[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.
____________________