Golf Course Preservation and Modernization Act

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, during consideration of H.R. 3043 pursuant to House Resolution 547, the Chair may reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for electronic voting under clause 6 of rule XVIII and clauses 8 and 9 of rule XX.

Madam Chairman, this bill, more than any other, determines how willing we are to make the investment necessary to assure the future strength of this country and its working families. We strengthen the country when we strengthen our families. We strengthen our country when we invest in workers to have the most competitive workforce in the world.

The decisions we make in any one year are not decisive. But if we do not think in long term, if we do not recognize the kind of country we will be in 10 years, we will not make the investments necessary to prepare for that world and we will be shortchanging the future of every American.

Because he has chosen to put his desire to give $50 billion in tax breaks to those make $1 million a year, and his desire to spend $140 billion on Iraq ahead of those investments, the President has chosen to cut those investments by this bill by more than $7.5 billion in real terms.

This bill rejects most of those cuts because we cannot disinvest in the country's future without hurting national security and the future of every American family. Instead of cutting $7.5 billion, as the President requested, we eliminate or cut 41 programs, saving $1.1 billion. We then increase investments in critical programs by about $4.5 billion in real terms, or 2.8 percent over last year, after adjusting for inflation and population change.

Now, why do we do that? Because in 10 years there will be 27 million more Americans, 12 million more seniors needing health care, 2.7 million more kids in elementary and secondary school, 2.2 million more students in college, 11 million more Americans will be without health insurance, unless we wise up and wake up and change our policies. And within 7 years, half of the Nation's job growth will be in occupations requiring higher education skills.

To meet those challenges, with this bill we target modest increases to crucial high priority activities to attack deficits in worker training, deficits in health care, deficits in education access.

On a bipartisan basis, without a dissenting vote, we've provided $450 million above the President's inadequate request for Title I to help an additional 155,000 disadvantaged students. Instead of wiping out every student aid program except Pell and Work Study, we rejected the President's cuts and raised the maximum Pell Grant by $650 over the last year to help over 5 million students go to college.

We reversed the 3-year decline in Federal support for special education. Mr. Walsh, the ranking member of this subcommittee, has taken a leadership role in that regard.

We reversed the President's cuts in teacher training. We provided new after-school opportunities for 163,000 more students.

On health care, nobody has ever come up to me at home and said, ``Obey, why don't you guys get your act together and cut cancer research?'' But that's exactly what Congress did the last 2 years, cutting NIH research grants by over 500 grants. Well, we've stopped that.

In January, we reversed the President's cuts and this bill adds another $1 billion above the President's request, which would again cut research grants.

We have also included a package of five initiatives to put health care within the reach of more than 2 million additional Americans; $200 million to expand access to health and dental care at community health centers, $75 million to help States expand health coverage for targeted populations, $50 million to help States provide affordable health insurance for 200,000 people who are medical high risks and cannot get insurance from the private market, $20 million to help trade impacted workers benefit from the Health Coverage Tax credit, and added funding to help Medicare beneficiaries to get health insurance counseling.

Because of high energy prices, we have added $880 million to the President's request for low income heating assistance, reversing half the cut Congress and the President made last year.

To discourage abortions, instead of lecturing, we provide a $1.4 billion package of incentives to provide real world help to women through expanded Head Start, child care, domestic violence programs, maternal and child health care, family planning and abstinence programs.

To help workers, we reverse the President's cuts in a range of workforce training programs. We also provide a $100 million increase above the President to help reduce Social Security claims backlogs and to keep more Social Security offices open.

Now the President claims that this bill amounts to runaway spending. Fact: From 1980 to today, domestic appropriations, as a percentage of total national income, have declined hugely. The President's budget would cut them to a level 48 percent below the 1980 level, and by 2012, to a level 57 percent below 1980. That's hardly runaway growth. That is a steady bleed of America's quality of life and America's future.

For the President to borrow $1.2 trillion to pay for tax cuts, and $600 billion to pay for Iraq, including another $140 billion next year, and then pretend that this modest 2 percent difference with him is the cause of fiscal irresponsibility is sheer nonsense, and many enlightened Republicans know it.

These investments are not just fiscally responsible, they are necessary for the future health and strength of the Nation.

One other point. We will today hear complaints about earmarks in this bill. Let us be clear, the last time Congress was in Democratic hands there were no earmarks in this bill. Under Republican rule, they exploded from zero to over 3,000.

This bill has cut back the dollar level for earmarks to half the level in the 2006 bill. Exactly two-tenths of 1 percent of the total funding in this bill go for congressionally directed earmarks.

And let me also point out that the amount of dollars in spending directed by the Congress is a tiny fraction of the amount directed by the Administration. First, for instance, the Administration in this bill requests specific earmarks, $10 million for Reach Out and Read, $10 million for Teach for America, $9 million for the Points of Light Foundation, $4.5 million for America's Promise, $1.7 million for the Mind and Body Institute, $1.4 million for the YMCA.

On top of that, in 2006 alone, the Health and Social Services Department directed spending of $1.9 billion through 21,000 contracts that were less than fully competed. That alone is more than seven times the amount of congressionally directed spending in this bill.

In the Labor Department, 90 percent of discretionary funding for the High Growth Job Training Program was spent on a noncompetitive basis.

The Office of Inspector General found that the Education Department strong-armed State and local school districts to select textbooks from favored publishers. Madison, Wisconsin, in my own State, lost its $2 million Reading First grant because they refused to purchase texts from an inferior program. Yet, the most thoroughly evaluated programs, like Success for All and Reading Recovery, were frozen out by the program administrators.

ABC reported that one publisher with good connections at the White House saw its corporate net worth rise from $5 million to $360 million, with a little help from their friends.

The Office of Inspector General has made criminal references to the Justice Department, and we have cut Reading First until the Administration changes its ways.

So I would simply say, Madam Chairman, spare us the Administration's sanctimony about earmarks or directed spending, and please spare us the pretense that this bill has anything to do

with the fiscal mess this country faces. It is a disciplined set of investments. Virtually every Republican amendment in committee did not seek to cut funding, rather it sought to increase it.

I appreciate the bipartisan support for the bill in committee. I appreciate the partnership with Mr. Walsh, the ranking member.

People who have reviewed it most closely, Republicans and Democrats alike, know this bill is responsible and disciplined.

Just one comparison. The Administration's defense request, even without counting the $140 billion in new money that they're asking for in their supplemental, that defense bill is still $43 billion above last year, which is at least four times as large as the difference between the committee and the Congress on this bill.

I would urge every Member who thinks about this country's future to support this bill.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17JY07.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17JY07.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17JY07.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17JY07.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17JY07.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17JY07.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17JY07.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17JY07.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17JY07.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17JY07.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17JY07.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17JY07.012

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17JY07.013

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17JY07.014

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17JY07.015

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17JY07.016

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17JY07.017

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17JY07.018

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17JY07.019

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17JY07.020

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17JY07.021

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

I would also like to take this time to thank all of the staff people who worked on this bill, most especially Rob Nabors, Christina Hamilton, John Daniel, Lesley Turner, Kirstin Brost, Cheryl Smith, Sue Quantius, Nicole Kunko, Muftiah McCartin, Teri Bergman, Andria Oliver, Beth Chaney, Steve Crane, Anne Marie Goldsmith, Ron Anderson, and the associate staff as well. We certainly could not have put together the bill without them, and without them we would be making a whole lot more mistakes than we are likely to make today.

Madam Chairman, I reserve balance of my time.

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

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

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

(Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum), who is really not celebrating her birthday on the same day as the Baltimore Orioles.

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

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

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

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

Frankly, Madam Chairman, I was filibustering in hopes that the majority leader would arrive, but he is in the middle of a meeting and can't make it. So let me simply second the comments of the gentleman from New York. I think this is a good bipartisan product. I think we can work with the Senate to produce a bill which people on both sides of the aisle and both sides of the Capitol can support with pride.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment.

Madam Chairman, I have a great deal of respect for the gentleman who just offered the amendment, but I have to say this is exactly the wrong thing for the Congress to do at this time.

The gentleman's amendment tries to restore $75 million to probably the most troubled program in this bill. As the gentleman has indicated, we have had six different audits by the Office of Inspector General. He has discovered that the Department of Education

tried to steer billions of dollars in Reading First funds for the purchase of certain reading textbooks and assessments in order to benefit favored publishers and individuals. I don't think the Congress ought to stand for that.

I would also point out that the OIG found out that the Department of Education administrators improperly promoted commercial reading programs in potential violation of Federal law. And this did not just occur in my own State, as I mentioned earlier in my remarks, it occurred in Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey. States in districts with programs that were not on the Department's preferential list were either rejected for grants or pressured to change their methods, even though some argued, as did my own State, that their programs met the law's standard.

What is most ironic is this is supposed to be a peer reviewed program, and yet the programs that have demonstrably shown the best performance levels were frozen out of the program, including Bob Slaven's program at Johns Hopkins that has generally been reviewed as one of the best in the country. Yet, they were virtually invited out the door by the DOE.

In addition to the fact that we certainly should not be rewarding the administration for the way they have handled this program, the gentleman seeks to finance this program by taking $43 million out of job training for ex-offenders. We cannot afford to have criminals reentering society with inadequate job training that provides them with incentives to renew their lives of crime.

We need to provide as much training as possible, and the gentleman scales that back dramatically.

And, lastly, I must confess I'm a bit confused. In the full committee, I accepted an amendment from Mr. Peterson, a valued member of our subcommittee, who wanted to add $25 million for vocational education above my mark. I accepted it because I thought he made a good case. Now we're being asked to take out $23 million of the money that Mr. Peterson successfully added in the subcommittee. I don't think that's a wise thing to do.

There will be plenty of time in conference to restore funding for Reading First, provided that the administration and provided that the agency demonstrates that it's shaped up and it's no longer following the same habits. But at this point, you have the same contractors still in place, you have the same conflicts still at large, and I don't think under these circumstances that this Congress wants to support the kind of shenanigans that we've seen in that Reading First program. And, on behalf of the integrity of the taxpayers' dollar, I would urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his question.

Yes, it was our intent to fund both the Credit Enhancement for Charter School Facilities program within the larger Charter School Grant program at their fiscal year 2007 levels, not to eliminate the credit enhancement program. We consolidated the programs for administrative efficiency and fully expect the Secretary of Education to continue funding for existing charter school programs from this single line item.

Madam Chairman, I understand the gentleman's concern, and I'm surprised that CMS would consider issuing a final decision when the FDA has not completed its scientific review. I would certainly be happy to work with the gentleman during conference on the issue.

Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Let me say simply say, Madam Chairman, that the fund that the gentleman seeks to increase has been increased by 33 percent in terms of resources just over the last 4 years, and staffing for that same agency has been increased by over 25 percent. That is hardly starving an agency.

I would also point out that at the same time you've had those large increases, the wage and hour division, which is supposed to enforce protection for workers on minimum wage, overtime and child labor laws, will have seen its staffing drop by over 12 percent since 2001, and the staff level at the Office of Federal Contract Compliance, which protects workers from unfair employment practices by Federal contractors, will have dropped by 23 percent.

So it seems to me that what the gentleman's amendment does is to enrich the one portion of the Labor Department which has been doing very well, thank you, and they have been doing very well while other portions of the Labor Department that are supposed to focus on protecting workers have, in fact, been starved.

The Department's own budget justifications for the large increase that they've requested states that the acceptability rate for unions in meeting labor management reporting and disclosure reporting requirements is at 96 percent.

The goal for fiscal 2008 is to raise this to 97 percent. I'd say if you are getting 96 percent, that's an A. At least it was when I went to school. Things may have changed since then.

Let me also say that the place that this funding was taken from, in order to finance this increase is especially pernicious. The administration itself has asked for an 81 percent reduction in the International Labor Account. That is the program that is used in order to protect workers from having to compete against slave labor and child labor.

I don't think that you help workers by weakening that program. We are simply trying to restore funding in that program that the President cut, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

Madam Chairman, in accordance with House earmark reforms, I would like to place into the record a listing of Congressionally-directed projects in my home state of Idaho that are contained within the report to the FY08 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations bill.

I'd like to take just a few minutes to describe why I supported these projects and why they are valuable to the nation and its taxpayers.

The report contains $300,000 for the Literacy Matters! Program administered by the Lee Pesky Learning Center in Boise. The Literacy Matters! Program is aimed at educating new mothers on the importance of early childhood literacy and math skills and providing them with resources for educating their children. The funding is used to provide every mother of a newborn in Idaho with a book created by the Lee Pesky Learning Center that helps them with teaching early literacy and math skills. The books are distributed through Idaho hospitals and the program has been highly successful. This is the second year of federal funding for the program.

This project was requested by the Lee Pesky Learning Center in Boise, Idaho.

The report contains $300,000 for the Idaho Caring Foundation's program to provide dental services to low-income, uninsured children who would otherwise have no access to such services. The program will provide access to needed dental care for 600 low-income, uninsured children throughout Idaho. Eligible children will be identified by working in partnership with Idaho schools, health departments, Head Start programs, and YMCA programs. Dental services will be provided by over 90 dentists who are Caring Foundation providers, providing oral health services for reduced fees. Federal funding is only a portion of the total costs of the program. As a dentist, I understand the importance of proper dental hygiene at a very young age. Serious health and self esteem problems can quickly evolve if dental hygiene is neglected early in a child's development. This is an outstanding program that enjoys my complete support. This is the second year of federal funding for the program.

This project was requested by the Idaho Caring Foundation in Boise, Idaho.

The report contains $250,000 for the Discovery Center of Idaho's new facility. The funding will assist with efforts initiated by the Discovery Center and the J.R. Simplot Foundation to build a new model of a ``hands-on'' science center to captivate the attention of and inspire tomorrow's leaders and innovators. The 70,000 square foot Center will be founded on three core strengths, inspiring stories of innovation including Mr. Simplot's story, iconic collection of working steam tractors and DCI's expertise in igniting curiosity, through interactive science exhibits and programs. The center will be a resource for the region, with particular interest in serving rural areas to help break the myth that innovation is a new urban phenomenon--that ingenuity is found wherever and whenever an observant creative human being has a problem to solve. This is a tremendous opportunity to create a new approach to bridging the gap in science and technology education. The $250,000 federal investment is a very small portion of what is expected to be a $40,000,000 project.

This project was requested by the Discovery Center of Idaho in Boise, Idaho.

The report contains $200,000 for the College of Southern Idaho's Pro- Tech Training Program which partners with local agencies and companies to identify training needs in the community and provide for those needs by training talented Idaho students. The College partners with other agencies to identify training needs and to identify potential candidates for employment. The most recent of these ventures are the training programs that were established for Dell Computers and its call center in Twin Falls. In addition, data provided by Region IV of the Idaho Economic Development Agency indicate that manufacturing will be a leading employment area in the Magic Valley with over 250 new jobs expected over the next two years.

This project was requested by the College of Southern Idaho in Twin Falls, Idaho.

The report contains $200,000 for St. Luke's Hospital's Children's Health Services Expansion. The Children's Health Services Expansion project provides essential growth in capacity for Pediatric Medical/ Surgical, Pediatric Intensive Care, Neonatal Intensive Care, Pediatric Oncology, and Pediatric Surgical Suites and support areas, to meet the needs of the rapidly growing population in the hospital's service area. The hospital is spending millions on the expansion and federal funds will represent only a small portion of the project's total costs. This is the fourth year of federal funding for this program.

The project was requested by St. Luke's Regional Medical Center in Boise, Idaho.

The report contains $200,000 for Teton Valley Hospital and Surgicenter's Revitalization Project. Teton Valley Hospital & Surgicenter, a 13-bed Critical Access Hospital, provides an emergency room and a full scope of primary care services to the residents in and around Teton Valley, a rural community of just over 7,000 residents, nestled against the Teton Mountains in Southeast Idaho and Western Wyoming. Its population has grown by more than 99% over the past 15 years, ranking it in the top two fastest growing counties in Idaho for the last six years. This population growth has seriously strained the resources of the hospital and necessitated the revitalization project. Federal funds represent only a portion of the project's total costs.

This project was requested by Teton Valley Hospital & Surgicenter in Driggs, Idaho.

The report contains $200,000 for Madison County Memorial Hospital. Madison County Memorial Hospital services a growing area encompassing five counties and quite simply has outgrown its facilities. Increased capacity for obstetrics (Madison County Memorial Hospital has more births than any other hospital of its size in the State of Idaho and possibly the nation) and inpatient and outpatient surgeries are needed. The size of this project is 70,000 sq. feet of new construction and 85,000 sq. feet of remodeling, with an overall budget of $49 million and an equipment budget of over $7 million. Federal funding will be used for necessary medical equipment for the expanded and remodeled facility and represents a very small portion of the overall funding for this project.

This project was requested by Madison County Memorial Hospital in Rexburg, Idaho.

The report contains $400,000 for a Community Detox Center in Boise, Idaho. The need for a detox facility is both pressing and long- standing. According to a 2002 study by Boise State University's Center for Health Policy, rates of drug and alcohol abuse are worse in the Treasure Valley than in the rest of Idaho. Over 17,000 individuals in Ada and Canyon Counties were deemed at-risk for substance dependence in 2000, and the region severely lacks beds for detox patients, particularly those on limited incomes. To fill this void, hospital emergency rooms are acting as de facto drug and/ or alcohol detox centers which adds to rising health care costs. The proposed facility is a 24-hour medically monitored alcohol and drug sobering station and 36-bed detox center for indigent patients treated by a professional, qualified staff. Typical stays for sobering will be 12 hours and typical stays for detoxification will be 5-6 days; following sobering and/or detoxification, patients will be referred to appropriate education and treatment programs.

This project was requested by the United Way of Treasure Valley in Boise, Idaho.

The report contains $200,000 for the Advanced Clinical Simulation Laboratory at Idaho State University. This funding will be used to develop an Advanced Clinical Simulation Laboratory (ACSL) to strengthen nursing education, practice and research in Idaho. The ACLS will enable students, faculty, and practice partners to become actively involved in clinical simulation learning and conducting research related to student learning, effectiveness of clinical education models and improving patient care outcomes. The ACSL will also provide a research and practice laboratory for nurse faculty and clinical educators to learn and update knowledge about clinical educational models and teaching with technology.

This project was requested by Idaho State University in Pocatello, Idaho.

The report contains $200,000 for Idaho SySTEMic Solution: Plant Early for STEM

Learning (science, technology, engineering, and math) at Boise State University. Idaho SySTEMic Solution is a nationally relevant, hands-on, project-based STEM learning system (science, technology, engineering, and math) designed to spur achievement and confidence among elementary- age learners and their teachers. Key project components will include: (1) a comprehensive teacher training model that includes a one-week summer institute and ongoing site-based follow-up training to boost the ability and confidence of elementary teachers; (2) implementation into demographically diverse schools (grades 1-5/6, urban to suburban to rural, multicultural) of curriculum-aligned learning lab systems that have been shown to improve student scores in math, science, and technology; and (3) research and evaluation of results in accordance with Idaho and national assessment standards to maximize the effectiveness of transplanting this solution to other U.S. states.

This project was requested by Boise State University in Boise, Idaho.

I appreciate the opportunity to provide a list of Congressionally- directed projects in my region and an explanation of my support for them: (1) $300,000 for Early Literacy Matters, Lee Pesky Learning Center; (2) $300,000 for Idaho Caring Foundation Dental Project; (3) $200,000 for Children's Health Services Expansion; St. Luke's Regional Medical Center; (4) $400,000 for Community Detox Center, United Way of Treasure Valley; (5) $200,000 for Advanced Clinical Simulation Laboratory, Idaho State University; (6) $200,000 for Idaho SySTEMic Solution, Boise State University; (7) $200,000 for Madison County Memorial Hospital Revitalization Project; (8) $200,000 for College of Southern Idaho Pro-Tech Program, College of Southern Idaho; (9) $200,000 for Teton Valley Hospital Revitalization Project, Teton Valley Hospital; (10) $250,000 for the Discovery Center of Idaho Expansion, Discovery Center of Idaho.

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chairman, my amendment would restore much-needed funding to the highly successful Reading First program.

In 2001, Members of both parties committed to implementing scientifically based reading instruction, through Reading First, as the foundation of an effort to provide a high-quality education in every school. Six years later, it is clear that the program is working, but not without some internal challenges.

Indeed, Reading First has received a great deal of attention over the last several months, and for good reason. An investigation into the program by the Department of Education's Inspector General uncovered real problems in the agency's implementation and management of the program. And the Education and Labor Committee has followed with appropriate, thorough, and bipartisan oversight to ensure that those problems are addressed.

In spite of this, we have heard from the majority that it intends to cut some $600 million from this program, roughly 60 percent of its overall annual budget, until problems identified by the Inspector General have been addressed. That's particularly interesting since these problems have been and are being addressed both by the Department of Education itself and through proposed legislation.

Since last September, the Department has responded to the investigation of its Inspector General and to our committee's oversight of Reading First by making a number of significant changes to improve the administration of the program. In fact, at the committee's oversight hearing of this program, the Inspector General acknowledged that the Department has accepted his recommendations and begun implementing them to reform the program.

Among the steps taken by the Department in the wake of this investigation include: Replacing the internal Reading First program management; reconstituting a key peer review panel used in the program to ensure fairness and more openness in its review processes; and providing additional guidance to contractors and subcontractors to enhance the objectivity and effectiveness of their services.

In order to codify many of these recommendations made by the Inspector General and reform steps taken by the Department earlier this year, I joined my committee colleague, Mr. Castle, in introducing the Reading First Improvement Act. Instead of slashing funding for this highly successful program, I call on my friends on the other side of the aisle to enact this legislation to ensure permanent and long- standing reform to Reading First.

To date, the bill has seen no action, not in subcommittee, not in full committee, and not on the floor. To think that we are cutting this program's budget by more than 60 percent when a measure to reform it is sitting right before us demonstrates how truly politically driven the majority's actions are on Reading First and continue to be.

Nonetheless, it is clear to any fair-minded person that the management problems of Reading First are in the past. What is equally clear is that Reading First, despite past problems, has been an unqualified success for the students it is intended to serve. Indeed, my friend, the distinguish chairman of our committee said during our oversight hearing of Reading First earlier this year, ``The purpose of this hearing is not to evaluate the effectiveness or strengths or weaknesses of the Reading First program. I support the Reading First program, as do many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle.''

Statistics bear out the chairman's and my own continued support for Reading First. For example, data released earlier this year shows that in Reading First schools, the percentage of first graders meeting or exceeding proficiency on fluency outcome measures increased by 14 percentage points, from 43 to 57 percent, from 2004 to 2006, with the percentage of third graders increasing by 7 percent during the same period of time.

And a 2006 Center on Education Policy survey found that 97 percent of school districts which reported increases in student achievement indicated that Reading First was a key reason for this progress.

Madam Chairman, rather than taking into consideration this data and the improvements that the Department has made in its implementation of Reading First, the majority has decided it is better to make a political statement against the administration than to provide the critical resources needed to continue to address the needs of our most disadvantaged young students.

By finding some $75 million in savings through reducing administrative costs at the Department of Health and Human Services and implementing programs for prisoners that the President did not request funding for, while keeping intact his faith-based prisoner reentry initiative, my amendment restores some of these resources.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment.

Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chairman, I would like to engage the chairman of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies in a colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate all your efforts in bringing this bill forward and thank you for your continued support of the Nation's chartered schools, which increase the academic achievement of our Nation's most low-income students. I wanted to clarify the committee's intent to fund the Credit Enhancement for Charter School Facilities program, which received $36.6 million last year. This year, the committee chose to increase funding to the Charter School Grant program and folded the Credit Enhancement for Charter School Facilities program into this larger program.

Charter schools are public schools created by teachers, parents and other community stakeholders to educate students of all backgrounds and educational abilities. In exchange for greater accountability for student achievement, these schools are free from many local and State regulations. This flexibility and accountability has allowed individuals with nontraditional backgrounds to create cultures that have made charter schools top academic performers, often in some of the Nation's largest urban centers. Because of this unique approach to education, demand for these schools has been remarkable over the last decade.

Unlike other local school districts, however, public charter schools cannot levy property or other taxes for building and infrastructure. Thus, public charter schools must pay for their facilities from their operating budgets, which are smaller than those received by their conventional K-12 peers. In fact, locating suitability facilities remains the greatest challenge faced by charter schools.

The Credit Enhancement for Charter School Facilities program provides vital assistance to help charter schools meet their local facility needs. Under this program, funds are provided on a competitive basis to public and nonprofit entities, and consortia of those entities, to leverage other funds and help charter schools obtain school facilities through such means as purchase, lease and donation. Grantees may also use grants to leverage funds to help charter schools construct and renovate school facilities.

Was it the intent of the chairman to continue funding for the Credit Enhancement for Charter School Facilities program, as part of the Charter School programs and at their fiscal year 2007 levels?

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his clarification and again appreciate his continued support for charter schools.

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

Madam Chairman, I rise in support of Mr. Kline's amendment to restore funding for the Labor Department's Office of Labor Management Standards to its fiscal year 2007 level.

A column published in Wall Street Journal's Opinion Journal noted today that Congress has added $935 million to President Bush's fiscal year 2008 budget request for the Department of Labor. Within that budget increase are individual funding increases for every single enforcement agency within the agency; that is, except for one.

The appropriations measure before us cuts the Office of Labor Management Standards' budget $2 million below its fiscal 2007 funding level and more than $10 million below the President's budget request for the office this year.

Identifying OLMS as the only enforcement office at the Department of Labor to have its budget cut is significant. In fact, it was clearly singled out by design.

Why? Perhaps it's because the office has had such great success in protecting rank-and-file union members. Consider this, since 2001, OLMS has helped obtain over 750 convictions and restitution of over $70 million in criminal cases of embezzlement, election irregularities and violations of union members' rights.

Last week, for example, a union financial secretary in Michigan pleaded guilty to falsifying union reports. Earlier this year, a former union president in Texas was sentenced to 6\1/2\ years in prison for embezzling dues paid by hard-working union members. These are the types of results Congress expected when it passed the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.

This law makes clear that a union member must have access to union financial records and has the right to recover misappropriated union assets on

behalf of the union when the union fails to do so itself.

Nearly 50 years later, and with more than 15 million American workers contributing a portion of every paycheck they earn to labor organizations, we should demand nothing less than what we demanded in 1959. Indeed, Congress expects the Securities and Exchange Commission to protect the interests of shareholders, and so too must we expect the OLMS to protect the interests of rank-and-file union members.

The amendment before us would restore $2 million to the OLMS budget, bringing it back to the fiscal year 2007 level and ensuring it has the resources its needs to safeguard union transparency and accountability. Indeed, if my colleagues believe, as I do, that transparency is the key protection against financial misconduct, then we should take OLMS off the political chopping block by restoring its funds.

I thank my Education and Labor Committee colleague, Mr. Kline, for offering the amendment.

I urge my colleagues to join me in support of it.

Madam Chairman, I want to express my appreciation to both Chairman Obey and my ranking member, the gentleman from New York, for the cooperative spirit in which they worked to produce this bill, a very difficult bill in the final analysis. With that, I would like to say to Mr. Obey I very much appreciate his ongoing cooperation as we try to work on all the bills in the appropriations process this year to make some sense out of a very difficult year. I would also like to express my deep appreciation for the fabulous work done by the staff of this committee.

And having gone that far, Madam Chairman, let me say that the fiscal year 2008 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education and Related Agencies bill, Labor-HHS, reflects a fundamental difference in opinion on the level of funding necessary to support the Federal Government's role in education, health and workforce programs. Regardless of that disagreement, House Republicans agree that many of the programs funded in this bill are vitally important. The majority party would have the public believe otherwise.

In fact, House Republicans have shown the American people over the past 12 years that we recognize the importance of these programs. With history as our witness, we have demonstrated our commitment not in words but in action.

It should not be forgotten that it was House Republicans who demonstrated a commitment to fundamental research by doubling the budget of National Institutes for Health. It was House Republicans who bolstered the discretionary budget for the Department of Education by 72 percent in inflation-adjusted dollars.

Even with our unquestionable dedication to the programs in this bill over the last 12 years, Republicans stand accused by the Democratic majority of shortchanging fundamental research, shortchanging education, and according to the rhetoric of the day, shortchanging our very future. This rhetoric diminishes all that we do as elected officials, and it does not serve the Congress or our country well.

The primary difference is that Republicans believe that we must balance the benefits of these worthwhile programs with the fact that the American taxpayer must pay for them.

I know that Chairman Obey feels very strongly about the Labor-H bill. He is now working two full-time jobs as chairman of the full committee and chairman of this subcommittee. He has also devoted one-half of the $20 billion or so increase over the President's budget request in the fiscal year 2008 302(b) allocation to the priorities contained in this bill.

The fiscal year 2008 Labor-H bill is $10.2 billion over the President's budget request and $6.6 billion over the fiscal year 2007 enacted level. Chairman Obey has said repeatedly that it is necessary

to increase the subcommittee allocation dramatically to make up for the past funding shortfalls. But I remind the chairman that these programs have grown by $85 billion over the last 13 years.

When Labor-HHS Chairman Neil Smith, a Democrat, presented his bill in 1994, total discretionary budget authority totaled $65 billion. If he had predicted in 1994 that this very same bill, which largely covers the same agencies today as it did then, would increase by $85 billion over the next 13 years, the chairman of the full committee, who happened to be David Obey, probably would not have believed it.

By any objective standard, whether you are Jerry Lewis or David Obey, $85 billion is a healthy increase, and today the committee is poised to spend an additional $10.2 billion under the mistaken notion that throwing money at our Nation's problems will cause them to fade away.

While many of these programs are popular on both sides of the aisle, a $10.2 billion increase is not without consequence, particularly when this bill contains what can rightly be considered lower priority and duplicative programs. For example, the committee-reported bill provides $420 million in 2-year advance appropriations for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Most objective observers will agree that providing these resources may be nice to do, but it hardly measures up to providing health care services to the poorest of Americans in terms of its priority.

Furthermore, there are a host of programs in the bill that duplicate activities that are funded elsewhere, not just in this bill but in other appropriations bills as well. For example, this legislation continues three programs that deal with violence prevention; one in the Labor Department, another in the Department of Health and Human Services, the third in the Department of Education. There are additional programs within the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice that serve exactly the same purpose. Little real oversight was conducted to ferret out unnecessary and wasteful spending on these duplicative programs.

Yet another example is the funding the bill provides within the Administration for Children and Families for community economic development. According to this very committee report, these funds are intended to support employment, training, and business development opportunities for low-income residents in poor communities. Services that are already provided by the Department of Labor, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Economic Development Administration.

Surely the majority party could have met the very highest priority needs in this bill such as community health care centers or programs providing funding to educate youngsters living in poverty by eliminating duplicative programs or curtailing spending on lower priorities. Instead of making the tough choices between high- and low- priority programs or eliminating the duplication, this bill takes the easy way out: just spend more money.

The budget resolution adopted by the Democrat majority earlier this year and the appropriations bills that we are now considering spend some $23 billion more than the President requested. As we move forward with consideration of the fiscal year 2008 appropriations bills, Members of Congress ought to be aware that the average additional burden on the individual taxpayer to finance the spending spree outlined in the majority's budget will amount to roughly $3,000 to the individual taxpayer, $3,000.

I know it is difficult for many Members to oppose substantial increases in these popular programs; however, I remind Chairman Obey and our colleagues that these increases are not without consequence.

Make no mistake about it. Excessive spending will force the American taxpayer to shoulder the burden of this extra spending. And if past is prologue, we will continue to pass this debt along to future generations.

As we complete consideration of our work this week, the House will have approved an additional $20.4 billion in spending above the President's budget request for the next year. This level is $36.4 billion above the fiscal year 2007 enacted level.

So where is the Appropriations Committee in terms of getting its work done this year? It is July 17 and the House has five bills left to complete. The Senate has yet to take any of its bills to the floor and likely will not this month. Based on the present pace in both bodies, I have grave concern about our ability to complete our work this year through the regular order process.

Chairman Obey is fond of pointing out that the process in the House this year has been delayed by having to complete action on the fiscal year 2007 bills. It is no surprise that he often fails to mention the role that the Senate played in this equation. The Senate failed to complete its work last year, and today history is repeating itself.

It is ironically unfortunate that the same type of legislative train wreck is likely to occur again this year. The scenario is becoming more and more apparent with each passing day. While it is only July, if past experience is any guide, a warning is in order. Once again the Senate is showing absolutely no inclination or ability towards moving appropriations bills, setting up the inevitable end-of-the-year omnibus strategy.

My colleagues, it has not yet been stated in so many words, but this is, or soon will become, the strategy to complete our work this year. And mark my words, not only will most of our appropriations bills end up in an omnibus, it will be a well-adorned Christmas tree filled with plenty of legislative goodies, perfectly timed to coincide with the holidays.

I want to be very clear about this, an omnibus is absolutely the wrong and fiscally reckless approach to completing this year's work. It would inflate the budget deficit, reward bad behavior, and negate any semblance of fiscal discipline demonstrated by this body in recent years.

Short of passing our conference reports individually, the best alternative would be to once again pass a clean year-long continuing resolution at the current rate of fiscal year 2007 levels, and without Member projects. That is, of course, an undesirable option. But if at the end of the process the House and the Senate cannot complete their work in a responsible fashion, passing a clean CR will be the best option remaining to complete this year's work.

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

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

I'd like to begin my remarks by thanking Chairman Obey for his willingness to accommodate many of the programmatic requests that we made. I appreciate his attention to the concerns important to my constituents and to my State.

As you know, this is a very complex and demanding bill, and Chairman Obey's staff has done a fine job supporting him in this task. I also would like to recognize Steve Crane and Anne Marie Goldsmith from the minority office for their attention to detail in this legislation.

Let's make no mistake. This bill spends a great deal of money, approximately $6.5 billion more than last year in discretionary funding. But this bill addresses many of the most critical issues confronting our Nation--our families' health care, our children's education, our retirement security and our own workplace protection and job training needs.

If I were chairman, and I had this allocation, I'm not sure I would have written the bill a whole lot differently.

Specifically, this bill provides needed increases for community health centers. It advances my long-time efforts to advance funding for graduate medical education, of which my State, New York, trains 20 percent of the doctors in the Nation. So it is of critical importance to our teaching hospitals. And also the need for our Nation's poison control centers.

It funds important biomedical research, telemedicine and electronic medical records, which in the long run will dramatically reduce the cost of medical expenses.

It recognizes the need to provide seniors and those on fixed incomes with assistance paying high utility bills through the LIHEAP program. It continues Republican-led efforts to boost Federal funding for elementary and secondary education in support of the No Child Left Behind bill and also supporting programs for youth at risk. And thanks to my committee colleagues' support, the bill includes my amendment to boost funding for special education.

As most of you know, when the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act passed in 1977, Congress authorized annual Federal expenditures of 40 percent to help cover the cost of education for children with special needs. But in 1995 the Federal Government paid only 7.8 percent of those costs for our children with disabilities. That puts an additional burden on our local school districts. If we are only paying about 8 percent of the cost, that means they are forced to cover the other 92 percent instead of the 60 percent that we had told them they would have to cover. With this increase, we will provide just under 18 percent of the cost in 2008, or about half of our commitment. At least it is progress in the right direction.

This increased Federal support is important. Back in my home State of New York, the instructional expense for regular education for a student in 2003 and 2004 was $8,177 per student. For a special education student that cost was about double, $17,600. This bill boosts the maximum Pell Grant award to make a college education more attainable for more Americans, and it supports initiatives for senior health and wellness.

I am grateful to Chairman Obey for including funds to take care of the health needs of those who responded heroically, and in many cases putting their own health and lives at risk, to the September 11 terrorist attacks in New York City.

And I thank the chairman for responding to my request and attending to an issue of growing importance to more and more young American families: the emerging threat of food allergies. Food allergies more and more are affecting families across the country, and nobody really understands what is going on, why these allergies are occurring, but they do put these young people's lives at risk. This bill provides a new line of funding for research and outreach to parents of children with food allergies. While it is only a small amount of money that is necessary for the effort this year, the impact it will have is dramatic.

In addition, I have some concerns with the additional $2 billion in advance funding that was provided by the Budget Committee. My concern is that advance funding can cause serious problems if future allocations for this bill are not as robust.

With that said, again I would like to congratulate Chairman Obey and his staff for what I think on the whole is a well-written bill. I want to reiterate my appreciation for his willingness to work with us.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, at this time I yield such time as he may consume to my distinguished leader on the committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).

Madam Chairman, I now yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), former chairman of the committee.

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

Madam Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining?

Madam Chairman, I now yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida, a member of the subcommittee, Dr. Weldon.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the former Governor.

Madam Chairman, I reserve my time.

Madam Chairman, I continue to reserve my time.

Madam Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I thank the chairman of the committee. I have no further comments other than to say I enjoyed working with the chairman on this bill and his staff. I think we have a good work product here.

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

Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Madam Chairman, I'm also concerned about the matter raised by the gentleman from California. I understand that the Senate Appropriations Committee has included some language dealing with this issue in its committee report. I can assure the gentleman that we'll continue to work on this matter as we conference the bill.