Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010

DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2010 -- (House of Representatives - July 24, 2009)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Mr. Tiahrt and every member of the subcommittee on both sides of the aisle for the work that they've put in in bringing this bill to the floor today. It's a controversial bill. I know we've had a lot of disagreements, but I think that the disagreement has not been disagreeable, and I appreciate that very much.

I want to thank Beverly Pheto, Rebecca Motley, Cheryl Smith, Susan Quantius, Nicole Kunko, Stephen Steigleder, Mike Gentilly, Amy Battaglia, Albert Lee, Christina Hamilton, and Ellis Brachman; and on the minority side, Steve Crane, Stephanie Meyers and AmyClaire Brusch for all of the staff work that has been put into this bill.

Mr. Chairman, this country has pushed a lot of money, government money, taxpayers' money, into the financial sector of the economy and Wall Street the last few months in order to try to stabilize the economy. This is the bill that tries to deal with the problems of everybody else in this society.

I urge its passage, and I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I recognize myself for the remainder of the time.

Mr. Chairman, before I get into the specifics of the bill, I would like to take a couple of minutes to respond to some of the criticisms that have been made about the process by which this bill has come to the floor.

Much has been made of the fact that this bill did not come to the floor under an open rule. There is nothing really new about that. On at least 25 occasions during the Republican control of this House, appropriation bills came to the floor without being under an open rule. But I want to specifically address the so-called ``outrage'' that has occurred by our supposedly denying Republican amendments the right to get a vote.

Here are the facts: Republican Members of the House offered 14 amendments. They filed 14 amendments with the Rules Committee. Four of those amendments were not in order under the rules. A point of order could have been lodged against all of them, so they were out. Three more were on subjects that belong in the health care debate or the health care reform debate, which is now working its way through the Congress.

I think what happened is that some Members on the other side of the aisle mistook me for Henry Waxman and thought we were in the Energy and Commerce Committee. Now, I don't think I look like him. I don't think Henry would want to look like me. But somehow there is confusion.

So our Republican friends have brought a number of amendments, three of them, to this bill on subjects such as forbidding us from having a public option in the health care reform bill. That's not under the jurisdiction of this committee. All that would do is add to the confusion. So those amendments were rejected by the Rules Committee.

Then our Republican friends offered another amendment which dealt with the issue of indirect student loans, whether that program should expire or not. That is an issue which was decided by the Education and Labor Committee earlier this week. It is an authorization. It's not an appropriation issue. So it's decided on that bill.

So that takes us from the Republicans' 14 initial amendments down to five amendments. We made in order four of those five amendments. The one amendment that we did not make in order that was remaining was an amendment that would have added a billion dollars to a program that we already added $12 billion to earlier this year in the recovery package. We put $12 billion in increases into special education. In the 12 years that the Republicans controlled this place, in total they only added $8.5 billion to that program. So we poured money into that program. And given the competition on the part of all other programs for taxpayers' money, I think the Rules Committee justifiably felt that that amendment was a little outlandish, so we didn't vote on it.

Now, if people want to make a Federal case out of that history, be my guest.

The second thing we've heard today is considerable bashing--in addition to bashing of the majority party of the House, we've heard considerable bashing of President Obama. In terms of the bashing of the majority, we were told a bit earlier by one of the speakers over there that we had been partisan in the full committee and had rejected every Republican amendment. That's nonsense. We accepted 57 Republican amendments on all of the appropriation bills that went through the committee this year. I hardly think that that is being partisan.

I would also point out that the bailout, which has been so roundly denounced by several speakers today, that

bailout was originally proposed and asked for by President Bush. It was voted down the first time in this House. It was voted up the second time after credit markets further collapsed. And both Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain, in an act of patriotism, rose above their partisan and electoral interests and supported Bush on that issue even though it was unpopular.

Enough said on that score.

I would also say that for those who are screaming about the President's economic recovery efforts, the President has been in office a very few short months. The Recovery Act passed less than 5 months ago. It is designed to be a 30-month program to try to limit to some degree the job loss in this economy. We were losing 700,000 jobs a month in the last 3 months of the Bush administration. We've now seen that job loss decline to about 400,000 jobs a month. That's not good enough in anybody's eyes, but it is a whole lot better than was happening last year. And it's going to take, frankly, a long time to repair the damage done by 8 years of previous government policy.

So I would prefer to set those issues aside. I don't think it's particularly productive to engage in partisan bashing.

I should correct one statement that I made. I said that we accepted 57 amendments in committee. We accepted 57 amendments in committee and on the floor. Let me correct that statement.

Having gotten rid of all of that underbrush, I would like to now turn to what is in this bill and why I believe the House ought to support it.

As I said earlier, this government, both under President Bush and under President Obama, has pumped a lot of money into what I would call the elite sectors of the economy: the financial sectors of the economy, the banking system, et cetera, and Wall Street. And now this bill is the main appropriation bill that deals with the economic problems and the health problems of every other American, and I want to walk you through just a bit what this bill does.

First of all, I think we need to understand this bill is fiscally responsible. The committee's allocation cut a total of $10 billion from the President's discretionary spending request, and in this bill, we have a $52 million reduction from President Obama's request. We have eliminated or cut some 44 programs, saving $1.3 billion.

And I would point out that the largest single problematic increase in the bill is a $993 million increase for the Social Security Administration to dramatically cut back the backlog on disability claims facing that agency. And I think no one would argue those funds are wasteful.

After we account for that increase for Social Security, that leaves us with a 1.7 percent increase for the rest of the bill. After you deduct for inflation, it means this bill, in real terms, is three-tenths of 1 percent above last year. That is hardly profligate.

In addition, a priority for this bill is $1.1 billion which we include for activities to reduce improper payments, fraud, and abuse in the Department of Labor and Health and Human Services and in the Social Security Administration. That is a 50 percent increase in enforcement money to go after fraud and waste and abuse over the previous year. It's been estimated by the budget office that that action could result in over $48 billion in savings and increased revenue for picking up legitimate revenues that would have otherwise been lost.

With respect to the Department of Health and Human Services, this bill increases that agency by about 3.3 percent. Again, hardly a profligate increase.

Now, we're all talking about our desire to pass health care reform. We recognize in the committee that if we're going to do that, we have to increase the capacity in the health care system, and so we are appropriating nearly $3 billion to do just that. We're providing $2.2 billion for community health centers; $530 billion to expand training programs in the nursing field; $135 million for a career pathway innovation fund to again train nurses, medical technicians, and others in the health care industry; $75 million additional funding for State health access grants to help States transition to a health reform program; and $65 billion for State high-risk insurance pools. We've also increased the National Institutes of Health funding by $500 million.

I've said many times on this House floor, when I go home, I've never had anybody in my life come up to me and say, ``Hey, Obey, why don't you in Washington get your act together and cut cancer research?'' and yet that is what the previous President and the previous Congress did. They eliminated over 900 medical research grants at the National Institutes of Health. We don't to that. We add a significant amount of money to try to beef up our medical research across the board.

We also added some $200 million for an initiative begun by former Treasury Secretary O'Neill in Pennsylvania to try to get hospitals to bring under control their life-threatening hospital infection problem which is plaguing the entire country.

With respect to senior nutrition and other services, we provided $1.5 billion. We have rejected the administration's efforts to cut $1.5 billion out of basic grants for Title 1. We've restored that funding.

We have provided a large increase, $446 million, for the administration's top priority, which is the Teacher Incentive Fund, and $500 million for Pell Grants.

The Department of Labor, more than half of the increase in that department is simply to help States to process unemployment compensation claims. We also have a $271 million program in this bill to strengthen our ability to help veterans transition to civilian workforce employment.

And I think, Mr. Chairman, that's about all I want to say about the numbers in the bill.

I just want to add one thing. With respect to the policy provisions in this bill, we have retained every single limitation that was contained in previous appropriation bills when our Republican friends were in the majority. We have retained every single restriction on abortion that was in bills when they controlled the House, and so I think we have leaned over backwards to try to work with our friends in the minority.

And as I say, I appreciate the relationship that I have with the gentleman from Kansas. He's a fine and good man. We don't agree on everything, but as Will Rogers once said, when two people agree on everything, one of them is unnecessary.

So we do the best we can to reconcile our differences. We all have deeply held beliefs, but I think this bill represents the values of the country and, I hope, the values of this Congress.

I would urge support.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment, I believe, is not controversial. It incorporates several amendments requested by Members and makes technical corrections to the underlying bill. These adjustments are fully offset and do not change the bottom-line funding for the bill.

Briefly, the amendment provides an additional $5 million for the Career Pathways Innovation Fund within the Department of Labor requested by Mr. Teague, offset by a reduction in the green jobs fund

It contains an additional million dollars for the emergency medical services for children's programs. As a result, the total of $21 million is included in the bill to bring improved emergency medical care to children due to Mr. Matheson's work on this issue

It contains an additional $1 million for the National Center for Health Statistics within the Centers for Disease Control, fully offset. As a result, the bill includes $140 million for the collection of critical health statistics. Mr. Cohen sponsored this important amendment.

Mathematics and Science Partnership program is increased by $5 million to $184 million to expand professional development for math and science teachers. Again, it is fully offset. It was urged by Mr. Holt and Mr. Ehlers and others.

The amendment provides nearly $7 million for the Reach Out and Read program within the fund for improvement of education in the Department of Education. It will result in an additional $2 million for books to help children learn to read due to the efforts of Mr. McGovern.

The amendment increases the amount from $20 million to $30 million within the charter schools program in the Department of Education that may be used for grants to charter management organizations. It replicates successful charter models at the request of Mr. Polis.

The amendment provides $1 million for university-based modeling and simulation programs newly authorized by the Higher Education Act proposed by Mr. Scott.

It then includes two funding limitation amendments sponsored by Mr. Cuellar with respect to the Federal management program designation and a prohibition on the use of funds in the bill for any first class travel in the agencies funded under this bill.

And the amendment also makes technical correction.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. OBEY. Let me consume 1 minute of that time myself.

Mr. Chairman, all I would say is that I've had at least two Members of the Republican side of the aisle come up and thank me for accepting various amendments. So while they may not have been the lead sponsors on amendments, they were certainly involved on the Republican side of the aisle in supporting some of the amendments that we have accepted and incorporated.

Secondly, I think the gentleman's recitation of some of the amendments that were not considered illustrates my point earlier. The first amendment that he mentioned was an amendment that was clearly not in order under the Budget Act. It would have put this entire bill under a violation of the Budget Act for being over our allowable funding. I didn't think good conservatives would want us to do that.

Secondly, I would point out that the second, third and fourth option he was talking about all speak to what kind of health care reform we should have, and that is not the jurisdiction of this committee. Those issues right now are being worked on in the Energy and Commerce Committee; they're being worked on in the Education and Labor Committee; they're being worked on in the Ways and Means Committee. And that's where they should remain.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, let me point out that the underlying language in this bill is, in fact, a compromise. It lifts the ban, but it does not permit Federal funds to be used for needle exchange programs that occur within 1,000 feet of a day care center, school, college or university, any public swimming pool, park, playground, video arcade, or youth center or any events sponsored by any such entity.

There is overwhelming evidence that syringe exchange programs when implemented as part of a comprehensive prevention strategy are an effective public health intervention for reducing HIV/AIDS and hepatitis and do not promote drug use.

Now let me be clear. I detest illegal drug use. I think it constitutes a national security threat. It ruins lives. It causes crime. It gets us into wars against drugs in Colombia and Mexico; and in fact, it gets us into another war in Afghanistan because of poppy production. So I hate illegal drugs. But even more, I hate the spread of AIDS. There's overwhelming evidence that we can help stop the spread of AIDS by allowing needle exchange programs. They are endorsed by leading public health organizations, such as the Institute of Medicine, the World Health Organization, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, the American Nurses Association, the American Public Health Association. They are endorsed by people such as Dr. Anthony Fauci, the Nation's leading fighter against AIDS; Thomas Frieden; former NIH Director Harold Varmus; former Surgeons General C. Everett Koop and David Satcher, who served under Republican and Democratic administrations. They are endorsed by people such as Captain Andrew Smith from the Los Angeles Police Department; Atlantic City Deputy Chief of Police Robert Schwartz; and San Francisco Chief of Police Frederick Lau.

Let me make one other point. Every Member of Congress has access to decent primary health care; but we are going to put at risk a substantial number of people if we do not support this underlying committee amendment. I want to say something personal. If we lose this amendment, it is not going to be because a lot of people on this House floor really believe that this ban makes sense. It will be because many Members are concerned and fear a cheap-shot political 30-second ad that distorts their position, spreads half-truths and scares people. I understand that concern.

But for the good of the country, we are being paid to ignore that kind of pressure and simply do the right thing for the country. I ask every Member of the House to do the right thing because if you do, it will save lives. I ask them to vote ``no'' on the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

Mr. Chairman, Title X is America's family planning program. It provides comprehensive family planning services and a wide variety of other preventive care, including breast exams and instruction on breast self-examination, Pap tests, screening and appropriate treatment for sexually transmitted infections, HIV screening, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

This amendment gratuitously blocks Planned Parenthood clinics from receiving Title X funding. Those clinics provide important health care access to low-income uninsured patients, 5 million women in 4,500 clinics nationwide. The breast cancer screenings and the well-mother exams they receive may be the only health care they get all year.

If Planned Parenthood clinics are forced to close, these women may have to forgo critical care because they will lack a single provider providing Title X family planning funding, and this amendment would only make matters worse.

Now, if this amendment is intended to stop abortions, it has no impact whatsoever. Title X statutes forbid the use of funding for abortions, and this bill appropriates no funds whatsoever for abortions. Our bill includes the traditional Hyde language, prohibiting funds in the act from being used to support abortions. And it reads, in part: `` Projects under such title shall not be expended for abortions, all pregnancy counseling shall be nondirective, and that such amounts shall not be expended for any activity, including publication or distribution of literature that in any way tends to promote public support or opposition to any legislative proposal or candidates for public office''. And I repeat again, no funds flow for abortions, none whatsoever.

Planned Parenthood plays a central role in expanding access to care under Title X. Planned Parenthood is the Nation's leading reproductive health care provider. For over 90 years, Planned Parenthood has provided low-income uninsured women with the vital reproductive health care services they need.

I want to make one other point. Every Member of Congress has access to decent primary care. The Pence amendment would cut millions of American women off from their source of primary care. If Members want to do that, go ahead and vote that way. Not me. Not me and not any Member of the House, I believe, who understands the true needs of American women.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment which would cut $803 million out of important investments in this bill. Let me point out a few facts. First of all, as I said earlier, the Appropriations Committee allocation has already cut a total of $10 billion from the President's discretionary spending request, and this bill cuts $52 million from that same request.

This bill, on a comparable basis, is 3.6 percent above the 2009 limit. That is hardly runaway spending. Furthermore, when you look at program lines, you will see that this bill makes hard choices to terminate programs that are not working, with $1.3 billion in cuts to individual programs below the 2009 level. The bill terminates or cuts 44 programs. The largest single program increase is for the Social Security Administration, effectively one fourth of the bill's entire increase for 2009.

With dramatically rising retirement and disability claims facing the agency, nobody would argue that those funds are wasteful. After accounting for the SSA increase, this bill is 1.7 percent above for the rest of the bill, meaning, in real dollar terms, after inflation, it is an increase of .3 percent. That is hardly being spendthrift.

If this amendment is adopted, I would point out two problems. First of all, it makes no real spending decisions. It leaves all of that in the hands of the President of the United States. It allows the President to determine this funding level for every single account in this bill. I don't think this Congress should be a rubber stamp for any President.

And, then, I think we ought to look at what the implications are for programs in this bill. Applied to the National Institutes of Health, this cut would wipe out more than 900 new research grants and eliminate inflation adjustments for 36,000 new and existing research grants undermining efforts to treat cancer, Parkinson's, diabetes and other deadly diseases. Applied to community health centers, nearly 1.3 million people could see their health care services reduced or eliminated. Applied to special education, IDEA funding would be cut by 7 percent below the 2009 level. Applied to Pell Grants, 7.6 million students could see their grants reduced and the maximum Pell award cut by approximately $135.

Applied to LIHEAP, it would reduce the number of households served by over 900,000. Applied to senior nutrition, it would eliminate nearly 240 million meals to 2.5 million vulnerable Americans. Applied to Head Start, over 50,000 low-income children would be denied comprehensive early childhood development services. Applied to the Child Care Block Grant, child care services for over 270,000 low-income families would be eliminated. And applied to the Job Corps, it would deliver a more than 50 percent cut to Job Corps centers.

With all due respect, I don't think anybody on this side of the aisle needs to hear a lecture about deficits. I have opposed the Bush policies, both economic and war policies, which led to the unraveling of the budget, which led to a huge amount of debt and which led to the collapse of the economy. I don't think we need more of that kind of medicine.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment and yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, this is what I would call the original holy picture amendment. Sometimes we see legislators who think that the way to do business is to cut everybody else's priorities in order to fund theirs. That's not the way 435 people can come to a constructive conclusion. The fact is that this is a recovery or trailer amendment left over from the stimulus bill of a few months ago.

Just a few months ago, we had a stimulus bill on the House floor which increased special education by $12 billion. In the 12 years the Republicans were in control of this House, they increased special education by a total of $8.5 billion. We increased it by $12 billion in 1 year, and not a single Member on that side of the aisle voted for it.

And now, they're belatedly trying to recover politically by cutting a laundry list of other programs in order to pretend that they found a responsible way to free up money to fund Special Education.

I want to point out that this amendment would cut $100 million from the School Improvement account. That could endanger 100,000 kids who, right now, have after-school learning programs. It cuts $148 million from the Innovation and Improvement account, Reach Out and Read, Teach for America, Full Service Community Schools, and Reading is Fundamental.

It eliminates $88 million in smaller learning communities. We've learned from research that a lot of high schools need to be downsized. This cripples the program and would prevent 500,000 high school students from benefiting from that program.

It cuts almost $170 million from the Community Service and Volunteer Program, including AmeriCorps and Summers of Service--summer jobs. It would also put at risk an effort to bolster the participation of disabled Americans in community service. It would cut the Foster Grandparents and Senior Companion program as well.

It would eliminate $300 million from the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria. If the H1N1 virus has taught us anything, it's that we have to attack these disease problems on a worldwide basis.

I think the amendment speaks for itself. I don't think we want to play ``fruit basket upset'' just so that somebody can get better on a rollcall. I would urge defeat of the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source