[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 19177-19213]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, during 
consideration of H.R. 3043 pursuant to House Resolution 547, the Chair 
may reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for electronic voting under 
clause 6 of rule XVIII and clauses 8 and 9 of rule XX.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 547 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. 3043.

                              {time}  1601


                     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. 3043) making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health 
and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies for the fiscal 
year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes, with Mrs. 
Tauscher in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Walsh) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, this bill, more than any other, determines 
how willing we are to make the investment necessary to assure the 
future strength of this country and its working families. We strengthen 
the country when we strengthen our families. We strengthen our country 
when we invest in workers to have the most competitive workforce in the 
world.
  The decisions we make in any one year are not decisive. But if we do 
not think in long term, if we do not recognize the kind of country we 
will be in 10 years, we will not make the investments necessary to 
prepare for that world and we will be shortchanging the future of every 
American.
  Because he has chosen to put his desire to give $50 billion in tax 
breaks to those make $1 million a year, and his desire to spend $140 
billion on Iraq ahead of those investments, the President has chosen to 
cut those investments by this bill by more than $7.5 billion in real 
terms.
  This bill rejects most of those cuts because we cannot disinvest in 
the country's future without hurting national security and the future 
of every

[[Page 19178]]

American family. Instead of cutting $7.5 billion, as the President 
requested, we eliminate or cut 41 programs, saving $1.1 billion. We 
then increase investments in critical programs by about $4.5 billion in 
real terms, or 2.8 percent over last year, after adjusting for 
inflation and population change.
  Now, why do we do that? Because in 10 years there will be 27 million 
more Americans, 12 million more seniors needing health care, 2.7 
million more kids in elementary and secondary school, 2.2 million more 
students in college, 11 million more Americans will be without health 
insurance, unless we wise up and wake up and change our policies. And 
within 7 years, half of the Nation's job growth will be in occupations 
requiring higher education skills.
  To meet those challenges, with this bill we target modest increases 
to crucial high priority activities to attack deficits in worker 
training, deficits in health care, deficits in education access.
  On a bipartisan basis, without a dissenting vote, we've provided $450 
million above the President's inadequate request for Title I to help an 
additional 155,000 disadvantaged students. Instead of wiping out every 
student aid program except Pell and Work Study, we rejected the 
President's cuts and raised the maximum Pell Grant by $650 over the 
last year to help over 5 million students go to college.
  We reversed the 3-year decline in Federal support for special 
education. Mr. Walsh, the ranking member of this subcommittee, has 
taken a leadership role in that regard.
  We reversed the President's cuts in teacher training. We provided new 
after-school opportunities for 163,000 more students.
  On health care, nobody has ever come up to me at home and said, 
``Obey, why don't you guys get your act together and cut cancer 
research?'' But that's exactly what Congress did the last 2 years, 
cutting NIH research grants by over 500 grants. Well, we've stopped 
that.
  In January, we reversed the President's cuts and this bill adds 
another $1 billion above the President's request, which would again cut 
research grants.
  We have also included a package of five initiatives to put health 
care within the reach of more than 2 million additional Americans; $200 
million to expand access to health and dental care at community health 
centers, $75 million to help States expand health coverage for targeted 
populations, $50 million to help States provide affordable health 
insurance for 200,000 people who are medical high risks and cannot get 
insurance from the private market, $20 million to help trade impacted 
workers benefit from the Health Coverage Tax credit, and added funding 
to help Medicare beneficiaries to get health insurance counseling.
  Because of high energy prices, we have added $880 million to the 
President's request for low income heating assistance, reversing half 
the cut Congress and the President made last year.
  To discourage abortions, instead of lecturing, we provide a $1.4 
billion package of incentives to provide real world help to women 
through expanded Head Start, child care, domestic violence programs, 
maternal and child health care, family planning and abstinence 
programs.
  To help workers, we reverse the President's cuts in a range of 
workforce training programs. We also provide a $100 million increase 
above the President to help reduce Social Security claims backlogs and 
to keep more Social Security offices open.
  Now the President claims that this bill amounts to runaway spending. 
Fact: From 1980 to today, domestic appropriations, as a percentage of 
total national income, have declined hugely. The President's budget 
would cut them to a level 48 percent below the 1980 level, and by 2012, 
to a level 57 percent below 1980. That's hardly runaway growth. That is 
a steady bleed of America's quality of life and America's future.
  For the President to borrow $1.2 trillion to pay for tax cuts, and 
$600 billion to pay for Iraq, including another $140 billion next year, 
and then pretend that this modest 2 percent difference with him is the 
cause of fiscal irresponsibility is sheer nonsense, and many 
enlightened Republicans know it.
  These investments are not just fiscally responsible, they are 
necessary for the future health and strength of the Nation.
  One other point. We will today hear complaints about earmarks in this 
bill. Let us be clear, the last time Congress was in Democratic hands 
there were no earmarks in this bill. Under Republican rule, they 
exploded from zero to over 3,000.
  This bill has cut back the dollar level for earmarks to half the 
level in the 2006 bill. Exactly two-tenths of 1 percent of the total 
funding in this bill go for congressionally directed earmarks.
  And let me also point out that the amount of dollars in spending 
directed by the Congress is a tiny fraction of the amount directed by 
the Administration. First, for instance, the Administration in this 
bill requests specific earmarks, $10 million for Reach Out and Read, 
$10 million for Teach for America, $9 million for the Points of Light 
Foundation, $4.5 million for America's Promise, $1.7 million for the 
Mind and Body Institute, $1.4 million for the YMCA.
  On top of that, in 2006 alone, the Health and Social Services 
Department directed spending of $1.9 billion through 21,000 contracts 
that were less than fully competed. That alone is more than seven times 
the amount of congressionally directed spending in this bill.
  In the Labor Department, 90 percent of discretionary funding for the 
High Growth Job Training Program was spent on a noncompetitive basis.
  The Office of Inspector General found that the Education Department 
strong-armed State and local school districts to select textbooks from 
favored publishers. Madison, Wisconsin, in my own State, lost its $2 
million Reading First grant because they refused to purchase texts from 
an inferior program. Yet, the most thoroughly evaluated programs, like 
Success for All and Reading Recovery, were frozen out by the program 
administrators.
  ABC reported that one publisher with good connections at the White 
House saw its corporate net worth rise from $5 million to $360 million, 
with a little help from their friends.
  The Office of Inspector General has made criminal references to the 
Justice Department, and we have cut Reading First until the 
Administration changes its ways.
  So I would simply say, Madam Chairman, spare us the Administration's 
sanctimony about earmarks or directed spending, and please spare us the 
pretense that this bill has anything to do with the fiscal mess this 
country faces. It is a disciplined set of investments. Virtually every 
Republican amendment in committee did not seek to cut funding, rather 
it sought to increase it.
  I appreciate the bipartisan support for the bill in committee. I 
appreciate the partnership with Mr. Walsh, the ranking member.
  People who have reviewed it most closely, Republicans and Democrats 
alike, know this bill is responsible and disciplined.
  Just one comparison. The Administration's defense request, even 
without counting the $140 billion in new money that they're asking for 
in their supplemental, that defense bill is still $43 billion above 
last year, which is at least four times as large as the difference 
between the committee and the Congress on this bill.
  I would urge every Member who thinks about this country's future to 
support this bill.

[[Page 19179]]

TH17JY07.001



[[Page 19180]]

TH17JY07.002



[[Page 19181]]

TH17JY07.003



[[Page 19182]]

TH17JY07.004



[[Page 19183]]

TH17JY07.005



[[Page 19184]]

TH17JY07.006



[[Page 19185]]

TH17JY07.007



[[Page 19186]]

TH17JY07.008



[[Page 19187]]

TH17JY07.009



[[Page 19188]]

TH17JY07.010



[[Page 19189]]

TH17JY07.011



[[Page 19190]]

TH17JY07.012



[[Page 19191]]

TH17JY07.013



[[Page 19192]]

TH17JY07.014



[[Page 19193]]

TH17JY07.015



[[Page 19194]]

TH17JY07.016



[[Page 19195]]

TH17JY07.017



[[Page 19196]]

TH17JY07.018



[[Page 19197]]

TH17JY07.019



[[Page 19198]]

TH17JY07.020



[[Page 19199]]

TH17JY07.021



[[Page 19200]]

  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALSH of New York. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I'd like to begin my remarks by thanking Chairman Obey for his 
willingness to accommodate many of the programmatic requests that we 
made. I appreciate his attention to the concerns important to my 
constituents and to my State.
  As you know, this is a very complex and demanding bill, and Chairman 
Obey's staff has done a fine job supporting him in this task. I also 
would like to recognize Steve Crane and Anne Marie Goldsmith from the 
minority office for their attention to detail in this legislation.
  Let's make no mistake. This bill spends a great deal of money, 
approximately $6.5 billion more than last year in discretionary 
funding. But this bill addresses many of the most critical issues 
confronting our Nation--our families' health care, our children's 
education, our retirement security and our own workplace protection and 
job training needs.
  If I were chairman, and I had this allocation, I'm not sure I would 
have written the bill a whole lot differently.
  Specifically, this bill provides needed increases for community 
health centers. It advances my long-time efforts to advance funding for 
graduate medical education, of which my State, New York, trains 20 
percent of the doctors in the Nation. So it is of critical importance 
to our teaching hospitals. And also the need for our Nation's poison 
control centers.
  It funds important biomedical research, telemedicine and electronic 
medical records, which in the long run will dramatically reduce the 
cost of medical expenses.

                              {time}  1615

  It recognizes the need to provide seniors and those on fixed incomes 
with assistance paying high utility bills through the LIHEAP program. 
It continues Republican-led efforts to boost Federal funding for 
elementary and secondary education in support of the No Child Left 
Behind bill and also supporting programs for youth at risk. And thanks 
to my committee colleagues' support, the bill includes my amendment to 
boost funding for special education.
  As most of you know, when the Individuals with Disabilities in 
Education Act passed in 1977, Congress authorized annual Federal 
expenditures of 40 percent to help cover the cost of education for 
children with special needs. But in 1995 the Federal Government paid 
only 7.8 percent of those costs for our children with disabilities. 
That puts an additional burden on our local school districts. If we are 
only paying about 8 percent of the cost, that means they are forced to 
cover the other 92 percent instead of the 60 percent that we had told 
them they would have to cover. With this increase, we will provide just 
under 18 percent of the cost in 2008, or about half of our commitment. 
At least it is progress in the right direction.
  This increased Federal support is important. Back in my home State of 
New York, the instructional expense for regular education for a student 
in 2003 and 2004 was $8,177 per student. For a special education 
student that cost was about double, $17,600. This bill boosts the 
maximum Pell Grant award to make a college education more attainable 
for more Americans, and it supports initiatives for senior health and 
wellness.
  I am grateful to Chairman Obey for including funds to take care of 
the health needs of those who responded heroically, and in many cases 
putting their own health and lives at risk, to the September 11 
terrorist attacks in New York City.
  And I thank the chairman for responding to my request and attending 
to an issue of growing importance to more and more young American 
families: the emerging threat of food allergies. Food allergies more 
and more are affecting families across the country, and nobody really 
understands what is going on, why these allergies are occurring, but 
they do put these young people's lives at risk. This bill provides a 
new line of funding for research and outreach to parents of children 
with food allergies. While it is only a small amount of money that is 
necessary for the effort this year, the impact it will have is 
dramatic.
  In addition, I have some concerns with the additional $2 billion in 
advance funding that was provided by the Budget Committee. My concern 
is that advance funding can cause serious problems if future 
allocations for this bill are not as robust.
  With that said, again I would like to congratulate Chairman Obey and 
his staff for what I think on the whole is a well-written bill. I want 
to reiterate my appreciation for his willingness to work with us.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I would also like to take this time to thank all of the staff people 
who worked on this bill, most especially Rob Nabors, Christina 
Hamilton, John Daniel, Lesley Turner, Kirstin Brost, Cheryl Smith, Sue 
Quantius, Nicole Kunko, Muftiah McCartin, Teri Bergman, Andria Oliver, 
Beth Chaney, Steve Crane, Anne Marie Goldsmith, Ron Anderson, and the 
associate staff as well. We certainly could not have put together the 
bill without them, and without them we would be making a whole lot more 
mistakes than we are likely to make today.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve balance of my time.
  Mr. WALSH of New York. Madam Chairman, at this time I yield such time 
as he may consume to my distinguished leader on the committee, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Chairman, I want to express my 
appreciation to both Chairman Obey and my ranking member, the gentleman 
from New York, for the cooperative spirit in which they worked to 
produce this bill, a very difficult bill in the final analysis. With 
that, I would like to say to Mr. Obey I very much appreciate his 
ongoing cooperation as we try to work on all the bills in the 
appropriations process this year to make some sense out of a very 
difficult year. I would also like to express my deep appreciation for 
the fabulous work done by the staff of this committee.
  And having gone that far, Madam Chairman, let me say that the fiscal 
year 2008 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education and Related 
Agencies bill, Labor-HHS, reflects a fundamental difference in opinion 
on the level of funding necessary to support the Federal Government's 
role in education, health and workforce programs. Regardless of that 
disagreement, House Republicans agree that many of the programs funded 
in this bill are vitally important. The majority party would have the 
public believe otherwise.
  In fact, House Republicans have shown the American people over the 
past 12 years that we recognize the importance of these programs. With 
history as our witness, we have demonstrated our commitment not in 
words but in action.
  It should not be forgotten that it was House Republicans who 
demonstrated a commitment to fundamental research by doubling the 
budget of National Institutes for Health. It was House Republicans who 
bolstered the discretionary budget for the Department of Education by 
72 percent in inflation-adjusted dollars.
  Even with our unquestionable dedication to the programs in this bill 
over the last 12 years, Republicans stand accused by the Democratic 
majority of shortchanging fundamental research, shortchanging 
education, and according to the rhetoric of the day, shortchanging our 
very future. This rhetoric diminishes all that we do as elected 
officials, and it does not serve the Congress or our country well.
  The primary difference is that Republicans believe that we must 
balance the benefits of these worthwhile programs with the fact that 
the American taxpayer must pay for them.
  I know that Chairman Obey feels very strongly about the Labor-H bill. 
He is now working two full-time jobs as chairman of the full committee 
and chairman of this subcommittee. He has

[[Page 19201]]

also devoted one-half of the $20 billion or so increase over the 
President's budget request in the fiscal year 2008 302(b) allocation to 
the priorities contained in this bill.
  The fiscal year 2008 Labor-H bill is $10.2 billion over the 
President's budget request and $6.6 billion over the fiscal year 2007 
enacted level. Chairman Obey has said repeatedly that it is necessary 
to increase the subcommittee allocation dramatically to make up for the 
past funding shortfalls. But I remind the chairman that these programs 
have grown by $85 billion over the last 13 years.
  When Labor-HHS Chairman Neil Smith, a Democrat, presented his bill in 
1994, total discretionary budget authority totaled $65 billion. If he 
had predicted in 1994 that this very same bill, which largely covers 
the same agencies today as it did then, would increase by $85 billion 
over the next 13 years, the chairman of the full committee, who 
happened to be David Obey, probably would not have believed it.
  By any objective standard, whether you are Jerry Lewis or David Obey, 
$85 billion is a healthy increase, and today the committee is poised to 
spend an additional $10.2 billion under the mistaken notion that 
throwing money at our Nation's problems will cause them to fade away.
  While many of these programs are popular on both sides of the aisle, 
a $10.2 billion increase is not without consequence, particularly when 
this bill contains what can rightly be considered lower priority and 
duplicative programs. For example, the committee-reported bill provides 
$420 million in 2-year advance appropriations for the Corporation for 
Public Broadcasting. Most objective observers will agree that providing 
these resources may be nice to do, but it hardly measures up to 
providing health care services to the poorest of Americans in terms of 
its priority.
  Furthermore, there are a host of programs in the bill that duplicate 
activities that are funded elsewhere, not just in this bill but in 
other appropriations bills as well. For example, this legislation 
continues three programs that deal with violence prevention; one in the 
Labor Department, another in the Department of Health and Human 
Services, the third in the Department of Education. There are 
additional programs within the jurisdiction of the Department of 
Justice that serve exactly the same purpose. Little real oversight was 
conducted to ferret out unnecessary and wasteful spending on these 
duplicative programs.
  Yet another example is the funding the bill provides within the 
Administration for Children and Families for community economic 
development. According to this very committee report, these funds are 
intended to support employment, training, and business development 
opportunities for low-income residents in poor communities. Services 
that are already provided by the Department of Labor, the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development, and the Economic Development 
Administration.
  Surely the majority party could have met the very highest priority 
needs in this bill such as community health care centers or programs 
providing funding to educate youngsters living in poverty by 
eliminating duplicative programs or curtailing spending on lower 
priorities. Instead of making the tough choices between high- and low-
priority programs or eliminating the duplication, this bill takes the 
easy way out: just spend more money.
  The budget resolution adopted by the Democrat majority earlier this 
year and the appropriations bills that we are now considering spend 
some $23 billion more than the President requested. As we move forward 
with consideration of the fiscal year 2008 appropriations bills, 
Members of Congress ought to be aware that the average additional 
burden on the individual taxpayer to finance the spending spree 
outlined in the majority's budget will amount to roughly $3,000 to the 
individual taxpayer, $3,000.
  I know it is difficult for many Members to oppose substantial 
increases in these popular programs; however, I remind Chairman Obey 
and our colleagues that these increases are not without consequence.
  Make no mistake about it. Excessive spending will force the American 
taxpayer to shoulder the burden of this extra spending. And if past is 
prologue, we will continue to pass this debt along to future 
generations.
  As we complete consideration of our work this week, the House will 
have approved an additional $20.4 billion in spending above the 
President's budget request for the next year. This level is $36.4 
billion above the fiscal year 2007 enacted level.
  So where is the Appropriations Committee in terms of getting its work 
done this year? It is July 17 and the House has five bills left to 
complete. The Senate has yet to take any of its bills to the floor and 
likely will not this month. Based on the present pace in both bodies, I 
have grave concern about our ability to complete our work this year 
through the regular order process.
  Chairman Obey is fond of pointing out that the process in the House 
this year has been delayed by having to complete action on the fiscal 
year 2007 bills. It is no surprise that he often fails to mention the 
role that the Senate played in this equation. The Senate failed to 
complete its work last year, and today history is repeating itself.
  It is ironically unfortunate that the same type of legislative train 
wreck is likely to occur again this year. The scenario is becoming more 
and more apparent with each passing day. While it is only July, if past 
experience is any guide, a warning is in order. Once again the Senate 
is showing absolutely no inclination or ability towards moving 
appropriations bills, setting up the inevitable end-of-the-year omnibus 
strategy.
  My colleagues, it has not yet been stated in so many words, but this 
is, or soon will become, the strategy to complete our work this year. 
And mark my words, not only will most of our appropriations bills end 
up in an omnibus, it will be a well-adorned Christmas tree filled with 
plenty of legislative goodies, perfectly timed to coincide with the 
holidays.

                              {time}  1630

  I want to be very clear about this, an omnibus is absolutely the 
wrong and fiscally reckless approach to completing this year's work. It 
would inflate the budget deficit, reward bad behavior, and negate any 
semblance of fiscal discipline demonstrated by this body in recent 
years.
  Short of passing our conference reports individually, the best 
alternative would be to once again pass a clean year-long continuing 
resolution at the current rate of fiscal year 2007 levels, and without 
Member projects. That is, of course, an undesirable option. But if at 
the end of the process the House and the Senate cannot complete their 
work in a responsible fashion, passing a clean CR will be the best 
option remaining to complete this year's work.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).
  Mrs. LOWEY. Thank you to Chairman Obey, Ranking Member Walsh, and 
their staff for their hard work in crafting this bill.
  At the start of the year, Chairman Obey asked us to consider not only 
the challenges of today, but those of the year ahead, and I believe the 
bill does just that. The bill addresses the appalling reality that 46 
million people in this country lack health insurance by providing a 
$200 million increase for community health centers, $75 million for 
grants for States to develop plans to cover their uninsured, $75 
million for States to create insurance pools for high-risk individuals. 
Furthermore, recognizing that one of the best ways to keep women 
healthy is to provide them with access to high-quality family planning 
services and other preventative health care, the bill provides a $27 
million increase to the Title X family program for low-income women.
  The bill acknowledges that millions of students are shut out of 
college for financial reasons or lack of preparation in the early years 
and increases the

[[Page 19202]]

maximum Pell Grant award by $200, restores proposed cuts to 
supplemental education grants, and increases both GEAR UP and TRIO.
  The bill provides desperately needed relief to after-school programs 
by increasing 21st Century Community Learning Centers by $125 million. 
As a result of the Republican-controlled Congress level funding this 
program for more than 5 years in a row, thousands of children, 
including more than 34,000 in New York could lose these programs if 
this increase isn't approved quickly.
  At a time when we're on the cusp of finding cures for some of the 
world's most devastating diseases, this bill increases our investment 
in biomedical research, and the bill provides a $700 million increase 
for NIH which would allow for hundreds of new research grants.
  However, I would be remiss if I didn't express my disappointment that 
the mark also includes an increase by the same amount for abstinence-
only programs when there is mounting evidence questioning the accuracy 
of some of the curriculum taught in those programs.
  We all agree that we must teach our children that abstinence is the 
best way to prevent pregnancy and STDs. We should all also agree that 
abstinence-until-marriage programs must provide children with the most 
medically accurate information available. Unfortunately, study after 
study has found that many of these programs teach inaccurate and even 
harmful information to our young people.
  I also hope to work with Chairman Obey as the bill moves through the 
legislative process to reverse the potential damage of the large 
Workforce Investment Act reduction that was passed during Committee 
markup. If these cuts are enacted, New York could lose approximately 
$28 million in worker training funds.
  Despite these two concerns, this bill--for the first time in a number 
of years--takes big steps towards addressing some of our nation's most 
pressing challenges. I am proud to support it, and I encourage my 
colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. WALSH of New York. Madam Chairman, I now yield 4 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), former chairman of the 
committee.
  Mr. REGULA. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the fiscal year 2008 
appropriations bill for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human 
Services, Education, and related agencies.
  As you know, I chaired the subcommittee responsible for providing the 
funding in this bill for the previous 6 years, and I am pleased to 
provide my support today. The bill provides Federal funds that touch 
every American. And it's important in serving as the backbone for our 
medical research, job training, and key education programs at all 
levels of learning.
  I do want to compliment Chairman Obey and Ranking Member Walsh on the 
excellent job they did in crafting this legislation. Within the bill's 
allocation, they have targeted increased dollars in key areas that I 
strongly support.
  First, as we continue to ask for more in the performance of our 
teachers and students under the No Child Left Behind Act, we continue 
to maintain the vital role the classroom teacher plays in student 
achievement. I am extremely pleased that the bill funds the Teacher 
Incentive Fund, a program that awards teachers for student achievement 
at $99 million.
  Next, our Nation's future economic success depends on an educated 
population. An education that ends at high school no longer suffices in 
our globally competitive world. Therefore, I strongly support the 
increase in the Pell Grant for students, which reaches a new high of 
$4,700 in this bill.
  Our Nation's biomedical research effort has made great strides since 
we doubled the funding for the National Institutes of Health during my 
tenure and led by our previous speaker in years past.
  I am pleased that the bill will build on NIH funding in our continued 
attempts as a Nation to seek treatments and cures for the debilitating 
diseases that strike us, our family and friends.
  Next, I talked about our competitive global economy, and I support 
funding to assist our current workers in improving their skills through 
the Department of Labor's employment and job training programs that are 
passed through to our local communities for use directly in these 
communities and for Jobs Corps, which gives our young people a second 
chance to participate in the workforce in society.
  I could go on highlighting the numerous programs in the bill that 
impact Americans. But let me close by expressing my support for the 
increase in funding for the administrative costs for the Social 
Security Administration.
  While the benefits Americans receive for Social Security or 
disability support are provided through mandatory spending, without 
good people and a sufficient staff to process these claims, the program 
would not run. Therefore, I support the $400 million increase in 
funding for the SSA administrative cost. Americans deserve effective 
and efficient responses to their claim requests. And with that funding, 
I'm hopeful the SSA will continue to improve and shorten its response 
times.
  Again, this is a very good bill. I congratulate my colleagues on the 
subcommittee for their work in bringing it before us today. I urge my 
colleagues in the House to support this bill.
  Mr. WALSH of New York. Madam Chairman, may I inquire as to how much 
time is remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York has 10 minutes; the 
gentleman from Wisconsin has 17 minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson).
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I want to thank the Chair for the time.
  Madam Chairman, I rise to voice my strong support for H.R. 4033, the 
Labor-HHS bill. There is no bill that Congress produces on an annual 
basis that has such a profound impact on everyday people's lives like 
this bill.
  I want to congratulate Chairman Obey and the subcommittee staff on 
the product that is before us today. I also want to thank Ranking 
Member Walsh and the minority subcommittee staff working with us to 
produce this bill.
  I think former Labor-HHS Chairman Ralph Regula said it best when he 
described this bill as the ``people's bill.'' And I want to commend the 
gentleman for his statement in support of this product.
  This might seem obvious, but your view depends on where you stand. 
From where I stand, I see an America today where the overall 
unemployment rate is 4.5 percent. For African Americans it's 8.5 
percent. The average life expectancy is 77.6 years. For African 
Americans it is 69.2. Sixty-three percent of white students graduate 
from college. For African Americans, it's 43 percent. These numbers 
represent real problems for real people that need real solutions, not 
tax cuts and amendments to cut 1 percent and .5 percent across the 
board. This bill is a solution that illustrates how Congress can solve 
real problems.
  We've heard from the other side already language like ``wrong,'' 
``fiscally and recklessly irresponsible.'' The entire debate about 
earmarks is to divert our attention away from these very real problems 
that this bill seeks to solve.
  Specifically, this bill includes a $43 million nominal increase for 
Job Corps, projecting the administration's proposal to cut 4,310 
student training slots. The administration's request for CDC would have 
reduced funding for our primary health activities by $159.4 million, 
cutting childhood immunizations, State and local public health 
emergency preparedness, and efforts to combat chronic diseases such as 
diabetes and heart disease and emerging infection.
  Madam Chairman, I encourage Members to look at the facts around this 
bill and to be supportive.
  Mr. WALSH of New York. Madam Chairman, I now yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida, a member of the subcommittee, Dr. Weldon.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise to speak about an amendment that was introduced by me in the 
committee, and overwhelmingly adopted by

[[Page 19203]]

the committee by voice vote. And I rise mainly to address the concerns 
being raised by members of the American Academy of Pediatrics and other 
members sending letters to the Congress from the public health 
community.
  Let me state from the outset, as a physician, I strongly support 
vaccinating children and adults. Indeed, I gave a lot of vaccines. 
Immunizing kids against the flu is a particularly good idea. It 
prevents the kids from getting the flu, but it also, because children 
have bad personal hygiene and they tend to spread the flu around if 
they get it, by vaccinating kids and preventing them from getting the 
flu you actually prevent adults from getting the flu.
  Certainly I believe the American Academy of Pediatrics is a great 
organization, as are the public health officials who do the work in 
administering these vaccines, even though they are complaining about my 
amendment.
  Let me just state from the outset, my amendment simply implements the 
policy that the American Academy of Pediatrics established in 1999, 
when they stated, The Public Health Service, the American Academy of 
Pediatrics and vaccine manufacturers agree that thimerosal-containing 
vaccines should be removed as soon as possible. My amendment does 
nothing more than implement that policy.
  Thimerosal is a mercury-containing preservative that is toxic. If I 
brought some thimerosal to this Chamber, spilled it on that table, we 
would have to evacuate the Chamber. That is how toxic it is.
  Now, in 1999, the manufacturers, in coordination with the AAP, the 
CDC and the drug industry, removed all of the mercury from all of the 
childhood vaccines in 18 months. They removed it from the DPT and the 
hepatitis B. Eighteen months after adopting that policy in 1999, all of 
the pediatric vaccines had been produced and manufactured without any 
mercury in them. And then in 2004, a decision was made to add flu 
vaccine to the vaccine scheduled for children. And since that time it 
has been very difficult for me to get the American Academy of 
Pediatrics and the CDC and the manufacturers to take this issue 
seriously and get the mercury out of the childhood vaccines.
  And let me just also add, this is a bipartisan issue. I have a bill 
that I've introduced with Representative Carolyn Maloney from New York 
to get all this mercury out. There are many Democrats and many 
Republicans on this bill.
  Now, some of the people who are opposing my amendment are actually 
claiming that children who were not vaccinated last year who got the 
flu died, and if there's not enough flu vaccine available, that more 
children may not get vaccinated and there may be more deaths. I would 
like to just simply point out that one of the issues here is public 
confidence in the vaccine program, and that many of these parents who 
didn't get their kids vaccinated maybe didn't get their kids vaccinated 
because they were concerned about the mercury in the flu vaccine. And, 
indeed, you might ask the question of the deaths that occurred last 
year, might some of them not have occurred if we had a mercury-free 
vaccine on the market?
  Now, I want to refer to this chart briefly because I think this 
basically says it all.
  In 2004, we were producing a little bit over 80 million doses of flu 
vaccine, and today we're producing over 130 million doses. But yet, 
officials have made no attempt to increase the amount of mercury-free 
vaccine that is being produced in this country. Mind you, the Europeans 
are producing more than enough mercury-free to vaccinate their kids. 
They have figured out how to do it. Mind you, I said earlier 18 months 
was all it took to get the mercury out of all of the other childhood 
vaccines. And why, after all these years, year after year, they say 
they want to get the mercury out of the childhood vaccines and they're 
not doing it. They're got getting it out of the flu vaccine. And they 
can do it and they will do it.
  What this really boils down to, my colleagues, is an issue of 
leadership. CDC, AAP, the public health community has not exercised 
proper leadership on this issue, and it falls to us to do the right 
thing.
  The language that I put in this bill is not covering this flu season, 
it's covering next flu season. They have more than a year to address 
this issue. I think they can. And that's why I put that language in the 
bill.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard).
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of this bill, 
and I commend Chairman Obey and Ranking Member Walsh for their strong 
leadership in crafting this bipartisan legislation.
  Our commitment to expand access to health care and other essential 
human services is reaffirmed in this bill by restoring funding to 
programs that put health care within the reach of an additional 2 
million Americans.
  For example, under the provisions of this bill, community health 
centers can provide an additional one million medically underserved 
Americans with primary and preventive care.

                              {time}  1645

  Education funding levels in this bill also demonstrate our deep-
seated commitment to investing in educational opportunity for all 
America's children. For example, this bill helps level the playing 
field for disadvantaged minority students by beginning, finally, to 
provide adequate resources for title I. The bill reinvests in the 
American workforce by restoring funding to critical education and job 
training programs that have been neglected in recent years. In 
particular, the bill provides a much needed increase to America's 
migrant and seasonal farmworkers who are the backbone of the 
agricultural industry.
  Finally, on the issue I have worked on for many years, I am 
particularly gratified that the committee has provided funds for the 
STOP Underage Drinking programs. This recently enacted initiative will 
go a long way toward reducing the crises of underage drinking in our 
country and the tragic consequences it has on our youth and society as 
a whole.
  I look forward to continuing to work with our Democratic leadership 
and my colleagues in the House to move our Nation closer to the goal of 
ensuring every American has access to quality health care, every 
student has a real chance to succeed, and every worker is given the 
tools to prosper.
  Madam Chairman, in closing, I thank Chairman Obey for his hard work 
and for his commitment to improving the lives of Americans. I extend my 
gratitude to Cheryl Smith and the rest of the subcommittee staff for 
their dedication and commitment as well.
  Mr. WALSH of New York. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the former Governor.
  Mr. CASTLE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Chairman, I would just like to make two brief points, perhaps 
to Chairman Obey, about this bill that concern me, although I think the 
bill is well done. I am basically supportive of it.
  The first is something which the President has vetoed, the stem cell 
research legislation. Back in August of 2001, he signed an order which 
allowed 21 different stem cell lines to be developed. There was a lot 
of discussion that in this particular bill that we could have actually 
updated that date from 2001 until 2007.
  There have been 400 private lines developed since that time; that is, 
without any Federal dollars whatsoever. They could have been used for 
research by anybody if indeed we could have had it approved in this 
legislation. As a result of that, I drafted an amendment to do just 
that. But I have been informed that it will not be in order if I were 
to present it, so I will not present it.
  I think this is a missed opportunity. I say to the chairman, because 
he was supportive of the stem cell research, that my judgment is we 
should do everything in our power to be able to enhance and to further 
that research in America. This was an opportunity which is 
unfortunately lost.

[[Page 19204]]

  The other point I would like to make also deals with health, which is 
a matter of great concern to all of us, obviously, and that is the 
increase in NIH research. Basically, when you boil it all down, the 
increase here is 1.9 percent. It has been widely discussed that it's 
2.6 percent. But this includes $900 million to the global HIV/AIDS fund 
that will be transferred immediately to the Department of State. It 
will not go directly into research.
  The amount which is left is 1.9 percent, which would be almost the 
smallest increase for NIH in 38 years. We will lose length and quality 
of life to disease and disability. New research opportunities will go 
unfunded. The number of new therapies will continue to decline. Flat 
funding may discourage, along with the embryonic stem cell research 
going by the boards, the best and brightest young scientists remaining 
in the United States. Another year of failure to provide sustained, 
strong growth and Federal support for medical research is a problem.
  Madam Chairman, I would hope before it is all said and done that we 
can address these two issues.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam Chairman, I want to rise and congratulate the 
gentleman from Wisconsin, Chairman Obey, as well as Ranking Member 
Walsh for their good work on this bill.
  This bill, Madam Chairman, does a great deal in rejecting the 
President's cuts that would have provided $7.6 billion below last 
year's level in programs vital to protecting our Nation's health and 
education system.
  This bill today, instead, provides a 3 percent increase over last 
year in areas such as family intervention, early learning, education 
and health care access. Let me tell you what that means. That means 
that we can help make a difference in averting the kinds of problems 
that will come later on, because now we will invest in prevention. 
Programs such as the SAMHSA, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 
Administration program, and Starting Early Starting Smart, which 
invests in family intervention, are so crucial. We know from the 
Adverse Childhood Experiences Study that the Kaiser Foundation did that 
families that are in crisis produce children that are at higher risk 
for not only delinquency but for drug abuse, for HIV, and for greater 
health care problems.
  In this bill, we provide funds to go towards those families so that 
we can reach those parents. If we reach those parents, we reach those 
children. That, my friends, is what real family values are all about; 
it is reaching out to the families in this country in order to reach 
the children of this country. If we reach these children, they will be 
able to grow and prosper, and we as a Nation will be even stronger for 
it.
  Madam Chairman, I thank the chairman for the work that he has done in 
helping to build a stronger safety net for the children of this 
country. It will make our country an even stronger place for all of us 
to live.
  Mr. WALSH of New York. Madam Chairman, I reserve my time.
  Mr. OBEY. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Madam Chairman, let me thank the chairman and our ranking 
member and our staff for their very diligent and brilliant work, 
really, in crafting this bipartisan bill. As a new member of the 
committee and the subcommittee, it has been a true honor to work with 
the chairman and our staff and our ranking member on this bill.
  I must tell you, we had our work cut out for us because of the deep 
draconian cuts that the President proposed and because of the 
President's priorities of tax cuts for the rich and the invasion and 
occupation of Iraq. I am pleased that this bill rejects most of those 
cuts and makes the kinds of investments that recognize that an educated 
and skilled workforce and a healthy population are the backbone of our 
national security.
  Let me highlight a few of these investments.
  First, in the area of education, this bill invests in strengthening 
our minority-serving institutions by providing a $249.5 million for our 
Historically Black Colleges and Universities, which is an $11.4 million 
increase over FY 2007 levels, and also we increased by $4.5 million 
above FY 2007 the President's request for our Hispanic-serving 
institutions.
  With regard to helping our low-income students go to college, we have 
increased TRIO and GEAR UP, which really do provide first generation 
college students the resources to enter and complete college.
  With several universities in my district, we have increased the 
maximum Pell Grant, which will benefit millions of students which I 
know my district truly will benefit from.
  On the issue of economic opportunity and a trained, skilled 
workforce, this bill reverses deep cuts in workforce training and 
requires the Secretary of Labor to provide a plan to address the huge 
dramatic disparities in unemployment in the African American and other 
communities of color.
  We have increased, actually, by $100 million the Ryan White CARE Act, 
which, of course, is our HIV and AIDS funding.
  Mr. WALSH of New York. Madam Chairman, I reserve my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum), who is really not 
celebrating her birthday on the same day as the Baltimore Orioles.
  Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support 
of this bill, which makes needed investments in our family security and 
therefore our national security. I want to congratulate Chairman Obey 
and Ranking Member Walsh for bringing forward a good bill, a bill that 
makes critical investments in America's families and in our country's 
future. This is my first year on the Appropriations Committee, and I am 
honored to have an opportunity to be part of this subcommittee.
  The investments in this bill will affect every family in America. 
Today, we ensure our children have an opportunity for quality 
education, help families and students afford college, and increase 
access to community health clinics.
  As Mr. Obey says, this bill is about the country we want to be, and 
that is the country we deserve to be.
  For too long the Bush administration has been negligent in its 
underfunding of education and health care, putting enormous strains on 
local governments, on schools and on local taxpayers. Today we move in 
a new direction by investing in families, prioritizing what matters: 
the education of our students, health care research in diabetes, cancer 
and heart disease, job training for those who are affected by our 
changing economy and for our returning veterans, energy assistance for 
our elderly, and early childhood education.
  When we make responsible and necessary investments in our children 
and in our communities, we strengthen our families and we strengthen 
our Nation by ensuring our global competitiveness.
  Once again, I thank Chairman Obey for his leadership on the 
committee, for his commitment to strengthening America and bettering 
the lives of Americans.
  Mr. WALSH of New York. Madam Chairman, I continue to reserve my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman and I thank 
Mr. Walsh, the ranking member, for putting such a terrific bill 
together that is going to allow our Nation to compete in the global 
economy of the 21st century.
  This bill makes investments in our kids, this bill makes investments 
in our workers, and this bill makes investments in American families. 
If our kids and our workers are healthy and educated, then we will be 
able to compete in the global economy.
  I think it is important, just with this bill, if we look at what is 
going to happen next year when these investments

[[Page 19205]]

hit, when students and workers are going to get a Pell Grant and it is 
$500 or $600 or $700 more for them. Tack that on to the education bill 
last week, where interest rates will be cut in half. Tack that on to 
the Energy and Water appropriations bill, where we are investing in our 
scientists and alternative energy research and we are creating new 
sectors of the economy so that we can compete in a global economy.
  The anxiety that has been felt across this country over the last 
couple of years has been profound, and this bill helps address the 
challenges that American families have had. By reducing the cost of 
education, by making sure that we have community health clinics for 
people to go and take their kids, with the SCHIP program, this bill 
will have more to do with us being a competitive country in the next 
couple of decades, I think, than anything else we could possibly do.
  So I would like to thank the chairman and ranking member and say that 
this is a bipartisan bill. This came out of the committee with the 
unanimous support of Democrats and Republicans, who agree that these 
investments needed to be made.
  Madam Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman again and thank the 
Republicans for their support.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. WALSH of New York. Madam Chairman, I continue to reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of the fiscal 
year 2008 Labor, HHS and Education appropriations bill that is before 
us today.
  I would like to express my admiration and gratitude to Chairman Obey 
and the members of the committee for bringing forward a bill that 
reflects our values and our commitment to investing in education.
  As the chairman of the Higher Education Lifelong Learning and 
Competitiveness Subcommittee, I am pleased to see the significant 
increases for student financial aid, for GEAR UP and TRIO programs. 
These investments make a real difference, and they have not come a 
moment too soon.
  Recent reports estimate that by the year 2025, just to keep pace with 
our international competitors, the United States would need to produce 
an additional 15.6 million college graduates. That translates to 
another 781,000 degrees per year. GEAR UP and TRIO help close the 
college awareness and readiness gap.
  Pell Grants and campus-based student aid programs close the 
affordability gap. This legislation coupled with the recently passed 
budget reconciliation bill signal that we are serious about ensuring 
that our students have the education and the skills they need to 
compete.
  As chairman of the Education Task Force for the Congressional 
Hispanic Caucus, I am particularly heartened to see the commitment in 
this bill to increase educational opportunities for Hispanic students. 
This legislation reverses the trend of the past of eliminating, cutting 
or at best flat-lining the key programs that provide the pillars of 
educational support to the Hispanic community. They include migrant 
education programs for English language learners, developing Hispanic-
serving institutions, Even Start Family Literacy, GEAR UP, TRIO and 
adult education. Together, we call them the Hispanic education action 
plan.
  In 2006, every single program in the Hispanic education action plan 
was reduced. Elections do make a difference.
  For 2008, on top of the $1.5 billion increase to the core title I 
program in No Child Left Behind, we have over $212 million increases to 
the other programs, including a long overdue investment program for 
English language learners.
  Mr. WALSH of New York. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of 
this bill. And in particular, I want to sincerely and deeply thank 
Chairman Obey and Ranking Member Walsh on behalf of all New Yorkers and 
this Nation for providing the leadership to include for the first time 
much-needed money for the health care needs of the heroes and heroines 
of 9/11.
  These rescue, recovery and cleanup workers selflessly rushed into the 
flames of 9/11 to save the lives of others. We lost 3,000 people on 9/
11, but many thousands more lost their health. This bill includes $50 
million for their treatment. This is the first time it has been part of 
an appropriations bill, and I deeply thank Chairman Obey for working so 
hard to make this happen. In the past it has been tacked onto emergency 
spending and to the Iraq spending bill, but it is the least we can do 
to provide health care to these men and women.
  Very importantly, the bill includes detailed language requiring the 
administration to develop and submit a long-term comprehensive plan to 
address these critical health needs. This is a tremendous step forward. 
I thank Chairman Obey.
  Mr. WALSH of New York. Madam Chairman, I thank the chairman of the 
committee. I have no further comments other than to say I enjoyed 
working with the chairman on this bill and his staff. I think we have a 
good work product here.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Frankly, Madam Chairman, I was filibustering in hopes that the 
majority leader would arrive, but he is in the middle of a meeting and 
can't make it. So let me simply second the comments of the gentleman 
from New York. I think this is a good bipartisan product. I think we 
can work with the Senate to produce a bill which people on both sides 
of the aisle and both sides of the Capitol can support with pride.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chairman, I write today in opposition to the Weldon 
amendment to the Labor/HHS appropriations bill. This amendment would 
prohibit appropriated funds from being used to administer thimerosal-
containing flu vaccine in the 2008-2009 flu season to children under 3.
  This legislation is strongly opposed by a number of public health 
groups including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American 
Public Health Association, the Association of State and Territorial 
Health Officials, the National Association of County and City Health 
Officials, the Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs, and 
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). According to 
public health officials, this language would pose real risks to public 
health, particularly to the youngest children who are most susceptible 
to the serious complications from flu, including death.
  The American Academy of Pediatrics, in their letter opposing this 
amendment, assures us that there is scientific evidence that ``the 
thimerosal in influenza vaccine is not a danger to health.'' The 
Institute of Medicine examined all of the available evidence on the 
association between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism. In 2004 
the I0M issued a report that concluded that the evidence was sufficient 
to say that thimerosal-containing vaccines do not cause autism.
  Since that time there has been no new compelling evidence that would 
change the I0M's conclusion. In fact, because thimerosal has been 
removed from all other pediatric vaccines, children in the last 5 years 
have received much less thimerosal than they had in the 1990s, and yet 
autism rates continue to go up, not down.
  The practical impact of the bill would be that the demand for 
thimerosal-free vaccine would exceed current production capacity. While 
technically the bill would prohibit only the youngest children who get 
Vaccines for Children vaccine from getting thimerosal-containing 
vaccine, the reality is that the message Congress would be sending to 
all parents is that the thimerosal-containing vaccine is less safe than 
the thimerosal-free vaccine. It is likely that most, if not all, 
parents would demand thimerosal-free vaccine for all of their children.
  There are simply not enough doses of thimerosal-free vaccine to meet 
that kind of demand and it is unlikely that there would be for at least 
several years. Vaccine companies are moving to increase the production 
of thimerosal-free vaccines, but doing so requires building new 
facilities, or expanding existing facilities, and then going through a 
new FDA approval process.

[[Page 19206]]

  Furthermore, there is currently only one company with a licensed 
thimerosal-free product for children under 3. If that company 
experienced production problems or delays in its thimerosal-free 
product, this would leave us without any vaccine for this population.
  Even if there were sufficient vaccine to immunize all children under 
3 with thimerosal-free vaccine, we have a private vaccine distribution 
system and there would be no way to ensure that each dose of 
thimerosal-free vaccine would be matched up with a child under 3. In 
recent years there have been shortages of flu vaccine. In order to make 
sure that those most susceptible to the flu get vaccinated, CDC has 
asked that vaccine be given first to priority groups, including very 
young children, the elderly, health care workers, and people with 
certain illnesses. Unfortunately, we have seen that this has not worked 
very well. There is no reason to believe that the system would work any 
better to make sure that the thimerosal-free vaccine goes first to 
children under 3.
  In fact, there is nothing that would prevent one state from buying up 
all of the thimerosal-free vaccine for its population leaving the rest 
of the country without vaccine for the youngest children. That could 
cost lives. These are the children who are most susceptible to the 
serious complications from flu.
  I urge Members to consider that this language could harm those very 
children the authors are trying to help. By restricting their access to 
flu vaccine, they will not prevent a single child from getting autism, 
but they may expose children to the very serious risks posed by 
influenza.
  Mr. MARKEY. Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of the Labor, 
Health, Human Services and Education Appropriations bill for Fiscal 
Year 2008. Overall, this is a very good bill, and I will vote for it. 
In this difficult fiscal environment, it provides funding for critical 
programs that have been starved by the Administration and the 
Republican Congress.
  This bill provides significant increases for Education programs 
including resources for teacher quality, early education and after 
school programs, and it provides more for Low Income Home Energy 
Assistance. It also provides important resources for preventive health 
care, for the title IIV and title IIIV Health professions training 
programs, and for the Ryan White program.
  While I will support the bill, I am very disappointed that we were 
not able to provide more funding for the critical work conducted at the 
National Institutes of Health. The NIH embodies our country's hope for 
treating or curing debilitating diseases like heart disease, 
Alzheimer's, cystic fibrosis, diabetes, cancer and so many other 
illnesses that American families battle every day. But scientific 
advances don't just occur by accident. They are the result of sustained 
investments in research. Unfortunately, since 2003, Republicans flat-
lined the NIH budget, and NIH has lost 13 percent of its research 
funding when adjusted for inflation.
  I was hopeful that this year we would be able to end that devastating 
trend and get the NIH budget back on track by providing the NIH with 
significant increases over the rate of inflation.
  Although I am disappointed that we were not able to provide more for 
NIH this year, I look forward to working with the distinguished chair 
and the members of the Appropriations committee in the future to ensure 
that we provide our country's premier medical research institution with 
the funding it needs to find treatments and cures to our country's most 
devastating diseases.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chairman, in accordance with House earmark 
reforms, I would like to place into the record a listing of 
Congressionally-directed projects in my home state of Idaho that are 
contained within the report to the FY08 Labor, Health and Human 
Services, and Education Appropriations bill.
  I'd like to take just a few minutes to describe why I supported these 
projects and why they are valuable to the nation and its taxpayers.
  The report contains $300,000 for the Literacy Matters! Program 
administered by the Lee Pesky Learning Center in Boise. The Literacy 
Matters! Program is aimed at educating new mothers on the importance of 
early childhood literacy and math skills and providing them with 
resources for educating their children. The funding is used to provide 
every mother of a newborn in Idaho with a book created by the Lee Pesky 
Learning Center that helps them with teaching early literacy and math 
skills. The books are distributed through Idaho hospitals and the 
program has been highly successful. This is the second year of federal 
funding for the program.
  This project was requested by the Lee Pesky Learning Center in Boise, 
Idaho.
  The report contains $300,000 for the Idaho Caring Foundation's 
program to provide dental services to low-income, uninsured children 
who would otherwise have no access to such services. The program will 
provide access to needed dental care for 600 low-income, uninsured 
children throughout Idaho. Eligible children will be identified by 
working in partnership with Idaho schools, health departments, Head 
Start programs, and YMCA programs. Dental services will be provided by 
over 90 dentists who are Caring Foundation providers, providing oral 
health services for reduced fees. Federal funding is only a portion of 
the total costs of the program. As a dentist, I understand the 
importance of proper dental hygiene at a very young age. Serious health 
and self esteem problems can quickly evolve if dental hygiene is 
neglected early in a child's development. This is an outstanding 
program that enjoys my complete support. This is the second year of 
federal funding for the program.
  This project was requested by the Idaho Caring Foundation in Boise, 
Idaho.
  The report contains $250,000 for the Discovery Center of Idaho's new 
facility. The funding will assist with efforts initiated by the 
Discovery Center and the J.R. Simplot Foundation to build a new model 
of a ``hands-on'' science center to captivate the attention of and 
inspire tomorrow's leaders and innovators. The 70,000 square foot 
Center will be founded on three core strengths, inspiring stories of 
innovation including Mr. Simplot's story, iconic collection of working 
steam tractors and DCI's expertise in igniting curiosity, through 
interactive science exhibits and programs. The center will be a 
resource for the region, with particular interest in serving rural 
areas to help break the myth that innovation is a new urban 
phenomenon--that ingenuity is found wherever and whenever an observant 
creative human being has a problem to solve. This is a tremendous 
opportunity to create a new approach to bridging the gap in science and 
technology education. The $250,000 federal investment is a very small 
portion of what is expected to be a $40,000,000 project.
  This project was requested by the Discovery Center of Idaho in Boise, 
Idaho.
  The report contains $200,000 for the College of Southern Idaho's Pro-
Tech Training Program which partners with local agencies and companies 
to identify training needs in the community and provide for those needs 
by training talented Idaho students. The College partners with other 
agencies to identify training needs and to identify potential 
candidates for employment. The most recent of these ventures are the 
training programs that were established for Dell Computers and its call 
center in Twin Falls. In addition, data provided by Region IV of the 
Idaho Economic Development Agency indicate that manufacturing will be a 
leading employment area in the Magic Valley with over 250 new jobs 
expected over the next two years.
  This project was requested by the College of Southern Idaho in Twin 
Falls, Idaho.
  The report contains $200,000 for St. Luke's Hospital's Children's 
Health Services Expansion. The Children's Health Services Expansion 
project provides essential growth in capacity for Pediatric Medical/
Surgical, Pediatric Intensive Care, Neonatal Intensive Care, Pediatric 
Oncology, and Pediatric Surgical Suites and support areas, to meet the 
needs of the rapidly growing population in the hospital's service area. 
The hospital is spending millions on the expansion and federal funds 
will represent only a small portion of the project's total costs. This 
is the fourth year of federal funding for this program.
  The project was requested by St. Luke's Regional Medical Center in 
Boise, Idaho.
  The report contains $200,000 for Teton Valley Hospital and 
Surgicenter's Revitalization Project. Teton Valley Hospital & 
Surgicenter, a 13-bed Critical Access Hospital, provides an emergency 
room and a full scope of primary care services to the residents in and 
around Teton Valley, a rural community of just over 7,000 residents, 
nestled against the Teton Mountains in Southeast Idaho and Western 
Wyoming. Its population has grown by more than 99% over the past 15 
years, ranking it in the top two fastest growing counties in Idaho for 
the last six years. This population growth has seriously strained the 
resources of the hospital and necessitated the revitalization project. 
Federal funds represent only a portion of the project's total costs.
  This project was requested by Teton Valley Hospital & Surgicenter in 
Driggs, Idaho.
  The report contains $200,000 for Madison County Memorial Hospital. 
Madison County Memorial Hospital services a growing area encompassing 
five counties and quite simply has outgrown its facilities. Increased 
capacity for obstetrics (Madison County Memorial Hospital has more 
births than any other hospital of its size in the State of Idaho and 
possibly the nation) and inpatient and outpatient surgeries are

[[Page 19207]]

needed. The size of this project is 70,000 sq. feet of new construction 
and 85,000 sq. feet of remodeling, with an overall budget of $49 
million and an equipment budget of over $7 million. Federal funding 
will be used for necessary medical equipment for the expanded and 
remodeled facility and represents a very small portion of the overall 
funding for this project.
  This project was requested by Madison County Memorial Hospital in 
Rexburg, Idaho.
  The report contains $400,000 for a Community Detox Center in Boise, 
Idaho. The need for a detox facility is both pressing and long-
standing. According to a 2002 study by Boise State University's Center 
for Health Policy, rates of drug and alcohol abuse are worse in the 
Treasure Valley than in the rest of Idaho. Over 17,000 individuals in 
Ada and Canyon Counties were deemed at-risk for substance dependence in 
2000, and the region severely lacks beds for detox patients, 
particularly those on limited incomes. To fill this void, hospital 
emergency rooms are acting as de facto drug and/ or alcohol detox 
centers which adds to rising health care costs. The proposed facility 
is a 24-hour medically monitored alcohol and drug sobering station and 
36-bed detox center for indigent patients treated by a professional, 
qualified staff. Typical stays for sobering will be 12 hours and 
typical stays for detoxification will be 5-6 days; following sobering 
and/or detoxification, patients will be referred to appropriate 
education and treatment programs.
  This project was requested by the United Way of Treasure Valley in 
Boise, Idaho.
  The report contains $200,000 for the Advanced Clinical Simulation 
Laboratory at Idaho State University. This funding will be used to 
develop an Advanced Clinical Simulation Laboratory (ACSL) to strengthen 
nursing education, practice and research in Idaho. The ACLS will enable 
students, faculty, and practice partners to become actively involved in 
clinical simulation learning and conducting research related to student 
learning, effectiveness of clinical education models and improving 
patient care outcomes. The ACSL will also provide a research and 
practice laboratory for nurse faculty and clinical educators to learn 
and update knowledge about clinical educational models and teaching 
with technology.
  This project was requested by Idaho State University in Pocatello, 
Idaho.
  The report contains $200,000 for Idaho SySTEMic Solution: Plant Early 
for STEM Learning (science, technology, engineering, and math) at Boise 
State University. Idaho SySTEMic Solution is a nationally relevant, 
hands-on, project-based STEM learning system (science, technology, 
engineering, and math) designed to spur achievement and confidence 
among elementary-age learners and their teachers. Key project 
components will include: (1) a comprehensive teacher training model 
that includes a one-week summer institute and ongoing site-based 
follow-up training to boost the ability and confidence of elementary 
teachers; (2) implementation into demographically diverse schools 
(grades 1-5/6, urban to suburban to rural, multicultural) of 
curriculum-aligned learning lab systems that have been shown to improve 
student scores in math, science, and technology; and (3) research and 
evaluation of results in accordance with Idaho and national assessment 
standards to maximize the effectiveness of transplanting this solution 
to other U.S. states.
  This project was requested by Boise State University in Boise, Idaho.
  I appreciate the opportunity to provide a list of Congressionally-
directed projects in my region and an explanation of my support for 
them: (1) $300,000 for Early Literacy Matters, Lee Pesky Learning 
Center; (2) $300,000 for Idaho Caring Foundation Dental Project; (3) 
$200,000 for Children's Health Services Expansion; St. Luke's Regional 
Medical Center; (4) $400,000 for Community Detox Center, United Way of 
Treasure Valley; (5) $200,000 for Advanced Clinical Simulation 
Laboratory, Idaho State University; (6) $200,000 for Idaho SySTEMic 
Solution, Boise State University; (7) $200,000 for Madison County 
Memorial Hospital Revitalization Project; (8) $200,000 for College of 
Southern Idaho Pro-Tech Program, College of Southern Idaho; (9) 
$200,000 for Teton Valley Hospital Revitalization Project, Teton Valley 
Hospital; (10) $250,000 for the Discovery Center of Idaho Expansion, 
Discovery Center of Idaho.
  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Madam Chairman, I strongly 
support this bill to fund the departments of Labor, Health & Human 
Services, and Education.
  I commend Chairman Obey and his staff on their hard work and 
dedication in putting together a bill that addresses the most pressing 
needs of American families, including their health and safety and the 
education of their children. I especially thank the Chairman for his 
efforts to increase funding for school counselors. This bill provides 
over $61 million for school counseling programs, a 77% increase over 
last year's funding. This historic investment will expand counseling in 
middle and high schools across the nation.
  School counseling is a profession often treated as an afterthought in 
school improvement efforts. But counselors play a critical role, 
especially in high schools. High school is a transition period into 
adulthood and the world of work. As students make this transition, many 
lose their way and drop out. But a good counselor can help a student 
find the right path. No matter how many credits a student is behind or 
how many personal challenges she might face, counselors can help 
students at risk develop a plan, access the right help, and graduate on 
time.
  Individual attention and follow-up from a counselor can help turn 
around students' lives. Additional counselors, particularly at the 
middle and high school levels, will be instrumental in helping schools 
improve their graduation rates and achieve other goals of No Child Left 
Behind.
  Again, I thank the gentleman for his commitment to the education of 
our young people, and I encourage all my colleagues to support this 
bill.
  Mr. HONDA. Madam Chairman, I rise today to express my support for 
this bill and my deep appreciation for the leadership of Chairman Obey 
in the crafting of this bill, the work of the committee staff, and the 
spirit of bi-partisanship that has marked our subcommittee and full 
committee proceedings on this bill.
  Since being elected to Congress, I have worked hard to become a 
member of this committee and I find it especially gratifying to have 
had the opportunity to work on this bill. As Mr. Obey is fond of 
saying, this is the people's bill. It funds the programs which are 
critical to the health and welfare of millions of my fellow Americans 
and I feel honored to be a part of taking this country in a new 
direction.
  By rejecting the President's request that we cut critical labor, 
health, and education programs by $7.5 billion, and instead investing 
in targeted, carefully considered increases, this bill shows the 
American people Congress is serious about preserving and improving the 
social fabric of our nation.
  Although I am disappointed that we were unable to more significantly 
increase the federal commitment to IDEA, I am glad that the committee 
protected the program from the President's proposed $291 million cut. I 
am particularly proud of the increases the bill makes to Title I--
education for the disadvantaged, Title VII--health professions 
diversity programs, and CDC's Division of Viral Hepatitis.
  The more than $4 billion increase in education funding contained in 
this bill is desperately needed if we are to continue to lead the world 
in the decades to come. Our students must have solid educational 
grounding to succeed in college but just as importantly, they must have 
the means to afford college. The $2 billion increase in Pell grants 
will go a long way toward making college a reality for many students.
  As many of my colleagues know, I have been deeply involved in the 
effort to bring awareness to the problem of healthcare disparities. 
Communities of color suffer disproportionately from disparities in 
healthcare coverage, quality, and outcomes. The investments being made 
by this bill in Title VII Health Professions programs, particularly the 
increase in the diversity programs, are vital to increasing the 
pipeline of minority health professionals in underserved communities.
  Finally, I would like to highlight the funding crisis that faces 
CDC's Division of Viral Hepatitis. The budget for this Division has 
remained almost flat since fiscal year 2002 and this has resulted in a 
serious curtailment of the Division's programs. There are an estimated 
30 million people in the United States affected by a liver or liver 
related disease. Asian Americans face a near epidemic, with 1 out of 10 
Asian American and Pacific Islanders infected with chronic hepatitis B. 
Included in the bill's 7.8 percent increase to the Centers for Disease 
control, is a $1 million increase for the Division of Viral Hepatitis. 
This appropriation begins a long overdue reversal of the inadequate 
budgets given to this Division since fiscal year 2002 and I would like 
to thank Chairman Obey for acknowledging the need to rectify this 
situation.
  Again, I would like to thank Chairman Obey, Ranking Member Walsh, and 
all my other colleagues on the committee for their hard work and urge 
my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. OBEY. I yield back the balance of my time.
  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.

[[Page 19208]]

  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.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 3043

       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, 2008, 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 (``the Act''), and the Women in Apprenticeship and 
     Nontraditional Occupations Act of 1992, 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, $3,579,530,000, plus 
     reimbursements, is available. Of the amounts provided:
       (1) For grants to States for adult employment and training 
     activities, youth activities, and dislocated worker 
     employment and training activities, $2,994,510,000 as 
     follows:
       (A) $864,199,000 for adult employment and training 
     activities, of which $152,199,000 is available for the period 
     July 1, 2008, to June 30, 2009, and of which $712,000,000 is 
     available for the period October 1, 2008, through June 30, 
     2009.
       (B) $940,500,000 for youth activities, which shall be 
     available for the period April 1, 2008, through June 30, 
     2009.
       (C) $1,189,811,000 for dislocated worker employment and 
     training activities, of which $341,811,000 is available for 
     the period July 1, 2008, through June 30, 2009, and of which 
     $848,000,000 is available for the period October 1, 2008, 
     through June 30, 2009: Provided, That notwithstanding the 
     transfer limitation under section 133(b)(4) of such Act (29 
     U.S.C. 2863(B)(4)), up to 30 percent of such funds may be 
     transferred by a local board if approved by the Governor.
       (2) For federally administered programs, $483,213,000 as 
     follows:
       (A) $282,092,000 for the dislocated workers assistance 
     national reserve, of which $2,600,000 is available on October 
     1, 2007, of which $67,492,000 is available for the period 
     July 1, 2008, through June 30, 2009, and of which 
     $212,000,000 is available for the period October 1, 2008, 
     through June 30, 2009: Provided, That up to $125,000,000 may 
     be made available for Community-Based Job Training grants: 
     Provided further, That funds provided to carry out section 
     132(a)(2)(A) of the Act (29 U.S.C. 2862(A)(2)(a)) may be used 
     to provide assistance to a State for State-wide or local use 
     in order to address cases where there have been worker 
     dislocations across multiple sectors or across multiple local 
     areas and such workers remain dislocated; coordinate the 
     State workforce development plan with emerging economic 
     development needs; and train such eligible dislocated 
     workers: Provided further, That funds provided to carry out 
     section 171(d) of the Act (29 U.S.C. 2916 (d)) may be used 
     for demonstration projects that provide assistance to new 
     entrants in the workforce and incumbent workers: Provided 
     further, That $2,600,000 shall be for a noncompetitive grant 
     to the National Center on Education and the Economy, which 
     shall be awarded not later than 30 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
       (B) $56,381,000 for Native American programs, which shall 
     be available for the period July 1, 2008, through June 30, 
     2009.
       (C) $83,740,000 for migrant and seasonal farmworkers under 
     section 167 of the Act (29 U.S.C. 2912), of which $78,740,000 
     is for formula grants (of which not less that 70 percent 
     shall be for employment and training services) and $5,000,000 
     is for migrant and seasonal housing (of which not less than 
     70 percent shall be for permanent housing), which shall be 
     available for the period July 1, 2008, through June 30, 2009.
       (D) $60,000,000 for YouthBuild activities under section 
     173A of the Act (29 U.S.C. 2918a), which shall be available 
     for the period April 1, 2008, through June 30, 2009.
       (E) $1,000,000 for carrying out the Women in Apprenticeship 
     and Nontraditional Occupations Act (29 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.), 
     which shall be available for the period July 1, 2008, through 
     June 30, 2009.
       (3) For national activities, $101,807,000, which shall be 
     available for the period July 1, 2008, through July 30, 2009, 
     as follows:
       (A) $68,746,000 for ex-offender activities, under the 
     authority of section 171 of the Act (29 U.S.C. 2916), 
     notwithstanding the requirements of sections 171(b)(2)(B) or 
     171(c)(4)(D) of such section, of which not less than 
     $48,000,000 shall be for youthful offender activities.
       (B) $28,140,000 for Pilots, Demonstrations, and Research 
     (notwithstanding the requirements of sections 171(b)(2)(B) or 
     171(c)(4)(D) of the Act (29 U.S.C. 2916(b)(2)(B) or 
     (c)(4)(D)), of which $10,000,000 shall be for grants to 
     address the employment and training needs of young parents.
       (C) $4,921,000 for Evaluation under the authority of 
     section 172 of the Act (29 U.S.C. 2917).


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. McKeon

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. McKeon:
       Page 2, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $43,746,000)''.
       Page 5, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $43,746,000)''.
       Page 5, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $43,746,000)''.
       Page 6, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $48,000,000)''.
       Page 63, line 4, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $8,484,000)''.
        Page 77, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $75,000,000)''.
       Page 77, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $75,000,000)''.
       Page 87, line 5, after the first dollar amount and after 
     the second dollar amount, insert ``(reduced by 
     $22,770,000)''.

  Mr. McKEON (during the reading). Madam 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 
California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairman, my amendment would restore much-needed 
funding to the highly successful Reading First program.
  In 2001, Members of both parties committed to implementing 
scientifically based reading instruction, through Reading First, as the 
foundation of an effort to provide a high-quality education in every 
school. Six years later, it is clear that the program is working, but 
not without some internal challenges.
  Indeed, Reading First has received a great deal of attention over the 
last several months, and for good reason. An investigation into the 
program by the Department of Education's Inspector General uncovered 
real problems in the agency's implementation and management of the 
program. And the Education and Labor Committee has followed with 
appropriate, thorough, and bipartisan oversight to ensure that those 
problems are addressed.
  In spite of this, we have heard from the majority that it intends to 
cut some $600 million from this program, roughly 60 percent of its 
overall annual budget, until problems identified by the Inspector 
General have been addressed. That's particularly interesting since 
these problems have been and are being addressed both by the Department 
of Education itself and through proposed legislation.
  Since last September, the Department has responded to the 
investigation of its Inspector General and to our committee's oversight 
of Reading First by making a number of significant changes to improve 
the administration of the program. In fact, at the committee's 
oversight hearing of this program, the Inspector General acknowledged 
that the Department has accepted his recommendations and begun 
implementing them to reform the program.
  Among the steps taken by the Department in the wake of this 
investigation include: Replacing the internal Reading First program 
management; reconstituting a key peer review panel used in the program 
to ensure fairness and more openness in its review processes; and 
providing additional guidance to contractors and subcontractors to 
enhance the objectivity and effectiveness of their services.
  In order to codify many of these recommendations made by the 
Inspector General and reform steps taken by the Department earlier this 
year, I joined my committee colleague, Mr. Castle, in introducing the 
Reading First Improvement Act. Instead of slashing funding for this 
highly successful program, I call on my friends on the other side of 
the aisle to enact this legislation to ensure permanent and long-
standing reform to Reading First.
  To date, the bill has seen no action, not in subcommittee, not in 
full committee, and not on the floor. To think that we are cutting this 
program's budget by more than 60 percent when a measure to reform it is 
sitting right

[[Page 19209]]

before us demonstrates how truly politically driven the majority's 
actions are on Reading First and continue to be.
  Nonetheless, it is clear to any fair-minded person that the 
management problems of Reading First are in the past. What is equally 
clear is that Reading First, despite past problems, has been an 
unqualified success for the students it is intended to serve. Indeed, 
my friend, the distinguish chairman of our committee said during our 
oversight hearing of Reading First earlier this year, ``The purpose of 
this hearing is not to evaluate the effectiveness or strengths or 
weaknesses of the Reading First program. I support the Reading First 
program, as do many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle.''
  Statistics bear out the chairman's and my own continued support for 
Reading First. For example, data released earlier this year shows that 
in Reading First schools, the percentage of first graders meeting or 
exceeding proficiency on fluency outcome measures increased by 14 
percentage points, from 43 to 57 percent, from 2004 to 2006, with the 
percentage of third graders increasing by 7 percent during the same 
period of time.
  And a 2006 Center on Education Policy survey found that 97 percent of 
school districts which reported increases in student achievement 
indicated that Reading First was a key reason for this progress.
  Madam Chairman, rather than taking into consideration this data and 
the improvements that the Department has made in its implementation of 
Reading First, the majority has decided it is better to make a 
political statement against the administration than to provide the 
critical resources needed to continue to address the needs of our most 
disadvantaged young students.
  By finding some $75 million in savings through reducing 
administrative costs at the Department of Health and Human Services and 
implementing programs for prisoners that the President did not request 
funding for, while keeping intact his faith-based prisoner reentry 
initiative, my amendment restores some of these resources.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment.
  Madam Chairman, I have a great deal of respect for the gentleman who 
just offered the amendment, but I have to say this is exactly the wrong 
thing for the Congress to do at this time.
  The gentleman's amendment tries to restore $75 million to probably 
the most troubled program in this bill. As the gentleman has indicated, 
we have had six different audits by the Office of Inspector General. He 
has discovered that the Department of Education tried to steer billions 
of dollars in Reading First funds for the purchase of certain reading 
textbooks and assessments in order to benefit favored publishers and 
individuals. I don't think the Congress ought to stand for that.
  I would also point out that the OIG found out that the Department of 
Education administrators improperly promoted commercial reading 
programs in potential violation of Federal law. And this did not just 
occur in my own State, as I mentioned earlier in my remarks, it 
occurred in Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey. 
States in districts with programs that were not on the Department's 
preferential list were either rejected for grants or pressured to 
change their methods, even though some argued, as did my own State, 
that their programs met the law's standard.
  What is most ironic is this is supposed to be a peer reviewed 
program, and yet the programs that have demonstrably shown the best 
performance levels were frozen out of the program, including Bob 
Slaven's program at Johns Hopkins that has generally been reviewed as 
one of the best in the country. Yet, they were virtually invited out 
the door by the DOE.
  In addition to the fact that we certainly should not be rewarding the 
administration for the way they have handled this program, the 
gentleman seeks to finance this program by taking $43 million out of 
job training for ex-offenders. We cannot afford to have criminals 
reentering society with inadequate job training that provides them with 
incentives to renew their lives of crime.

                              {time}  1715

  We need to provide as much training as possible, and the gentleman 
scales that back dramatically.
  And, lastly, I must confess I'm a bit confused. In the full 
committee, I accepted an amendment from Mr. Peterson, a valued member 
of our subcommittee, who wanted to add $25 million for vocational 
education above my mark. I accepted it because I thought he made a good 
case. Now we're being asked to take out $23 million of the money that 
Mr. Peterson successfully added in the subcommittee. I don't think 
that's a wise thing to do.
  There will be plenty of time in conference to restore funding for 
Reading First, provided that the administration and provided that the 
agency demonstrates that it's shaped up and it's no longer following 
the same habits. But at this point, you have the same contractors still 
in place, you have the same conflicts still at large, and I don't think 
under these circumstances that this Congress wants to support the kind 
of shenanigans that we've seen in that Reading First program. And, on 
behalf of the integrity of the taxpayers' dollar, I would urge a ``no'' 
vote on the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon).
  The amendment was rejected.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Of the amounts made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 107-116 to carry out the activities of the National Skill 
     Standards Board, $44,000 is rescinded.
       Of the unexpended balances, including recaptures and 
     carryover, remaining from funds appropriated to the 
     Department of Labor under this heading for fiscal years 2006 
     and prior years, $335,000,000 is rescinded.


            community service employment for older americans

       To carry out title V of the Older Americans Act of 1965, 
     $530,900,000, which shall be available for the period July 1, 
     2008, through June 30, 2009.

  Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairman, I would like to engage the chairman of 
the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and 
Related Agencies in a colloquy.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate all your efforts in bringing this bill 
forward and thank you for your continued support of the Nation's 
chartered schools, which increase the academic achievement of our 
Nation's most low-income students. I wanted to clarify the committee's 
intent to fund the Credit Enhancement for Charter School Facilities 
program, which received $36.6 million last year. This year, the 
committee chose to increase funding to the Charter School Grant program 
and folded the Credit Enhancement for Charter School Facilities program 
into this larger program.
  Charter schools are public schools created by teachers, parents and 
other community stakeholders to educate students of all backgrounds and 
educational abilities. In exchange for greater accountability for 
student achievement, these schools are free from many local and State 
regulations. This flexibility and accountability has allowed 
individuals with nontraditional backgrounds to create cultures that 
have made charter schools top academic performers, often in some of the 
Nation's largest urban centers. Because of this unique approach to 
education, demand for these schools has been remarkable over the last 
decade.
  Unlike other local school districts, however, public charter schools 
cannot levy property or other taxes for building and infrastructure. 
Thus, public charter schools must pay for their facilities from their 
operating budgets, which are smaller than those received by their 
conventional K-12 peers. In fact, locating suitability facilities 
remains the greatest challenge faced by charter schools.
  The Credit Enhancement for Charter School Facilities program provides

[[Page 19210]]

vital assistance to help charter schools meet their local facility 
needs. Under this program, funds are provided on a competitive basis to 
public and nonprofit entities, and consortia of those entities, to 
leverage other funds and help charter schools obtain school facilities 
through such means as purchase, lease and donation. Grantees may also 
use grants to leverage funds to help charter schools construct and 
renovate school facilities.
  Was it the intent of the chairman to continue funding for the Credit 
Enhancement for Charter School Facilities program, as part of the 
Charter School programs and at their fiscal year 2007 levels?
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McKEON. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his question.
  Yes, it was our intent to fund both the Credit Enhancement for 
Charter School Facilities program within the larger Charter School 
Grant program at their fiscal year 2007 levels, not to eliminate the 
credit enhancement program. We consolidated the programs for 
administrative efficiency and fully expect the Secretary of Education 
to continue funding for existing charter school programs from this 
single line item.
  Mr. McKEON. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his 
clarification and again appreciate his continued support for charter 
schools.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


              federal unemployment benefits and allowances

       For payments during fiscal year 2008 of trade adjustment 
     benefit payments and allowances under part I of subchapter B 
     of chapter 2 of title II of the Trade Act of 1974, and 
     section 246 of that Act; and for training, allowances for job 
     search and relocation, and related State administrative 
     expenses under Part II of subchapter B of chapter 2 of title 
     II of the Trade Act of 1974, $888,700,000, together with such 
     amounts as may be necessary to be charged to the subsequent 
     appropriation for payments for any period subsequent to 
     September 15, 2008.


     state unemployment insurance and employment service operations

       For authorized administrative expenses, $85,945,000, 
     together with not to exceed $3,256,669,000 which may be 
     expended from the employment security administration account 
     in the Unemployment Trust Fund (``the Trust Fund''), of 
     which--
       (1) $2,510,723,000 from the Trust Fund is for grants to 
     States for the administration of State unemployment insurance 
     laws as authorized under title III of the Social Security Act 
     (including $10,000,000 to conduct in-person reemployment and 
     eligibility assessments in one-stop career centers of 
     claimants of unemployment insurance), the administration of 
     unemployment insurance for Federal employees and for ex-
     service members as authorized under sections 8501-8525 of 
     title 5, United States Code, and the administration of trade 
     readjustment allowances and alternative trade adjustment 
     assistance under the Trade Act of 1974, and shall be 
     available for obligation by the States through December 31, 
     2008, except that funds used for automation acquisitions 
     shall be available for obligation by the States through 
     September 30, 2010, and funds used for unemployment insurance 
     workloads experienced by the States through September 30, 
     2008, shall be available for Federal obligation through 
     December 31, 2008;
       (2) $10,500,000 from the Trust Fund is for national 
     activities necessary to support the administration of the 
     Federal-State unemployment insurance system;
       (3) $23,203,000, together with $702,680,000 from the Trust 
     Fund, is for grants to States in accordance with section 6 of 
     the Wagner-Peyser Act, and shall be available for Federal 
     obligation for the period July 1, 2008, through June 30, 
     2009;
       (4) $32,766,000 from the Trust Fund is for national 
     activities of the Employment Service, including 
     administration of the work opportunity tax credit under 
     section 51 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, the 
     administration of activities, including foreign labor 
     certifications, under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 
     and the provision of technical assistance and staff training 
     under the Wagner-Peyser Act, including not to exceed 
     $1,228,000 that may be used for amortization payments to 
     States which had independent retirement plans in their State 
     employment service agencies prior to 1980;
       (5) $52,985,000 is to provide workforce information, 
     national electronic tools, and one-stop system building under 
     the Wagner-Peyser Act and shall be available for Federal 
     obligation for the period July 1, 2008, through June 30, 
     2009; and
       (6) $9,757,000 is to provide for work incentive grants to 
     the States and shall be available for the period July 1, 
     2008, through June 30, 2009:
     Provided, That to the extent that the Average Weekly Insured 
     Unemployment (``AWIU'') for fiscal year 2008 is projected by 
     the Department of Labor to exceed 2,786,000, an additional 
     $28,600,000 from the Trust Fund 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) to carry out title III of the Social Security Act: 
     Provided further, That funds appropriated in this Act that 
     are allotted to a State to carry out activities under title 
     III of the Social Security Act may be used by such State to 
     assist other States in carrying out activities under such 
     title III if the other States include areas that have 
     suffered a major disaster declared by the President under the 
     Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance 
     Act: 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 title III of the Social Security Act and the Wagner-
     Peyser Act may be used by States to fund integrated 
     unemployment insurance and Employment Service automation 
     efforts, notwithstanding cost allocation principles 
     prescribed under the Office of Management and Budget Circular 
     A-87.

  Mr. HONDA. Madam Chairman, I would like to engage in a colloquy with 
both the chairman and ranking member on a recent CMS proposed national 
coverage decision on ESAs.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HONDA. Madam Chairman, I'd like to thank the chairman and ranking 
member for this opportunity.
  The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, has proposed a 
national coverage decision memorandum for the use of erythropoiesis 
stimulating agents, ESAs, in cancer and related neoplastic conditions. 
Recent concerns have been raised by both CMS and the Food and Drug 
Administration about the use of ESAs in treating anemia that results 
from chemotherapy.
  The FDA is currently conducting its own scientific review of the 
issues. These concerns may be valid for many patients treated with 
ESAs, but as the FDA noted, they do not apply to all individuals 
treated for chemotherapy-induced anemia or bone marrow failure 
diseases.
  I would ask the chairman to work with me during conference to 
preserve the Senate language requesting that CMS delay finalizing the 
proposed decision memo for ESAs for non-renal disease indications until 
after the FDA has completed its current scientific review.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HONDA. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I understand the gentleman's concern, and 
I'm surprised that CMS would consider issuing a final decision when the 
FDA has not completed its scientific review. I would certainly be happy 
to work with the gentleman during conference on the issue.
  Mr. WALSH of New York. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HONDA. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WALSH of New York. Madam Chairman, I'm also concerned about the 
matter raised by the gentleman from California. I understand that the 
Senate Appropriations Committee has included some language dealing with 
this issue in its committee report. I can assure the gentleman that 
we'll continue to work on this matter as we conference the bill.
  Mr. HONDA. Thank you. I thank the chairman and ranking member.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       In addition, $40,000,000 from the employment security 
     administration account of the Unemployment Trust Fund shall 
     be available to conduct in-person reemployment and 
     eligibility assessments in one-stop career centers of 
     claimants of unemployment insurance: Provided, That not later 
     than 180 days following the end of the fiscal year 2008, the 
     Secretary shall submit an interim report to

[[Page 19211]]

     the Congress that includes available information on 
     expenditures, number of claimants assessed, and outcomes from 
     the assessments: Provided further, That not later than 18 
     months following the end of the fiscal year, the Secretary of 
     Labor shall submit to the Congress a final report containing 
     comprehensive information on the estimated savings that 
     result from the assessments of claimants and identification 
     of best practices.


        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, and to the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund as 
     authorized by section 9501(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1954; 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, 
     2009, $437,000,000.
       In addition, for making repayable advances to the Black 
     Lung Disability Trust Fund in the current fiscal year after 
     September 15, 2008, 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, $88,451,000, together with not to exceed 
     $82,049,000, which may be expended from the employment 
     security administration account in the Unemployment Trust 
     Fund.

               Employee Benefits Security Administration


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses for the Employee Benefits Security 
     Administration, $142,925,000.

                  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 subtitle E of title IV of the Employee 
     Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 4201 et 
     seq.), 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 (31 U.S.C. 9104), as may be necessary 
     in carrying out the program, including associated 
     administrative expenses, through September 30, 2008, for such 
     Corporation: Provided, That none of the funds available to 
     the Corporation for fiscal year 2008 shall be available for 
     obligations for administrative expenses in excess of 
     $411,151,000: Provided further, That to the extent that the 
     number of new plan participants in plans terminated by the 
     Corporation exceeds 100,000 in fiscal year 2008, an amount 
     not to exceed an additional $9,200,000 shall be available for 
     obligation for administrative expenses for every 20,000 
     additional terminated participants: Provided further, That an 
     additional $50,000 shall be made available for obligation for 
     investment management fees for every $25,000,000 in assets 
     received by the Corporation as a result of new plan 
     terminations, after approval by the Office of Management and 
     Budget and notification of the Committees on Appropriations 
     of the House of Representatives and the Senate.

                  Employment Standards Administration


                         salaries and expenses

                         (including rescission)

       For necessary expenses for the Employment Standards 
     Administration, including reimbursement to State, Federal, 
     and local agencies and their employees for inspection 
     services rendered, $434,397,000, together with $2,111,000 
     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 section 3302 of title 31, United States Code, 
     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 (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.).


              Amendment Offered by Mr. Kline of Minnesota

  Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Kline of Minnesota:
       Page 13, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $2,016,000)''.
       Page 25, line 22, after each dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $3,000,000)''.

  Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, my amendment is very simple.
  The committee bill cuts the Office of Labor Management Standards, 
known as OLMS, down to fiscal 2006 levels. My amendment would restore 
just over $2 million to get this enforcement agency back to its fiscal 
2007 level. To offset the increase for OLMS, we have reduced the 
International Labor Organization earmark from the International Labor 
Affairs Bureau by the requisite amount.
  What is OLMS and why I am taking to the floor of the House to make a 
$2 million adjustment in this small agency? That's a fair question.
  Without this amendment, the OLMS will have to cut staff. OLMS is the 
agency within the Department of Labor's Employment Standards 
Administration that enforces the Labor Management Reporting Disclosure 
Act of 1959. This Federal statute was championed by then-Senator John 
F. Kennedy and enacted as an outcome of the McCollum hearing on labor 
racketeering.
  Then-Senator Kennedy knew, as we affirm today, that rank-and-file 
union members deserve the right to know how their unions were spending 
and investing their members' dues money; that their unions' books were 
clean; and that elections for union officers would be fair and free of 
intimidation or scandal.
  Do labor unions need a government watchdog? Apparently so. Since 
2001, OLMS has helped obtain 750 convictions and restitution of over 
$70 million for union members in criminal cases of embezzlement and 
election irregularities.
  Some of my colleagues may dismiss these monetary results as just 
small change compared to the billions of assets held by labor unions, 
but they miss the point. Stealing from your fellow union members is 
against the law, regardless of whether the theft is $10,000 or 
$100,000. And anywhere in the country but Washington, D.C., $10,000 is 
a lot of money.
  OLMS functions like the Securities and Exchange Commission for labor 
unions. Why should rank-and-file union members not be protected in the 
same way as individual shareholders of corporations? Senator Paul 
Sarbanes agreed. During the debate on the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation in 
2002, he argued that if union financial disclosure and accountability 
was already required by law and wasn't being funded, he suggested that 
the Department of Labor request the money from Congress.
  Madam Chairman, DOL is not only being denied the increase it asked 
for; it is being cut to the bone. Federal law requires financial 
transparency and disclosure from corporations, pension plans, lobbyists 
and Members of Congress. Why would we not enforce the one law on the 
books that enables rank-and-file union members to review the financial 
expenditures of their unions?
  I find it ironic, Madam Chairman, that the House Financial Services 
Appropriations Subcommittee provided $3.1 million over the 
administration's budget request for the SEC, while OLMS was being cut 
below fiscal year 2007 levels. Clearly, we put a high priority on 
corporate accountability. We need to put the same high priority on 
union accountability.
  Although this is a modest amendment, it will enable this enforcement 
agency within the Department of Labor to maintain its audit program and 
other activities under the Labor Management Reporting Disclosure Act. I 
cannot believe that this House would say to union members throughout 
America that we do not support your right to know and your right to 
union integrity.
  I urge all Members to vote for this amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Let me say simply say, Madam Chairman, that the fund that 
the gentleman seeks to increase has been increased by 33 percent in 
terms of resources just over the last 4 years, and staffing for that 
same agency has been increased by over 25 percent. That is hardly 
starving an agency.
  I would also point out that at the same time you've had those large 
increases, the wage and hour division,

[[Page 19212]]

which is supposed to enforce protection for workers on minimum wage, 
overtime and child labor laws, will have seen its staffing drop by over 
12 percent since 2001, and the staff level at the Office of Federal 
Contract Compliance, which protects workers from unfair employment 
practices by Federal contractors, will have dropped by 23 percent.
  So it seems to me that what the gentleman's amendment does is to 
enrich the one portion of the Labor Department which has been doing 
very well, thank you, and they have been doing very well while other 
portions of the Labor Department that are supposed to focus on 
protecting workers have, in fact, been starved.
  The Department's own budget justifications for the large increase 
that they've requested states that the acceptability rate for unions in 
meeting labor management reporting and disclosure reporting 
requirements is at 96 percent.

                              {time}  1730

  The goal for fiscal 2008 is to raise this to 97 percent. I'd say if 
you are getting 96 percent, that's an A. At least it was when I went to 
school. Things may have changed since then.
  Let me also say that the place that this funding was taken from, in 
order to finance this increase is especially pernicious. The 
administration itself has asked for an 81 percent reduction in the 
International Labor Account. That is the program that is used in order 
to protect workers from having to compete against slave labor and child 
labor.
  I don't think that you help workers by weakening that program. We are 
simply trying to restore funding in that program that the President 
cut, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
  Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of Mr. Kline's 
amendment to restore funding for the Labor Department's Office of Labor 
Management Standards to its fiscal year 2007 level.
  A column published in Wall Street Journal's Opinion Journal noted 
today that Congress has added $935 million to President Bush's fiscal 
year 2008 budget request for the Department of Labor. Within that 
budget increase are individual funding increases for every single 
enforcement agency within the agency; that is, except for one.
  The appropriations measure before us cuts the Office of Labor 
Management Standards' budget $2 million below its fiscal 2007 funding 
level and more than $10 million below the President's budget request 
for the office this year.
  Identifying OLMS as the only enforcement office at the Department of 
Labor to have its budget cut is significant. In fact, it was clearly 
singled out by design.
  Why? Perhaps it's because the office has had such great success in 
protecting rank-and-file union members. Consider this, since 2001, OLMS 
has helped obtain over 750 convictions and restitution of over $70 
million in criminal cases of embezzlement, election irregularities and 
violations of union members' rights.
  Last week, for example, a union financial secretary in Michigan 
pleaded guilty to falsifying union reports. Earlier this year, a former 
union president in Texas was sentenced to 6\1/2\ years in prison for 
embezzling dues paid by hard-working union members. These are the types 
of results Congress expected when it passed the Labor Management 
Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
  This law makes clear that a union member must have access to union 
financial records and has the right to recover misappropriated union 
assets on behalf of the union when the union fails to do so itself.
  Nearly 50 years later, and with more than 15 million American workers 
contributing a portion of every paycheck they earn to labor 
organizations, we should demand nothing less than what we demanded in 
1959. Indeed, Congress expects the Securities and Exchange Commission 
to protect the interests of shareholders, and so too must we expect the 
OLMS to protect the interests of rank-and-file union members.
  The amendment before us would restore $2 million to the OLMS budget, 
bringing it back to the fiscal year 2007 level and ensuring it has the 
resources its needs to safeguard union transparency and accountability. 
Indeed, if my colleagues believe, as I do, that transparency is the key 
protection against financial misconduct, then we should take OLMS off 
the political chopping block by restoring its funds.
  I thank my Education and Labor Committee colleague, Mr. Kline, for 
offering the amendment.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in support of it.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Rhode Island is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam Chairman, I find it very ironic from the other 
side that they are so outraged about these cuts. This is an account 
within the Department of Labor that has seen a 33 percent increase over 
the last several Congresses, a 33 percent increase within this specific 
account of the Department of Labor.
  Now let's put that in perspective to what the Republicans put into 
other accounts within the Department of Labor. I seem to recall the 
International Child Labor Inspection in the last several Congresses was 
cut repeatedly over the last several Congresses, up to 87 percent.
  This is the International Labor Organization's duty to oversee child 
labor standards to ensure that our competitors are not using children 
in the conduct of labor when competing with us and our manufacturing 
process. Yet it was good enough for us to cut 87 percent of the 
inspection for child labor, but good enough for us to increase the 33 
percent.
  Now we hear a complaint that somehow it's not good enough for us to 
just, since the account has done very well, to just keep it as it's 
going. Now there is a big outrage about this.
  I might add, where was the outrage when the 12 percent cut was for 
the wage and hour department? Where was that? I didn't hear any 
outrage. Where was the outrage for the compliance for the contractors? 
I didn't hear any outrage for that.
  It's just interesting, when we hear these complaints about where the 
cuts are, let's find out where the priorities really are. I think we 
are hearing them. They are not with the children and child labor. They 
are not with the workers and the wage and hour inspections, and they 
are not with the contractors and making sure that they are protected on 
the job.
  They are here going after, once again, people who are trying to earn 
a living. I think that's a very clear set of priorities in this 
Department of Labor account.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Madam Chairman, I think the gentleman from Rhode Island 
must have misspoken when he said we were here to ``go after the 
workers.''
  I want to commend the gentleman from Minnesota for sponsoring this 
amendment which, to the contrary, seeks to protect American union dues-
paying workers.
  We live in an era of instant information, almost universal access to 
information. We are in a period, a legislative period on the heels of 
Sarbanes-Oxley, which brought unprecedented new auditing requirements 
and penalties for noncompliance for publicly traded companies.
  We live in a legislative era of McCain-Feingold, which brought 
unprecedented penalties, accountability, auditing to public office 
holders who accept campaign contributions to seek elective office, but 
then have to disclose to a greater detail than ever before, and subject 
to greater limits than ever before, for the sole purpose of having the 
public understand who was supporting that particular campaign.
  So in this era, in this trend of greater openness, greater 
accountability, easier access for the public to be able to

[[Page 19213]]

understand how their money is being spent, and who is the money behind 
individuals, behind candidates, behind corporations, enter the 
Democratic appropriations bill which guts the ability for America to 
understand who is behind the money in big labor and how are individual 
hard-working chemical workers', steelworkers', teachers', 
manufacturers' dues being spent by those public unions and private 
unions?
  Here is an amendment that takes the level of this agency's funding. 
It doesn't freeze it, it doesn't cut it by single digits. It takes it 
all the way back to the 2006 level and is a 20 percent cut.
  My friend and colleague from Minnesota seeks to correct that 
situation by replacing the money that otherwise would be going to a 
United Nations organization and puts it to help American workers. 
American taxpayers understand how American union dues are being spent.
  This agency has a proven track record. It gets results. This 
amendment allows it to continue on that path of auditing and getting 
results so that they can do better than the 4\1/2\ percent audit rate, 
which was all they were able to muster under the existing funding 
levels that they had been enjoying.
  Union members have a right to know how their dollars are being spent. 
Union Members have a right to know how their dollars are being spent, 
and clearly the curiosity is there. There is a proven track record of 
them seeking to know how their dollars are being spent.
  In fact, there were over 760,000 hits on the OLMS Web site just for 
that purpose, an average of over 2,100 hits per day for people seeking 
the information that will not be available at the desired rate and at 
the desired accuracy if this amendment is not adopted. It is critical 
that we adopt the Kline amendment so that hard-working men and women 
across America can see how their hard-earned dollars are being spent.
  Why, in this era of greater openness, for political candidates, for 
executives, for publicly traded companies, why in this era of ever more 
complicated regulations, ever more detailed tax returns, are we letting 
unions off the hook? There is a trend here.
  It began on this House floor over great resistance on this side of 
the aisle, rolled back fundamental privacy, the fundamental right to a 
secret ballot that hard-working union members had been enjoying, that 
hard-working Americans had been enjoying when they decided they want to 
unionize. Here we find ourselves today taking an additional step, and 
it's wrong.
  Adopt the Kline amendment.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Let me just say to the gentleman from Florida, I find it 
curious that he says he is standing up for workers, because he must not 
recall his party gutting workers' overtime pay. I don't know whether he 
recalls that his party was for flex time.
  Make sure every worker out there understands the Republican Party 
passed flex time. That means that your overtime pay, America, is gone. 
They passed it. They are not for working people. They said, if you work 
overtime, that it wasn't counting as overtime pay, and that that 
overtime pay towards your pension didn't get calculated to your 
overtime pension. So don't say you are on the side of workers.
  I suppose that when you were for OSHA reform, that you are for 
workers, right? Reform in your view meant inspection was voluntary. 
That's really standing up for workers, making it so that the employer, 
all they had to do is, you know, check their own book to say whether 
they were protecting workers' heads or not from scaffolding or for 
those chemical plants that you mentioned, whether they were safe or 
not.
  They didn't have to worry about covering their tracks. They didn't 
have any tracks to cover any more under your bill for OSHA reform. As 
far as other bills, NLRB, forget it. You guys threw that out the window 
with the TEAM Act. There is no negotiating for unions.
  So don't stand up here and talk about how you guys like to protect 
workers under this phony premise that you want to see more transparency 
and compliance. That's just a lot of hogwash.
  In terms of international labor standards, if you don't understand 
the connection between slave labor abroad and workers here at home, I 
am sorry, you don't understand globalization.

                          ____________________