Convicted Child Sex Offender DNA Index System Support Act

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Many of my colleagues have asked, will we finish today, and I can only answer that by saying we can if everybody works at it, and if we do not get too many delays, I think we can get this bill done in good time.

The Constitution says that the objective of government, or at least this is what we interpret it to be, is twofold. One is to provide for the common defense, and we did that earlier this week; we provided for the common defense. The other is to provide for the common welfare of the people, 280 million Americans. Today, in this bill, we have a unique and, I think, very good opportunity to achieve that goal. Maybe not perfectly, but certainly a lot of very positive things are in this bill.

First of all, I want to say that the members of the subcommittee were all very cooperative, all very helpful. We worked together in the subcommittee listening to a lot of testimony. We tried to put together a bill that represents the aspirations of the American people, not totally to the satisfaction of everyone, but certainly I think one that covers a lot of very positive parts. I also want to commend the staff members of both the minority and the majority. We have an excellent staff on this subcommittee; and if it were not for their effort, we would not be here today.

I am pleased to present before the House today the fiscal year 2004 appropriations bill for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies. When we reflect on that, we think of the broad jurisdiction and responsibility which that entails: Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies.

In crafting this bill, we have taken into consideration the priorities of the President, as well as the Members of the House. We have been attentive to the priorities of Congress as set by the budget resolution, and we are appreciative of the work of the leaders of the House and the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), in

working with the administration to develop a workable allocation for this bill.

My colleagues on the subcommittee know that I call our subcommittee the Love Your Neighbor Committee, because it provides the funding that touches so many lives and provides a helping hand to those in need in this great country. There would not be one American that is not affected by what is in this bill in some part, whether it is education, whether it is health care, whether it is retraining for a new job--a whole host of good things that are done in this piece of legislation.

The bill provides $138 billion in discretionary budget authority. This represents a 2.7 percent increase over fiscal year 2003. We have tried to be restrained and yet meet the needs, and this is really probably a little lower than the rate of inflation. The level of growth in the bill is commensurate with the current level of growth in our economy. It is a responsible and balanced bill.

The bill focuses priority spending for education in three important areas, including Title I, education funding for disadvantaged children, special education, and reading programs. Education programs overall are increased by $2.3 billion over last year, for a total of $55.4 billion. I would point out that this means that in the last 8 years we have doubled what is being spent on education.

Funding for the Department of Health and Human Services totals $61.2 billion, including $4.55 billion for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and we all know from the news that this is a very important function; and $27.664 billion for the National Institutes of Health to continue our research into treatments for disease.

The Department of Labor is funded at $11.7 billion, which includes funding of $1.46 billion for dislocated worker assistance, and $1.5 billion for the Job Corps program. This is a very important program. I just testified before the International Trade Commission that in Ohio alone, we lost over 90,000 manufacturing jobs in the last couple of years, and that retraining becomes extremely important in the lives of those individuals. They do not want welfare; they want jobs. They want an opportunity to get a new skill.

Mr. Chairman, Federal education spending has more than doubled since fiscal year 1996 when our investment totaled $23 billion, to today with the Federal education funding reaching $55.4 billion. This funding is significant and we must be cautious in our funding priorities to ensure that these dollars go to programs most directly improving our children's education.

As my colleagues know, the bill provides the funding necessary to implement the historic No Child Left Behind Act, which passed this Chamber with strong bipartisan support. The law sets high goals for ensuring that every child in our Nation will know how to read by the third grade and establishes important programs to aid in achieving this goal. To carry out this mission, we have provided a $666 million increase in Title I funding for disadvantaged children, bringing the total funding of title I to $12.35 billion. Together with the funding we are providing today and the accountability provisions included in the No Child Left Behind Act, these dollars can make a real difference in the quality of education for every child.

I want to mention at this point that our Committee on Education and the Workforce is working hard to look at the laws to ensure that they are effective, that they work better prospectively. It is not just a matter of putting money into these various activities, but it is a matter of putting the money in and using it carefully. I think the Committee on Education and the Workforce deserves a lot of credit for trying to meet that goal.

In addition to the Title I program, the No Child Left Behind Act creates new reading programs to assist school districts in meeting the challenge of ensuring that every child can read through scientifically based methods. These programs will assist parents, teachers, and school districts in meeting the reading challenges of our children. We provide over $1 billion for these programs.

I would say one of the things that causes me concern is the dropout rate in our big cities. They do not start in the 9th grade or the 10th grade to drop out. If we are to lower the dropout rate, one of the elements of that is getting every child able to read. I think many times high school dropouts result from the fact that they have not been well grounded in reading, and we recognize that in our funding.

Many of my colleagues speak to me about the financial demands of special education programs in their local school districts. We also hear from parents about the need to support adequate special education funding to ensure that their special needs children may receive a quality education. It is a wonderful thing about America; we are concerned for everyone, and this bill reflects that. With the inclusion of an additional $1 billion for special education in this bill, the program is now funded at nearly $10 billion. This figure represents a nearly 300 percent increase in the program since fiscal year 1996, three times as much. Clearly, we are all committed to addressing the needs of our children with special education needs.

I am a believer that no child will be left behind if we can ensure that there is a quality teacher in every classroom in our Nation. Funding for Title II--Preparing, Training, and Recruiting High-Quality Teachers and Principals under the No Child Left Behind Act is a critical component to achieving this goal.

We provide the following funding to encourage people to enter the field of teaching and strengthen the skills of those already there. I am sure if I ask the Members, all of my colleagues have had a teacher or maybe two or three teachers who made a difference in their lives, and we want to be sure that every child has a good teacher in every classroom.

We include $2.93 billion for the State teacher-training block grant, giving the States money to improve their teacher-training programs; $90 million for the teacher-quality enhancement grants; $150 million for math and science partnerships that will allow universities and local education agencies to partner to improve the quality of their math and science programs, and this really is a very critical need; $49.4 million for the Transition to Teaching program to assist in recruiting mid-career professionals into the field of teaching. There are people out there who say, there must be more than what I am doing and they want to be teachers. They want to contribute. And we want to help them through this program.

Mr. Chairman, there is $20 million for the Troops to Teachers program. For those that are not familiar with this program, we encourage those people in the armed services that are leaving, maybe they are 42 or 43 years old, and we encourage them to go into teaching to help fill the gaps because they have travel experience, they have experience in managing people, and this program has proven very successful. I think last year the Teacher of the Year was an individual who had been brought into the field as a retired member of military. So we encourage that program. Many of my colleagues may already know that First Lady Laura Bush supports the Troops to Teachers program with visits to our military bases to inform our troops about the opportunity to enter the field of teaching upon the completion of their military service. With maturity, training in mathematics or science, and assistance in appropriate courses for teaching, members of our Armed Forces make outstanding classroom teachers in fields where we are currently experiencing a teacher shortage. I might say the First Lady is very important in this effort because having her, when she visits military bases, encourage individuals to consider this is a very effective part of the program.

We have restored funding to programs important to our Members, including the popular 21st Century Learning Communities program for after-school programs for students, which is funded at $1 billion, and for rural education at $170 million. In other words, it gives the young people an opportunity to acquire skills or to participate in athletics between the hours of 3 to 6 or 7 p.m., an opportunity to use this time usefully.

And we have strong support for this from YMCAs, Boys and Girls Clubs, a

whole host of these groups that do provide this kind of service. We have restored funding to programs important to our members.

Impact Aid provides funding to school districts that have Federal facilities, including military facilities, within their jurisdictions and is increased by $50 million to $1.238 billion. We have asked our troops, many of them leave their families to go overseas to protect American interests, and I think it is essential that we give their children a good educational opportunity. That is what we do with Impact Aid and that is why the increase.

Charter schools provide an alternative to students in failing schools, and we have included $220 million in charter school grants and $25.8 for the charter school facilities. We have funded the Head Start program at the President's budget request of $6.8 billion, an increase of $148 million. This funding level will provide for current service levels for the program and ensure that quality improvements and training elements are fully implemented. And, again, the Committee on Education and the Workforce is taking a look at this existing law with the thought of making it even better.

Students who have no experience in higher education benefit from the TRIO and GEAR UP programs. These programs assist students in preparing for higher education through proper course selection, mentoring and even tutoring services. TRIO receives $835 million and GEAR UP $300 million in the bill. What this means is that students who might not have thought about going on to higher education are encouraged to do so by others in the community. Many times volunteers will work in these programs. And, again, that is part of the American way of giving more opportunity.

College costs continue to rise and the cost of higher education today continues to be an impediment to many students. Pell grants play an important role in helping low-income students achieve their education goals. A larger-than-expected demand on these grants has occurred as a result of our slow economy, causing many people who have previously been in the workforce to seek additional training in an academic environment, which is a very positive thing. Therefore, the bill continues to support a maximum Pell grant level of $4,050 while also including funding of $12.250 billion, an increase of $885 million over last year to address the shortfall in addressing the funding needs of students.

There is a book that talks about how the GI Bill has made a very great impact on this Nation in terms of elevating educational opportunities and, again, this Pell grant has a similar impact. It gives students an opportunity who might not otherwise get a crack at a higher education. That does not have to be academic at the sense of a university college. It can be a trade school. It can be a vocational school, a technical institute; but it does provide opportunity for those at all levels of our economic scale.

Health and Human Services. There is little more precious to each of us than our good health. I believe that when you have good health you have it all or at least a good part of it. Unfortunately, this is not the case for many Americans, and it is through the agencies and programs of the Department of Health and Human Services that we assist others to improve their health. I wish all of you could sit in our hearings and see a row of wheelchairs with people with health problems and hear testimony from those who have various kinds of afflictions. It will make you realize how fortunate you are if you have good health and how important it is that we, as a society, try to ensure that everybody has this kind of opportunity, and that is one of the things this bill does.

In fiscal year 2003 we completed a 5-year effort to double the funding of the National Institutes of Health, and this was a bipartisan effort; but it made a vast improvement or vast opportunity for NIH to reach out much further than they would have otherwise. Through the work of NIH scientists and extramural scientists at universities across the country, we have been able to conduct important research to understand who we are through the Human Genome Project, how to treat once-deadly diseases and that many life-threatening diseases are actually preventable. After accounting for one-time costs for fiscal year 2003, NIH will have an additional $1.7 billion for medical research in this bill.

One of the pieces of testimony that really stuck with me was NIH said that every 5 years life expectancy goes up a year. That is an enormous achievement when you think about it. A baby born today will have a possible 10 or 15 years of additional life. We hope it is a quality life as a result of the commitment of this body, again, a bipartisan commitment, to do the research, to deal with these troubling diseases that afflict us. I was also struck when they testified that there are 6,000 identifiable diseases and medical conditions that can possibly afflict people. So you can see why it is so important that we continue the funding. And, basically, because we have funded building programs in the past, we have not had to do that so much in this bill so that the real increase is about 6 percent for the research programs.

All the information and advances we have gained from NIH, however, will be useless without a way to communicate this information to health care providers and individuals, those most directly responsible for their own health. Thus, the work of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is critical to improving our health. We call upon the CDC to put into practice medical advances through numerous conflicting disease and prevention programs. Further, we call upon the CDC and its infectious disease experts to act as our first line of defense, such as Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, SARS, which you have heard a lot about lately, and West Nile Virus. In our changed world we must call upon CDC to protect us from diseases that may come to us intentionally through terrorist attacks--bioterrorism, radiological and chemical attacks. Given these tremendous demands on the CDC, we have provided the agency with $4.55 billion. That is a $57 million increase over last year.

Total CDC funding for the Global AIDS Initiative is $243 million. Within this level, we have been responsive to the President's request to fund his new Global HIV/AIDS Mother and Child Prevention Initiative at $100 million. Through this important initiative, thousands of children across the African continent may be protected against HIV transmission from their mothers. What a great contribution. The President, of course, is talking about this when he is in Africa this week.

The Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund was established following the tragic events of September 11. It is through this fund that we are attempting to build a seamless system for delivering important safety information and protecting the American people. The fund includes support to the CDC and through it our State and local health departments, as well as other agencies and the Department of Health and Human Services to ensure protections from all levels of government. This year we are providing over $1.7 billion to the funds.

I might say it is a goal of this subcommittee to make the health care preventative delivery system seamless so the Centers for Disease Control, the State health agencies, the local health agencies, city and county, are in complete communication and that the whole process is seamless. This is very important in terms of delivering services, and it is important in terms of our national security.

Funding for community health centers is $1.627 billion. This represents a $122.3 million increase over last year as we provide funding for the third year of the President's proposed expansion of health services to people who are underinsured or have no health benefits at all. And this is a very important element, again, of our communities, a lot of volunteers that participate. It frees up the emergency rooms because people have another alternative place to go, and it provides some measure of help to those who can ill afford to pay for a doctor or pay for health care services. I think these community health programs are extremely important, and we have reflected that in our funding, and I am sure many of you have those in your own community.

Children's hospitals across the Nation are the training grounds for our pediatricians. The bill provides $305 million to train these important care

givers. The Medicare system takes care of the education for the conventional MD programs but not for pediatricians or OB-GYNs. And what we do is give the children's hospitals financial assistance so they in turn too can provide the same level of education for the pediatricians. We all know that the early years are the most important in a child's life. And I think this is an extremely important program.

The Ryan White AIDS program is funded at $2 billion, an increase of $24 million. An important portion of this funding assists those who are infected with the virus in receiving vital medications through the Drug Assistance Program.

This year the administration sought congressional support for a new substance abuse treatment program called Access to Recovery through the use of a State voucher system. We have responded to this request with $100 million and are eager to work with the administration as they develop a program to serve people in great need. It will be another tool, but we want the administration to do a pilot project to work out how this can be done effectively. They have requested somewhat more money than that, but I think $100 million will go a long way. And if it proves as effective as we think it could, the next year will be another time to look at it.

Additional support of the President's initiatives in this bill include faith-based programs--the Compassion Capital Fund at $50 million, and the Mentoring of Children of Prisoners at $25 million, I suspect a somewhat forgotten group. But those children will be citizens tomorrow too, and we should give them a chance even though maybe one of their parents is incarcerated for some reason.

Programs to support abstinence programs for young people will receive $10 million increase for a total of $65 million in this bill.

LIHEAP is an important safety net providing financial assistance to low-income people who struggle with paying their heating and cooling bills. These funds are distributed to the States through the formula grant program, and we have retained the funding level for these grants at the fiscal year 2003 level of $1.7 billion. To assist people in the event of a particularly severe heating or cooling season, we provide $100 million in emergency funds. These funds may be released to the State at the discretion of the President.

The Department of Labor has jurisdiction over many important worker training and protection programs; therefore, we have restored funding to core job training and employment assistance programs to the fiscal year 2003 level. As a number of communities continue to experience plant closings and other layoffs, we understand the need to support dislocated worker-training programs that can assist workers to return to the workforce. Funding for this program is $1.155 billion, the same as in fiscal year 2003, an increase of $78 million over the budget request. This is one where we feel that this is so important that we want to add more than requested in the President's budget. And if you have ever been to one of these job opportunity locations in your district, you realize how vitally important this is to those that are laid off. It gives them hope, hope that there may be a new job available, hope that they can take care of their families, hope that they can get health care. It is vitally important.

The Job Corps program provides a second chance to young people to develop a skill for the 21st century workforce. As we all know, the mix is different than it used to be in the job market. Many people who enroll in Job Corps centers never completed their high school education, and many have other problems that make holding a job very difficult. A second chance. I like that, second chance. Everybody should have a second chance at training, giving hope to these workers; and it makes them productive members of our society. Funding for Job Corps is $1.5 billion. This is an increase of $28 million.

Worker protection programs, including OSHA and MSHA, are funded at the President's budget request.

Related agencies. While agencies such as the Social Security Administration and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, receive their funding from the mandatory spending side, this bill provides the administrative costs for these agencies. Effective administration of these agencies ensures efficient service to recipients. We have included a 6.1 percent increase in the funding for the Social Security Administration to improve service delivery of benefits and accelerate the time it takes to process disability claims.

I am sure all of us have experienced a call from someone who has a disability claim and says, why can I not get this taken care of? We recognize that, and we are saying let us put more people so they can be handled promptly. Otherwise they are left without any means of providing a living. So we have given a 6.1 percent increase.

The Institute of Museum and Library Services provides funding to our Nation's public libraries and provides grants for library and museum projects. Funding totals $238 million, including funds for the second year of a program to recruit and educate librarians. Libraries are the windows to the world and a place of inspiration for many individuals.

Mr. Chairman, the programs and funding levels I have described represent the good neighbor in all of us as a Nation, as a people. We have tried to use our allocation to fund our highest priorities and to reduce the growth in this bill. It is fair, it is balanced, and I think it will serve the people well, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

At this time, Mr. Chairman, I will submit a detailed table of the bill into the Record.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH10JY03.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH10JY03.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH10JY03.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH10JY03.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH10JY03.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH10JY03.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH10JY03.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH10JY03.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH10JY03.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH10JY03.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH10JY03.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH10JY03.012

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH10JY03.013

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH10JY03.014

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH10JY03.015

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH10JY03.016

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH10JY03.017

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH10JY03.018

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH10JY03.019

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH10JY03.020

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH10JY03.021

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH10JY03.022

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH10JY03.023

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH10JY03.024

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH10JY03.025

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH10JY03.026

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield so much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the Chairman of the full Committee on Appropriations, and I want to say he did a wonderful job in getting us a very substantial allocation to meet these needs.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to just comment and again point out that we have doubled education funding in the last 8 years. We have tripled the amount that goes to special needs children. We have a 2.7 percent increase in this bill over last year, and I think a lot of people in the United States will be happy to get a 2.7 percent pay raise. I am just saying we are doing the best we can with the resources that are available.

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would add one more comment. We have a different situation as a result of 9-11. We have responsibilities that have absorbed funds that otherwise might be available here.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson), a very valued member of our subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

Just to keep the record straight, the Democrats had control of the Presidency, the House and the Senate in fiscal years 1994 and 1995. During this time, Congressional Democrats voted to cut the Department of Education by over $3 billion below levels recommended by President Clinton. The fiscal year 1994 increase was only 3.6 percent, and 1995 was only 2.4.

In fiscal year 1993, a Democrat-controlled House and Senate passed a final bill that cut President Bush's education budget by nearly $700 million. I think we have to stick with the facts here today. It is obvious that there have been some different approaches in the past.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I think that debate was held when we had the Ways and Means bill. Today we have to work with what we have.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon), a valued member of our subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker), a very valued member of our subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, I think we just have to keep the record straight today, and this is a fact. What was promised by President Bush and congressional Republicans in No Child Left Behind was that Federal K-12 education spending would increase substantially, linked for the first time to accountability and high standards, and that is precisely what has happened.

Title I, disadvantaged students, the primary spending program in the No Child Left Behind increased during the first 2 years of President Bush's administration more than it did during the previous 7 years combined under President Clinton.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), a valued member of our subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).

Mr. Chairman, I want to say first, before yielding to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, that his committee is looking at all of these programs to find which of those are working well and is providing reforms that will make them work even better, and I think that is an important element of what we are doing today.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to comment that in the last 8 years we have doubled Pell grants, and I will also add that we have added $885 million this year. The reason the maximum has stayed stable is that more people are taking advantage of it, and that is good. That is a positive thing. As a naval veteran, I am a product of the GI bill, and I realize how very important these opportunities are. And I would like to do more, but I think we have done a good job, considering the resources that are available.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt).

Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on each side?

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

We hear on the Pell grant, I want to point out something, and that is that in the last 2 years, the numbers have increased 25 percent. So even though the level which we have increased substantially in the last 6 or 8 years was the same this year, it is because we wanted to give more students a chance. We have increased the total amount by $880 million that will be available for Pell grants, but there are so many more, and that is good. I like to see more and more students gets involved and use this service, but it makes it a tough budgeting situation. At least that is the reason that we have gotten to the situation we are in.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson), a member of the committee.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy).

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to point out to the gentleman who just spoke, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), that we do have report language urging NINDS to focus on ALS. I know it is a devastating problem for those who are afflicted, and we are concerned about it.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) for a colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for voicing his concerns. In my own State I have seen firsthand how critical LIHEAP is for low- and fixed-income families. I support providing an adequate funding level for this program.

When the House and Senate go to conference on this appropriations measure, I will work with my colleagues to ensure the viability of this crucial program.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority leader.

Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman, who is that nice-looking girl with that young guy?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes and 25 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for a colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's leadership on this issue and agree with him that the study of Down Syndrome should be a national priority. The committee has encouraged the NIH and CDC to place a greater priority on Down Syndrome research, which has generally lagged behind other kinds of disability research. The testimony that was provided to the subcommittee on May 13 was very informative and very helpful, and I look forward to working with the gentleman from Texas to encourage NIH and CDC to fund this important research.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, I look forward with working with my friend to address these specific concerns in this appropriations bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter) for a colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's comments. I will be happy to work with my colleague, the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter), as this legislation moves through the legislative process.

Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?

Mr. Chairman, let me say to the people who are watching, we are going to do some procedural things. We are making every effort to try to get this bill finished in a timely manner, so bear with us.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 12 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, the last 2 years the Republican majority has pushed $2 trillion in tax cuts through this House. A huge percentage of those cuts have been focused on the top 1 percent of earners in this country who make over 100,000 bucks a year. For those 2 years, the Republican Party has pretended that there are no costs associated with those tax cuts. Well, there are, and on this bill is where those costs become evident. This is where the chickens come home to roost.

Cost number one is $26 billion a year in additional interest payments that our taxpayers will have to pay next year because every single dollar of the tax cut that was passed was paid for with borrowed money.

The second cost that is incurred is that because all of the dollars have been put into tax cuts, ``ain't no more money left'' for Medicare fix-ups, ``ain't no more money left'' to do a real as opposed to a ``let's pretend'' prescription drug program, and there isn't nearly enough money left to make the necessary investments that American families depend upon in the education and health care and worker protection area, and this is where those consequences show up on this bill.

Now, what are the deficiencies? First of all, the Republican budget, which was the enabling legislation which enabled the tax cuts to come to this floor, the Republican budget resolution promised Republican moderates, in return for their votes on the budget resolution, they promised that Title I, which is the main education program that we use to help kids who need some help to stay abreast, they promised that Title I would be funded at $1 billion above last year. This bill contains the broken promise because this bill funds Title I $340 million below the amount promised in the Republican's own budget resolution.

Special education. Both parties compete with each other and claim how much they are in love with special education programs. Well, the Republican majority promised $2.2 billion in additional funding for special education if those moderates would just vote for that bill. Now, you bring the actual bill to the floor, and I said yesterday it is apparent the check is not in the mail because this bill is $1.2 billion short of the Republican promise in the budget resolution on that score. That is broken promise number two.

There is another way to measure it. The President, when he came into office, said, ``Oh, he was not going to spend any more money on education until we reformed the programs.'' So we reformed the programs in the No Child Left Behind Act, all kinds of promises to the States and the local school districts, all kinds of mandates. That bill was the mother of all mandates, and yet today, if you take a look at how this bill or those programs compares to the funding schedule in that bill, this bill is $8 billion short, $8 billion short.

Then if you take a look at some of the details, after-school programs, now I know my good friend from Ohio is a strong supporter of those programs, but this bill is $750 million short of the No Child Left Behind promise for after-school programs.

Student aid: Pell grants, the principal program by which we help families send their kids to college, in 1975 Pell grants paid for 84 percent of the cost of a public education on average. This year it is down to 38 percent because this bill freezes Pell grants. In addition to that, the administration cuts the ability of Pell grant recipients to use their full State and local tax deduction in determining their eligibility for Pell grants. So that is another chiseling away at benefits we provide families to go to college.

Now move to the health care front. For 5 years we have almost doubled funding at NIH, the institute which provides for most of the medical research in this country, but this bill puts the brake on that 5-year progress. The result? Grants for new programs and competitive renewal of existing or of expiring grants will go up by only two-tenths of 1 percent for a grand total of 21 grants, the smallest increase in 15 years.

I invite Members of this House, tell the 1.3 million people who are going to get cancer this year, tell the 1 million people who are going to find out they have diabetes, tell the 60,000 people who are going to get Parkinson's, tell them that it is more important to give an $88,000 tax cut to somebody who makes $1 million a year than it is to continue our efforts to attack those diseases at full throttle.

We hear this nonsense about how NIH needs some breathing time in order to absorb the money that we have already given them. Baloney. Less than 35 percent of all of the grants that are approved as being quality science are ever funded. Tell me there is not a need.

Or if you want to move on, the nursing, the new nursing act that passed last year, every politician in this House wrote to every nurse in their district and said, ``we love you, we are all for this program.'' Where is the money to make it reality? No new money in this bill for that program.

Then if you take a look at community service block grant, money that we provide that is used to help families that are poor and near poor, cut by 150 million bucks.

Low-income heating assistance program: I started that program with Ed Muskie back in the 1970s, and we had a lot of help from a lot of Republicans, including Silvio Conte. What has happened to that bill today? We have been told, on one hand, we have been told by the Republican members of our committee, correctly so, that we are going to have a big increase in natural gas prices. How does the committee respond? By cutting the low-income heating assistance program by 200 million bucks. I do not think that is a very smart thing to do.

So basically, these are just a few areas in which this bill is deficient. So what we are going to try to do, despite the fact that the rule turned us down, we are going to try to offer two amendments on this side of the aisle.

We are going to try to add $2.8 billion in additional education funding, to add $340 million more for Title I, $1.2 billion for special education. We are going to try to raise Pell grant, the maximum grants, by $150. In the health care area, we are going to add some money to the rural health program. We are going to add some funding to our chem/bio response capability. We are going to try to double the rate of increased funding for NIH so that we can have a 6 percent increase in new and competing grants. We are going to fund that nursing act. We are going to try to provide $450 million in increased funding for low- income heating assistance. We are going to restore the $150 million cut for the CSBG program. We are going to put $82 million back in the older Americans bill so that we do not have to cut out 3 million congregate meals for senior citizens this year, and so that we do not have to cut out 4 million meals for the Meals on Wheels program.

How are we going to pay for it? We are going to pay for it by cutting the tax cut that people who earn more than a million bucks a year would get from $88,000 that they are now scheduled to get to a mere $60,000. My goodness me, they are going to be stuck on a starvation diet this year, poor folks.

Then we are going to try a second amendment which will raise the matching rate for Medicaid for each State so that we can prevent every State in the Union from knocking kids off the Medicaid or the SCHIP rolls.

Mr. Chairman, we ought to be ashamed of ourselves that we are making kids pay for tax cuts for millionaires by giving up their eligibility for health care. That is an outrageous set of priorities, but it is one which is enforced on this country by the majority party actions in ramming those giant-size tax cuts for high-income people through this House.

We are not saying that those who make $1 million a year should not get a tax cut like everybody else. We are saying that we ought to limit, through the action of our first amendment and the second amendment, all we are saying is when you put those two together, we simply want to limit the size of their tax cut to $44,000 on average instead of $88,000. And I will bet you that if you ask 90 percent of those people, they will say that they would much prefer that we provide the money for these kids and provide the money for their education rather than give them a supersize tax cut.

So, Mr. Chairman, that is what we are going to try to do today because this budget process has been handled in such a way that the majority party has tried to obscure, at every opportunity they have tried to obscure the linkage between their actions on taxes and the resulting actions on education, health care and other needed services for the citizens of this country.

What our amendments will try to do is to reestablish those linkages so that people understand there are consequences to the choices that we make, and those consequences fall most heavily on the people who most need our help.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, I forgot, but I want to state here and now that I have the greatest respect for the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and certainly the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young). And I know that the gentleman from Ohio, as chairman of this subcommittee, if more money would have been available, would have put the money in the right places. His heart is in the right place. I understand that.

My problem is that the policy of the majority party has prevented Chairman Regula from being Chairman Regula. The problem is that we are told as a result of the tax cuts that we can somehow afford $2 trillion in tax cuts over the next decade, over 40 percent of which are targeted at the wealthiest 1 percent of the people in this country, but somehow we cannot afford $3 billion, not trillion, but $3 billion more to educate our kids, or $3 billion more to help see to it that kids do not lose their health coverage in a time of national economic problems. I think that is a sad, sad commentary on the priorities of this Congress.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished minority whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

(Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I believe opportunity is the key, but I think it is very difficult to have opportunity if you do not have an education. It is very difficult to have opportunity if you do not have decent health.

The only choice before us is what we think is more important: Using $6 billion to provide better education for our kids and making sure that kids are not knocked off health care rolls around the country, or whether to use that $6 billion to make sure that people who make more than $1 million a year get an $88,000 tax cut rather than a $44,000 tax cut. That is the only issue before us here today.

I am highly amused when I hear Republicans come to the floor and talk about how much they have done for education. I want to show what the record shows because I negotiated every one of the education budgets for the last 10 years. I was one of the four people in the room when the numbers were decided.

Here is what happened. In fiscal year 1995, the Republican House majority tried to cut $1.7 billion from the previous education budget. They tried to abolish the Department of Education, and they even shut down the government to try to force President Clinton to swallow those priorities. They lost.

In fiscal year 1996, the House Republicans tried to cut $3.6 billion from the previous year's education funding. They lost.

In 1997, the House Republicans tried to cut $2.8 billion from the Clinton budget for education. They failed.

In 1998, the House Republicans tried to cut $660 million from the Clinton education budget. They failed.

In fiscal year 2000, the House Republicans tried to cut $1.4 billion from the Clinton budget, they failed.

In 2001, they tried to cut $3 billion out of the Clinton budget for education. They failed.

Now they are trying to take credit for their failures. I find that interesting; I find that fascinating. I would call it near-Enron accounting. By all means if they want to climb on board and claim that they were funding that they tried to stop, be my guest. The country knows otherwise. Nobody believes them. All I can say is that in Washington the worse thing that can happen to a politician is when they believe their own baloney, and we have heard a lot of it here today.

The House Republican Record on Education Funding

Lately, the Republican Majority has attempted to claim

credit for education funding increases, and to reinvent their

record on education. Just a few years ago, however,

Republicans were calling for the demise of the Department of

Education and billions in education cuts.

If the House Republican position on education had prevailed

over a 9-year period, House Republicans would have spent $20

billion less on education.

One of the first actions of the new House Republican

majority in the spring of 1995 was to rescind $1.7 billion

($1.635 billion in HR 1158 and $65 million in HR 889) in FY

1995 education funding. Democrats succeeded in reducing the

final rescissions to less than $600 million.

House Republicans then led an attack on education in the FY

1996 Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill when they

proposed only $20.8 billion for the Department of Education--

a cut of $3.6 billion below the already-reduced FY 1995 level

and $5.0 billion below President Clinton's education request.

The House Republican LHHS bill was $2.0 billion below the

final conference version of the LHHS bill supported by

Democrats, which restored the majority of the Republican

cuts.

House Republicans passed a FY 1997 LHHS-Education

appropriations bill that provided $22.8 billion for

education, a cut of $2.8 billion below the request and $3.6

billion below the final conference level for education.

Democrats and President Clinton were successful not only in

reversing these Republican-led cuts, but increasing education

funding in real terms, to the funding levels approved in the

last Democratic Congress.

Following the 1997 bipartisan budget agreement, the FY 1998

LHHS-Education appropriations bill included a bipartisan

agreement to provide $29.3 billion for education. Democrats

secured an additional $410 million in the final conference

version of the bill.

House Republicans were back to their old tricks in FY 1999.

They could not even pass their FY 1999 LHHS bill--it was so

mired in controversy. The Republican LHHS bill reported by

the Appropriations Committee included $30.5 billion for

education, $2.6 billion less than the $33.1 billion provided

in the final conference agreement on LHHS.

In the House of Republican FY 2000 Labor-HHS-Education bill

reported by the Committee--a bill that never saw the light of

day on the House floor--$33.3 billion was included for

education, nearly $2.4 billion less than the $35.7 billion

included in the final conference agreement.

In FY 2001, House Republicans included $37.1 billion in the

House-passed Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations bill. This

amount was a stunning $.9 billion below the amount secured by

the Clinton White House and Congressional Democrats for

education in the final conference agreement ultimately

reached in December 2000.

In FY 2002, House Democrats succeeded in obtaining a

commitment from President Bush to support another $4 billion

for the FY 2002 LHHS 302(b) allocation. As a result, the

House-passed LHHS bill provided $49.3 billion for education,

an increase of $4.7 billion over the Bush request. The House

level was scaled back slightly (by $336 million) in the final

conference agreement.

In FY 2003, House Republicans punted on the Bush education

budget, which would have cut No Child Left Behind programs by

$90 million--until after the elections. Although they failed

to hold a subcommittee or committee mark up, House

Republicans introduced a LHHS bill that provided the

President's request of $50.3 billion. This Republican LHHS

bill was $2.8 billion below the final level agreed to in the

FY 2003 omnibus bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, I received unanimous consent earlier to insert a table after my remarks, which I will do, which will lay out clearly what the record has been over the last 10-year period.

All I would say in further rebuttal to my good friend: Regardless of what each of us argues the past shows, the issue today is whether we are for $6 billion more for education and health care for kids and sick people, or whether you are for using that $6 billion to make sure that our struggling millionaires get a double-sized tax cut. I think the public will see by the votes who is for what.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson).

(Mr. JACKSON of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking member on the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 20 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, we come together all right when we have good bills to come together on, but this bill is a turkey, and that is why on this occasion we are not for it.

I will also be inserting in the Congressional Record when we get into the full House several charts which relate to what the gentleman just said that demonstrate the error of his ways.

I would also point out to the gentleman, he is factually incorrect if he says that this bill was earmarked when the Democrats were in control. There were no earmarks whatsoever. In fact, Bill Natcher, the last Democratic chairman of this subcommittee, prided himself on not having any earmarks.

With respect to the subcommittee that I chaired for foreign operations, there were no earmarks in the foreign operations bill when I chaired that subcommittee either.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, let me simply correct several of the impressions left by the previous speaker.

I want to congratulate the Republican Party. I will readily admit that they have changed somewhat since they took over in 1995. When they took over in 1995, they wanted to cut the guts out of education funding, and they wanted to abolish the Department of Education. They have become somewhat more civilized since that time. But they are still producing appropriation bills that do not meet the promise of their authorizations and do not meet the promise of their budget resolutions. That is obvious.

With respect to title I, the fact is that between fiscal year 2001 and 2003, the Bush administration requested a total increase of $1.3 billion for title I, only 44 percent of the total $2.9 billion increase eventually provided by the Congress, one House of which is under Democratic control. On Pell Grants, if House Republicans had had their way, the Pell Grant maximum award would have been cut between fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 2003 by a net total of $530 below the final levels enacted into law.

So let me simply say those are the facts with respect to the past. But the past, in my view, is not quite as important as the future; and I would simply say that today it is very simple: Do we want to use $6 billion to guarantee that people who make more than $1 million a year will get an $88,000 tax cut, or do we want to limit their tax cut to $44,000 so we can move $6 billion into education and into health care, most of which will go to protect the health care of children?

That is the issue that is before us, not yesterday, but today; and when the votes are counted, we will see where each party stands.

Republican Record on Pell Grants

If House Republicans had had their way, the Pell Grant

maximum award would have been cut between FY 1996 and FY 2003

by a net total of $530 below the final levels that were

enacted into law.

In FY 1996, the House Republican LHHS bill cut President

Clinton's request for a $2,620 maximum Pell Grant by $180 to

$2,440. The Republican bill provided $30 less than the $2,470

maximum grant provided in the final LHHS bill.

In FY 1997, House Republicans again cut President Clinton's

request for a $2,700 maximum Pell Grant by $200 to $2,500.

The Pell Grant award level in the House Republican LHHS bill

was $200 less than the final $2,700 maximum award approved in

the LHHS conference agreement.

In FY 1998, a bipartisan House-passed LHHS bill provided a

$3,000 maximum Pell Grant level. This amount, secured by

Democrats, provided a $300 or 11 percent increase over the

previous year, and was later enacted into law.

In FY 1999, the House Republican LHHS bill provided a token

$25 more than the final conference level of $3,125 for the

maximum Pell Grant.

In FY 2000, the House Republican LHHS bill provided $3,275

for the maximum Pell Grant, $25 less than the $3,300 maximum

Pell Grant approved in the final conference agreement

supported by Democrats.

In FY 2001, the House Republican LHHS bill included $3,500

for the maximum Pell award--$250 less than the $3,750 secured

by House Democrats in conference. The final level secured by

Democrats provided a $450 increase over the previous year and

was the largest Pell Grant increase in more than 25 years.

In FY 2002--a bipartisan year--Republicans agreed with

Democrats to raise the maximum Pell Grant to $4,000, an

increase of $250 over the previous year. This level was

enacted into law.

In FY 2003, the Republican LHHS bill introduced by Chairman

Regula accepted the President Bush's proposal to freeze the

maximum grant at $4,000. The bill provided $50 less than the

$4,050 level ultimately approved in the FY 2003 omnibus

appropriations bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness, Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

I plead absolutely fully guilty to wanting to spend more money to invest in education and to spend more money so we can guarantee that poor kids are not knocked off Medicaid and SCHIP programs so that they have some health care when they need to be seen by a doctor. Fully Guilty!

I also plead fully guilty to wanting to spend more money for NIH so we can deal with the ravages of cancer, heart disease, Lou Gehrig's disease and the like.

One example: a year ago my brother-in-law was diagnosed with terminal pancreas cancer, 1 year ago. He is still alive because he is lucky enough to have gotten into a clinical trial, and they found a drug that seems to be working for him. I plead fully guilty to wanting to add a lot more money to the Federal budget so that a lot more people can be as lucky as he is.

Madam Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Virginia.

(Mr. MORAN of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge), former chief school officer of his State.

(Mr. ETHERIDGE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall).

(Mr. UDALL of Colorado asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick).

(Ms. KILPATRICK asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Madam Chairman, could I inquire as to how much time remains on both sides.

Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha).

Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time remains on each side.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

(Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).

Mr. Chairman, I yield another 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy), who has the quaint idea that we should not be gutting our efforts to control child labor.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, we have documented the numerous ways in which this bill does not meet its responsibilities to the American people. The situation we are in is basically this: We are going to be asking the majority to reconsider a decision it made just a few weeks ago to put all of our eggs in one basket in the form of tax cuts rather than reserving some of those eggs and putting them into needed health care and education and worker protection programs. The problem with the way this House is being run is that the budget system is being misused to hide from the American people the consequences of the actions taken by the majority party on tax policy.

They want to hide behind the House rules and say, ``Oh, look, we already decided the tax issue, and so now you are stuck with the room that is left under the budget resolution.'' We do not think that is a good enough reason to continue to do something that is stupid and unfair and, in some cases, heartless.

What we are asking our majority Members to do is to reconsider the decision that decided that it was necessary to give millionaires in this country an $88,000 tax cut. We are asking you to use an unusual procedure in order to revisit that decision and instead limit that tax cut for those 200,000 people who make more than $1 million a year, limit that tax cut to $44,000 a year, so that there is some room in the inn left to improve the quality of education for our kids, to protect our workers against child labor, and to see to it that not a single child in this country is knocked off the health care rolls because of State budget crises.

So that is a simple choice. Now, you can try to convince the press and convince the country that you have already made these decisions and so you have no choice but to move on.

You always have choices. You always have choices. It depends on whether you are willing to insist on exercising them. Every person who votes for this bill today will be saying they would rather leave the tax package as is and go ahead with this bill as is. I do not think that is a wise decision. I do not think it is going to be an acceptable decision when the American people understand what you have done.

The choice is very simple: Are we going to make kids pay for giant- size tax cuts for the most privileged people in this society, and, in the process, weaken their ability to get a good education and weaken their ability to be taken care of when they need to see a doctor or a nurse? That is the simple choice.

Mr. Chairman, with that, I would simply appeal to Members' consciences.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield? I never said any such thing. I never mentioned any small business.

If the gentleman is going to quote me, he ought to quote me accurately.

Do not use the rules to lie about what I said.

Madam Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin for yielding me the time.

I know there has been a lot of hard work in trying to put together an appropriations bill that would deal with the neediest of our Nation, but we confront two, if you will, systemic crises in this country. We have a 6.2 percent unemployment rate, and it is increasing. The faces of the unemployed are not here in this body, and they cannot speak for themselves, but they are workers who made $100,000 a year and have children in college and mortgage payments, and they are those who are the chronically unemployed, who have never had a chance to work.

And yet this bill, instead of dealing forthrightly with their crisis, it cuts the community services block grant by $150.8 million. The cut will reduce services for the growing numbers of low-income working poor and the long-term unemployed.

The tax cut that was rendered just a few weeks ago for the rich does nothing to invest in this economy. In fact, economists have said that those who will receive a $90,000 tax cut will not invest in the economy, will not create jobs; but what they will do is to invest in themselves and make sure they have a big fat savings account.

As a member of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, I have advocated constantly, in addition, that we should invest in homeland security and provide the resources for our first responders and our neighborhoods. I have been asked the question: Are our neighborhoods safe in America? No, they are not. And here we are not providing the necessary resources to fund those neighborhood groups, those citizen corps, so that neighborhoods will be on the front line if there is a terrorist attack in the United States.

And in conjunction with that, rather than fund bioterrorism preparedness, the important research to be able to prevent bioterrorist attacks or to be able to ensure that more people's lives will be saved, we are cutting the resources for bioterrorism. That means, for example, that if someone decided to use a mosquito that had the West Nile virus, to use that as a bio weapon, who knows, we are still unprepared in our communities.

Madam Chairman, I wish we could have a bill we all could vote for. I ask my colleagues to enthusiastically vote ``no'' on this legislation.

Madam Chairman, I rise today to express my disappointment at the failure of the Republican Party to adequately fund vital programs in H.R. 2657, the Labor, HHS, Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2004.

Madam Chairman, we have failed our Nation. The Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations bill leaves our health care system, our schools, our children and our communities at risk. Sadly, my Democratic colleagues and I have seen the writing on the wall.

Over the past several weeks, my fellow Democrats and I have been very outspoken

on the Republican financially irresponsible bills. We opposed the Republican's tax cuts. We opposed the Republican's Medicare package. And now we oppose their appropriations request in H.R. 2657, and our opposition to the insufficient funding in this bill is directly due to the Republican's poor budget initiatives.

H.R. 2657 falls short of adequately funding our education and health care programs, among many other valuable programs.

education

H.R. 2657 fails to adequately fund our Nation's schools and fails to live up to the many promises made by the Republican Party.

When the ``Leave No Child Behind'' legislation was passed we all believed we were committed in a bipartisan way to guarantee that good schools were established in our communities to improve our overall living standards and close the gaps that divide our societies along economic, social and racial lines. The Republicans promised to be committed to bettering our education system. They have not lived up to that promise.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle promised in its fiscal year 2004 budget resolution to provide a ``$3 billion increase from the previous year for the Department of Education.'' Despite that promise, the H.R. 2675 bill provides only a $2.3 billion increase over fiscal year 2003--far less than the promise they made.

Another broken promise is the inadequate funding of the Title 1 Program. The Title 1 Program is critical to enabling schools with large student populations of low-income children to meet the No Child Left Behind Act's accountability and academic mandates. These schools enroll students with the greatest academic deficits, but they have the least experienced teachers, less competitive teacher salaries, higher teacher turnover, less rigorous curriculum, and less than their fair share of resources. All of these factors negatively impact student achievement.

The Republican's fiscal year 2004 budget resolution promised a $1 billion increase over last year for the Title 1 Program. However, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have failed to keep their word here as well. Instead of $1 billion, H.R. 2675 provides only a $666 million increase. The result of the committee's action is that this bill falls $334 million short of the majority's own promise. The loss of that money does not affect my Republican colleagues or their wealthy supporters. It affects millions of low-income children nationwide and their ability to get a quality education.

In the area of special education, the Republicans promised in the fiscal year 2004 budget resolution to provide $2.2 billion over the current level. The Republicans repeated this promise in H.R. 1350--the bill reauthorizing the Individuals with Disabilities Act, adopted on April 30 on the House floor. Instead of providing our special education students with the funds they desperately need, and because of their massive tax cuts, this bill falls $1.2 billion short of that promise. This massive funding shortfall will force schools to continue to absorb the extraordinary costs of providing special education for nearly 6.7 million schoolchildren. Consequently, other education programs will have to be reduced or local taxes will have to be raised to make up the funds.

Perhaps the biggest broken promise by the Republican Party is the destructive impact of their budgetary action on the No Child Left Behind Act. The Members of the Republican Party put tax cuts ahead of their education promises in the Leave No Child Behind Act. As a result, H.R. 2657 falls a stunning $8 billion short of the fiscal year 2004 funding targets in the No Child Left Behind Act.

On the issue of higher education, the Republicans have harmed our college students as badly as they have harmed our low-income and special education students. As a direct result of the Republican's economic mismanagement over the past 2 years, only eight States in our Union are not facing a severe budget crisis. The declining State fiscal crisis has forced States to make huge cuts in the budgets of public colleges and universities. When States make cuts to public schools, the schools must raise their tuitions. The raising tuition costs are crushing working families who want to send their kids to college.

Health Care

Health care is another area in which the majority's bill falls short of meeting urgent national needs. In these tough economic times, with the high rates of unemployment and the loss of health insurance that comes with it, Federal health care is even more crucial to our communities.

Additionally, the State fiscal crises are causing many States to cut back on eligibility and benefits under health care programs like Medicaid and the State Child Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), as well as on public health protection. The programs that are funded by the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill help provide a crucial health care safety net for people without other access to care, and also help States and localities provide basic public health services.

The majority's appropriations bill provides little funding to deal with the growing health care crisis. There are virtually no increases to the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant and no increase at all for the National Health Service Corps, a vital program which provides student loan repayment aid and scholarships for doctors and dentists who work in areas with a shortage of health providers.

The committee bill also provides no increase at all for childhood immunization grants. That program has struggled to provide immunizations for children with the rising cost of vaccinations, and the bill will lead to further shortfalls. Additionally, while the administration asked for $100 million to help us get better prepared to deal with an influenza pandemic, the bill provides only half of that request.

Conclusion

Madam Chairman, H.R. 2675 is yet another example of poor budgetary policy impacting the American people. The majority party's failure to act responsibly with America's funds has impacted our ability to fund our first responders so they can protect our homeland from terrorists. The majority party's failure to act fiscally responsible has resulted in 9.4 million Americans being unemployed. Now, through H.R. 2675, the majority party's failure to act fiscally responsible is depleting the resources of our schools and our health care system. This result is unacceptable for the hardworking Americans we represent. I oppose this bill, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my disappointment at the failure of the Republican party to adequately fund vital programs in H.R. 2657, the ``Labor, HHS, Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2004.

Mr. Chairman, we have failed our Nation. The Labor-HHS--Education Appropriations bill leaves our health care system, our schools, our children and our communities at risk. Sadly, my Democratic colleagues and I have seen the writing on the wall.

Over the past several weeks, my fellow Democrats and I have been very outspoken on the Republican financially irresponsible bills. We opposed the Republican's tax cuts. We opposed the Republican's Medicare package. And now we oppose their appropriations request in H.R. 2657, and our opposition to the insufficient funding in this bill is directly due to the Republican's poor budget initiatives.

H.R. 2657 falls short of adequately funding our education and health care programs, among many other valuable programs.

education

H.R. 2657 fails to adequately fund our nation's schools and fails to live up to the many promises made by the Republican party.

When the ``Leave No Child Behind'' legislation was passed we all believed we were committed in a bi-partisan way to guarantee that good schools were established in our communities to improve our overall living standards and close the gaps that divide our societies along economic, social and racial lines. The Republicans promised to be committed to bettering our education system. They have not lived up to that promise.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle promised in its FY 2004 budget resolution to provide a ``$3-billion increase from the previous year for the Department of Education.'' Despite that promise, H.R. 2675 bill provides only a $2.3 billion increase over FY 2003--far less than the promise they made.

Another broken promise is the inadequate funding of the Title 1 Program. The Title 1 Program is critical to enabling schools with large student populations of low-income children to meet the No Child Left Behind Act's accountability and academic mandates. These schools enroll students with the greatest academic deficits, but they have the least experienced teachers, less competitive teacher salaries, higher teacher turnover, less rigorous curriculum, and less than their fair share of resources. All of these factors negatively impact student achievement.

The Republican's FY 2004 budget resolution promised a $1 billion increase over last year for the Title 1 Program. However, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have failed to keep their word here as well. Instead of $1 billion, H.R. 2675 provides only a $666 million increase. The result of the Committee's action is that this bill falls $334 million short of the Majority's own promise. The loss of that money does not affect my Republican colleagues or their wealthy supporters. It affects millions of low-income children nationwide and their ability to get a quality education.

In the area of special education, the Republicans promised in the FY 2004 budget resolution to provide $2.2 billion over the current level. The Republicans repeated this promise in H.R. 1350--the bill reauthorizing the Individuals with Disabilities Act, adopted on April 30th on the House floor. Instead of providing our special education students with the funds they desperately need, and because of their massive tax cuts, this bill falls $1.2 billion short of that promise. This massive funding shortfall will force schools to continue to absorb the extraordinary costs of providing special education for nearly 6.7 million school children. Consequently, other education programs will have to be reduced or local taxes will have to be raised to makeup the funds.

Perhaps the biggest broken promise by the Republican party is the destructive impact of their budgetary action on the No Child Left Behind Act. The Members of the Republican party put tax cuts ahead of their education promises in the Leave No Child Behind Act. As a result, H.R. 2657 falls a stunning $8 billion short of the FY 2004 funding targets in the No Child Left Behind Act.

On the issue of higher education, the Republicans have harmed our college students as badly as they have harmed our low-income and special education students. As a direct result of the Republican's economic mismanagement over the past two years, only eight states in our union are not facing a severe budget crisis. The declining state fiscal crisis has forced states to make huge cuts in the budget of public colleges and universities. When states make cuts to public schools, the schools must raise their tuitions. The raising tuition costs are crushing working families who want to send their kids to college.

health care

Health care is another area in which the Majority's bill falls short of meeting urgent national needs. In these tough economic times, with the high rates of unemployment and the loss of health insurance that comes with it, federal health care is even more crucial to our communities.

Additionally, the state fiscal crisis are causing many States to cut back on eligibility and benefits under health care programs like Medicaid and the State Child Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), as well as on public health protection. The programs that are funded by the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill help provide a crucial health care safety net for people without other access to care, and also help states and localities provide basic public health services.

The Majority's appropriations bill provides little funding to deal with the growing health care crisis. There are virtually no increases to the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant and no increase at all for the National Health Service Corps, a vital program which provides student loan repayment aid and scholarships for doctors and dentists who work in areas with a shortage of health providers.

The Committee bill also provides no increase at all for childhood immunization grants. That program has struggled to provide immunizations for children with the rising cost of vaccinations, and the bill will lead to further shortfalls. Additionally, while the Administration asked for $100 million to help us get better prepared to deal with an influenza pandemic, the bill provides only half of that request.

conclusion

Mr. Chairman H.R. 2675 is yet another example of poor budgetary policy impacting the American people. The Majority Party's failure to act responsibly with America's funds has impacted our ability to fund our first responders so they can protect our homeland from terrorists. The Majority Party's failure to act fiscally responsible has resulted in 9.4 million Americans being unemployed. Now, through H.R. 2675, the Majority Party's failure to act fiscally responsible is depleting the resources of our schools and our health care system. This result is unacceptable for the hardworking Americans we represent. I oppose this bill, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Chairman I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, many of us, when we came to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, I came off the authorization committee for education and got on appropriations, I had concern when John Porter retired. I did not know who on the Republican side could fill the shoes of John Porter, one of the most caring individuals that I have ever known as far as education, medical research and the issues that we have in this bill today.

Well, I want to tell you something. The gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula), and I think the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) would agree, has more than filled those shoes. He cares deeply about those programs, education, medical research and the other issues, and he has done everything he can to bring this bill forth that helps people.

If you vote against this bill, there is an increase in IDEA, you are going to vote against that. If you vote against this bill, there is an increase in Pell grants. You are going to vote against those increases. Maybe not as much as you want, but there is an increase, and you will vote against it.

Be partisan if you want. This bill has got a lot of good things. None of it has the things that all of us want. I would like to see, under a different economy, more into education. And I think if you take the ``tax rate for the rich'' argument, if tax relief was static, then they would be right. But it is not. President Kennedy, former President Bush, this President Bush know that when you stimulate the economy and you have more revenue coming in to the Treasury, you will have more money for the economy and for education. That is what we believe, not that we are giving money away to ``the rich.''

My friends on the other side will say, well, they drug the Republicans kicking and screaming for education. Well, no skid marks. And I want to tell you, on this chart, if they drug us through the muck to raise education funding, look at 1995 and prior and where they funded education. I will submit these charts for the record. But they sure did not drag their own party to increase education, because look at the level at which the increase in education was and what it is now.

My colleagues on the other side know there is a regular process. The other body, that many of us call the House of Lords, no matter what figure we put in for any one of the 13 appropriations

bills, they will load it with pork. Traditionally, the Democrats did so, too, when they were in the majority, and that is, I think, a little bit of these figures that go into that as well. But they knew in conference there was a negotiation, and this bill will be negotiated in the conference as well.

I think if you look at the number of increases, Republicans did not do it all by ourselves. The gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) over there, I laud what he did in working with the President, and we did that in a bipartisan way. I think we can get through this bill the same way.

If you take a look at IDEA, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) yesterday said they increased IDEA 7 percent every year. That is true. But when you increase IDEA from 2 percent of funding or 3 percent of current level, it is not very much, and the maximum was 6 percent. We are up to like 18 percent now in the last 5 years. That is a significant increase.

Did Republicans do that alone? Absolutely not. We did it with the help of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), we did it with the help of our Speaker and with the Members of the other body. Unfortunately, on the floor today there is more partisan wrangling for an election coming up than there is sitting down and really wanting to work on these bills, and that is disconcerting.

I have brought forward that my real concern is that we are increasing a lot of these funds for Title I, and we did in the previous years, too, with the help of my friend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) as well. But in California, Governor Davis, for example, Title I, the extra money we got in the formula fight and increases in funding, he has taken that money and is putting it into county mental health.

IDEA, which we fight for, my sister-in-law is head of IDEA for Alan Bersin, Superintendent of city schools, who was working under President Clinton, and I am supporting him. He is a good guy trying to do the right thing. But Governor Davis is cutting the State money and using the Federal money to drive the engine of IDEA and cutting a lot of people out. There is never enough money there that we can put in to solve all of these problems. I would say all the way from Pell Grants to Impact Aid, all of these programs are being cut.

My concern is the State of California and the lack of leadership of Governor Davis. He is crucifying the education programs.

Let me go to another area. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) could really ping on me on this if he wanted to, because when I came here as a freshman, I did not support the National Endowment for the Arts or NIH. I still do not support the National Endowment for the Arts. I thought they were a waste of money.

Then Speaker Gingrich came to me and said, Duke, look at it fiscally. Look at a child with diabetes. If we can get in with early detection and intervention and healthy living, we can stop kidney dialysis, the child going blind, amputation, re-hospital visits, and those dollars we will have to apply to Medicare more.

Then I went back and trumped Speaker Gingrich, who is controversial on your side, but he really had his heart in the right direction as far as NIH. I went back with John Porter and said it should be a Republican policy to double medical research, because it is the one thing that we can do to give back. You converted me, and we have done that.

In this bill, do we keep adding the money for NIH? No. We have doubled it, and now we want a COLA to maintain. If you take out construction, which can be delayed, it actually increases it 6 percent. And we did not get here alone. The gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and Speaker Gingrich and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), all of us have worked on this. I just wish I would hear a little less partisan wrangling on the floor and more coming together, because I know, my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), we have done that before. I would like to continue to do that.

Mr. Chairman, I include the following for the Record:

[Charts not reproducible in the Record.]

Special Education

For too long, America has measured success in special

education by money and regulations--not by whether disabled

children are learning.

The bill provides record funding of $9.9 billion to help

the states. That means more than $1,400 per special education

student. This year, a new authorization will focus on

instruction methods, curricula, teacher training, and

education strategies, that help identify early and accurately

as well as treat swiftly the needs of disabled children.

New Solutions for Teaching Disabled Children Better

There are many challenges facing special education.

For some parents, special education laws and regulations

can be a morass of bureaucracy and unmet needs leading to

frustrating conferences, meetings, even court rooms. But for

the vast majority of parents (67%), they rate their schools

as ``good'' or ``excellent.''

As a recent survey of members of the National Schools

Boards Association noted, almost 9 in 10 (88%) identified

special education as an issue of ``moderate'' or

``significant concern.''

For special ed teachers, special education laws and

regulations can mean reams of paperwork that keep them out of

the classroom.

For some educators, special education laws mean extra class

work as a nurse, a psychologist, or a social worker when

trying to help a student while teaching a full class.

For school officials, special education can mean tough

choices about resources and other students' needs, pitting

some programs against others.

No Child Left Behind applies to every student--including

those with disabilities.

Under the bipartisan law, every state must set clear and

high standards for what students in each grade should know

and be able to do in the core academic subjects of reading,

math, and science.

States will measure each student's progress toward those

standards with tests aligned with those higher standards.

The law requires that all schools be held accountable for

the learning of every student.

We have to identify special needs early and accurately . . .

Of the 6.5 million children in special education, half of

those who are in special education are identified as having

a``specific learning disability.'' In fact, this group has

grown over 300% since 1976.

Of those with ``specific learning disabilities,'' 80% are

there simply because they haven't learned how to read. We

must change that by promoting solid curricula, good teachers

and involved parents.

Children of minority status are overrepresented in some

categories of special education. The fact is African-American

children are twice as likely as white children to be labeled

as having mental retardation and placed in special education.

. . . and get children help swiftly and surely.

By focusing on scientifically tested, evidence-based

research we can end the fads that force many children into

special education.

By focusing on programs that work we can find the best ways

to teach children including how to meet unique learning

needs. To this end, No Child Left Behind funds only

scientifically based teaching materials.

And, through the President's Early Reading and Reading

First initiatives, reading programs will be supported that

use proven methods, equip teachers to intervene when problems

arise, and allow educators to build on strengths and target

learning needs.

We must move from a culture of compliance to a culture of

accountability and results.

This year Congress has the opportunity to resolve these

issues. The Individual with Disabilities Education Act is set

for reauthorization. Now is the time for reform.

The Education of the Handicapped Act of 1975 (now IDEA)

requires that every child with disabilities receive a free

and appropriate education in the public schools. Millions of

children have benefited.

But too many fail to catch up.

Congress has poured billions of dollars into special

education. It's time to measure progress not dollar

signs.

We must heed the plea of families and make the system

simpler.

We must heed the plea of teachers and reduce the paperwork

and increase their time in the classroom. A tree should not

fall every time a child enters special education.

Special education money must yield results--not encourage

districts to put children in special education to get more

federal money. The percentage of children in special

education has soared from 8% in 1976 to 13% in 1997.

Politics should stop at the schoolhouse door.

That's why President Bush appointed experienced educators

to a special commission to find out how to best serve

children with disabilities.

The Commission on Excellence in Special Education looked at

ways to make sure lesson plans, textbooks, and teaching

methods are scientifically proven to get results so that

early classroom experiences help not exacerbate learning

difficulties.

The Commission also looked at the current effectiveness of

teacher training and professional development not just for

special educators, but also for all educators who work with

students with disabilities.

The president believes in funding with reform.

For three straight years, President Bush has asked for

three $1 billion increases in federal funding for IDEA. In

contrast, President Clinton asked for total increases

equaling $1.7 billion during his entire eight years in

office.

This year's request is the largest of any president in

history; $9.5 billion dollars.

That means the federal government will be spending an

$1,400 for every child with a disability. The highest funding

ever.

A majority of parents with children in special education

(52%) agree that ``better programs and policies, not more

money, is the best way to improve special education.''

Critics have attacked the issue of ``fully funding'' special

education. But this is a twenty-five year-old attack.

Special education should not be treated as a separate cost

system, and evaluations of spending must be based on all of

the expenditures for the child, including the funds from

general education.

As the President's Commission put it, ``Funding

arrangements should not create an incentive for special

education identification or become an option for isolating

children with learning and behavior problems. Each special

education need must be met using a school's comprehensive

resources, not by relegating students to a separately funded

program. Flexibility in the use of all educational funds,

including those provided through IDEA, is essential.''

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, it is correct that it is wrong to use the term directed to another as a ``liar'' on the House floor, and, if so, I wish the gentleman's words to be taken down.

Madam Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me this time.

Unfortunately, I must rise in opposition to this bill, and for many of the same reasons already mentioned: the underfunding of the Leave No Child Behind Act, the cut in the children's health programs, the LIHEAP energy assistance program for low-income people, Head Start, and cancer treatment and research.

Today, however, Madam Chairman, I would like to speak on urban hospitals, the hospitals in America that treat most Americans when they have traumatic illnesses. Urban hospitals need help in our system, and we are not in

this bill giving them that help. Urban hospitals treat hundreds of thousands of people with uncompensated care, no insurance or underinsurance.

It is unfortunate that our country, the richest in the world, cannot at this time help our hospitals that are in critical condition. I met with my group of doctors just this last Monday, the Michigan State Society of Medical Doctors. They all talked about not being able to treat patients, about the reimbursement rates and the underinsuring. Many of them are dropping patients. We have got to do better by our health institutions. Our health system is in critical condition. This Congress could help support that. This bill does not do that.

I cannot support this bill in its present form, and I would hope we could go back to get a better bill to help the people of America, to help the seniors that have built this country, and so that our health care system in our urban hospitals can sustain themselves and take care of their mission, which is taking care of the people of America.

Madam Chairman, I rise today to express my dismay and concern about H.R. 2660, the appropriations bill for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education and Related Agencies. This bill is being touted, even hailed, as a major achievement on behalf of supporting the education of our children, in addition to providing financial resources for our Nation's schools. The facts of the matter are, this bill is terribly flawed, under-funded and misrepresented.

The bill is terribly flawed for the following reasons. First of all the bipartisan supported No Child Left Behind Act is a gargantuan un- funded mandate. The President promised to revamp our educational system, to make schools accountable, to raise standards, to increase teacher competency and training, and to increase parent involvement. Instead, what has been delivered amounts to lip service.

The Labor HHS bill seriously under-funds the No Child Left Behind Act by $8 billion and provides the smallest percentage increase in education funds in eight years. The bill requires school districts to meet student testing requirements, improve teacher quality and imposes other mandates. Additionally, the bill falls $350 million short of the $3.3 billion promised in (real terms) to states to improve teacher quality. Fifty-four thousand fewer teachers will receive high quality, federally-supported professional development.

This bill falls $334 million short of the $1 billion in Title I funds promised. In my home state of Michigan, under this bill, the children of Michigan will lose $202 million in Title I grants below the amount called for by the No Child Left Behind Act. This situation is further compounded by the fact that after-school learning opportunities are being short-changed. Under this bill, Michigan will lose $23 million in After-School Program Funding.

I said earlier, this bill has been misrepresented. This fact is true. Children and entire school systems are going to be left behind. The American public has been fed a feel-good diet of positive rhetoric by the President regarding our educational system. The reality is, the promises are empty, the financial cupboard is bare, administrators are disillusioned and our children are the losers. The insult that is added to the injury is that State budgets are crippled by unprecedented tax cuts that have been enacted, despite the reality of downward spiraling State economies.

As a member of the Appropriations Committee, I have been a witness to the collegial discussions about the constrained budgetary environment we are forced to operate within, thereby causing the under-funding of vital programs such as No Child Left Behind. I cannot sit by idly and embrace the current rhetoric that our Nation's school systems and their students are well-served by the bill before us today. This is not a good bill for America's children.

Madam Chairman, we are telling our children that the pursuit of an education and obtaining a degree will unlock the doors to opportunity. I am compelled to pose the question, where will the money come for to pay for students to attend school? Let us consider this, tuition at colleges and universities is increasing rapidly. Under this bill, grants such as Pell Grants, will finance only 38 percent of the cost of a public university--compared to 84 percent when the Pell Grant program was established. Students are confronted with greater costs and fewer means to pursue their dreams.

I stated earlier that this bill is being touted, even hailed, as a major achievement on behalf of supporting the education of our children. Furthermore, the President has informed Americans that needed financial resources are being provided for our Nation's schools. The facts of the matter are, this bill is terribly flawed, under-funded and misrepresented. The bill under consideration does not best serve the needs of so many of our Nation's students and school systems who were promised a first-class funded educational system, but instead they will receive thrift store funding. False hopes were created and broken promises in the form of un-funded mandates will now be the reward. I urge my colleagues to reject this bill.

We are experiencing a health care crisis in our Nation. In my district alone, there are two hospitals that are operating at such negative losses that they may be forced to close. These urban-safety net hospitals, like most other urban hospitals across our Nation, have a high percentage of uncompensated, uninsured and underinsured care. They do not turn anyone away. We cannot turn our backs on them as well.

The closing of these hospitals across our Nation creates a cascading effect that only adds to the health care emergency in our Nation. When one hospital closes, other hospitals must take on the burden of uncompensated care and the problem continues until the next hospital closes. When are we going to step up to the plate and ensure that we provide the funds necessary to fix our shattered health care system?

Instead of passing tax cut after tax cut that only raid our cupboards and benefits the wealth, Congress should take heed of the problem our urban hospitals are facing and provide a funding stream to help these important health care entities in this bill that provide a high percentage of uncompensated care. But no, tax cuts are more important.

Our distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations committee, Mr. Obey tried to offer an amendment that would have restored Medicaid and SCHIP coverage to children who have been removed from those programs over the last two years. This amendment was defeated on a rollcall vote in committee. The amendment would have provided the funds by making modest reductions in the benefits that the highest-income taxpayers received under the 2003 tax bill.

At a time when high unemployment is causing many Americans to lose their job-related health care coverage, the State fiscal crisis is leading States to cut back health coverage through Medicaid, SCHIP and various state-finance programs. This is acceptable to many here in Congress that would prefer to see massive tax cuts than a strengthened health care infrastructure.

With States making the difficult decisions of cutting Medicaid and SCHIP eligibility, more and more individuals are joining the ranks of the uninsured. This in turn puts more of a burden on our hospitals that already are struggling to keep afloat. We need to get our priorities straight. We can do much better than what we have done with this bill to help those across our Nation.