[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 22]
[Senate]
[Pages 30770-30778]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN 
          SERVICES, AND EDUCATION--CONFERENCE REPORT--Resumed

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, notwithstanding the previous order, I 
ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of 
the conference report to accompany H.R. 3010, that the conference 
report be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the 
table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the conference report by 
title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A conference report to accompany H.R. 3010 making 
     appropriations for Departments of Labor, Health and Human 
     Services and Education, and for other purposes.
       There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider 
     the conference report.

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today to call attention to a provision 
contained in the conference report to H.R.

[[Page 30771]]

3010, the fiscal year 2006 appropriations bill for Departments of 
Labor, HHS, and Education. I am pleased to see that House and Senate 
conferees were able to provide $100 million for the Teacher Incentive 
Fund. The Teacher Incentive Fund was first proposed in the President's 
fiscal year 2006 budget, and will offer an appropriate incentive to 
States and local education agencies to advance the goals of the No 
Child Left Behind Act.
  The No Child Left Behind Act, enacted 4 years ago, raised 
expectations for students and teachers. Students are expected to raise 
their achievement level, and teachers are accountable for reaching the 
specific goals. The Teacher Incentive Fund is an appropriate follow up 
to the No Child Left Behind Act. It is a pilot program for States and 
school districts to provide additional compensation to teachers who 
make a measurable impact on raising student achievement. Under this 
incentive program, Federal funds would be available to States and local 
school districts for the purpose of developing new compensation systems 
to reward teachers who raise achievement and to provide an incentive to 
attract effective teachers to what the Department of Education calls 
high-need schools. These are schools with high poverty rates and poor 
performance on State assessments. The Teacher Incentive Fund provides 
States and school districts with another tool to raise teacher quality 
and, thus, close the achievement gap, which, of course is the primary 
goal of the No Child Left Behind Act.
  In October, the Senate Republican Policy Committee, of which I am the 
chairman, released a policy paper in support of merit pay for teachers 
in general and the Teacher Incentive Fund specifically. The paper, 
titled ``Teachers Are Key to Success of `No Child Left Behind' Act: 
Better Pay for Better Teaching,'' discusses research in support of 
merit pay for teachers, and the success merit pay programs have 
achieved.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this paper be printed in 
the Record following my remarks.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 Teachers Are Key to Success of `No Child Left Behind' Act: Better Pay 
                          for Better Teaching


                              Introduction

       Enacted four years ago, the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act 
     raised expectations for students and teachers. Students are 
     expected to raise their achievement level, and teachers are 
     accountable for reaching the specific goals. As such, it is 
     appropriate to reward and acknowledge those teachers who, by 
     working harder and smarter, have achieved measurable success 
     in their classrooms.
       President Bush has proposed a pilot program for states and 
     school districts to provide additional compensation to 
     teachers who make a measurable impact on raising student 
     achievement. Under this incentive program, federal funds 
     would be available for the purpose of developing new 
     compensation systems to reward teachers who raise 
     achievement, and to provide an incentive to attract effective 
     teachers to what the Department of Education calls ``high-
     need'' schools, which are schools with high poverty rates and 
     poor performance on state assessments.
       In response to the President's proposal, the House of 
     Representatives included an incentive pay program for 
     teachers in its Fiscal Year 2006 appropriations bill that 
     funds the Department of Education (H.R. 3010). The House-
     passed program, like the one proposed by the President, is a 
     voluntary pilot program available to interested states and 
     school districts. The Senate-reported bill does not contain 
     such a provision.
       Some observers may be concerned that using federal dollars 
     for anything related to teacher pay is an inappropriate 
     intrusion of the federal government into an area that is 
     historically the jurisdiction of states and local school 
     districts. However, supporters of this concept view it in the 
     context of a natural follow-up to the four-year-old NCLB. 
     That law placed new accountability requirements upon schools; 
     thus, it is argued, it is now appropriate for the federal 
     government to make available financial incentives for 
     teachers who help meet those requirements. The concept of the 
     President's proposal and the House plan is to provide states 
     and school districts with another tool to raise teacher 
     quality and close the achievement gap, which stand as the 
     foundation of NCLB.
       According to a November 2004 national survey, 80 percent of 
     the public supports salary increases for teachers who raise 
     student achievement. However, some observers suggest that 
     teachers' unions oppose anything that might be construed as 
     merit pay. At least one observer notes that union opposition 
     stands in the way of local districts implementing merit pay 
     systems on a larger scale. For example, in California, in 
     response to Governor Schwarzenegger's proposal to introduce 
     merit pay for teachers, the state's largest teachers' union 
     sought to impose a dues hike on its members to help raise 
     ``tens of millions of dollars'' to combat merit pay and other 
     budget initiatives. A federal pilot program, such as the one 
     proposed by the President, may be necessary to allow public 
     schools to overcome teachers' unions' opposition to 
     implementing a compensation program that links teacher 
     performance and student outcomes. The pilot program would 
     provide funds directly to state and local educational 
     agencies to allow this concept--one that has already proven 
     successful in other schools--the chance to prove itself and 
     build support within the community. This was the case in 
     Little Rock, Arkansas. Merit-pay bonuses were paid in the 
     first year by an anonymous donor; the next year, the school 
     district, pleased with the results of the first year, voted 
     to use its own funds to pay performance bonuses.


                  Background: An Antiquated Pay System

       Today, the majority of teachers in the United States are 
     compensated through a ``single salary schedule,'' which bases 
     teachers' pay on their years of experience and their 
     education credits and degrees. According to the National 
     Center for Education Statistics, 96 percent of all public 
     school districts utilize a single-salary schedule for teacher 
     pay. The system was designed in the 1920s to ensure fairness 
     among elementary school teachers, who were mostly women, and 
     secondary teachers, who were mostly men. Critics contend that 
     this pay system fails teachers and students as it does 
     nothing to reward excellence. Indeed, it promotes equal pay 
     for unequal performance. Under the current system, an 
     increase for one teacher means an increase for all. The 
     following table shows the Denver Public Schools' salary 
     schedule as offered by Brad Jupp, education author and member 
     of the Denver Classroom Teachers Association. According to 
     Jupp, it is an example of a ``typical single-salary 
     schedule'' used for paying teachers.

                 FIGURE 1.--DENVER'S SALARY SCHEDULE\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       B.A.         M.A.      Doctorate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Hire.........................      $31,320      $31,779
Step 1...........................       32,971       33,454      $39,169
Step 2...........................       33,073       33,697       40,903
Step 3...........................       33,225       35,101       42,642
Step 4...........................       33,480       36,503       44,377
Step 5...........................       33,785       38,053       46,251
Step 6...........................       33,988       39,671       48,219
Step 7...........................       35,421       41,337       50,290
Step 8...........................       36,912       43,087       52,449
Step 9...........................       38,456       44,924       54,702
Step 10..........................       40,092       46,860       57,057
Step 11..........................       41,784       48,843       59,521
Step 12..........................       43,566       50,944       62,082
Step 13..........................       45,546       53,401       64,919
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\With relatively low starting salaries and guaranteed raises over
  time, the current Denver Public Schools salary schedule is typical of
  compensation schemes for teachers. Each step represents a year of
  teaching.
Source: Denver Public Schools.

       Proponents of changing teacher compensation argue that the 
     single-salary schedule deprives public school administrators 
     of the ability to adjust an individual teacher's pay to 
     reflect performance, attract sought-after skills, and assure 
     that teaching positions in low-income schools are filled by 
     high performers. For example, many school systems struggle to 
     fill teaching positions in fields that command high salaries 
     outside of education, such as math and science. The rigidity 
     of the single-salary schedule prevents

[[Page 30772]]

     them from addressing this shortage in the obvious way--by 
     raising pay in these specialties. Likewise, few school 
     systems provide extra compensation to teachers who work with 
     disadvantaged students. Therefore, experienced teachers often 
     use their seniority to transfer to more attractive schools, 
     leaving the neediest students with more inexperienced 
     teachers.
       With such obvious flaws in this rigid pay system, why don't 
     states and local school districts reform their pay practices 
     for teachers? The short answer is teachers' unions. Unions 
     defend the single-salary schedule in the name of employee 
     equity and fairness, and oppose changes that rely on student 
     performance as a measure of a teacher's effectiveness. 
     Furthermore, teachers' unions, particularly the National 
     Education Association, have opposed merit pay systems because 
     they place the union in an awkward position: ``For every 
     teacher awarded merit pay, ten others will want the union to 
     file a grievance alleging that they deserved merit pay more 
     than the teacher who received it.''


                   Why Merit Pay Enhances NCLB Goals

       The No Child Left Behind Act requires that all students 
     become proficient in reading and math, and that the 
     achievement gap between students of different socio-economic 
     backgrounds be closed. Schools that do not make progress must 
     provide supplemental services, such as free tutoring, and/or 
     offering the option of choosing another public school. They 
     must also take corrective action with regard to the way the 
     school is run. The law, recognizing that high-quality, 
     effective teachers are a necessary component to obtaining 
     these results, established certain teacher-quality 
     requirements for states, including the requirement that core 
     academic subjects be taught by ``highly qualified teachers.'' 
     And while federal funds already are in place for professional 
     training and development to help states and school districts 
     meet this requirement, that program alone may be 
     insufficient. The General Accounting Office (GAO) reported in 
     2003 that state and district officials are hindered in their 
     ability to obtain all highly qualified teachers for a number 
     of reasons, including ``the lack of incentive pay programs.''
       In keeping with the rationale that teachers are the key to 
     the success of NCLB's goals, and so should be rewarded for 
     meeting them, the President proposed a $500 million Teacher 
     Incentive Fund as part of his FY 2006 budget request. This 
     formula grant program is for states and school districts that 
     choose to reward effective teachers--those who are closing 
     the achievement gap for students in schools most in need, and 
     those who otherwise are meeting NCLB annual targets for 
     student achievement. Under the President's proposal, states 
     would be authorized to create a statewide system to reward 
     these teachers, and to provide grant money to local school 
     districts in order to recruit highly qualified teachers to 
     high-need schools. Additionally, the President requested that 
     a portion of the funds be used for competitive grants for the 
     development and implementation of performance-based teacher 
     compensation systems in order to aid school districts that 
     choose to change to such a system.
       H.R. 3010, the House-passed Fiscal Year 2006 appropriations 
     bill for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, 
     and Education, and Related Agencies, included $100 million 
     for a pilot Teacher Incentive Fund program available to 
     states willing to develop and implement innovative ways to 
     provide financial incentives for teachers (and also 
     principals) who raise student achievement and close the 
     achievement gap. In the interest of ensuring that the states 
     remain in control of this issue--and are committed to it--the 
     bill requires states and schools to pay for an increasing 
     share of the total cost of the project in subsequent years 
     with non-federal funds. And, in order to assure that workable 
     plans can be implemented elsewhere, the bill requires the 
     Department of Education to assess each project through an 
     independent evaluator, and then share these assessments with 
     other interested parties.
       It is important to note that the proposals of both the 
     President and the House allow state and local schools a great 
     deal of latitude in how they develop merit pay plans. For 
     example, they may include additional measures and goals, 
     combined with student performance, but the fundamental shift 
     would be that the merit pay systems consider outputs, such as 
     student achievement, rather than only inputs, such as the 
     number of courses a teacher takes.
       The provisions in the House funding bill were applauded by 
     the chairman of the Department of Education's authorizing 
     committee who noted, ``The federal government is spending 
     tens of billions of dollars a year on K-12 education 
     programs. States and schools ought to be allowed to use at 
     least a fraction of that money to provide financial rewards 
     for highly qualified teachers and principals who are working 
     successfully to raise student achievement.'' Chairman John 
     Boehner (R-OH) also noted that the funds provided in the 
     House bill are not new, but are being diverted from existing 
     funds that were used for what he termed ``less effective 
     programs.'' Meanwhile, the Senate-reported appropriations 
     bill that funds the Department of Education (as reported on 
     July 14), does not include a similar provision.


                     Merit Pay is Soundly Supported

       Support for the use of merit pay in public education has 
     not been limited to one political party. In addition to the 
     support of the President and House Republicans noted above, 
     the 2004 Democratic Presidential candidate, John Kerry (D-
     MA), voiced his support. In his policy plan, ``A Great 
     Teacher for Every Child,'' the candidate stated that 
     ``teachers should be rewarded for demonstrating more skill or 
     better results.''
       Another Democratic advocate is former Clinton 
     Administration official Joel Klein, now Chancellor of the New 
     York City public schools. According to Chancellor Klein, 
     ``Our system is built on principles of non-meritocracy and 
     non-differentiation, and those two principles are killing us. 
     At the heart of the problem are the three pillars of civil 
     service: lock-step pay, seniority, and life tenure. Together, 
     they act as handcuffs and prevent us from making the changes 
     that will encourage excellence in our system.''
       In addition to the bipartisan support it has garnered from 
     elected officials, merit pay for educators is supported by 
     teachers, parents, and education researchers. In November 
     2004, two national surveys were conducted for The Teaching 
     Commission, a private panelled by former IBM chairman Louis 
     Gerstner, Jr. The surveys found that 80 percent of those 
     surveyed support salary increases for ``teachers who improve 
     student achievement, raise teaching standards and increase 
     accountability for teachers.'' The surveys also found that 
     three out of four surveyed support paying higher salaries to 
     teachers willing to serve in high-poverty schools that 
     struggle to attract and retain good teachers. Furthermore, a 
     2003 survey conducted by the research group Public Agenda 
     found that 85 percent of teachers and 72 percent of 
     principals reported that providing financial incentives would 
     ``help a lot'' when it comes to attracting and retaining 
     quality teachers. Similarly, 72 percent of the public 
     supported paying more for those who teach in subjects such as 
     math, science, and special education in order to attract 
     teachers with knowledge in these subjects.


Reasons to Support Merit Pay for Teachers: Merit Pay Has Proven Results

       A number of school districts have explored merit pay as a 
     means to attract, motivate, and retain high-quality teachers. 
     Below are examples of merit pay systems that proponents point 
     to as promising models.
       Starting in 1999, the Denver Classroom Teachers Association 
     and the Denver Public Schools agreed to study the 
     relationship between student achievement and teacher 
     compensation. The initial study included a pilot project at 
     16 schools for four years. As a result of the initial pilot 
     program, it was determined that teacher compensation ``could 
     not be based on student achievement alone.'' Therefore, the 
     district and the teacher association formed a task force to 
     design a new comprehensive pay system for teachers. The task 
     force of teachers, school administrators, and local citizens 
     used private funds to develop a system dubbed ``ProComp,'' 
     which linked teacher pay to the school district's 
     instructional mission.
       Denver's ProComp system has four components that allow 
     teachers to earn additional pay. The first component is 
     ``knowledge and skill,'' which allows teachers to earn 
     additional compensation by completing annual training. The 
     second component is ``professional evaluation,'' which allows 
     salary increases based on evaluation. The third, ``student 
     growth,'' rewards teachers based on the academic achievement 
     of their students. And the fourth is ``market incentives,'' 
     which allows the district to offer additional pay for 
     difficult-to-fill positions.
       The Denver Board of Education and the teachers' association 
     approved ProComp in 2004. Next, the program will be submitted 
     to Denver voters later this year in order to raise the $25 
     million needed to finance the system.
       A second program proving successful is in Chattanooga, 
     Tennessee. In 2001, nine of Tennessee's twenty worst 
     performing schools were located in Chattanooga. The mayor and 
     the school district, with cooperation from the teacher 
     association (with funds provided by two private foundations), 
     devised a plan to address these nine elementary schools, 
     known as the ``Benwood schools.'' To attract highly qualified 
     teachers to teach in the Benwood schools, the group developed 
     a teacher-incentive package. The package included a $5,000 
     bonus for highly-qualified teachers as defined by student 
     achievement, and a $2,000 annual bonus for every teacher in a 
     school that significantly increased its test scores, among 
     other incentives.
       The ``Benwood schools'' results are impressive. The 
     percentage of third graders reading at or above grade level 
     rose from 23 percent in 2001 to 36 percent in 2003. Across 
     all grades, the percentage of students at or above grade 
     level in reading/language arts rose from 57 percent in 2003 
     to 77 percent in 2005. Math achievement increased from 54 
     percent to 70 percent during the same period. In addition to 
     raising student achievement, the Benwood schools report that 
     filling their teacher positions has been easier, turnover has 
     been reduced, and teacher morale has improved.

[[Page 30773]]




            Merit Pay Helps With Difficult-to-Fill Positions

       The success of the NCLB depends particularly on raising 
     achievement at high-needs schools, but, as Secretary of 
     Education Margaret Spellings describes it, the current system 
     detracts from that goal: ``We have a system that doesn't give 
     the teachers who want to help these students the support they 
     deserve. While most professions reward those willing to take 
     on the hardest assignments, the public school system often 
     does the opposite. Teachers with the skill and desire to 
     close the achievement gap find themselves drawn away from the 
     schools that need the most help. Many school systems even 
     offer de facto incentives for teachers to leave these 
     schools.'' That is, sometimes experienced teachers use their 
     seniority to transfer to more desirable schools.
       To address this, a number of school districts have employed 
     merit pay to reward highly qualified teachers who work in 
     designated high-poverty schools. One such program is the 
     Teacher Advancement Program (TAP) developed by the Milken 
     Family Foundation. In addition to merit pay, the TAP system 
     rewards teachers who take on additional responsibilities with 
     additional pay. In Arizona, talented teachers have shown 
     their support for this program by taking jobs at some high-
     need schools. Of the 61 teachers in one school district who 
     moved to high-need schools, 13 (or 21 percent) came from 
     schools in high socioeconomic areas, schools that are ``among 
     the best in the area.'' Additionally, school districts in 
     Florida, Alabama, Maryland, and Tennessee are offering 
     rewards to qualified teachers who work in designated high-
     poverty schools. According to the superintendent of one such 
     school district, since the initiative began, ``staffing the 
     urban schools has become much easier.''


 Merit Pay Raises Teacher Ouality and Treats Teachers as Professionals

       Education research demonstrates that teacher quality is the 
     single most important factor affecting student achievement. 
     That said, one recent study documents a decline in teacher 
     quality--which its authors attribute to lack of financial 
     reward for quality work. Economists Carline Hoxby of Harvard 
     University and Andrew Leigh of Australian National University 
     found that salary distribution for U.S. public school 
     teachers ``has narrowed so dramatically that those with the 
     highest aptitude can expect to earn no more than those with 
     the lowest. This alone accounts for more than three-quarters 
     of the decline in teacher quality.'' According to their 
     research (which used mean SAT scores to define ``aptitude'' 
     and was limited to women), 16 percent of American female 
     teachers in 1963 were of low aptitude, compared to 36 percent 
     in 2000. At the other end the spectrum, only one percent of 
     female teachers in 2000 were high-aptitude, compared to five 
     percent in 1963.
       This study underscores the assertion that, especially in 
     this highly competitive economy, the single-salary schedule 
     that bases compensation solely on college credits, education 
     degrees, and years of experience does not attract the best 
     and brightest. Highly capable and competent people are more 
     likely to be attracted to a system that rewards individual 
     performance.
       Teaching is a profession like none other. It is responsible 
     for educating, training, and preparing all others with the 
     skills needed to succeed. As such, it should be held to high 
     standards. Merit pay allows top teachers to be acknowledged 
     for their efforts, provides an incentive to other teachers, 
     and raises the bar of professionalism in teaching. It allows 
     teachers to be held more accountable and judged in relation 
     to their peers. Merit pay brings evaluation of outputs to 
     teaching, a standard used in most professions.


           Merit Pay Is More Cost-Effective for the Taxpayers

       Under the current single-salary teacher pay system, a 
     salary increase for one means a salary increase for all. 
     Based on survey data, a majority of the public (71 percent) 
     believes teachers deserve to earn more. However, ``just to 
     bring the salaries in the below-average states to the 
     national average would cost $8.5 billion--an amount that is 
     fiscally irrational.'' Proponents of merit pay note that it 
     would be less costly and would produce greater results to 
     target raises toward the most effective teachers. According 
     to the April 2005 Harris-Hart survey, ``public support for 
     paying the costs of higher teacher salaries is enhanced if 
     higher pay is linked to teacher performance and other 
     accountability measures.''


                            Refuting Critics

       Among the criticisms raised by opponents of merit pay is 
     that it inappropriately uses student performance as a measure 
     of a teacher's effectiveness. Yet, as the aforementioned 
     studies show, a merit pay system can be built around a 
     variety of objective and subjective measures, decided at the 
     local level. Successful pay systems can factor in a variety 
     of measures of excellence, including peer and principal 
     review, in addition to student achievement.
       A parallel issue is outcome-based payments for physicians 
     under Medicare, which is currently under consideration by the 
     Senate Finance Committee. The aim of merit pay for teachers 
     is similar to that of outcome-based payments for physicians. 
     As expressed by Senator Max Baucus (D-MT), that proposal 
     would ``reward better health-care quality with better 
     payment.''
       Critics also contend that it is unfair to grade teachers 
     and that grading could be subject to favoritism. One only 
     needs to be reminded that testing is a reality in education. 
     If gauging performance is inappropriate, then why do we give 
     grades to students? The typical response, as noted in the 
     Christian Science Monitor, is, ``We give grades because they 
     help us understand which areas need improvement and because 
     they acknowledge superb effort and ability.'' Also, grading 
     based on student performance is not subject to favoritism; 
     grading is simply a reflection of the numbers. A carefully 
     crafted merit pay program with clearly defined measures and 
     expectations should alleviate this concern.
       Another criticism by opponents is that merit pay plans have 
     not proven successful. A number of merit pay experiments 
     tried in the 1980s are no longer in place. Critics argue that 
     the decline of such programs was due to the difficulties of 
     accurately identifying effective teachers and rewarding good 
     teaching practices. These difficulties have been erased 
     following annual testing of grades three through eight as 
     required by NCLB, which provides objective measures to 
     identify effective teachers. Proponents of change insist the 
     experiments in the 1980s were too limited in scope, and were 
     destined to fail due to the stiff resistance from teachers 
     and unions. The programs running in Denver and Chattanooga 
     are two examples of programs that are yielding positive 
     results. Furthermore, now that NCLB gives parents the choice 
     to transfer out of low-performing public schools, a new sense 
     of competition among schools has emerged that has forced 
     changes in how parents and teachers view public schools.
       Critics also raise concerns that teachers will ``cherry 
     pick'' the best students to be in their class. Supporters of 
     merit pay note that this concern can largely be addressed by 
     measuring student achievement using ``value-added 
     standards,'' which look at student improvement or gain over 
     the course of the year instead of students' level of 
     achievement at the end of a year. Furthermore, when value-
     added standards are used, merit pay remains available to 
     teachers of all students. That is, it likely is easier to get 
     a 25-percentile gain from a student starting in the 30th 
     percentile than a 15-percentile gain from a student already 
     at the 80th percentile.
       Critics of merit pay argue that it damages the school 
     culture when ``superior teachers'' are singled out and given 
     special awards. They note that in competitive industries, 
     both employers and employees must consider the possibility 
     that competing companies will provide better products or 
     services at a lower price, and these incentives ``are not 
     present in public education.'' In response, supporters of 
     merit pay point to its wide and successful use in private 
     schools, which suggests that it is neither infeasible nor 
     unattractive. Private schools note they use merit pay to 
     recruit and retain the quality teachers demanded by tuition-
     paying parents. This broad use of merit pay by private 
     schools, of course, highlights a critical distinction between 
     public and private schools: such initiatives are ``easier in 
     the private sector because administrators are seldom subject 
     to the constraints imposed by a collective bargaining 
     process.'' Even so, the successes seen in the private schools 
     could point to the direction public schools might take if 
     teachers were rewarded for student achievements.
       Along the same lines, some critics assert that rewarding 
     some teachers and not others harms teacher collaboration 
     within a school. Yet, this did not prove true in the Denver 
     program. When Denver teachers were asked whether their pilot 
     program had an impact on ``cooperation among teachers,'' the 
     results were that 53 percent of the participating teachers 
     said the impact was positive, and only 2 percent said the 
     impact was negative. According to Brad Jupp, the teacher 
     representative to the ProComp taskforce, the Denver teachers' 
     survey response ``flies in the face of preconceptions that 
     teachers fear pay for performance based on student growth 
     because it will harm collegial relations.'' Furthermore, 
     schools need to reward the best teachers to attract and 
     retain them in the schools that need them the most. According 
     to education researchers Caroline Hoxby and Andrew Leigh, in 
     order to attract high-aptitude individuals back into 
     teaching, ``school districts need to reward teachers in the 
     same way that college graduates are paid in other 
     professions--that is, according to their performance.''
       The National Education Association argues that, rather than 
     pay increases for some, all teachers should be paid more. 
     However, history shows that there is no direct connection 
     between spending more money on education and increased 
     student achievement. According to the most recent analysis by 
     the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development 
     (OECD) of its member countries' spending on education as a 
     percentage of Gross Domestic Product, the United States 
     spends the second-highest

[[Page 30774]]

     amount. And yet, U.S. student achievement does not match the 
     higher-than-average expenditure. While the proportion of 
     individuals completing high school has been rising in all 
     OECD countries, the rates of students graduating from high 
     school in most OECD countries are now higher than those in 
     the United States. Another study shows a similar lack of 
     correlation. According to the National Center for Education 
     Statistics, the United States outspends the other G-8 
     countries in per-student expenditures. And yet, fourth-grade 
     students in the United States ranked in the middle of the 
     list of countries in mathematics, and eighth-grade students 
     ranked 15th among the 45 countries in mathematics.


                               Conclusion

       Expectations are greater now for teachers because the No 
     Child Left Behind Act holds schools accountable for student 
     achievement. Merit pay is a positive way to reward those who 
     are effective in raising student achievement. Congress needs 
     to help states to implement alternatives to the traditional, 
     single-salary schedule used by the majority of public schools 
     to pay teachers if it wants to assure that schools nationwide 
     meet the NCLB's important goals. Merit pay increases schools' 
     ability to attract and retain highly qualified teachers, 
     especially in fields that command high salaries outside of 
     education, such as math and sciences, and it encourages 
     teachers to work in high-needs schools. A carefully developed 
     merit pay plan, with clearly defined measures and 
     expectations, should be able to address any legitimate 
     concerns raised by teachers and their unions. Eighty percent 
     of parents and teachers support salary increases for teachers 
     who improve student achievement. The Teacher Incentive Fund 
     proposed by the President and passed by the House will permit 
     many more schools to implement public-supported reforms, and 
     will provide a major incentive for needed changes in teacher 
     compensation nationally.

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support 
for the extension of a program that has provided vital support to our 
Nation's dairy farmers, helped to maintain the milk supply, and perhaps 
more importantly has helped to preserve an important way of life in 
rural America. The program I speak of is the Milk Income Loss Contract, 
MILC, Program, which since its inception in the 2002 farm bill has 
provided a crucial buffer between our Nation's hard-working dairy 
farmers and the rollercoaster ups and downs of the milk market.
  America's farmers are the backbone of its rural communities, and as 
markets, weather, and other challenges become more daunting we must 
make every effort to support them when they are in need. It is not just 
for the benefit of our farmers, who work hard year-round, often in the 
face of unforgiving circumstances, and their families, but for the 
towns that they help to support and for the health of the land that 
they steward. Small farms are the big business of rural America, and if 
it becomes too hard for them to survive, the communities where they are 
lost will suffer, both economically and culturally. Likewise, as the 
economic pressure to develop grows, more and more open space will be 
lost to suburban sprawl if small farms disappear. Allowing these farms 
to go under by failing to extend sensible supports like the MILC 
Program would be bad for the economy, bad for our environment, and bad 
for consumers.
  In very few places across the country are the stakes of the MILC 
Program's survival more starkly apparent than in my State of New York. 
Agriculture is a dominant industry in New York, and dairy farmers are 
the bulwark of New York's agricultural economy. In light of dramatic 
price swings and development pressures that are more severe than almost 
anywhere else in the country, the dairy farmers of my State need the 
type of support provided by the MILC Program when prices hit rock 
bottom. New York's farmers have received millions of dollars under the 
program, and I can tell you that that money has made a real difference 
in helping small family farms pull back from the brink and stay in 
business.
  Let me be clear about one thing. While this program provides crucial 
and timely support, it is not simply a big-dollar bonanza for America's 
dairy farmers. Payments under the program only kick in when prices dip 
below the trigger price of $16.94 per hundredweight, when they are most 
needed. In fact, in the almost 4 years covered by the program, there 
were only 26 months in which USDA had to issue payments. There was an 
entire year, from May of 2004 to May of 2005, where prices were 
fortunately high enough that support was not necessary. I raise these 
facts simply to say that anyone who would oppose this program, which 
provides crucial, targeted assistance to small dairy farms, on the 
grounds that it is a budget buster or boondoggle is way off the mark.
  The MILC Program expired at the end of September, so the need to 
extend it is pressing and vital. As we enter the New Year, milk prices 
may once again drop below the trigger price, and we need to make sure 
that the MILC Program is in place to do its job should our dairy 
farmers find themselves in need. The MILC Program is very important to 
New York, but not just to New York. The fact that the extension of this 
program has drawn strong support from Democrats and Republicans from 
multiple regions demonstrates its importance to our entire Nation.
  While I have serious misgivings with other provisions contained in 
this budget reconciliation conference report, the 2-year extension of 
the MILC Program is one item that I am glad to see is included. The 
MILC Program has shown itself to be an effective and vital part of our 
Government's commitment to support America's farmers, and I strongly 
support its extension.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, this evening the Senate passed the 
conference report to the fiscal year 2006 Department of Labor, Health 
and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill. I want to 
express my concerns with this conference report. Not only does this 
legislation shortchange important priorities compared to the Senate 
version of this bill, which passed on a near unanimous vote of 94 to 3, 
it is not the only affront to these programs since an additional 
across-the-board cut to discretionary spending is included in the 
Department of Defense appropriations conference report.
  I am disappointed that this conference report fails to provide our 
children with the resources they need to compete in today's world. 
Children of all ages will be affected by the decisions we make today.
  This conference report decreases funding to programs that help 
students succeed at every stage. Indeed, it cuts education funding for 
the first time in 10 years. Despite rising tuition costs, college 
students will not see an increase in financial aid. The supplemental 
educational opportunity grant, SEOG, program will receive $26 million 
less than the Senate bill we passed in October. The maximum Pell grant 
award will be frozen at $4,050 for the fourth year in a row, making it 
more difficult for students to keep up with tuition and the cost of 
attending college.
  Funding for No Child Left Behind Act programs are reduced by 3 
percent, for a total that is $13.1 billion below the authorized level. 
Elementary and secondary school children will experience a decrease in 
services funded through the School Improvement Programs, the 
educational technology State grants, and the Javits Gifted and Talented 
Program, which all received less funding than in the Senate bill.
  Title I of the No Child Left Behind Act will see its smallest 
increase in 8 years, for a total of $12.8 billion. This is $9.9 billion 
less than the $22.75 billion authorized in the No Child Left Behind 
Act. This funding is critical to improve education in this country. In 
2001, members of this chamber made a commitment with the No Child Left 
Behind Act to give every child an opportunity at an excellent 
education. The President and our colleagues from across the aisle 
should join us in seeking to uphold that commitment.
  Infants and toddlers will also receive fewer services. The 
President's fiscal year 2006 budget proposal, the House bill, and the 
Senate bill all included increases in funding for Head Start. However, 
this conference report ignores those increases and instead includes 
less than 1 percent increase for this important early childhood 
program. Head Start centers across the country are cutting back on 
comprehensive services, the core of this program's success, because 
funding has been minimal year after year and has not kept pace with

[[Page 30775]]

inflation. In a time when we should be increasing our investment in 
early childhood development, this conference report moves us in the 
wrong direction.
  The conference report also reduces health funding by a total of $466 
million. It will set back critical research at the National Institutes 
of Health, unravel already fragile health care safety net programs, 
undermine essential health professions training programs, and leave our 
Nation completely unprepared to respond to a looming avian influenza 
pandemic.
  In this conference report, the National Institutes of Health, NIH, 
after seeing its budget doubled only a few years ago, will face the 
smallest percentage increase--less than 1 percent--in more than three 
decades. Withdrawing our support for revolutionary basic and clinical 
research at such a crucial time will undoubtedly set back our efforts 
in the war against cancer, as well as impede our quest to learn about 
the causes of and find effective methods to diagnose and treat 
debilitating conditions such as diabetes, heart disease, Alzheimer's, 
Parkinson's, Multiple Sclerosis, Lou Gehrig's disease, and autism. 
These diseases are not only devastating to those who are afflicted and 
the families who care for them, they continue to be a significant drain 
on our health care system and our economy.
  This bill also deals a devastating blow to essential safety net 
programs. First, it essentially stops cold the President's initiative 
to create 1,200 new or expanded health center sites to serve an 
additional 6.1 million people by 2006. The Senate-passed bill provided 
$105 million over the fiscal year 2005 level for community health 
centers while this bill contains an increase of only $66 million, in 
essence freezing any new competition for community health center funds. 
Second, the report slashes funding for programs that train health care 
providers who serve in health centers and other safety net sites.
  Title VII health professions programs have a long tradition of 
responding to the needs of medically underserved communities as well as 
providing support to increase the racial and ethnic diversity of our 
health care workforce. Under this bill, a broad array of small but 
essential programs pertaining to trauma care systems, geriatrics 
training and education, and emergency medical services will be 
eliminated. Over the past several years, Senator Roberts and I have led 
a strong bipartisan effort in support of these essential education and 
training programs. Gutting these programs is penny-wise and pound-
foolish. It will cripple our ability as a nation to be better prepared 
for the inevitable emergencies and tragedies that happen every day and 
the demographic tidal wave that will soon be hitting our health care 
system.
  The bill also neglected to include a Senate amendment allocating 
nearly $8 billion in emergency funds to combat the avian flu. Instead, 
the conference report actually diverts millions from the annual 
influenza program budget to pay for rural health programs, with a 
promise that funding for avian flu would be included in the pending 
Defense appropriations bill but at a much lower amount than the Senate 
originally provided.
  This conference report fails to provide sufficient funding for the 
Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP. Rising energy prices 
threaten to financially overwhelm low-income families and seniors. This 
winter, the average family will face a $1,000 natural gas bill, an 
increase of 38 percent from just last year. For families using heating 
oil, prices are projected to hit $1,400, an increase of 21 percent over 
last year. These price increases are overcoming workers' salaries and 
seniors' Social Security checks. American families need economic relief 
from high energy prices. They need the security to know they will not 
have to decide between heating their homes or feeding their families 
and paying the energy bill or buying lifesaving medicines. With a sharp 
increase in energy prices this year, it is obvious that level funding 
for the LIHEAP program is inadequate. A majority of the Senate supports 
$5.1 billion in funding for LIHEAP, but this conference report does not 
reflect the will of my colleagues.
  This conference report fails the American people in a number of very 
important ways. It fails to maintain our promise to give children the 
opportunity to achieve their full potential. It fails to preserve our 
commitment to groundbreaking and potentially lifesaving advancements in 
medicine. And it fails to sustain support for essential programs that 
help vulnerable Americans.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, American families are ready for a change. 
They take a look at the priorities of this Republican Congress and the 
record of the Republican Party and say: it is time for a new direction 
for our country.
  You need to look no further than the Labor-HHS conference report. It 
is a low point of a Republican Congress that is disengaged from the 
real needs of American families. This bill is a crowning achievement of 
a Republican agenda out of touch with voters.
  Republicans are ignoring the problems that matter most to families in 
Illinois and all across the country health care, education, and jobs.
  What we have is a bill that cuts education funding for the first, the 
first time in a decade, slashes health funding by more than $300 
million, and eliminates funding for trauma care.
  This bill pulls the rug out from under America's working families.
  Many working families have children in public schools. I have been in 
a lot of public schools in Illinois that serve lower income kids. No 
matter how successful those schools are, I can tell you--they don't 
have money to spare. This bill actually spends less Federal money on 
schools and education than any federal budget in the last 10 years.
  How can we in good conscience reduce our commitment to education for 
low-income kids in public schools?
  But perhaps one of the more striking failures of the reconferenced 
version of the Labor-HHS appropriations bill is the utter lack of 
concern over preparing for the avian flu.
  Never mind that this bill eliminates the $7.9 billion added to this 
bill on the Senate floor to help local hospitals and health departments 
get ready for what pandemic flu.
  This conference report goes so far as to take an additional $120 
million out of already underfunded accounts at the CDC-money 
specifically designated to prepare for pandemic flu.
  ``We'll take care of that later,'' we were told.
  Meanwhile, my understanding is that the Defense appropriations bill 
includes half of the funding the Senate approved--half of the funding 
the President requested--to prepare for avian flu.
  What is driving these cuts is a tax reconciliation that benefits 
corporations and the wealthiest among us. Those benefits come at the 
expense of basic guarantees for working American families--that they 
can have decent public schools; that they can see a doctor; that they 
have a chance to getting back into the workforce when they are out; and 
that if a killer flu pandemic breaks out in this country we will have 
the capacity, the drugs, and the organization to beat it back.
  As a member of the conference committee, I did not sign the 
conference report and strongly oppose it.
  Together, America can do better.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, tonight the Senate adopted the fiscal year 
2006 Labor-HHS-Education conference report by a voice vote. I would 
like to note for the Record that I do not support this legislation.
  This bill reflects the misguided priorities of the Republican 
Congress and will shortchange vital health care, education, and labor 
programs in order to cut taxes.
  At a time when the need for a well-educated, well-trained workforce 
is more critical than ever, Republican conferees provided education, 
health care, and job training programs $1.4 billion below last year's 
level.
  This bill cuts education funding for the first time in a decade. It 
cuts funding for No Child Left Behind Act programs, and the maximum 
Pell grant is frozen for the fourth year in a row, even as college 
costs are skyrocketing.

[[Page 30776]]

And, for the first time 10 years, the Federal Government will slide 
backward on its commitment to students with disabilities because this 
bill cuts the Federal share of the costs of special education.
  At a time when most Americans cite health care as their top priority, 
Republican conferees provided health care programs $466 million below 
last year's level, including a $137 million in cuts to rural health 
programs and a $185 million cut to the Bureau of Health Professions. 
Cutting these programs will make it even harder to recruit qualified 
professionals in many parts of the country.
  Moreover, Republican conferees eliminated nine vital health care 
programs altogether, including trauma care, rural emergency medical 
services, the geriatric education centers, health education training 
centers, and the healthy community access program. As a result of these 
cuts, not one new community health center will be created next year.
  At a time when we are the verge of major new breakthroughs in disease 
prevention and treatment, the conference agreement also includes the 
smallest percentage increase for the National Institutes of Health, 
NIH, since 1970, which will hinder promising medical research and 
disease prevention initiatives.
  These are just a few examples of the unconscionable cuts to crucial 
programs in this bill. Unfortunately, these cuts will be even deeper 
because the Republicans imposed an across-the-board cut against all 
nondefense and homeland security programs in the Defense appropriations 
bill.
  In summary, Mr. President this bill is bad for our children, bad for 
workers, bad for seniors, and bad for this nation. America can do 
better.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the conference 
report to accompany the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and 
Related Agencies Appropriations bill. This bill does not reflect our 
Nation's shared priorities and is a far cry from representing Wisconsin 
values. The people of Wisconsin value quality education for their 
children, affordable and decent health care for their families, and 
sound job training for workers. This bill falls short on all three 
accounts.
  For the first time in a decade, the LHHS bill cuts total Federal 
education funding. Funding for No Child Left Behind programs would be 
cut by $779 million bringing it to its lowest level since 2002. Funding 
for Title I, which serves low-income, disadvantaged students and 
schools across the nation, would receive $9.9 billion below the 
authorized level, its smallest increase in 8 years. And again, Congress 
fails to live up to its promise to provide 40 percent of the costs of 
educating students with disabilities: the bill cuts the Federal share 
of special education spending from 18.6 percent to 18.0 percent, just 
as our school districts are struggling to keep up with rising costs. 
Funding for Pell grant awards, which help make higher education 
affordable for many students, is frozen at $4,050 for the fourth year 
in a row, funding for Even Start and Education Technology is slashed, 
and funding for the National Youth Sports Program is eliminated, 
leaving almost 1,500 Wisconsin young people without summer enrichment 
programs they have come to count on. The list goes on and on.
  And education is not the only investment shortchanged. Some of the 
largest cuts in the LHHS bill are in programs that help shore up the 
health care safety net for people lacking other access to care and that 
address shortages of healthcare providers in underserved urban and 
rural areas. The conference report cuts funding for community health 
centers, which serve the uninsured and underinsured, to a lower level 
than provided in either the House or Senate versions of the bill. This 
amount would not allow a single new community health center to open in 
the coming year. Funding for the Bureau of Health Professions, which 
helps recruit qualified health professions throughout the country, 
would be cut by $185 million, including the elimination of geriatric 
education centers and health education training centers. Rural health 
programs would be cut by $137 million, including the elimination of the 
healthy community access program and rural emergency medical services.
  In addition, funding levels have not kept pace with our need for 
investment in lifesaving biomedical research. The National Institutes 
of Health's budget would receive a funding increase of less than 1 
percent, the smallest percentage increase to NIH since 1970. NIH will 
have to reduce the numbers of research grants awarded by 355. The bill 
would provide no increase in Federal funding for Alzheimer's research 
threatening the progress of promising research on that devastating 
disease. Less money would be available to support new research grants, 
attract talented, young researchers to the promising field of 
Alzheimer's research and fund clinical trials to test new drugs to 
treat the disease--and this is just one example of the damage to vital 
research that the LHHS conference report would do.
  Labor programs are not immune from the slash and burn approach to 
appropriations embodied in the conference report before us. They are 
cut by $430 million. At a time when five percent of Americans, and four 
and a half percent of people from my State of Wisconsin, are 
unemployed, this bill wrongly reduces adult job training by $31 million 
and youth job training by $36 million. Instead of helping the 
unemployed find work and providing training to upgrade the skills of 
those who have jobs, this conference report turns its back to them.
  I know we can do better for our children and families. I supported 
the Senate version of this bill, which was bipartisan and passed by a 
vote of 94-3. Unfortunately, this conference report falls far short; it 
is neither bipartisan nor bicameral, and actually provides $1.4 billion 
less than last year's level. In fact, LHHS is the only fiscal year 2006 
appropriations bill to receive an overall cut in funding from last 
year.
  I want to thank Senators Specter and Harkin for working tirelessly to 
improve this bill. I also want to thank them for the modest increases 
they provided in the CMS Survey and Certification program, the 
ombudsman program, as well as their work to restore Perkins funding. 
However, I cannot support a bill that forces our schools, our health 
care system, and our workforce to do more with less. I urge my 
colleagues to join me in rejecting this conference report.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Christmas spirit was nowhere to be 
found tonight on the floor of the United States Senate as Republicans 
rushed through unconscionable cuts to the programs that American 
families deserve. This conference report affects the lives of every 
single American, and it lets them down. It fails our commitments to the 
education of our children, to our health care, to the poor, and to our 
jobs. At a time when we should be moving forward, and helping families 
meet the challenges of higher costs, this conference report moves us 
backward.


                               Education

  Parents know that education is a critical factor in making the 
American dream a reality for their children. An educated citizenry also 
makes a strong Nation possible. We cannot compete in the world without 
skilled workers. We cannot maintain a strong defense without a skilled 
and educated military.
  Once again, the United States has been presented with a global 
challenge, as we were when the Soviets launched Sputnik in 1958. In 
order to face this challenge with confidence, we should invest in the 
transforming power of education. That's not what this conference report 
says. This conference report says that education is not a priority. It 
says global competitiveness is not a priority. It says basic fairness 
is not a priority. It says the American dream is not a priority.
  In the face of this global challenge, this conference report does not 
invest more in education. In fact, for the first time in a decade, this 
conference report cuts the education budget. As we learn more about the 
critical importance of early education, as our elementary and secondary 
schools struggle to help our children meet higher

[[Page 30777]]

standards, as a college degree is becoming an imperative, and as the 
cost of that degree is skyrocketing, the Federal budget for education 
is actually going down.
  If our country is to remain strong in this rapidly changing world, 
our economy must work for everyone, and every American must have an 
equal opportunity to succeed. No Child Left Behind is not just a 
political slogan. It's a solemn pledge to every parent and every child 
in America.
  At a time when requirements under the law are more demanding than 
ever, this conference report cuts funding overall for No Child Left 
Behind programs by $1 billion, for a total that is $13.4 billion less 
than promised in the law. Over 3.2 million children will be left 
behind. Next year, schools have to raise the bar for adequate yearly 
progress, administer tests in reading and math on an annual basis, and 
ensure that all teachers are highly qualified. This conference report 
tells them they're on their own.
  Title I--the key NCLB program, which targets disadvantaged students--
is cut for the first time in 13 years. Title I funds will be $28 
million lower than last year, and 160,000 fewer children will be 
served. Funding to Massachusetts schools will be cut more than $4.3 
million.
  The conference report cuts Head Start funds by $68.5 million, leaving 
750,000 eligible preschoolers without services, and dropping from the 
program 9,500 children who are currently enrolled in Head Start 
classrooms. It slashes the Even Start family literacy program, taking 
services away from nearly 35,000 children.
  The conference report cuts funds for after-school programs, denying 
after-school programs to 13,000 children currently enrolled. The 
conference report also cuts funds to keep our schools safe and drug-
free.
  With the first cut to special education funding in a decade, this 
conference report moves backwards on our commitment to disabled 
students. The Federal share of the cost of educating students with 
disabilities actually drops from 18.6 percent last year to 17.8 percent 
this year. The funding in the report is more than $4 billion short of 
the amount promised just 1 year ago when we passed the IDEA Improvement 
Act.
  At a time when American students are performing below the 
international average in math and science, the conference report cuts 
$13 million in funds for the Math and Science Partnerships at the 
Department of Education, leaving funding well below half of the amount 
promised in No Child Left Behind.
  At a time when technology is more and more prevalent in our lives and 
in our economy, this conference report continues the bewildering 
downward trend in educational technology funding. In fiscal year 2004, 
the program was funded at almost $700 million. This conference report 
includes $248 million, a 50 percent cut since last year and just over a 
third of the 2004 funding.
  At a time when college costs have skyrocketed 46 percent since 2001, 
and almost 400,000 college-ready students do not go to a 4-year college 
because of financial need, this conference report provides no increase 
in student aid. It leaves Pell grants frozen in place for the fourth 
year in a row.


                                  Jobs

  Just as this conference report leaves millions of children behind, it 
also leaves millions of American workers behind.
  Close to 8 million Americans are unemployed, and most remain 
unemployed for 18 weeks or more. The picture is so bleak that many 
workers have given up hope of finding work altogether. The real 
unemployment rate is almost 9 percent when these discouraged workers 
are counted.
  Workers affected by the recent storms in the gulf are particularly at 
risk. Hundreds of thousands of gulf coast workers continue to struggle 
to find work in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Twenty-five 
percent of Katrina evacuees are unemployed, including 30 percent of 
those evacuees that have been relocated across the country. African-
American and Hispanic evacuees fare even worse, with an overall 
unemployment rate of about 43 percent. Thus far, a total of 502,000 
initial claims for unemployment benefits can be traced to the two 
storms.
  Yet, the conference report would cut funding for unemployment 
insurance and employment services offices that help jobless workers 
around the country. The conference report also cuts job training, as 
many workers struggle to improve their skills in order to secure good 
jobs. These illogical steps are an insult to those struggling to 
recover from our Nation's greatest national disaster and those 
struggling to meet the challenges of a global economy.
  In addition, as we continue the long process of rebuilding the gulf 
coast, thousands of relief and recovery workers are facing toxic 
working conditions. Workers cleaning up in the aftermath of the storms 
are being exposed to hazardous chemicals, oil and sewage contaminated 
waters, mold, and other hazardous substances. Even outside of the gulf 
coast region, death rates among Hispanic and immigrant workers continue 
to be alarmingly high. Yet, our Government will be doing less to 
protect the lives and health of our workers. The small, 1.8 percent 
increase that the conference report provides for funding the 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration is more than eaten up by 
inflation and won't be enough to maintain current levels of enforcement 
and training.
  The conference report also short-sightedly ignores the future needs 
of health care workers. We are facing a looming threat of a pandemic 
flu epidemic, yet the conference report prohibits the Department of 
Labor from enforcing key safety standards to protect health care 
workers from tuberculosis. These are very basic measures that would 
help protect healthcare workers from all deadly infectious diseases, 
and it is unconscionable to bow to special interests at the expense of 
those who will be on the front lines of our battle against this public 
health crisis.
  In addition to threatening the safety of American workers, the 
conference report also threatens their job security. It is hardly news 
to any of us that globalization is rapidly creating a single global 
workforce. Now more than ever, the jobs of American workers are at risk 
due to the poor wages and working conditions in other parts of the 
world. It's critical that we invest in efforts to improve working 
conditions around the world, for the sake of all workers, including our 
own. Yet, the conference report slashes the budget for the 
International Labor Affairs Bureau, ILAB, by 22 percent--from $93 
million to $72.5 million--threatening our ability to protect American 
jobs and protect the basic rights of workers and children across the 
globe.


                                 Health

  The conference report also fails to protect American families from 
public health catastrophes.
  Congress has few higher priorities than protecting the American 
people from the deadly strain of influenza that is threatening the 
world and could take the lives of millions of Americans and damage the 
health of millions more.
  The threat from this deadly new disease has been compounded by our 
inattention and failure to prepare. For years, public health experts 
sounded warning after warning about the devastation that a flu pandemic 
would bring, but year after year, we failed to respond to this deadly 
threat in its earliest stages.
  Canada, Australia, Britain, Japan, and other nations released plans 
long ago. They're implementing their plans now, but the Bush 
administration has put out a plan for only one Federal agency. A 
response plan for the Department of Health and Human Services is a 
critical first step, but even that plan is incomplete. It's missing the 
actual operational plans for responding to a pandemic.
  The President has called, however, for a significant investment in 
preparedness. I attended his speech at NIH, where he urged that $7 
billion be appropriated immediately for preparedness.
  We still have time to avert the serious consequences that a pandemic

[[Page 30778]]

would bring, but only if we act now to begin improving our readiness. 
The Senate heeded the call to action by unanimously approving an 
amendment for $8 billion in preparedness funding offered by Senator 
Harkin.
  But the Republican leadership isn't on board. They stripped the $8 
billion amendment out of this conference report, and provided only half 
that amount in the Defense Appropriations conference report. These 
irresponsible cuts will mean that critical programs will have to be 
delayed. Which parts of our response do our Republican colleagues think 
we should delay? Production of new vaccines? Stockpiling of flu 
medicine? Support for hospitals and health agencies preparing for the 
pandemic? I'd like to hear them explain to the American people which of 
these activities they think are unimportant, which of these priorities 
can wait, and which are not needed if disaster strikes.
  This conference report also means that we will fail to capitalize on 
the promise of this century of the life sciences. With the 1 percent 
across the board cut, funding for NIH will decrease. This has happened 
only four other times in NIH history. This is woefully inadequate to 
maintain our tradition of research excellence and breakthrough medical 
science. This is the lowest NIH funding level in 35 years and the 
research and development budget fails to keep up with inflation. These 
budget cuts will mean that four of five innovative new ideas will be 
ignored. Over 500 new research grants will fall by the wayside. It's 
unbelievable that with the threat of a pandemic looming over America, 
the Republican Congress is denying the resources we need to discover 
new, life-saving treatments and cures.
  Not only does the conference report not include funding for the avian 
flu preparedness, funding that would help to improve State and local 
preparedness against bioterrorist attacks was cut by over $96 million.
  As we know, maintaining the health of our Nation is not limited to 
emergency preparedness. Providing basic health services to the most 
vulnerable Americans and health promotion, and disease prevention are 
also vitally important. But this conference report cuts critical health 
promotion and prevention programs at the CDC will be cut by $307 
million and HRSA programs are slashed by $754 million.
  This conference report funds community health centers, that serve as 
a safety net of care for the most vulnerable, at less than half of the 
increase passed by the Senate, while eliminating the Healthy 
Communities Access Program which provides funds for health care 
providers, community-based organizations and local government to 
coordinate and strengthen health services for the poor and uninsured 
members of their communities. Funding is also cut for critical health 
professions training programs that address the shortages of providers 
and train them to deliver care in underserved areas and to serve the 46 
million Americans who lack health insurance--often in community health 
centers. Funding for critical health professions training programs that 
encourage diversity in the health professions and train health care 
providers that will deliver care in underserved areas are cut 52 
percent and training for geriatric medicine was cut by 100 percent.
  With a 1 percent across the board cut, several programs, including 
family planning and HIV/AIDS prevention programs, will now receive a 
decrease in funding, despite the growing need for these services.


                                 LIHEAP

  The conference report leaves our poorest Americans out in the cold in 
a time of soaring energy prices. Households heating primarily with 
natural gas will pay an average of $281 more this winter for heat--an 
increase of an incredible 38 percent over last year. Those relying 
primarily on oil for heat will pay $255 more--an increase of 21 
percent.
  This fall, the Senate voted against fully funding LIHEAP four times, 
and this conference report only provides flat funds. This is 
unacceptable.
  We know that heating costs are at record levels this year.
  Big oil profits are fatter than ever. Exxon-Mobil--the largest oil 
company in the United States--reported 3rd quarter profits of almost 
$10 billion, a 75 percent increase over last year.
  Exxon-Mobil alone made $10 billion in the last quarter--yet the 
Republican leadership refuses to fund LIHEAP at its authorized level of 
$5.1 billion. The Republican leadership is Robin Hood in reverse--
robbing the poor to pay the rich.
  So this conference report leaves our children behind, American 
workers behind, and American families behind. It leaves America behind.
  It's unfortunate that Christmas comes this week, because this 
conference report is the Grinch that steals Christmas for so many. 
While the neediest Americans are struggling to find some hope this 
season, the special interests are sledding away with all the presents. 
Bah humbug.
  We should embrace the hopes and dreams of millions of Americans--not 
abandon them, as this conference report does. All parents want their 
children to have lives of fulfillment and opportunity; to raise strong 
and healthy families and afford to live comfortably in safe 
neighborhoods. Our actions in Congress should strengthen, not weaken 
America.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the conference report is 
agreed to, and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

                          ____________________