Medical Care Act (10 U.S.C. ch. 55), such amounts as may be 
     required during the current fiscal year.


            Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For expenses necessary to support activities related to 
     countering potential biological, disease, nuclear, 
     radiological and chemical threats to civilian populations, 
     and to ensure a year-round influenza vaccine production 
     capacity, the development and implementation of rapidly 
     expandable influenza vaccine production technologies, and if 
     determined necessary by the Secretary, the purchase of 
     influenza vaccine, $183,589,000: Provided, That $120,000,000 
     of amounts available for influenza preparedness shall remain 
     available until expended: Provided further, That, in addition 
     to the amount above, $8,589,000 shall be transferred from 
     amounts appropriated under the head ``Disease Control, 
     Research, and Training'' for activities authorized by section 
     319F-2(a) of the Public Health Service Act to be utilized 
     consistent with section 319F-2(c)(7)(B)(ii) of such Act.

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 201. Funds appropriated in this title shall be 
     available for not to exceed $50,000 for official reception 
     and representation expenses when specifically approved by the 
     Secretary.
       Sec. 202. The Secretary shall make available through 
     assignment not more than 60 employees of the Public Health 
     Service to assist in child survival activities and to work in 
     AIDS programs through and with funds provided by the Agency 
     for International Development, the United Nations 
     International Children's Emergency Fund or the World Health 
     Organization.
       Sec. 203. None of the funds appropriated under this Act may 
     be used to implement section 399F(b) of the Public Health 
     Service Act or section 1503 of the National Institutes of 
     Health Revitalization Act of 1993, Public Law 103-43.
       Sec. 204. None of the funds appropriated in this Act for 
     the National Institutes of Health, the Agency for Healthcare 
     Research and Quality, and the Substance Abuse and Mental 
     Health Services Administration shall be used to pay the 
     salary of an individual, through a grant or other extramural 
     mechanism, at a rate in excess of Executive Level I.
       Sec. 205. None of the funds appropriated in this title for 
     Head Start shall be used to pay the compensation of an 
     individual, either as direct costs or any proration as an 
     indirect cost, at a rate in excess of Executive Level II.
       Sec. 206. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be 
     expended pursuant to section 241 of the Public Health Service 
     Act, except for funds specifically provided for in this Act, 
     or for other taps and assessments made by any office located 
     in the Department of Health and Human Services, prior to the 
     Secretary's preparation and submission of a report to the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the Senate and of the House 
     detailing the planned uses of such funds.
       Sec. 207. Notwithstanding section 241(a) of the Public 
     Health Service Act, such portion as the Secretary shall 
     determine, but not more than 1.3 percent, of any amounts 
     appropriated for programs authorized under said Act shall be 
     made available for the evaluation (directly, or by grants or 
     contracts) of the implementation and effectiveness of such 
     programs.


                          (transfer of funds)

       Sec. 208. Not to exceed 1 percent of any discretionary 
     funds (pursuant to the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended) which are appropriated for 
     the current fiscal year for the Department of Health and 
     Human Services in this Act may be transferred between 
     appropriations, but no such appropriation shall be increased 
     by more than 3 percent by any such transfer: Provided, That 
     an appropriation may be increased by up to an additional 2 
     percent subject to approval by the House and Senate 
     Committees on Appropriations: Provided further, That the 
     transfer authority granted by this section shall be available 
     only to meet emergency needs and shall not be used to create 
     any new program or to fund any project or activity for which 
     no funds are provided in this Act: Provided further, That the 
     Appropriations Committees of both Houses of Congress are 
     notified at least 15 days in advance of any transfer.


                          (transfer of funds)

       Sec. 209. The Director of the National Institutes of 
     Health, jointly with the Director of the Office of AIDS 
     Research, may transfer up to 3 percent among institutes and 
     centers from the total amounts identified by these two 
     Directors as funding for research pertaining to the human 
     immunodeficiency virus: Provided, That the Congress is 
     promptly notified of the transfer.


                          (transfer of funds)

       Sec. 210. Of the amounts made available in this Act for the 
     National Institutes of Health, the amount for research 
     related to the human immunodeficiency virus, as jointly 
     determined by the Director of the National Institutes of 
     Health and the Director of the Office of AIDS Research, shall 
     be made available to the ``Office of AIDS Research'' account. 
     The Director of the Office of AIDS Research shall transfer 
     from such account amounts necessary to carry out section 
     2353(d)(3) of the Public Health Service Act.
       Sec. 211. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be 
     made available to any entity under title X of the Public 
     Health Service Act unless the applicant for the award 
     certifies to the Secretary that it encourages family 
     participation in the decision of minors to seek family 
     planning services and that it provides counseling to minors 
     on how to resist attempts to coerce minors into engaging in 
     sexual activities.
       Sec. 212. None of the funds appropriated by this Act 
     (including funds appropriated to any trust fund) may be used 
     to carry out the Medicare Advantage program if the Secretary 
     denies participation in such program to an otherwise eligible 
     entity (including a Provider Sponsored Organization) because 
     the entity informs the Secretary that it will not provide, 
     pay for, provide coverage of, or provide referrals for 
     abortions: Provided, That the Secretary shall make 
     appropriate prospective adjustments to the capitation payment 
     to such an entity (based on an actuarially sound estimate of 
     the expected costs of providing the service to such entity's 
     enrollees): Provided further, That nothing in this section 
     shall be construed to change the Medicare program's coverage 
     for such services and a Medicare Advantage organization 
     described in this section shall be responsible for informing 
     enrollees where to obtain information about all Medicare 
     covered services.
       Sec. 213. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no 
     provider of services under title X of the Public Health 
     Service Act shall be exempt from any State law requiring 
     notification or the reporting of child abuse, child 
     molestation, sexual abuse, rape, or incest.
       Sec. 214. (a) Except as provided by subsection (e) none of 
     the funds appropriated by

[[Page 13929]]

     this Act may be used to withhold substance abuse funding from 
     a State pursuant to section 1926 of the Public Health Service 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 300x-26) if such State certifies to the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services by May 1, 2006, that 
     the State will commit additional State funds, in accordance 
     with subsection (b), to ensure compliance with State laws 
     prohibiting the sale of tobacco products to individuals under 
     18 years of age.
       (b) The amount of funds to be committed by a State under 
     subsection (a) shall be equal to 1 percent of such State's 
     substance abuse block grant allocation for each percentage 
     point by which the State misses the retailer compliance rate 
     goal established by the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services under section 1926 of such Act.
       (c) The State is to maintain State expenditures in fiscal 
     year 2006 for tobacco prevention programs and for compliance 
     activities at a level that is not less than the level of such 
     expenditures maintained by the State for fiscal year 2005, 
     and adding to that level the additional funds for tobacco 
     compliance activities required under subsection (a). The 
     State is to submit a report to the Secretary on all fiscal 
     year 2005 State expenditures and all fiscal year 2006 
     obligations for tobacco prevention and compliance activities 
     by program activity by July 31, 2006.
       (d) The Secretary shall exercise discretion in enforcing 
     the timing of the State obligation of the additional funds 
     required by the certification described in subsection (a) as 
     late as July 31, 2006.
       (e) None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be used 
     to withhold substance abuse funding pursuant to section 1926 
     from a territory that receives less than $1,000,000.
       Sec. 215. In order for the Centers for Disease Control and 
     Prevention to carry out international health activities, 
     including HIV/AIDS and other infectious disease, chronic and 
     environmental disease, and other health activities abroad 
     during fiscal year 2006, the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services--
       (1) may exercise authority equivalent to that available to 
     the Secretary of State in section 2(c) of the State 
     Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 (22 U.S.C. 2669(c)). 
     The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall consult with 
     the Secretary of State and relevant Chief of Mission to 
     ensure that the authority provided in this section is 
     exercised in a manner consistent with section 207 of the 
     Foreign Service Act of 1980 (22 U.S.C. 3927) and other 
     applicable statutes administered by the Department of State, 
     and
       (2) is authorized to provide such funds by advance or 
     reimbursement to the Secretary of State as may be necessary 
     to pay the costs of acquisition, lease, alteration, 
     renovation, and management of facilities outside of the 
     United States for the use of the Department of Health and 
     Human Services. The Department of State shall cooperate fully 
     with the Secretary of Health and Human Services to ensure 
     that the Department of Health and Human Services has secure, 
     safe, functional facilities that comply with applicable 
     regulation governing location, setback, and other facilities 
     requirements and serve the purposes established by this Act. 
     The Secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of State, through grant or 
     cooperative agreement, to make available to public or 
     nonprofit private institutions or agencies in participating 
     foreign countries, funds to acquire, lease, alter, or 
     renovate facilities in those countries as necessary to 
     conduct programs of assistance for international health 
     activities, including activities relating to HIV/AIDS and 
     other infectious diseases, chronic and environmental 
     diseases, and other health activities abroad.
       Sec. 216. The Division of Federal Occupational Health 
     hereafter may utilize personal services contracting to employ 
     professional management/administrative and occupational 
     health professionals.
       Sec. 217. (a) Authority.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the Director of the National Institutes of 
     Health may use funds available under section 402(i) of the 
     Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 282(i)) to enter into 
     transactions (other than contracts, cooperative agreements, 
     or grants) to carry out research in support of the NIH 
     Roadmap for Medical Research.
       (b) Peer Review.--In entering into transactions under 
     subsection (a), the Director of the National Institutes of 
     Health may utilize such peer review procedures (including 
     consultation with appropriate scientific experts) as the 
     Director determines to be appropriate to obtain assessments 
     of scientific and technical merit. Such procedures shall 
     apply to such transactions in lieu of the peer review and 
     advisory council review procedures that would otherwise be 
     required under sections 301(a)(3), 405(b)(1)(B), 405(b)(2), 
     406(a)(3)(A), 492, and 494 of the Public Health Service Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 241, 284(b)(1)(B), 284(b)(2), 284a(a)(3)(A), 289a, 
     and 289c).
       Sec. 218. Funds which are available for Individual Learning 
     Accounts for employees of the Centers for Disease Control and 
     Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease 
     Registry may be transferred to ``Disease Control, Research, 
     and Training,'' to be available only for Individual Learning 
     Accounts: Provided, That such funds may be used for any 
     individual full-time equivalent employee while such employee 
     is employed either by CDC or ATSDR.
       Sec. 219. $15,912,000 of the unobligated balance of the 
     Health Professions Student Loan program authorized in subpart 
     II, Federally-Supported Student Loan Funds, of title VII of 
     the Public Health Service Act is rescinded.
       This title may be cited as the ``Department of Health and 
     Human Services Appropriations Act, 2006''.

                   TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

                    Education for the Disadvantaged

       For carrying out title I of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (``ESEA'') and section 418A of the 
     Higher Education Act of 1965, $14,728,735,000, of which 
     $7,144,426,000 shall become available on July 1, 2006, and 
     shall remain available through September 30, 2007, and of 
     which $7,383,301,000 shall become available on October 1, 
     2006, and shall remain available through September 30, 2007, 
     for academic year 2006-2007: Provided, That $6,934,854,000 
     shall be available for basic grants under section 1124: 
     Provided further, That up to $3,472,000 of these funds shall 
     be available to the Secretary of Education on October 1, 
     2005, to obtain annually updated educational-agency-level 
     census poverty data from the Bureau of the Census: Provided 
     further, That $1,365,031,000 shall be available for 
     concentration grants under section 1124A: Provided further, 
     That $2,269,843,000 shall be available for targeted grants 
     under section 1125: Provided further, That $2,269,843,000 
     shall be available for education finance incentive grants 
     under section 1125A: Provided further, That $9,424,000 shall 
     be available to carry out part E of title I: Provided 
     further, That $10,000,000 shall be available for 
     comprehensive school reform grants under part F of the ESEA.

                               Impact Aid

       For carrying out programs of financial assistance to 
     federally affected schools authorized by title VIII of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, 
     $1,240,862,000, of which $1,102,896,000 shall be for basic 
     support payments under section 8003(b), $49,966,000 shall be 
     for payments for children with disabilities under section 
     8003(d), $18,000,000 shall be for construction under section 
     8007 and shall remain available through September 30, 2007, 
     $65,000,000 shall be for Federal property payments under 
     section 8002, and $5,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended, shall be for facilities maintenance under section 
     8008: Provided, That for purposes of computing the amount of 
     a payment for an eligible local educational agency under 
     section 8003(a) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     (20 U.S.C. 7703(a)) for school year 2005-2006, children 
     enrolled in a school of such agency that would otherwise be 
     eligible for payment under section 8003(a)(1)(B) of such Act, 
     but due to the deployment of both parents or legal guardians, 
     or a parent or legal guardian having sole custody of such 
     children, or due to the death of a military parent or legal 
     guardian while on active duty (so long as such children 
     reside on Federal property as described in section 
     8003(a)(1)(B)), are no longer eligible under such section, 
     shall be considered as eligible students under such section, 
     provided such students remain in average daily attendance at 
     a school in the same local educational agency they attended 
     prior to their change in eligibility status.

                      School Improvement Programs

       For carrying out school improvement activities authorized 
     by titles II, part B of title IV, part A of title V, parts A 
     and B of title VI, and parts B and C of title VII of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (``ESEA''); 
     the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act; section 203 of 
     the Educational Technical Assistance Act of 2002; the Compact 
     of Free Association Amendments Act of 2003; and the Civil 
     Rights Act of 1964, $5,393,765,000, of which $3,805,882,000 
     shall become available on July 1, 2006, and remain available 
     through September 30, 2007, and of which $1,435,000,000 shall 
     become available on October 1, 2006, and shall remain 
     available through September 30, 2007, for academic year 2006-
     2007: Provided, That $411,680,000 shall be for State 
     assessments and related activities authorized under sections 
     6111 and 6112 of the ESEA: Provided further, That $56,825,000 
     shall be available to carry out section 203 of the 
     Educational Technical Assistance Act of 2002: Provided 
     further, That $12,132,000 shall be available to carry out the 
     Supplemental Education Grants program for the Federated 
     States of Micronesia, and $6,051,000 shall be available to 
     carry out the Supplemental Education Grants program for the 
     Republic of the Marshall Islands: Provided further, That up 
     to 5 percent of these amounts may be reserved by the 
     Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of the 
     Marshall Islands to administer the Supplemental Education 
     Grants programs and to obtain technical assistance, oversight 
     and consultancy services in the administration of these 
     grants and to reimburse the United States Departments of 
     Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education for such 
     services.

                            Indian Education

       For expenses necessary to carry out, to the extent not 
     otherwise provided, title VII, part A of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965, $119,889,000.

[[Page 13930]]



                       Innovation and Improvement

       For carrying out activities authorized by part G of title 
     I, subpart 5 of part A and parts C and D of title II, parts 
     B, C, and D of title V, and section 1504 of the Elementary 
     and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (``ESEA''), $708,522,000: 
     Provided, That $36,981,000 shall be for subpart 2 of part B 
     of title V: Provided further, That $127,000,000 shall be 
     available to carry out part D of title V of the ESEA, of 
     which $100,000,000 of the funds for subpart 1 shall be for 
     competitive grants to local educational agencies, including 
     charter schools that are local educational agencies, or 
     States, or partnerships of (1) a local educational agency, a 
     State, or both and (2) at least one non-profit organization 
     to develop and implement performance-based teacher and 
     principal compensation systems in high-need areas: Provided 
     further, That such performance-based compensation systems 
     must consider gains in student achievement, among other 
     factors, and may reward educators who choose to work in hard-
     to-staff schools: Provided further, That up to $700,000 of 
     the funds available under title V, part D, subpart 1 of the 
     ESEA may be used for evaluation of the program carried out 
     under the DC School Choice Incentive Act of 2003.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Shimkus) having assumed the chair, Mr. Putnam, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 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, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________