Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2006, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, once again, it is an honor to come before the House, and we would like to thank the Democratic leadership for this opportunity, Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi; our whip, Mr. Steny Hoyer; and also our chairman, Mr. Bob Menendez; and chairman to be Mr. Jim Clyburn.

As the Members know, Mr. Speaker, we have a 30-Something Working Group that comes to the floor every opportunity we have to talk about the good things that are happening here under the Capitol Dome and also some of the bad things that are happening and the things that are not happening at all that should be happening on behalf of the American people.

Today, as the Members know, Mr. Speaker, there has been quite a bit said in the Capitol, very little done in the first session of this Congress, facing some of the needs that the American people are wanting to be addressed. The American people want to have issues such as health care, veteran affairs, also making sure that we have a strategy in Iraq for success, making sure that we stand up on behalf of those Americans that have been devastated by natural disasters, making sure that we get down to the bottom and get rid of a culture of corruption and cronyism and incompetence under the Capitol Dome, and also making sure that we can expand jobs for Americans and also for small businesses.

But in the last 24 to 48 hours, there have been quite a few strange things that are going on here in the Capitol. There have been bills that Members have tried to put amendments on that are not passable and should not be even honored with the paper that they are printed on, of personal agendas and agendas on behalf of the special interests.

So with that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to share this hour tonight with Mr. Ryan and also Ms. Wasserman Schultz but also with a respected Member this House with whom Mr. Ryan and I serve on the Armed Services Committee with, and he is also the ranking member on the Budget Committee and has been working very hard on a number of pieces of legislation. He is from South Carolina.

I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

Mr. Speaker, I am so happy that Mr. Spratt came to the floor tonight to share with the Members what is important in this bill. And this was an authorization bill even before it went to conference that a super majority of the Members voted for because they believe that many of those provisions needed to be enacted on behalf of our security.

And we hear a lot of talk about what needs to happen now, what the troops need, what our Armed Forces need throughout, rank and file, officers, flag officers, individuals who are interested in being a part of our military, and to be able to send a very strong signal that we support them 110 percent. And for it to be held up for political purposes, and I can tell my colleagues for political purposes because in that 527 bill, there are a lot of special interests that would like to have access, more access than they have right now, to this majority. And it is very unfortunate that it is being held up. Of all things, the Defense authorization bill. It is hard to explain with a straight face. And Mr. Ryan was there in committee when we voted this bill out, and he was here on the floor and also Ms. Wasserman-Schultz. For this to be happening now in the closing days of the session and possibly held off in the authorization bill until 2006 is beyond reproach, in my opinion.

Mr. Ryan, I just wanted to say when you talked to that marine, we were actually in Mosul at the time, and I am going to be a third-party validator as it relates to your discussion with them. Also, it was a bipartisan delegation, and we heard it on both sides of the aisle.

One thing that I want to say, even Mr. Spratt as we talk about the authorization bill, as you know, defense seems to be the vehicle to pass all pieces of legislation or thoughts or ideas that the majority has problems in passing under regular order. They have problems passing drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, so they want to attach that onto a piece of legislation and try to push it through the process.

But I can tell you that this abuse of authority is stepping in the middle of national security at this point, and it is very, very unfortunate. And it is not like coincidence; it is not like something that is blowing through the air conditioner vents here.

I am so glad, sir, once again, that you came down. We are talking about this subject. Many times some Members may not know what is going on. The American people may not know what is going on. That is the reason why we are here, to make sure they do know what is going on.

I just want to ask you a quick question, Mr. Spratt. I think it is important not only for the Members to know, but for everyone to know: How much work has gone into this Defense authorization bill? It just was not something that one meeting took place. I am pretty sure hours and hours of testimony and also committee work.

You never heard of a measure coming before the Armed Services Committee dealing with elections. Maybe absentee ballot access for troops or something, but that is about the extent of it, I am pretty sure.

Well, Mr. Spratt, I want to thank you once again for coming down and bringing clarification to that. But this is just an ongoing issue.

I can tell you, I had the opportunity, I wanted to share with the Members, to be a guest at 8 a.m. this morning on Washington Journal. And Mr. Ryan knows, as Ms. Wasserman Schultz knows, not to put me in charge of an 8 o'clock volunteer breakfast. It is kind of rough for me at 8 in the morning, even though many mornings I am driving my kids to school. But I do not have to speak on the issues that are before the Congress.

It was very strange, like Mr. Spratt mentioned. There are a lot of things that happened just today, today, that do not ordinarily happen here under the Capitol dome.

To be able to have an authorization bill, to try to put some sort of campaign, let us take the roof off the limits, on to a must-pass bill is very, very unfortunate. To have the whole discussion about the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve where we have Senators on the other side of the aisle saying, well, we are not going to vote on the budget. Before we vote, we will vote on the Defense appropriations bill, and we want to put this in because it cannot pass on its own merits. So it is very, very unfortunate.

I always say, I do not fault the special interests for fighting for what they want. That is their job. That is what they are supposed to do. We are sent here to represent the people of the United States of America, and if we allow it, then shame on us.

I can tell you, fighting against this, any Member can come and can file a piece of legislation, and in some cases we have seen legislation filed early one day and passed later on the same day. In this case, for this to come in on the back of national security and Defense is just beyond me.

I think the American people need to know about it, and the Members need to pay close attention to it. When you have a majority that feels that they can do exactly what they want to do it when they want to do it, that is okay when it is a personal decision. We talk about that. If we make a personal decision and there is a mistake, it is on us. When we make a decision affecting the American people, the men and women in uniform, need it be here, we have a number of military bases that this bill helps for those troops that are here and the civilian personnel that is involved with the Defense Department and other measures throughout, even contractors in this bill.

For them to come in and do this to those individuals right now, putting something on the bill, I hope through our efforts and through many efforts and through, hopefully, some of our friends on the other side of the aisle, we can take this off the bill and be able to take care of our business and give our troops what they need.

Let me say, just to back up what you were saying and be a third-party validator on that, I have the facts here. You want to talk about abuse of power? It was printed just this afternoon a story that was posted around 7 p.m. tonight about what is going on in the back Halls of Congress. I mean, we have leaders in the Senate saying that we have an agreement with a said Senator, but I do not want to go into details. That is what our leadership says here in the House.

At the appropriate time when I find the cover sheet to this one story, I will enter that into the Record because I think that needs to go into the Congressional Record so that when folks start backtracking on what happened in the 109th Congress at the closing of the first session of the 109th Congress, I want them to clearly know what the thinking was on behalf of the majority. These are two majority leaders that are talking about this kind of ``we have a deal worked out, but we do not want to go into details,'' meanwhile holding up the Defense authorization bill. Not only that, holding up the Defense appropriations bill. There are other bills that we would like to get through this Congress.

Mr. Ryan talked about abuse of power. Let me take you down memory lane for a moment. October 7, the Republicans held open a 5-minute vote on Gasoline American Security Act. It lasted over 40 minutes to pass an energy bill that does nothing to lower gas prices, and that bill actually passed only by two votes. The Republican leadership, they have bills that even Republicans do not want to vote for.

I think it is important that the American people are made aware of that and also Members that may need to freshen their memory.

November 22 of 2003 in the 108th Congress as it relates to the Medicare Prescription Drug Bill: 3 hours we stood in this Chamber, Mr. Speaker, waiting on this bill, waiting on us to close the board. When we say ``the board,'' we are talking about the voting board. We sat here for 3 hours while the arm twisting went on. Leader Pelosi came to the floor and put forth a resolution in detail talking about some of the activities on that given evening here on this floor that I am speaking on.

I think it is important we go down memory lane to make sure that people understand when folks talk about fairness and inclusion and that Democrats have access to the process, we just need to go down a brief history of what is going on. And that is the purpose of the 30- something Working Group, that the American people understand exactly what is going on here.

You want to talk about arm twisting? Just recently, July 24 and 28, on those two dates the vote was held open for so long. Leaders held the vote open for 1 hour, well past the 15-minute voting time as they rounded up enough votes to pass CAFTA, which was in the final vote 217- 215. Even some Republicans on that side of the aisle could not vote for that piece of legislation because it did not meet the merit to be able to be a sound free trade agreement the American people can embrace. It took an hour for that to happen. Let us go down memory lane once again.

Veterans Affairs, the chairman being pro-veteran, goodness gracious, if you are pro-veteran in the Republican majority, you are going to lose your chairmanship. This is not just our report that we have in the back room here and we said, let us see if we can fabricate something.

January 6, this year, 2005, House Republicans ousted Mr. Chris Smith as chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs for bucking his leadership and being a tireless advocate on behalf of veterans rights. He was not only removed as chairman, which he served on the committee for 24 years, but he was kicked off of the committee, off of the committee.

It is one thing, Mr. Speaker, it is really rough to be removed as chairman and then to be kicked off the committee that you served on for 24 years.

I have a tail end to that statement on this whole abuse of power, and I am glad you have the perspective from the 108th Congress about what actually took place and how you served with this past-chairman and past-member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee.

The change was widely denounced by leaders of several veterans groups. Richard Fuller of the Paralyzed Veterans of America said in response to that, ``The Republican leadership has made a statement that the country is making too much of a commitment to the men and women who have served in uniform.''

This is from the New Jersey Star Ledger. I think it is important that this is a man, this is obviously a man that has served. He is the president, or was the President, at that particular time of the Paralyzed Veterans of America in response to that. And they have made a very strong statement that they are not willing to make the commitment to men and women that have served in uniform.

So when we talk about the abuse of power, we look at this budget that is under consideration right now. We have been talking about the budget now for several weeks. I think if this Republican majority could give millionaires and billionaires a tax break, they would borrow as much money as they have to borrow to make it happen.

Mr. Speaker, this Republican majority is willing to borrow as much money as possible to give millionaires a tax break.

Really, to get to the nitty-gritty of the whole veterans, they instruct the Republican majority, which I must say, when the budget came through this House, Mr. Speaker, not one Democrat voted for the budget. Not one Democrat said, well, maybe I need to vote for this reduction and maybe I just need to do it because of the folks back home; I just do not want to vote against the budget. Not one Democrat voted for the budget that they passed on the backs of the American people, and to come here with a straight face and talk about how we are going to borrow as much money as we have to borrow to give billionaires the majority of the tax breaks of a proposal that we put forward, and these are the very individuals that are standing up with all kinds of markers behind them and charts and everything, fiscal responsibility, ``trust us'' kind of thing, and I can tell you right now, Mr. Speaker, we should have as much trust and confidence within our government. But when we see our leaders act in such a way legislatively, I think it is something that should be quite alarming.

I want to come to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) for a second, but I want to hit this chart since we are talking about being responsible.

If I could, I would like to kind of get a billboard placed probably right where the Members come in to vote, if I could. If I could talk to House Administration to see if I could do that, I think it would be helpful for the financial well-being of every American. So when the Republican majority is driving in here and saying, I want to borrow as much money as I can to make sure that oil companies have the subsidies that they would like to have, even though they are making record profits, we are going to give them more than we are giving to the American people or more than we are giving to Leave No Child Left Behind to improve that Act.

There are going to be 11 States that have filed suit against the Federal Government because it is underfunded, but meanwhile, here we are speaking of, let us borrow as much as we can to give billionaires their tax break, $1.05 trillion this President has borrowed with the Republican majority, in just 4 years, from foreign nations such as China, Saudi Arabia, Japan, you name it. They have a piece of the American pie now because we have borrowed $1.05 trillion. Forty-two Presidents before this President and before this overwhelming so-shall- it-be-written-so-shall-it-be-done Republican majority, 42 Presidents in the past, $1.01 trillion, 42 Presidents, 224 years of a country and trying to be as fiscally responsible as possible. I think it is important that the Members pay very close attention to this chart, and unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this is continuing to go up and up and up and up and up.

Once again, I just have to point out, and this is going to take me about 10 seconds to do it. They cannot get Republicans in this House to vote for drilling in ANWR. They cannot get them to do it. So I do not blame Republicans, and I do not even blame the Republican Party. I blame the Republican leadership that is leading the Republican side of the aisle and even giving the oil companies and the special interests the thought that they can invade the Defense appropriations bill of all bills. Republicans, their stomach is all messed up over this.

The Republicans need to ask elected Republicans when they go home, why did you change on me? You changed uniforms in the middle of the football game. I am not an advocate for the majority, but I am just saying, there is something fundamentally wrong here. I want to know, what is the problem, and who is whispering in whose ear?

I did find the article, Mr. Speaker, and I would just like to insert it, but it is, Plan to Move ANWR to Defense Bill Moves Budget Deal Forward. That is CQ Today, December 17 article, Mr. Speaker, and I will enter that into the Record at this point.

[From the CQ Today, December 17, 2005]

Plan to Move ANWR to Defense Bill Moves Budget Deal Forward

(By Steven T. Dennis and Liriel Higa)

A conference report on a $45 billion budget savings package

was nearly complete Saturday evening after House leaders

reached an agreement with Senate Defense Appropriations

Chairman Ted Stevens to move a provision allowing drilling in

Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) out of the

legislation and into the Defense bill.

The agreement on moving ANWR came on a day of negotiations

on multiple fronts. On Saturday night, the House by voice

vote passed a stopgap spending measure (H J Res 75) to

temporarily fund Defense programs and other government

operations after a day-long dispute between Republican

leaders in both chambers over when the measure would expire.

A new stopgap measure must be cleared by Congress and

signed by President Bush by midnight, when an earlier stopgap

spending measure (H J Res 72) expires.

On Sunday, House leaders expect to bring the budget package

(HR 4241, S 1932) to the floor for a vote. And they expect

Stevens, R-Alaska, to sign the budget conference report.

Stevens, a staunch supporter of ANWR energy exploration,

had vowed not to do so until the lawmakers cleared the

Defense spending bill (HR 2863) with drilling provisions

intact. But he later agreed to allow the budget conference to

move forward provided that the House passes the Defense bill

with ANWR attached.

``We have an agreement with Sen. Stevens, but I don't want

to go into all of the details,'' said House Speaker J. Dennis

Hastert, R-Ill.

House Budget Chairman Jim Nussle, R-Iowa, said Saturday

afternoon that his panel was expecting final reports from

authorizing committee chairmen by the evening and that once

the final bill is scored by the Congressional Budget Office,

the budget savings package should come close to the $45

billion goal set by House leaders.

Nussle said that they ``need, want, expect'' Stevens' vote

on the budget bill. He said the House would vote on the

Defense spending bill Sunday before voting on the

reconciliation bill.

The Senate also would likely vote on the Defense bill with

ANWR attached before voting on the budget reconciliation

package according to a senior Senate GOP leadership aide. The

timetable for Senate action is unclear.

It is uncertain if Democrats would attempt to filibuster

the Defense measure. But they were hoping to muster the 51

votes needed to reject attaching ANWR drilling to the

conference report.

The budget savings package is protected from filibuster in

the Senate under special budget reconciliation rules, but the

Defense spending measure has no such protection.

``This language has the potential, in my opinion, to sink

the package once it reaches the Senate.''

The ANWR provision, which was included in the Senate's

version of the budget package but not the House bill, has

been a sticking point in finishing work on the legislation--

especially for House moderates and Democrats. Negotiators

hope that moving the proposal to the must-pass Defense bill

makes the budget legislation easier to pass while making it

harder politically for Democrats to filibuster.

A number of other provisions in the Budget savings bill

opposed by House moderates--including savings in food stamps,

child support enforcement and welfare--would not be in the

final bill either, Nussle said.

But a $3.2 billion House provision shifting trade dumping

penalties to the U.S. Treasury instead of aggrieved companies

was still in the package, Nussle said.

Medicaid and Medicare provisions were still being hashed

out late Saturday afternoon, as negotiators awaited scoring

of the provisions.

The package still needed to go through a so-called ``Byrd

bath,'' to ensure that it does not run afoul of the Byrd

rule. Named for Senator Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., the rule

prohibits provisions in budget legislation that would have a

negligible spending impact.

Meanwhile, Republican moderates in the House began to worry

that their victory in stripping ANWR from the House budget

package was becoming a fleeting one.

Representative Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y., said he and other

moderates would consider voting against the budget savings

package unless ANWR is removed from the Defense bill. ``The

my way or the highway crowd'' has been winning, and moderates

need to consider changing tactics, he said.

House Appropriations Chairman Jerry Lewis, R-Calif., said

appropriators were close to a deal on additions to the

Defense appropriations bill, including hurricane relief, flu

prevention funding and a 1 percent across-the-board cut that

would apply to Defense but spare veteran's benefits. That cut

would save about $8 billion a year.

Stopgap Funding

Lewis lost in an intraparty dispute Saturday with Senate

leaders over how long to temporarily fund government

operations covered by spending bills have not yet cleared,

including Defense.

Since the fiscal year began on Oct. 1, Congress has twice

enacted such stopgap spending measures. On Saturday, Lewis

introduced a third continuing resolution lasting until Feb.

15, but the Senate insisted that the measure expire sooner,

on Dec. 31.

The continuing resolution would fund programs covered under

the Defense bill and the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations

measure (HR 3010)--the only two spending measures that have

not yet cleared.

Lewis had said he was seeking a Feb. 15 extension because

of concerns that the Senate would not be able to clear the

Labor-HHS spending measure before adjourning.

Lewis rejected a proposal floated Friday by Senator Arlen

Specter, R-Pa., chairman of the Labor-HHS-Education

Appropriations Subcommittee, to tack the bill on to the

Defense Appropriations measure.

Well, first Ms. Wasserman Schultz.

I just want to say to my colleagues here, and Mr. Spratt, who was here earlier, that it has definitely been a great joy and honor to be a part of this group that we have that is working so hard, and also Mr. Delahunt and many other members of the 30- something Working Group. On behalf of all of us, we want to thank not only the Speaker-to-be, hopefully in the next Congress, Leader Pelosi, but also our Democratic whip, Mr. Hoyer. And I want to congratulate Mr. Bob Menendez on being appointed to the Senate in the very near future, and also to Mr. Clyburn.

And, Mr. Speaker, we wish you a Merry Christmas, too, sir.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 559, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 3010) making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes.

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

Mr. Speaker, today I think we are going to do a bill that will make us proud to be Americans. Why do I say proud to be Americans? Because I think this bill, more than any other, illustrates the compassion of the American people. Why do we say that? Let me give you some examples that are in this bill and are funded.

Special education, programs to help young people that are disabled for many different reasons. It is a matter of caring for them.

Centers for Disease Control, an agency that is in 43 countries around the world watching out for us. We hear a lot about avian flu. We worry about avian flu, but the people that are really doing this are Americans in the Centers for Disease Control team that is out there in these 43 Nations, ready to stand by and alert us if it becomes a greater problem.

Education. The number one challenge of government today is to educate people to compete in the world of tomorrow. If you read the literature, you find more and more emphasis on the importance of education if a nation is to remain strong, if a nation is to provide a standard of living that the people expect, that we are used to enjoying in this country. The competition is going to get tougher in the years ahead. You only need to read Tom Friedman's book ``The World is Flat'' in which it is pointed out how much is happening or talk to people that have traveled, as is the case of my State superintendent, to countries in the Far East, and realize how much emphasis is being put on education. We in the United States need to do the same, and this bill recognizes that.

Education, going back to Thomas Jefferson, was designed to give all Americans through a system of public education, an equal opportunity to their future.

Head Start. It is another program under education where we say to children from areas and schools and homes where they may not get somebody reading to them, may not have a chance to get that head start they need going into the school program. Our authorizing committee, I think, took a giant step forward on Head Start in authorizing it to become more than just a welfare program, as was originally envisioned, but actually providing that people that man the Head Start program have some experience in education, that they do more than teach. The literature makes it very clear that education does not start at the first grade or even for that matter in the period ahead of that. It starts early, early on, and Head Start is another example of the compassion of America.

National Institutes of Health. We fund that in this bill. This is an agency that is researching, finding cures. Every Member I am sure has had parents in his office with a child with juvenile diabetes or with a parent with Alzheimer's, pleading with us to do more in medical research, to find cures; and this, again, illustrates the compassion of America. We have more than doubled the amount of money going to NIH in the last several years because we recognize that this is key to the health of America, to find cures, to find new ways to address the concerns of the people that all of us have seen in our office who are pleading with us to do something.

This bill has 500 programs in it, 500 programs that help Americans, and in many different ways.

Math and science, I have here a report just put out by a group commissioned by two Senators and two House Members, and it is entitled ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm.'' Think about that title: ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm.'' What is the gathering storm? The gathering storm is the inability to compete as a Nation, and the thrust of this report is to rise above that. Their number one recommendation is an increase in America's talent pool by vastly improving K-12 science and mathematics education.

We make that kind of a commitment in this bill. We do give extra funding for math and science and recognize that in the world of tomorrow for our young people to compete they need to have that background.

Meals on Wheels, another example of compassion. If you have talked with people that work in this program, mostly volunteers who take out these meals, that allows seniors to stay in their homes for a longer period of time, that allows them to see somebody if they are living alone maybe once a day or more often in the week, a wonderful program in terms of caring about people.

Afterschool programs, we fund those, and those of you who live particularly in the big cities realize how important that is. I talked this morning with a young man that is running an afterschool program in the gentleman from Pennsylvania's (Mr. Sherwood) district, a member of our committee, where he said how much they can help people with their afterschool programs.

There are moneys in here to roll out the prescription drug program because we have a responsibility in this committee to provide for the administration of these programs.

Global AIDS. Global AIDS is in this bill, $100 million to address, along with the money in the foreign operations bill that again is very, very important; and I think we can be proud to be Americans.

That is what I said at the outset. I say it again, that when you look at what we have funded in this bill, we have funding in this bill for 280 million Americans and over many billions of dollars to address the needs of people, that addresses things that are very important in their lives. I urge all the Members, before you rush to judgment on this bill, realize that we are in this bill doing a lot of good things for American citizens. Maybe it is not as much as you like, not many bills ever are as much as people would like that have a high degree of interest, but there is a lot of good in here.

There is a lot in here for special education. We increase it. We increase NIH. More medical research to address those problems of juvenile diabetes is an example that you hear about in your office; more money for education, Title I.

More money for community health centers. Any of us who have those in, and I hope most Members do, realize how important the community health centers are to people who have no access, who do not have a family doctor. It helps the hospitals because it means that people can go to the community

health center instead of to the emergency room. We add money for that.

Community services block grants. Think of that title. Community services, and we give block grants to communities to administer to local problems. This is an example of a program that helps local people.

LIHEAP, again, Americans recognizing that people in areas of severe weather conditions need an additional helping hand, and that is especially true in this time that we are living in where people need to address the problems of excessive fuel costs.

So I cannot say enough. I hope all of my colleagues and the Members that are listening to this, reading the bill, will take note of the fact that whereas this may not be everything you like, this bill does a lot of good. I do not think you want to go home and tell people you are against more money for special education, for those that are least fortunate, that you are against more money for education, for medical research, for LIHEAP, for global AIDS, for people around the world that are less fortunate than we are.

So, again, I say think on what the importance is of what you are doing. Take pride in America. Take pride in the compassion of the people of this Nation as embodied in this bill.

Mr. Speaker, the complete table of all the funding levels included in the conference report has been printed in the Congressional Record as of November 16; and for those of my colleagues who are wondering what each of the programs might be of the 500, you can go to the Record of November 16 and pick out a program that you might have a special interest in.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present before the House today the conference report on the fiscal year 2006 appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies.

Many of my colleagues are aware of the difficult choices we had to make in this bill. In February, Congress received the President's FY 2006 budget request. In light of our budget deficit, the President's request assumed a one percent cut in domestic spending, exempting both defense and homeland security from this reduction. Our budget resolution approved this recommendation. This cut, taken together with required increases for implementing the prescription drug benefit program, brings our bill to $1.4 billion below last year's level.

Let me emphasize, we made a commitment to reduce deficits. Recognizing the will of this House, we have put together a bill that best reflects the priorities of this body and does a good job of meeting the needs of the American people.

The conference report has no budget gimmicks, no emergency spending designations, and no earmarks.

So many of the programs in this bill play an important part in the lives of American people. Peter Drucker, who passed away on Friday, was considered by many to be the most influential management thinker of the past century. He said, ``Successful enterprises create the conditions to allow their employees to do their best work.'' A successful employee needs adequate knowledge to thrive. I believe an investment in education is an investment in people. We support teachers and students by increasing funding for Title I by $100 million. Title I provides additional resources to low-income schools to help principals, teachers and students close education achievement gaps.

Many of my colleagues speak with me about the financial demands of special education on their local school districts. In this bill, funding for special education is increased by $100 million.

I believe the quality of classroom teachers and principals is one of the most important factors that affect student achievement.

This bill provides $100 million to reward effective teachers and to offer incentives for highly qualified teachers to teach in high-need schools.

We provide $184 million for math and science initiative. TRIO, GEAR UP, Vocational Education State Grants, and Adult Education, programs have strong support from members of this body. These programs were proposed for termination in the President's budget; however, we have allocated over $3 billion for the continuation of these important efforts.

The sharp rise in college costs continues to be a barrier to many students. This bill provides the full amount needed to hold the maximum Pell Grant at the current level of $4,050, over $800 million over FY 2005.

Healthcare is a critical part of a nation's economic development. Mr. Speaker, as you know, many of the Community Health Centers have served as America's health care safety net for the Nation's underserved populations. Funding for the Community Health Centers is at $1.8 billion, an increase of $66 million over last year.

As a result of our commitment to the National Institutes of Health, our citizens are living longer and better lives. We have provided over $28 billion to NIH to support medical research, $150 million over FY 2005.

The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program ensures that low-income households are not without heating or cooling, and provides protection to our most vulnerable populations, the elderly, households with small children, and persons with disabilities. Given the anticipated high costs of energy due to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, we have provided over $2.2 billion for FY 2006.

In the Department of Labor, we have provided nearly $3 billion for workforce training programs. These programs will ensure that our dislocated workers and most disadvantaged youth will return to gainful employment.

Mr. Speaker, in order to implement more than 400 provisions of the Medicare Modernization Act and ensure senior citizens receive the prescription drug benefits we provided in MMA, we have allocated nearly $1 billion over the FY 2005 level to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and Social Security Administration. While benefits that both of these agencies provide come through mandatory spending via the Ways and Means Committee, this bill provides the funding for the agencies' administrative costs.

Much more could be said about this bill, but given the allocation, we have produced a fair, balanced and responsible bill that best meets the needs of the American people.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), a very productive and important member of our subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger), a distinguished member of our subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), a member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

In terms of earmarks, a proposal was made that we take an additional $2 billion as emergency spending, and half of that would have been for earmarks. But we did not do that.

The fact that there are no earmarks?

Absolutely, a billion dollars.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, I hope you will all weigh carefully what your opportunity here is in terms of voting for this bill. An opportunity to improve health research, an opportunity to improve education in Title I, an opportunity to provide more money for special education, an opportunity to ensure that LIHEAP is funded for those in need, an opportunity to develop community health centers where poor people can go to get help, where they can avoid having to run to the emergency room. So many positive things.

As I said at the outset, this is a bill that makes you proud to be an American. It illustrates the compassion of the American people. We have heard from the other side how we are not doing enough. Let me point out that in 1996 shortly after the Republican Party became a majority in 1994 and took responsibility, in 1996, the total of this bill was $65 billion. Here 10 years later, this bill is $142.5 billion, more than double the amount of money that has been committed to the compassionate programs of America, education, job training, medical research. We could go on and on.

We heard the gentleman from California talk about qualified teachers. I want to mention a special program in here. It is new. $100 million to help get better qualified teachers in every classroom. Over and over again we hear how important the teacher is to the education system. Not only teachers but principals, good principals, good schools. We have recognized the importance of this by committing $100 million. This bill has $2 billion for homeland security. Again, this is important to the American people. Homeland security in the form of CDC, checking around the world in 43 locations to ensure that avian flu does not reach our shores.

I could go on and on about the compassion of this bill in terms of helping people. TRIO and GEAR-UP, programs to help people get into college, to get that higher education that we all recognize is vital to their future and to the future of this Nation.

And let me say to those of you who think that, well, the key to this is to defeat the bill. If you defeat the bill, what is going to happen, in all likelihood, it will give these responsibilities that are embodied in this bill, the important programs for America will get rolled into some form of an omnibus bill and will be a continuing resolution. If that were to happen, priorities that are embodied in the bill would be lost, the things that are so important to all the Members of this body, but, moreover, far more important to the people of America, 280 million people.

I urge a strong, positive vote for the bill so we can continue to take pride in America and the compassion of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

And I would like to turn to a matter of some significant concern to me and to the gentleman because, as he said, we both serve on the House Armed Services Committee. We both have worked diligently to see a good Defense authorization bill put together this year and finally, we thought, put to bed last week. But here is what is happening, to everybody's dismay, on this side of the line.

On Thursday afternoon, the House appointed conferees on the Defense authorization bill to go to conference with the Senate. Thursday afternoon. Within hours, the conference committee met for the first and only time. We made a cursory review, which is all we had time for, of the conference report which staff and mainly the Republican Members had worked up and put together over the last several weeks. We reviewed it. We reviewed the salient points. We made some objections. And finally, we approved it.

This summary procedure is not my idea or I think the Framers' idea of how we would make law, particularly law that authorizes the expenditure of $440 billion for something as important as the defense of this Nation. This kind of summary procedure should not be repeated. This year, we were late getting started. The Senate was even later getting started. So we had to do it in record time. And I am glad we got it done, but it is not the best procedure.

As bad as that procedure is, the worst was yet to come. After the conference report had been signed, signed by the Democratic conferees, signed by the Republican conferees, signed by the Senate, signed by the House, after it had been signed, the Republican leadership decided it needed a must-pass moving vehicle, some kind of bill to which they could attach legislation that otherwise could not be passed, maybe would not stand the light of day. Reputedly, it dealt with section 527, political advocacy corporations and campaign limits. We suspected it also dealt with a bill known as Pence-Wynn. We do not know yet because we have not seen the conference report that they have tried to amend.

In any event, we know this: These bills are about campaign finance reform. They have absolutely nothing to do with the defense of the United States. This is not a technical change they are trying to make. It is not even about defense. Far from it.

Worse still, it is fundamentally serious major legislation. It is not something minor that you bobtail on or piggyback on another bill. Pence-Wynn, if that is the legislation they are trying to append to this conference report, is a major fundamental revamping of the campaign finance laws of this country, lifting the limits enormously on all kinds of corporations from PACs and individuals, creating virtual carte blanche for the wealthy of this country to contribute to political campaigns.

Our ranking member, Mr. Skelton of Missouri, heard what was happened, to the extent that he could find out anything. He protested and pulled our names on the grounds, the House Democratic names, from the conference report on the grounds that they were amending or seeking to amend that the conference agreement that had been signed and sealed and all but delivered to the House floor for action, amending it after the fact, Members who were not even parties to the agreement trying to change the bill in a significant way without any kind of collegiality, any kind of comity, any kind of consultation with our side. He pulled our names.

In the Senate, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Republican, the very distinguished Senator Warner, was so outraged to see this gross violation of the processes of the House, the procedures of the House and the Congress, of fundamental fair play, that he said, if the Republican leadership in the House tried to unilaterally change this agreement after it had been signed, he would vigorously object and pull out the signatories at least on the Republican side. And Mr. Levin, the gentleman from Michigan who is the Democratic Senator who is the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the very same thing.

Now, we ask tonight, what is the status of this bill that has taken months to produce, that addresses our troops deployed all over the world, that contains important personnel provisions that probably will not be overlapped in the appropriations bill? Where is the bill that we have worked and produced, that we signed and had ready to go?

Where is the bill? Where is the Defense authorization bill? Where is it left if we do not take action on it?

It is left in limbo. It is left hanging. It is left unauthorized, unpassed. A hard effort coming to no worthy conclusion.

Representative Pryce, who chairs the Republican conference, is quoted as saying in the CQ Daily that Congress may not even consider this bill before Christmas. Why not? It is ready to go. All we need is 1 hour on the floor. It is written. The conference report is ready to come to the floor. Why would we not consider it before Christmas? And, more importantly, what are the consequences if we do not consider it before Christmas?

Well, let me tell my colleagues just a few of the things that will not be enacted that otherwise might be a nice package to send to our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and the ramparts around the world where they are standing up for freedom. Let me just mention a few things that are not covered in the appropriation bill and may never come to pass if we do not pass this bill: There is a 3.1 percent pay increase. Not a big increase, but I am sure that every troop will be glad to get it. There is an end-strength increase. We think the ground forces are undersized, so we have called for a couple of years for an increase in the size of the ground forces, Army and Marines, 30,000 in the Army, 4,000 in the Marines, in fiscal year 2006. That will not be done.

There is a death gratuity. The conference report increases the death gratuity for all active and activated servicemembers up to $100,000 retroactive to October 7, 2001. For the 2,100-odd troops who have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, in Iraq in particular, I am sure this would be welcomed by their families as some token of appreciation for the ultimate sacrifice they had to pay.

TRICARE: For the first time ever, reservists who agree to continue service in the Selected Reserves will have an opportunity, depending on their status, to buy into the government-subsidized TRICARE standard health program for themselves and their families.

Recruiting: Enlistment bonuses will expire unless we reauthorize it. There is a whole list of things like this.

Life insurance: It was previously increased for servicemen, life insurance, SGLI, to $400,000 in amount. We said in this bill, if they are in Iraq, if they are in Afghanistan, if they are putting their lives on the line in a hazardous duty zone, by golly, as a part of their hazardous duty pay, we will pay that first $150,000. I wanted to pay more of it. But that will be a nice addendum, a nice Christmas present for the troops who are in the field and for their families back home who worry, if our servicemember does not come home, who will provide for us? The least we can do is increase the life insurance.

I could go down the list with other personnel changes. They are numerous. Let me give you just one. This conference report would extend TRICARE coverage also for children of servicemembers killed in the line of duty until they reached the age of 21. This is just a sampling of what will not be done if, for petty, high-handed partisan reasons, the conference report, already finished on the Defense authorization bill, is not brought to the floor.

This is an outrage. It is an outrage. It is sort of inside baseball to some people, hard to explain to the American people because, in the parliamentary sense, it is so complicated. But it is an outrage, and it should not be allowed to happen. This is the one bill we should pass before we go home.

I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

I have been on the conference committee every year for at least 20 years, and I never seen this happen before. I have never seen the leadership of either party come forth and say, you may have signed it, you may have closed it, you may have signed and sealed and delivered it; but we can still change it and add to it things that are totally out of the scope, out of scope because they are not in the jurisdiction of our committee, and out of scope because they have never been considered by either committee in either House, hearings, markup, on the floor, in the committee, anywhere. Totally out of the blue to come at the 11th hour.

And to impose this on the bill in deference to wealthy contributors who do not want to be encumbered with limits on what they can contribute is outrageous. There is no nicer word for it.

I will guarantee you the people do not know what is going on. Until I got back this afternoon, I had to go home and make a speech and started reading some of these dailies that we get over our fax machines and got some phone calls from others who had found out, pieced it together. I did not know about it, so I am sure the American people do not know about it.

Let me just take a second, if I can, maybe a minute or two, and read from the memo that was given to us as conferees just as to what the personnel provisions of this bill are. For the most part, these will not be backstopped by overlapping provisions in the appropriations bill. It simply will not be done unless and until this bill for 2006 is enacted.

I already mentioned a pay raise of 3.1 percent to all servicemembers. I mentioned the increase in end strength needed for our stretched-out ground forces. The death gratuity is raised substantially to $100,000, but, even more important, provided for retroactively to October 7, 2001. And we remove, and only we can do this, we remove the combat- related requirement for the death gratuity.

TRICARE, I mentioned the changes there. In addition, there are some other changes for TRICARE Reserve Select. It enhances that coverage, not as much as we wanted; but it is better than what we have got.

Enlistment bonuses, the authority for those is increased substantially. We have got recruitment problems. We have retention problems. We need this authority to help our recruiters if they are to keep end strength in.

The enlistment age. There are some folks out there that would like to get back into the service, age 42, still in good physical condition. This would allow persons who have previously served who would like to enlist again to be considered up to the age of 42.

Here is something that everybody has noted, given the condition of many soldiers who are coming back from the Iraqi and Afghanistan theater: the establishment of a mental health task force that will look at how the Department and services can treat better, identify better, and support better mental health needs, particularly including post- traumatic stress disorder.

It enhances programs and policies to improve the transition of servicemembers who are severely wounded or injured back into civilian life.

It provides temporary authority to the Army to set up four innovative recruitment tests to see if it can improve its recruitment.

It increases hardship duty pay to $750.

It allows the establishment of a pilot program that would match enlisted members' contributions to the Thrift Savings Plan.

It provides foreign language pay, which we badly need, given the shortage of Arab-speaking servicemembers, up to $12,000.

It extends TRICARE, as I said earlier, for children of servicemembers killed in the line of duty until they reach 21 years of age, or 23 if they are a full-time student.

These are just the personnel changes, but every one has a particular appeal to them. They were carefully considered in our committee and the Senate committee and put into the conference bill. Much of this will not be done if this bill does not get passed, and it certainly will not be done until it is finally enacted.

As the gentleman knows, we get the budget the second week in February. Our hearings start almost immediately in the authorization committee because we have got all four services, we have procurement, personnel, research and development, all kinds of issues that have to be thrashed out every year.

We do not mark up and bring a bill to the floor typically until May, sometimes until June. Then we wait on the Senate to get their work done; and usually, if we are lucky, they get theirs

done in July. If we are not lucky, theirs gets done in September or October, and we find ourselves playing catch-up, which is what we are doing in the extreme this year.

Nevertheless, it is a year-long process. We carefully sift through all these issues. We go back to what we did the previous year and see if it worked. If it did not, we make adjustments. It is an ongoing, continual process. An immense amount of work goes into this.

You can say the appropriators do the same thing; but their committee is much, much smaller than ours. Therefore, they do not get into all of these elements nearly as deeply as we do. That is why this authorization is so critically important as part of the process.

That is a very good example of something you can spend a lot of time on, but it is important to troops. They are over there fighting for our freedom. We need to make it possible for them to have the fundamental right to vote and make sure their vote will count, make sure it will not be held up somewhere and not get transmitted to be counted. That is not as easy as it seems in some cases. So we have to give a lot of consideration to it.

That is one of the reasons this bill is done annually, every year, because we have to come back and look at what we did last year and see if it is working. If it is not, we make further adjustments and also find out what new problems have cropped up in the past year.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 558 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my neighbor and friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 558 is a rule that provides for consideration of House Joint Resolution 72, making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2006. As we approach the end of the week and the time that we will be taking in our districts to celebrate the Thanksgiving holiday, this particular rule and the CR probably are among the least controversial things that the gentleman from Florida and I will discuss today. I look forward to an abbreviated debate on this.

The rule provides for 1 hour of debate in the House equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the joint resolution and provides one motion to recommit.

I want to commend Chairman Lewis, Ranking Member Obey, and the entire Appropriations Committee in the House for the determined effort this year to avoid an omnibus spending bill. This is something that unfortunately has become a routine part of our end-of-the-year appropriations process and Chairman Lewis under tremendous leadership with a great committee behind him has managed to avoid that this year, in fact, setting almost a record by completing all of the House's work on the appropriations process before July 4.

The committee has practiced due diligence and is working to pass each of these bills individually rather than having them attached as a train at the end of the year. This continuing resolution is necessary because our friends on the other side of the Rotunda are a little bit further behind in their appropriations process and we are working through the conference report stage.

This CR will allow the appropriators to continue that conferencing work to ensure that we have a clean appropriations process where bills are moving individually in the regular order.

Today we are considering the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations Bill which leaves just three outstanding appropriations conference reports. The underlying resolution permits Congress to finish its work and provide the President adequate time to review the measures before signing them into law. H.J. Res. 72 simply extends the previous continuing resolution through December 17.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, it is a one sentence change, only shifting the date to December 17 for the continuing operations for the government.

The CR is a clean continuation of H.J. Res. 68, which passed the House in September by a vote of 348-65, and which funded programs and activities at the lowest of the House-passed level, the Senate-passed level or the fiscal year 2005 current rate and included language prohibiting agencies from resuming or initiating programs for procurement not funded in FY 2005 and prohibited agencies from awarding new grants and other forms of assistance during the period of continuing resolution.

Throughout the appropriations process, the appropriators have demonstrated their commitment to fiscal responsibility by working within the framework we established in the budget resolution earlier this year. Again, I want to express my gratitude to the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis), the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the entire committee and staff of the Appropriations Committee for their hard work this year.

I urge Members to support the rules and the underlying continuing resolution so we can finish the appropriations process in regular order and continue on our way toward responsibly funding the needs of America.

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

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

Perhaps I misspoke earlier saying that this would be the least controversial item we would deal with this morning. I recognize that we all had to get up early to be at Rules this morning, and apparently it is affecting some of our temperaments.

I would just point out that we finished all of the House's work, and I gave equal credit to both our chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and the rest of his committee and the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), who finished all of our work by July 4, all of our appropriations processes in regular order, in an individual manner instead of having to bundle them up into a train at the end of the legislative season.

To date, we have finished seven of those 11 appropriations bills. We will do the eighth in a couple of hours here on this floor today, which leaves three remaining waiting to be returned from their conference work with the Senate.

So it is often said at times in the House that your opposition is the other party, but your enemy is the other Chamber. And when it comes to the enemy of time and being at the end of the legislative calendar, that, unfortunately, is the case with the appropriations process that we are waiting on regular order, the conference committees with the House and the Senate to finish their work on those three remaining bills.

With respect to the gentleman's concerns about a closed rule, this is a continuing resolution that is one sentence long. It funds the operations of government from now until December 17. The stifling of debate is nonexistent. There are no speakers on either side for this. The fact that it is a closed rule indicates that there is really no other option about how to approach a continuing resolution other than should it be December 16 instead of December 17?

Would the gentleman have the CR expire on Thanksgiving Day when no one will be in this Chamber to act to fund the operations of the government so that national parks remain open and Social Security checks continue to go out?

What would the amendments be that the gentleman would offer if December 17 is an inadequate solution to funding the operations of government until we finish the three remaining conference reports on appropriations?

To say that that is stifling democracy is nothing more than hyperbole.

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

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Just briefly, I respect the gentleman's observation that the majority party in the Senate is the party that I share, the Republican party, but I learned a long time ago to stop trying to answer for that Chamber over there. That is a tough body to figure out. The gentleman knows as well as I do that they tend to bog down in the oratory and slow down on the action.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman clearly has come to the floor a little bit early, because all of these things are going to be eligible for debate here in another several hours when we move forward on our deficit reduction package, and the gentleman will have an opportunity to exercise through his vote that savings process, that deficit reduction process.

But I am just curious, in all the gentleman's rhetoric, what would you do differently about the continuing resolution that funds government through December 17 until we finish our regular appropriations process?

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would further yield, does the gentleman object to us funding the government through December 17?

Would the gentleman shut down the government to prevent that from occurring?

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

The gentleman is passionate about his concern for the fiscal well- being, but he is clearly misdirected in the sense that he will have an opportunity to vote on a number of these deficit reduction measures, a number of these savings, a number of these government reform mechanisms; and he will have the opportunity to present all of the things that he talked about in his own recommittal motion, which is a right that has been granted to the minority party.

So all of the things that he talked about, all of the things that he objects to, the sound agricultural policy that guarantees that we continue to have the safest, cheapest food supply in the world, if you want to cut those things, you can put it in your program. If you do not like the fact that we are taking Pell grants up, you could object to that through your recommittal motion.

The point is that we are here today debating the rule on the continuing resolution of the government because we have three regular order appropriations bills yet to move, because I believe, to our credit and to this Chamber's credit, to the credit of the entire House, we are not moving a last minute omnibus choo-choo train that all of us have to go home and then discover something in that that we are not real terribly proud of. I think it is a credit to the appropriators on both sides of the aisle and a credit, frankly, to both Chambers, and as the gentleman from Florida has pointed out, under Republican leadership, that are bringing us 11 individual appropriations bills that can be voted on up or down.

You have an opportunity to make your position publicly known on each of those bills, rather than having things stuffed into a last-minute train, which all of us object to and which diminishes the status of the House.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and we have kicked off quite a debate here this morning. We know that it is going to be a long day as we approach the debate over the Labor, Health and Human Services appropriations bill, the ongoing debate over the continuing resolution to fund our government, and later today the deficit reduction package, which I dare say will not take food from any child in America's mouth, despite the overheated rhetoric of the gentleman from Oregon, respectfully the gentleman from Florida and a number of others on that side of the aisle who it would appear from their media statements discuss in the salons and parlors of the Beltway whether Republicans hate children or old people more.

I dare say that as we bring up this Deficit Reduction Act, which finally for the first time since 1997 puts us back on a serious track to finding savings not just in the discretionary side of our spending but in the mandatory side which makes up over half of Federal spending today and which slows the rate of growth in government, again, one of those Washington, D.C.-style cuts, where budgets grow 7 percent instead of 7.3 percent or they grow 6 percent instead of 6.3 percent, and we find $50 billion worth of savings in a $2.5 trillion per year budget.

So $50 billion in savings over 5 years in what would then be a $14 trillion pot. I think that almost any American would say I think that my budget growing 7 percent instead of 7.3 percent is acceptable, and I dare say to my friend from Florida, who represents, among other counties, Palm Beach County, Florida, the home of Lake Worth Avenue among other places. I think there are a number of counties that would gladly trade their tax base for his, and I would also say that I believe that somewhere in Palm Beach County there is an afterschool program

of some shape or form. There must be an afterschool program somewhere in all of Palm Beach County, Florida.

I believe that as we move through this debate it is important for us to be responsible in our rhetoric and keep our eyes on the ball, which is the looming fiscal crisis that is out there if Congress does not have the courage to get its arms around mandatory spending, which is consuming Federal spending, making up over 50 percent of it today and two-thirds of Federal spending.

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman referred to the entire county, not his piece of the county, and I certainly am well aware of Pahokee and Belle Glade and the challenges that they have gone through.

But I believe somewhere in your county you have an afterschool program.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I call up my amendment, which is at the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I understand that under the order, I will be recognized for 20 minutes.

I might reserve a little bit of time. I may have other colleagues who will come over to speak.

Just to refresh memories, when this continuing resolution was passed at the end of September, I came on the floor and offered an amendment that would have kept whole the Community Services Block Grant program. That is a program that administers the LIHEAP program, administers a lot of Head Start programs, Even Start programs, Older Americans Act programs, elderly transportation programs, emergency shelter programs, weatherization assistance--you get the idea. Most of the programs really help a lot of poor people in this country. Last year's level was $636.8 million.

The amendment I offered in September would have kept the funding of the Community Services Block Grant program at that level. You might say that was a continuing resolution. A continuing resolution keeps things at last year's level. Therein lies the problem.

The House sent us a continuing resolution that said: We will continue programs at last year's level or at the level of the House budget, whichever is less. The House budget cut the Community Services Block Grants Program down to less than $320 million. They cut it in half. That is the level it was in 1986.

I said in September that it was unfair for poor people to have to have theirs cut right away down to that level because winter was coming and you need the heating energy assistance and things like that.

At that time, at the end of September, there was a lot of talk. We couldn't accept this amendment because the House had gone out. As long as the House was out and if we changed the continuing resolution, that meant the entire House of Representatives would have to come back to Washington, DC, and do something about this. I said at the time on the floor, big deal. They came back for a lot of other things; they could come back for this, too.

Obviously, my arguments did not prevail. The amendment was defeated; whereupon, however, the chairman of the Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, the Senator from Alaska, Mr. Stevens, said that he was going to take my amendment that continues the community services block grants at last year's level and put it on the Defense appropriations bill, which he did and for which I commended him. We all thought that the Defense appropriations bill would zing through here right away. Fine.

Here we are. It is November 18, and the Defense appropriations bill has not been passed--and we don't know when; probably next month, I suppose, before the end of the year.

We have another continuing resolution. The continuing resolution expires today at midnight. We know that. The continuing resolution is the same. It is at either last year's level or the House budget level, whichever is less. That means the Community Services Block Grant program is still cut down to the level it was in 1986.

The amendment I am offering today basically says--it is the same amendment, basically--for the purposes of this continuing resolution, the community services block grant shall be based on the rate that it was last year, which is $636.6 million.

On November 8, barely a week and a half ago, 58 Senators from both sides of the aisle cosigned a letter saying we want to keep the Community Services Block Grant Program at the Senate level, at last year's level. That is what we did in our bill, and 58 Senators a week and a half ago signed this letter to keep it at the same level. Yet today we are going to pass a continuing resolution that cuts it in half. This continuing resolution is until December 18.

There is another unique feature about the Community Services Block Grant Program that I wish to bring to the Senate's attention. Unlike a lot of programs, such as education, for example, wherein the money goes out basically next summer, if we use that language--the lower of the House level--it doesn't mean a lot because the money is not going to go out until next summer, and we probably will fix this prior to going home for Christmas. I think. I don't know. We have had CRs going into January and into February. That is not unusual around here.

So we have a continuing resolution before us today that says until December 18, and we think it will be done by then. It may not be. I don't know how many people around here would like to bet a dollar to a dime on that one. Maybe yes; maybe no; get it done by December 18. It could go into next year.

Here we have a situation, unlike education, where the money goes out next summer, and we will fix it before then, certainly. The Community Services Block Grant program goes out quarterly. Every quarter, the money goes out and is used. That means right now we are about 7 weeks into this quarter, and the entire nationwide Community Services Block Grant program has been operating at the level of $320 million. That is bad enough. If we extend that another month, it could be disastrous, or another 2 months, because it is not like they can draw down some money somewhere and say: We are going to get it next year, we will make up for it. They can't just go to the bank and borrow the money. They do not have it. If they don't have the money for weatherization or for Head Start programs or for low-income energy assistance programs, they just do not do it.

We have had vote after vote here when Members supported the Low- Income Energy Heating Assistance Program. It is vitally needed. But if you do not have the people to administer the program and get the goods and hire the people to administer it, what good does it do? That is what the Community Services Block Grant program does.

You may hear talk that the Community Services Block Grant program is just one part of the picture because there are State and local governments that help. That is true. There are private charities that help. That is true. That is the good thing about this program--it brings a lot of different stakeholders into play. But there is the anchor, there is the anchor of the money. If that is not there, they do not even have the people to go out and do anything.

I ask Senators to think about this. Here is a program that is widely supported; 58 Senators signed a letter a week and a half ago. We passed it in our Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations Subcommittee when it was on the floor at last year's level, $636.8 million. No one talked against that. It just passed. We all supported it. As a matter of fact, if I am not mistaken, I think it was later supported by the House, even though their numbers were less. The conference report

that was rejected by the House at least had this high figure in it.

So we find ourselves in an odd situation with another continuing resolution in the dead of winter when the homeless need a lot of help, when poor people are put to the extreme in terms of buying enough food, energy to heat their homes, get clothes for their kids, finding enough money for rent, going to food banks when the food stamps run out.

Any Senator here who has been to the food banks in their State knows that the food bank demand is up over what it has been in the past because food stamps are running out about the third week of the month, and poor families are going to the food banks to get food. I say to any Senator, go to your food bank--any State, I don't care which State it is--go to your food banks, food pantries, and ask them whether the demand for food is up over what it was last year or just a few months ago. That is the program administered by the Community Services Block Grant program.

The argument that was made in September is we could not do this because the House would have to come back, and they cannot do it, la- de-da, and all that stuff. Well, the House is in session today--they may be in session tomorrow, I don't know. But they are in session today. We could pass this amendment; say, no, the one program we are going to exempt from the 50-percent cut of the House of Representatives is Community Services Block Grant program. Send it back to the House, let them bring it up and pass it and send it to the President. The argument that we could not do it because of the time pressures does not hold any longer.

This is just a matter of simple justice. If this were a program that could make up the money later on next year, it would be different. This is now. People need help now for housing, for rental assistance, food banks, heating energy assistance, Head Start, foster grandparents, rental assistance.

One of the things the Community Services Block Grant program does for people includes if they are evicted and they need someplace to stay. Think of the single mother with two or three children. The husband has left her and gone off someplace. They have been in an apartment, maybe there has been an illness in the family for which they are not covered--who knows what kind of calamities could have hit--and they find themselves evicted. They can go to the local community action agency in their area. One of the things they will do is they will find them a place to live. They will give them rental assistance to get them established and a place to live. That is what this program does. What I just described happens 10 times a day in 1,000 cities across America-- 100,000 times a day.

I hope we can pass this amendment. It is very simple and straightforward. Leave the Community Services Block Grant program at last year's level. We have all said that is where we want it. We need to get that money out there. The House is in session. They can pass it and send it to the President.

How much time remains?

I reserve the remainder of my time.

How much time total?

How much time on the other side?

Parliamentary inquiry: I understand I had 20 minutes to speak and there is no time on the other side to speak on this amendment?

There are a couple of other points.

The amendment is a straight failure. Senators understand it. But I will point out, because of a quirk in the law, there are some States that are cut more than others.

Here is what that means. This gets a little complicated, but I think the States that are going to be voting need to know this. If the total funding for a fiscal year is less than $345 million, then no State shall receive less than one-fourth of 1 percent. Now, last year, since we cut it back to $320.6 million, that means there are 13 States-- Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, and Wyoming--that are not cut by 50 percent; they are cut by 75 percent. Because of a quirk in the law, 13 of our smallest States have a 75-percent cut. That is what they are operating at right now in those States.

I say to the Senators from those States, this may not be knowledge to a lot of Members. I happen to know about this program because I am on both the committees that administer it, but this is a program that helps the poorest in our country.

I anticipate there may be some other reasons people do not want to vote for this, but as long as 58 Senators signed the letter a week and a half ago, as long as the House is in session, it seems to me we could vote on this and let the House do it.

As I said, this is the dead of winter. We were told at the end of September that the Defense appropriations bill would be acted upon. This amendment was included. But it has not been acted on. We are now told we have a continuing resolution until December 18, but will we really act on it by December 18? As I said, who can bet on that around here?

These are the poorest of our poor people. Can't we at least say we are going to hold them a little bit harmless in this? It is not that we are holding them harmless, we are holding them at last year's level, which means it is cut a little bit simply because of the cost-of-living increase. But to be cut 50 percent, and in 13 States to be cut by 75 percent, is grossly unfair.

Let's do the moral thing. Let's do the right thing. This is a very small matter, a small thing to do, to pass this amendment and send it to the House and have them pass it on.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter I discussed.

I yield back the remainder of my time and ask for the yeas and nays.