Ralph Regula

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let us be clear, there are no students going to be cut off. Those that meet the qualifications are going to get the grants in accordance with their family's economic situation. The formula is written into the law. We are not changing that. Secondly, what this motion proposes is to do exactly what the House did on July 10. We welcome the support of the other side of the aisle and the fact that they are joining the 215 Members that voted for the bill that contain the Pell grant numbers exactly as are being proposed tonight, and we certainly support the motion to instruct because this motion is instructing House Members to do what we did on July 10. We are happy to join the other side in this effort and hope on a bipartisan basis prospectively in the future that we retain strong support for Pell. All of the arguments that have been made tonight are very compelling, and it is what I would like to see, and that is to get the system seamless so that young people think in terms of 16 years, because if America is to be competitive in the years ahead, we need a very well- educated population. We have seen time and again how important that is to the future of our Nation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson), a very valued member of the subcommittee.

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. Regula asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, we could just look at this chart and I would rest my case. The blue is the Pell grant under the Democrats. The red is the Pell grants under the Republicans. Now, I am pleased that in the motion to instruct that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) is urging us to adopt the number passed that was in the House-passed bill. We did not get a vote on the Democrat side; but, nevertheless, tonight we are being asked to instruct conferees to adopt the number that was in the House bill. And that is great. It was a good number as evidenced by the chart. This chart shows the maximum award under the Pell grant program. It has grown under Republican leadership, as evidenced by the red line here. And in the labor bill it maintains the maximum award of $4,050 for fiscal year 2004. When we took control of the Congress in 1995, the maximum Pell grant under the now-minority was only $2,340. And it was funded at $6.2 billion. Today under the Republican leadership, the maximum is $4,050 and the amount in the budget authority was $12.25 billion. I agree with the previous speaker, this is a great program. It gives middle-income students access to college. In 2004 there will be about 4.9 million students, almost 5 million students that will have a chance to go to college because of Pell grants. In the last 2 years, the number of Pell grant recipients has surged by 25 percent. It is a good example of a need-based program meant to open doors and provide an equality of education opportunity. The poorer the student, the larger the award. It is a means-tested program, so it recognizes that those with the most need get the most help. It is an example of the Federal Government enabling school choice for millions of Americans. They can use their Pell grants for public or private schools; they can use them to attend religious schools. Real choice is one reason that this country's higher education system is the envy of the world. And let me emphasize that in 2004 not one student will see their Pell grant reduced based on their circumstances. I think it is a record we can be very proud of. We can be proud as a Nation that we are providing some help to students to ensure that they have access to higher education. I think more and more we come to realize how important it is for individuals to get access and opportunity to get the benefits that go with higher education. Personally, I would like to see the school system become seamless: from the day that student ends the first grade that they think in terms of going through 16 years and getting the college education, that we do not think there is a stopping place, that the student thinks in terms of their future ending up with some type of education beyond high school. The Pell grants ensure that every child will have an opportunity that might not otherwise get that chance. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and let me make a couple of points here. One, not one student will be denied a Pell Grant that meets the qualifications. Number two, the formula is written into the law, and we are not changing the formula. So the maximum amount will remain the same. And, number three, on July 10, 215 Republicans voted for the bill, and my colleagues tonight are saying in this motion that they agree with the number that was adopted then. We support the motion because the motion is saying do what the Republicans did on July 10 in terms of funding the Pell Grants. We are totally in agreement. We were in agreement then, and we are in agreement tonight. We like the program. We want to make sure that every student that meets the criteria of need will have an opportunity. So we do not have a disagreement tonight on what we are trying to accomplish, and we are pleased that the other side has this position tonight. We wish our colleagues had had it on July 10, but we welcome your support tonight and will join you in this motion.

Mr. REGULA. Once again reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, we are in agreement on Trio and GEAR UP, and I think the gentleman would be in agreement that we make the system as seamless as possible so that these students will enter kindergarten and the first grade with the idea that they are going to go all the way. And part of that would be the Pell Grants, to ensure that, regardless of their economic circumstances, and that is often beyond their control, but that they are still going to get that kind of an opportunity. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, we would like to do that, and we will certainly make every effort because we have not changed our minds since July 10 that this is a good program and should receive the funding that was incorporated in the bill at that time.

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, just briefly, I think for those that have listened to this debate tonight, as a society we can take pride in this program of the Older Americans Act. And I might add one that has not been discussed yet is the Caregivers Program which is also in our subcommittee to help people gain the knowledge of how to provide care to their elderly relatives, family, and so on in the home setting. All of this adds up to a real effort to allow those who want to stay in their homes to do so. And in the House bill, we can increase the amount over last year. And we will be very mindful of the thrust of this instruction as we negotiate with the other body in a final number. But, again, I would say that as Americans we can take pride in what we have done, I think in the Older Americans Act, to allow people to stay in their home, to allow people to have some social contact with the other members of their community, to allow the volunteers who want to help others to have this opportunity. So we certainly support the motion to instruct. And as a conferee, I will do all that I can to urge that we do get the highest possible number within the constraints of priorities that we have in the bill and the constraints of the allocation that we started with originally. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Rhode Island has described many of the values of this program. He is a very valued member of our subcommittee. As he well knows, we have done all we could for this program within the constraints of the Budget Act. It is a great program. I think one of the benefits that probably was not mentioned is it gives a lot of people in communities a sense of participation because these meals are delivered by volunteers in most cases if not all. That means that those in the community who are doing this service realize that they are helping the seniors. It gives them an understanding, but most importantly, of course, as the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy) described, it is very important to the beneficiaries of the program. As has been mentioned, it is not only the nutrition and that is important. Seventy-nine percent of the individuals that are recipients have a high nutritional risk and the Meals on Wheels ensures that they will get, at least as much as possible, a balanced diet which obviously will contribute to their health. We were earlier debating some aspects of the Medicare reform bill and the prescription drug change. I think that bill does more on preventive medicine than has been the case in the past. An item such as requiring that those who go on Medicare must first have a medical examination to see if they have any problems, that will now be covered by Medicare. I think that is a great provision. But part of preventive medicine is having a nutritious diet. The Older Americans Act nutrition programs serve that purpose. As was mentioned, over 270 million meals to almost 3 million people that benefit. They benefit in a congregate setting and also as individuals in their homes. What it does is allow people to stay in their homes for a longer period of time. In my discussion with seniors, they want to stay at home as long as possible. They do not want to be institutionalized. Meals on Wheels affords them that privilege. I wish we could do more. I wish the budget numbers that were provided to our subcommittee were larger, but we have a lot of challenges in the Labor-H subcommittee. We have the challenges of funding the research at the National Institutes of Health. We have the challenges of funding the Centers for Disease Control; that has a new dimension because of 9/11. We have the challenge of providing good education to ensure that no child is left behind. We have the challenge in the Labor Department of providing services to those that are unemployed so that they can get back into employment. We have some tough policy decisions that we have to make. We do put a lot of money into the Older Americans Act. I and all of us wish it could be more, but we have to balance out the needs of the seniors and the Meals on Wheels programs with education, health research and so on. But on balance this is good preventive medicine, to provide for nutritious meals. It also, as was mentioned, is very important for their social well-being. The fact that somebody is going to come to their home once a day for 5 days a week, it gives them a sense of being a part of the community. Because these people that are delivering these Meals on Wheels are volunteers, most of them have some time that they can stop and visit a little bit with the clients. I think that adds to their well-being and adds to their ability to be comfortable in their home setting. Another feature of this that we do not fully appreciate is that the Meals on Wheels leverages a lot of other sources. It leverages the State funds. In the case of the Native Americans, it leverages tribal funds. It leverages local funds and Federal moneys and other subcommittees of appropriations. These total contributions of matching funds more than exceed what we put into the program in our bill. That is a very positive thing that we do--leverage these funds. I think for this reason I have no objection to this motion to instruct. I wish we could do more, but we are limited in the total resources that are available as we make the priority choices among many very fine programs. We have in constructing this bill held the numbers that can be available for the Meals on Wheels, the Older Americans Act at the highest level possible within the constraints of the resources that are provided to our subcommittee. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), a strong booster of the NIH.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me reiterate that in the last 5 years we have doubled the budget of NIH. We have had some wonderful results. They testified in our committee not long ago that today, because of advances in medical science, every 5 years life expectancy goes up 1 year. That is a tremendous breakthrough and achievement, particularly for our younger people. I look at my 20-month-old granddaughter and think how much more she will have in years, and, hopefully, quality years. That is the other challenge of NIH. Let me say again that this is a little misleading to talk about a freeze, because last year we put a lot of money in construction, which is not in this budget. So in real terms of research this budget is up 6 percent, because of the money that will be available that has not been put into construction, as has been the case in other years. I also want to commend Dr. Zerhouni, the new director of NIH. I think we can look forward to his leadership being very effective on the part of this institution. He has developed a new road map, after extensive consultation with the research community; and the road map is designed to bring the NIH greater successes than they have experienced in the past. That is a great credit to his leadership; it is a great credit to Secretary Thompson, who named him to this position, and to President Bush, who supported this very strongly. I think we can look forward to a continued period of great accomplishments from NIH. We are very supportive of this effort and will put the highest amount possible, as stated in the motion to instruct. We will do that. But we have limitations. We have the budget. We have the dollars available to us. In our subcommittee, it is not just NIH. It is education; it is IDEA. There was an extra $1 billion we put in this year. There are a whole host of good programs. I say our Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies is the love-your-neighbor committee, because all 280 million Americans in one way or another have their lives touched by the education programs, by NIH research, by our Labor Department programs to help people get relocated and get new jobs in the event of plant closures. So we are going to do the best we can. This motion to instruct, we are going to support it because it says essentially what the committee will try to do in conference. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to rise to discuss the funding the Committee on Appropriations has provided to the National Institutes of Health and respond to the motion to instruct from the gentleman from Texas. I think all Members of the House have been touched by a family member or constituent with a heart-wrenching medical problem who turned to the research supported by NIH as their hope for recovery or relief from pain. The fiscal year 2004 appropriation bills passed by the House and Senate continue the tradition of congressional support. The House bill provides almost a $700 million increase for NIH, one of the largest program increases in the bill and the largest increase in the Department of Health and Human Services. This comes on the heels of completing the doubling of funding for NIH over a 5-year period, from $13.7 billion to $27 billion in the short span of 5 years. I think the chart we have here tells the story very eloquently. We can see on the bar graph how much since 1996 NIH funding has increased through the doubling mechanism, and it is very substantially more than it was when the Republicans took over. It was $13 billion. Now, it is $27 billion. And I think it shows the commitment of the majority party to NIH. Yes, it is a little bit less than the doubling era, but we cannot continue that; we do not have the resources, but it still provides an increase in new grants and the highest total level of grants in NIH's history. And because NIH had more than a $1 billion of one-time costs in fiscal year 2003 that can be converted to research funding in fiscal year 2004, the real increase for NIH is more than 6 percent, that is, for research programs, a level in line with most annual increases prior to the doubling. I am confident that Dr. Zerhouni, the new director of NIH, will lead the agency on a productive new path in the postdoubling era. I am enthused about the ``road map'' he has unveiled after extensive consultation with the research community. Of course, we would all like to provide Dr. Zerhouni with the highest possible funding level in conference, and I am confident we will do that. I intend to support the gentleman's motion. I think the House has already demonstrated that they want to do it with the highest possible funding level in light of the resources made available to us as the Committee on Appropriations, and I have no quarrel with the gentleman and I know that we will, in conference, try to reach the highest funding level that is possible because NIH is an extremely important resource of this Nation. They have done great work over the years, and we are very supportive of them both in our subcommittee and the Committee on Appropriations and in conference. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson), also a very valued member of our subcommittee.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out the facts: promises made by the Democrats, very little increase; promises delivered by the Republicans. The chart tells more eloquently than words what it is all about. I simply say that we believe in special education, and we have put the money there to back up our beliefs. This motion to instruct is a sham because the Senate money is not there. They did something proposed, and I would again emphasize that the bill that came out of the Senate committee had less, less in IDEA than the House bill. They had a floor amendment that said we are going to raise taxes to pay for it. Unconstitutional. So let us get on with it. I would point out one other fact, and that is that the Democrats voted against $1 billion for IDEA in the July bill for labor, health and human services. So I submit to my colleagues that the record is clear. Republicans deliver; the Democrats promise. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. Speaker, this is a very interesting point. Promises made, 1975, the Democrats were in control. They made promises. Here is the performance. Look at that, barely increased over 19 years. Barely increased over 19 years. Republicans take over, and we kept the promises. Here it goes, up, up, up, up, up, up. We can see the difference. This clearly shows us the difference between the Democrat Party, make the promises, do nothing. Republicans deliver. On top of that, just recently the Members of the Democrat Party voted against a bill to increase special education by $1 billion. And I think it is interesting that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are seeking to instruct conferees to adopt the Senate funding levels for IDEA when just 3 months ago they voted against a $1 billion increase. They did not seem to want that. We strongly support funding for special education and the hope it gives millions of families every day. In fact, since fiscal year 1996, the first year Republicans controlled the House, funding for special education has tripled; and under Republican control the percentage of per-pupil expenditures that the Federal Government contributes toward special education has increased to nearly 20 percent. By way of contrast, when the Democrats were in charge from 1975 until 1995, 20 years, the percentage of per- pupil expenditures was never more than 9 percent. There are the facts; and I say to those who are looking at this situation, do not go on what I say. Go on what the chart shows happened when the Republicans took control. They made the promises; we delivered. Mr. Speaker, the Republican commitment to funding special education cannot be questioned. The bill passed by this House in July continued the investment in IDEA by increasing the program by another $1 billion, representing the largest dollar increase in the entire Labor, Health and Human Services Education appropriations bill ever. As most of my colleagues know, the original bill reported by the Committee on Appropriations in the other body provided a slightly smaller increase for this program. That is the bill that they reported out of committee. It was less than we have done. On the floor the other body adopted an amendment that would have added $1.2 billion to the program. One little problem, however. This amendment was offset by the use of a customs user fee. Basically, this is a tax, and as we all know, increasing taxes is something that is not within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Appropriations to decide. And tax policy is also something which the United States Constitution says must, and I emphasize must, originate in the House, not in the Senate. Therefore, this provision must be dropped by the other body in order for us to complete our conference on this bill. So we are talking about an instruction that cannot happen under the Constitution. If we accept the gentlewoman's motion, it will have the effect of cutting $1.2 billion out of every other program in this bill. It will mean we will have to make cuts in funding for biomedical research that is seeking cures for cancer or diabetes or Parkinson's disease. Or perhaps the gentlewoman would suggest we take the funding out of programs under No Child Left Behind, such as programs to teach children to read or improve teacher quality. Or should we take the funding out of that provided for colleges and universities, or funding to produce textbooks for blind students? Or should we reduce the Pell grants? That is the effect of this motion. We are not going to disagree with it because we are for IDEA. Here is the evidence: it says clearly which party cares about these children; and, therefore, we want the conference committee to do as much as possible. We did it on the bill that passed here in July. We raised IDEA by $1 billion, and the Democrats for whatever reason chose to oppose this. Mr. Speaker, this motion is nothing more than a vain attempt to divert the public's attention from the fact that my colleagues on the other side of this aisle voted against the $1 billion increase for children with special needs earlier this year. The bill passed by this House was a balanced approach to addressing the needs of all of our citizens, including those with special needs. It gives hope to children and families across this Nation. And I say once again here are the facts, just look at the chart. It tells us the story eloquently. They make the promises; the Republicans deliver. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood), a very valued member of our subcommittee.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. REGULA. Mr Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.