Waiving points of order against the further conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 3010) making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 596, I call up the further conference report on the bill (H.R. 3010) making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I would just like to say to my colleagues and friends on the other side of the aisle to take a second look at this bill. I know that, in our first iteration, they did not give us any votes, but let me point out to you that if the bill were to fail, we would end up with a CR, a full year's CR, because you know we are not going home without something in this field.

These are important programs, over 500 of them. What would happen with a CR? Well, there would be $800 million less for student aid, $278 million less for innovation and improvement programs, $178 million less for higher education programs, $94 million less for title I programs and $84 million less for special education programs. That would be a disastrous result that I do not think any of us on either side of the aisle would want to happen.

In addition, if we were to go to a CR, if this bill were to fail, LIHEAP funding would be reduced by $298 million, with no contingency for extreme weather. Community Services Block Grant would be cut $317 million. National Institutes of Health would be cut $198 million, with 200 fewer research grants.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to all my colleagues that this is not something we want to make as a Christmas gift to the American people, a CR on this bill. This bill is a good bill. It reflects good management of what we had to work with.

I might say at the outset that there are no earmarks in the bill, none, for anyone, either side or any person. Absolutely no earmarks, and no earmarks for the Senate either. But I want to tell you what happened to the earmarked money, because we had $1 billion in the bill that originally passed the House back early on. Of that money, $100 million is going to title I to help our schools; $100 million is going to special education State grants to help the programs that help the disadvantaged students.

Mr. Speaker, $250 million is going to NIH for research, and we recognize that the challenge is great in that field to research medical issues. There is $317 million for Community Services Block Grant, and these help people with limited means. There is $176 million in LIHEAP and $66 million for community health centers, and community health centers obviously provide a place for people who do not have a family doctor and have limited means. It gives them a place to go. So these are good programs. These are good uses of the money, and I think we all understand that in this time of tight budgets and tight resources, we have to set priorities. In so doing, we set the priorities I just outlined rather than to go into earmarks.

I want to say at the outset that this program is $1.4 billion under 2005, and there is no increase from the bill we had 2 weeks ago. How did we manage to meet these program needs? We did it by managing carefully. We looked at the programs and the funds that were available.

I want to point out to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that I do not think you want to go home and tell people in the education field that you voted against an increase, let me emphasize, an increase of $100 million over last year in title I. I do not think you want to tell the parents and families of children with special needs that you voted against an increase in special education of $100 million over last year. Head Start is up $6.8 million. Math and science partnerships, and we hear a lot about that today, these are up over last year. We have $100 million to develop teacher and principal programs, incentive programs, particularly at the elementary level.

TRIO and GEAR-UP, the President's budget had zero, and we put those back in because we think those are good programs. Again, they are well funded. Community health centers I mentioned are up $66 million. This is an important program. It is important in many communities, as is LIHEAP. Medicare modernization, we are rolling out the new program, and we have $980 million in this bill to assist in getting people informed to meet their desires in terms of prescription drugs. That would not be in a continuing resolution.

NIH is $107 million over the President's request. It is up this year $200-some million. People think of NIH being research at Bethesda. NIH is basically managing 40,000 grants going out to colleges, hospitals, medical services all over the country. I would guess that almost every Member has one or more research grants in his or her district that is funded out of NIH. That is very important, and we have an increase in that program. That is again part of the earmarked money, $28.6 billion.

Community Services Block Grant, a program that helps people get GEDs, is just one example of what is done with the community services. There are a whole host of things to help people with limited income and who need additional help.

In the Labor Department, we have $1.57 billion for Job Corps and $1.48 billion for dislocated workers.

How did we manage to increase a number of programs while at the same time keeping the total number under last year, $1.4 billion? Well, one of the ways that we have gotten the necessary funding to do the items that I mentioned in the way of increases was to eliminate 20 programs. We went through the whole list of programs, the 500, and said, Does this work? Is this a productive program?

The bill that left the House had about 48 programs terminated. The other body decided to put back some of those, but we still have 20 programs that have been discontinued or will be

discontinued because, again, we recognize that we have to manage the resources as carefully as possible to do the important things: education, research at NIH, the effort in CDC to deal with the avian flu issue. So we tried to manage the funds available as carefully as possible. I think the results of that are reflected in the increases I mentioned.

I might say between this and the bill we had previously, we added $90 million for rural health programs, very important programs, obviously; and we did this by reducing the avian flu number because we are going to deal with that in another bill that will be coming along shortly.

So all in all, I want to say again this is a very positive bill; it is a very responsible bill in terms of using the resources that are available.

It is something that every Member can support, every Member can go home and say with a measure of confidence and satisfaction, I did something to improve education, I did something to help the special needs programs, the special education program, I did something to expand the community services programs and the Community Health Centers, NIH, LIHEAP, things that are extremely important to people. This literally is a people's bill, but it is a people's bill, too, in the sense that we manage their tax dollars carefully and try to give them as much in the way of service as possible. I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will take a second look at what we have tried to do in this bill.

I recognize, of course, that you get into the tax issues, you get into budget issues, but this is not a tax bill. It is not a budget bill. This is a bill about taking resources that are available and using them in the best possible way to serve the people.

We had many hearings in our subcommittee. My colleague from Wisconsin was very helpful in those hearings to try to find out what is important to people. We tried to reflect that in the bill given the fact that we had a limited amount of resources. I would love to have more, and I am sure everybody else would, but the facts were we had to work with what we had available. I think the bill reflects a responsible use of the resources that were made available. I think it is a bill that will serve the American public very well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), a fellow chairman on the Appropriations Committee and a member of our subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon), a member of our subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Washington (Miss McMorris).

Miss McMORRIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time.

I rise in support of House bill 3010, and I especially wanted to highlight the increased funding for critical rural health programs.

Access to quality and affordable health care is one of my top priorities, and in a district that stretches 23,000 square miles between the Canadian, Idaho, and Oregon borders, the distance creates considerable challenges to ensuring quality health care. We continue to see an increasing shortage of health care professionals. In towns like Odessa, Republic, Davenport, primary care coverage is sparse. Pregnant women must travel over 1 hour for care. In addition, it is becoming nearly impossible to retain primary care physicians and dentists, let alone specialists. I have said it before and I will say it again: this is unacceptable for 21st-century health care.

This conference report is an important step in turning this tide for rural health care by increasing funds for the Office of Rural Health and Research Policy, Rural Health Outreach Grants, and Area Health Education Centers. Training in primary care and dentistry will receive $13 million above the original conference report. These title VII funds have helped support Family Medicine Spokane's rural training efforts, which is still producing family practice doctors who want to stay in practice in rural areas like Washington, Wyoming, Alaska, Montana, Idaho. Training and recruitment of health professional students remains an important priority.

When this bill was addressed on the floor in June, I spoke of the need for additional rural health care funds, and Chairman Regula assured me that he would consider increasing those funds in the conference report. I thank him for helping to preserve the Federal rural health infrastructure and increasing funding for these necessary programs. I appreciate his leadership on this issue.

We have made a solid step, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation as we continue to advance legislation that will strengthen America's rural health infrastructure.

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

Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleague from Wisconsin, if you would give us a few votes, we would have an even merrier Christmas.

Well, I am not too sure about that. I think it is going to be kind of tough to go home and explain how you are voting against an additional $100 million for title I, and I think you are going to have a tough time explaining to parents of children that have special needs that you voted against an additional $100 million for the programs for special needs kids. I think you are going to have a tough time explaining how you voted against adding $250 million in medical research at NIH to deal with the multitude of challenges, and to the communities that are earmarked for Community Health Centers, to help people without a doctor, without medical care. I am not sure how you explain to them they are going to have a merry Christmas when they are not getting their Community Health Centers and the Community Services Block Grants.

I want to say to my colleagues, this is a good bill. I recognize we had limited resources. There are a lot of things that were unusual this year with Katrina and with other challenges, and what we have tried to do is do the best we can with what was available; and I think we have done some pretty positive things.

I want to say to my colleagues on our side of the aisle, we are not getting any help from our friends on the minority side, so I would hope that we will have strong, strong support on our side to demonstrate that we can govern, that we can pass a very responsible bill with less money than the past because we have managed what we had in a more effective way.

But also I say to my colleagues that we want to say to the public that we do care about education, that we do care about the teachers, that we do care about the students who will benefit from that extra $100 million in title I. We want to say to the families of special needs children, we do care about your problem, and we want to support that extra $100 million that is in this bill. And we want to say to people who are confronted with the whole myriad

of challenging medical problems, such as juvenile diabetes, that we want to help and we want to support an additional $250 million for NIH.

We want to say to those that need Community Health Centers, where they do not have access to medical care, we want to help you with $66 million additional, and with LIHEAP, with the Northeast in particular, and with the Community Services Block Grants.

This is a bill that is caring about people. I would suggest to my colleagues on this side that we need to demonstrate with a very strong vote that even though our friends on the other side think it is not enough that it is going to have problems involving reconciliation; but this is not a Ways and Means bill, this is not a Budget bill, this is the people's bill with people's programs. It is not the reconciliation bill. That is another topic, and people will have their opportunity to vote on that.

But I simply want to say that given the resources that we have, given the times that we are confronted with, that we have done a very responsible job, even to the point that Members have sacrificed their earmarks. They have sacrificed $1 billion worth of earmarks in order to do the things that I outlined before, to do more education, to do more health research, to do more Community Health Centers. So this is something that all of us are taking part in trying to serve the needs of the American people as effectively as possible. This is a lot of money, $142.5 billion, and this literally is the people's bill.

I want to point out to my friends on the other side that when the Republicans became the majority party, this bill was $69 billion. Today, it is $142 billion, more than double what it was in 1994. That is pretty substantial dedication to education, to health research, to a whole host of things.

I would point out in the last 10 years we have increased title I aid to disadvantaged students by 91 percent. We have increased special education by 380 percent. That is a dramatic increase. I think it is great that we, and I want to say historically that has had strong bipartisan support, that we care about people who have needs.

I was once an elementary principal in a public school, and we did not have any special education program. That was the problem of the families. Today, we have billions of dollars spent on these programs. That is a credit to America, that people do care about each other; and it is demonstrated by the support we have for IDEA, with an increase of 380 percent. That has been bipartisan. We have tripled the Federal funding for reading programs. I think we are more and more aware that learning to read early in your education experience is vitally important.

Today, we are faced within the United States with a dropout rate of over 30 percent. That is a terrible waste of human talent. One of the things that causes that, I think, is inadequate reading programs early on. We are trying to address that problem. We have addressed that problem.

We are also recognizing in this bill that the key to a good public education system is a good teacher, a good principal, a good superintendent, caring people. So we put in this bill some additional money to recruit and retrain quality public school teachers and principals. Parents who have worked with principals in the school system know how important that is.

Pell grants, we have gone up 64 percent in the last 10 years. Again, we want to help those students who want to get an education who have limited economic resources to get an opportunity to participate in the American Dream. We have done this with America's Historically Black Colleges. We have increased their funding 182 percent. That is a dramatic commitment on the part of the Federal Government.

All in all, I think we as a Congress can take some pride. This is not the back of the bus when you spend $142 billion. Anything but. This is a front-row seat. And we have tried to make sure that every American, every American, could be in that front-row seat on the education bus, on the health research bus, on the Labor Department programs for job retraining bus. I think this is a bill we can take pride in.

My colleagues on my side, since we cannot get any help from our friends on the minority side for whatever reason, I have not quite figured that out, but I think our Members need to strongly support this bill and continue the pride we can take in our accomplishments since we became a majority, since 1994, as I have outlined, and particularly in the last 10 years.

This is a bill that is responsible, it is a bill that reflects good management of resources, it is a bill that we should all support strongly. I hope my colleagues on the majority side will come in and vote in a positive way to increase education, to increase medical research, to increase a whole host of things that will serve our people throughout this land effectively.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, let me stipulate from the outset that the gentleman from Ohio is a good man, and I think, with some exceptions, he and I have priorities in this bill that are pretty much the same. What I say is not in any way designed to be an attack upon him or his leadership of the subcommittee; but the fact is that this subcommittee has been given an inadequate allocation and as a result, this Congress is about to make a large mistake if it passes this bill because it will be shortchanging this country in terms of the long-term investments that we should be making in America's working families and programs that are focused on the needs of America's working families.

The gentleman argues that we ought to vote for this bill because if we do not, then the majority will bring forth a continuing resolution which will do certain bad things. That is like saying, ``Save us before we are irresponsible again.'' I really think we understand that what needs to happen to this bill is that it needs to be repaired, not further savaged; and that is what we want to see done.

The reason we are in this fix is because the majority, just in the last week and a half, passed almost $70 billion in tax cuts and a very large percentage, approaching 50 percent, went into the pockets of the most well-off 1 percent of people in this country, people who make over $400,000 a year. And then they pay for it, partially, by squeezing bills like this one.

Let me make clear, this bill is virtually identical to the bill that the House rejected just a few days ago by a 209-224 vote on a bipartisan basis. It has moved around a small amount of money in hopes of picking up a few votes because of an improvement in rural health care, but outside of that the bill is virtually the same.

I want to make clear when we vote against this bill today, we will be voting against it not just because we are unhappy with the $1.6 billion cut below last year that this bill represents. To understand what this bill is doing, you must look at it in conjunction with the next step that the Republican leadership of this Congress has already announced that they intend to take, which is to further cut this bill by 1 percent across the board as they cut the entire discretionary budget 1 percent across the board.

That means that this bill will have a double hit. That means in the end this bill, for 1 year alone, will be $3 billion less than was provided for these same programs last year. Over a 5-year period, because this sets us on a course, over a 5-year period if we pass this bill, we will wind up spending $15 billion less for programs in this bill than we would otherwise spend if we simply stuck to last year's baseline.

In addition to that, 2 weeks ago our Republican friends pushed through a package of rescissions and reconciliation actions which cut $33 billion out of programs that benefit the same people who are benefited by this bill. They, for instance, cut $5 billion out of child support enforcement which will result in women in this country over the next 5 years getting $24 billion less in child support money than they are entitled to.

They are cutting over 200,000 kids off health care screening and cutting well over 200,000 families off food stamps. They are saying to people on disabilities, ``Sorry, but you are not going to get your full entitlement in your first check after you are declared eligible for disability.'' Right now the law says that if you apply for disability and if you are adjudged to be eligible, when you get your first check, you will be paid retroactive to the date of application.

The bill that passed 2 weeks ago on this floor, the reconciliation bill, said, ``Sorry, folks, if you are declared eligible, you will get only the first 2 months' entitlement in that check; the rest will be strung out over a period of months.'' The only reason the government saves money under that plan is because people will die before they get what they are entitled to get.

So this House has already taken all of those actions which will cut the assistance to middle-income families and poor families in this country by $33 billion, and then this bill over the next 5 years will wind up imposing an additional $15 billion cut in resources provided over that time.

And as far as I am concerned, it is ironic that this is happening at Christmastime. Usually, Mr. Speaker, at Christmastime, we fill children's stockings. This time around, in sort of ``Scroogenomics'' fashion, we are emptying those children's stockings and instead moving that money into the pockets of some of the wealthiest people in this country. I do not think that is a way to live up to the Christmas spirit.

I want to point out what some of the real reductions will be. We have 55 million children in public schools. State budgets are stretched thin. And yet, No Child Left Behind funding in this bill is cut $779 million and would be cut $1 billion after the 1 percent across-the- board cut is imposed.

Pell grants: Both parties go home and tell people how much we want to help families who are trying to send their kids to colleges. The College Board spelled out that in the last 5 years, the cost of a 4- year public education has increased by $3,100. The President's response to that was to add $100 to the Pell Grant maximum grant. So he proposed a $100 solution to a $3,100 problem. House Republicans said, ``Oh, no, that is too much.'' So, originally, this bill cut that to $50, and then the conference came back with nothing, zippo. So the Congress is doing nothing to ease the squeeze on families trying to send their kids to college.

And in the reconciliation bill which they passed just 2 weeks ago, they are making that problem, over the next 5 years, $12 billion worse or, I am sorry, $8 billion worse for those same families by raising fees, raising interest rates on student loans. And then they say that they are friends of education.

If you take a look at education technology, this bill cuts that program by $221 million or 45 percent. If you take a

look at low-income heating assistance, we have a need to at least double that program, given the fact that we have these huge increases in natural gas prices and home heating-oil prices. In fact, this bill freezes low-income heating assistance. And with the 1 percent across the board that is contemplated that will be on top of this freeze, you will wind up actually reducing money for low-income heating assistance.

Our Republican friends say, ``Oh, well, we are going to try to add $1 billion in the reconciliation bill.'' But we are already told that there is less than a 50/50 chance that reconciliation bill will even be passed before Congress leaves here for the holidays.

Then if you take a look at the International Labor Affairs Program, the program which is supposed to protect American workers' wages by seeing to it that they do not have to compete internationally against slave and child labor, that program is being cut by $21 million or 22 percent by this bill and the across-the-board cut that will shortly follow.

Community health centers: Everybody on both sides of the aisle talks about how important they are. But there is virtually no funding for new community health centers beyond those approved last year. And the majority, in this bill, eliminates the Healthy Communities Access Program, $83 million gone that helps provide health care to persons who do not have any or who do not have health care.

So I would say simply, Mr. Speaker, this bill is highly inadequate. It short sheets America's future. It does not make the investments in health research, in education, in worker training that any civilized, healthy leading society would make.

We do not meet our obligations in this bill, and I would urge a no vote. And I would urge that the majority go back to the drawing board, give this bill a better allocation and live up to the expectations of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Let me simply say with respect to IDEA, aid to the disabled children, the fact is, this bill cuts the Federal share of that program from 18.6 percent to 18 percent. And under the across-the-board cut that will be coming shortly, it drops further to 17.8 percent. In all, the bill will provide $4 billion less than the glide path to full funding that the Republican budget resolution promised just 2 years ago.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. Speaker, 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.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, one of the previous speakers on the majority side of the aisle said that we have limited resources, we have to make priority choices. That is absolutely right. The problem is with the priority choices that the majority has made.

They are fond of pointing to the fact that we have had extraneous expenses such as Katrina, and they say that is why we have to squeeze bills like this. But, in fact, under actions already taken by the majority party in this Congress, over the next decade they will provide $1.2 trillion in tax cuts for persons who make more than $400,000 a year, the top 1 percent of earners; and they have done virtually all of it by borrowing money to provide those tax cuts. I would point out that that $1.2 trillion is more than five times as much as the Federal Government will spend by anybody's estimate on repairing Katrina.

I would say that also the actions of the last week, when they added $70 billion to the tax breaks that they are providing, again with 50 percent going to the top 1 percent, demonstrate what the values and what the priorities of the majority party would be.

If we ask the average family in this country what they need in order to be able to deal with their own problems, I think what they would say is they need help to see to it that they have adequate access to education for their children. I think they would say that if somebody loses a job, they need help to get decent retraining. I think they would ask for fair treatment in the workplace. I think they would ask that their family have decent health care. And I think seniors would ask that they be provided a secure retirement with adequate medical care and help to pay their drug costs. The fact is that this bill fails on virtually all tests.

I would say also, as the gentleman from Maryland indicated, we did try to do one additional thing for senior citizens. Because of the incredibly confusing prescription drug program which seniors are being asked to sign up for, because that program is so incredibly confusing, we tried to get the majority to consider a 6-month delay in the deadline that seniors have to meet in signing up for that program. That motion failed on a party-line vote, unfortunately, on a 7-7 vote.

I would hope that before this Congress ends, the Congress will recognize that that program is so incredibly convoluted that there must be a delay in the sign-up deadline so that seniors have more time to make what could be a very confusing and devastating choice if they make the wrong choice.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the staff on both sides of the aisle for the work that they have done on this bill. It has taken a good number of good people to produce what I think is a bad product because of the allocation; but, nonetheless, I appreciate the hard work and I appreciate the enduring friendships that we have across the aisle.

Mr. Speaker, I assume this is the last time I will speak on the floor before Christmas, so I want to wish everyone Merry Christmas and a happy new year, and enough blessings so that you will reconsider some of the mistakes in this bill.

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

Unfortunately, our constituents would not.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 596 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 596 is a rule waiving all points of order against the conference report accompanying H.R. 3010 and against its consideration. This rule provides that the conference report shall be considered as read.

Mr. Speaker, the underlying legislation is one of the most important measures we consider each year. The underlying legislation will fund a broad array of programs improving the health, education and lifestyle of many Americans. I would like to congratulate the chairman and ranking member of the full committee and subcommittee for their hard work on this essential spending bill.

Mr. Speaker, the future of America hinges on the success of our future generations and their ability to compete with the rest of the world. In order for our children to succeed, they must be equipped with a high-quality education. I am happy to say that since Republicans took control of Congress, funding for the Department of Education has doubled; more recently, over the last 5 years, total education spending has increased by nearly 50 percent. Our children will benefit from an improved educational system that will enhance their ability to succeed and better prepare that next generation of workers.

The fundamental root of all education is reading. As we enter the holiday season, many families will join together in reading holiday stories providing wonderful memoirs for years to come. Unfortunately, some children are not able to read at the appropriate grade level. Included in this legislation is $1 billion for reading programs that will enable States to eliminate the reading deficit through science- and research-based reading programs.

I am also very pleased that the TRIO and GEAR UP programs are included in this all-important funding package. These programs assist low-income, first-generation college students in their transition from high school to college. This is a difficult transition for any student, but especially those who are the first in their family to attend college. We must continue to support programs like TRIO and GEAR UP so that these students will continue to flourish.

Mr. Speaker, another important responsibility we have is to ensure that our citizens have access to health care facilities and treatments. Included in this legislation is a $66 million increase in funding for community health centers that are so vitally important across this Nation, but especially in rural States, much like my home State of West Virginia. In the last 5 years, Congress has increased funding for these critical components of our health care delivery system by 48 percent.

I am especially pleased with the increased rural health funding included in this conference report. Millions of Americans across the country, including a majority of my West Virginia constituents, are faced with drastically different health care challenges because they reside in rural areas. This conference report includes a $90 million increase in funding for rural health programs. Included in this package are funds for the Office of Rural Health and

Research Policy, Rural Health Outreach Grants, Area Health Education Centers, and Medical Training.

These programs will improve rural health care delivery through continued research, improved technology, and development of health care professionals in rural America.

The National Institutes of Health, NIH, continues to serve our Nation well by developing new treatments and cures for the many diseases that plague our society. With a total funding level of the $28.6 billion, the researchers at NIH will be able to continue this mission so we may become a healthier Nation and global society.

A key aspect of a healthier society is one where all citizens have access to prescription drugs; and I am proud to say since November 15, Medicare-eligible beneficiaries have been able to sign up for a prescription drug benefit under Medicare. The resources provided in the underlying legislation will allow the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services to properly conduct that outreach effort that is so important that will hopefully enroll every senior that stands to benefit from this program.

Mr. Speaker, we are all aware of the challenges that can potentially face all Americans this coming winter, so the high cost of natural gas is something we are very concerned about. In this bill, the State formula grants for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP, are funded at over $2 billion; and we fund an additional billion dollars included in the House-passed Deficit Reduction Act passed earlier this month.

As with any appropriation legislation, we had tough choices to make. These choices are particularly difficult when dealing with the sensitive health and education issues like the ones in this bill. The Committee on Appropriations allocated the available resources in this bill in a manner that emphasizes those programs most important to our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, this is solid legislation that I believe all Members will be able to support.

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

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

I would like to respond to the gentlewoman's assertion that this is the second time around, which it most certainly is. Adjustments were made. There were many folks on our side of the aisle who had concerns about the rural health provisions, I among those folks, because we are heavily reliant on our community health centers. Many adjustments were made, as I mentioned in my opening statement, to address some of the issues of rural health.

When we talk about priorities, this bill is chock full of America's priorities, and certainly education is one of them. I would like to review that in this bill there is $100 million more for those special education needs. As I said 3 weeks ago, is this going to solve the problem? Is this enough money to meet every need for every challenged child and every family of a challenged child? Certainly not. But we are getting there and working towards that.

In terms of Pell grants and affordability of higher education, it is at an all-time high, $4,050; and there is an additional $812 million to meet those challenges for those seeking higher education.

There is a particular emphasis in this bill for math and science. We hear about our students who cannot compete in the global economy, how students are not going into the math and science fields and we are getting left behind by those around the world. This will strengthen the K-12 math and science education.

Again, I would like to mention the TRIO and GEAR-UP programs because they are particularly significant in my State, very effective and long- standing, and I am pleased they are going to be there to help that first-time college student meet the challenges as they move towards higher education.

Another important program is Job Corps. It is a labor program that helps those students transition and move from education to the workforce in a very forceful way and a very successful way.

I realize that choices have to be made in these difficult areas of health, education and labor; but the choices we have made here I think are good solid choices, and I support the rule and the underlying legislation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond. I have been in Congress for 5 years, and I have great respect for my colleague who has many more years and much experience, much more experience than I do. But my understanding of a conference report, which we are addressing now, it cannot be amended, it cannot be attached to and it cannot have any spending cut attached to it. He is leading me and others to believe that when we step up to vote for this, we will be voting for an across- the-board 1 percent cut. I find that incredulous because I know there will be no such vote placed on this bill. I want the general public viewing this to realize we are voting on a tough bill.

The appropriation is for labor and education and health services, but we are not voting on an across-the-board cut when we vote for this bill. We have made several choices here. We have put more money into reading which I think is vital. Over the past 5 years, incredible amounts of money have been put into pulling the reading skills up in elementary school and improving that vital part of our educational system.

We have worked on increasing special ed funding. I think we can all agree that the needs there are tremendously important across the country. We have improved that as well.

So I think for the understanding to be that this bill is going to be coupled with an across-the-board cut that means this is less than what it is, I find that to be disingenuous; and, quite frankly, I do not think that is quite actually what is going to occur.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this fair rule and the underlying legislation, where critical dollars will fund our Nation's education system, health care delivery system and numerous other benefits. With this funding, low-income Americans will be better prepared for a long cold winter with the $2 billion funding in LIHEAP. Our seniors will greatly benefit from the money provided allowing CMS to conduct outreach to our Medicare beneficiaries to sign up for the new prescription drug benefit. The $90 million included for Rural Health Delivery is vitally important to rural America. These are all important programs that will improve the way of life for countless Americans.

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

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference report on H.R. 3010, Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2006. Like the version rejected by the House last month, the revised version still slashes health, education and jobs programs by $1.6 billion below the FY 2005 enacted level.

Mr. Speaker, this is the second time the House has considered the LHHS conference report. Sadly, a second look at the conference report is not better. On November 17, the conference report was rejected because the bill showed that the Republican-led Congress was out of touch with the priorities and needs of the American people.

The bill before us today does not change the core principles rejected in the first conference report. The second conference report still underfunds key programs because of the Republican-led Congress and the Administration's fiscally irresponsible budget priorities, continued insistence on large additional tax cuts for the super rich, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Although appropriators must make tough choices because of these extraordinarily tight budget constraints, programs that help millions of Americans should not be on the chopping block.

With a record 55 million children in public schools and state budgets stretched thin, No Child Left Behind (NCLB) funding is cut by $779 million. Title I, which is the core of NCLB's efforts to improve reading and math skills, receives the smallest increase for Title I in 8 years--only $100 million--which means 3.1 million low-income children will be left behind.

Even as the cost of a 4-year public college education has increased by 34 percent since 2001, the maximum Pell Grant is frozen for the fourth straight year at $4,050, and no new funding for all other student financial aid and support programs is provided in this conference report.

This conference report will actually cut the federal share of special education costs from 18.6 percent in FY 2005 to 18.0 percent by providing the smallest increase for the Individuals with Disabilities Act in a decade. The bill provides $4 billion less than what was promised for IDEA.

With 7.6 million Americans out of work, Republicans cut the Community College Initiative's, which trains workers for high skill, high paying jobs by $125 million-rescinding funds provided last year and denying this assistance to 100,000 Americans.

Republicans also cut job search assistance through the Employment Service by 11 percent and cut State Unemployment Insurance

and Employment Service Offices by 7 percent, eliminating help for 1.9 million people.

Consumers are expected to pay 52 percent more for natural gas, 11 percent more for electricity, and 24 percent more for home heating oil this winter, yet this conference report failed to increase funding for LIHEAP home heating assistance, which helps keep the heat on for low- income seniors and families with children.

Nearly 46 million Americans are without health insurance yet this conference report provides almost no funding for new Community Health Centers beyond those approved last year and eliminates the Healthy Communities Access Program and state planning grants to improve health care coverage.

Preventive Health Block Grants to state health departments help address critical public health problems. The bill provides less for responding to disease outbreaks, immunizing children, and improving care for people with chronic diseases, when it cuts these grants by $31 million.

This conference report reflects the priorities of this Republican-led Congress and not those of Democrats and most Americans. The country's priorities should be based on the shared sacrifice of all Americans, not just sacrifices for the poor, working class, students and seniors.

The Labor-HHS-Education bill should fund significant health, education, job assistance, training and research programs that impact every American. This conference report is way short in meeting the needs of Americans. Congress is walking away from our commitment to equal opportunity and a better quality of life for all Americans. Greater access to employment training, jobs, affordable healthcare, quality education, and ending disparities should be our goal.

This bill falls short of achieving those goals.

Mr. Speaker, despite the addition of modest funding increases for certain rural health programs, this bill still dramatically cuts the core principles and programs that are important to Americans.

I oppose this LHHS conference report and urge all of my colleagues to reject this bill full of misguided priorities.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the second FY 2006 Labor, Health Human Services and Education Conference Report.

I opposed the first conference report last month because it inadequately funded virtually every area of need and slashed $1.5 billion from our country's critical health, human services, education and labor programs. This new, but definitely not improved conference report slashes $1.6 billion from these programs actually increasing the total cuts to these agencies by $90 million.

While I was pleased to see increases in the Title VII programs and other important health programs, this bill did not provide new funds for these programs, it simply robbed Peter to pay Paul. In this case, the Republican leadership has apparently decided that its more important to provide federal funding for Viagra and other erectile dysfunction drugs than it is to fully prepare ourselves for the threat of a pandemic flu, such as the Asian bird flu.

The new conference report eliminates $120 million for pandemic flu preparedness in order to fund these increases with the promise that they will make up for it in other bills. However, you can't cram for a pandemic. We need to have the funds in place to prepare our public health system for the threat of pandemic influenza now.

Further, the Republicans have been considering making an additional 1 percent cut to all of the programs funded by this bill. If they do that, it will double the cuts in the bill, bringing the total cuts to $3 billion. That is $3 billion less for critical education, job training, health, and energy assistance programs. When you combine these cuts with the Republican spending cuts bill that they passed as a part of Reconciliation, programs that help the poor, the sick, the elderly and other Americans who need our help the most will be cut by $48 billion over the next 5 years.

When you compare these massive cuts for the most vulnerable to the incredible $56 billion Republican tax cut giveaway for millionaires that Republicans passed last week, there is no question where the Republicans priorities are.

When in the span of 2 weeks, the Republicans give the top 1 percent of Americans

who are millionaires an extra $32,000 a year and cut unemployment insurance and employment service offices to help the unemployed by $229 million and cut Head Start by $11.2 million and cut Community College training grants by 50 percent and cut the international assistance grants to eradicate child labor by $20 million it is clear what the Republican priorities are.

While the Bush administration has never fully funded the No Child Left Behind Act, this bill goes a step further by actually cutting total federal education funding for the first time in a decade--cutting No Child Left Behind so that it is now $14 billion below the authorized level, slashing special education, safe and drug free schools, education technology grants and freezing the maximum Pell grant award for the fourth year in a row despite rising tuition costs.

At a time when we are trying to prepare our country for the aging of the baby boomers and threat of pandemic flu, this bill cuts funding for healthcare. It cuts the CDC's budget by $249 million and provides the smallest percentage increase to NIH in three decades. And if the Republicans make a 1 percent cut to all of the programs, NIH will get a real cut.

The bill before us today would also freeze funding for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance, LIHEAP, at $2.18 billion, counting both basic formula grants and emergency grants--the FY 2005 level. LIHEAP serves about 5 million households, the majority of which have at least one member who is elderly, disabled, or a child under age 5. The conference report is freezing LIHEAP even though consumers are expected to pay 52 percent more for natural gas, 30 percent more for home heating oil, and 11 percent more for electricity this winter.

The Republicans won't fully fund LIHEAP because they have other priorities. Their budget makes that quite clear. Tax cuts for millionaires, tax cuts for the giant oil companies, weakening environmental regulations for their business cronies. Those are the priorities for the Republican-controlled Congress. Funding for education, health care and low-income home energy assistance so that seniors on fixed incomes, and poor families can heat their homes this winter, are not their priorities.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.