Floor Statements

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

Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to say that I am pleased to see that the proposed amendment was withdrawn, but I just needed to respond to one thing that one of the previous speakers said. I believe it was the gentleman from Virginia who indicated his disquiet about the committee provision because he said this goes to ``one of the pillars of the administration's management policy.''

That may be, but I think it is worthy to note that the administration's initiative runs the risk of screwing up one of the pillars of American excellence, which is the National Park Service. To me the value of keeping the National Park Service whole without outsourcing many vital activities of the Park Service is that you, first of all, maintain the institutional memory that comes from that dedicated service. You maintain the passion for the mission of the National Park system, which is I think part of the appeal to virtually every American citizen who visits one of the crown jewels of this country's heritage.

I think it is also worth noting that the park system lives off the volunteer activities of thousands of Americans

who give their time and service to help fill in the gaps in making certain that those parks are fully open to everyone. I think it is obvious, and I know I have heard many volunteers say, look, I give hours and hours of time to the parks, but I would not give one hour of time simply to improve the profitability of a corporation.

I appreciate the gentleman's desire for some flexibility on this, and I know that the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) means what he says on that score, but I would hope that the administration will take a second look at what they are doing with respect to the Park Service. Because if there is one institution in which the public has confidence, I think it is the National Park Service.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. Chairman, in addition to the Park Service, I think there are many other agencies that are just as professional and just as crucial, such as the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and many others. I marvel at the quality of individuals who are in many of those jobs throughout the country.

The parks are a spectacular national asset, and I think we have to take great care before we mess something up. If ever we ought to follow the rule ``If it ain't broke, don't fix it,'' we ought to follow it with respect to the Park Service, the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management and many other services who have incredibly dedicated employees, at least as dedicated as any of us are.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I would simply say I would join both gentlemen in saying that some of these amendments I guess I would refer to as the ``anything you can do, I can do better'' amendments. It sometimes seems that no matter what the committee will do someone will want to move a dollar and a half around in order to make a political point. That is legitimate. Sometimes I do it. But I think we need to recognize it for what it is. There is no reason we ought to be robbing Peter to pay Paul. We ought to be funding both of these accounts adequately, and I would expect that by the time the bill works its way through the process, we will.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I would simply like to note a few facts.

This is a bill that I happen to oppose, and yet we are trying to work with the majority to speed up consideration of the bill because we think it would suit everyone's interests if the bill is completed around eight o'clock tonight rather than eight o'clock tomorrow morning.

I would also like to point out that at the request of the majority, we in the minority withheld amendments during the consideration of every appropriations bill so far at the subcommittee level except for one. We have also agreed to consideration of two bills, even though the GPO did not provide copies of the legislation as late as last Friday.

The military construction bill was completed in 1 hour, with procedural cooperation from both sides. The Department of Defense bill was completed in a similar length of time; and in the process, the minority also cooperated in bypassing the need to have a rule.

Three of the six bills that have been brought up so far have been brought up by unanimous consent, thereby saving everyone time in terms of the need to go to the Committee on Rules. Those unanimous consent agreements limited amendments and limited time for consideration of those amendments. So I think it is fair to say that we have helped the majority greatly run the trains on time, even if we have on occasion disagreed with the contents in the boxcars.

I simply wanted to take the time to point those facts out because of some of the comments that I have heard the last 3 days from some Members of the majority about the ``lack of cooperation'' from the minority. I think there has been extraordinary cooperation, even though we have differed with the number of bills; and even though, for instance, on the labor-health bill last week we voted unanimously in opposition to it, we still cooperated in accommodating the majority in terms of schedule.

So I simply want to take note of that. I am glad we have finally gotten to this UC. I do not have any objection to it; but Mr. Speaker, I wanted to make clear and put in the record what the facts have been with respect to cooperation between the two parties on these procedural matters.

I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to observe, we have just been told by the distinguished chairman that we ought to keep our word when we make deals. If that were the case, this bill would contain $570 million more for the conservation programs that this committee and the Congress agreed that they would fund at that level 3 years ago.

So if we want to keep deals, let us start with the big one, baby. Let us start with the one that guarantees that we are going to provide the $570 million that this House said it was going to provide 3 years ago when it was avoiding an entitlement.

The gentleman from Alaska was the sponsor of CARA; and we all signed on to, as a substitute to CARA instead, to provide a guaranteed funding level for those conservation programs.

So I do not want to hear any lectures, not this late at night, about keeping our word, for God's sake. Start with that one.

I yield to the gentleman from Utah.

What does that have to do with keeping your word?

Mr. Speaker, in 1964 when this country decided to allow oil drilling in the offshore oil lands, the decision was made to dedicate about $900 million a year from those receipts to what was called the Land and Water Conservation Fund. And the problem is that through the years Congress then decided not to keep that commitment. And so by about 3 years ago, we had had about a $13 billion surplus built up in that fund. So about 3 years ago, 315 Members of this House, over my objection, 315 Members of this House voted for what was known as CARA. It was a proposal to take programs for Federal lands acquisition, for State wildlife grants, forests legacy historic preservation, urban parks, you name it, and turn those programs into entitlements which means that regardless of the budget conditions, they would have been funded at a specific level.

I opposed that. I thought we ought to be able to make conservation programs a priority without making them an entitlement. In the end, I won the argument; and we had an agreement that was entered into by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), who then chaired the Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies; by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), who is the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies; myself and several others which said, okay, we are not going to make it an entitlement, but over the next 6 years we are going to first double the amount of money that we were providing for these activities and then provide regularly scheduled increases until that program could go up from $1.6 billion to $2.4 billion.

For the first 2 years Congress kept the agreement. In the omnibus appropriation bill last year, however, the Committee on Appropriations broke its word; and it walked away from that agreement; and this bill is now $570 million below where it would be if the committee had kept its word.

At the time that we established that agreement 3 years ago, I told the House, I promised the House that if the day ever came that the Committee on Appropriations welched on the deal that I would then, as a point of honor, change my position and support making these programs entitlements because the Committee on Appropriations would have demonstrated that you could not trust it because they would not keep their word; and I am sorry to say that that is where I am at today.

So what I am going to ask the House to do today is to turn down this rule, to vote against the previous question

on the rule, so that I may be allowed to offer an amendment which will see to it that Congress keeps its promise and would provide $570 million in additional funds into those programs.

We would pay for it by reducing the size of the tax cuts for people who have incomes of over $1 million a year. We would reduce the size of those tax cuts from the $88,000 those folks are supposed to get to $85,000. So for a $3,000 reduction in the size of the tax cut that people who are earning more than $1 million a year would get, we could have Congress keep its promise on this critical national program.

This is more than just a theoretical debate about programs. This deals with real problems. It deals with the fact, for instance, that there are nine acres in Valley Forge that will be developed and lost forever unless we do something to acquire that land this year; and it means similar problems will be faced in Yellowstone, in Grand Teton, and in a number of our other national parks. It also means that we will not be keeping our word in terms of dealing with the maintenance backlog of our national parks.

So I would ask the House very simply to follow the advice of then candidate George W. Bush who said in the Presidential debate just a few months ago, ``We ought to fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund and provide half of that money to the States.'' The President of the United States recognized the need to do this. The Congress itself recognized the need to do it when it signed on to the compromise agreement 3 years ago. We ought to keep our word. We especially ought to keep our word to each other.

So I would urge the House to vote against the previous question on the rule so that we can endeavor to do just that.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, I am simply going to repeat most of what I said about 40 minutes ago with the sure understanding that almost nobody was listening the first time and perhaps I might catch some more ears this time.

I would very much like to vote for this bill. It has, through the years, been one of my favorite bills in this place; but I am not able to and still keep my word to this institution.

As I said earlier to the House, in 1964 when the country decided that we were going to begin offshore oil drilling, an agreement was made to put about $900 million dollars a year of that revenue into preservation of key pieces of land around the country with the Federal Government and the States both participating in protecting that land.

The problem is over the years that commitment was not kept and gradually about a $13 billion surplus was built up in that funds. That is why 3 years ago 315 Members of this House passed what was known as the CARA legislation. And what that was was an attempt to make that prior understanding finally a reality by turning

funding for a number of those conservation programs into entitlements.

I opposed that. I thought we ought to be able to make conservation a high priority without turning it into an entitlement superior on claims to the Treasury on items like education or health care for that matter. I did not think they were superior. I thought they should be considered equal. And folks who had those beliefs, folks who had my beliefs essentially won the debate or at least we won the argument, and we shook hands on an agreement. And under that agreement, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), myself, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) on the minority side of the aisle, at that time serving as chairman of this subcommittee, agreed that we would double funding for those conservation programs and then over time have increments that would raise funding to $2.4 billion.

We did that in order to stave off an entitlement; and for the first 2 years this committee stuck to the agreement. But in the omnibus appropriations bill last year, the committee backed away from that agreement; and this bill takes us some $570 million below that agreement; and that is why I cannot support the bill as it stands.

We tried in the rule to have the rule defeated so that we would have an opportunity to add that $570 million to the bill and to pay for it by reducing by $3,000 the tax cut that is scheduled to go to people who make over a million dollars a year in this country. We would have reduced that tax cut from $88,000 to $85,000, making hardly a dent in it. I think most people in that bracket would have gladly said, look, the national parks and national forests are a high priority. By all means, make those changes. But the House did not do it; and so in my view at this point, this bill cannot be repaired as far as I am concerned because I believe, above all else, in keeping my word.

I promised people on the other side of the debate 3 years ago that if the Committee on Appropriations did not stick to the deal that I would change my position and instead support making these programs an entitlement, and so from this point on that is where I stand on this issue.

I must say I am deeply distressed that my committee saw fit not to keep the agreement they entered into 3 years ago. That was not an authorization agreement that was entered into 3 years ago. That was an appropriations agreement. And the Committee on Appropriations, as one of the great committees of this House, ought to keep its word. It has not on this bill, and that is why, regardless of other changes in the bill, I cannot vote for this bill as it presently stands.

I recognize some people have other considerations, but I believe it is important that we keep our word to each other and that we keep our word to the American people. This bill is going to be seriously short; and, as a result, we will lose our ability to preserve and set aside forever key pieces of land in places such as Yellowstone, Grand Teton, nine key acres in Valley Forge. It is a shame, but that is what this House has come to on this issue.

Mr. Chairman, I offer amendments.

Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do.

Mr. Chairman, I have already described in my previous remarks the content of this amendment. This amendment seeks to restore funding consistent with the agreement that the Congress entered into 3 years ago with respect to the conservation programs that I cited earlier. The rule that was adopted for consideration of this bill did not protect this amendment from a point of order. Nonetheless, I would like to proceed.

It is up to the majority to decide whether they want to exercise their ability under the rule to preclude the consideration of this amendment by objecting. I would hope they would not because I think that it is in the interest of this House to keep its word and I think it is in the interest of this country to fund these conservation programs. But if the gentleman does lodge a point of order against the amendment, I will have to readily concede the point of order.

Point of Order

Mr. Chairman, I regret that the point of order has been lodged because I think the committee ought to live up to its word, but I concede the point of order in light of the rule adopted by the House.

Mr. Chairman, frankly, this bill is a mixed bag. We have a number of items in this bill that I support; but as is the case with so many other appropriations this year, our ability to do many things to help strengthen the economy of rural America is substantially crippled by the fact that our majority friends in this House have already decided to put all of their eggs in the tax cut basket, and that means that there is very little available for a variety of other activities whether we are talking about education or health care or in the case of this bill whether we are talking about rural sewer and water grants, rural development programs, FDA, name it.

I am distressed by some of these reductions. The gentlewoman from Ohio has already mentioned them. But just as examples, I would again cite inadequate funding for farm loans, for rural development, for rural water and sewer, for distance learning and telemedicine. We have $540 million in limitation on mandatory programs, and there are a number of other items.

But I would like to address just two other points. Number one, I am distressed that this bill contains language which prevents labeling for meat, country-of-origin labeling. I think our domestic producers have a right to be able to communicate to our domestic consumers whether or not food products are produced in this country or somewhere else. I think our consumers have a right to know that information, and I think that very clearly our special interests have weighed in and seen to it that this House will not do its duty to the public by preserving that labeling.

Secondly, I would like to discuss for a moment the amendment which purports to allow the reimportation of drugs into this country by senior citizens and some others. That is a well-meaning amendment, I will grant, and in the past I have been tempted on some occasions to support it myself. But I would simply point out that I think that this amendment is not likely to produce the effect that some would hope. First of all, the law requires that for a drug to be reimported it has to meet certain standards, and the problem is that our domestic pharmaceutical companies are very clever, and they can find hundreds of ways to prevent those drugs from meeting reimportation standards. They can prevent the use of a label which would meet U.S. standards and, therefore, prevent reimportation of a drug.

They can omit language required in the U.S. on those labels as an easy way to prevent those drugs from being reimported. They can put a drug in a form that is not time released when it is provided in the United States that it be in a time-released form. And so there are many ways which the intent of this language can be frustrating.

Secondly, I do not believe that this provision will have any significant impact on overall drug prices still charged to American consumers. And there are a number of other reasons which I will not take the time of the House now to go into, which make it quite clear that while this proposal is aimed at enabling seniors to reimport those drugs, the fact is that our domestic manufacturers, I think, are going to easily frustrate this language.

So I would say to the Members to vote however they are going to vote on it. It is not going to have much effect. I respect the intention, but that is about it. But I would simply say that if we want to do something real on prescription drugs, we will simply pass an expanded reliable, adequate, affordable prescription drug benefit under Medicare so that none of our seniors are reduced to the necessity to drive to Canada every couple of months to get a supply. That is what this Congress would do if it was not owned lock, stock and barrel by the pharmaceutical industry on this issue, but unfortunately it is and so it will not. And we will be stuck with these very tepid alternatives to meaningful action.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to observe one thing. The history of this country has demonstrated that every time there is an effort to provide additional regulation or additional oversight in order to help workers or help farmers, or to help little guys against the big guys, somehow it is always too costly. We cannot provide the minimum wage, we cannot provide wage and hour protection, or this or that because it is going to cost too much.

Well, I would bet if we conducted a poll of consumers, that they would, by overwhelming numbers, say that they want this provision to go forward. We have a tremendous debate in this country going on about the virtues of globalization. As far as I am concerned, globalization is inevitable; it is going to happen, and we need to figure out how to adjust to it. But I also note that in that debate you have numerous forces in this country who under the rubric of globalization would lead you to believe that there is still no legitimate amount of room for discussing the virtues and values of home-grown products, whether it is automobiles or farm products.

I suggest to Members that even if we take the assertion of the gentleman from Texas at face value, and I do, let us say that this is not a consumer health issue, let us say this is not a food-safety issue, let us say it is simply a marketing issue.

This is a marketing tool that our producers have a right to have. This is a marketing tool that I assume is the reason that the Farm Bureau and the Farmers Union both have indicated their support for this provision. Our consumers want to know where the stuff that they eat comes from and our farmers want to know that they can demonstrate pride that it is their home grown product. This amendment is the only way that we are going to let them exercise that right.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during debate on H.R. 2660, I may be allowed to revise and extend my remarks, and insert extraneous and tabular material in one instance immediately after my initial statement on the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 12 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, the last 2 years the Republican majority has pushed $2 trillion in tax cuts through this House. A huge percentage of those cuts have been focused on the top 1 percent of earners in this country who make over 100,000 bucks a year. For those 2 years, the Republican Party has pretended that there are no costs associated with those tax cuts. Well, there are, and on this bill is where those costs become evident. This is where the chickens come home to roost.

Cost number one is $26 billion a year in additional interest payments that our taxpayers will have to pay next year because every single dollar of the tax cut that was passed was paid for with borrowed money.

The second cost that is incurred is that because all of the dollars have been put into tax cuts, ``ain't no more money left'' for Medicare fix-ups, ``ain't no more money left'' to do a real as opposed to a ``let's pretend'' prescription drug program, and there isn't nearly enough money left to make the necessary investments that American families depend upon in the education and health care and worker protection area, and this is where those consequences show up on this bill.

Now, what are the deficiencies? First of all, the Republican budget, which was the enabling legislation which enabled the tax cuts to come to this floor, the Republican budget resolution promised Republican moderates, in return for their votes on the budget resolution, they promised that Title I, which is the main education program that we use to help kids who need some help to stay abreast, they promised that Title I would be funded at $1 billion above last year. This bill contains the broken promise because this bill funds Title I $340 million below the amount promised in the Republican's own budget resolution.

Special education. Both parties compete with each other and claim how much they are in love with special education programs. Well, the Republican majority promised $2.2 billion in additional funding for special education if those moderates would just vote for that bill. Now, you bring the actual bill to the floor, and I said yesterday it is apparent the check is not in the mail because this bill is $1.2 billion short of the Republican promise in the budget resolution on that score. That is broken promise number two.

There is another way to measure it. The President, when he came into office, said, ``Oh, he was not going to spend any more money on education until we reformed the programs.'' So we reformed the programs in the No Child Left Behind Act, all kinds of promises to the States and the local school districts, all kinds of mandates. That bill was the mother of all mandates, and yet today, if you take a look at how this bill or those programs compares to the funding schedule in that bill, this bill is $8 billion short, $8 billion short.

Then if you take a look at some of the details, after-school programs, now I know my good friend from Ohio is a strong supporter of those programs, but this bill is $750 million short of the No Child Left Behind promise for after-school programs.

Student aid: Pell grants, the principal program by which we help families send their kids to college, in 1975 Pell grants paid for 84 percent of the cost of a public education on average. This year it is down to 38 percent because this bill freezes Pell grants. In addition to that, the administration cuts the ability of Pell grant recipients to use their full State and local tax deduction in determining their eligibility for Pell grants. So that is another chiseling away at benefits we provide families to go to college.

Now move to the health care front. For 5 years we have almost doubled funding at NIH, the institute which provides for most of the medical research in this country, but this bill puts the brake on that 5-year progress. The result? Grants for new programs and competitive renewal of existing or of expiring grants will go up by only two-tenths of 1 percent for a grand total of 21 grants, the smallest increase in 15 years.

I invite Members of this House, tell the 1.3 million people who are going to get cancer this year, tell the 1 million people who are going to find out they have diabetes, tell the 60,000 people who are going to get Parkinson's, tell them that it is more important to give an $88,000 tax cut to somebody who makes $1 million a year than it is to continue our efforts to attack those diseases at full throttle.

We hear this nonsense about how NIH needs some breathing time in order to absorb the money that we have already given them. Baloney. Less than 35 percent of all of the grants that are approved as being quality science are ever funded. Tell me there is not a need.

Or if you want to move on, the nursing, the new nursing act that passed last year, every politician in this House wrote to every nurse in their district and said, ``we love you, we are all for this program.'' Where is the money to make it reality? No new money in this bill for that program.

Then if you take a look at community service block grant, money that we provide that is used to help families that are poor and near poor, cut by 150 million bucks.

Low-income heating assistance program: I started that program with Ed Muskie back in the 1970s, and we had a lot of help from a lot of Republicans, including Silvio Conte. What has happened to that bill today? We have been told, on one hand, we have been told by the Republican members of our committee, correctly so, that we are going to have a big increase in natural gas prices. How does the committee respond? By cutting the low-income heating assistance program by 200 million bucks. I do not think that is a very smart thing to do.

So basically, these are just a few areas in which this bill is deficient. So what we are going to try to do, despite the fact that the rule turned us down, we are going to try to offer two amendments on this side of the aisle.

We are going to try to add $2.8 billion in additional education funding, to add $340 million more for Title I, $1.2 billion for special education. We are going to try to raise Pell grant, the maximum grants, by $150. In the health care area, we are going to add some money to the rural health program. We are going to add some funding to our chem/bio response capability. We are going to try to double the rate of increased funding for NIH so that we can have a 6 percent increase in new and competing grants. We are going to fund that nursing act. We are going to try to provide $450 million in increased funding for low- income heating assistance. We are going to restore the $150 million cut for the CSBG program. We are going to put $82 million back in the older Americans bill so that we do not have to cut out 3 million congregate meals for senior citizens this year, and so that we do not have to cut out 4 million meals for the Meals on Wheels program.

How are we going to pay for it? We are going to pay for it by cutting the tax cut that people who earn more than a million bucks a year would get from $88,000 that they are now scheduled to get to a mere $60,000. My goodness me, they are going to be stuck on a starvation diet this year, poor folks.

Then we are going to try a second amendment which will raise the matching rate for Medicaid for each State so that we can prevent every State in the Union from knocking kids off the Medicaid or the SCHIP rolls.

Mr. Chairman, we ought to be ashamed of ourselves that we are making kids pay for tax cuts for millionaires by giving up their eligibility for health care. That is an outrageous set of priorities, but it is one which is enforced on this country by the majority party actions in ramming those giant-size tax cuts for high-income people through this House.

We are not saying that those who make $1 million a year should not get a tax cut like everybody else. We are saying that we ought to limit, through the action of our first amendment and the second amendment, all we are saying is when you put those two together, we simply want to limit the size of their tax cut to $44,000 on average instead of $88,000. And I will bet you that if you ask 90 percent of those people, they will say that they would much prefer that we provide the money for these kids and provide the money for their education rather than give them a supersize tax cut.

So, Mr. Chairman, that is what we are going to try to do today because this budget process has been handled in such a way that the majority party has tried to obscure, at every opportunity they have tried to obscure the linkage between their actions on taxes and the resulting actions on education, health care and other needed services for the citizens of this country.

What our amendments will try to do is to reestablish those linkages so that people understand there are consequences to the choices that we make, and those consequences fall most heavily on the people who most need our help.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, I forgot, but I want to state here and now that I have the greatest respect for the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and certainly the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young). And I know that the gentleman from Ohio, as chairman of this subcommittee, if more money would have been available, would have put the money in the right places. His heart is in the right place. I understand that.

My problem is that the policy of the majority party has prevented Chairman Regula from being Chairman Regula. The problem is that we are told as a result of the tax cuts that we can somehow afford $2 trillion in tax cuts over the next decade, over 40 percent of which are targeted at the wealthiest 1 percent of the people in this country, but somehow we cannot afford $3 billion, not trillion, but $3 billion more to educate our kids, or $3 billion more to help see to it that kids do not lose their health coverage in a time of national economic problems. I think that is a sad, sad commentary on the priorities of this Congress.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished minority whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I believe opportunity is the key, but I think it is very difficult to have opportunity if you do not have an education. It is very difficult to have opportunity if you do not have decent health.

The only choice before us is what we think is more important: Using $6 billion to provide better education for our kids and making sure that kids are not knocked off health care rolls around the country, or whether to use that $6 billion to make sure that people who make more than $1 million a year get an $88,000 tax cut rather than a $44,000 tax cut. That is the only issue before us here today.

I am highly amused when I hear Republicans come to the floor and talk about how much they have done for education. I want to show what the record shows because I negotiated every one of the education budgets for the last 10 years. I was one of the four people in the room when the numbers were decided.

Here is what happened. In fiscal year 1995, the Republican House majority tried to cut $1.7 billion from the previous education budget. They tried to abolish the Department of Education, and they even shut down the government to try to force President Clinton to swallow those priorities. They lost.

In fiscal year 1996, the House Republicans tried to cut $3.6 billion from the previous year's education funding. They lost.

In 1997, the House Republicans tried to cut $2.8 billion from the Clinton budget for education. They failed.

In 1998, the House Republicans tried to cut $660 million from the Clinton education budget. They failed.

In fiscal year 2000, the House Republicans tried to cut $1.4 billion from the Clinton budget, they failed.

In 2001, they tried to cut $3 billion out of the Clinton budget for education. They failed.

Now they are trying to take credit for their failures. I find that interesting; I find that fascinating. I would call it near-Enron accounting. By all means if they want to climb on board and claim that they were funding that they tried to stop, be my guest. The country knows otherwise. Nobody believes them. All I can say is that in Washington the worse thing that can happen to a politician is when they believe their own baloney, and we have heard a lot of it here today.

The House Republican Record on Education Funding

Lately, the Republican Majority has attempted to claim

credit for education funding increases, and to reinvent their

record on education. Just a few years ago, however,

Republicans were calling for the demise of the Department of

Education and billions in education cuts.

If the House Republican position on education had prevailed

over a 9-year period, House Republicans would have spent $20

billion less on education.

One of the first actions of the new House Republican

majority in the spring of 1995 was to rescind $1.7 billion

($1.635 billion in HR 1158 and $65 million in HR 889) in FY

1995 education funding. Democrats succeeded in reducing the

final rescissions to less than $600 million.

House Republicans then led an attack on education in the FY

1996 Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill when they

proposed only $20.8 billion for the Department of Education--

a cut of $3.6 billion below the already-reduced FY 1995 level

and $5.0 billion below President Clinton's education request.

The House Republican LHHS bill was $2.0 billion below the

final conference version of the LHHS bill supported by

Democrats, which restored the majority of the Republican

cuts.

House Republicans passed a FY 1997 LHHS-Education

appropriations bill that provided $22.8 billion for

education, a cut of $2.8 billion below the request and $3.6

billion below the final conference level for education.

Democrats and President Clinton were successful not only in

reversing these Republican-led cuts, but increasing education

funding in real terms, to the funding levels approved in the

last Democratic Congress.

Following the 1997 bipartisan budget agreement, the FY 1998

LHHS-Education appropriations bill included a bipartisan

agreement to provide $29.3 billion for education. Democrats

secured an additional $410 million in the final conference

version of the bill.

House Republicans were back to their old tricks in FY 1999.

They could not even pass their FY 1999 LHHS bill--it was so

mired in controversy. The Republican LHHS bill reported by

the Appropriations Committee included $30.5 billion for

education, $2.6 billion less than the $33.1 billion provided

in the final conference agreement on LHHS.

In the House of Republican FY 2000 Labor-HHS-Education bill

reported by the Committee--a bill that never saw the light of

day on the House floor--$33.3 billion was included for

education, nearly $2.4 billion less than the $35.7 billion

included in the final conference agreement.

In FY 2001, House Republicans included $37.1 billion in the

House-passed Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations bill. This

amount was a stunning $.9 billion below the amount secured by

the Clinton White House and Congressional Democrats for

education in the final conference agreement ultimately

reached in December 2000.

In FY 2002, House Democrats succeeded in obtaining a

commitment from President Bush to support another $4 billion

for the FY 2002 LHHS 302(b) allocation. As a result, the

House-passed LHHS bill provided $49.3 billion for education,

an increase of $4.7 billion over the Bush request. The House

level was scaled back slightly (by $336 million) in the final

conference agreement.

In FY 2003, House Republicans punted on the Bush education

budget, which would have cut No Child Left Behind programs by

$90 million--until after the elections. Although they failed

to hold a subcommittee or committee mark up, House

Republicans introduced a LHHS bill that provided the

President's request of $50.3 billion. This Republican LHHS

bill was $2.8 billion below the final level agreed to in the

FY 2003 omnibus bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, I received unanimous consent earlier to insert a table after my remarks, which I will do, which will lay out clearly what the record has been over the last 10-year period.

All I would say in further rebuttal to my good friend: Regardless of what each of us argues the past shows, the issue today is whether we are for $6 billion more for education and health care for kids and sick people, or whether you are for using that $6 billion to make sure that our struggling millionaires get a double-sized tax cut. I think the public will see by the votes who is for what.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson).

(Mr. JACKSON of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking member on the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 20 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, we come together all right when we have good bills to come together on, but this bill is a turkey, and that is why on this occasion we are not for it.

I will also be inserting in the Congressional Record when we get into the full House several charts which relate to what the gentleman just said that demonstrate the error of his ways.

I would also point out to the gentleman, he is factually incorrect if he says that this bill was earmarked when the Democrats were in control. There were no earmarks whatsoever. In fact, Bill Natcher, the last Democratic chairman of this subcommittee, prided himself on not having any earmarks.

With respect to the subcommittee that I chaired for foreign operations, there were no earmarks in the foreign operations bill when I chaired that subcommittee either.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, let me simply correct several of the impressions left by the previous speaker.

I want to congratulate the Republican Party. I will readily admit that they have changed somewhat since they took over in 1995. When they took over in 1995, they wanted to cut the guts out of education funding, and they wanted to abolish the Department of Education. They have become somewhat more civilized since that time. But they are still producing appropriation bills that do not meet the promise of their authorizations and do not meet the promise of their budget resolutions. That is obvious.

With respect to title I, the fact is that between fiscal year 2001 and 2003, the Bush administration requested a total increase of $1.3 billion for title I, only 44 percent of the total $2.9 billion increase eventually provided by the Congress, one House of which is under Democratic control. On Pell Grants, if House Republicans had had their way, the Pell Grant maximum award would have been cut between fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 2003 by a net total of $530 below the final levels enacted into law.

So let me simply say those are the facts with respect to the past. But the past, in my view, is not quite as important as the future; and I would simply say that today it is very simple: Do we want to use $6 billion to guarantee that people who make more than $1 million a year will get an $88,000 tax cut, or do we want to limit their tax cut to $44,000 so we can move $6 billion into education and into health care, most of which will go to protect the health care of children?

That is the issue that is before us, not yesterday, but today; and when the votes are counted, we will see where each party stands.

Republican Record on Pell Grants

If House Republicans had had their way, the Pell Grant

maximum award would have been cut between FY 1996 and FY 2003

by a net total of $530 below the final levels that were

enacted into law.

In FY 1996, the House Republican LHHS bill cut President

Clinton's request for a $2,620 maximum Pell Grant by $180 to

$2,440. The Republican bill provided $30 less than the $2,470

maximum grant provided in the final LHHS bill.

In FY 1997, House Republicans again cut President Clinton's

request for a $2,700 maximum Pell Grant by $200 to $2,500.

The Pell Grant award level in the House Republican LHHS bill

was $200 less than the final $2,700 maximum award approved in

the LHHS conference agreement.

In FY 1998, a bipartisan House-passed LHHS bill provided a

$3,000 maximum Pell Grant level. This amount, secured by

Democrats, provided a $300 or 11 percent increase over the

previous year, and was later enacted into law.

In FY 1999, the House Republican LHHS bill provided a token

$25 more than the final conference level of $3,125 for the

maximum Pell Grant.

In FY 2000, the House Republican LHHS bill provided $3,275

for the maximum Pell Grant, $25 less than the $3,300 maximum

Pell Grant approved in the final conference agreement

supported by Democrats.

In FY 2001, the House Republican LHHS bill included $3,500

for the maximum Pell award--$250 less than the $3,750 secured

by House Democrats in conference. The final level secured by

Democrats provided a $450 increase over the previous year and

was the largest Pell Grant increase in more than 25 years.

In FY 2002--a bipartisan year--Republicans agreed with

Democrats to raise the maximum Pell Grant to $4,000, an

increase of $250 over the previous year. This level was

enacted into law.

In FY 2003, the Republican LHHS bill introduced by Chairman

Regula accepted the President Bush's proposal to freeze the

maximum grant at $4,000. The bill provided $50 less than the

$4,050 level ultimately approved in the FY 2003 omnibus

appropriations bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness, Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

I plead absolutely fully guilty to wanting to spend more money to invest in education and to spend more money so we can guarantee that poor kids are not knocked off Medicaid and SCHIP programs so that they have some health care when they need to be seen by a doctor. Fully Guilty!

I also plead fully guilty to wanting to spend more money for NIH so we can deal with the ravages of cancer, heart disease, Lou Gehrig's disease and the like.

One example: a year ago my brother-in-law was diagnosed with terminal pancreas cancer, 1 year ago. He is still alive because he is lucky enough to have gotten into a clinical trial, and they found a drug that seems to be working for him. I plead fully guilty to wanting to add a lot more money to the Federal budget so that a lot more people can be as lucky as he is.

Madam Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Virginia.

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

Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge), former chief school officer of his State.

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

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

(Mr. UDALL of Colorado asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

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

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick).

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

Madam Chairman, could I inquire as to how much time remains on both sides.

Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha).

Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time remains on each side.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).

Mr. Chairman, I yield another 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy), who has the quaint idea that we should not be gutting our efforts to control child labor.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, we have documented the numerous ways in which this bill does not meet its responsibilities to the American people. The situation we are in is basically this: We are going to be asking the majority to reconsider a decision it made just a few weeks ago to put all of our eggs in one basket in the form of tax cuts rather than reserving some of those eggs and putting them into needed health care and education and worker protection programs. The problem with the way this House is being run is that the budget system is being misused to hide from the American people the consequences of the actions taken by the majority party on tax policy.

They want to hide behind the House rules and say, ``Oh, look, we already decided the tax issue, and so now you are stuck with the room that is left under the budget resolution.'' We do not think that is a good enough reason to continue to do something that is stupid and unfair and, in some cases, heartless.

What we are asking our majority Members to do is to reconsider the decision that decided that it was necessary to give millionaires in this country an $88,000 tax cut. We are asking you to use an unusual procedure in order to revisit that decision and instead limit that tax cut for those 200,000 people who make more than $1 million a year, limit that tax cut to $44,000 a year, so that there is some room in the inn left to improve the quality of education for our kids, to protect our workers against child labor, and to see to it that not a single child in this country is knocked off the health care rolls because of State budget crises.

So that is a simple choice. Now, you can try to convince the press and convince the country that you have already made these decisions and so you have no choice but to move on.

You always have choices. You always have choices. It depends on whether you are willing to insist on exercising them. Every person who votes for this bill today will be saying they would rather leave the tax package as is and go ahead with this bill as is. I do not think that is a wise decision. I do not think it is going to be an acceptable decision when the American people understand what you have done.

The choice is very simple: Are we going to make kids pay for giant- size tax cuts for the most privileged people in this society, and, in the process, weaken their ability to get a good education and weaken their ability to be taken care of when they need to see a doctor or a nurse? That is the simple choice.

Mr. Chairman, with that, I would simply appeal to Members' consciences.

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

Will the gentleman yield? I never said any such thing. I never mentioned any small business.

If the gentleman is going to quote me, he ought to quote me accurately.

Do not use the rules to lie about what I said.

Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I would simply like the assurances of the distinguished gentleman from Ohio that with respect to the amendments offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), that time would be yielded to the minority side as well.

No. That is a different question. I just want to make certain that of the committee time in opposition to those two amendments, that the minority will be yielded some of that time.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, although I do not intend to take all of the time. I think we have already had the discussion; we might as well get to the votes just as quickly as possible. Let me simply explain what this amendment does.

The Republican majority, as I said earlier, made a conscious decision over the last 2 years to provide $2 trillion in tax cuts, all of which were paid for with borrowed money; and by doing that, they decided they were going to put the Congress in a box and the Congress would, therefore, not be able to adequately fund a number of crucial investments, including education and health. This bill now is suffering from the consequences of that action.

What we are trying to do by this amendment is to get the House to reconsider its decision. The gentleman from Texas said that those of us on the minority side of the aisle are desirous of raising taxes. This amendment does not raise taxes.

What we are asking this House to do is to limit the size of the tax cut for the 200,000 Americans who make more than $1 million a year. We are asking to limit the size of that tax cut to $44,000 instead of the $88,000 tax cut that they would otherwise get, so that we can use that money for the following:

In this amendment, which is one of two, we would simply reduce the size of that tax cut so that we could put $334 million into this bill for title I, which is the main education program that tries to help youngsters who need special help; but to get that help, we provide $334 million more to meet the promises of the Republican Party budget resolution. It is not our budget resolution; it is the budget resolution of our friends on the other side of the aisle.

We would also add $1.2 billion to the special education portion of the bill, again, so that we meet the Republican budget resolution promise. We would increase the Pell grant maximum grant by a modest $150 million, or 4 percent over the subcommittee bill. In the health area, we would provide $73 million of additional funding for community health centers. We would continue to rebuild the capacity of our public health system to respond to potential biological or chemical terrorist attacks. We would provide a 5.5 percent overall increase for NIH for biomedical research so that we can continue the progress that we have made on cancer, heart disease, Parkinson's, and many other diseases that plague mankind.

We would eliminate the cut of the Low Income Heating Assistance Program and provide $450 million more. We would provide $151 million more for community service block grants. We would provide $170 million in recognition of the fact that the Social Security Administration's backlog for approving and reviewing disability cases has risen from 400,000 to 600,000 cases.

As I said, what we are trying to do is to reestablish the linkage between actions taken on the tax cuts front and their implications for legislation such as the bill before us today.

So with that, Mr. Chairman, we have no further speakers on this side and I would simply seek a vote. And let me explain that if the gentleman lodges a point of order on this amendment, then what we will do instead of appealing the ruling to the Chair, what we will do instead is to simply at that point move to strike the enacting clause so that we can have a vote on whether or not you want to put the needs of millionaires for tax cuts ahead of the needs of our children for adequate education and health care.

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

Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, clearly if this point of order is upheld, what the majority would succeed in doing is, again, hiding from the public the practical consequences to education and to health care, worker protection programs of the majority party's past actions on tax cuts. What the majority party is trying to do is to use the rules to segment the discussion of the budget process so that one day without any context whatsoever, the House considers tax cuts and then after they have done that, then separately they consider what will happen to the rest of the budget. We think that is going to wind up with an unhealthy result for the public.

We do not control the House. Obviously, the majority party does; and so they have the capacity to use the rules that way. But when they do so, what they do, in my view, is to make meaningless virtually all debate and discussion in this House. And so if the gentleman insists on his point of order, we will have no choice but to concede it, and at that point I would simply then have a preferential motion at the desk which would ask that the enacting clause be stricken from this bill until such time as the House reconsiders its action on the tax package so that we do have room in the inn for the children this bill is supposed to serve.

Mr. Chairman, I have a preferential motion at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, we have taken this action out of courtesy to the Chair. But I feel very strongly about the vote that this motion will trigger.

When we are together in a bipartisan fashion, as we have been on some occasions in the past 8 years, we have produced good pieces of work and both political parties have justly been proud of the outcome. But right now this House is locked in the clutches of an ideological majority which has decided that at all costs they will put tax cuts primarily targeted at the most wealthy people in this country ahead of every other legitimate need. So they have passed $2 trillion in tax cuts, all paid for with borrowed money; and then when the labor-health appropriations bill comes to the floor, they say, ``Oh, I am sorry. We have to stop the progress at NIH. I am sorry, we cannot have any expansion of research this year for cancer or for Parkinson's or diabetes or for any of the other diseases that plague people. I am sorry, we cannot even meet our own promises for title I in the education bill. I am sorry, we cannot meet our promises to children who require special help because of disabilities. I am sorry, we cannot meet those promises because, you see, we have already spent the money on the tax cut.''

So what we are saying is: ``Look, take this bill back to committee, strike the enacting clause so that the bill can go no further, go back and reconsider, go back and reconsider and allow us to vote on shaving the size of that tax bill.'' Only for the top. All we are talking about is to take a look at the size of the tax bill, or the size of the tax cuts, I should say, that are provided to people who make more than a million dollars a year. Right now they are scheduled to get an $88,000 tax cut. We are saying if you shave that in this amendment to only $70,000, you can meet the education needs of the country; you can meet the health care needs of the country. You have spent $2 trillion on tax cuts, and now you are telling us there is not room in the end for $2.8 billion in education funding and in health care funding? That is what you are telling us.

You built the box in which you are now locked; and you are saying, ``Gee whiz, we do not have a key.'' This is the key. So if you vote for this motion, you will be voting to send this bill back to the committee until this House comes to its senses and says to our friends, the 200,000 of them who make over a million dollars a year, ``Folks, we love you. We hope everybody can see the day when they will make a million dollars, but we ask you to take just a little bit less so we can provide funding in this bill for education and health care and other needed public services.''

I would bet you that 90 percent of the people who are going to get those giant-size tax cuts would say, ``You bet. We think we would rather see those investments in children before getting this superduper-sized tax cut.'' I have enough confidence in their patriotism and their concern about the future of this country that they would make that choice even if a majority of this House seems to not want to make or even confront that decision.

Mr. Chairman, I would ask for an ``aye'' vote on the motion.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, we have agreed on the committee that we will each limit ourselves to 10 minutes in the interest of trying to get Members out of here.

Mr. Chairman, the Department of Labor is planning to change the regulations for overtime workers. They would make 1.4 million workers earning less than $22,000 a year eligible for overtime pay. That is a much needed adjustment which we support, but if the administration gets its way, an estimated 8 million workers will become ineligible for overtime because of changes in the rules. These include many of our first responders, firefighters, law enforcement officers, emergency medical technicians who will no longer be eligible for overtime pay because the Bush administration is changing the definition of who is being covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

This amendment would stop the administrations from making those unprecedented change to the Fair Labor Standards Act by revising the regulations. It would save overtime pay for millions of working families. I am offering the amendment on behalf of myself and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have remaining under the reduced time for each side?

Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining time to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order a quorum is not present.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson).

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. Chairman, years ago Senator Proxmire from my State used to have the Golden Fleece Awards. He was a good friend of mine. One year he made a whole lot of fun of a study on Polish pigs. They had a field day with it. Funny name, strange-sounding grant. Well, guess what? That study led to the development of a new blood pressure medicine which millions of people use today. The know-nothings in the Congress at that time would have eliminated that study. I do not think that would have been a good outcome.

I have served on the subcommittee that deals with NIH for a long time, and the one thing I came to understand very quickly is that the day that we politicize NIH research, the day we decide which grants are going to be approved on the basis of a 10-minute horseback debate in the House of Representatives with 434 of the 435 Members in this place who do not even know what the grant is, that is the day we will ruin science research in this country. We have no business making political judgments about those kinds of issues.

I would ask the following questions of the gentlemen who are offering this amendment: Can they tell me what score each of the grants received in the peer review process? Can they tell me who is on the peer review committee that takes a look at each of these in the study circles? Do you have objection to any of the persons who are on those study sections? I think the gentlemen have an obligation to answer those questions if they are going to bring something like this to the floor with no notice and no understanding of what these grants do.

Now, I would say that I do not have any idea what these grants do. I can imagine, though, that perhaps this study on so-called sexual arousal, that perhaps it is one way of trying to determine how you prevent child molestation or rape. I can also imagine with respect to the longitudinal study on sexual behavior of old men, NIH says this: ``Without a better understanding of age-related changes in men's sexual functions, physicians may assume that declines in function are normal when they actually reflect early symptoms of disease such as diabetes and heart disease.''

With respect to the study that relates to intervention for drug-using women sex workers, let us say you do not have any sympathy at all for the sex workers or their partners. I am concerned about the innocent partners of those partners. What about the wives of persons who go to these sex workers and then wind up getting disease? I think we ought to know as much as possible how to prevent transmission of disease, and what role drug use has in that process.

So without knowing anything about these, I return to my basic principle: We have NIH for a reason; we have peer review for a reason. I would rather trust the judgment of 10 doctors sitting around a table than I would 10 politicians sitting around a table when we decide how to allocate taxpayer money for those grants.

The reason NIH is there is so none of us bring our political biases to the table, and that is the way it ought to remain.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Here is what this amendment is all about. At a time when high unemployment is causing many Americans to lose their jobs and their job-related health coverage, State fiscal crises are leading States to cut back health coverage, Medicaid and SCHIP programs. According to the Kaiser Commission, 49 of the 50 States have implemented or are planning to implement cutbacks in Medicaid during fiscal year 2003. It is estimated that adoption of those cutbacks will lead to the elimination of health coverage for 1.7 million people. Many of them will be children.

This amendment would simply provide a 1 percentage add-on to the Federal assistance to every State for their Medicaid programs. To receive that additional aid, States would have to refrain from any further cutbacks in eligibility for children under both Medicaid and SCHIP and restore eligibility for children to the rules that prevailed on July 1, 2001. We would pay for the amendment by simply reducing the size of the tax cut for persons who make more than $1 million a year, from $88,000 to $72,000.

So the choice is simple. If you want to keep children on the health care rolls, if you want to make sure they are not knocked off the health care rolls in order to finance supersize tax cuts for people who make more than a million dollars, you will vote for this amendment. That is what the amendment does.

Again, if the majority chooses to exercise its right to offer a point of order, then we will, instead of appealing the ruling of the Chair, we will simply ask that we strike the enacting clause so that this bill may go back to the committee so we may have an opportunity

to offer an amendment which tries to prevent children from being knocked off the health care rolls. It is that simple. I would ask for a yes vote.

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

Point of Order

Mr. Chairman, I simply urge the Chairman not to insist on the point of order. If he does, I would concede the point of order and move on to the next motion I have already described.

Mr. Chairman, I offer a preferential motion.

Mr. Chairman, I have already explained the motion and in the interest of saving time and also striking the last word to sum up in the end, I am going to ask that Members vote to strike the enacting clause so that we can repair this bill in the manner I have just described. I hope they do that.

In the event that they do not, I am urging Members to vote no, because we do not believe that we ought to say to the country that we have room for $2 trillion in tax cuts, including an $88,000 tax cut for persons making over $1 million a year, but we do not have any room in the inn for children who need health care or need more help in Title I, for school districts who need more help on special education, and all of the others problems we have described today.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman for the courtesies he has extended and to thank the staff on both sides of the aisle for the work they have done.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I originally had intended to vote for this resolution and this bill, but then about an hour ago my staff brought it to my attention something which they discovered about this bill. Buried in the bill, in fact, not in the bill at all, but in the budget for the House Administrative Office, is a $750,000 item that would begin to provide expanded dental care for Members of Congress and their staff July 4 of next year. No Member on this side of the aisle, to my knowledge, knew anything about it, and no member of our staff knew anything about it. I am only the senior Democrat on the Committee on Appropriations, and yet I did not know that that provision was at all tied into this bill.

So we called the majority staff and asked about it, and they told us that they did not know anything about it. I believe the person that my staff talked to on the majority side, but I do not know what that means in terms of who put that provision in the bill. I assume the tooth fairy. But somebody did. And until that provision is removed or until we have an assurance that it is going to be removed, and I understand that the majority is going to remove it, nobody on this side of the aisle intends to vote for this rule or the accompanying bill.

I happen not to have any objection to the idea that we provide dental coverage for every American in this country, but it was only 1 week ago when this Congress chiseled on Medicare benefits and chiseled on prescription drug benefits for retired seniors in this country, and for us to then find out that somebody has the bright idea that while we are chiseling on benefits for everybody else in this society, we are going to have an expanded medical benefit for Members of Congress is more than I am going to swallow.

And I want to say something else. I am tired of people in Congress who want to provide benefits for themselves who will not provide those same benefits for the people we represent. I will never forget the experience I had last year when I went to a town named Antigo to open a small dental clinic for low-income people, and there I met a young woman whose husband had been sick for months. I think he had MS, but I am not sure. And she told me that there had been about 67 dentists in that four-county area. Only half of them would take Medicaid patients because of the low reimbursement rates. She told she went to every single one of those dentists trying to get some help to have the braces taken off of the teeth of her oldest child; could not find a single dentist to do it. So she finally held the kid down while the father took the braces off with a pair of pliers.

I have had a bellyful of Washington politicians who want to deny people like that the needed healthcare, and yet will countenance this kind of end run in this bill today. I do not know who knew about this, but, by God, somebody knew about it, and I do not believe it was anybody on our committee on either side of the aisle. But it is a disservice for whoever tried this. It is a disservice not just to the taxpayer, but to every single Member of this House on both sides of the aisle because those Members, after they voted for this bill, they would have found out that they had voted blindly for a bill which allowed this to happen, and the public would have been justifiably angry, and the Members would not have been to blame.

So I am glad that this is going to be taken out, but I am mad as hell that this ever happened. And I know the gentleman from Florida had nothing to do with it, and I know his staff had nothing to do with it, but I wish to God whoever did would 'fess up.

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments and his assurance. I know he is an honorable man, and I know that he would not have sneaked anything like this through. I want to know who did this, but I do not want it passed off to some low-ranking staffer in this place. Somebody got an order from somebody to do it, and every last Member of this House has a right to know who gave that order.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.

Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) to explain the impact of this amendment.

Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I thank the gentleman for that explanation.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear I do not oppose any member of this society being able to have dental coverage or vision coverage under their insurance program. I would be very happy if my employees had it. I think all employees ought to have that coverage. I think all Americans ought to have that coverage. So I do not want this language to be misinterpreted as meaning that we are opposed to the idea.

I think what we are all opposed to is the idea that this bill would slip this into law without having an open public debate about it so that it can be honestly dealt with and above-board in open-door sunlight fashion.

And I would like to yield to the gentleman again to comment on this. I would like him to explain to the House exactly what the process will be so that every Member can be confident that they know what they are doing when they vote on both the rule and the bill.

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I would simply like to make one correction. My understanding is that it is not actually the language in the bill which provides this. My understanding is that the key language was contained in the budget of the Chief Administrative Officer, which is financed by this bill. So we actually have to go to that document in order to discover the offending language.

Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. Speaker, continuing my reservation, I thank the gentleman.

I just want to clear up one procedural question. I think Members need to know which action will adopt the language which strikes this from the bill. Will it be the adoption of the rule, or the passage of an amendment after the bill is under consideration?

If Members want to assure this provision is not in the bill, and if they want to be on record voting against any possibility that this will happen under this bill, they will vote for the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, could the gentleman provide us with the text of the motion? I think we know what he wants to do, but we do not have a copy. I would like to make certain that there is no inadvertent confusion.

Mr. Speaker, continuing my reservation, I presume that that will also allow us to reach a second agreement.

Mr. Speaker, I understand what the gentleman is doing.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of rewriting of history in the last hour or so. I want to make one thing clear, if House Republicans had their way and if we had passed the bills which originally passed the House under Republican leadership the last 5 years, instead of increasing education funding by $19 billion over that 6-year period, we would have decreased it by $15 billion. That is the bottom line summary of the facts.

Now, let me get to the problem with this rule. Over the last 2 years, Congress has provided more than $2 trillion in tax cuts; a huge percentage of those tax cuts have been targeted to the top 1 percent of earners in this country. The majority party has pretended that there are no consequences and no cost to those tax cuts. Well, there are. First of all, every single dollar is paid for with borrowed money. That means that for the fiscal year in which this bill is going to be effective, we will pay $26 billion more in interest. That makes no sense. For less than half of that, you could fix every appropriations bill that we are going to pass.

Consequence number two of the trillions of dollars in tax cuts is that there is no money left on the table except table scraps to deal with the problems of Medicare, to deal with the problems of prescription drugs, and to deal with other needed investments.

Of the 13 appropriations bills that will come before the House this year, this is the bill that contains most of the funds for those needed investments. And I think we need to take a look at what is happening to this bill because this is the bill that demonstrates where the chickens come home to roost because of the cost of the outlandish tax packages that this House has passed.

Now, in order to get moderate Republican votes for the original budget resolution, the Republican majority in this House promised that they would provide significant funding for title I and special education in order to get the votes of those moderates. So they promised that they would raise that funding to a very high level. The problem is that for title I we have a bill today which is almost $400 million below that funding level. And for special education we have a bill which is $1.2 trillion, below the amount promised in the Republicans' own budget resolution. So it is apparent that what happened is that they could not afford both to pay for their tax cuts and keep their promises on education, so they are breaking their promises on education.

Secondly, the President said when we passed No Child Left Behind, ``no more money until we reform the programs.'' So we reform the programs. I voted for those reforms. And guess what? The check is not in the mail. The money now is not coming. This bill is going to be $8 billion for education below the amount that was promised for the funding scheduled for No Child Left Behind. In addition, this bill contains a number of other problems. It brings the 5-year progress that we have had in doubling NIH to a halt.

You ask the people who are going to contract cancer, Parkinson's, Lou Gehrig's disease, MS, you ask them this year whether they think an $88,000 tax cut for a millionaire is more important than continuing our efforts to double again NIH medical research. I know the answer you will get because they are in my office every day begging for help.

In addition to that problem, if you take a look at some of the other problems, this committee cuts LIHEAP, the low-income heating assistance program, by $200 million below the President's budget and below last year. It cuts 3 million congregate meals for senior citizens under the Old Americans Act. It adds 200,000 people to the backlog that the Social Security Agency will experience in trying to meet disability claims, for instance. And it comes up $400 million dollars short, well, I have already said $400 million short, in basic title I programs.

The problem with this House and the problem with this rule is that if this rule is adopted, nobody in the House can fix the problems in the bill that I

have just described because the rule locks us in to past decisions on tax cuts, and it says, ``Sorry, boys and girls, you cannot do a blessed thing about it except fiddle around the edges.''

So, Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask people to vote ``no'' on the previous question. If it goes down, I will offer two amendments, one would close the gap between No Child Left Behind and other education funding. It would raise $5 billion in additional funding for education for needed funds for health care, and I would offer a second amendment which would provide $2.9 billion in increases by increasing every State's share that they receive from the Federal Government under Medicaid so that we can guarantee that not a single poor child will be tossed off the Medicaid or SCHIP rolls in any State of the Union.

The budget process has been managed in a way that is trying to hide the impact of those tax cuts on education, on health care, on workers. This amendment reestablishes those linkages for all to see. In a democracy, you should not hide from your choices. You should make them quite clear. What a vote for this rule will do is to lock in the decision that we have made to have our kids pay for tax cuts for millionaires. That is a lousy choice. Anybody who makes it ought to be ashamed of themselves.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to correct something the gentleman just said.

The fact is, going all the way back to 1978, there has never been a year when the Democratically controlled Congress provided a federal contribution for IDEA less than 7\1/2\ percent. In fact, in 1979 it was 12\1/2\ percent; in 1983, 9\1/2\ percent.

The fact is everybody understands, this is the same Republican majority that tried to eliminate the Department of Education, that tried to shut the government down in order to force deep cuts in education. They had to be dragged kicking and screaming into supporting education increases in 5 out of the last 6 years, and now they are taking credit for the funding increases which the Democrats forced on them mostly during the Clinton years.

I do not mind them rewriting history, but I certainly hope they do not expect us to believe it.

Mr. Speaker, I take this time to speak out of order so that the gentleman from Florida and I might be allowed to explain a procedural matter before the House.

Mr. Speaker, it is important that Members who were not on the floor for an earlier discussion not be mouse-trapped on the coming vote. I think it is important for them to understand the following, and I want to ask the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) whether this is correct.

It is my understanding that a vote for the rule on the legislative branch appropriations bill will enable Members to express their desire that the previous provision which was discussed on the floor in the earlier vote, which would have had the effect of expanding dental care for Members of Congress and our staffs, will be eliminated from that bill. So if Members want to be on record opposed to that proposition, they will need to vote ``yes'' on the rule.

I would ask the gentleman from Florida if that understanding is correct.

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for that explanation.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for those comments. I would simply point out that as was pointed out on both sides of the aisle, the issue was not whether our staff should have those benefits or that we should have those benefits; I want every American to have those benefits. The issue is whether or not that provision should be slipped into this bill without the knowledge of the Committee on Appropriations on either side of the aisle, without any single Member of this House, except the Member who just spoke, knowing about it, evidently. We simply did not want Members to wake up after they have voted for this bill to find out that they were going to be subjected to a 30-second TV spot because something had been slipped into the bill. Not a single reference was made in the budget justifications to this item.

So the point that the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) and I were making is not that this benefit should not be provided. It should not be provided without Members of Congress knowing what it is they are voting on, and it should not be provided without open, public debate.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member of the subcommittee of jurisdiction.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the indulgence of the House at this late hour. I yield once more to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the point is simply that it is up to Members how they want to vote, but if Members want to be on record opposed to that expansion under these provisions, they would vote ``aye'' for the rule.