Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the study of languages and supporting the designation of a Year of Languages.

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

Mr. Chairman, let me say at the outset here that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and I have had a discussion about the possibility of trying to finish this bill today. We want to make every effort to do so. And that will depend, of course, on what kind of cooperation we can get on amendments.

Also, I am going to ask unanimous consent to move the issue of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to come up as the first issue as there is a lot of interest in this. We will try to limit time on both sides and give people a chance to vote on this.

So all of that is an effort to expedite today's proceedings.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. Chairman, and my colleagues, I am pleased to present before the House today the fiscal year 2006 appropriations bill for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies.

By taking into consideration the priorities of the President and the Members of this House, we have produced a bill that meets the needs of all Americans. We are appreciative of the efforts of the leader of the House and the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), in providing a workable allocation for this bill.

I would also like to acknowledge the hard work, dedication, and expertise of my subcommittee staff, as well as the minority staff, in putting together this bill.

Mr. Chairman, we have made a commitment to reduce Federal deficits. With the reduction in the budget from last year, support for Pell grants required by the budget resolution, and that was money that has been spent in years past that we had to pay in this bill, and new implementation and processing costs of the Medicare Modernization Act, we had nearly $2 billion less to spend on programs that were funded in fiscal year 2005.

We made some tough decisions. We eliminated four programs and did not initiate eight new programs proposed by the President. But when looked at as a whole, this bill provides $142.5 billion to over 500 discretionary programs. It is a lot of money, and it does a lot of good.

It is a responsible, fair, and balanced bill. I believe it does a good job in meeting the needs of the American people. Let me start with education. Earlier on the rule, I quoted from an editorial piece by David Broder today that in polling the American people, they said education was the number one reason for the success of this Nation. Education is essential to the preservation of democracy, and an investment in education is an investment in people.

Mr. Chairman, Federal education spending has more than doubled since 1996, from $23 billion to $56.7 billion, as contained in this bill. Education funding in this bill for fiscal year 2006 is $476 million above the President's request. We added to his request. This is a significant commitment to the future of our Nation.

However, we must be prudent in our funding priorities to ensure that these dollars are targeted to programs that most directly improve the education of our Nation's students.

We have focused spending in this bill on the key areas that directly impact our children's education. First, and foremost, I believe that no child will be left behind if he or she has a quality teacher. Almost every teacher in our Nation's classrooms today is there for one reason: they care about children and want to help them reach their full potential.

We applaud their hard work and dedication and support them in this bill by providing funding to encourage people to enter the field of teaching, and provide incentives for quality teachers to remain in the classrooms. This bill supports teachers and students by increasing funding for title I by $100 million. Title I provides additional resources to low-income schools, to help principals, teachers, and students close education achievement gaps.

At the school level, Title I helps provide additional staffing, ongoing training, and the latest research, computer equipment, books or new curricula. That, coupled with strong accountability measures, helps disadvantaged children meet the same high standards as their more advantaged peers.

I want to say that this bill really tries to help every individual to be sensitive to the needs of all people. We, this morning, and every morning when we meet, give the Pledge of Allegiance. We close by saying ``with liberty and justice for all.'' That is what we have tried to do here, because education does give people liberty, it does give them justice, and the same thing with medical research.

Mr. Chairman, many of my colleagues spoke with me about the financial demands of special education on their local school districts. We also hear from parents about the need to support adequate special education funding to ensure their special needs children receive a quality education.

In this bill, funding for special education is increased by $150 million, which brings its total to over $11 billion, a nearly 378 percent increase since the fiscal year 1996.

I believe that quality of classroom teachers and principals is one of the most important factors that affects student achievement. This bill provides $100 million to reward effective teachers and to offer incentives for highly qualified teachers to be in our Nation's high schools, and particularly in high-needs schools.

Mr. Chairman, science and technology have been and will continue to be the engines of U.S. economic growth and national security. Excellence in discovery, innovation in science and engineering is derived from an ample and well-educated workforce. To ensure competency in a rapidly changing global market, this bill provides $190 million for the math and science partnership program. This program supports State and local efforts to improve student academic achievements in mathematics and science by promoting strong teaching skills for elementary and secondary school teachers.

Many of you already know that First Lady Laura Bush supports the Troops to Teachers programs, and has visited military bases to inform our troops about the opportunity to enter the field of teaching upon completion of their military service.

With maturity, training in mathematics or science, and assistance in appropriate courses for teaching, members of our Armed Forces make outstanding classroom teachers. And in fields where we currently have teacher shortages, this bill provides $15 million for the Troops to Teachers program.

During the 2001-2002 school year, approximately 42 percent of the Nation's schools were located in rural areas or small towns, and approximately 30 percent of all students attended these schools. The average rural or small town school serves 364 students, compared to 609 students served by the average urban school.

The small size of many rural schools and districts presents a different set of problems from those of urban schools and districts. This bill provides over $171 million to meet the needs of schools in rural communities.

TRIO, GEAR UP, Vocational Education State grants and adult education programs have strong support from Members of this body. These programs were proposed for termination in the President's budget. However, we have allocated over $3 billion for the continuation of these important efforts.

Title III programs are designed to strengthen institutions of higher education that serve a high percentage of minority students and students from low-income backgrounds. Federal grants made under those programs go to eligible institutions to support improvements in the academic quality, institutional management, endowments and fiscal stability. Funding is targeted to minority-serving and other institutions that enroll a large proportion of financially disadvantaged students and have low per-student expenditures.

Fiscal year 2006 spending for Title III programs is at $506 million; combined with the funding for Howard University, our commitment to minority serving institutions exceeds $747 million.

The sharp rise in college costs continues to be a barrier to many students. Pell grants help ensure access to postsecondary education for low- and middle-income undergraduate students by providing financial assistance. This bill increases the maximum award of a Pell grant to $4,100, the highest level in history. As required by the budget resolution, the bill provides $4.3 billion to retire the shortfall that has accumulated in the program over the last several years because of higher-than-expected student participation in the program. And, that is good, that more students are participating.

Health care is a critical part of the Nation's economic development. To assist in protecting health of all Americans and provide essential human services, this bill provides the Department of Health and Human Services over $63 billion for fiscal year 2006. Mr. Chairman, similar to the Department of Education, we have more than doubled the funding for HHS since 1996 from $28.9 billion in fiscal year 1996 to $63.1 billion in this bill.

At the forefront of new progress in medicine, the National Institutes of Health supports and conducts medical research to understand how the human body works and to gain insight into countless diseases and disorders. It supports a wide spectrum of research to find cures covering many medical conditions that affect people. As a result of our commitment to NIH, our citizens are living longer and better lives. In 1900, the life expectancy was only 47 years. By 2003 it was almost 78 years. And I am sure that it would be even more today.

The 5-year doubling of the NIH budget completed in fiscal year 2003 both picked up the pace of discovery and heightened public expectations. We now expect NIH to carefully examine its portfolio and continue to be a good steward of the public's investment. Funding for NIH has increased by over $142 million, bringing its total budget to $28.5 billion.

It is certainly a serious commitment to health research. All the information and advances we have gained from NIH would be useless if it does not make its way to health care providers and individuals, those most responsible for their own health. Thus, the work for Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, better known as CDC, is critical to protecting the health and safety of people both at home and abroad. Infectious diseases such as SARS, West Nile Virus, HIV/AIDS, and tuberculosis have the ability to destroy lives, strain community resources, and even threaten nations. In today's global environment, new diseases have the potential to spread across the world in a matter of days, or even hours, making early detection and action more important than ever.

As the CDC director, Dr. Gerberding, and National Institutes of Health director, Dr. Zerhouni, have said, infectious disease and bioterrorism are one of the greatest threats to our safety and security today. CDC plays a critical role in controlling these diseases. Traveling at a moment's notice to investigate outbreaks both abroad and at home, CDC is watching over these particular and dangerous medical issues.

Recognizing the tremendous challenges faced by the CDC, we have provided nearly $6 billion for their budget in fiscal year 2006.

Mr. Chairman, as you know, many of the community health centers have served as America's health care safety net for the Nation's underserved populations. Health centers operating at the community level provide regular access to high-quality, family-oriented, comprehensive primary and preventative health care, regardless of ability to pay, and improve the health status of underserved populations living in inner-city and rural areas.

The health centers' target populations have lower life expectancy and higher death rates compared to the general population. These patients have less purchasing power and many are unable to afford even the most basic medical or dental attention. In 2003, the Community Health Centers served more than 12 million patients and I am sure many more in the last couple of years. Funding for the community health centers is $1.8 billion; again, an increase of $100 million over last year.

Children's hospitals across the Nation are the training grounds for our pediatricians and pediatric specialists. Many of these hospitals are regional and national referral centers for very sick children, often serving as the only source of care for many critical pediatric services. This bill provides $300 million to train these important caregivers who will care for America's youngest population, its children.

The AIDS Drug Assistance Program for funding is increased by $10 million and brings the Ryan White AIDS program total to over $2 billion. The increase in funding assists those infected with the virus in receiving vital medical attention.

We have provided nearly $6.9 billion for Head Start, a program designed primarily for preschoolers from low-income families. Head Start promotes school readiness by enhancing the social and cognitive development of children through the provision of educational, health, nutritional, social and other services.

The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program ensures that low-income households are not without heating or cooling, and provides protection to our most vulnerable populations: the elderly, households with small children, and persons with disabilities. The

funds are distributed to the States through a formula grant program and we have provided nearly $2 billion for fiscal year 2006.

Mr. Chairman, our society is judged not only by the care we provide to our young, but also how we treat our elderly. We owe a profound debt of gratitude to a generation of older Americans whose hard work, courage, faith, sacrifice, and patriotism helped to make this Nation great.

Funding in the nutrition programs, including Meals On Wheels for the elderly, are increased by over $7 million. This bill provides nearly $1.4 billion to the Administration on Aging to enhance health care, nutrition, and social supports to seniors and their family caregivers.

The Labor Department. We ought to support the aspirations of people: good health, security, meaningful work, creative and intellectual pursuits. The Department of Labor places a key role in many important worker training and protection programs. Therefore, we have restored funding to core job training and employment assistance programs.

A number of communities continue to experience plant closings and other layoffs, and we understand the need to support dislocated worker training programs that can assist workers return to gainful employment. In this bill we restore funding for dislocated worker assistance programs to over $1.4 billion, an increase of $62 million over the budget request.

The Job Corps program provides a comprehensive and intensive array of training, career development, job placement and support services to our disadvantaged young people between the ages of 16 and 24. Many people who enroll in a Job Corps Center never completed their high school education and may have other barriers to sustaining a job. This program ensures that disadvantaged young people are afforded an opportunity to successfully participate in the Nation's workforce.

For fiscal year 2006 this bill provides over $1.5 billion for this program, an increase of $25 million over the President's request.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments.

Reclaiming my time, the Job Corps provides a comprehensive and intensive array of training, career development, job placement, and support services to disadvantaged young people between the ages of 16 and 24. Many people enrolled in the Job Corps Center never completed their high school education and have other barriers.

For fiscal year 2006, this bill provides over $1.5 billion for these programs and this is an increase. And we likewise protect the safety of workers.

Mr. Chairman, in order to implement more than 400 provisions of the Medicare Modernization Act and ensure that senior citizens receive the prescription drug benefits that we provide in MMA, we have allocated more than $1 billion over the fiscal year 2005 level to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and Social Security Administration.

While benefits that both of these agencies provide come through mandatory spending by way of the Committee on Ways and Means, this bill provides the funding for the agencies' administrative costs. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services pay about one-third of national health care expenditures and pay for more than one-half of all senior health care costs.

Let me repeat that. Medicare and Medicaid pay for more than one-half of all senior health care costs. More than 85 million Americans rely on these programs for health care coverage. Last year the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services processed over 1 billion claims, answered over 52 million inquiries and reviewed nearly 8 million appeals.

SSA, Social Security Administration, will also play a vital role in the implementation of the Medicaid Modernization Act, as they will identify low-income beneficiaries who might be eligible for drug benefit subsidies, make low-income subsidy determinations, withhold premiums appropriate to beneficiaries' selected plans, and calculate Part B premiums for high-income beneficiaries.

The increases provided to CMS and SSA will enable them to implement and improve delivery of benefits and expedite the processing of disability claims, and that is very important. This bill meets our financial commitment for effective administration of these programs and ensures efficient services to recipients.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, much more could be said about this bill which touches every American at some point in life. We are mindful of the fiscal limitations on our bill and we have tried to use the allocation to fund our highest priorities. This bill does its part, its best, to meet the American people's needs.

I want to say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and also on our side, it was a great subcommittee. Both Republican and Democrat members worked very well together, and we may have some disagreements on the amounts of money, but I think within the confines of what was available, we pretty much are in agreement with the assignment of priorities that were made. All the members participated very effectively.

It is a responsible, fair, and balanced bill and I ask my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Chairman, the following is a detailed table of the bill:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JN05.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JN05.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JN05.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JN05.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JN05.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JN05.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JN05.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JN05.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JN05.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JN05.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JN05.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JN05.012

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JN05.013

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JN05.014

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JN05.015

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JN05.016

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JN05.017

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JN05.018

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JN05.019

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JN05.020

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JN05.021

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JN05.022

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JN05.023

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

Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), a very fine member of our subcommittee.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, for the purpose of entering into a colloquy, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the committee acknowledges the good work that is done by the National Youth Sports Program, but was unfortunately unable to fund this program due to funding constraints.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the committee will do its best in the conference if additional funding is available to preserve the National Youth Sports Program.

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

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this amendment and any amendments thereto be limited to 30 minutes to be equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself as the opponent.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy).

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment. I want to point out a number of reasons, not that I dislike public broadcasting or public television; I think they do great programming. My grandchildren love Elmo and Big Bird, and Between the Lions. I like a number of the programs.

But keep in mind, that this was created at a time, what, some 30-plus years ago when we did not have the huge variety of programming that is available today. And keep in mind, of course, that we have limited amounts of money.

I know that there has been a lot of conversation out across the country and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is involved here, and National Public Radio, they have the microphones available to reach people who are calling us. But I am not sure that those who call realize what would be eliminated if we were to adopt this amendment.

Just let me enumerate those. What this amendment does to make up the 100 million for CPB is takes $58 million out of the Department of Labor. For what purpose? Employment and training and administration, training and employment services. Takes away from young people's training opportunities. That is extremely important in today's world, where we have 32 percent of our high school graduates, not graduates, 32 percent of our high school students that do not graduate.

That is a national statistic. And we offer programs here, GEDs, training, all kinds of things to give them a chance later on as they realize their mistake in not finishing high school.

But this would take away, this amendment would take away from the Department of Labor employment and training administration services, $58 million. So that means some young man and some young woman across this Nation who suddenly realize how important it is to their future and to their country and to their community and to their family that they get additional training would not have that opportunity so that we can have public broadcasting.

Now, I point out that only 15 percent of the money that provides for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting comes from the Federal Government. And it has been pointed out that this would eliminate a number of these programs. But I would point out that Elmo and Big Bird and the Lions all make a lot of money, as was brought to our attention earlier today.

And they have opportunities to raise a lot of funds. All of us have seen the fund-raising. But we do not see fund-

raising out there to give young people a new opportunity to be retrained so that they can be employed. So let us not take that away. Another item that this would take away: the Department of Labor salaries and expenses.

We need people at the Department of Labor to manage the programs, to ensure that workers' safety is taken care of, to ensure that workers' rights are protected. We are not going to have a fund-raising program to do that, as can be the case with public broadcasting.

Third item. Takes away from the Department of Health and Human Services, health resources and services administration, health resources and services, $2.9 million.

Well, what is important to the people in this Nation is health: health research, health management; NIH. Keep in mind that the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control are both part of the Department of Health and Human Services. We do not do fund- raising for them. But we are going to take the money away, or propose to take it away, for the public broadcasting where they have lots of opportunity to raise money in the private sector.

Fourth item that is taken away by this amendment, that would be reduced, is the Department of Education, higher education. $27 million would be taken out of the Department of Education to fund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. We have heard a lot of discussion today how important it is to have higher education, Pell grants, not enough. We have heard other items are not enough; and yet here we are proposing, in an amendment, to take away $27 million that is vital to the future of young people in higher education programs.

Lastly, Department of Education, program administration, $8 million- plus. Someone has commented today that we originally wanted to get rid of the Department of Education. But we are not. We have a great number of programs here in the Department of Education to improve teacher quality, principals, to improve opportunity for young people, to provide, through the TRIO and through the other programs of that type, an opportunity to provide for the historically black colleges. All of this money has to be administered.

And this would take away the money to do part of that. So I want to say to all of my colleagues, I realize all that you have been getting in the way of phone calls; but I dare say that if you said to those that call you, well, if we do what you are requesting me to do, would you be willing to eliminate the Department of Labor training services; the Department of Labor management; department of Health and Human Services resources; Department of Education higher education, and so on, I suspect that, if they were given the choice, that they would say, oh, wait a minute, these are important to us. They are important to my family. They are important to my community. They are important to the young people who are my neighbors and friends.

And given the fact that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting has the ability to raise a lot of money, has the ability to fund the development of programs like Elmo and Big Bird. Go into a store, you will see a lot of these things on sale. I know that they produce a lot of profit for those that sell them.

So let me say to my colleagues today, when you cast this vote, keep in mind that you are trading off to give CPB more money, that they are very successful in raising money in the private sector; you are trading off against that all of these educational opportunities that will be limited to the tune of $100 million total.

Members should weigh which is more beneficial to the constituents we represent.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

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

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

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

Mr. Chairman, let me say, reiterate, I am a fan of public broadcasting and public radio; and, of course, my family members like Elmo and Big Bird and Between the Lions.

I do not have a closed mind on this subject. I am sure it will come up in conference in making agreement with the other body; but let me say to my colleagues, right now you are choosing between public television, and we provided $300 million in the bill, keep in mind there. We are not taking it all away. There is $300 million there. This is only 25 percent of this that we are talking about.

On the other side of the scales, you are going to hurt employment and training for young people. You are going to hurt the Department of Labor. You are going to hurt the Department of Health and Human Services that provides the Centers for Disease Control, that provides the National Institutes of Health on health research. You are going to hurt the Department of Education and their higher education programs and their departmental management.

I think when we put it on the scale, on one side is public television, we are giving them $300 million in this bill. They have the capacity to raise a lot of money in the public sector. On the other side of the scale are young people that need an opportunity for job retraining, that need an opportunity to participate in the American Dream. Those Departments have no ability to go out and raise money as does the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. It is not the last word on this subject, but understand the trade-offs that I think are very damaging to young people and their opportunities in terms of higher education and job retraining.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) makes it very clear. We are trying to eliminate some potential amendments with colloquies, and I hope that some of the Members will consider withdrawing their amendments.

We are making a real effort to try to finish it today; and with cooperation of all the Members, I think this can be accomplished. As the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) points out, I do

not think the bill will be changed much in the final analysis by whatever amount of discussion we have.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Fossella

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this amendment and any amendments thereto be limited to 15 minutes to be equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself, the opponent.

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

We understand the importance of this, and originally we provided, that is, the government, the Federal Government, $175 million for this purpose; but only a limited amount of that has been spent in the last 2\1/2\ years, to be exact, $51 million out of the $175 million. In 2003, $44 million; in 2004, $6 million; in 2005, no money.

So what we are proposing is to rescind this and urging that it be reappropriated as the needs arise to meet whatever challenges. I think there is a problem a little bit in the language in that the money cannot really address the needs that are out there, and this is why a reappropriation or reauthorization would make it possible.

I think all of us are in agreement that we want to provide the money. It is just that the mechanics of it and doing that are not appropriate at this point.

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

I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's comments and recognize this is a legitimate and important issue that needs to be addressed. The brave people who responded to the attacks on September 11 will always be remembered in the hearts of Americans, and I recognize that they need additional help.

While there is concern about the dormancy of this funding over the last few years, and questions over whether or not the needs match the available funding, I am pleased to hear that the State of New York plans on starting an actuarial review to determine just how much money is needed to address the problem.

In light of the gentleman's comments today, I will work with the gentleman, the administration, and the other body in an attempt to find ways of addressing these workers' needs as the bill moves forward.

Over the long term, I look forward to examining the needs of 9/11 responders in light of the actuarial review results, and working with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella) and colleagues from New York State to maintain Congress' commitment to these heroes.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I know that many Members support the Healthy Communities Access Program. I have seen an HCAP program in Ohio that seemed to work very well.

The President's budget proposed to terminate HCAP; and given Members' interest in other programs that were not funded in the budget, we felt we had to accept the President's proposal to restore others, like the pediatric GME program. And, of course, we increased the community health centers programs.

I will certainly try to work with our Senate colleagues to provide some funding for the HCAP in conference.

Mr. Chairman, I do not think the gentleman is questioning the value of milk as a healthy food, but maybe the way it is being sold.

I look forward to working with the gentleman as we head into conference. We do not want these things to happen either.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this amendment and any amendments thereto be limited to 15 minutes to be divided equally and controlled by the proponent and myself, the opponent.

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

I have to reluctantly rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. He is a valuable member of our subcommittee and is certainly a strong voice for programs providing health care in rural areas. As the gentleman knows, we have tried to respond as much as possible within the constraints of the budget. That program seemed to be the highest priority rural health program for our Members. I realize the outreach program is popular among Members but we just felt we had to restore some of the other cuts proposed, like pediatric GME.

Unfortunately, the offset in the amendment is unacceptable and any cut in OSHA would savage the agency's ability to maintain its safety programs. This is a clear example of we wish we had more money, but we do not, and we are trying to make the best use of what we have.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I am sympathetic. I come from a rural district myself and live on a farm, as a matter of fact. I understand what the gentleman

is saying. He illustrates the fact that we have had to make very difficult priority judgments. Certainly I for one, and I know the gentleman from Wisconsin has a rural district, too, would be sympathetic to this in conference. We obviously cannot promise anything, but I hear my colleague's comments and his arguments and would certainly keep these in mind.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the debate on this amendment and any amendments thereto be limited to 10 minutes to be equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself, the opponent.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I want to emphasize, as the subcommittee chairman says, we are trying to help Members get out of here today. We cannot do that unless we get cooperation from Members on amendments and on time.

Frankly, if I had my way, there would be one speech for this bill, one speech against it, and we would vote, because we are not going to make any significant changes in this bill given what the budget has done to us.

So we might as well get on with it. I would ask Members to give us their cooperation. I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) for bringing it to the House's attention.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, this bill is the clearest demonstration that I can think of of what happens when Congress puts $140,000 tax cuts for people who make $1 million a year or more ahead of our investment needs in our children, ahead of our investment needs in our health care system, and ahead of supporting programs that will help our workers compete in world markets. This bill, make no mistake about it, is a prescription for a second-class economy.

I know most of the discussion today will be focused on public broadcasting. I will be offering an amendment to add back $100 million that the committee cut out. Previously in the committee, I offered another amendment which added $400 million for this year's funding. We are simply trying to get it back up to last year's level. That is an important issue, and I hope that the House will vote for the amendment.

I want to make clear that even though the press has focused 90 percent of its attention on public broadcasting, in one sense that is fortunate because at least the people who pay attention to public broadcasting do have a megaphone of sorts, and they can get their message known. I believe our amendment today will pass, but even if it does, I would hope that the Members of this House and the members of the press would understand that that is far from the most important issue in this bill.

The most important thing about this bill is what it does to hurt the future of our children, what it does to avoid meeting the needs of people in this society who are sick and without health insurance, what it does to help our workers in the world economy.

The distinguished majority leader in discussing the budget resolution earlier this year said this: ``This is the budget the American people voted for when they elected a Republican House, a Republican Senate and a Republican White House.'' I quite agree, and this bill is also, unfortunately, the kind of bill that the American people are going to get because they voted for a Republican House, a Republican Senate, and a Republican White House.

Last year, the programs in this bill were $3.5 billion above the previous year. This year, this bill in a program-to-program basis cuts $1.6 billion from these programs.

Now, what does that mean? It means, for instance, that this bill even cuts into the President's signature programs in training, in health care and education. It cuts back substantially the President's recommendation for community college skills, for community health centers and high school reform. Let us take a look at what it does in other key areas of our economy.

For our workers, the administration is about to bring forth CAFTA, yet another misguided, misbegotten trade agreement. The administration is breaking arms and promising the Moon in order to get people to vote for that amendment; and yet this bill cuts the program that is supposed to be the traffic cop that protects American workers against having to compete against child and slave labor. It cuts that program by 87 percent. I do not think that the American people would agree with that.

This bill disinvests in job training and help for the unemployed. This bill for adult training grants is the lowest funding level in 10 years. It even cuts the Job Corps below current services level. And if you take a look at the health care area, of the 11 programs that we had on the books to help us develop the kind of health profession that we need, so that you have enough in rural areas and enough in your major metropolitan areas, this bill cuts 10 of those 11 programs. Only one is remaining, and 84 percent of that portion of the budget is gone. It also eliminates a community access program that is a key program that helps deliver health care services to the uninsured.

National Institutes of Health. There is not a politician in this House who does not go home and tell your constituents what you are doing on cancer research or Alzheimer's or Parkinson's. And what does this bill do? It means the National Institutes of Health are going to have 500 fewer grants to put out to scientists around the country than they had 2 years ago. We are backing off on the attack on disease.

Low Income Home Energy Assistance program. That is a program that helps low-income people and seniors avoid having to choose between heating their houses and feeding themselves. The program is cut by $200 million.

Education. Effectively, this is the first freeze on education funding in a decade. This bill cuts No Child Left Behind programs by $800 million. You have the mother of all mandates, telling the States and school districts what they must do here, what they must do there. That costs money. But the Federal Government is welshing on its responsibility and on its promise to help pay those costs. It is backing off.

On IDEA, the program that helps local units, or local school districts, pay for educating disabled kids. What does this bill do for that? Well, the Republican majority promised a few years ago that the Feds would pay 40 percent of the cost of that program. Today, this bill actually cuts the share of Federal participation from 18.6 to 18.2 percent of that program, welshing on another promise.

It freezes after-school centers for the fourth year in a row. It slashes education technology at a time when that has never been more important. It eliminates comprehensive school grants for 1,000 high- poverty school districts by eliminating the program. It freezes Impact Aid.

On Pell grants, the main program we use to help kids go to college, what does it do? On Pell grants, we are told by the College Board that the cost of a 4-year public university has increased $2,300 during the last 4 years. What is our response to it? The President says, well, we will fix the problem with a hundred bucks add-on to Pell grant. That takes care of 4 percent of the problem. This bill cuts that to 2 percent. It provides a measly $50 increase in the Pell grant program, and that does not address the fact that because the IRS has changed the eligibility tables there are going to be thousands and thousands of kids who are tossed off the program entirely. In fact, it is going to raise costs in my State by about $187 per student.

So what I would say is that this is the main legislation we will deal with this year that deals with the economic and social problems of the country. The main issue in this country the next 40 years is going to be how we gear ourselves up to economically compete with countries like China and India. We need to invest in all of the technology, all of the education that we can possibly invest in. This bill walks away from that obligation, and that is why I say it is a prescription for a second-rate economy. It walks away from our obligation to workers, and we will long regret it if we pass this bill.

I would urge a ``no'' vote on the bill. The problems with this bill have nothing to do with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula). He is a fine man and a fine chairman, but this bill implements the Republican budget resolution in the broadest possible areas in our economy and our country. It is a major social and economic mistake, and it certainly does not represent my values, and I do not believe it represents the values of the American people.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished minority whip.

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

Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

Madam 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 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy), also a member of the subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

I just want to address one issue because it has been raised twice on the floor today, Mr. Chairman. The argument our friends on the majority side make is that we should be happy because the education budget has gone up considerably since they took over control of Congress.

Let me point out what the record of the majority party has been on education. When the Republicans took control of the Congress, they did so with the promise to abolish the U.S. Department of Education. Their first act was to rescind $1.8 billion in fiscal year 1995 in education funding. In the next year they tried to do the same to the tune of $3.7 billion. In the 7 years between 1995 and 2001, each of the Labor-Health bills passed by the House Republicans was below President Clinton's request for education. The net result is that there would have been nearly $19 billion less spent on education between 1995 and 2005 if we had enacted the Republican Labor-Health bills into law.

Title I. If Congress had approved the House Republican Labor-H bills, we would have spent $2.8 billion less than we actually spent. After- school centers. If the Congress had approved the House Republican Labor-H bills, we would have spent $516 million less for after-school centers. Special education. If Congress had approved the House Republican Labor-H bills, we would have spent $2.7 billion less for special education. On Pell grants, for the last 3 years, the Republican majority has proposed to freeze Pell grants. If the Republican proposals in fiscal year 2006 are adopted, the purchasing power of Pell grants will continue on a downward spiral.

The plain fact is yes, the money went up for education because Democrats dragged the Republican Party, kicking and screaming, to those higher numbers. So I am glad the Republicans are now trying to take credit for something they were pushed into. It does not matter who gets the credit so long as the school districts get the money.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the minority leader.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, we all know what this amendment is. It is very simple, and I will not take very much time on explain it.

We simply strike the $100 million rescission that was included in the Labor-HHS bill for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. This restores the $100 million in funding for CPB, which distributes the majority of those funds to over 1,000 public television and radio stations nationwide, and uses the remaining funds to support national programming and public broadcasting systems.

It is offset by modest reductions in low-priority demonstration programs and administrative accounts in the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Department. I think those reductions will not do serious harm to any of the administrative budgets involved.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), one of the cosponsors of the amendment, and I appreciate very much his involvement in this activity.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, how much remains on both sides?

Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot believe some of the comments I have just heard from my good friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula).

Let me simply say with respect to the offsets we have in this amendment, with respect to the Labor Department all this does is to reduce funding for pilot and demonstrations in the department from $74 million in the committee bill to $16 million. It still leaves a significant amount of money in this account.

This is an area where the committee itself has indicated that they do not have sufficient information from the agency to even know how they are spending that money. So it seems to me that we are simply following the committee shot across the agency bow.

With respect to the Labor Department, departmental management, this essentially cuts the increase over last year for departmental management, excluding the International Labor Affairs Bureau. Large amounts of money in that department are being spent for activities that are clearly not authorized, and some procurement practices now being exercised by the agency do not meet the standards that we will want to have to defend in public.

With respect to HRSA program management, I cannot believe any objection is being made to the reduction in this account. The bill itself eliminates 11 programs in HRSA. If all of these programs are going to be eliminated, certainly there are fewer bodies that are needed to manage them, and this is simply consistent with the programmatic actions already taken by the committee.

With respect to the funds for the improvement of education, this amendment merely trims the additional funding provided in the committee over the administration's request for this item. None of these items are going to have any significant impact on the accounts involved.

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

Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?

Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

(Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach).

Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), ranking member on the subcommittee with jurisdiction in this matter.

Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown).

(Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous-consent request to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Ms. Carson).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

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

Mr. Chairman, I know the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) has the right to close. How much time do I have remaining?

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

Mr. Chairman, let me say the choice before the House is simple. I think the American people recognize that public television and public radio are both national treasures. I think also that we all recognize that there has been a systematic attack on both for quite some time.

What is before us today is a very simple choice. We can either stand with those who are determined to see to it that public radio and public television continue to function reasonably effectively, or we can take an action today which will gut the ability of many of the stations to continue to produce quality programming and meet the needs of local areas.

Some objection has been raised to the offsets. The fact is, under the budget resolution, tough choices are required. You cannot get the offsets out of thin air. These offsets do as little damage to management accounts as is humanly possible. If anyone does not like the offsets involved, then I would suggest they amend the budget resolution so that we do not have to provide them.

But the choice is very simply: Are you going to support public broadcasting or are you not? And the vote will tell the tale.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I do so to try to report to the House what is happening with respect to a unanimous consent request.

The gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) announced to the House earlier, and I concurred, that we are trying to make an attempt to get the House out today. We indicated that would require a lot of cooperation from both sides.

I think everyone understands how this bill is going to wind up. Much as I detest this bill and will vote against it, it is not going to be changed very much between now and the time it finally reaches final passage. No amount of fixing can fix this bill, in my view, because of the inadequate allocation.

The problem we have is that despite the gentleman from Ohio's (Mr. Regula) best efforts and my best efforts and that of our staffs, at this point, there are still some 20 Republican amendments that people seem to be hell-bent on offering, and there are approximately 27 Democratic amendments that people seem to be hell-bent on offering.

If all of those amendments are offered, we will have to have at least 6\1/2\ hours of debate time. In order to finish today, because of events beyond our control, we have to be finished with debating by 4:30. Obviously, unless we get a much greater sense of give, not only will we be here tomorrow, we will be here a long time tomorrow.

So if Members are serious about wanting to get out today, it would be nice if they recognized that that means that we cannot dispose of 47 amendments in 2 hours.

Mr. Chairman, I am strongly opposed to this amendment. I take a back seat to no one in my support for rural health care. I have offered numerous amendments in the past to add to its budget. But this amendment gets the money to restore funding for rural health care in an outrageous fashion, because it takes it from the agency that is supposed to protect workers' health and lives.

In 2003, more than 5,500 workers were killed in this country by job injuries. That is 15 workers every day. In the steel industry, there has been a major increase in workplace fatalities the last 2 years. The impact of those fatalities is enormous. According to Liberty Mutual, the Nation's largest Workmen's Compensation company, the direct cost of these injuries and illness is $1 billion a week, and the total cost is between $200 and $300 billion a year.

The present budget proposal for OSHA in this bill is $477 million, which is less than $4.60 for every private sector worker. Under the current OSHA budget, OSHA can inspect workplaces on an average of once every 108 years, and this amendment will make that worse.

This is a case where, again, the budget resolution is totally inadequate. Neither of these programs should be cut. The problem is that this amendment takes money away from a program which will save workers' lives. I would urge a ``no'' vote. I most reluctantly take this position because I am strongly in favor of rural health care but not at the expense of workers' lives.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak at some length about this because it is really so important to our country. I would like to thank the leadership for allowing us to bring up this resolution which expresses the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the study of languages and supporting the designation of a Year of Languages. I would like to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Tiberi) for co- sponsoring the resolution.

Under the guidance and guardianship of the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, 2005 will be celebrated as the Year of Languages in the United States. These celebrations will take place in a variety of settings including elementary and secondary schools and post-secondary institutions as well as at events at local and State and national levels across America. It is an opportunity to focus on America's need to focus our attention on the social and economic benefits of studying other languages and cultures around the world and on the importance of these studies to our national security.

This initiative will seek to influence the full range of language programs in the United States schools and communities, and I think the campaign plan will capture the attention and, I hope, the interest of all Americans with the involvement and assistance of teachers, administrators and local officials. If the United States is going to continue to play an important role in the global economy and in the business world and to be the leader politically, and I would say militarily, we must be able to understand and communicate with other cultures around the world.

According to a 2002 survey from Healthy Companies International, the average number of languages spoken by American business executives is less than one and a half, compared with say 3.9 languages spoken on average by business executives in the Netherlands.

The goals of the Year of Languages are four: To expand the public's understanding of the role of language in all aspects of people's lives, in society and in the future of human and international relations; to promote the importance of language learning and language proficiency, urging every American to commit to learning other languages; to build awareness of the diversity of languages that now play an integral part of everyday life in our country; and to promote the formation of a national task force to study and strengthen national policy on language learning and teaching and to make recommendations to strengthen U.S. policy.

Some members of the public and the media might question why, with our unparalleled military and economic power, Americans need to learn languages of the world. Does not everyone speak English anyway? So they say.

Well, the reasons to launch a government-wide effort to build a pipeline of professionals with advanced foreign language capabilities, I think, should be self-evident to Americans. Let me quote a statement. ``The United States today carries new responsibilities in many quarters of the globe, and we are at a serious disadvantage because of the difficulty of finding persons who can deal with the foreign language problems.''

Those are not my words. Those are the words of former U.S. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, spoken in 1953. What was true in the post- World War II world of 1953 is even more true in the post-9/11 world of 2004 and 2005.

Our national deficiency in the languages and cultures of critical areas around the world is compromising American security interests. And in addition to diminishing our opportunities economically and culturally, the deficiency is making our troops overseas more vulnerable and, I would argue, the American people less safer.

A few years after John Foster Dulles spoke these words, Russia launched a small beeping sphere above the Earth known as Sputnik. Americans were shocked, even fearful, and Congress, saying America would never be caught flat-footed again, passed the National Defense Education Act in 1958 that did much to overhaul the teaching of science and math and also provided some assistance for the study of languages.

September 11, 2001, was also a wake-up call for us. If we fail to address one of the most serious problems facing our Nation, we will not have risen to the challenge of September 11, 2001. The 9/11 joint inquiry reported a year and a half ago that our intelligence community is at 30 percent readiness in languages critical to national security. A State Department commissioned report from a year ago found that our government has only 54, or at that time, only 54 genuine Arabic speakers working in the entire Foreign Service.

A year or so ago, I asked David Kay, the former head of the Iraq Survey Group, how many on his 1,400 member team spoke Arabic and understood the

technology of weapons of mass destruction. Well, he said he could count on the fingers of one hand.

I posed similar questions to some members of the special forces who had been combing the mountains of Afghanistan looking for Osama bin Laden. I asked how many of them spoke Pushtu. Well, they responded, they had picked some up during the year they had been there. Although our special forces represent some of the best trained forces in the world, we are clearly not giving them the skills they need. If Osama bin Laden is truly American public enemy number one, how do we expect to track him down if we cannot speak the languages of the people who are hiding him?

As Dr. David Chu, the U.S. Undersecretary of Defense, said in his opening remarks at the National Language Conference last June, we need ``a permanent change in our approach to the peoples and cultures of the rest of the world.''

Our need to understand the world is a prime national security concern.

He went on, ``National security concerns have taken us from the streets of Manhattan to the mountains of Afghanistan and to the resort cities of Bali. Our economy has brought workers here to America and sent jobs to 100 countries around the world. Our health is affected by conditions and events in China, Britain, Africa and South America. Criminal cartels and corrupt officials hundreds of miles beyond our borders have an immediate impact on our streets, in our schools and our homes. Within one generation, we have become integrated into the world as never before.'' Those are the words of the Undersecretary of Defense Dr. Chu.

While the Defense Department, the State Department and our intelligence agencies have recently turned their attention to the language problem, their approach remains focused on immediate needs. They are stepping up recruitment efforts, and they are expanding the language education programs in Monterey, here in Washington and elsewhere, and these are promising and necessary changes, but they only scratch the surface.

They do not deal with the problem of the pool. From what pool will they be recruiting the linguists for the Defense Department, the State Department, our intelligence agencies?

The root of the problem, I think, is in our schools. If we are to address adequately the language shortage in the Federal Government, we have to look past the issues of immediate recruitment and foreign language training. Federal language schools are building on a poor language foundation. We must design and implement a Federal language strategy that begins at the earliest years of education and continues through college.

Mr. Speaker, consider the following facts: Al Qaeda and similar terrorist elements operate in over 75 countries where hundreds of languages and dialects are spoken. However, 99 percent of American high school, college and university programs concentrate on a few, mostly European, languages. According to figures from a couple of years ago, 2002, more college students study Ancient Greek than Arabic, Korean, Persian, Pashto and a number of other languages put together. Nothing against Ancient Greek, but certainly it is an important area of study, but the shortage of training in Arabic, Korean, Persian, Pashto and a long list of others should be cause for concern.

Out of 1.3 million graduates at America's colleges and universities, 17, two years ago, earned a bachelor's or advanced degree in Arabic, according to the Department of Education, 17. In Chinese, the language spoken by billions of people, 217 degrees were granted, according to the Department of Education. That is compared with almost 3,000 in French, more than 8,000 in Spanish. We need to improve not just the number of degrees but the quality of education throughout the educational years.

In addition to the resolution before us today, I have introduced the National Security Language Act, legislation that would expand the Federal investment in education in foreign languages of critical need. It would provide Federal incentives for high school students to study languages in college. It would give universities resources to expand language programs overseas, and it would identify Americans with preexisting language abilities for recruitment.

The bill would create an international flagship language initiative that would provide Federal grants to specific universities and colleges to establish high-quality, intensive, in-country language study programs in countries around the world. It would establish a science and technology advanced language grant program for institutions of higher education to establish programs that encourage students to develop foreign language proficiency as they study science, engineering and other technologies.

The bill would provide loan forgiveness of up to $10,000 for undergraduate students in foreign languages. It would encourage early northern language studies by establishing grants for foreign language partnerships between local districts and foreign language departments at institutes of higher education.

It would create a commission of national study of foreign language heritage and a Federal marketing campaign to identify heritage communities with native speakers of critical foreign languages and market to them the need to pursue the study of languages.

I believe the next step then would be to increase the supply line of students who have strong language skills, and this can only be done through the K-through-12 system. The Council for Basic Education recently released a study. Foreign language instruction experienced decreases in instruction time as reported by principals, particularly in high minority schools. Whereas in low minority schools, 9 percent of the principals reported a decrease in time spent studying languages; 11 percent reported an increase. But in minority schools, schools with a high proportion of minority students, there was a 23 percent decline in instructional time, with only 9 percent of the principals reporting an increase. In other words, this is also a matter of our educational divide in this country.

In addition to developing a lifelong ability to communicate with people from other countries and backgrounds, other benefits include improved overall school performance and improved problem solving skills. Students of foreign languages tend to score higher on standardized tests. And results from the Scholastic Aptitude Test show that students who had studied a foreign language for 4 or more years outscored other students on the verbal and math portions of the test. This is according to the college board SAT as reported in 2003.

Knowledge of a second language also seems to coincide with high academic achievement. It is not just whether a school has a rigorous program, although certainly that helps, but time spent in studying foreign languages means that students earn better grades in college and are less likely to drop out.

There are all sorts of reasons to study foreign languages, and studying the language, learning a language at any age is beneficial. Some studies have shown that the brain is more open to linguistic development in the early years. I have certainly seen that in my own grandchildren and children. When children have an early start to a long sequence of language instruction that continues through high school and college, they will be, studies have shown, able to achieve levels of fluency in that and to pick up other languages. Nevertheless, older children and adults can still be successful at learning a second or third or fourth language. Although the level of attainment is a little more predictable for us older learners, it is still worth doing.

In 1958, as I said, Congress responded to Sputnik by passing the National Defense Education Act. It focused on science and engineering and, to some extent, on languages. Immediately after September 11, Americans found themselves once again facing a Sputnik moment. Americans realized that we were caught flatfooted and unprepared to deal with not just hatred around the world but hatred that was turned into vicious attacks.

We need a national commitment to languages on a scale of the NDEA, the National Defense Education Act, and Mr. Speaker, I think today's resolution that will, among other things, recognize 2005 as the year of languages is a

start toward making that commitment.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the time remaining on each side?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis), my colleague.

(Mrs. DAVIS of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I am delighted to hear that my colleague has studied Japanese.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues pass this resolution and work with me on other language projects to see that we address this Sputnik moment that this country faces and that we work hard to address our poor, I would use that word, language proficiency here in the United States, for reasons of culture, for reasons of economics and for reasons of national security.

I urge the passage of H. Res. 122.

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

Madam Chairman, I want to express my appreciation as well to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), for their hard work in crafting this legislation. I know they did the best they could with the allocation, and this bill does include many of our most important priorities, from education funding and worker training, to biomedical research and public health activities, and impacts the lives of virtually every American.

I am pleased that the bill makes significant investments in preparing for and responding to a potential pandemic influenza outbreak, and restores funding to the TRIO and GEAR UP programs, and partial funding to the Preventive Health Block Grant.

However, because of this limited budget allocation, many important needs will remain underfunded. For example, the bill provides the smallest increase for the National Institutes of Health in 36 years, squandering the momentum we built up in the 5 years completed in 2003. And despite an average 26 percent tuition increase in the last 2 years, the bill fails to adequately increase the maximum Pell grant award, and does nothing to stop the new financial aid formula that severely impacts the ability of low- and middle-income students to attend college. These changes will affect more than 1.3 million students nationwide, including 4,600 students in Westchester, New York.

The bill provides the smallest increase for elementary and secondary education in a decade, allows Congress to continue to renege on its promise to fully fund special education, IDEA.

The bill cuts the Corporation for Public Broadcasting base account by $100 million, and I urge my colleagues to support an amendment that I will be offering with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) to restore funding to CPB.

Madam Chairman, I also want to express my continued concern with the Weldon refusal clause provision included in the bill. For over 30 years there have been Federal laws which allow doctors, hospitals, and nurses to refuse to provide abortion services because of their religious beliefs. However, this provision extends that protection to HMOs and insurance companies. And just as the law protects religious and moral objections to performing medical services, it protects patients' access to accurate and complete medical information when making decisions about their health. The Weldon provision would unravel these protections. I want to make it very clear that States that attempt to protect access to these health services can be denied all of their Federal health, education, and labor funding. I will work to remove this provision from the final bill.

Madam Chairman, this legislation has significant flaws. However, I hope that as it moves through the process, we can work together to make necessary improvements to the final measure. I will vote ``no'' today.

Madam Chairman, I want to express my appreciation to Chairman Regula and Ranking Member Obey for their hard work in crafting this legislation.

This bill includes many of our most important priorities--from education funding and worker training to biomedical research and public health activities. The programs and policies in this legislation impact the lives of virtually every American.

I am pleased that the bill makes significant investments in preparing for and responding to a potential pandemic influenza outbreak and restores funding to the TRIO and GEAR UP programs and partial funding to the Preventive Health Block Grant.

However, because of the limited budget allocation many important needs will remain under-funded. For example,

This bill provides the smallest increase for the National Institutes of Health in 36 years, squandering the momentum we've built up over the last five years.

Despite an average 26 percent tuition increase in the last two years, the bill fails to adequately increase the maximum Pell grant award and does nothing to stop the new financial aid formula that severely impacts the ability of low-and-middle-income students to attend college. These changes will affect more than 1.3 million students nationwide, including 4,600 students in Westchester County, New York.

The bill provides the smallest increase for elementary and secondary education in a decade and allows Congress to continue to renege on its promise to fully fund special education. And frankly, I was appalled that the majority chose to completely eliminate the Foreign Assistance Language Program (FLAP). There is little disagreement that the nation continues to face a shortage of language experts after the attacks of September 11th. FLAP is the only federal program that supports language education for students in elementary and secondary schools.

The bill cuts the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant, Healthy Start, training grants for health care workers and grants for public health and hospital preparedness, and eliminates $100 million for the Global Fund to fight HIV/AIDS, Malaria and Tuberculosis.

The bill cuts the Corporation for Public Broadcasting's base account by $100 million. I hope that my colleagues will support an amendment that I will be offering with Ranking Member Obey and Representative Leach to restore funding to CPB.

I'm also disappointed that when so many other programs faced the chopping block this year, the bill provides a $10 million increase for abstinence-until-marriage programs despite mounting evidence of the scientific and medical inaccuracy of their curricula and ineffective results. We all agree that we must teach our children that abstinence is the best way to prevent pregnancy and STDs. However, federal dollars should be invested only in programs with strong evaluation components and those found to provide medically and scientifically sound information to young people.

Madam Chairman, I also want to express my continued concern with the Weldon refusal clause provision included in the bill. For over thirty years, there have been Federal laws that allow doctors, nurses, and hospitals to refuse to provide abortion services because of their religious beliefs. However, this provision extends that protection to HMOs and insurance companies.

And just as the law protects religious or moral objections to performing medical services, it protects patients' access to accurate and complete medical information when making decisions about their health. The Weldon provision would unravel these protections, gutting the stipulations included in the Title X family planning program which require that all legal options are presented to a woman; denying rape and incest survivors access to legal abortion services; and overriding state constitutional patient protections. States that attempt to protect access to these health services can be denied all of their federal health, education and labor funding.

I will work to remove this provision from the final bill.

Madam Chairman, this legislation has significant flaws, however, I hope that as it moves through the process we can work together to make necessary improvements to the final measure.

I will vote ``no'' today.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to offer this amendment with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Ranking Member Obey) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach).

What we have today is a new remake of an old show: the misguided effort to deny the American people the quality, thought-provoking, and insightful programming of PBS.

Ten years ago, when the right wing launched an all-out assault on public television, Americans understood what was at stake and rallied around PBS. The Republican leadership retreated, and public broadcasting was saved.

Today, the majority is again trying to pull the plug on public television and radio. This time, well over a million Americans have signed petitions calling for the restoration of CPB's operating funds, and thousands more have contacted congressional offices in opposition to these devastating cuts.

Families across the country turn to public radio and television for educational programs, job training, the latest digital services, balanced news, local information; the very types of programs and services commercial television stations simply do not offer because they just are not profitable.

Local public stations are already struggling to provide these quality programs with limited dollars. This $100 million rescission, 25 percent of CPB's operating budget, could force many stations to fade to black.

Do we want to live in a society where pop culture dictates all that is offered on the airwaves? Do we want to live in a society in which the only characters that appear on Sesame Street and other children's programs are the ones that gross the highest profits, rather than those who deliver the most compelling lessons to our kids?

We have an opportunity today to send the same strong and successful message that beat back these cuts to public broadcasting 10 years ago. I urge my colleagues to restore this critical funding to CPB by voting in favor of the Obey-Lowey-Leach amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank my colleagues for their commitment and work on restoring these monies. None of us could have imagined that we would find ourselves here today, fighting to hold onto $125 million set aside for workers and responders who helped search for survivors and assist victims in the aftermath of September 11.

In my judgment, the committee's rescission of $125 million appropriated by Congress for New York State workers' compensation claims and related expenses breaks the President's promise to New York. The Office of Budget and Management has argued that these funds are no longer needed, but nothing could be further from the truth. What we do know is that the health needs of September 11 responders continue to be great and the Federal response continues to be incomplete. There have been ongoing concerns about the injuries and chronic illnesses sustained by first responders and other individuals who work or volunteered at the site in the weeks and months following the attack. The men and women were exposed to toxic materials, included asbestos, fiberglass, PCBs; and many may not even exhibit symptoms of sickness for years to come.

We simply cannot rescind the funds to assist those victims before we even review the full needs of September 11.

I rise in support of the Maloney amendment and thank my colleague from New York for her leadership on this issue.

When President Bush stood on the rubble of the World Trade Center, and when he sat in the Oval Office with New York's Congressional delegation almost four years ago, no one doubted his promise to give our State and city the funds we needed to recover from the terrorist attack on our Nation.

None of us could have imagined that we would find ourselves here today, fighting to hold onto $125 million set aside for workers and responders who helped search for survivors and assist victims in the aftermath of September 11.

In my judgment, this Committee's rescission of $125 million appropriated by Congress for New York State Worker's Compensation claims and related expenses breaks the President's promise to New York.

The Office of Budget and Management has argued that these funds are no longer needed, but nothing could be farther from the truth.

What we do know is that the health needs of September 11th responders continue to be great, and the federal response continues to be incomplete.

Since September 11, there have been ongoing concerns about the injuries and chronic illnesses sustained by first responders and other individuals who worked or volunteered at the site in the weeks and months following the attack.

These men and women were exposed to toxic materials, including asbestos, fiberglass, and PCBs, and many may not even exhibit symptoms or sickness for years to come. We simply cannot rescind the funds to assist those victims before we even review the full needs of September 11 responders.

If any of these funds are not needed for workers compensation payments, then we should redirect the money to supplement the federal response to the ongoing medical needs of September 11th responders.

When New York needed help, volunteers from New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Ohio, and even as far as Florida and California--and the list goes on--came to aid the victims of this tragic attack. I hope you will join me in fighting to preserve the funds to assist these individuals should they become ill as a result of their efforts in the aftermath of September 11th.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I want to begin my remarks by acknowledging the obvious. The gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), ranking member, dealt the hand that was given to them.

The gentleman from Wisconsin (Ranking Member Obey) of the subcommittee and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the chairman of the subcommittee, dealt the hand that was given to them.

But, my friends, when the budget is cut by $16 billion and you expect that the most vulnerable of America can raise their head and survive, you understand that a crisis is in the midst.

Now, I was prepared today to offer two amendments, because I believe that in helping that we can all work together. But I realize that the ranking member and the chairman have done everything that they could possibly do, and I buy into our leader's concept that this is simply borrowing from the lambs, the most vulnerable.

But I do want to acknowledge the two amendments that I would have offered today and share with my colleagues the reason for withdrawing them, because I hope that we will battle all the way to conference, restore the $16 billion that takes away from the most needy, but also from the Americans who depend on us the most.

Just a couple of days ago, the Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on Appropriations stood on the floor of the House and they said they came in $3.5 billion under mark, meaning that they spent less than they were authorized or able to do. But even with that $3.5 billion, we find ourselves cutting over 20 Health and Human Services programs and over 25 educational programs to educate our children.

I would have offered the following two amendments, one dealing with the hepatitis C virus, and I pay tribute to a former constituent of mine, Ed Wendt, who lost his life in the battle with hepatitis C and liver disease, a Vietnam war veteran, somebody with whom I stood in front of the Justice Department fighting against the discrimination of veterans who have hepatitis C virus. Although many of them do not know it, nearly 4 million Americans are currently infected and 35,000 new infections occur each year. HCV costs millions of dollars in health care and lost wages, and this amendment would have offered an additional $1.5 million to deal with this issue.

Hepatitis C impacts African Americans, children, and adolescents, renal dialysis patients, HIV-positive patients. We need help.

But I will not offer this amendment to continue the battle for more dollars for all Americans on all issues. Today on the floor of the House I saw a former colleague, Congresswoman Meek. Carrie Meek was a soldier on the battlefield for lupus research, and I was prepared to offer an amendment to increase the dollars for lupus because we have not determined the cause of lupus. But because of the need to spread the wealth and the need to provide resources that we do not have because the majority determined that the most vulnerable of America do not need our attention, I will not offer that amendment.

I rise to offer the impact or to emphasize the impact that we will be facing. Do my colleagues realize that we are cutting dollars from community health clinics, we are cutting dollars from training and primary care medicine and dentistry, sickle cell demonstration projects are being zeroed out, early learning opportunities programs are being zeroed out? In education, we are zeroing out comprehensive school reform, parental information and resource centers. We are zeroing out arts and education, alcohol abuse reduction; all of those are being zeroed out. And even though I will be supporting my colleagues on the Congressional Black Caucus, because we are appreciative of being able to save TRIO, we will also be standing here to say that because we believe in the mandate of the gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Watt) for this Congress, closing the disparities gap for Americans, particularly minority Americans and African Americans, we can stand here today and say that this legislation is a travesty, for it impacts the elderly, it impacts the most vulnerable, the sickest of Americans, it impacts the youngest of Americans.

In Texas alone we will be losing some $9 billion in language acquisition in education, we will be losing $62 billion in education technology, $7 billion in assessments. We will be losing $27 billion in innovative education. We will be losing $13 billion in rural education. We will be losing another amount in special ed.

Mr. Chairman, this bill needs to go back to address the needs of the most vulnerable Americans and to close the disparities gap.

Mr. Chairman, let me first say thanks to you and the Ranking Member for your work on this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I had planned to offer two amendments but have decided to withdraw them due to existing funding cuts in the bill and the fact that there is not much room to transfer monies throughout the bill. Nevertheless, I feel it is very important to briefly discuss these amendments for they deal with two very pressing health issues (Lupus and Hepatitis-C). My first amendment, which was two fold, would have increased funding for the ``Centers for Disease Control and Prevention- Disease Control, Research, and Training'', by $2.5 million. The second half of this amendment would have increased funding to the ``National Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities'' by $1.5 million. The purpose of these funding increases would have been to increase educational programs on Lupus for health care providers and the general public. In addition, my first amendment would have sought to expand the operation of the National Lupus Patient Registry. Lupus is a chronic, disabling, and potentially fatal condition in which the immune system attacks the body's own organs and tissues. Lupus strikes primarily women and is twice as common among people of color. Currently, it is estimated that 1.5 to 2 million Americans have Lupus. There is no cure for Lupus, no new drugs have been approved to treat the disease in nearly forty years, and no valid medical measure to diagnose and track the disease's progression exists. This is a serious disease and we must focus more attention on it if we are to find a cure.

My second amendment would also have increased funding for ``Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-Disease Control, Research, and Training'' for the purpose of increasing Hepatitis-C research activities. Particularly at risk for Hepatitis-C are African-Americans, children and adolescents, renal dialysis patients, HIV/HCV positive patients, and patients with hemophilia. Although many of them do not know it, nearly four million Americans are currently infected, and 35,000 new infections occur each year. This insidious virus takes thousands of lives annually--primarily through cirrhosis and liver cancer. HCV costs millions of dollars in healthcare and lost wages each year, but it receives inadequate attention from the public, the medical field, and the federal government.

Hepatitis-C is an inflammation of the liver including tenderness, and sometimes permanent damage. Hepatitis-C can be caused by various viruses or by substances such as chemicals, drugs, and alcohol. Hepatitis C virus is one of six known types of the hepatitis virus. I would urge my colleagues to take a closer look at this devastating disease.

I would also like to take a moment to express my concerns with some of the many funding cuts for Title VII programs in this year's appropriations bill. While I am pleased to see that funding was provided for Minority Centers of Excellence ($12 million) and Scholarships for Disadvantaged Students ($35 million), I am disappointed that Area Health Education Centers, Health Education and Training Centers, and Health Professions Training Programs were all zeroed out. These programs have been addressing the needs of medically underserved communities in Texas since 1991 by playing a key role in providing health services and health care professionals for our most vulnerable populations. I would hope that I would be able to work with the Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member as this bill moves through conference to see if we can find some funding for these very important programs.

I am pleased to see that the Committee provided an increase over last year's funding level for Ryan White AIDS Programs. Specifically, the bill appropriates $2.1 billion for the programs, which is $10 million (2%) more than the current level but equal to the administration's request. This total includes $610 million for the emergency assistance program--which provides grants to metropolitan areas with very high numbers of AIDS cases--$1.1 billion for comprehensive-care programs, $196 million for the early-intervention program, and $73 million for the Pediatric HIV/AIDS program.

Head Start also received an increase in funding. The bill provides $6.9 billion for the program. This is $56 million more than the current level but slightly less than the administration's request. I would like to work with the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member to increase funding to the Administration's request during conference. The total for Head Start includes $5.5 billion in FY 2006 billion in advance appropriations from a prior year. The measure also includes $1.4 billion in advance FY 2007 appropriations.

Unfortunately, the bill only provides $14.7 billion for the Education for the Disadvantaged Children Program. It saddens me to say that this amount is $115 million less than the current level and $1.7 billion less than the Administration's request. I hope more funding can be provided for this important program during conference.

Before closing, I would like to express my dismay with the $100 million decrease in funding for Corporation for Public Broadcasting. A loss in CPB funding would seriously hamper PBS' ability to acquire the top quality children's educational programming that is used in classrooms, day care centers and millions of American households to educate, entertain and provide a safe harbor from the violent, commercial and crass content found in the commercial marketplace. PBS provides valuable services that improve classroom teaching and assist homeschoolers. These could be reduced or eliminated if federal funding is cut. These services include PBS TeacherSource, a service that provides pre-K through 12 educators with nearly 4,000 free lesson plans, teachers' guides, and homeschooling guidance; and PBS TeacherLine, which provides high-quality professional teacher development through more than 90 online-facilitated courses in reading, mathematics, science and technology integration. We must not cut funding for this valuable program.

Again, I thank the Chairman and the Ranking Member for their work on this bill, and I hope we can all work to further fund the programs mentioned in my statement as we move to conference.

Mr. Chairman, I enthusiastically support the Obey amendment to restore PBS funds.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Obey, that seeks to prevent the use of funds in H.R. 3020 to carry out the recission of the ``Corporation for Public Broadcasting.'' This recission would have amounted to a 45 percent cut to local Public Radio and Television stations in FY 2006.

Under the legislation as drafted, rural stations and those serving minority populations would suffer greatly with respect to their operating budget. The grants that fall under the account affected comprise anywhere from 15 to 85 percent of their budgets. Most stations would be forced to layoff employees, to shut down local production-- which would include local public affairs programs--and to cut back on local outreach. Mr. Chairman, public television is the backbone of mass media communications for most of the minority population--which includes in large part, our children who need guidance and education.

In Houston, to be specific, KUHF-FM would have suffered a cut of 46.4 percent or $228,197 of its funding. Similarly, KUHT-TV would have suffered a 44.4 percent or $679,049 cut of its funding. These amounts translate to severe loss in operating budget for these stations.

Relative to the State of Texas, over $6,263,296 or 42.8 percent of its funding would have been cut under the bill as drafted.

For the reasons stated above, Mr. Chairman, I fully support the Obey amendment.