Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I move to take from the Speaker's table the bill, H.R. 3010, with the Senate amendment and to insist on disagreement to the Senate amendment.

Mr. Speaker, this is a simple motion to insist on the House position, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss an issue of great importance to me and my constituents. In particular, I speak of a provision in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of 2006 regarding the Muskingum Watershed in Ohio.

The Muskingum Watershed encompasses 18 counties in Ohio and includes all of the area which drains into the Muskingum River and its tributaries where it joins with the Ohio River. Below the watershed lies an aquifer of great importance to the constituents of my district and those of surrounding areas.

The threat that landfills pose to the aquifer and the watershed are too great to ignore. Remember, we are fortunate in the United States to be well-endowed with water, and we are indebted to our forebearers for creating the infrastructure to deliver potable water to our communities, farmers and industries.

As a representative, it is my responsibility to respond to the concerns of my constituents to protect and preserve the integrity of their water supply. During my time as chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, I have dealt with many issues relating to clean water and its significance. I have seen how a lack of planning, oversight and development has harmed the Everglades, and now we are tasked with spending millions of taxpayer dollars to reverse the problem.

Additionally, per my request, the United States Geological Survey published a report in 2003 titled ``Plan for National Assessment of Water Availability and Use.'' The report highlights the availability of water in the U.S. and how this availability relates to need, source and geographic location.

I would like to cite a statement made in a report by the Council of State Governments that sums up the need to protect our water: ``Water, which used to be considered a ubiquitous resource, is now scarce in some parts of the country and not just in the West as one might assume. The water wars have spread to the Midwest, East and South as well.'' I find this statement quite telling and see it as a wake up call to all those who take water for granted. Much has changed over the years; cities have grown, irrigation technology has advanced and ground water has become a much larger fraction of the nation's water supply. All these factors contribute to the need to protect the Muskingum watershed and the aquifer below it.

Having heard from many constituents concerning the potential dangers posed by the stress of additional landfills in the Muskingum Watershed, I have made this provision one of my top priorities in Congress. I feel that the criteria set forth by the provision are fair, nondiscriminatory and of utmost importance in preserving the aquifer for generations to come.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate my constituent, Stephen A. Perry, for his service to his country as the 17th administrator of the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA). The Buckeye State is proud of Steve as one of the highest ranking Ohioans serving in the Bush administration.

As administrator, Steve brought an extensive background from both the private sector and State government. He has effectively led the GSA during a period where the Federal Government's infrastructure has been aging, but funds have been limited to deal with all these problems. However, Steve guided GSA

through prioritizing projects and making sure that agency employees had the support required to tackle Federal infrastructure issues.

He started his career at the Timken Company of Canton, a leading international manufacturer of highly engineered bearings and alloy steels. At Timken, Steve progressed from an initial position as stockroom clerk to vice president. In 1991, then Governor George Voinovich appointed Steve to his Cabinet as director of the Department of Administrative Services, which provides services to State agencies that are similar to what GSA provides Federal agencies. After his successful tenure in State government, Steve returned to Timken where he was elected as an officer and promoted to senior vice president.

Additionally, Steve has been very active in community and charitable organizations. He has been recognized by numerous groups for his commitment to his home community.

On a personal note, I would like to thank Steve for his work in getting a new Federal building for Canton, Ohio. Through Steve's leadership, this new Federal center will be a one-stop facility where citizens can come to various Federal agencies to get issues addressed. The building will be a model for the GSA system, and we owe its success to Steve's guidance. I look forward to being with Steve at the future ceremony that opens Canton's new Federal building.

We are proud of Steve's service at GSA, but also pleased that he, and his wife, Sondra, are returning home to Canton, Ohio and be active members in our community.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1 of rule XXII and by direction of the Committee on Appropriations, I move to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 3010) making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes, with the Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's motion.

Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the motion because it violates clause 9 of rule XXII by proposing to direct the conferees to exceed the scope of matters committed to the conference. And I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the appeal on the table.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Lance Corporal Daniel McVicker, a constituent from my district who died on October 6th when the humvee he was driving was hit by a roadside bomb. Daniel joined the Marines in 2003 and was serving in Iraq by providing security for convoys.

Daniel was a graduate of West Branch High School where he was active in chorale and many of the school's plays. The community fondly remembers him as always smiling and as having the ability to brighten everyone's day.

He showed true courage and the ultimate sacrifice by giving his life in the pursuit for freedom and security. He is a hero and through his memory, continues to brighten the lives of those who had the privilege of knowing him.

I would like to extend my deepest sympathy to his parents and all of his family and friends who are mourning the loss of his life.

I pray for the safe return of all of our servicemen and women and thank them for the sacrifice they make every day defending our country.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit the following poem ``Eulogy of the Common Soldier'' for inclusion in the Congressional Record. The poem was written by U.S. Army First Lieutenant Aaron Seesan when he was in his senior year at Washington High School in Massillon, Ohio. Aaron was killed in Iraq on May 22, 2005 while serving his country.

All mortal beings, which God brought forth, die the same, man

is not exempt.

All will inevitably end as the dust from whence we came, it

matters not of age.

Do not mourn me if I should fall in a foreign land, think

this of my passing.

In a far off field a finer soil mixed with the foreign sand,

a dust that is American.

A dust that laughed, cried, and loved as an American, on this

plot there shall be.

A little piece of America, a patch for the free man, which no

oppressor can take.

From this soil grows grass shimmering a little greener,

brilliant emerald ramparts.

A Breeze whisping White Poppies with a scent a little

sweeter, flowers towards Heaven.

Mourn not my terrible death but celebrate my cause in life,

viewed noble or not.

I would have sacrificed and gave all that I had to give, not

to make man good, but only to let the good man live.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the School Readiness Act. Let me first begin by recognizing the tremendous efforts of my colleagues, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) in crafting a good bill.

As a former teacher and elementary principal, I am aware of the necessity of a first-rate education and need to ensure that children have adequate skills before entering kindergarten.

As chairman of the Labor-HHS-Education Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, funding Head Start in the amount of $6 billion, this bill will achieve a better use of those moneys. For over four decades the Head Start program has provided comprehensive early childhood development services to low-income children.

By providing educational, health, nutritional, social and other services to the most needy in our society, this program prepares children to enter kindergarten and to improve the conditions necessary for their success in later school and life.

Head Start strongly emphasizes the involvement of families in the local community to ensure that the programs are responsive to the unique needs of each community. As you know, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the Head Start Bureau has urged all of its grantees to provide Head Start services to any displaced children and families now in their communities. Very important, so they do not fall behind.

As successful as Head Start has been, I believe that the program can be even more successful by maintaining the comprehensive services already provided and enhancing the academic component. Consistent with the goal of strengthening this program, H.R. 2123 will help to eliminate financial mismanagement by increasing the competitive nature of the current program. The competition requirements are intended to help drive program improvement across the board and to ensure that the $6 billion we spend is spent constructively and wisely.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to emphasize that a good education is the cornerstone for success in life and that it is critical to have the basic skills to build the foundation before entering kindergarten. We have found a large dropout problem in our inner-city schools, in some cases exceeding 50 percent. In fact, the national average is 32 percent. And this is a terrible waste of human resources.

In many cases, the students dropping out cannot read at beyond the elementary school level, and see no reason to stay in school when they cannot keep up with the school work. The problems of dropouts and illiteracy do not begin in high school. They manifest themselves in high school, but they begin in elementary and pre-elementary.

These problems begin in the school when the students fall behind their classmates in the early years, because they did not start with the same skill sets. We need to ensure that these students have an equal start, and H.R. 2123 will help us in the mission.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues from Ohio, and particularly our Senator, Senator Voinovich, and my other colleagues. And as dean of the Ohio delegation, it is a great pleasure that I rise this afternoon to introduce the Honorable Jean Schmidt of the Second District of Ohio.

She has been a lifelong resident of Clermont County, the first woman ever elected to represent southern Ohio in Congress. The diverse Second Congressional District includes seven counties, a lot of Lincoln Day dinners, stretches from downtown Cincinnati to the riverside town of Portsmouth in Scioto County.

Throughout her career, Congresswoman Schmidt has held various roles in public office and has been actively involved in civic and community groups. That is a great background for serving here. She served for two terms in the Ohio statehouse, and according to the Cincinnati Enquirer, she `` . . . proved effective in passing legislation to address her district's concerns.'' While serving in the State legislature, Schmidt enacted legislation to create jobs, protect Ohio's children, and ensure access to quality health care.

Prior to her election to Ohio's statehouse, Mrs. Schmidt served 10 years as a Miami Township trustee. In this leadership role, she helped Miami Township to become a world-class community by initiating a variety of projects and improvements, including creating a 300-acre first-class park system, securing funds for critical road repairs, and attracting 2,000 high-paying jobs for the township. My township could use some of her advice. She also established a 5K run and located a branch of the Clermont County Library in Miami Township.

Congresswoman Schmidt resides in Miami Township with her husband, Peter, and their daughter Emily. She holds degrees in political science and secondary education from the University of Cincinnati. Her interests include auto racing and long-distance running. She has completed 56 marathons and still counting.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say she is tonight embarking on the greatest marathon of her career.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to welcome Congresswoman Schmidt to the House.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this bill. I commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) for presenting a fair bill. It provides for critical transportation and housing needs of our country, as well as funding for the Federal Judiciary and the District of Columbia. In the interest of time, I am just going to summarize my remarks.

I think one of the key elements to a strong economy in a Nation is an interstate highway system so we can move goods and people. I often think how wise President Eisenhower was when he started the interstate system. We cannot imagine the United States without the interstate system. So this bill, under the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), really focuses on transportation, and that is a key element of the Nation's economy. It is a key element of providing quality of life and jobs for people.

In addition to the Federal system, this bill provides $37 billion for public roads, bridges and so on that deal with the safety issues. There is over $14 billion to the FAA because, again, safety in our airports, safety in facilities to expand the aviation capability of the United States. Along with that is the money for the air traffic controllers. Again, there is a need for a growing number. Many air traffic controllers will be retiring, and this bill addresses that by making investments in new hiring and training for almost 600 new air traffic controllers. I think we forget when we are up in the sky in an airplane; we assume safety. But we are dependent on the air traffic controllers to ensure that.

Housing needs, again an essential part of the quality of life in a country. This bill addresses the section 8 programs.

I would particularly commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) for restoring funding to the community development fund. This gives the local communities an opportunity to meet the needs and requirements of their people. I think it is a great way of involving local government and the people who know what the needs of their community would be to ensure that there is a quality of life.

Lastly, the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas program is part of the National Drug Control Policy. We do a lot of drug control programs in the Labor-HHS bill, but this is also an important part of that. This is critical in the State of Ohio for the HIDTA program. It is critical for local communities as well as Federal responsibilities.

For all of these reasons and many more, and the qualities of this bill, I urge my colleagues to support this important funding measure.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Transportation, Treasury, HUD Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2006. As a member of the Subcommittee, I commend Chairman Knollenberg for presenting a fair bill that provides for the critical transportation and housing needs of our country, as well as funding for the Federal Judiciary and the District of Columbia.

I would like to highlight several issues that make this a good bill that deserves the support of this House.

First, a strong interstate highway system is essential for a growing and healthy economy. I am pleased the bill increased funding to Federal-aid highways to $37 billion to construct and improve our Nation's highways, public roads and bridges.

This represents an increase of nearly $2 billion from last year's enacted level. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) partners with States to assist in financing the construction and preservation of nearly 1 million miles of highways and other key routes, connecting cities and towns across the country.

The bill also provides over $14 billion to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA); nearly 900 million over last year's level. This important funding supports the operations of a 24-hour a day national air traffic system and a continued commitment to safety and efficiency in our Nation's airways. I support the Chairman's increases of funding for the Airport Improvement Program to $3.6 billion and for the Essential Air Service program to $104 million. These important programs assist public use airports with costs of capital improvements and ensure that people living in small communities and rural areas have access to air service.

Air traffic controllers have the tremendous responsibility of providing for safety and security of our Nation's airways. With the expectation that 73 percent of controller work force will be eligible to retire over the next 10 years, I am pleased the committee directed $25 million in responsible investments to hire and train 595 new air traffic controllers.

Addressing housing needs, the bill includes $15.5 billion in funding for the Section 8 housing vouchers. This funding level represents a $765 million increase over last year and allows for the renewal of all existing tenant-based vouchers. The bill assumes completion of the transition from a ``unit-based'' to a ``budget-based'' system so that Public Housing Authorities will now have a set amount of funding to work with each year. Recognizing that numerous Public Housing Authorities were adversely affected by the three-month snap shot period used last year to set the budget totals, the bill provides $45 million to restore vouchers to those areas that need it most.

Section 8 housing vouchers are the safety net needed to help many low income working people provide a safe and secure home for their families.

I would like to commend Chairman Knollenberg for restoring funding for the Community Development Fund to a level of $4.151 billion and maintaining this community development program in the Department of Housing and Urban Development where it can best serve our local community needs. This critical program provides local governments with flexible funds, allowing them to address specific needs existing within their communities.

I would also like to note that this bill maintains funding for the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program (HIDTA) within the Office of National Drug Control Policy and does not move the program to the Justice Department. The bill provides $227 million to fully fund the existing HIDTAs and allows some expansion where needed.

This program is critical in the State of Ohio to allow local, State and Federal law enforcement agencies to coordinate and work together to reduce drug trafficking in the State.

With that I urge my colleagues to support this important funding measure.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to U.S. Army 1LT Aaron Seesan, a constituent from my district who died on May 23rd from injuries he received in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Aaron was a graduate of Washington High School in Massillon, Ohio and of the Merchant Marine Academy at Kings Point, NY.

It takes an exceptional young person to be nominated for military academies. Aaron had an outstanding record in high school and in the Merchant Marine Academy and continued to make a difference as he continued his service to his country and fellow man.

After graduation he chose to join the Army. During his service in Iraq his vehicle came upon an incendiary explosive device. In this distressful time while he suffered from injuries, he directed help to others showing his sense of responsibility and duty.

The community fondly remembers Aaron as a young man who always strove to make those activities he was involved in the finest they could be. Aaron made a difference to others his age both in the military and in the community. He was a true role model and hero.

His memory will live on through the Aaron Seesan Memorial Garden at Lincoln Park in Massillon Ohio. In addition, the Aaron Seesan Memorial Scholarship Fund through the Stark County Community Foundation will serve as a tribute to his service and dedication.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the further consideration of H.R. 3010, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

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

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me say that I agree with the gentleman. It is a great program. I am very familiar with it. Unfortunately, it is in no man's land. The way the OMB budget came up, the President's budget, it put it in Labor, which is this bill. But there is no authorization, which means it is still in the Transportation Treasury, and there is no money either place. But I hope we can resolve this because it is just what it says, it builds youth. And we have had real success in my district with it, and I think it is something we would want to retain as a national program.

Well, I certainly hope so. And we will make every effort to find some way to fit it. It just happens that I am on both of the committees and will work with the Treasury, or Transportation Treasury. It is a worthwhile program. It ought to be funded and kept in place. I think the authorizers need to deal with it, too, to change the authorization to make it appropriate for Labor.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

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

Amendment No. 24 Offered by Mr. Nadler

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

This, like many programs, is a great idea, a great help, with over 100 grants last year, but we do have a really tight budget. I know when we get to conference with the other body, that this probably will be one that has support, but it all depends on what is available in funding. I am sympathetic to it, but I cannot guarantee anything. I think we would have to consider it.

It has a trade-off, that is the problem at this juncture in your amendment, and that is it would cause the layoff of many employees.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am responding to the question from the gentleman from New York, and that is, yes, we will certainly take this under consideration in the conference.

I yield to the gentleman from New York.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I do not think the gentleman is a big fan of AmeriCorps, and the attempt really here is to reduce AmeriCorps more than to enhance the other program, because we have already added $100 million in new money in the teacher innovation program. It is a great program, and I am a great believer that teachers are the key to a good education, so I do not quarrel with the idea. I wish we had more money to do that.

But, on the other hand, AmeriCorps is a very important program, because it is made up of volunteers, a lot of times young people. They get a little stipend to help with their education, but they do not get paid. You have volunteers who are working in a community, on education, public safety, probably doing mentoring for students, which is extremely important.

I think that perhaps the goal that the gentleman is trying to achieve is desirable, but the target the gentleman has, which is AmeriCorps, would be a mistake given the fact that AmeriCorps has a very important role to play.

I like volunteers. The President is a big booster of volunteers. He has a goal of getting 75,000 AmeriCorps members as volunteers, and this would in part stifle the President's goal of getting these people.

So I would hope the gentleman would withdraw his amendment, or at least not go to a vote on it, because I think the innovative program is good, but AmeriCorps is good, and in limited budgets we need to keep that program going.

I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would just point out that the AmeriCorps members that would be reduced and perhaps eliminated serve 2 million children and youth in education-related programs, as I mentioned earlier, as mentors. They tutor children of prisoners and they train over 600,000 community volunteers. So it has a very powerful ripple effect throughout the community to have these AmeriCorps, most like young people, volunteers, seeking other people and training them to engage in service as mentors and so on.

Here you have two good programs, but, on balance, we have to at this juncture and with the limited resources we have, go with the AmeriCorps as opposed to adding more, in addition to the $100 million we already put in the program, for innovative education programs.

Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to oppose this amendment if it were to come to a vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume just to close this out.

Mr. Chairman, I think, again, these are both good programs. We had to make choices. In balancing the equities between the two, inasmuch as we put the $100 million in the innovative program and that is yet to be developed as to how it will be accomplished. But, we know with AmeriCorps that they work in the communities, do a lot of great work in getting people involved in mentoring and all kinds of other activities, and on balance I think we have to make a choice here. So, I would urge Members to stay with the numbers that are in the bill, to stay with what we put in for AmeriCorps and not approve this amendment.

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

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

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman. We are very aware of the gentleman's concerns. We have added a modest amount for the cancer institute. I have had many discussions with the director, Dr. von Eschenbach; and what we are trying to do, and he is doing, the gentleman would be interested in, he is trying to coordinate the various research centers.

There are many good institutions throughout the United States doing cancer research; and because of the importance and the cost, we want to avoid duplication among these various institutions. So I think this program of trying to coordinate to ensure that they are not reinventing the wheel at each one of these places, because it is expensive, hopefully out of that effort there will be a more coordinated effort to target a cure for cancer because this would certainly be a great breakthrough.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his interest.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 98, line 18, be considered as read, printed in the Record and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. Chairman, we are not going to object, because I understand the correctness of this. I just would point out this has been carried in this particular bill since 1997 without being objected to. But, technically, the gentleman is correct; and, therefore, we concede the point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

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

I would just point out to the Members that this is a very delicately balanced arrangement and I think the risk to all of this is that if we were to adopt this amendment, the benefits that now are available to retirees under PBGC could even be lost, plus a lot of jobs could be lost. And we are inserting ourselves or would be inserting ourselves into something that has been worked out among all the parties in a way that is in the best interest of both active employees and retirees, and this is not the appropriate forum to deal with this subject.

We have legislation moving through the Committee on Education and the Workforce dealing with pensions, and this would set a precedent, I think, for our body, the U.S. House, to interject itself in something that should be handled by the parties, and I think what they are trying to do is to work it out in a way that is in the best interest of both the active employees and retirees.

For this reason we object to the amendment, and this is not the proper forum to bring this kind of an amendment or to make a decision with the consequences that this would have.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.

I say this to my colleagues who are watching us on C-SPAN: I think the debate illustrates the complexity of this issue. This is not the proper forum to adjudicate the problem of United or any other airline's pension plan or the problems that confront PBGC. I would hope that the Committee on Education and the Workforce that is dealing with the pension problems would address situations similar to this.

This amendment has far-reaching consequences. That is illustrated by the fact that we heard a number of extraneous matters injected into this, including the Schiavo case. I would urge Members to vote against this because it is simply not the right forum to try to deal with a very difficult problem, and it will not be the last problem. Other airlines are going to be faced with this; and I think the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is right, we need to take a look at this in the long term, but this is not the place to do it.

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

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentlewoman for bringing this program to the attention of the House.

One of my goals as chairman of the subcommittee is to help ensure that all children can read by the end of the third grade. I might add at this point that I think one of the reasons for the excessive amount of dropouts in high school is because there is a lack of ability to read. It is a disgrace in the United States that 32 percent on average nationwide do not finish high school.

Providing books for children to read in their own homes is obviously an integral part of this effort. That is what the Reading is Fundamental program does. Although the program does not receive a separate line item in our report, we have assumed funding for it within the totals already provided and will work with the other body in conference to ensure that it receives sufficient resources.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit funds in this bill from being used to operate the Medicaid Commission. I think we want to know what the facts are, because it is pretty much a consensus of opinion in this country that Medicaid and Medicare are going to be even greater costs than Social Security down the road. Therefore, this commission is tasked with producing recommendations to have a $10 billion saving in Medicaid.

We all say we want to keep the Federal budget under control. Well, one of the things you do is get information, and that is what this commission is all about. I do not think we want to doom it to failure before it even begins its work.

I would point out that our authorizing committees are struggling to develop reconciliation savings that include Medicaid, and they need the input of the commission. What we need to do is to look at it and see where we can save money, and I think it would be a poor management decision to preclude their ability, the ability of Health and Human Services and Secretary Leavitt, to address a very serious problem that affects all Americans significantly.

Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment if it comes to a vote.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, let me just reiterate that I think it is vitally important that we have a commission to look at the whole Medicaid program, because it is getting extremely expensive. And we want to have the best possible information and ideas as the Congress prospectively tries to address the burgeoning costs of Medicaid, and, of course, as a corollary to that Medicare.

They are tasked with producing recommendations to achieve $10 billion in Medicaid savings. And I cannot believe the body would not want to at least have a commission to look at the problem that is obviously looming on the horizon.

Mr. Chairman, therefore, I would urge my colleagues to vote against this if it were to come to a vote. We are going to be confronted with some very difficult choices in the future, as we found out on the Social Security issue.

And I think the Medicaid-Medicare issue will be even more challenging in the years ahead. And so now is the time to get as much information, as many ideas as we possibly can, to address a very difficult problem.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller) for a colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to engage in a colloquy with the gentlemen from Florida (Mr. Keller) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller), both of the Education and the Workforce Committee. I, too, agree that Pell grants are a fundamental part of our efforts to ensure low- and middle-income students have the opportunity to pursue postsecondary education.

As the gentlemen have pointed out, Republicans have a proud history of providing funding for the Pell grant program. I am particularly pleased that in this bill, we will erase the $4.3 billion shortfall that had existed within the program, and put the program on a solid financial footing.

We are also increasing the Pell grant maximum award to $4,100, the highest level in the history of the program, and it is very evident from the chart there. And I would point out that if you take a look at that chart, where we became the majority party in 1994, and you can see the rapid ascendency of the Pell grant program.

As the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller) is aware, increasing the Pell grant maximum award, even incrementally, is costly. Each $100 we add is estimated to cost $420 million. As the number of low-income students pursuing college continues to increase, the demand for Pell grants will grow as well.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have worked closely with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller) to provide the resources necessary to help low- and middle-income students gain access to college through Pell grants.

As for the conference negotiations, obviously I cannot guarantee any particular outcome. However, I will make a good-faith effort to increase the maximum Pell grant award, provided resources are available to do so.

I thank the gentleman for engaging in this colloquy, and I look forward to working with him in the future to continue to support this important program.

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, maintaining my reservation of a point of order, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

Reserving my point of order, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman makes the point that this is legislation; and, therefore, Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill. Therefore, it violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order if it changes existing law.''

We have a point of order pending, Mr. Chairman.

No, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding the gentleman is going to withdraw this amendment; is that correct?

Mr. Chairman, in light of that, I do not oppose it.

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

This would prohibit CMS from spending any funds related to using Social Security numbers on a Medicare identification card. It would really interfere with the operation of the current system. This is a long-time use of Social Security numbers. It is an outgrowth of the claims process. I think it is important from the standpoint of avoiding fraud. The cost of converting the system for 43 million Medicare beneficiaries would be substantial, both in beneficiary education, system reprogramming and related costs. While CMS may well convert to some type of an electronic identification system over time, and I think that will happen, in the meantime to try to make a change at this point would be wrong.

This amendment would limit their ability to effectively deal with it. And, of course, they have got the new drug benefit to implement. I think it is just the wrong time to start tampering with a system that has been in place for a long time.

I would urge Members to vote against that if this amendment comes to a vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).

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

I understand what the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is saying, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) will be a conferee, and it is something we probably need to discuss there. But in the meantime, there are 43 million people who are on Medicare. We add 200,000 every month, and I would like to get more information from CMS as to just what impact this would have in terms of cost and their ability to manage the system.

The key to this is that we want the system managed as effectively as possible, and all of us as Members hear from time to time from people who are not getting their Medicare claims taken care of or they are having problems with Medicare. So some system of keeping track of these and to identify them, we can imagine with 43 million people, it is not easy.

So I would hope the gentleman would withdraw his amendment and I would work with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) in conference to see if there is some way we can refine this language, and I would like to discuss it with the Medicare people, with CMS, to see what the impact would be or whether a workable system that would ensure privacy could be put in place.

For that reason I would oppose the amendment if there is a vote on it.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time.

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

I just want to discuss it. I do not think anyone has asked to claim time in opposition at this juncture.

As the Members know, the bill already has a provision restricting health programs from paying for impotence drugs for sex offenders. This amendment simply takes the provision a step further by prohibiting the payment for all beneficiaries.

The authorizing committee has been discussing it with the Member, and apparently there has been no resolution. So perhaps this is one that Members ought to make a judgment on. I think the issue is fairly clear as it has been framed by the sponsor. And if he were to ask for a vote, that would be an appropriate thing to do at this juncture.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from the State of Washington (Mr. Inslee).

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman calling to our attention the recent report of the Department of Veterans Affairs about the research opportunities in Gulf War illness research. NIH has conducted research in this area in the past, largely through the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. The gentleman describes opportunities in neuroscience research that might most appropriately reside in the National Institute for Neurological Disorders and Stroke.

We would be pleased to ask the director of NIH to report to us what research NIH currently plans to conduct during the fiscal year 2006 that addresses the priority areas the DVA report identifies. In our hearings next year, we will conduct a line of questioning to learn more about NIH's commitment to this area of research.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

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

Mr Chairman, I will not take much time. I think all of the Members are familiar with this. It has been on the docket before. And the problem with this type of an amendment, it goes across the board, as the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) said.

There are many great programs in this bill. And the way this amendment is crafted, it hits the good with the indifferent and with those that are maybe not so desirable. So I would oppose the amendment. I would hope my colleagues would agree in voting against this if it were brought up on a roll call vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).

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

Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Barton made the case in opposition to this. And for that reason, I would urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, we oppose this amendment. There is already language in the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 that prevents the Corporation for Public Broadcasting from controlling the content of public broadcasting services.

I do not see why this language is necessary today. The law is already there. You have different points of view as to what is the characteristics of public broadcasting, and that is conservative, liberal or whatever. I think this amendment is unnecessary in light of current law. Let CPB do its job and stop trying to politicize it.

I will point out one further thing. This amendment would negatively impact on CPB's ability to assist in the production of quality educational programming. For example, if this amendment were to be law, if Ken Burns, whom we all are familiar with, were to serve as a consultant to the National Park Service on battlefield conservation, he then would be prohibited from producing any documentaries for PBS or local public TV stations. The amendment would alter public broadcasting's authorization that is presently in the law, and I think it would cripple the abilities of CPB to do what our colleagues on the other side of the aisle want it to do, and that is to be an objective medium, to present all sides of every issue, and not attempt to politicize the message.

With the present law, it seems to me that there is no need for this amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote against it if we do have a roll call vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, many of my colleagues have asked about time, and it is pretty difficult to just quantify exactly where we will be. We have six or seven amendments yet to go and possibly a motion to recommit. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is indicating there will be, so we can draw our own conclusions as to what kind of a time number we are looking at, with that many amendments and with a motion to recommit.

While we are trying to get some of the mechanics here of the en bloc amendment worked out, I would just like to comment that this bill does some really good things in education, and I think this is something that we are all interested in.

I do not know if any of my colleagues have read Tom Friedman's book in which he points out the flat Earth, how important education is to the Nation's future. I mentioned yesterday Dave Broder's column in which they polled Americans who said that they thought that the most significant thing in the success of the United States was our educational system.

So it was a great thing, and I believe Thomas Jefferson was the person who, and I am not sure of that, who developed the idea of a free public education, which was pioneering at the time because there was not anything like it in the rest of the world. Many others have duplicated it or some copy thereof. But I do think that what we have tried to do with this bill is to emphasize good teachers, good principals, good schools.

I have said many times that I have three goals on the committee. One was to get a good teacher in every classroom and with that, a good principal in every building and a good superintendent. Secondly was to lower the dropout rate. I think it is tragic that 32 percent of our students nationwide do not finish high school. Thirdly is to ensure that every child learns to read. I believe that the dropout rate is a result, in part, of the fact that people do not learn to read early in their educational experience.

Amendments En Bloc Offered by Mr. Regula

Mr. Chairman, I offer amendments en bloc.

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

Mr. Chairman, these have all been agreed upon as part of the en bloc, and I would urge the Members to vote for it.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for helping us to work it out.

I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

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

I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.

Mr. Chairman, we are prepared to accept the amendment, as modified.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, and I would point out to my colleagues, we had the identical amendment last year and it failed by a vote of 315 to 95. So, many of my colleagues have already voted against this amendment.

Let me point out, there is no universal mental health screening funded in the underlying bill. This is an inflammatory amendment. It is not necessary.

During our hearings, Secretary Leavitt from Health and Human Services told the committee that the administration does not support and has no plans to implement universal mental health screening, and then they made it very clear that in all programming involving kids there is a requirement that parents participate and give their informed consent, and that would be in a different program.

We have never proposed in appropriations any program of universal mental screening, and all it does really, this amendment, is to stigmatize the issue of mental health.

The sponsor mentions $26 million, and let me point out that the funds provided in this bill that respond to recommendations put forward in the final report of the President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, ``Achieving the Promise: Transforming Mental Health Care in America,'' go toward State incentive grants for transformation to support the development of comprehensive State mental health plans, and has absolutely no funding included for universal mental health screening.

So the $26 million has nothing to do with this amendment as far as universal mental health screening.

As a matter of fact, the President's Commission did not recommend either universal or mandatory mental health screening. So I think it is clear that the President's Commission did not feel this was in any way necessary, and for this reason I oppose the amendment. I think that is why the great majority of Members voted against it last year, and I would urge Members to vote the same way this year on this amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy).

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

Mr. Chairman, we are in opposition to the amendment. There is no universal mental health screening in this bill. Secretary Leavitt has made it clear there is nothing like this under consideration. It is an amendment that is not needed because it addresses a problem that does not exist.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, the DeLauro amendment raises serious constitutional concerns under the due process clause because it effectively repudiates the government's contract with Wal-Mart. The DeLauro amendment would cause the government to breach its contractual agreement with Wal-Mart. As a result of the government's breach, Wal-Mart would be released from obligations under the agreement, including its obligation to implement numerous measures that go beyond what the law requires to prevent future child labor violations.

For example, Wal-Mart would no longer be required to provide additional training to Wal-Mart managers regarding the requirements of the child labor laws, would no longer be able to discipline managers who fail to comply with the child labor laws, would no longer be required to post warning stickers on all equipment the Secretary has designated as hazardous for the operation by minors, would no longer be able to perform quarterly self-audits of all of its stores for the duration of the agreement, and it would not stop Wal-Mart from receiving advance notice of most investigations.

The 15 days is a common practice in this type of thing. I think whether you disagree or agree with the settlement that was made between the Department of Labor and Wal-Mart, let us not get into the business of second-guessing it and, in the process, create a lot of additional problems and, in fact, it would be detrimental to the employees in terms of what has been agreed to in the settlement of this issue.

For this reason, I would oppose the amendment, and I hope my colleagues would do likewise if we do have a vote on this.

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

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

There are dozens of these settlements made every month. If we get into the role of trying to second-guess and to pass judgment on them, there is no end to it. I think what we know of the merits of this is something that the Department of Labor worked out with Wal-Mart. This is not an uncommon thing to give 15-day notice. In fact, it is almost a standard procedure.

I say to my colleagues, we do not belong in involving ourselves, or this body, in trying to second-guess the judgment that has been made by the Department of Labor. I am sure they acted in good faith to protect the rights of children, to protect the rights of people that work at not only Wal-Mart but other similar types of employment. Therefore, I would urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).

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

Mr. Chairman, I now yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) for the purposes of a colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his comments. And I do agree that funding gifted and talented education in this country is an important mission. We must continue to provide support for our brightest students to succeed, especially in the areas of math and science.

I hope the gentleman understands that with such a tough budget allocation, we did not have the resources to support everything we would have liked to have done, including some important and successful programs like the Javits program for gifted and talented students.

I will work with the gentleman from Illinois to address this issue in conference.

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

Obviously this is a Committee on Ways and Means and Committee on Energy and Commerce issue. But let me point out that this amendment will prevent seniors from getting essential coverage information, and that is important. They want to know what their coverage is. They want to know what the coverage will be under the new medical services. This enrollment starts in less than 5 months, and I think this would be a poor time to take away the ability to give seniors information about the new drug benefit. We have a lot of, a considerable amount of money in this bill to provide the necessary employees to disseminate information, take phone calls from seniors who want to find out about the Medicare Modernization Act, and to deprive the CMS of the ability to meet this need would be a serious problem for seniors.

Let us give them every chance to call and to find out about the new Medicare Modernization Act. Let us not in any way limit the availability of information and the access that seniors should have to information about this possible benefit.

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

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

I just want to point out to my colleagues that are listening to this debate that the senior organizations want beneficiaries to have access to the new drug benefit. This is why the AARP, the Seniors Coalition, the National Coalition for Women with Heart Disease, the National Kidney Cancer Association, the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Chamber of Commerce, and many others oppose this amendment. I would think that Members would take that into consideration because these cover a broad spectrum of opinions on this and they universally agree that this is a bad amendment.

For this reason I urge Members to vote against it when we have the opportunity to do so.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, there is no privacy concern because no health information is shared. No personal health information can be disclosed to plan sponsors, period, and all plans are covered under the Federal privacy rule, HIPAA, that restricts the use and disclosure of personal health information. Furthermore, plans are only allowed to use the contact information for marketing Medicare prescription drug plans and facilitating beneficiary enrollment. They cannot use the contact information for any other purpose.

For all these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of Rule XXI, which states in part: ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''

This amendment addresses funds in other acts.

I yield to the gentleman from New York. It is my understanding the gentleman is going to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the point of order.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, in response to the gentleman's comments, I would point out that we do have a modest increase in this program, and we will be sensitive to the gentleman's concerns in conference as we try to balance out all of the challenges that we have in this bill in terms of the resources available.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise and report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, with the recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as amended, do pass.

Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``nay'' vote on the motion to recommit. I think this bill is fair, balanced, and good given the amount of money that is available. We do a lot of important things in education, health research, and in the Department of Labor. I urge all my colleagues to vote for the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think the gentlewoman has done a great job of describing the bill as part of the rule debate. The bill covers many items of great importance to people. The bill is a balanced bill. It is a recognition, of course, that we have limited resources. But within the framework of what was available and what was given to us by way of an allocation, I think we have done an excellent job, as was described by the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), in making priority choices.

I was interested this morning when I read the Post that David Broder in his column says, ``As for the value of education, when asked to identify from a list of five options the single greatest source of U.S. success in the world, the public education system edged out our democratic system of government for first place, with our entrepreneurial culture, military strength and advantages of geography and natural resources far behind.''

Number one in public opinion was education. We will talk about this in the general debate, and the gentlewoman likewise pointed this out, that this bill emphasizes education and some new areas, putting emphasis on teachers and principals, because the people are what make a school system a success.

Also in Roll Call today, an article by Morton Kondracke, the editor, the caption is: ``Avian Flu Could Become Top '08 Issue. Seriously.'' He goes on to point out in here how the Senate leader, a physician, made a speech and declared infectious disease and bioterrorism are ``the single greatest threat to our safety and security today.'' He went on to say fighting them will be the overriding purpose of his political future. That, again, we address in this bill.

I just want to point out that the bill does as much as possible within the constraints of limiting spending, addressing two major issues that are both in the news today, education and the threat of bioterrorism. We will discuss that more in the general debate on the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, just the facts: in 1996 the maximum Pell grant was $2,470. In this bill it is $4,100, almost a doubling in the past 10 years. One other fact: in 1997 the total funding for this bill was $75 billion. Today in this bill it is $142.5 billion, almost double.

So, I think it is important for people to realize that we have in the majority party's tenure of the last 10 years almost doubled the total.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3010 and that I may include tabular material on the same.

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

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

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

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

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield to the gentleman from California.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JN05.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JN05.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JN05.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JN05.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JN05.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JN05.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JN05.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JN05.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JN05.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JN05.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JN05.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JN05.012

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JN05.013

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JN05.014

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JN05.015

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JN05.016

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JN05.017

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JN05.018

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JN05.019

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JN05.020

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JN05.021

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JN05.022

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JN05.023

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

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

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

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

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

I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska.

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

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amendment Offered by Mr. Fossella

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield to the gentleman from New York.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

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

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

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

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

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

I rise in opposition to the amendment. It was included in the bill last year. It was offered as an amendment in full committee markup and passed and was retained in the conference report. This is good language, allows the committee to exercise its oversight rights, and tuberculosis outbreaks and hospitals ought to be regulated by the CDC, not OSHA. CDC is this Nation's primary infectious disease control agency, and we do not need other agencies to enact regulations that are not backed up by sound science in a misguided attempt to control infectious diseases. That is the CDC role. For that reason I oppose the amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English).

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, we did receive their correspondence, and I appreciate the gentleman's concerns. They are not unlike the supporters of many other popular programs. I would also thank the gentleman for understanding the tight fiscal constraints that my committee is facing this year.

I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, certainly I appreciate the gentleman's concerns, and I hope that we can work together in the coming months.

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

I rise for the purpose of entering into a colloquy with the gentlewoman from Washington (Miss McMorris).

Miss McMORRIS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I yield to the gentlewoman from Washington.

Miss McMORRIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose of entering into a colloquy with the chairman, and I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

I appreciate the chairman's leadership on the Labor-HHS and Education bill, and I especially appreciate his allowing me some time to highlight the significant role training in primary medicine plays in rural health and dental care.

My district in eastern Washington stretches from the Canadian border to the Oregon border and covers 23,000 square miles. As I travel around the district and hear from doctors, individuals, and families, I am told of the many challenges facing small rural communities in terms of access to health care.

In Congress, one of my top priorities is to ensure those in my district from Spokane, which is the largest medical center between Seattle and Minneapolis, to the more rural communities have access to quality, affordable health care.

It concerns me that eastern Washington and throughout rural America, we are seeing an increasing shortage of health care professionals. Already, 20 percent of the United States is impacted by health care personnel shortages. We need doctors, nurses, lab technicians and, especially in rural areas, we have a critical need for training in primary care medicine and dentistry.

Congress has recognized these challenges and has worked to preserve rural communities' access to health care by investing in the Training in Primary Care Medicine and Dentistry program under Title VII of the Public Health Care Service Act, and administered in the Health Resources and Services Administration of the Department of Health and Human Services. This funding plays a critical role in supporting programs that help train and bring health care professionals to rural areas of our country.

One of the regional programs that has benefited from Title VII grants is the rural health training program, referred to as WWAMI, which stands for Washington, Wyoming, Alaska, Montana, and Idaho. This rural health training residency network trains its graduate students at rural sites within these five States, with the supposition that doctors practice where they were trained. Statistics show that this method has proven itself effective time and time again. Retention rates of doctors who have been trained in rural areas within these States show that 89 percent of physicians who have been trained in rural areas have chosen to practice in those rural areas. Federal grants have been instrumental in the development of this innovative program. Congress needs to continue to invest in training in primary care medicine and dentistry because, in areas of critical need, it is a vital resource used to ensure access to health care.

Mr. Chairman, I hope that the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) will be able to address this issue in conference so that primary care training programs receive some Federal funding in fiscal year 06.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentlewoman for bringing the issue of training primary care physicians for service in rural areas to the attention of all of the Members.

All of us who represent rural areas share the gentlewoman's concern. It is very difficult for me to recommend not funding many of the health professions training programs. I certainly pledge to the gentlewoman that I will try to address this problem when we are in conference with our Senate colleagues.

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

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

I reluctantly rise in opposition to this amendment. I am a very strong supporter of the IDEA programs and we did put additional money in, as much as we were able to do given the constraints of what was given to us to work with. It is quite obvious there are a lot of good programs that we are not able to fund to the level we would like to. We did put $150 million increase in this bill, and anyone that has been listening to the debate today knows that there are a lot of favorite programs and a lot of good programs that we are not able to give the level of funding to that people would like to have.

But here we are talking about offsetting this, taking this money out of OSHA. Now, I understand the concern for these children, these students, but I also have a great concern for people who are in the workplace and need to be protected with safety inspections, need to be protected with the OSHA efforts to ensure that the workplace is safe and so on. And if we cut the funding for OSHA to fund this program, I do not think we are being fair to people who depend on OSHA to ensure that they have a safe place to work. And also it would have the effect of denying OSHA the money they need to go into places of employment and give them advice on how to make it safer.

Well, that is very important to the employer. It is important to the employee, and it is important to all the people who are part of this Nation's workforce. And here we have got a perfect example of having to make some very difficult trade-offs because IDEA is vital, too, in terms of opportunity for young people who have some type of a special need.

I wish we could do both. But we had to make priority judgments when we put this bill together. So we tried to increase IDEA and at the same time maintain OSHA to a level that would ensure worker safety. And for this reason I have to oppose this amendment because this, like many others, has a wonderful and a worthy intent; but in terms of priorities between the safety of the workplace and putting more in, and we do put a lot into the IDEA program, over $11 billion, we just have to make the choice.

Under those circumstances I would have to oppose the amendment.

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

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

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

I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, I thank both gentlemen, and I think what they are discussing is vitally important. I wish we could do more. I am a big fan of the community health centers. They help with the relief, the pressure on emergency rooms; and they give people without any other access to health care a place to go in an emergency.

I am pleased that both gentlemen are actively pushing; and I might also tell my colleagues, we have a great ally in the President of the United States. He believes in the health center program. In fact, we were not able to do as much as he requested in his budget because of other competing needs, but I hope as this body in the years to come will continue to strengthen the health centers.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Illinois makes a very good point. We should be leading the way. The Federal Government should be a model. With the energy problems that confront us, we have to look to alternative fuels as one of the ways through which this can be achieved. I commend the gentleman for his comments and hope that the Department of Labor is listening.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.