[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 85 (Thursday, June 23, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H4991-H5000]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3010, DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH 
AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS 
                               ACT, 2006

  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 337 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 337

       Resolved,  That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     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. The first reading 
     of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order 
     against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate 
     shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour 
     equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. After 
     general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule. Points of order against 
     provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of 
     rule XXI are waived except for section 511. During 
     consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the 
     Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on 
     the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has 
     caused it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional 
     Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. 
     Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. When the 
     Committee rises and reports the bill back to the House with a 
     recommendation that the bill do pass, the previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments 
     thereto to final passage without intervening motion except 
     one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. 
Capito) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purposes 
of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 337 is a fair, open rule that provides 
for the consideration of the Labor, Health, and Human Services, and 
Education appropriations bill for fiscal year 2006.
  I want to commend my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman 
Regula) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Ranking Member Obey) for 
their efforts in moving this important piece of legislation to the 
floor.
  This appropriation bill funds health and education programs that are 
vitally important to our children and families. The Committee on 
Appropriations has met the need for these programs, while living within 
the parameters set by the House and the budget resolution.
  The bill provides an $118 million increase to the Department of 
Education, including a $100 million increase for Title I State grants. 
My colleagues across the aisle decry what they call a lack of funding 
for education, and nothing could be further from the truth.
  Since Republicans took control of Congress, funding for the 
Department of Education has more than doubled. In the last 5 years 
alone, total education expenditures have increased by nearly 50 
percent.
  I am particularly pleased that the committee provided resources to 
key college prep programs. The TRIO program is funded at last year's 
level of $837 million, and GEAR-UP will receive $306 million, also 
equal to last year's allocation. These two programs are very successful 
in helping low-income students in making the transition to college. 
Many TRIO and GEAR-UP participants from high schools and colleges 
across West Virginia took the

[[Page H4992]]

time to write me about their successes in the programs. I appreciate 
these students' efforts and wish them every success as they continue 
their education.
  The bill also provides money for the Perkins Vocational Education and 
Tech Prep programs at last year's level. These programs provide job 
skills to students, some of whom will go to college, and many others 
will have the necessary training to enter the work force. Many West 
Virginia students take advantage of vocational education, so I 
appreciate that funding for those programs was maintained.
  The maximum Pell grant award is increased to $4,100, the highest 
level in the program's history. This increase is the beginning of a 
series of proposed increases in Pell grants that will help more 
students across the country afford the growing cost of a college 
education.
  The committee provides $569.6 million, the same as fiscal year 2005, 
for the Adult Education State Grant program. This money will be used to 
help fund literacy programs for adults and enable them to complete a 
secondary education. Reading skills are a necessity for our adults as 
well as our youth, and for adults in the employment market and in 
everyday life, so I am pleased this bill restores adult education to 
last year's level.
  The legislation before us also addresses the many health care needs 
of our Nation. The bill contains a $145 million increase for the 
National Institutes of Health, demonstrating our commitment to finding 
cures for deadly diseases. Funds for community health centers that 
provide primary care for many patients in counties across my district 
and others across the country are increased by $100 million to $1.8 
billion. These health centers are important, because they offer health 
care to people in rural communities who have few other options for 
quality care. Health centers are cost effective because they cut down 
on unnecessary emergency room visits and expensive, serious ailments 
that come when minor illnesses go untreated.
  I am also glad that the bill provides $890 million to begin the 
implementation of Medicare Part D, the long-awaited prescription drug 
benefit that will be especially helpful for our Nation's poorest 
seniors.
  Job training activities, especially the successful Job Corps program, 
are also well provided for in this legislation. The Job Corps Centers 
in Charleston and Harper's Ferry in my district do an outstanding job 
of training students not only to be productive workers, but to be 
active members of their community as well. I am pleased that Job Corps 
will see an increase to $1.44 billion this year.
  As with any appropriation legislation, we had to make tough choices 
in this legislation. These choices are particularly difficult when 
dealing with the sensitive health and education issues like the ones in 
this bill. The Committee on Appropriations allocated the available 
resources in this bill in a manner that emphasizes those programs most 
important to our Nation. I urge my colleagues to join me in support for 
the rule and the underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from West 
Virginia (Mrs. Capito) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I 
yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, let me start with a quote from Lyndon 
Johnson: Today we rededicate a part of the airwaves which belong to all 
the people,'' a thing we should always remember, ``and we dedicate them 
for the enlightenment of all the people.''
  President Lyndon Johnson spoke these words at the White House 
ceremony which marked the official creation of the Corporation for 
Public Broadcasting in 1967. Much has changed in the 37 years since 
then, but in the realm of television, Mr. Speaker, a PBS program that 
reaches millions of families every day has been the only constant.
  PBS programming is first and foremost about children. At a time when 
so many television networks are wary of producing educational 
programming because it will not be cost-effective as they define it, 
PBS stands alone. They are proud to present wonderful programs that 
teach children how to read, how to share, and how to be tolerant of 
others. But PBS is not just for children, it is for minds of all ages 
that seek to question and learn about our world.
  PBS has the best documentaries, the best programs about American 
history and about the new scientific discoveries which are constantly 
changing our world. There is a reason that Peggy Noonan of The Wall 
Street Journal, an unabashed conservative, has written that ``At its 
best, at its most thoughtful and intellectually honest and curious, PBS 
does the kind of work that no other network in America does or will 
do.'' Ms. Noonan wrote this because it is true. And what is most 
important, PBS programming is free to all.
  Big Bird reaches all the children in America, regardless of whether 
they are in urban or rural areas, regardless of their economic class or 
whether or not their parents can afford 500 channels of cable, but the 
majority leadership is speaking out against Big Bird here today and the 
other great children's programming. They are speaking out against 
quality news and arts and entertaining programs that have no other 
place to call home on television today.
  The Labor-HHS appropriations bill we will consider today offers cuts 
of more than $100 million from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting 
funding. And, all told, this bill imposes a staggering 42 percent cut 
in funding for PBS this year.

                              {time}  1045

  Now, why would the Congress do this? There is only one reason, Mr. 
Speaker, and that reason is the leadership of this body does not like 
PBS. In fact, Republicans have been after PBS for years. Ronald Reagan 
tried to slash CPB funding, so did Newt Gingrich. And now the 
conservatives have redoubled their efforts.
  They claim that PBS is the lapdog of the left. But the notion that 
PBS is partisan runs against the very grain of what PBS is and what the 
Corporation for Public Broadcasting was designed to accomplish.
  President Johnson stated that CPB was intended to be carefully 
guarded from government and party control. It will be free, it will be 
independent, and it will belong to all of our people.
  PBS and CPB, therefore, should be neither liberal nor conservative 
and should instead be honest and objective; and it always has been. The 
real problem with our friends on the right seems to be confusing 
intellectually honest and independent programming with so-called 
liberal bias, simply because they are not espousing their own narrow 
conservative world view 24 hours a day.
  Most Americans, no matter their political persuasion, understood the 
benefits of hearing views from different perspectives; and they like 
the idea of truly independent, stimulating public programming. They 
understand that Big Bird cannot be replaced by 500 channels of cable.
  That is why Roper polls taken in 2004 and 2005 found that the people 
of our country thought that spending money on PBS was the second best 
use of their tax dollars, right behind the funding of our military.
  But the independence of PBS and the Corporation for Public 
Broadcasting is somehow a threat to this Republican leadership. Why 
else would Kenneth Tomlinson, the new Republican chairman of CPB, 
attempt to appoint Patricia Harrison as the new head of the Corporation 
For Public Broadcasting?
  Ms. Harrison is a strange choice for the leader of a broadcasting 
corporation in as much as she has never even worked in broadcasting. On 
the other hand, she was at one time the cochair of the Republican 
National Committee, and so perhaps her qualifications for the position 
speak for themselves.
  Mr. Tomlinson also felt that such prominent PBS programs such as 
``NOW,'' with Bill Moyers, were liberal in their orientation. He 
therefore did the honorable thing and hired several ombudsmen to 
secretly spy on the programs and report on their activity.
  And just last week, we learned that in 2004 the Corporation for 
Public Broadcasting, now firmly under partisan Republican leadership, 
gave two Republican lobbyists $15,000 and did not tell anybody they had 
done so.

[[Page H4993]]

  By the way, Mr. Tomlinson was head of Voice of America, and we 
understand that Voice of America is to be outsourced to Asia. How do 
you like that, America? Is this what we have come to, spying on the 
network that brings us ``Sesame Street,'' ``The Electric Company,'' 
``Captain Kangaroo''? And if so, what is next?
  Will we have satellite surveillance of the ``Antiques Road Show''? 
Wire taps in Oscar's trash can? Are the American people going to allow 
these same individuals who actively manipulate the media, who have 
allowed political operatives to pose as journalists in the White House, 
who have paid commentators and pundits to falsely pose as journalists, 
to manipulate public opinion?
  Are we going to allow them to tell us that now Public Broadcasting is 
the enemy? I certainly hope and pray not. If there is any doubt that 
this is their true intention, my fellow Americans, we need look no 
further than this very bill, approved in a subcommittee where the 
Republican leadership successfully eliminated funding for PBS and the 
Corporation For Public Broadcasting.
  As with so many other things in this Congress, they were shamed by 
the American people into reversing course, but I imagine that the right 
wing assault on PBS will continue.
  President Johnson feared that if placed ``in weak or even in 
irresponsible hands,'' public television could generate controversy 
without understanding, could mislead as well as teach.
  It could appeal to passions rather than to reason. That was very far-
seeing for President Johnson. Let us not succumb to the misguided 
partisan passions of the leadership which threaten to destroy this 
cherished American institution. Let us preserve public networks across 
our country.
  Mr. Speaker, Sesame Street teaches children to be fair and just. And 
we learned that from Sesame Street, our children learned it from Sesame 
Street, let us practice it today, and we expect no less from Members of 
this Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill contains quite a bit on education. I think the 
wonderful thing about America is that every child in America is 
afforded a public education through our public schools. I am very proud 
to say that I have three children who are very fine graduates of West 
Virginia public schools. And there are tough choices to be made in this 
bill. I acknowledged that in my opening statement. And I acknowledge 
that as well.
  But I would like to go through some of the things, the public 
education things, in this bill that will help every child in America no 
matter what channel they turn to on the television. There is a $118 
million increase to the Department of Education. Increases in Pell 
grants to the highest ever, $4,100 availability. Special Ed grants are 
funded at $10.7 billion, $150 million above last year's funding.
  Title 1 grants, which help the underprivileged and our lower-economic 
students, $100 million over last year's funding. Reading programs. 
Reading is an essential art; I hope it never becomes a lost art. It is 
an essential art for our future, not only to bring much joy into 
people's lives but also to see that they are able to secure fruitful 
employment and raise a family and have the best things in America. 
Reading is absolutely essential.
  Reading programs are funded at $1.2 billion. The Reading First 
program is funded at over $1 billion. The Even Start program is funded 
at $200 million. Math and science. We have heard a lot about the loss 
of math and science abilities in our students coming out of high 
school. We recognize that in this bill, and we have increased by over 
$11 million for a total of $190 million to enhance the number of 
teachers trained to teach in the fields of math and science.
  I think there is much to be proud of in this bill in terms of the way 
we have addressed problems in our public education, and the way we have 
addressed something that is near and dear to every American's heart, 
that is, a good solid quality education for our children.
  We have also worked to improve teacher quality. This provides $2.94 
billion to help teachers with professional development programs. So I 
think that this year's bill, while the tough decisions were made, and 
as I said, I congratulate the chairman and ranking member for making 
those tough choices, there is a lot in here that will help enhance the 
education, enrich the lives of our children, and help improve the 
quality of our public education.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).
  (Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the House is on schedule to pass all 
10 appropriations bills necessary to fund the Federal Government. But 
the challenge we face is to do so under the tight constraints dictated 
by the budget resolution put forth by the Republican majority.
  I believe a budget is a moral blueprint for the priorities of the 
Federal Government. But, sadly, this year's budget fails to address our 
Nation's most basic priorities and fails to plan for our Nation's 
future. And now, to the detriment of our appropriations bills and 
ultimately our country, we have become chained to its misguided 
priorities.
  The long-term health of our Nation is being threatened at a time when 
we should be investing in it. Within 15 years, America's supply of 
nurses will fall almost 30 percent below the Nation's needs. Filling 
the registered nurse pipeline with new recruits requires sustained, 
aggressive funding over the long term. And I am disappointed to say 
that level funding in the bill for nursing programs will not do enough 
to reverse this demographic reality.
  If we fail to support the backbone of this Nation's health care 
industry and ask our nurses to spread themselves even thinner, we risk 
everything that comes with it, including decreased patient safety and 
poor quality of care.
  And we are failing in this bill to meet the needs of those 
individuals who most need the access to health care professionals. This 
bill guts critical funding from title VII programs which encourage 
health professionals to serve in underrepresented populations. I have 
seen the positive effects of this funding in my hometown of Sacramento. 
The UC Davis Medical Center uses title VII funds to train medical 
students to work through significant language or economic barriers in 
communities that have a host of otherwise treatable medical conditions.
  And medical center fellows trained with these monies conduct cutting-
edge research in health care disparities and how to improve cancer 
screening. Sacramentoans have been well served because of this 
investment in the health of the community.
  But, again, title VII funding is eliminated in this bill without 
regard for these long-term impacts. And so, again, we see yet one more 
example of the misguided priorities contained in this year's budget.
  Let me close by talking about this commitment to the future in a 
slightly different way. Growing up, I never doubted that I would have 
the opportunity to go to college. And never once did I doubt a doctor 
would be there when I fell ill.
  But, Mr. Speaker, not all Americans are lucky enough to have these 
assurances. The way in which we as a Nation meet the gap between the 
world we want to raise our children in and the challenges of life 
speaks directly to the values we hold. This bill absolutely fails in 
that vision.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity to 
talk a little bit about community health centers. I visited all of the 
community health centers in my district of West Virginia. They go a 
long way towards enhancing access and quality in the rural areas. It 
has been a great initiative that has worked very successfully in a 
State that sometimes has difficult areas to get to.
  And I am pleased that this bill enhances that funding by $100,000 
million.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H4994]]

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule, and I 
rise in opposition to the Labor-HHS Education appropriations bill.
  My reason is simple: This bill shortchanges the American people in so 
many ways that it is difficult to keep track of them all. Just last 
month, when the House was considering H.R. 366, the Vocational and 
Technical Education for the Future Act, I raised the question of where 
the Appropriations Committee was going to find the $1.3 billion to fund 
these programs without making deep cuts in other critical programs.
  I raised this question, because the Republican majority had just 
passed a budget resolution in lock step with the President's request to 
zero out vocational education programs.
  So while I am pleased that the committee has restored $1.3 billion 
for vocational education, my worse fears have come to pass. This bill 
eliminates half a billion dollars' worth of other education programs. 
It eliminates half a billion dollars' worth of important health 
programs. It eliminates $56 million of Labor Department programs.
  These critical programs include early learning opportunities for 
early childhood development, the Community Food and Nutrition program, 
comprehensive school reform, student alcohol abuse reduction, and 
dozens of others.
  This bill practically eliminates funding for health professions 
training and professional development programs at a time when our 
Nation is facing a severe shortage of health care professionals. 
Primary care physician training programs in Massachusetts would be cut 
by $12 million.
  These programs stand to be cut by over $2 million alone at the 
University of Massachusetts Health Care Center, the largest employer in 
my district. These cuts will further strain an already fragile health 
care system in my home State and around the country.
  And I have not even begun to touch upon programs that have seen their 
funding sharply reduced or frozen for the second, third, or fourth year 
in a row. My colleague, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), 
talked about the senseless cuts to PBS.
  Essential programs such as community service block grants, the child 
block grant, after-school programs, the investment and professional 
training and development of our teachers have all been cut or level 
funded. In the end, thousands and thousands of families, children and 
elderly, the sick and the poor in our communities will lose the help 
and services that are critical to reducing the vulnerability of their 
daily lives.

                              {time}  1100

  Hospitals, health care centers, schools, and community centers will 
lose the ability to provide quality classes, programs and services.
  Mr. Speaker, I was not sent to Washington to hurt the poor and the 
elderly. I was not sent here to shortchange our schools and health care 
providers or to undercut State and local efforts by starving them of 
needed resources.
  As I have said on many occasions, and it is important to repeat today 
as we move on this legislation, the Republican majority is fast 
creating a government, that lacks compassion and has no conscience. My 
friends on the other side of the aisle fought ferociously for tax cuts 
for millionaires and billionaires. They had to have those tax cuts, and 
guess what, they have diverted billions and billions of dollars from 
programs that benefit our kids, our senior citizens, and the most 
vulnerable in our society.
  I suppose that highlights the real difference between the two 
political parties. But, Mr. Speaker, what they are doing is wrong, it 
is so wrong and it is why I oppose this bill today, and I urge my 
colleagues to do the same.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to note in this bill another program that 
is very important to every State across the Nation, and that is the 
Head Start program. The Head Start program has been funded $56 million 
over last year's level, and this will help towards the readiness of our 
preschoolers to be able to be ready to handle the challenges of school.
  Another program highlighted in this bill is funding of $100 million 
for a new pilot program to develop and implement innovative ways to 
provide financial incentives for teachers and principals who raise 
student achievement and close the achievement gap.
  And back to community health centers, I think this is one of the best 
ways to cover children's health care. Many young families cannot travel 
far to access hospitals for preventative care. This will go towards 
managing health care for children with another $100 million for that 
program.
  My colleague talked about senior programs. I note in this bill there 
are several senior programs. There is the National Senior Volunteer 
Corps and the Foster Grandparents program. Foster Grandparents always 
come to visit me in Washington and tell me about their program. I am in 
awe at their dedication to not only seniors but to the youth of 
America. The Senior Companion Program and the Retired Senior Volunteer 
program, these programs are funded at the highest levels ever, and I 
think it will go a long way towards giving our seniors a way to 
volunteer and give back to the Nation, to the young people and 
families. I am pleased that the chairman recognized the value of these 
programs in his bill.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I am sad to say that I think this bill is a 
prescription for a second-rate economy for the American people because 
it declines to make the long-term investments that are necessary in 
education, in health care, in job training, in worker protection and 
the like.
  I will be voting against the previous question on the rule and the 
rule itself because the Committee on Rules did not make in order the 
amendment that I had asked them to make in order which would have done 
one very simple thing: it would have provided an additional $11.8 
million in funding for high-priority education, health and worker 
protection programs. It would have provided that same amount, $11.8 
million, in deficit reduction; and it would have paid for that by 
reducing the supersize tax cuts for people who make over a million 
dollars a year. Right now they are expected to get on average a 
$140,000 tax cut this year. We would have limited their tax cut to only 
$36,000, the poor devils. They would have to get along with only 
$36,000.
  I make no apology about wanting to make these investments. We are the 
greatest country in the world. We have the greatest economy in the 
world. We are the world's leader in technology. We are the world's 
leader in almost everything, but we did not get there by not making 
crucial investments year after year after year. We got there by 
investing in our people by way of education, by making the right 
capital investments, by making the right investments in science and 
technology; and that grew the economy for everybody. This bill walks 
away from that responsibility.
  This bill, in real-dollar terms, after you adjust for inflation, will 
deliver on a per-person basis about $5.9 billion less in these critical 
areas than it delivered last year.
  There is one other element of the amendment I would like to talk 
about for just a moment. We talk a lot in this country about preventing 
abortions. It has been my experience that lectures from your local 
friendly politician or your local clergyman are not nearly as helpful 
to young women who are pregnant and trying to decide if they are going 
to carry a baby to term or not as is a helping hand. The amendment we 
wanted to offer would have provided that helping hand.
  It would have taken critical programs that would make it economically 
easier for low-income and vulnerable women to choose to carry 
pregnancies to term. We would have had $175 million for maternal and 
infant health care, returning it to the fiscal year 2002 level. We 
would have added $300 million to child care, returning that to the 
fiscal year 2002 level. We would have added $418 million to the 
community service block grant to provide people with an opportunity for 
education, training and work, and to live with decency and dignity. And 
we would have provided $126 million for domestic violence prevention, 
effectively doubling that program. We

[[Page H4995]]

would have doubled the Healthy Start program for newborn babies, and we 
would have increased job training for young women by $212 million.
  If we are concerned about life, our concern cannot end with the 
checkbook's edge. We need to recognize that if we are going to provide 
real-life, real-world opportunities for women to help convince them not 
to have abortions, we need to be funding programs like this. These are 
a whole lot more important to the spirit of the country, to the economy 
of the country, than providing a $140,000 tax cut to somebody who makes 
a million bucks a year.
  Mr. Speaker, I regret the Committee on Rules did not make this 
amendment in order. That is why I will be voting against the previous 
question and voting against the rule.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the chairman of the subcommittee.
  (Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks, and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. REGULA. 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.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, of the many reasons to vote against this 
measure, one of the most significant is its failure to address the 
``opportunity deficit.'' Yes, this administration's many failures are 
reflected in the budget deficit and the trade deficit, but I am even 
more concerned about the ``opportunity deficit.''
  When students cannot develop their God-given potential to its fullest 
extent, we have an ``opportunity deficit.'' When our community cannot 
benefit from the talents of those students unable to get a higher 
education, we have an ``opportunity deficit.'' By failing to increase 
the amount of federal financial assistance to let all students get the 
full extent of educational opportunity, this measure today deepens the 
``opportunity deficit.''
  Freezing Perkins loans, freezing work-study financing for all of 
those students who want to work, freezing Supplemental Education 
Opportunity Grants, and virtually freezing Pell grants demonstrate that 
these Republicans are putting higher education on ice for too many 
students. This administration gives students a cold shoulder, as they 
have by freezing Pell grants in the past, in not addressing the rising 
tuition rates across the country.
  Our students at UT-Pan American, South Texas College, Austin 
Community College, and Huston-Tillotson University depend on Pell 
grants, but the purchasing power of Pell grants has shrunk to historic 
lows. The purchasing power of Pell grants, which once covered half of 
tuition and fees, is down to a historic low, now only covering a fourth 
of tuition and fees.
  In his budget President Bush proposed a Pell Grant increase of, 
finally, a pittance, $100: enough to buy a chemistry textbook, almost. 
But this bill cuts that pittance in half. That is not enough for a 
textbook. It is not even enough to pay for the increased cost of gas, 
another failure of this administration, to get to class for a week.
  I believe we need to do more to support our young people, to support 
our future by giving them the financial assistance that they need; and 
this bill, like the entire approach of this administration, from pre-
kindergarten to postgraduate education, fails to address that 
``opportunity deficit.''
  For those who can still afford to attend school, we are saddling that 
generation with a burden of debt, much like the burden of debt in the 
public sector. We are not investing adequately in our future or in our 
students. Students are facing a mountain of debt after graduation that 
this bill does not address. Let us close the ``opportunity deficit'' 
and reject this measure.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to comment on Pell grants because this bill contains the 
largest amount for Pell grants ever in the history of the United 
States, $4,100 per student. That is a lot of opportunity for a lot of 
different students.
  I would also like to say that the TRIO program, the GEAR-UP program, 
the Job Corps program, these are all programs designed to help students 
who might not have an opportunity get an opportunity through those 
programs. They are well-funded, successful programs; and they are 
recognized in this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Cunningham), a champion of education.

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I came on this committee after I had 
been on the authorizing committee for education. Then the chairman was 
Congressman Jon Porter, probably one of the best chairmen that have 
ever chaired that particular committee. I was concerned that because of 
the delicacies of the programs that this particular bill offers, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has quite often spoken of it as the 
caring committee because it involves such things as education, health 
care, medical research and so on, I was concerned about who was going 
to replace Jon Porter. The leadership came up and gave the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Regula) the chair, and I watched and watched. Members on 
both sides of the aisle would agree that the gentleman from Ohio has 
done every single thing that he can to enhance the properties of this 
bill.
  Now, many will use each of these bills for propaganda against the 
administration, against Republicans. I would tell you that most of the 
things that we fight for in this bill are done in a bipartisan way. 
There are other things that other people would like, but when it comes 
down to it, education and the different aspects of this bill, we do 
work together. The House bill is only the start. We have the other body 
to go through and we have a conference to go through. What we are 
talking about here today will not be in effect.
  I would also like to recognize, Mr. Speaker, that only 7 percent of 
education is funded by the Federal Government; 93 percent of education 
is funded by the State. California has had a particular problem with a 
$12 billion debt left by a different Governor and they are trying to 
pay that back. In most States, Leave No Child Behind has worked 
successfully. In California, we

[[Page H4996]]

need more flexibility. Many of the State laws do not apply or 
correspond to the Federal laws and we are having problems, especially 
in IDEA, attendance and testing. But I will tell you that the items in 
which this bill are important, Impact Aid that takes care of our 
military troops and Native Americans, is increased in this bill.
  If you look at title I, what is title I? Title I is for the most 
disadvantaged children we have in our Nation. California has to fight 
for its fair share. About 1 in 9 Americans live there. But yet title I 
is in this bill is increased.
  Pell grants, as has been mentioned, is the highest level ever. No 
child should be denied a secondary or a college education if they meet 
the standards, and Pell grants help that. But, remember, the State pays 
for 93 percent.
  IDEA, there is some reform I think we can work on together in the 
Individuals With Disabilities Act. There are some students that take 
over $100,000 a year out of the school system under IDEA because of 
special needs, and the school has to pay. We need to embrace that 
because in many areas those costs are impacting the schools themselves.
  There is one amendment that I think is a good amendment that I may 
have to go against my chairman in this today and that is Easy Start, 
authored by former member Bill Goodling of the authorizing committee, a 
program in which parents are actually involved with their children at 
an early age in education, and I think that that should somehow be 
restored, hopefully in conference or maybe even with this amendment.
  But I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio and I want to thank the 
Members on the other side of the aisle. I am sad to hear the partisan 
rhetoric when many times we work so closely together.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the only thing I can say is 
that I rise with enthusiasm to support the Obey/Slaughter/Leach 
amendment that recognizes the need and the reason for survival of 
public broadcasting. I only say one sentence. If Afghan citizens can 
gather yesterday in Washington to welcome Big Bird to Afghanistan, then 
it really is a shame that we are closing the door and turning off the 
lights and turning off the television for the children of America who 
learn and are inspired by Big Bird and Sesame Street and PBS.
  But then I want to support the Obey amendment that will be coming up 
that adds $11.8 billion to a bill that has been called America's 
umbrella. I am very sad to say that even though I have the greatest 
respect for the chairman and, of course, the ranking member of this 
subcommittee, we have not done our job. From the billions of dollars 
that have been cut from education, it is evident that we need a reform 
of this bill. No Child Left Behind, $806 million has been cut. The bill 
cuts $603 million from Title I. The Republican majority again breaks 
their promise on the funding of IDEA, provisions that help those with 
special needs. The bill freezes dollars in the after-school centers. It 
slashes education technology dollars by $196 million. It eliminates 
comprehensive school reform grants to 1,000 high-poverty schools by 
eliminating the program. This is not the umbrella that the American 
people need.
  When we begin to talk about investment in America, this is the bill 
we do it in, and we have traditionally done it in a bipartisan way. I 
have heard my good friend from California say this is a House bill, we 
are not finished, but this is a bill that makes a statement to America. 
We have cut moneys from the most vulnerable. I would ask my colleagues 
to look at this closely, defeat this bill and go back to the American 
people and work on their behalf.
  Support the Obey amendment.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy. 
I rise in opposition to the rule and to the bill. I have many concerns, 
but one of the most fundamental deals with the treatment of public 
broadcasting. Public broadcasting, is America's voice. It is our window 
on public affairs, culture, children's programming and education, 
enjoyed by 80 million viewers a week and over 30 million listeners on 
NPR, and one of the last locally owned media voices in America. I 
worked hard over the last couple of weeks to avoid a partisan showdown 
over this bill, but here we are.
  What does it say about America's priorities that we are cutting 
public broadcasting over 40 percent from the current year's spending 
level to help achieve the overall 1 percent target reduction in the 
bill of over $140 billion, a self-imposed straitjacket by the 
Republican majority? The committee actually tried at first to eliminate 
altogether future funding which has luckily been beaten back, at least 
for the time being. But I would urge each of my colleagues to look at 
the committee report, at the estimated allocations for public 
television and radio stations that are listed on pages 315 to 327 to 
look at the damage.
  Ironically, in States that are rural like mine that have large rural 
areas, small towns, this damage is understated, because the big cities 
will always have public broadcasting, although it will be hurt under 
this bill; but small town America, rural America, that do not have the 
resources to make up for it and are much more expensive to receive 
broadcasting, they face elimination, and it is outrageous.
  I am pleased that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is coming 
forward with an amendment. I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle to get real about what America wants and America needs. This 
is one thing we ought to come together and fix.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately this appropriations bill 
fails the values test of equal opportunity and fairness that the 
American people would expect of us. The bill's failure is rooted in the 
flawed priorities of the House leadership, which has said in its budget 
resolution that it is okay to cut education, job training, and health 
programs so that someone making $1 million a year can receive every 
dime of his or her $220,000 annual tax cut. That is not okay. It is 
wrong.
  These flawed priorities not only offend Americans' sense of fairness, 
they undercut our constitutional promise of equal opportunity for all 
Americans. It makes no sense. There are 7.6 million unemployed 
Americans, but this bill cuts job training programs. It makes no sense. 
Our Nation faces an ever more competitive world, but this bill does not 
allow college student loans and grants to even keep up with the 
inflationary cost of higher education. The result, millions of 
hardworking students who have earned the right to go to college will 
not be able to afford to do so, thus undermining their future and our 
Nation's future. It makes no sense.
  Over 43 million Americans, most of them from working families, have 
no health insurance, but this bill cuts services from maternal and 
child health along with rural health programs. It makes no sense.
  Parents yearning to have more commercial-free quality television 
programming for their small children will be deeply disappointed to 
learn that this bill guts funding for public broadcasting.
  Our labor, health and human service programs are about helping people 
help themselves. Yet this bill, after inflation and population growth, 
cuts $5.9 billion from these important programs. That is a lot of 
bootstraps that decent, hardworking people will not have to pull 
themselves up and their family's future up.
  Cutting programs that help millions of hardworking middle- and low-
income American families make a better life for themselves in order to 
pay for a $220,000 annual tax cut for a privileged few reflects neither 
faith-based nor pro-family values. The bottom line is this bill fails 
the American family values test of equal opportunity and fairness. This 
bill fails American children, seniors, and families. It fails our 
Nation's future. We can do better and American families deserve better.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page H4997]]

  I would like to point out in this bill in terms of America's seniors 
that there is implementation funding in here for the very historic 
prescription drug plan that will help many, many, many seniors across 
this country and particularly those lower-income seniors who really are 
making those tough choices. I am proud to say that is a bill I was 
proud to have voted for. I cannot wait for the implementation. This 
bill provides for the good education materials and the implementation 
materials that our seniors are going to need to move forward with this 
program.
  I would like to dispute also in terms of cutting education, that is 
inherently false. There are 118 million more dollars in this bill for 
public education than there was last year. I think that looks at the 
programs that are successful and enhances them. Tough choices have been 
made, no question about it.
  There are other things in here. I talked about Job Corps, but there 
is also a dislocated workers program which is a rapid response for 
layoffs and plant closures or natural disasters, something, 
unfortunately, a State like West Virginia, we seem to have our share of 
natural disasters in flooding. This gives us the ability to have that 
rapid response. I think there is much to be proud of in this bill. 
There is lots in here for education, for our families, for our seniors, 
for our workers and for the health of our Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I will be calling for a ``no'' vote on the previous question. If the 
previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule so that we can 
consider the Obey amendment that was rejected in the Rules Committee on 
a straight party-line vote.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment 
be printed in the Congressional Record immediately prior to the vote.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, the Obey amendment would give $11.8 
billion in needed funding for the priority job training, education and 
health programs which have been underfunded in this bill. A $50 
increase in a Pell grant, let me state, is not going to help anybody 
get a college education. The cost of this amendment will not add one 
dollar to the deficit. It is fully offset by reducing the substantial 
six-digit tax cuts for those making more than $1 million from about 
$140,000 to $36,500 for the coming year. That cannot hurt too much. 
That means that America's millionaires will only be getting $36,000 in 
special tax breaks so that we may properly fund education for our 
children and provide adequate health care for working Americans, a 
sacrifice, I believe, that is well worth the cost.

                              {time}  1130

  In addition, the Obey amendment would reduce the deficit by $11.8 
billion while at the same time protecting these valuable social 
programs for the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, the activities included in this bill fund many of the 
government's most important social services and touch almost every 
American in some way. Most of the programs and services in the bill are 
considerably underfunded, many funded at last year's levels or below. 
And those that have received increases have generally not received 
enough to keep pace with inflation. Most education programs are cut or 
frozen at fiscal year 2005 levels. Job training is funded below last 
year. NIH funding, though slightly increased from last year, still is 
receiving the lowest increase in 36 years. The Centers for Disease 
Control is funded at $293 million below last year.
  The list goes on and on, and the amendment will help reverse these 
serious shortfalls in our Nation's top education, health care, and job 
training programs. Members should know that a ``no'' vote will not 
prevent us from considering the Departments of Labor, Health and Human 
Services, and Education appropriations bill under an open rule, but a 
``no'' vote will allow Members to vote on the Obey amendment to restore 
funding shortfalls in the bill, and a ``yes'' vote will block 
consideration of the amendment.
  Please vote ``no'' on the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Regula).
  Mr. REGULA. 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.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, with respect to Pell grants, the College Board 
has indicated that the cost of attending a 4-year public university has 
increased by $2,300 since the President became President. The President 
decided to fix that problem by raising Pell grants by $100, thus taking 
care of 4 percent of the problem. The committee cut that to $50. That 
means that the committee is taking care of 2 percent of the problem.
  In addition to that, the new IRS regulations out of the 
administration have cost students in my State over $170 per person. So 
the fact is that right now any student going to a 4-year university is 
dragging behind. He is not doing nearly as well as he was 4 years ago.
  To suggest that a $50 increase in the Pell grant is going to take 
care of a $2,300 program is a joke.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The time of the gentlewoman 
from New York (Ms. Slaughter) has expired.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to close this debate by again thanking the gentleman 
from Ohio (Chairman Regula), the chairman of the subcommittee, and the 
ranking member and for their efforts on this important piece of 
legislation.
  The debate on this rule has shown some of the difficulties that we 
have faced when appropriating funds for areas as important as education 
and health care. From community health centers to TRIO and title I, 
this bill addresses our Nation's critical health and education funding 
needs.
  I ask my colleagues to join me in support for the rule and underlying 
legislation.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, what we are hearing today is that there 
isn't enough money to fund any of these important programs like the 
Corporation for Public Broadcasting, education, or health research.
  But, let's be honest. The real reason that we do not have the money 
to put towards these programs is because of the reckless tax cuts for 
the wealthiest of the wealthy that the White House and the majority 
party have insisted on passing.
  Yesterday, I met with some of my young constituents representing the 
Migrant Education Program. I would like to read their requests to you.

       We the constituents of the Migrant Education Program 
     regions II and XXIII of California are here today to address 
     constant issues that challenge the quality of our lives. In 
     order to achieve this we propose the following.


                               education

       We propose to the Congress to allocate funds to use in the 
     implementations of programs that will benefit learning 
     through buying proper equipment that will permit students to 
     succeed. Proper equipment includes: textbooks, sports, 
     uniforms, and computers.


                              immigration

       We propose that Congress pass the Dream Act and Student 
     Adjustment Act, which could allow undocumented students to 
     pursue higher education. We propose better working conditions 
     for agricultural workers. Better working conditions such as 
     health care, breaks and better pay.


                            social security

       In order to secure our Social Security benefits we propose 
     to reject President Bush's Social Security Reforms and accept 
     to continue the current Social Security Program without the 
     government tapping into our resources. In order to reimburse 
     the lost money the Government must repay the deficit that was 
     caused by the Governor's decisions.


                              health care

       We propose to the Congress that in order to have healthier 
     citizens a universal program should be established with an 
     equal

[[Page H4998]]

     payment for insurance coverage regardless of their status in 
     California.
       The result of this will be a healthier public thus reducing 
     the burden on taxpayers.
       A small tax increase, which will be offset by the thousands 
     or even million of dollars saved in the urgent care 
     facilities.
       All families will be able to live their lives knowing that 
     their tax payments are in return to their health care leaving 
     them with a satisfaction that their insurance bill will not 
     increase. We ask that the Government intervene to help 
     maintain a set price.


                                 labor

       Minimum wages: The average person lives below the poverty 
     line and in order to improve the quality of life a higher 
     minimum wage needs to be issued.
       Pesticides: Pesticides present a hazard towards the health 
     of workers and their families.
       Benefits: Equal health benefits should be issued to all 
     employees as a result of hazardous working conditions.


                          field worker permit

       Permits should be issued for workers of foreign countries 
     to work in the United States under fair conditions.


                                same sex

       Acknowledging the couple: Same sex couples deserve equal 
     unalienable rights as heterosexual couples.
       Support Adoption: Same sex couples deserve the opportunity 
     to give a loving home to a child in need.
       Separating state and religion: An individual deserves the 
     right to do as one pleases without the intervention of 
     theocracy, while respecting civil rights.


                         violence in the media

       We propose to the Congress that violence in TV should be 
     controlled to a substantial level of awareness; such level 
     could include showing violence media in the after hours and 
     avoid presentation of inappropriate material. We the 
     delegates of California propose to the Congress that there 
     will be more funds for community activities for the youth, so 
     that they get involved and occupy their time in something 
     useful other than gangs, such as, sports, music, dancing 
     groups, karate, etc.
       Children and adolescents are the most affected audience 
     through the contents of violence. We strongly recommend that 
     such material be diminished; such contents include music, 
     alcohol, sex, drugs, gun control, and homicide. We propose to 
     the Congress that programs should be developed in local 
     communities in order to educate parents about violence and 
     how to keep it away from today's youth.

  These are some of the requests that we could have fulfilled had it 
not been for these reckless tax cuts. We should not forget about the 
needs of our children and the elderly. It is time to turn back some of 
these reckless tax cuts and put the money into education, health care, 
and all of the services that the most vulnerable in our society need to 
survive.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with grave concern 
about the Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2006 
and the direction in which our country's priorities are going. I find 
it amazing that we don't have the money to continue funding critical 
programs in this bill because we continue to fund outlandish tax cuts 
for millionaires.
  We don't have the money to continue funding a sickle cell 
demonstration program which received $198,000 in fiscal year 2005 
because we continue to fund ridiculous tax cuts for millionaires.
  We don't have the money to continue funding trauma care and emergency 
medical services which received more than $3.4 million in fiscal year 
2005 because we continue to fund outrageous tax cuts for millionaires.
  We don't have the money to continue funding early learning 
opportunities which received almost $36 million in fiscal year 2005 
because we continue to fund morally reprehensible tax cuts for 
millionaires.
  We don't have the money to continue funding arts in education 
programs which received $35.6 million in fiscal year 2005 because we 
continue to fund unconscionable tax cuts for millionaires.
  We don't have the money to continue funding alcohol abuse reduction 
programs which received $32.7 million in fiscal year 2005 because we 
continue to fund self-serving tax cuts for millionaires.
  Mr. Speaker, the Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations bill for fiscal 
year 2006 provides us with a perfect example of what we are left with 
due to the irresponsible and reckless economic policies of the 
President and Republican Majority. It is a clear indication of the 
different approaches that Republicans and Democrats take toward 
ensuring the domestic security and well-being of our country.
  The drastic cuts in the Labor-HHS-Education bill are also clear 
examples of the very different philosophical approach toward government 
that our two parties take. Democrats, on one hand, believe that the 
role of government is to serve the masses, especially those who have 
the least and need the most. We do not demonize and slash funding for 
federally sponsored programs that help individuals stay in school, 
assist the unemployed find work, help pay for college, and further 
improve rural health care. Democrats believe that government exists not 
only to protect the people, but to provide services that, as our 
framers put it, ``promote the general welfare'' of all.
  Republicans, on the other hand, believe that government is intrusive. 
They believe that shared responsibility should not be a priority of our 
government, and the responsibility that we have to others is limited 
only to the unselfish and altruistic. Republicans are willing to 
sacrifice the greater good of the masses to further pad the pockets of 
the wealthy.
  I'm tired of hearing the Appropriations Committee say, `We did the 
best that we could with what we were given,' because ultimately, we 
aren't doing the best that we can. Congress is failing the American 
people when we slash funding for programs that millions depend on.
  Mr. Speaker, am I the only one who is offended that we don't have the 
money to continue funding foreign language assistance programs which 
received almost $18 million in fiscal year 2005 because we continue to 
fund odious tax cuts for millionaires?
  Am I the only one who is appalled that we don't have the money to 
continue funding literacy programs for prisoners which received just 
under $5 million in fiscal year 2005 because we continue to fund 
irresponsible tax cuts for millionaires?
  Where's the outrage from my Republican colleagues that we don't have 
the money to continue funding programs on America's Underground 
Railroad which received $2 million in fiscal year 2005 because we 
continue to fund offensive tax cuts for millionaires?
  Where's the infuriation from Members that we don't have the money to 
continue funding drop-out prevention programs, mental health 
integration programs in schools, and women's educational equity 
programs which received a combined $12.6 million in fiscal year 2006 
because we continue to fund appalling tax cuts to millionaires?
  Just once, Mr. Speaker, just once, I would like to come to this floor 
with Republicans in the Majority and President Bush in the White House 
and say, we don't have money for tax cuts for millionaires because we 
have to fund programs that benefit the other 99 percent of this 
country.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:

    Previous Question on H. Res. 337--Rule for H.R. 3010--Labor/HHS/
                     Education FY06 Appropriations

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 2.Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     resolution, the amendment printed in section 3 shall be in 
     order without intervention of any point of order and before 
     any other amendment if offered by Representative Obey of 
     Wisconsin or a designee.The amendment is not subject to 
     amendment except for pro forma amendments or to a demand for 
     a division of the question in the committee of the whole or 
     in the House.
       Sec. 3. The amendment referred to in section 2 is as 
     follows:

                  Amendment to H.R. 3010, as Reported

                    Offered by Mr. Obey of Wisconsin

       Page 2, line 12, strike ``$2,658,792,000'' and insert 
     ``$2,900,792,000''.
       Page 2, line 13, strike ``$1,708,792,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,950,792,000''.
       Page 2, line 18, strike ``$950,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$986,000,000''.
       Page 2, line 24, strike ``$1,193,264,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,243,264,000''.
       Page 3, line 1, strike ``$125,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$250,000,000''.
       Page 5, line 18, strike ``$3,299,381,000'' and insert 
     ``$3,414,381,000''.
       Page 6, line 16, strike ``$672,700,000'' and insert 
     ``$757,700,000''.
       Page 21, line 13, strike ``$244,112,000'' and insert the 
     following:
     and including the management or operation, through contracts, 
     grants or arrangements of Departmental activities conducted 
     by or through the Bureau of International Labor Affairs, 
     including bilateral and multilateral technical assistance and 
     other international labor activities, $325,112,000
       Page 25, line 16, strike ``$6,446,357,000'' and insert 
     ``$7,587,357,000''.
       Page 26, line 18, strike ``$285,963,000'' and insert 
     ``$295,963,000''.
       Page 27, line 3, strike ``$797,521,000'' and insert 
     ``$817,521,000''.
       Page 29, line 1, strike ``$5,945,991,000'' and insert 
     ``$6,207,991,000''.
       Page 31, line 18, strike ``$4,841,774,000'' and insert 
     ``$4,969,526,000''.
       Page 32, line 2, strike ``$2,951,270,000'' and insert 
     ``$3,029,140,000''.
       Page 32, line 7, strike ``$393,269,000'' and insert 
     ``$403,646,000''.
       Page 32, line 12, strike ``$1,722,146,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,767,585,000''.
       Page 32, line 17, strike ``$1,550,260,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,591,164,000''.
       Page 32, line 22, strike ``$4,359,395,000'' and insert 
     ``$4,574,419,000''.
       Page 32, line 25, insert the following before the period:
      : Provided further, That $100,000,000 may be made available 
     to International Assistance Programs, ``Global Fund to Fight 
     HIV/AIDS, Malaria, and Tuberculosis'', to remain available 
     until expended

[[Page H4999]]

       Page 33, line 4, strike ``$1,955,170,000'' and insert 
     ``$2,006,758,000''.
       Page 33, line 9, strike ``$1,277,544,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,311,252,000''.
       Page 33, line 13, strike ``$673,491,000'' and insert 
     ``$691,261,000''.
       Page 33, line 18, strike ``$647,608,000'' and insert 
     ``$664,695,000''.
       Page 33, line 22, strike ``$1,057,203,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,085,098,000''.
       Page 34, line 5, strike ``$513,063,000'' and insert 
     ``$526,600,000''.
       Page 34, line 10, strike ``$397,432,000'' and insert 
     ``$407,918,000''.
       Page 34, line 14, strike ``$138,729, 000'' and insert 
     ``$142,389,000''.
       Page 34, line 19, strike ``$440,333, 000'' and insert 
     ``$451,951,000''.
       Page 34, line 23, strike ``$1,010,130,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,036,783,000''.
       Page 35, line 4, strike ``$1,417,692,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,455,098,000''.
       Page 35, line 8, strike ``$490,959,000'' and insert 
     ``$503,913,000''.
       Page 35, line 13, strike ``$299,808,000'' and insert 
     ``$307,719,000''.
       Page 35, line 17, strike ``$1,100,232,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,129,323,000''.
       Page 36, line 5, strike ``$122,692,000'' and insert 
     ``$125,929,000''.
       Page 36, line 10, strike ``$197,379,000'' and insert 
     ``$202,587,000''.
       Page 36, line 13, strike ``$67,048,000'' and insert 
     ``$68,817,000''.
       Page 36, line 17, strike ``$318,091,000'' and insert 
     ``$326,484,000''.
       Page 37, line 7, strike ``$482,216,000'' and insert 
     ``$494,939,000''.
       Page 39, line 11, strike ``$3,230,744,000'' and insert 
     ``$3,262,744,000''.
       Page 45, line 10, strike ``$1,984,799,000'' and insert 
     ``2,199,799,000''.
       Page 45, after line 10, insert the following new paragraph:
       For making payments under title XXVI of the Omnibus Budget 
     Reconciliation Act of 1981, $215,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That these funds are for the 
     unanticipated home energy assistance needs of one or more 
     States, as authorized by section 2604(e) of the Act, and 
     notwithstanding the designation requirement of section 
     2602(e).
       Page 45, line 20, strike ``$560,919,000'' and insert 
     ``$601,919,000''.
       Page 46, line 9, strike ``$2,082,910,000'' and insert 
     ``$2,382,910,000''.
       Page 48, line 7, strike ``$8,688,707,000'' and insert 
     ``$9,283,707,000''.
       Page 48, line 13, strike ``$6,899,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$7,038,000,000''.
       Page 48, line 17, strike ``$384,672,000'' and insert 
     ``$714,672,000''.
       Page 52, line 6, strike ``$1,376,217,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,419,217,000''.
       Page 65, line 8, strike ``$14,728,735,000'' and insert 
     ``$17,923,735,000''.
       Page 65, line 8, strike ``$7,144,426,000'' and insert 
     ``$10,339,426,000''.
       Page 65, line 22, strike ``$2,269,843,000'' and insert 
     ``$3,769,843,000''.
       Page 65, line 24, strike ``$2,269,843,000'' and insert 
     ``$3,769,843,000''.
       Page 66, line 2, strike ``$10,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$205,000,000''.
       Page 66, line 9, strike ``$1,240,862,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,340,862,000''.
       Page 66, line 9, strike ``$1,102,896,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,202,896,000''.
       Page 67, line 18, strike ``$5,393,765,000'' and insert 
     ``$6,343,765,000''.
       Page 67, line 18, strike ``$3,805,882,000'' and insert 
     ``$4,755,882,000''.
       Page 70, line 23, strike ``$11,813,783,000'' and insert 
     ``$13,373,783,000''.
       Page 70, line 24, strike ``$6,202,804,000'' and insert 
     ``$7,762,804,000''.
       Page 75, line 4, strike ``$15,283,752,000'' and insert 
     ``$17,183,752,000''.
       Page 75, line 7, strike ``$4,100'' and insert $4,550''.
       Page 88, strike line 11.
       Page 88, line 14, strike ``$100,000,000 is rescinded;''.
       Page 96, line 13, strike ``$9,159,700,000'' and insert 
     ``$9,268,700,000''.
       Insert at the end of title V (before the short title) the 
     following new section:
       Sec. __. In the case of taxpayers with adjusted gross 
     income in excess of $1,000,000, for the tax year beginning in 
     2005 the amount of tax reduction resulting from enactment of 
     the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 
     and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 
     shall be reduced by 74 percent.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes 
the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered, on the question of 
adoption of the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 225, 
nays 194, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 304]

                               YEAS--225

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cox
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--194

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz

[[Page H5000]]


     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Boyd
     Buyer
     Davis, Tom
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Jones (OH)
     Kucinich
     LaTourette
     Lewis (GA)
     Moore (WI)
     Peterson (MN)
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Ryan (OH)

                              {time}  1200

  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________