Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3043) making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes.

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, frankly, I am looking for my ranking minority member. But until he gets here let me take a little time and say that I would simply suggest to the gentleman, if he thinks this is a good idea, that he take this idea up with the President of the United States.

What this committee has tried to do both on this subcommittee and on the Foreign Operations Subcommittee is to respect and work with the administration in their effort to provide global leadership to deal with the AIDS epidemic around the world. And the fact is that this item in this bill is a critical piece of the President's program.

Given our disarray around the world because of Iraq, I think it is a wonderful exception when we can be seen to be providing constructive leadership in the world on something. And certainly, although I have many differences with the President, this is one area where I think he has exercised significant leadership.

And I think it would undercut our standing yet again in the world if we were to withdraw this funding.

I just think that we've struck a good balance with respect to this program. I think both subcommittees have tried to see to it that we meet our international responsibilities.

You and I are very lucky human beings. Our souls were, thanks to God, infused in a body that lives in the United States. If they had been infused in a body that was born in Africa or in Asia or in some of the other hot spots in the world in terms of these diseases, I think we would take a look at this issue in a quite different way.

This program provides the only real leadership in the world to attack this program. I think it would be a horrendous mistake if we were to adopt the gentleman's amendment. I would urge defeating the amendment.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

Let me simply say that we sort of feel like we're caught in the middle of this one because Mr. Lewis, the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, gave us a lecture yesterday about how we should avoid duplicative programs.

Then, today, this amendment would have the effect of creating in one department a program that is virtually identical to a program that already exists in another department. So we can't win, no matter how we deal with the issue. I don't care which agency this is in. I just want it to be wherever it would be run the most efficiently and effectively.

I am certainly willing to discuss with anybody involved in the issue how we resolve this issue. We didn't put it in in the first place. It was put in by, as you know, a person from your party from your own State.

So we are happy to work with all of you, but I don't want to get cross-wised between two people from the same State. I don't want to be standing here accepting an amendment that creates a duplicative program.

So I think the most constructive result would be if the gentleman would withdraw his amendment and we try to work this out down the line, so that if it is not in the right place, we can talk about how to get it in the right place.

If the gentleman will yield further, if I can simply say again, on this side of the aisle I feel like I am being whipsawed. This was in the other bill because we were trying to accommodate a Republican Member of the House who felt strongly that it ought to be in that bill. Now we are being criticized by another Republican from the same State because we accommodated the other Republican. I can't go in both directions at the same time, which is why I don't seek to have this program in any department. I don't care where it is.

I would just as soon that you settle your differences with your colleague from your own State, and when you have, come and see me. I will try to work with whoever is the winner of the rassling match.

Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chairman, I understand the motivation behind this amendment. The gentleman wants to provide additional funding for a very legitimate purpose. It is something we should have done a long time ago, and I understand that. But having said that, I am simply tired of having to defend administrative accounts from people on both sides of the aisle.

So I am not going to object to the amendment, but I do want to point out to the gentleman, as I will point out to many other Members who offer similar amendments today, that this committee is being whipsawed. We are being told by the White House that there is too much money in this bill, yet virtually every amendment that has been offered, save one, has been motivated principally by a desire to increase rather than decrease funds in this bill. This is another similar amendment. While I recognize that it has an offset, it is a ``let's pretend'' offset, just like a number of the offsets were last night.

Anybody who understands how government works needs to understand that if an agency is a grant-making agency and if you gut its administrative budget, then there ain't going to be nobody in the agency to issue the grants in the first place. Therefore, I want Members who offer these amendments to understand that even if they are accepted, when we go to conference we are going to have to make very large adjustments, and a lot of what is adopted on the House floor, if it is based on some of these ``let's pretend'' offsets, will in fact wind up on the cutting room floor by the time we get back from conference. That is just a practical fact of life.

Madam Chairman, as I say, I will not object to the gentleman's amendment, but I don't want anyone to be under any illusion that we can fund all of these additional wonderful things by simply going to the administrative budgets of the agencies, because occasionally you need somebody in that office to turn on the light.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Drone on, drone on, O ship of State. That's what I'm tempted to recite when I hear these repetitious dronings on bill after bill after bill.

Let me simply say, I think it is legitimate for individual Members of this body to offer amendments in order to illustrate their concern about a larger question. I've done that many times myself in this institution.

But I think that after 3 weeks of hearing the same point made again and again, we understand that these gentlemen believe that we are putting too much money into education and health care and science and other areas that we regard as crucial investments, and that's a perfectly legitimate position to have. But please spare me the sanctimony, spare me the nonsense that somehow these amendments will contribute in any meaningful way to significant deficit reduction.

Let me simply point out, if people were interested in significant deficit reduction, they would not be supporting an Iraqi war which has already spent over $400 billion and which we'll spend another 140 billion bucks by the time we pass the President's supplemental. They would not be insisting that we provide $57 billion in tax cuts to people making a million bucks a year. No, they don't argue about those two things.

What do they do? They come to the floor and squawk about an $8 million program to help the poorest rural communities in this country get basic services like sewer and water. I represent many towns in my District with populations of less than a thousand people. At least half the households in many of those towns are headed either by senior citizens or a woman with a low income, and that means that when they get hit with the DNR order to clean up their water or clean up their sewer, they do not have the tax base to proceed, and they don't have technical expertise even to know how to begin going about it.

We've got a $385 billion backlog in this country of sewer and water needs, and yet we're hearing these complaints about this tiny little program and what terrible abuse it is for the taxpayer.

Imagine a congressional committee trying to do something to help poor communities deal with their sewer and water problems. Isn't that awful? Isn't that wasteful? Good God, Almighty, we ought to be putting that $8 million into the pockets of millionaires in additional tax cuts, right? At least that's what their record shows they believe. Nonsense.

I'm getting up once on this amendment, but I don't intend to continually get up in what is a filibuster by amendment. So I wanted to get that off my chest once, and then I'm just going to sit back and let people drone on, drone on, O ship of State, and occasionally I might even listen.

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

Madam Chairman, again, I feel required to make the same comments that I made on a previous amendment that was offered about one-half hour ago.

This amendment seeks to do a very worthy thing: It seeks to increase support for respite care. God knows, having watched my mother-in-law for 7 years, having watched my father-in-law take care of her every day, God knows that anyone who has ever seen something like that understands that we need a lot more respite care.

But having said that, I want again to use this amendment to illustrate what is happening on this bill, because here is what the amendment says:

Page 63, line 4: After the first dollar amount insert, reduce by $20 million, increase by $20 million.

Now, what the amendment really does is simply to serve as a vehicle by which these two worthy Members can raise the issue that there is not enough money in this bill for respite care. And you know what? There isn't. And there isn't enough money in this bill for CDC; there isn't enough money in this bill for NIH; there isn't enough money in this bill for education; there isn't enough money in this bill for Pell Grants; there is not enough money in this bill to sufficiently reduce the Social Security backlog; there is not enough money in this bill to keep all the Social Security offices open that are closing around the country. And, yet, the administration is sending out a letter telling Members of Congress that they ought to vote against this bill because there is too much money.

Now, I don't fault the two gentlemen at all for using this device in order to raise their concerns; it is about the only thing they can do. But the fact is, as chairman of this committee, I have an obligation to point out to the House and to the occasional other person who might be listening that Members are being forced to go through these kinds of machinations because instead of meeting our obligations to the most needy people, the most vulnerable people in this society, we are instead squirting away billions of dollars on an Iraq war and billions more dollars in tax cuts for persons who make over $1 million a year.

The day that we decide not to do that, the day that we decide that we are not going to spend $150 billion more in Iraq this year, the day that we decide that we are not going to put tax cuts for millionaires ahead of the needs of our disabled and ahead of the needs of our isolated seniors, then that is the day when amendments like this will be real, because then there will be sufficient room in the budget to do what we ought to be doing on these programs.

Again, I will not stand in the way of this amendment because it is a worthy cause. But, understand, this is not a real offset; it doesn't add any new money to this account; and when we go to conference, we are going to have to jettison much of what is adopted on the floor because, like this amendment, in reality, because of budget constraints, it ain't real.

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

Madam Chairman, let me simply say again, as I have several times today, I am sympathetic to the goal of the gentlewoman's amendment, and I appreciate the fact that she did not craft her amendment in a way which would go after general departmental administrative costs. I appreciate that concession on the part of the gentlewoman.

Having said that, again, I will not personally object to the amendment because I understand what she is trying to do. But I definitely want to make clear what the gentleman from New York said, that there's only so far that you can cut any of these programs.

I happen to have insisted on a very deep cut in Reading First because of the abuse that occurred of the taxpayer funds in that account. But having said that, it's our hope that, frankly, and the House needs to know this, it's our hope that by the time we get to conference, we will have worked out enough of an understanding with the administration about the corrections that are needed so that we don't have to take the deep cuts that are in the bill now. But we are not yet at that point, so I think people who are bringing these amendments to the floor need to understand that many of them will not survive, simply for the same reason that I said earlier, that this bill is still short of the funds necessary to fund deserving programs such as that pointed out by the gentlewoman from Texas.

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

Madam Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.

Would the gentleman yield?

I want to underscore that I agree with my friend from New York and to emphasize that in parts of my own State, school districts face similar problems. In fact, I would bet this problem exists all over the country.

Furthermore, I understand that school districts face a similar issue with respect to the test scores of students receiving special education services. So I'd like to suggest to the gentleman from New York that we sign a joint letter to the authorizing committee requesting that they address this serious issue in the No Child Left Behind reauthorization that they're expected to soon consider.

Madam Chairman, I must confess a certain degree of confusion about this amendment. I always had the impression that good Republicans like block grants, and I also had the impression that thoughtful Republicans favor as much local control as possible. And yet this amendment would have us running in the opposite direction.

What this amendment would do is it would take the dollars in question out of a program which provides aid to all States in the Union and instead reserve that money for use in just the few States who have bought into the approach that is supported by these two gentlemen.

One of my favorite quotations is from Eric Sevareid, who used to be on CBS News a few years ago, and he said, ``It is important to maintain the courage of one's doubts in an age of dangerous certainties.''

And I have to say that I have a lot of doubts about what is the most effective way to teach children. I don't think I have all the answers. I don't think this House has all the answers. So I don't think we ought to be dictating to States what answers they seek in their teacher quality programs.

The virtue of the committee approach, as opposed to the approach suggested by the amendment, is that States can use the money in the block grant as it is provided in the committee bill and they can use it for any variety of techniques, including the one that is being promoted by the two gentlemen pushing this amendment. It seems to me that at a time when we are already questioning the rigidity of No Child Left Behind, and I must confess I voted for No Child Left Behind but with serious reservations and I will not vote to renew it unless those reservations are corrected, but it just seems to me that at a time when we are recognizing that No Child Left Behind is needlessly rigid, we should not be piling on to that rigidity with additional pieces of our own.

So with that I would simply urge Members to allow States to continue to have the flexibility that they have under the committee approach, and I would urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

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

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chairman, if my ears did not deceive me, I think I heard the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee either observe or lament that with one exception, every amendment offered on this bill, its purpose was to increase

spending. If that was a lamentation, I certainly share his angst. Not wanting to disappoint, I am coming to the floor with several amendments that are designed to do just the opposite, spend less of the people's money to try to save hardworking American taxpayers more, let them keep more of what they earned.

Now, Madam Chairman, this is a modest amendment, but it represents a very, very important principle. Today, right now, the Federal Government is spending $23,289 per family. This is the highest level spent in real inflation-adjusted terms since World War II.

Earlier this year, the Democrat budget resolution included the largest single tax increase in American history which when fully put in place would put $3,000, an average of $3,000, additional tax burden on the average American family. And now even if Congress were for some reason to just disband today and add no new government, just the government programs we have on automatic pilot threaten to double taxes on the next generation. So we need to find every opportunity that we can today to save the poor beleaguered taxpayer even more money.

Madam Chairman, I do not myself know exactly how many Federal programs exist. I have seen one estimate, I believe, from the Heritage Foundation that we have over 10,000 Federal programs spread across 600 different agencies. I defy any man, woman or child to tell me what each and every one of them does. Some of them I am sure do good things; but the question is given the fiscal challenges that we face, are they truly a priority.

Madam Chairman, some may have even completed their mission. And some, perhaps like the amendment that I am offering today, are actually duplicative. This is a modest amendment that would save the American taxpayer $8 million. In this particular program, ostensibly, funding is used for training and technical assistance in developing and managing water facilities. But the Office of Management and Budget has recommended that this particular program be eliminated, stating that ``the program is duplicative of other Federal entities such as the Bureau of Reclamation's rural water program which is responsible for water and wastewater treatment facilities.'' That is from the Office of Management and Budget.

So we ought to make sure that we are not simply engaging in legislation by symbolism. I know every single program has a lofty- sounding name to help some constituency that is important to us. But we have to look beyond that and see if it is actually achieving its purpose, are there other programs that are also achieving its purpose as well. And according to the Office of Management and Budget, this program is duplicative of other programs.

So we have to ask ourselves a very important question. In light of the fact that the Federal Government has never ever spent since World War II so much money of the American family, $23,289, given that the Democrat budget resolution includes the single largest tax increase in history, given that although the national deficit has come down, not due to any spending discipline but due to the fact that we are awash in tax revenues, we still have a tax deficit. So it is a simple question: Do we want to fund a program that the administration considers duplicative given that if we don't, either the funds are coming from the Social Security trust fund, and many of my colleagues have pledged not to do that, if it is not coming from that, it is going to add to this $3,000-per-American-family tax burden, or more debt will be passed on to our children.

I believe we ought to use this opportunity to eliminate one duplicative Federal program and return $8 million to the American taxpayer.

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

If I was not clear, this amendment would save the American taxpayer $8 million. It would remove a duplicative program, according to OMB, the Rural Community Facilities Program. I don't need a minute to explain what the amendment does. That is it. I certainly apologize to my colleague if I was unclear as to the purpose of the amendment or how it operates.

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chairman, I listened intently to the distinguished chairman of the committee, as

I do whenever he is on the floor. Apparently he does not like amendments that increase spending in this bill, and apparently he doesn't like amendments that decrease the spending in the bill. So apparently he doesn't like amendments. So that much is clear.

Second of all, Madam Chairman, when I come down to the floor in efforts to try to save taxpayers money, let them keep more money for their education programs, their health care programs, their energy programs, sometimes we're told that, well, this is so draconian, you know, to try to save this much money. And then other times we're told, well, this is just a piddling little amount.

Well, I'm reminded first of a famous quote from the late Senator Everett Dirksen, a billion here, a billion there, pretty soon we're talking about real money. I'm even talking about more modest amounts today.

But there's a fundamental principle involved here, and the fundamental principle is that we have a Federal budget growing way beyond the ability of the family budget to pay for it. Make no mistake about it, Madam Chairman, government will be paid for. It's either going to be paid for in the short term by continuing to raid the Social Security Trust Fund, which is what's going to happen if this particular amendment fails. It will be funded by the single largest tax increase in American history which my friends on the other side of the aisle, the Democrat majority, has done in their budget, or perhaps it may even be funded by sending more debt to our children and grandchildren.

I think we should look for every opportunity. Given the challenges that we face, the Comptroller General of America has said we are on the verge of being the first generation in America's history to leave the next generation with a lower standard of living. Never happened before in the history of America.

So, Madam Chairman, I make no apologies for, to use the distinguished chairman's term, droning on about what fiscal perils lay in wait for future generations if we don't start now. And then, again, it's a little bit like Goldilocks and the three bears. Either the porridge is too hot or the porridge is too cold. When is the porridge just right to try to save the family budget from the onslaught of the Federal budget?

So when we have the Office of Management and Budget single out a number of different programs, and I certainly think that their expertise in this area is great, to single out certain programs that, one, have outlived their usefulness; number two, are not meeting their objective; or number three, are duplicative, I think amendments are in order for the people's House to save the people money.

We have to quit engaging again in the fact of legislation by symbolism. It has a lofty name or it has a lofty purpose, well, let's look at what's actually happening to the money.

So this is a modest amendment, and I admit it's modest. I've tried to save big chunks of money and haven't been terribly successful there, and so we're going to attempt to save little chunks of money and perhaps set a precedent here.

So this amendment is designed to save the American taxpayer $5 million by hopefully zeroing out the account of a program which the Office of Management and Budget has said does not have performance standards. They do not have performance standards to assess their impact or are too narrowly focused to have a major benefit. They duplicate other Federal programs and award grants on a noncompetitive basis.

Now, ostensibly this program is a job opportunities program for low- income individuals, but I happen to know that practically every single one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle voted against the tax relief that has created 8 million new jobs in our economy, which is an undeniable fact. That's truly the best job opportunity program for low-income individuals.

And I know that this body recently voted against the maximum opportunity to create an artificial wage to deny some people their opportunity to get on the lowest rung of the economic ladder.

There's a lot of ways that we can help low-income people with job opportunities, but one more duplicative program that awards grants on a noncompetitive basis is not it. Let's not raid the Social Security Trust Fund. Let's not be a part of the largest single tax increase in American history. Let's save the American people $5 million.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chairman, again we have another modest amendment aiming at saving the American taxpayer, in this case $21.4 million. Again, we have a program that has a very lofty name, Preventive Health under the Administration of Aging. But I think that, again, the program needs to be put in the larger context.

We are being asked now to provide in this particular appropriations bill $152 billion in discretionary funding, one of the largest bills that will come to the people's House. It has, I believe, a 4.8 percent increase over last year, when I assure you, American families who are being asked to pay for this did not enjoy a 4.8 percent increase.

We, once again, have another portion of the Federal budget growing beyond the ability of the family budget to pay for this. So we all know that this is a part of a plan that will increase an additional $26 billion for domestic programs under the budget resolution of the Democrat majority, on top of the $6 billion that has been added to the current year omnibus, on top of the $17 billion in nonwar emergency spending they have added to the Iraq war supplemental.

Again, I recall the words of the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, referring to those of us who may drone on about attempting to save the Federal taxpayer money, but there are also those who seemingly use the same old argument that government knows how to spend money better than the American family.

Somehow, if we take money away from American families, that's an investment. But if they somehow keep it, well, that's waste, or somehow that's going to bring down the government to its knees. I just don't buy that argument. Somehow we are supposed to believe in the roughly 10,000 Federal programs spread across 600 different agencies, growing at roughly twice the rate of inflation, growing beyond the ability of the family budget to pay for it, that somehow, somehow, every single penny of Federal expenditures is sacrosanct.

Yet there is nothing sacrosanct about the money we take away from the American people to pay for that.

Now, the funds in this particular program are awarded to States and territories that supposedly educate older Americans about the importance of healthy lifestyles, a very noble purpose. But I would note with the exception of, I think, two, maybe three States, every single one of them is running a surplus.

We are granting money to 95, 98 percent of the States that are running the surplus, while the Federal Government continues to run a deficit. Although that deficit is coming down because we are awash in tax revenues, it certainly hasn't been from any spending disciplines. The bottom line is we are running a deficit, and we are handing out money to States that are running surpluses.

Again, this is a program that the Office of Management and Budget says should not be funded: ``It is duplicative of services that States can provide to the Administration on Aging's community-based supportive services program.''

I have heard nobody address or take the opposite viewpoint of OMB and say the program is duplicative. So maybe they approve of duplication. If they think that OMB has got it wrong, I would be interested in hearing that particular argument or that particular debate.

Furthermore, OMB says that AOA and visions integrating, prevention is an underlying principle in its core programs and that is better than the current mechanism of providing a small funding stream of unfocused seed money through the Preventive Health Services Program. Again, I feel we have too much legislation by symbolism.

We should never forget, when we are talking about the lofty purposes, that this will provide in vital investments and health care. Let's remember the vital investments in health care that the American people have. I mean, they are going to have to pay for this.

Again, I often hear from my constituents, like Joyce in Tennessee Colony, Texas, says, ``Please do what you can to stop the wasteful spending. I am retired and disabled. I am raising my three grandchildren and now one great grandchild. I sometimes can't afford my own medicine.''

So here we have a choice. We can take money away from Joyce in Tennessee Colony, take money away from her health care program, to engage in this particular program which OMB says is duplicative.

I have heard from David in the city of Garland.

Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia, the sponsor of the amendment.

Madam Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his leadership. I compliment him on the amendment. I urge its adoption.

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

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.