[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 86 (Friday, June 24, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H5105-H5165]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 337 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 3010.
{time} 0918
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further 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,
with Mr. Putnam in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Thursday, June
23, 2005, the amendment by the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr.
Bradley) had been disposed of and the bill had been read through page
69, line 19.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the
subcommittee for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I have been concerned about a program known as Youth
Build, which I know many Members are familiar with, which is a very
good program which gets young people in urban areas and elsewhere to
learn how to build houses. And the results are some very nice houses
for deserving people, and an improvement of a neighborhood, and most
importantly, skills for these young people.
Now, we ran into a little difficulty. It is not one of the more
expensive of our programs although it has been, at $60 million, not
nothing. The President in his budget proposed I think $50 million for
it, but proposed that instead of being funded out of the HUD budget it
be transferred to the Labor Department's budget. That led to, I guess,
it falling between the cracks of the two appropriate subcommittees; so
that while I understand there is support for the program and the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), a former chairman of the HUD
subcommittee, tells me that he strongly supports it, and I understand
there was a very close vote in the Appropriations Committee on an
amendment to put it back into the bill, both bills now come to the
floor without that appropriation for Youth Build. And I think this is a
case of something not being rejected on the merits, or not being
something we cannot afford, but something that has sort of fallen
through the cracks because of this proposed change in where it goes.
So I would ask the chairman of the subcommittee, given the, I
believe, support, it was in the President's budget, there was virtually
a tie vote in the Appropriations Committee, could the gentleman tell
me, is there some hope
[[Page H5106]]
that we can give to these young people that this important program will
survive?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentleman from Ohio for
striking the last word so you could raise this.
Let me simply say to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), I
fully agree with him about the value of the program. The President's
budget wanted to transfer it to this bill. The subcommittee did not
pick up the money in this bill. In my view, it should have. But I would
say that because it has not, there will be another opportunity next
week to try to deal with this when the Teasury-Transportation bill
comes to the floor.
It would be disgraceful if the Congress allowed this program to fall
through the cracks because neither committee included the funding for
it and if Congress simply played Alfonse and Gaston on us between the
two subcommittees.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield.
Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Wisconsin.
I wonder if the gentleman from Ohio could give us some guidance on
what the chances are for the ultimate survival of this very important
program which the President supports, and I believe is supported on the
merits. Could we get it in the bill next week? Or what is the prospects
of this Youth Build program not dying because of kind of a shuffle
here.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me say that I agree
with the gentleman. It is a great program. I am very familiar with it.
Unfortunately, it is in no man's land. The way the OMB budget came up,
the President's budget, it put it in Labor, which is this bill. But
there is no authorization, which means it is still in the
Transportation Treasury, and there is no money either place. But I hope
we can resolve this because it is just what it says, it builds youth.
And we have had real success in my district with it, and I think it is
something we would want to retain as a national program.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would
yield further, does that mean, and maybe we can discuss this again in
the Transportation HUD bill, but that, since it is not a large sum of
money, the President supports it, it has a lot of support here, that we
can expect at some point in the process before we finish the
appropriations, this program could be funded?
Mr. REGULA. Well, I certainly hope so. And we will make every effort
to find some way to fit it. It just happens that I am on both of the
committees and will work with the Treasury, or Transportation Treasury.
It is a worthwhile program. It ought to be funded and kept in place. I
think the authorizers need to deal with it, too, to change the
authorization to make it appropriate for Labor.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Kirk
Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Kirk:
In title III in the item relating to ``School Improvement
Programs'' insert before the period at the end the following:
``: Provided further, That, of the funds made available under
this heading, $11,100,000 is for carrying out subpart 6 of
part D of title V of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7253 et seq.) (relating to gifted and
talented students)''.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman----
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will suspend. Is there objection to
returning to that point in the reading to consider the amendment?
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, is it my understanding that the agreement
worked between majority and minority to have the Kirk and Nadler
amendments brought up is now being broken?
The CHAIRMAN. The order of the House did not address the reading of
the bill.
Mr. KIRK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, because of the rapid reading of the bill, the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) and I were both unable to offer
our amendments and worked out an agreement to offer it at this time.
The amendment that I would have offered would have helped restore
funding for the gifted education program under the Javitz program that
funds programs in over 20 States and universities. It is this program
that has helped out programs like the Bronx Project for creating urban
excellence, serving 32,000 poor and minority students.
Not only did this program help the gifted students, for example, in
that school district, but it improved math and science scores, a 20
percent improvement for the entire school, not just gifted students.
The Javitz program has supported programs in 125 State and local
education districts since 1989, reaching two million students
nationwide. A complete list of the program is available from the
Department of Education.
I am very concerned that this program was zeroed out. In my attempt
to earmark the program, other programs under this title would have been
seen as a potential cut, and my colleagues from Hawaii were very
concerned about one program there. My concern now is that the program
moves forward with zero for gifted education. And the attempted
amendment was to correct that, because I do not think for the future of
our country, for the future of science and math education that we
should move forward with a zero appropriation for gifted education. But
I yield to my chairman on this point.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Amendment No. 24 Offered by Mr. Nadler
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 24 offered by Mr. Nadler:
In title III in the item relating to ``School Improvement
Programs'', after the aggregate dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $35,600,000)''.
In title III in the item relating to ``Departmental
Management--Program Administration'', after the aggregate
dollar amount, insert ``(reduced by $35,600,000)''.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to considering the amendment at this
point?
Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I understand
that we are breaking this agreement then?
I yield to the distinguished ranking minority member.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would not describe it as breaking the
agreement. If the gentleman would be kind enough to let me explain what
I think has happened here. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) and
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) both missed their opportunity
to offer their amendments in regular order because the reading went
fast and neither of them was on the floor. We had a unanimous consent
agreement which was about to be propounded by the gentleman from Ohio.
When the gentleman from Illinois and the gentleman from New York
discovered that they had missed their opportunity, the gentleman from
Illinois asked for an opportunity to go back. At that point, I
suggested that the unanimous consent agreement be rewritten to include
your amendment and the gentleman's from New York. The committee
majority preferred, and I can understand why, because it was time
consuming, the committee preferred to simply rely on our ability to get
unanimous consent to go back to consider yours and the gentleman from
New York's amendment.
However, the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) was not part of
the arrangement. And since your amendment takes money out of a program
in
[[Page H5107]]
his State, he felt required to object. So I do not think that anyone is
``breaking an agreement.''
This is what happens, number one, when Members are not on the floor
when they need to be. Secondly, it is what happens when we do not
include matters like that in the UC agreement. We were relying on an
assumption that proved to be erroneous, and I am certain the gentleman
from Ohio feels as badly about it as I do. But in my view, no one on
the floor is breaking his word. This is just an unfortunate set of
circumstances, and a Member has the right to protect his own State's
interest if the opportunity presents itself.
Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, given the fact that we are breaking this
agreement, and given the fact that I am not able to offer my amendment,
my normal course of action would be to object, but I hold the gentleman
from New York in high regard, as the gentleman from Iowa, and so I am
not going to be partisan and I am not going to do tit for tat, and I am
not going to object, even though objection has been heard from the
other side. So I withdraw my point of order.
Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to returning in the reading to
consider the amendment?
There was no objection.
{time} 0930
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 23, 2005,
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, let me begin by expressing my appreciation to the
gentleman from Illinois for his magnanimity and largeness of thought in
this matter.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment to restore the
funding for Arts in Education programs to $35.6 million. Unfortunately,
the underlying Labor-HHS appropriations bill zeros out this program,
effectively eliminating it.
This year, 106 of our colleagues from both sides of the aisle,
include my friends, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), joined me in writing to the committee
asking for $53 million in Arts in Education funding. Given the funding
constraints in the bill, the amendment instead asked that we simply
level fund the program, the number passed after conference last year.
This program provides funds to establish model programs at the
Department of Education that brings arts education to schools across
the country as well as funds to support the professional development of
arts educators. The program also supports the ongoing national arts
education initiatives of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing
Arts and VSA arts which ensure that people with disabilities can learn
through, participate in and enjoy the arts.
Time and again, parents, educators and community leaders tell us that
arts education is critical for preparing our Nation's children to
succeed in school, work and life. Years of research demonstrate that a
real significant link exists between arts education and students'
academic performance and social development.
Arts funding and education funding is not controversial and is
nonpartisan. Some of the most vocal proponents of Arts in Education
include Republican Governor Mike Huckabee and former Education
Secretary Rod Paige. I know the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula)
also is supportive of Arts in Education programs.
I would like to thank the gentleman for working with the Senate each
year to increase funding in conference, and thank the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for his leadership on this issue. I understand
that this is a tight bill in a tight funding year generally, but it is
important that the House voice its support for this program.
So I ask the distinguished chairman and the ranking member to work
with me and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) to assure that funds for these
beneficial, well-liked programs are maintained, if not increased, in
conference this year.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman
from Iowa (Mr. Leach).
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I am honored to offer this amendment with
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) and the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Boehlert). I would only stress of all the learning
disciplines, the arts tap and expand the human imagination the most,
and in a world of exploding options for individuals and families, it is
imperative when there is no experience to serve as a guide, that the
imagination be stimulated and perspectives be applied and that values
be brought to bear.
It appears that the children of 20th century America lost something
when they became captives to passive education offered by advances in
media, particularly television. If we can learn from our mistakes, an
emphasis on hands-on efforts, particularly in the creative arts, should
become a focal point of 21st century education.
For most Americans, the arts are an optional endeavor. But for some,
art is a principal means of self-expression and communication. For
example, last month 17-year-old Patrick Henry Hughes won the VSA arts
2005 soloist award for his piano and vocal abilities. In an interview,
he said, ``I am blind and I can't walk, but I don't let it stop me. I
actually love the life I am living. If I have a sad moment, I go to the
piano and get happy again.''
We must ensure that every young person with a disability has access
to arts learning experiences. VSA arts, which are part of the Arts in
Education programming eliminated in this bill, provides opportunities
for children and adults with disabilities and stimulates millions of
people, like Patrick Hughes, helping to transform their otherwise
frustrating world into one that is more beautiful and purposeful.
Mr. Chairman, the arts are not a luxury, they are the soul of
society.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEACH. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
(Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, the arts motivate and inspire people of
all ages to engage in learning, and that is what this is all about.
Students who take regular arts courses are proven to score on average
90 to 100 points better on their SATs than students that do not take
arts classes. Students that attend arts courses are shown to have
better attendance, lower dropout rates, participate in more community
service and have a higher self-esteem. That sounds to me like a pretty
darn good investment in the youth of America.
Mr. Chairman, I urge support of this amendment.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I am not clear that I am going to ask for a vote on this
amendment. If we get an appropriate assurance that we will work in
conference from the chairman, we may not have to do that. I will ask
the chairman to express himself on that subject.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
This, like many programs, is a great idea, a great help, with over
100 grants last year, but we do have a really tight budget. I know when
we get to conference with the other body, that this probably will be
one that has support, but it all depends on what is available in
funding. I am sympathetic to it, but I cannot guarantee anything. I
think we would have to consider it.
It has a trade-off, that is the problem at this juncture in your
amendment, and that is it would cause the layoff of many employees.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler)
has expired.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I am responding to the question from the gentleman from
New York, and that is, yes, we will certainly take this under
consideration in the conference.
[[Page H5108]]
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of the
distinguished chairman from Ohio as to the fact that there will be
efforts made in conference to try to retain this program. I think that
is probably the best we can do, and I appreciate his statement. I will
at this point not ask for a vote on this amendment.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
The amendment was rejected.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Price of Georgia
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Price of Georgia:
Page 69, line 1, after the first dollar amount insert the
following: ``(increased by $70,000,000)''.
Page 69, line 3, after the dollar amount insert the
following: ``(increased by $70,000,000)''.
Page 69, line 4, after the dollar amount insert the
following: ``(increased by $70,000,000)''.
Page 82, line 10, after the dollar amount insert the
following: ``(reduced by $70,000,000)''.
Page 82, line 12, after the dollar amount insert the
following: ``(reduced by $70,000,000)''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 23, 2005,
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would rise to commend the Chair and the committee for
their work. I understand the difficult times that we are in and the
decisions that are difficult that we need to make.
As a budget is a demonstration of our priorities, I offer a positive
amendment in an effort to further highlight those priorities. Currently
in the bill the Teacher Incentive Fund earmark has $100 million and the
AmeriCorps earmark has $270 million. My amendment increases the funding
for the Teacher Incentive Fund by $70 million and reduces that funding
for AmeriCorps by the same amount.
President Bush asked in his budget for $500 million for the Teacher
Incentive Fund in the FY 2006 budget. The Committee on Appropriations
was only able to provide $100 million for this program. The Teacher
Incentive Fund is a new teacher merit pay pilot initiative. Teachers
and officials who improve student achievement of are provided with
financial incentives, rewarding achievement. This is a good idea.
The Teacher Incentive Fund will carry out two goals: One, rewarding
effective teachers teaching in schools most in need; and, two,
rewarding effective teachers in schools that are top performers in
closing the achievement gap and meeting the annual targets in No Child
Left Behind.
Ask yourself, who made a real difference in your education? Most of
us will remember one or two teachers who affected us in a very
remarkable way. For me it was one of my high school teachers, Dr.
Welch, and I will never, never forget how he challenged me to excel.
Teacher quality is the most important school-related factor
influencing student achievement. One of the tenants of no child left
behind is putting a qualified teacher in every single classroom. It is
estimated that more than 2 million teachers will need to be hired over
the next decade and the Teacher Incentive Fund will encourage more
talented individuals into the field of teaching.
The AmeriCorps program is a program that was conceived under then-
president Clinton, and, in short, the Federal Government is paying
participants, paying participants, to participate in a volunteer
capacity, sometimes up to $21,000 year. It is the antithesis of limited
government. When the Federal Government assumes the job of private
organizations, it encourages citizens to abandon their civic
responsibilities.
According to GAO studies, the results of the AmeriCorps program are
difficult to measure. Furthermore there are more than 83 million
Americans who volunteer, meaning that the overall impact of AmeriCorps
is minimal, especially given the level of funding provided.
This is a common sense amendment. It is consistent with our mission
of improving education and limiting the spread of government. I urge my
colleagues to support this amendment to improve education and our
competitiveness in the world.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I do not think the gentleman is a big fan of
AmeriCorps, and the attempt really here is to reduce AmeriCorps more
than to enhance the other program, because we have already added $100
million in new money in the teacher innovation program. It is a great
program, and I am a great believer that teachers are the key to a good
education, so I do not quarrel with the idea. I wish we had more money
to do that.
But, on the other hand, AmeriCorps is a very important program,
because it is made up of volunteers, a lot of times young people. They
get a little stipend to help with their education, but they do not get
paid. You have volunteers who are working in a community, on education,
public safety, probably doing mentoring for students, which is
extremely important.
I think that perhaps the goal that the gentleman is trying to achieve
is desirable, but the target the gentleman has, which is AmeriCorps,
would be a mistake given the fact that AmeriCorps has a very important
role to play.
I like volunteers. The President is a big booster of volunteers. He
has a goal of getting 75,000 AmeriCorps members as volunteers, and this
would in part stifle the President's goal of getting these people.
So I would hope the gentleman would withdraw his amendment, or at
least not go to a vote on it, because I think the innovative program is
good, but AmeriCorps is good, and in limited budgets we need to keep
that program going.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, however well intended this amendment may be, it goes to
the heart of what is very important in this country, and that is
getting our young people to want to participate and be part of our
society, and it employs a lot of young people from our urban areas.
But, more important than that, is they work at minimum wage, but then
they get a stipend to help pay for their education.
Why do we give away college grants, when young people are willing to
work to get them? For me, this is so central to what we believe as
Republicans: Do not give them a grant, have them earn it. They earn
these grants, they do incredible service throughout the country, and it
replaces having young people do a job just to do a job. They do
meaningful, meaningful work.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would just point out
that the AmeriCorps members that would be reduced and perhaps
eliminated serve 2 million children and youth in education-related
programs, as I mentioned earlier, as mentors. They tutor children of
prisoners and they train over 600,000 community volunteers. So it has a
very powerful ripple effect throughout the community to have these
AmeriCorps, most like young people, volunteers, seeking other people
and training them to engage in service as mentors and so on.
Here you have two good programs, but, on balance, we have to at this
juncture and with the limited resources we have, go with the AmeriCorps
as opposed to adding more, in addition to the $100 million we already
put in the program, for innovative education programs.
[[Page H5109]]
Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to oppose this amendment if it were to
come to a vote.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of the chairman and of the
other Members who have spoken. I understand that, again, our budget is
a budget of priorities. The President had requested $500 million for
the Teacher Incentive Fund, and I believe that moving toward a budget
that greater aligns our priorities in the area of education is
important.
$200 million would be left in AmeriCorps; $200 million. That is not a
paltry sum. In addition, the CBO has stated that this $70 million shift
would in fact save $33 million. I do not know how they come up with
those numbers, but that is how they score this. So we are spending $70
million and saving another $33 million.
I believe moving toward the Teacher Incentive Fund, which would,
again, provide incentives for high quality teachers in our schools that
would ultimately result in changing lives in a very positive way, is a
positive amendment and a positive thing to do.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume
just to close this out.
Mr. Chairman, I think, again, these are both good programs. We had to
make choices. In balancing the equities between the two, inasmuch as we
put the $100 million in the innovative program and that is yet to be
developed as to how it will be accomplished. But, we know with
AmeriCorps that they work in the communities, do a lot of great work in
getting people involved in mentoring and all kinds of other activities,
and on balance I think we have to make a choice here. So, I would urge
Members to stay with the numbers that are in the bill, to stay with
what we put in for AmeriCorps and not approve this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, again, I appreciate those comments. I think this is a
positive move to realign our budget priorities in a more positive way
for education, and I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, if I could have the attention of the gentleman from
Ohio, I simply rise neither to speak for nor against this amendment,
but simply to make an observation about it.
The situation that the gentleman from Ohio finds himself in on this
issue is a very difficult one, because he is trying to balance between
two legitimate claims on the Federal Treasury. We have seen, as was
observed in the Washington Post article this morning, a parade of
Members come down to the floor yesterday and today trying to wiggle out
from the consequences of the budget resolution which was imposed on the
entire House by the passage of that resolution.
Now, I do not like to be in that position. I have a little less
sympathy for the gentleman from Ohio than I do for myself on this
issue, because he voted for the budget resolution and I did not. But
that being said, there is no right position on an amendment like this.
This issue simply demonstrates that when the money that you provide
for education is inadequate, when it is inadequate to the needs of the
Nation, then we are going to be eating each other's favorite programs,
then you are going to have all kinds of interest groups in this country
chewing on each other and each trying to get out from under at the
expense of everybody else.
So I can actually understand why the gentleman opposes this
amendment, because he needs some flexibility in conference to deal with
some of the legitimate concerns that Members have. I love the program
the gentleman from Georgia is trying to add money to. I had a son in
the gifted and talented program. He was a National Merit scholar. Yet I
would have a great deal of difficulty voting to add money for that
program at the expense of programs that went to help less gifted and
less advantaged children in this society.
So the amendment is half right and half wrong, and I hope, therefore,
that the Members on the majority side and the minority side will
understand why the gentleman from Ohio is so reluctantly against this
amendment.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, just by way of clarification, I
appreciate the gentleman's comments, and budgets are difficult, there
is no doubt about it, and they say where we are in the priorities.
Just by way of clarification, this fund is not for the talented and
gifted program. This fund is to find high quality teachers and reward
high quality teachers who increase achievement in schools and increase
achievement in closing that gap.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for
correcting me, I misheard. I happen to think that that is a tremendous
program too. But the problem is all of these amendments, taken
together, will limit the chairman's ability to provide any flexibility
at all in conference to fix these problems. So I urge the gentleman to
think about it. He might be surprised at which programs are going to be
bitten if the gentleman does not have the flexibility that he needs.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) will
be postponed.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman knows, he and I have
discussed on several occasions now my interest in funding the NCI,
National Cancer Institute, for more money to expedite finding a cure
for cancer or finding that cancer becomes a manageable disease. Twenty-
five percent of the deaths in this country are caused by cancer. One
out of every two men will get cancer. One out of every three women will
be stricken with cancer.
Research is going forward at such a fast pace. I wanted to put
together an amendment that would add $50 million for additional
research centers designated by NCI.
I realize, picking up on what the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey)
has just said, that this is a very tightly crafted bill; but I would
ask the gentleman as chairman, and this is coming from one who has
suffered from lung cancer, that the gentleman find that money, or look
for the money in the conference, so that we can increase the funding
for NCI so that we can expand those centers.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman.
We are very aware of the gentleman's concerns. We have added a modest
amount for the cancer institute. I have had many discussions with the
director, Dr. von Eschenbach; and what we are trying to do, and he is
doing, the gentleman would be interested in, he is trying to coordinate
the various research centers.
There are many good institutions throughout the United States doing
cancer research; and because of the importance and the cost, we want to
avoid duplication among these various institutions. So I think this
program of trying to coordinate to ensure that they are not reinventing
the wheel at each one of these places, because it is expensive,
hopefully out of that effort there will be a more coordinated effort to
target a cure for cancer because this would certainly be a great
breakthrough.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, I very
much appreciate that and sincerely hope the gentleman will be able to
accomplish
[[Page H5110]]
this. This is a tremendously important project. Dr. von Eschenbach is
doing a huge job. By 2015, we could be looking at cancer through the
rear-view mirror instead of every day worrying about some loved one or
yourself as a sufferer of cancer.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman
for his interest.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill
through page 98, line 18, be considered as read, printed in the Record
and open to amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Ohio?
The CHAIRMAN. There was no objection.
The text of the remainder of the bill through page 98, line 18, is as
follows:
Safe Schools and Citizenship Education
For carrying out activities authorized by subpart 3 of part
C of title II, part A of title IV, and subparts 2, 3, and 10
of part D of title V of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (``ESEA''), $763,870,000, of which
$400,000,000, shall become available on July 1, 2006, and
remain available through September 30, 2007: Provided, That
$400,000,000 shall be available for subpart 1 of part A of
title IV and $152,537,000 shall be available for subpart 2 of
part A of title IV: Provided further, That $132,621,000 shall
be available to carry out part D of title V of the ESEA:
Provided further, That of the funds available to carry out
subpart 3 of part C of title II, up to $12,193,000 may be
used to carry out section 2345 and $3,035,000 shall be used
by the Center for Civic Education to implement a
comprehensive program to improve public knowledge,
understanding, and support of the Congress and the State
legislatures.
English Language Acquisition
For carrying out part A of title III of the ESEA,
$675,765,000, which shall become available on July 1, 2006,
and shall remain available through September 30, 2007, except
that 6.5 percent of such amount shall be available on October
1, 2005, and shall remain available through September 30,
2007, to carry out activities under section 3111(c)(1)(C).
Special Education
For carrying out the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act, $11,813,783,000, of which $6,202,804,000 shall
become available for obligation on July 1, 2006, and shall
remain available through September 30, 2007, and of which
$5,413,000,000 shall become available on October 1, 2006, and
shall remain available through September 30, 2007, for
academic year 2006-2007: Provided, That $11,400,000 shall be
for Recording for the Blind and Dyslexic, Inc., to support
the development, production, and circulation of recorded
educational materials: Provided further, That the amount for
section 611(b)(2) of the Act shall be equal to the amount
available for that activity during fiscal year 2005,
increased by the amount of inflation as specified in section
619(d)(2)(B) of the Act.
Rehabilitation Services and Disability Research
For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided, the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Assistive Technology Act of
1998 (``the AT Act''), and the Helen Keller National Center
Act, $3,128,638,000: Provided, That $29,760,000 shall be used
for carrying out the AT Act, including $4,385,000 for State
grants for protection and advocacy under section 5 of the AT
Act and $5,086,000 shall be for alternative financing
programs under section 4(b)(2)(D) of the AT Act: Provided
further, That the Federal share of grants for alternative
financing programs shall not exceed 75 percent, and the
requirements in section 301(c)(2) and section 302 of the AT
Act (as in effect on the day before the date of enactment of
the Assistive Technology Act of 2004) shall not apply to such
grants.
Special Institutions for Persons With Disabilities
American Printing House for the Blind
For carrying out the Act of March 3, 1879, as amended (20
U.S.C. 101 et seq.), $17,000,000.
National Technical Institute for the Deaf
For the National Technical Institute for the Deaf under
titles I and II of the Education of the Deaf Act of 1986 (20
U.S.C. 4301 et seq.), $56,137,000, of which $800,000 shall be
for construction and shall remain available until expended:
Provided, That from the total amount available, the Institute
may at its discretion use funds for the endowment program as
authorized under section 207.
Gallaudet University
For the Kendall Demonstration Elementary School, the Model
Secondary School for the Deaf, and the partial support of
Gallaudet University under titles I and II of the Education
of the Deaf Act of 1986 (20 U.S.C. 4301 et seq.),
$107,657,000: Provided, That from the total amount available,
the University may at its discretion use funds for the
endowment program as authorized under section 207.
Vocational and Adult Education
For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided, the
Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act of
1998, the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act, and
subparts 4 and 11 of part D of title V of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (``ESEA''), $1,991,782,000,
of which $1,196,058,000 shall become available on July 1,
2006, and shall remain available through September 30, 2007,
and of which $791,000,000 shall become available on October
1, 2006, and shall remain available through September 30,
2007: Provided, That of the amount provided for Adult
Education State Grants, $68,581,000 shall be made available
for integrated English literacy and civics education services
to immigrants and other limited English proficient
populations: Provided further, That of the amount reserved
for integrated English literacy and civics education,
notwithstanding section 211 of the Adult Education and Family
Literacy Act, 65 percent shall be allocated to States based
on a State's absolute need as determined by calculating each
State's share of a 10-year average of the Immigration and
Naturalization Service data for immigrants admitted for legal
permanent residence for the 10 most recent years, and 35
percent allocated to States that experienced growth as
measured by the average of the 3 most recent years for which
Immigration and Naturalization Service data for immigrants
admitted for legal permanent residence are available, except
that no State shall be allocated an amount less than $60,000:
Provided further, That of the amounts made available for the
Adult Education and Family Literacy Act, $9,096,000 shall be
for national leadership activities under section 243 and
$6,638,000 shall be for the National Institute for Literacy
under section 242: Provided further, That $94,476,000 shall
be available to support the activities authorized under
subpart 4 of part D of title V of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965, of which up to 5 percent
shall become available October 1, 2005, and shall remain
available through September 30, 2007, for evaluation,
technical assistance, school networking, peer review of
applications, and program outreach activities, and of which
not less than 95 percent shall become available on July 1,
2006, and remain available through September 30, 2007, for
grants to local educational agencies: Provided further, That
funds made available to local education agencies under this
subpart shall be used only for activities related to
establishing smaller learning communities in high schools.
Student Financial Assistance
For carrying out subparts 1, 3, and 4 of part A, part C and
part E of title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as
amended, $15,283,752,000, which shall remain available
through September 30, 2007.
The maximum Pell Grant for which a student shall be
eligible during award year 2006-2007 shall be $4,100.
Student Aid Administration
For Federal administrative expenses (in addition to funds
made available under section 458), to carry out part D of
title I, and subparts 1, 3, and 4 of part A, and parts B, C,
D, and E of title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as
amended, $124,084,000.
Higher Education
For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided,
section 121 and titles II, III, IV, V, VI, and VII of the
Higher Education Act of 1965 (``HEA''), as amended, section
1543 of the Higher Education Amendments of 1992, the Mutual
Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961, and section
117 of the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education
Act, $1,936,936,000: Provided, That $9,797,000, to remain
available through September 30, 2007, shall be available to
fund fellowships for academic year 2007-2008 under part A,
subpart 1 of title VII of said Act, under the terms and
conditions of part A, subpart 1: Provided further, That
notwithstanding any other provision of law or any regulation,
the Secretary of Education shall not require the use of a
restricted indirect cost rate for grants issued pursuant to
section 117 of the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical
Education Act of 1998: Provided further, That $980,000 is for
data collection and evaluation activities for programs under
the HEA, including such activities needed to comply with the
Government Performance and Results Act of 1993: Provided
further, That notwithstanding any other provision of law,
funds made available in this Act to carry out title VI of the
HEA and section 102(b)(6) of the Mutual Educational and
Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 may be used to support visits
and study in foreign countries by individuals who are
participating in advanced foreign language training and
international studies in areas that are vital to United
States national security and who plan to apply their language
skills and knowledge of these countries in the fields of
government, the professions, or international development:
Provided further, That of the funds referred to in the
preceding proviso up to 1 percent may be used for program
evaluation, national outreach, and information dissemination
activities: Provided further, That the funds provided for
title II of the HEA shall be allocated notwithstanding
section 210 of such Act.
Howard University
For partial support of Howard University (20 U.S.C. 121 et
seq.), $240,790,000, of which not less than $3,524,000 shall
be for a matching endowment grant pursuant to the Howard
University Endowment Act (Public Law 98-480) and shall remain
available until expended.
[[Page H5111]]
College Housing and Academic Facilities Loans Program
For Federal administrative expenses to carry out activities
related to existing facility loans pursuant to section 121 of
the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended $573,000.
Historically Black College and University Capital Financing Program
Account
The aggregate principal amount of outstanding bonds insured
pursuant to section 344 of title III, part D of the Higher
Education Act of 1965, shall not exceed $357,000,000, and the
cost, as defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974, of such bonds shall not exceed zero.
For administrative expenses to carry out the Historically
Black College and University Capital Financing Program
entered into pursuant to title III, part D of the Higher
Education Act of 1965, as amended, $210,000.
Institute of Education Sciences
For carrying out activities authorized by the Education
Sciences Reform Act of 2002, as amended, the National
Assessment of Educational Progress Authorization Act, section
208 of the Educational Technical Assistance Act of 2002, and
section 664 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act, $522,696,000, of which $271,560,000 shall be available
until September 30, 2007.
Departmental Management
Program Administration
For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided, the
Department of Education Organization Act, including rental of
conference rooms in the District of Columbia and hire of
three passenger motor vehicles, $418,992,000.
Office for Civil Rights
For expenses necessary for the Office for Civil Rights, as
authorized by section 203 of the Department of Education
Organization Act, $91,526,000.
Office of the Inspector General
For expenses necessary for the Office of the Inspector
General, as authorized by section 212 of the Department of
Education Organization Act, $49,000,000.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 301. No funds appropriated in this Act may be used for
the transportation of students or teachers (or for the
purchase of equipment for such transportation) in order to
overcome racial imbalance in any school or school system, or
for the transportation of students or teachers (or for the
purchase of equipment for such transportation) in order to
carry out a plan of racial desegregation of any school or
school system.
Sec. 302. None of the funds contained in this Act shall be
used to require, directly or indirectly, the transportation
of any student to a school other than the school which is
nearest the student's home, except for a student requiring
special education, to the school offering such special
education, in order to comply with title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964. For the purpose of this section an
indirect requirement of transportation of students includes
the transportation of students to carry out a plan involving
the reorganization of the grade structure of schools, the
pairing of schools, or the clustering of schools, or any
combination of grade restructuring, pairing or clustering.
The prohibition described in this section does not include
the establishment of magnet schools.
Sec. 303. No funds appropriated under this Act may be used
to prevent the implementation of programs of voluntary prayer
and meditation in the public schools.
(transfer of funds)
Sec. 304. Not to exceed 1 percent of any discretionary
funds (pursuant to the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985, as amended) which are appropriated for
the Department of Education in this Act may be transferred
between appropriations, but no such appropriation shall be
increased by more than 3 percent by any such transfer:
Provided, That the Appropriations Committees of both Houses
of Congress are notified at least 15 days in advance of any
transfer.
Sec. 305. In addition, for carrying out subpart 1 of part A
of title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965,
$4,300,000,000 for the purpose of eliminating the estimated
accumulated shortfall of budget authority for such subpart
for awards made through the award year 2005-2006, pursuant to
section 303 of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th Congress), the
concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006.
This title may be cited as the ``Department of Education
Appropriations Act, 2006''.
TITLE IV--RELATED AGENCIES
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled
salaries and expenses
For expenses necessary of the Committee for Purchase From
People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled established by
Public Law 92-28, $4,669,000.
Corporation for National and Community Service
Domestic Volunteer Service Programs, Operating Expenses
For expenses necessary for the Corporation for National and
Community Service to carry out the provisions of the Domestic
Volunteer Service Act of 1973, as amended, $357,962,000:
Provided, That none of the funds made available to the
Corporation for National and Community Service in this Act
for activities authorized by section 122 of part C of title I
and part E of title II of the Domestic Volunteer Service Act
of 1973 shall be used to provide stipends or other monetary
incentives to volunteers or volunteer leaders whose incomes
exceed 125 percent of the national poverty level: Provided
further, That notwithstanding section 122(c) of the Act, the
Corporation shall make available up to $2,000,000 under part
C of title I of the Act in a grant to support Teach for
America's efforts to address educational inequity in low-
income rural and urban communities.
National and Community Service Programs, Operating Expenses
(including transfer of funds)
For necessary expenses for the Corporation for National and
Community Service (the ``Corporation'') in carrying out
programs, activities, and initiatives under the National and
Community Service Act of 1990 (the ``Act'') (42 U.S.C. 12501
et seq.), $523,087,000, to remain available until September
30, 2007: Provided, That not more than $270,000,000 of the
amount provided under this heading shall be available for
grants under the National Service Trust Program authorized
under subtitle C of title I of the Act (42 U.S.C. 12571 et
seq.) (relating to activities of the AmeriCorps program),
including grants to organizations operating projects under
the AmeriCorps Education Awards Program (without regard to
the requirements of sections 121 (d) and (e), section 131(e),
section 132, and sections 140 (a), (d), and (e) of the Act):
Provided further, That not less than $146,000,000 of the
amount provided under this heading, to remain available
without fiscal year limitation, shall be transferred to the
National Service Trust for educational awards authorized
under subtitle D of title I of the Act (42 U.S.C. 12601), of
which up to $4,000,000 shall be available to support national
service scholarships for high school students performing
community service, and of which $10,000,000 shall be held in
reserve as defined in Public Law 108-45: Provided further,
That in addition to amounts otherwise provided to the
National Service Trust under the second proviso, the
Corporation may transfer funds from the amount provided under
the first proviso, to the National Service Trust authorized
under subtitle D of title I of the Act (42 U.S.C. 12601) upon
determination that such transfer is necessary to support the
activities of national service participants and after notice
is transmitted to Congress: Provided further, That of the
amount provided under this heading for grants under the
National Service Trust program authorized under subtitle C of
title I of the Act, not more than $55,000,000 may be used to
administer, reimburse, or support any national service
program authorized under section 121(d)(2) of such Act (42
U.S.C. 12581(d)(2)): Provided further, That not more than
$9,945,000 shall be available for quality and innovation
activities authorized under subtitle H of title I of the Act
(42 U.S.C. 12853 et seq.), of which $4,000,000 shall be
available for challenge grants to non-profit organizations:
Provided further, That notwithstanding subtitle H of title I
of the Act (42 U.S.C. 12853), none of the funds provided
under the previous proviso shall be used to support salaries
and related expenses (including travel) attributable to
Corporation employees: Provided further, That to the maximum
extent feasible, funds appropriated under subtitle C of title
I of the Act shall be provided in a manner that is consistent
with the recommendations of peer review panels in order to
ensure that priority is given to programs that demonstrate
quality, innovation, replicability, and sustainability:
Provided further, That $25,500,000 of the funds made
available under this heading shall be available for the
Civilian Community Corps authorized under subtitle E of title
I of the Act (42 U.S.C. 12611 et seq.): Provided further,
That $40,000,000 shall be available for school-based and
community-based service-learning programs authorized under
subtitle B of title I of the Act (42 U.S.C. 12521 et seq.):
Provided further, That $4,000,000 shall be available for
audits and other evaluations authorized under section 179 of
the Act (42 U.S.C. 12639): Provided further, That $10,000,000
of the funds made available under this heading shall be made
available for the Points of Light Foundation for activities
authorized under title III of the Act (42 U.S.C. 12661 et
seq.), of which not more than $2,500,000 may be used to
support an endowment fund, the corpus of which shall remain
intact and the interest income from which shall be used to
support activities described in title III of the Act,
provided that the Foundation may invest the corpus and income
in federally insured bank savings accounts or comparable
interest bearing accounts, certificates of deposit, money
market funds, mutual funds, obligations of the United States,
and other market instruments and securities but not in real
estate investments: Provided further, That no funds shall be
available for national service programs run by Federal
agencies authorized under section 121(b) of such Act (42
U.S.C. 12571(b)): Provided further, That $5,000,000 of the
funds made available under this heading shall be made
available to America's Promise--The Alliance for Youth, Inc.:
Provided further, That to the maximum extent practicable, the
Corporation shall increase significantly the level of
matching funds and in-kind contributions provided by the
private sector, and shall reduce the total Federal costs per
participant in all programs: Provided further, That
notwithstanding section 501(a)(4) of the Act, of the funds
provided under this heading, not more than $12,642,000 shall
be made available to provide assistance to state commissions
on national and community service under section 126(a)
[[Page H5112]]
of the Act: Provided further, That the Corporation may use up
to one percent of program grant funds made available under
this heading to defray its costs of conducting grant
application reviews, including the use of outside peer
reviewers.
NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE PROGRAMS SALARIES AND EXPENSES
For necessary expenses of administration as provided under
section 501(a)(4) of the National and Community Service Act
of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12501 et seq.) including payment of
salaries, authorized travel, hire of passenger motor
vehicles, the rental of conference rooms in the District of
Columbia, the employment of experts and consultants
authorized under 5 U.S.C. 3109, and not to exceed $2,500 for
official reception and representation expenses, $27,000,000.
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the Inspector General Act of 1978, as
amended, $6,000,000, to remain available until September 30,
2007.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the term
``qualified student loan'' with respect to national service
education awards shall mean any loan determined by an
institution of higher education to be necessary to cover a
student's cost of attendance at such institution and made,
insured, or guaranteed directly to a student by a State
agency, in addition to other meanings under section 148(b)(7)
of the National and Community Service Act.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds made
available under section 129(d)(5)(B) of the National and
Community Service Act to assist entities in placing
applicants who are individuals with disabilities may be
provided to any entity that receives a grant under section
121 of the Act.
The Inspector General of the Corporation for National and
Community Service shall conduct random audits of the grantees
that administer activities under the AmeriCorps programs and
shall levy sanctions in accordance with standard Inspector
General audit resolution procedures which include, but are
not limited to, debarment of any grantee (or successor in
interest or any entity with substantially the same person or
persons in control) that has been determined to have
committed any substantial violations of the requirements of
the AmeriCorps programs, including any grantee that has been
determined to have violated the prohibition of using Federal
funds to lobby the Congress: Provided, That the Inspector
General shall obtain reimbursements in the amount of any
misused funds from any grantee that has been determined to
have committed any substantial violations of the requirements
of the AmeriCorps programs.
For fiscal year 2006, the Corporation shall make any
significant changes to program requirements or policy only
through public notice and comment rulemaking. For fiscal year
2006, during any grant selection process, no officer or
employee of the Corporation shall knowingly disclose any
covered grant selection information regarding such selection,
directly or indirectly, to any person other than an officer
or employee of the Corporation that is authorized by the
Corporation to receive such information.
Corporation for Public Broadcasting
(Including Rescission)
Of the amounts made available to the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting for fiscal year 2006 by Public Law 108-199,
$100,000,000 is rescinded; up to $30,000,000 is available for
grants associated with the transition of public television to
digital broadcasting including costs related to transmission
equipment and program production, development, and
distribution, to be awarded as determined by the Corporation
in consultation with public television licensees or
permittees, or their designated representatives, and up to
$52,000,000 is available pursuant to section 396(k)(10) of
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, for replacement
and upgrade of the public television interconnection system:
Provided, That section 396(k)(3) shall apply only to amounts
remaining after the allocations made herein.
For payment to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, as
authorized by the Communications Act of 1934, an amount which
shall be available within limitations specified by that Act,
for fiscal year 2008, $400,000,000: Provided, That no funds
made available to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting by
this Act shall be used to pay for receptions, parties, or
similar forms of entertainment for Government officials or
employees: Provided further, That none of the funds contained
in this paragraph shall be available or used to aid or
support any program or activity from which any person is
excluded, or is denied benefits, or is discriminated against,
on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, or
sex.
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service
Salaries and Expenses
For expenses necessary for the Federal Mediation and
Conciliation Service to carry out the functions vested in it
by the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947 (29 U.S.C. 171-
180, 182-183), including hire of passenger motor vehicles;
for expenses necessary for the Labor-Management Cooperation
Act of 1978 (29 U.S.C. 175a); and for expenses necessary for
the Service to carry out the functions vested in it by the
Civil Service Reform Act, Public Law 95-454 (5 U.S.C. ch.
71), $42,331,000: Provided, That notwithstanding 31 U.S.C.
3302, fees charged, up to full-cost recovery, for special
training activities and other conflict resolution services
and technical assistance, including those provided to foreign
governments and international organizations, and for
arbitration services shall be credited to and merged with
this account, and shall remain available until expended:
Provided further, That fees for arbitration services shall be
available only for education, training, and professional
development of the agency workforce: Provided further, That
the Director of the Service is authorized to accept and use
on behalf of the United States gifts of services and real,
personal, or other property in the aid of any projects or
functions within the Director's jurisdiction.
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission
Salaries and Expenses
For expenses necessary for the Federal Mine Safety and
Health Review Commission (30 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), $7,809,000.
Institute of Museum and Library Services
Office of Museum and Library Services: Grants and Administration
For carrying out the Museum and Library Services Act of
1996, $249,640,000, to remain available until expended.
Medicare Payment Advisory Commission
Salaries and Expenses
For expenses necessary to carry out section 1805 of the
Social Security Act, $10,168,000, to be transferred to this
appropriation from the Federal Hospital Insurance and the
Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds.
National Commission on Libraries and Information Science
Salaries and Expenses
For necessary expenses for the National Commission on
Libraries and Information Science, established by the Act of
July 20, 1970 (Public Law 91-345, as amended), $993,000.
National Council on Disability
Salaries and Expenses
For expenses necessary for the National Council on
Disability as authorized by title IV of the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973, as amended, $2,800,000.
National Labor Relations Board
Salaries and Expenses
For expenses necessary for the National Labor Relations
Board to carry out the functions vested in it by the Labor-
Management Relations Act, 1947, as amended (29 U.S.C. 141-
167), and other laws, $252,268,000: Provided, That no part of
this appropriation shall be available to organize or assist
in organizing agricultural laborers or used in connection
with investigations, hearings, directives, or orders
concerning bargaining units composed of agricultural laborers
as referred to in section 2(3) of the Act of July 5, 1935 (29
U.S.C. 152), and as amended by the Labor-Management Relations
Act, 1947, as amended, and as defined in section 3(f) of the
Act of June 25, 1938 (29 U.S.C. 203), and including in said
definition employees engaged in the maintenance and operation
of ditches, canals, reservoirs, and waterways when maintained
or operated on a mutual, nonprofit basis and at least 95
percent of the water stored or supplied thereby is used for
farming purposes.
National Mediation Board
Salaries and Expenses
For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the
Railway Labor Act, as amended (45 U.S.C. 151-188), including
emergency boards appointed by the President, $11,628,000.
Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission
Salaries and Expenses
For expenses necessary for the Occupational Safety and
Health Review Commission (29 U.S.C. 661), $10,510,000.
Railroad Retirement Board
Dual Benefits Payments Account
For payment to the Dual Benefits Payments Account,
authorized under section 15(d) of the Railroad Retirement Act
of 1974, $97,000,000, which shall include amounts becoming
available in fiscal year 2006 pursuant to section
224(c)(1)(B) of Public Law 98-76; and in addition, an amount,
not to exceed 2 percent of the amount provided herein, shall
be available proportional to the amount by which the product
of recipients and the average benefit received exceeds
$97,000,000: Provided, That the total amount provided herein
shall be credited in 12 approximately equal amounts on the
first day of each month in the fiscal year.
Federal Payments to the Railroad Retirement Accounts
For payment to the accounts established in the Treasury for
the payment of benefits under the Railroad Retirement Act for
interest earned on unnegotiated checks, $150,000, to remain
available through September 30, 2007, which shall be the
maximum amount available for payment pursuant to section 417
of Public Law 98-76.
Limitation on Administration
For necessary expenses for the Railroad Retirement Board
for administration of the Railroad Retirement Act and the
Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act, $102,543,000, to
[[Page H5113]]
be derived in such amounts as determined by the Board from
the railroad retirement accounts and from moneys credited to
the railroad unemployment insurance administration fund.
Limitation on the Office of Inspector General
For expenses necessary for the Office of Inspector General
for audit, investigatory and review activities, as authorized
by the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, not more
than $7,196,000, to be derived from the railroad retirement
accounts and railroad unemployment insurance account:
Provided, That none of the funds made available in any other
paragraph of this Act may be transferred to the Office; used
to carry out any such transfer; used to provide any office
space, equipment, office supplies, communications facilities
or services, maintenance services, or administrative services
for the Office; used to pay any salary, benefit, or award for
any personnel of the Office; used to pay any other operating
expense of the Office; or used to reimburse the Office for
any service provided, or expense incurred, by the Office.
Social Security Administration
Payments to Social Security Trust Funds
For payment to the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance
and the Federal Disability Insurance trust funds, as provided
under sections 201(m), 228(g), and 1131(b)(2) of the Social
Security Act, $20,470,000.
Supplemental Security Income Program
For carrying out titles XI and XVI of the Social Security
Act, section 401 of Public Law 92-603, section 212 of Public
Law 93-66, as amended, and section 405 of Public Law 95-216,
including payment to the Social Security trust funds for
administrative expenses incurred pursuant to section
201(g)(1) of the Social Security Act, $29,533,174,000, to
remain available until expended: Provided, That any portion
of the funds provided to a State in the current fiscal year
and not obligated by the State during that year shall be
returned to the Treasury.
For making, after June 15 of the current fiscal year,
benefit payments to individuals under title XVI of the Social
Security Act, for unanticipated costs incurred for the
current fiscal year, such sums as may be necessary.
For making benefit payments under title XVI of the Social
Security Act for the first quarter of fiscal year 2007,
$11,110,000,000, to remain available until expended.
limitation on administrative expenses
For necessary expenses, including the hire of two passenger
motor vehicles, and not to exceed $15,000 for official
reception and representation expenses, not more than
$9,159,700,000 may be expended, as authorized by section
201(g)(1) of the Social Security Act, from any one or all of
the trust funds referred to therein: Provided, That not less
than $2,000,000 shall be for the Social Security Advisory
Board: Provided further, That unobligated balances of funds
provided under this paragraph at the end of fiscal year 2006
not needed for fiscal year 2006 shall remain available until
expended to invest in the Social Security Administration
information technology and telecommunications hardware and
software infrastructure, including related equipment and non-
payroll administrative expenses associated solely with this
information technology and telecommunications infrastructure:
Provided further, That reimbursement to the trust funds under
this heading for expenditures for official time for employees
of the Social Security Administration pursuant to section
7131 of title 5, United States Code, and for facilities or
support services for labor organizations pursuant to
policies, regulations, or procedures referred to in section
7135(b) of such title shall be made by the Secretary of the
Treasury, with interest, from amounts in the general fund not
otherwise appropriated, as soon as possible after such
expenditures are made.
In addition, $119,000,000 to be derived from administration
fees in excess of $5.00 per supplementary payment collected
pursuant to section 1616(d) of the Social Security Act or
section 212(b)(3) of Public Law 93-66, which shall remain
available until expended. To the extent that the amounts
collected pursuant to such section 1616(d) or 212(b)(3) in
fiscal year 2006 exceed $119,000,000, the amounts shall be
available in fiscal year 2007 only to the extent provided in
advance in appropriations Acts.
In addition, up to $1,000,000 to be derived from fees
collected pursuant to section 303(c) of the Social Security
Protection Act (Public Law 108-203), which shall remain
available until expended.
office of inspector general
(including transfer of funds)
For expenses necessary for the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act
of 1978, as amended, $26,000,000, together with not to exceed
$66,805,000, to be transferred and expended as authorized by
section 201(g)(1) of the Social Security Act from the Federal
Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal
Disability Insurance Trust Fund.
In addition, an amount not to exceed 3 percent of the total
provided in this appropriation may be transferred from the
``Limitation on Administrative Expenses'', Social Security
Administration, to be merged with this account, to be
available for the time and purposes for which this account is
available: Provided, That notice of such transfers shall be
transmitted promptly to the Committees on Appropriations of
the House and Senate.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 501. The Secretaries of Labor, Health and Human
Services, and Education are authorized to transfer unexpended
balances of prior appropriations to accounts corresponding to
current appropriations provided in this Act: Provided, That
such transferred balances are used for the same purpose, and
for the same periods of time, for which they were originally
appropriated.
Sec. 502. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current
fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
Sec. 503. (a) No part of any appropriation contained in
this Act shall be used, other than for normal and recognized
executive-legislative relationships, for publicity or
propaganda purposes, for the preparation, distribution, or
use of any kit, pamphlet, booklet, publication, radio,
television, or video presentation designed to support or
defeat legislation pending before the Congress or any State
legislature, except in presentation to the Congress or any
State legislature itself.
(b) No part of any appropriation contained in this Act
shall be used to pay the salary or expenses of any grant or
contract recipient, or agent acting for such recipient,
related to any activity designed to influence legislation or
appropriations pending before the Congress or any State
legislature.
Sec. 504. The Secretaries of Labor and Education are
authorized to make available not to exceed $28,000 and
$20,000, respectively, from funds available for salaries and
expenses under titles I and III, respectively, for official
reception and representation expenses; the Director of the
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service is authorized to
make available for official reception and representation
expenses not to exceed $5,000 from the funds available for
``Salaries and expenses, Federal Mediation and Conciliation
Service''; and the Chairman of the National Mediation Board
is authorized to make available for official reception and
representation expenses not to exceed $5,000 from funds
available for ``Salaries and expenses, National Mediation
Board''.
Sec. 505. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act,
no funds appropriated under this Act shall be used to carry
out any program of distributing sterile needles or syringes
for the hypodermic injection of any illegal drug.
Sec. 506. When issuing statements, press releases, requests
for proposals, bid solicitations and other documents
describing projects or programs funded in whole or in part
with Federal money, all grantees receiving Federal funds
included in this Act, including but not limited to State and
local governments and recipients of Federal research grants,
shall clearly state--
(1) the percentage of the total costs of the program or
project which will be financed with Federal money;
(2) the dollar amount of Federal funds for the project or
program; and
(3) percentage and dollar amount of the total costs of the
project or program that will be financed by non-governmental
sources.
Sec. 507. (a) None of the funds appropriated under this
Act, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds
are appropriated under this Act, shall be expended for any
abortion.
(b) None of the funds appropriated under this Act, and none
of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are
appropriated under this Act, shall be expended for health
benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion.
(c) The term ``health benefits coverage'' means the package
of services covered by a managed care provider or
organization pursuant to a contract or other arrangement.
Sec. 508. (a) The limitations established in the preceding
section shall not apply to an abortion--
(1) if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or
incest; or
(2) in the case where a woman suffers from a physical
disorder, physical injury, or physical illness, including a
life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from
the pregnancy itself, that would, as certified by a
physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an
abortion is performed.
(b) Nothing in the preceding section shall be construed as
prohibiting the expenditure by a State, locality, entity, or
private person of State, local, or private funds (other than
a State's or locality's contribution of Medicaid matching
funds).
(c) Nothing in the preceding section shall be construed as
restricting the ability of any managed care provider from
offering abortion coverage or the ability of a State or
locality to contract separately with such a provider for such
coverage with State funds (other than a State's or locality's
contribution of Medicaid matching funds).
(d)(1) None of the funds made available in this Act may be
made available to a Federal agency or program, or to a State
or local government, if such agency, program, or government
subjects any institutional or individual health care entity
to discrimination on the basis that the health care entity
does not provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for
abortions.
(2) In this subsection, the term ``health care entity''
includes an individual physician
[[Page H5114]]
or other health care professional, a hospital, a provider-
sponsored organization, a health maintenance organization, a
health insurance plan, or any other kind of health care
facility, organization, or plan.
Sec. 509. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act
may be used for--
(1) the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research
purposes; or
(2) research in which a human embryo or embryos are
destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of
injury or death greater than that allowed for research on
fetuses in utero under 45 CFR 46.208(a)(2) and section 498(b)
of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 289g(b)).
(b) For purposes of this section, the term ``human embryo
or embryos'' includes any organism, not protected as a human
subject under 45 CFR 46 as of the date of the enactment of
this Act, that is derived by fertilization, parthenogenesis,
cloning, or any other means from one or more human gametes or
human diploid cells.
Sec. 510. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act
may be used for any activity that promotes the legalization
of any drug or other substance included in schedule I of the
schedules of controlled substances established by section 202
of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812).
(b) The limitation in subsection (a) shall not apply when
there is significant medical evidence of a therapeutic
advantage to the use of such drug or other substance or that
federally sponsored clinical trials are being conducted to
determine therapeutic advantage.
Sec. 511. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be obligated or expended to enter into or renew a contract
with an entity if--
(1) such entity is otherwise a contractor with the United
States and is subject to the requirement in section 4212(d)
of title 38, United States Code, regarding submission of an
annual report to the Secretary of Labor concerning employment
of certain veterans; and
(2) such entity has not submitted a report as required by
that section for the most recent year for which such
requirement was applicable to such entity.
Point of Order
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 511.
This section violates clause 2(b) of House rule XXI. It proposes to
change existing law and, therefore, constitutes legislation on an
appropriation bill in violation of House rules.
I do this on behalf of the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Tom
Davis) of the Committee on Government Reform.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, we are not going to object, because I
understand the correctness of this. I just would point out this has
been carried in this particular bill since 1997 without being objected
to. But, technically, the gentleman is correct; and, therefore, we
concede the point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded and sustained. The
section is stricken from the bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 512. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to promulgate or adopt any final standard under
section 1173(b) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320d-
2(b)) providing for, or providing for the assignment of, a
unique health identifier for an individual (except in an
individual's capacity as an employer or a health care
provider), until legislation is enacted specifically
approving the standard.
Sec. 513. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be transferred to any department, agency, or instrumentality
of the United States Government, except pursuant to a
transfer made by, or transfer authority provided in, this Act
or any other appropriation Act.
Sec. 514. None of the funds made available by this Act to
carry out the Library Services and Technology Act may be made
available to any library covered by paragraph (1) of section
224(f) of such Act (20 U.S.C. 9134(f)), as amended by the
Children's Internet Protections Act, unless such library has
made the certifications required by paragraph (4) of such
section.
Sec. 515. None of the funds made available by this Act to
carry out part D of title II of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 may be made available to any elementary
or secondary school covered by paragraph (1) of section
2441(a) of such Act (20 U.S.C. 6777(a)), as amended by the
Children's Internet Protections Act and the No Child Left
Behind Act, unless the local educational agency with
responsibility for such covered school has made the
certifications required by paragraph (2) of such section.
Sec. 516. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be
used to enter into an arrangement under section 7(b)(4) of
the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 (45 U.S.C. 231f(b)(4))
with a nongovernmental financial institution to serve as
disbursing agent for benefits payable under the Railroad
Retirement Act of 1974.
Sec. 517. (a) None of the funds provided under this Act, or
provided under previous appropriations Acts to the agencies
funded by this Act that remain available for obligation or
expenditure in fiscal year 2006, or provided from any
accounts in the Treasury of the United States derived by the
collection of fees available to the agencies funded by this
Act, shall be available for obligation or expenditure through
a reprogramming of funds that--
(1) creates new programs;
(2) eliminates a program, project, or activity;
(3) increases funds or personnel by any means for any
project or activity for which funds have been denied or
restricted;
(4) relocates an office or employees;
(5) reorganizes or renames offices;
(6) reorganizes programs or activities; or
(7) contracts out or privatizes any functions or activities
presently performed by Federal employees;
unless the Appropriations Committees of both Houses of
Congress are notified 15 days in advance of such
reprogramming or of an announcement of intent relating to
such reprogramming, whichever occurs earlier.
(b) None of the funds provided under this Act, or provided
under previous appropriations Acts to the agencies funded by
this Act that remain available for obligation or expenditure
in fiscal year 2006, or provided from any accounts in the
Treasury of the United States derived by the collection of
fees available to the agencies funded by this Act, shall be
available for obligation or expenditure through a
reprogramming of funds in excess of $500,000 or 10 percent,
whichever is less, that--
(1) augments existing programs, projects (including
construction projects), or activities;
(2) reduces by 10 percent funding for any existing program,
project, or activity, or numbers of personnel by 10 percent
as approved by Congress; or
(3) results from any general savings from a reduction in
personnel which would result in a change in existing
programs, activities, or projects as approved by Congress;
unless the Appropriations Committees of both Houses of
Congress are notified 15 days in advance of such
reprogramming or of an announcement of intent relating to
such reprogramming, whichever occurs earlier.
Sec. 518. Section 1015(b) of Public Law 108-173 is amended
by striking ``2005'' and inserting ``2006''.
Sec. 519. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act
may be used for the payment or reimbursement, including
payment or reimbursement under the programs described in
subsection (b), of a drug that is prescribed to an individual
described in subsection (c) for the treatment of sexual or
erectile dysfunction.
(b) The programs described in this subsection are the
medicaid program, the medicare program, and health related
programs funded under the Public Health Service Act.
(c) An individual described in this subsection is an
individual who has a conviction for sexual abuse, sexual
assault, or any other sexual offense, and includes any
individual who is registered (or who is a person required to
register) under section 170101 or 170102 of the Violent Crime
Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14071,
14072).
{time} 1000
Amendment Offered by Mr. George Miller of california
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. George Miller of California:
At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be
used by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation to enforce
or implement the ``Settlement Agreement By and Among UAL
Corporation and all Direct and Indirect Subsidiaries and
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation'', dated April 22, 2005.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 23, 2005,
the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Regula) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. George
Miller).
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2
minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I join the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky)
and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) to offer an amendment
which will be the first time that will allow Congress, and perhaps the
last time, to save the hard-earned retirement benefits of 120,000
workers and retirees at United Airlines.
Unfortunately, United Airlines has become a poster child for what is
wrong with the private pension in this country. United filed for
bankruptcy over 2 years ago and forced one wage concession after
another from its workers, and then it unilaterally decided
[[Page H5115]]
that it would stop making the legally required pension contributions to
its plans. It dragged on the negotiations with its employees and then,
in the middle of the night, got up from those negotiations and dumped
those retirement plans into the PBGC, causing those employees to lose
somewhere from 30 to 60 percent of their retirement nest egg, of their
retirement assets, of their future standard of living. That is what
these people lost because United decided it would no longer negotiate
to try to find a solution to this problem.
We see Delta Airlines that has frozen its pension plan, has asked to
stretch out its payments so that it can protect the assets of its
employees. United chose another idea: It would simply dump these
liabilities onto the taxpayers of the United States of America. What
United was not telling anybody was the truth. They were not telling
them about their funding of their pension plans, about their
liabilities of their pension plans. They simply decided they would
terminate these plans in the PBGC.
So this is our chance. This is our chance to try to save the
retirement nest eggs of the flight attendants, of the ramp workers, of
the pilots, of all of the people that have given so much to have this
airline continue to fly. We held an E-hearing. Over 2,000 people
participated and told us what the real impact of these cuts would be on
their families, on their children, on spouses with illnesses, on their
parents. People who had worked 30, 35, 40 years for this company now
find out that they have been terminated with no chance to go back.
This amendment says United Airlines has got to go back to the
bargaining table and work out a provision to take care of this.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and
I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this
time.
I rise in opposition to this amendment because it seeks to overturn
two court decisions and what Judge Wedoff said was ``The least of the
bad'' alternative ``choices here has got to be the one that keeps the
airline functioning, that keeps employees being paid.'' We have to look
out for the interests of all people, especially the 62,000 employees of
United Airlines right now, just crawling out of bankruptcy, on whom the
future of the entire western Chicagoland region, O'Hare Airport, and
many of the related businesses depend. If we push United into
bankruptcy, and especially if we push her further into liquidation, we
will not only have an employee pension problem, but we will have a
massive unemployment problem. We will also jeopardize the crown jewel
of the economic development programs for Illinois, which is the
modernization of O'Hare airport. O'Hare airport and its modernization
depends on a functioning United Airlines. And for us to interfere with
the two court decisions and the already declared decisions of four
unions with United is a great mistake.
I think we should make sure that this process moves forward, we
should make sure that this airline continues to function, and we should
make sure that the 62,000 current employees of United are allowed to
find their way back into profitability so they can put food on their
table, especially in my district and other Illinois districts.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to
the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), cosponsor of the
amendment.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today, with the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller) and the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Crowley), to offer an amendment that would protect the retirement
security of dedicated United Airlines employees and retirees who
support, and I want to underscore that, who support our amendment.
Our amendment would stop the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
from taking over United's four pension plans in one fell swoop. Our
amendment would give Congress a chance to work out a better solution
than pension termination.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment because the threat to
United's employees is real. This is not a straight hand-off from United
to the PBGC. Although United's pension liability is $9.8 billion, the
PBGC is only assuming $6.6 billion of the debt to United workers. The
takeover of the plans will result in pension benefit cuts averaging 25
to 50 percent, a loss of $3.2 billion, for men and women who have
worked for years with the promise of a secure pension. And it is on top
of the $3 billion in concessions United employees already made.
We are on the cusp of a pension crisis in this country. The PBGC,
without United, has a $23 billion deficit, and other companies are
waiting in line to dump their pension benefits.
I urge my colleagues to support this measure.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Dreier).
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strongest opposition to the
Miller amendment. Five unions have been involved in the negotiation
process here to ensure that over 60,000 people are able to keep their
jobs and a very, very important company continues to remain alive.
There is one union that has chosen not to be supportive of this. The
fact that one union is not supportive of this agreement working between
United Airlines and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation has now
created a scenario where we want to take the entire package down, and I
believe that it would undermine a very important part of the commerce
of the United States of America. We all know how important the airline
is to the very vibrant economy that we have today.
So I urge my colleagues to oppose the Miller amendment and let us
proceed to ensure that we do not see 62,000 people lose their jobs.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), a cosponsor of the
amendment.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend and colleague from
California for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Miller-Schakowsky-
Crowley amendment and urge all our Members here in the House to support
it.
Is this amendment a cure to our Nation's employee pension problems?
No. The problem is PBGC jumped too easily at a deal to put taxpayers on
the hook for pensions, while allowing United to walk away from its
responsibilities to its employees.
Representing the district that houses LaGuardia Airport and serving
many Delta employees, I have real concerns about the bad precedent set
by PBGC and worry that other airlines, and soon other industries, will
follow United's lead.
As we know, Delta recently stated that it must pay $2.6 billion over
the next 3 years to meet the obligations of its defined benefit pension
plan. The carrier has warned in the past that its growing obligation
poses a threat to restructure and avoid a bankruptcy filing. At the
same time, UAL Chief Executive Gerald Grinstein has said that United
would gain a competitive advantage on rivals by dumping its employee
pension obligation.
This is bad precedent. Real pension reform is needed, and this
amendment is to serve as a wake-up call to that fact.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would just point out to the Members that this is a very delicately
balanced arrangement and I think the risk to all of this is that if we
were to adopt this amendment, the benefits that now are available to
retirees under PBGC could even be lost, plus a lot of jobs could be
lost. And we are inserting ourselves or would be inserting ourselves
into something that has been worked out among all the parties in a way
that is in the best interest of both active employees and retirees, and
this is not the appropriate forum to deal with this subject.
We have legislation moving through the Committee on Education and the
Workforce dealing with pensions, and this would set a precedent, I
think, for our body, the U.S. House, to interject itself in something
that should be handled by the parties, and I think what they are trying
to do is to work it out in a way that is in the best interest of both
the active employees and retirees.
[[Page H5116]]
For this reason we object to the amendment, and this is not the
proper forum to bring this kind of an amendment or to make a decision
with the consequences that this would have.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the
purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey).
(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Miller amendment.
Mr. Chairman, employees and retirees at United Airlines played by the
rules and deserve what they expected--a solid pension payment to
support their retirement years. But instead of the promised income they
were counting on to help cover their kid's college tuition; their own
health care; or, the mortgage payments on their houses, they were left
with a court ruling dumping their dreams into the pension guaranty
benefit corporation (PBGC), which is significantly less than what they
were counting on. And, guess who fools the bill?--the tax payers!
Over 2,000 email statements from United Workers were recently
submitted into an e-hearing conducted by Representatives George Miller
and Jan Schakowsky.
One of my constituents, Ms. Elenor Barcsak wrote: ``I worked for
United Airlines as a flight attendant for 37 years . . . when I turned
60 years old I was told that it would be totally safe to retire as my
pension, that I had paid into as a union member for all those years,
was TOTALLY protected.
She continued--I am a homeowner in Marin County since 1972 but I
still have mortgage payments. I am assisting my family financially as
my mother is in a nursing home [in Canada] and my younger sister has
been on welfare. The impact of my pension check being reduced by as
much as half will be devastating.'' Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues
to support the Miller amendment to prevent United Airlines from dumping
its pension into the PBGC and reducing the benefits promised to these
loyal workers.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment not
just for the compelling reasons of the gentleman from California (Mr.
George Miller), but because if it is allowed to stand as a precedent,
it will cost the American taxpayer tens of billions of dollars in
additional pension costs.
Support the American taxpayer and support the Miller amendment.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the
balance of my time.
Just 18 days before United dumped its pension plans into the PBGC,
the PBGC wrote and said that it would be in the best interest of the
participants and the pension plan insurance program would be best
served by the continuance of the flight attendants pension plan. United
got up in the middle of the night, unilaterally threw this in.
What we are trying to tell United is go to the marketplace, go look
for private solutions to this debt, get this debt covered, people do it
all the time. Companies do it all the time, countries do it all the
time, before they come to the taxpayer.
The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) is right. We may very well be
looking at the opening night act of a new savings and loan scandal
because we let these people come in, because they unilaterally decided
termination was their first choice, going to the taxpayer was their
first choice. It should be their last choice.
This amendment simply says go back to the bargaining table and
exhaust all of their remedies before they come to the taxpayer.
Vote for the Miller-Schakowsky-Crowley amendment and take care of
people who play by the rules.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California has expired.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. We have
heard a number of Members on the majority side of the aisle say we
should not overturn a court decision.
Where were you on the Schiavo case when you brought the Congress back
in order to stick your nose into the very painful end-of-life decisions
that were made by a family in agony? You did not hesitate to try to
overturn a court decision then. Get straight, fellows, come on.
This amendment is absolutely necessary if we are going to stop the
dumping of pension obligations on the taxpayers of the United States.
The taxpayers have enough trouble now getting their representatives to
do real things to fix Social Security and now they are going to dump
the responsibility for private pensions on the taxpayer as well. That
is goofy and it is gutless. It is stupid. It is negligent. Outside of
that, it is a terrific idea.
What I would say is this, and I hope the House remembers this when
the Treasury bill is on the floor next week because I got added to that
bill a requirement that the General Accounting Office do a study to
determine whether or not we need to re-regulate the airlines and treat
them as a necessary public utility providing service to every community
in this country in order to save our pension system for airline
employees. If we do not do that, if we do not do that, we can bet there
will not be a single airline that has a private pension system by the
end of the decade. There will be a race to the bottom in terms of
costs, and the first people who are going to get run over in that race
are going to be the workers who thought they had a private pension
system.
This Congress needs to start talking about matters that affect the
people back home rather than continuing to focus on matters that deal
with the welfare of people inside the system and inside the Beltway in
Washington. It is about time Congress quit paying attention to little
details that have nothing to do with people's lives and start focusing
on big problems like preservation of their private pensions. This is
the only way that we can fire a shot across the do-nothing leadership
of this Congress' bow and get some movement on this crucial pension
issue.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman
for yielding to me.
I would just like to make the point this does not turn over any court
decisions. United has yet to file a business plan with the creditors
committee. The fact of the matter is this is the only opportunity we
are going to have to have them go back and negotiate and try to use
private systems to solve this problem before they come to the
taxpayers.
{time} 1015
So this does not tamper with any court decisions or with the ability
of United to go forward.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, without this amendment,
Uncle Sam is being Uncle Sucker.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.
I say this to my colleagues who are watching us on C-SPAN: I think
the debate illustrates the complexity of this issue. This is not the
proper forum to adjudicate the problem of United or any other airline's
pension plan or the problems that confront PBGC. I would hope that the
Committee on Education and the Workforce that is dealing with the
pension problems would address situations similar to this.
This amendment has far-reaching consequences. That is illustrated by
the fact that we heard a number of extraneous matters injected into
this, including the Schiavo case. I would urge Members to vote against
this because it is simply not the right forum to try to deal with a
very difficult problem, and it will not be the last problem. Other
airlines are going to be faced with this; and I think the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is right, we need to take a look at this in
the long term, but this is not the place to do it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary
inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
[[Page H5117]]
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I believe, under the
traditions of the House, the Chair is the Speaker of the Whole House,
and the Chair has an obligation to call the vote in the manner in which
the vote was arrived at under the voice vote. It is not a question of
whether the ayes or the noes will prevail on a recorded vote. The
question is what happened on the floor at that particular time. In this
instance, the yeas prevailed, and the Chair said the noes prevailed.
A number of years ago, we had very heated debates on this floor from
the Republican side, from Mr. Walker, because they felt that they were
insulted, especially when cameras came into this Chamber, that the
Chair would call votes against their interests when they clearly
prevailed on the voice. The Chair was admonished by the Speaker of the
House, and we went back to what was the traditionally fair point of
view.
So I would ask the Chair in the future, and future Chairs, to
recognize that the Chair is calling the event that takes place in front
of the Chair on the floor, not what the Chair perceives to be, and may
be correctly so, the outcome of the vote later on in the day when the
recorded vote is taken.
Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote on the Chair's ruling.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will restate his request.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded
vote on my amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to considering the request for a
recorded vote as timely?
Hearing none, a recorded vote is ordered.
Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller)
will be postponed.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield
to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).
Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, in the
UC agreement that we have before us, the wrong amendment is listed. It
actually amends title I; so, therefore, it should be out of order. It
was supposed to be on the Reading is Fundamental program, which is much
more appropriate to this title, and I have asked the chairman if he
would engage in a colloquy.
My amendment, which could not be introduced because of the error,
specified that $25,296,000 in the School Improvements program be
dedicated specifically to the Reading is Fundamental program. I seek
assurances from the chairman that this program will receive adequate
funding when the final numbers are decided in the conference with the
Senate.
It is very well documented, Mr. Chairman, that a great number of
children and adults struggle with reading. Thirty-seven percent of
American fourth graders read below the basic level on the National
Assessment of Education Progress Reading Test. Additionally, 55 percent
of all fourth graders eligible for free or reduced lunch score below
what is called the ``Basic.'' This sad state of affairs is perpetuated
as 40 million adults in the U.S. cannot even read a simple child's
story.
The Reading is Fundamental program is a time-tested program that has
combated illiteracy since 1966. Reading is Fundamental is a family
literacy organization that helps children discover the joy of reading.
It provides new books to children in many communities; and last year
alone, Reading is Fundamental provided 17 million new, free books to
close to 5 million kids across the country. It engages children and
their parents to utilize all aspects of a child's environment: the
school, the home, the community, all to reinforce literacy.
I would like to learn more from the chairman about his views on this
program and if he will assist in making sure that funding is
appropriated.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentlewoman
for bringing this program to the attention of the House.
One of my goals as chairman of the subcommittee is to help ensure
that all children can read by the end of the third grade. I might add
at this point that I think one of the reasons for the excessive amount
of dropouts in high school is because there is a lack of ability to
read. It is a disgrace in the United States that 32 percent on average
nationwide do not finish high school.
Providing books for children to read in their own homes is obviously
an integral part of this effort. That is what the Reading is
Fundamental program does. Although the program does not receive a
separate line item in our report, we have assumed funding for it within
the totals already provided and will work with the other body in
conference to ensure that it receives sufficient resources.
Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman
for his support.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Brown of Ohio
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Brown of Ohio:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec.----.None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used for funding the operations of the Medicaid Commission
(established on May 19, 2005, and chartered under section 222
of the Public Health Service Act and the Federal Advisory
Committee Act).
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 23, 2005,
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
This amendment does not require much explanation. The Bush
administration created a Medicaid Commission and invited Members of
Congress to participate. Then they informed us that Members of Congress
would not get a vote. It is not the Bush administration's
responsibility to reform Medicaid. That is our job. Yet, the Bush
administration did not give Members of Congress a vote.
What does this administration have to do before we draw the line,
take over the appropriations process, sign bills before we pass them?
It is our job, Mr. Chairman, to refine government programs under our
jurisdiction. It is the administration's job to provide input. Theirs
is a nonvoting position. The onus of responsibility is on us. We should
not shirk it.
Vote for this amendment because you are not paid as Members of
Congress to blame Medicaid for health care costs it does not generate.
Medicaid is the insurer, not the patient. Vote for this amendment
because you are not paid to blame impoverished children, the disabled,
and the elderly for needing care or your constituents for feeling
compassion towards them. Vote for this amendment because you know you
cannot bring health care costs down by making it more difficult for
poor people to receive it through normal channels. If a poor mother's
child has an alarmingly high fever and she has no access to a primary
care doc, she will take her to the emergency room. Who can blame her
for that?
If you want to do something about the increase in Medicaid spending,
do something about rising health care costs, do something about
inflated prescription drug costs, do something about health care
infomercials and glossy drug advertising, do something about medical
errors, come up with a responsible medical malpractice reform plan. Do
something that responds to the actual issue, not a symptom of it.
If a commission would be useful, let us make it a health care
commission, and let us ask its members to recommend measures to
stabilize health care spending, and let us give the Bush administration
a vote on that commission. But do not allow the Bush White House to put
Medicaid on trial as if it is some two-bit criminal when Medicaid is
actually a lower-cost health insurer than any private insurer out
there. Medicaid is a lower-cost health insurer than any private insurer
out there. Do not let the Bush administration take health care away
from the poor so it can give tax cuts to the rich.
Our government has three branches. Let us make sure the executive
branch does not do our jobs for us. It may be
[[Page H5118]]
more difficult to confront health care costs directly than to make a
scapegoat of the Medicaid program, but we are not in office to take the
easy path. We are in office to take the right path.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, and
I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit funds in this bill from
being used to operate the Medicaid Commission. I think we want to know
what the facts are, because it is pretty much a consensus of opinion in
this country that Medicaid and Medicare are going to be even greater
costs than Social Security down the road. Therefore, this commission is
tasked with producing recommendations to have a $10 billion saving in
Medicaid.
We all say we want to keep the Federal budget under control. Well,
one of the things you do is get information, and that is what this
commission is all about. I do not think we want to doom it to failure
before it even begins its work.
I would point out that our authorizing committees are struggling to
develop reconciliation savings that include Medicaid, and they need the
input of the commission. What we need to do is to look at it and see
where we can save money, and I think it would be a poor management
decision to preclude their ability, the ability of Health and Human
Services and Secretary Leavitt, to address a very serious problem that
affects all Americans significantly.
Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to vote against this
amendment if it comes to a vote.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to
the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), a registered nurse and
one of this body's best advocates for public health.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Brown
amendment. Over the objections of many of us, the budget resolution
arbitrarily cut $10 billion out of Medicaid. According to CBO, Medicaid
provides health care for 28 million poor children, 16 million working
parents, 6 million elderly people, and 9 million disabled people.
Mr. Chairman, these cuts are not illusory. They are not tiny amounts
of money. They are billions of dollars that go to our hospitals, our
doctors, our nursing homes, and our home health providers. They are the
indispensable link in ensuring that these 55 million people Medicaid
serves get the health care they need. The cuts will mean one of three
things. States will make up the difference. Unlikely, since they are
making do with less already. Or providers will take less for the
services they provide, and they are already losing money, so scratch
that idea. Or the third scenario, poor people will get less health
care, and that is, unfortunately, what will happen.
I oppose these cuts. I did not support the creation of the Medicaid
Commission. The challenges we face in Medicaid are not caused by
Medicaid. They are caused by a failing health care system.
{time} 1030
Using a commission to arbitrarily cut Medicaid funds by $10 billion
will not solve anything. It will just pass the buck to those around us,
those in society who have the least and who are the neediest.
This is an immoral action which does not reflect the values of our
country. I urge my colleagues to support the Brown amendment.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, let me just reiterate that I think it is vitally
important that we have a commission to look at the whole Medicaid
program, because it is getting extremely expensive. And we want to have
the best possible information and ideas as the Congress prospectively
tries to address the burgeoning costs of Medicaid, and, of course, as a
corollary to that Medicare.
They are tasked with producing recommendations to achieve $10 billion
in Medicaid savings. And I cannot believe the body would not want to at
least have a commission to look at the problem that is obviously
looming on the horizon.
Mr. Chairman, therefore, I would urge my colleagues to vote against
this if it were to come to a vote. We are going to be confronted with
some very difficult choices in the future, as we found out on the
Social Security issue.
And I think the Medicaid-Medicare issue will be even more challenging
in the years ahead. And so now is the time to get as much information,
as many ideas as we possibly can, to address a very difficult problem.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I have, as he certainly knows, great respect for my
colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), whose district and
mine touch each other, are contiguous.
And I just would reiterate though on this amendment that this is a
Medicaid commission that the White House is not even giving Members of
Congress a vote on reforming the whole system. So they are going to
come here with the commission recommendation from the White House to
Congress about cutting $10 billion, but are not even going to give any
real congressional input because we will not even be able to vote on
these recommendations.
So in that vein, I ask Members of this body to support the Brown
amendment on Medicaid.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Point of Order
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I watched this, and I understand how
the roll call vote is going to come out. But I watched this with the
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller's) amendment. It was the
same issue.
Mr. Chairman, there were 10 or 12 of us over here saying yes, and 3
or 4 or 5 over there saying no.
The CHAIRMAN. If the gentleman intends to ask for a recorded vote he
should do so now.
Mr. BROWN of OHIO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) will be
postponed.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller) for
a colloquy.
Mr. KELLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I initially planned to offer an amendment today to
increase the maximum Pell grant award to $4,150. By increasing Pell
grant funding by $211 million, that would be funding through an offset
by cutting administrative expenses under this bill by 4.86 percent.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage in a colloquy with Chairman
Regula and Chairman Boehner regarding this amendment, and I would
consider not offering this amendment if I can hear their comments
regarding the possibility of ultimately seeking a maximum higher Pell
grant award through good-faith negotiations with the Senate during the
conference process.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to engage in a colloquy with
the gentlemen from Florida (Mr. Keller) and the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Boehner).
Mr. KELLER. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by just putting this issue in
a bit of a historical perspective. Looking at this chart, it reflects
the Pell grant maximum awards over the past 10 years. And you can see,
10 years ago, in 1986 the maximum Pell award was $2,100. This year it
is $4,100.
The yellow reflects the period of time that the Democrats were in
control of Congress, the red reflects the time when Republicans took
over Congress. And you can see the relative spikes in the Pell grant
funding. It was essentially flatlined for about 10 years before
Republicans took over.
Now, when I got here to Congress, elected in 2000, we were spending
$7.6 billion a year in Pell grants. The maximum award was $3,300. This
year we are spending $13.4 billion a year on Pell grants, and the
maximum award is up
[[Page H5119]]
to $4,100. That is an increase of 76 percent in overall total Pell
grant funding.
In addition to the $13.4 billion we have in the bill this year for
Pell grants, the bill also lists a very important addition of $4.3
billion to retire the Pell grant shortfall that has accumulated in the
program over the past several years because of higher-than-expected
student participation.
That is a grand total of $17.7 billion for Pell grants, the largest
investment in Pell grants in the history of the United States. I want
to commend and thank both the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) and
the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner) for their strong leadership
in increasing Pell grants, which has resulted in an additional $1.5
million young people being able to go to college since the year 2000.
Mr. Chairman, let me tell you why I drafted this amendment today,
though. On January 14, 2005, President Bush gave a speech in Florida
where he said, ``We want to increase the Pell grants by $100 per year
over the next 5 years. Pell grants are important. That is why we want
to expand them.''
I agree with President Bush about the importance of increasing Pell
grants. Pell grants are truly the passport out of poverty for so many
deserving young people. I myself would not have been able to go to
college without Pell grants. And I have the honor and privilege of
serving as Chairman of the Congressional Pell Grant Caucus.
On February 7, 2005, President Bush followed up his Florida speech on
Pell grants by submitting a budget which also called for increasing the
Pell grant maximum award of $4,050 by an additional $100 this year. On
May 26, 2005, I sent the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) a letter
signed by 46 Members of Congress, which encouraged the Appropriations
Committee to fully fund the $4,150 request by President Bush.
This bill does, in fact, increase the overall award, but only by $50,
not the $100 requested by President Bush. And so the purpose of my
amendment was to fully fund the President's request.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Regula) at this time to see if he would be willing to
work with the Senate during the conference to see if it is possible to
increase the Pell grant funding to an amount sufficient to fully fund
this $4,150 request by President Bush.
Mr. Chairman, I would also like to hear the comments of the gentleman
from Ohio (Chairman Boehner's) comments on the issue as well.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Keller) that the Pell grant program plays an essential role in
helping disadvantaged students pursue a college education.
And for more than 30 years, the Pell grant program has served as the
foundation of Federal need-based student aid.
I further applaud my colleague and a member of our committee from
Florida (Mr. Keller) for his strong leadership in supporting the Pell
grant program, and as Chairman of the Pell Grant Caucus, and for his
sharing with us his personal experiences as a former Pell grant
recipient.
The gentleman is correct to point out that the Republican Congress
has provided unprecedented support for Pell grants. Funding for Pell
grants doubled in the last 10 years, and today we are proposing to add
more than $1 billion in additional funding. The number of students
receiving Pell grants has risen significantly, and today about 5.3
million students are attending college with the help of a Pell grant.
So I want to thank my colleague from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the dean of
our delegation, for his leadership as chairman of the Labor-HHS
Appropriations Subcommittee. He has been a strong advocate on behalf of
education programs, and it has been a privilege to work with him in
support of our priorities.
Given the constraints that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) is
working with, I fully understand. I agree with my colleague from
Florida (Mr. Keller) that we should do all we can to increase the
maximum award.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Ohio has expired.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller), both of the Education and the
Workforce Committee. I, too, agree that Pell grants are a fundamental
part of our efforts to ensure low- and middle-income students have the
opportunity to pursue postsecondary education.
As the gentlemen have pointed out, Republicans have a proud history
of providing funding for the Pell grant program. I am particularly
pleased that in this bill, we will erase the $4.3 billion shortfall
that had existed within the program, and put the program on a solid
financial footing.
We are also increasing the Pell grant maximum award to $4,100, the
highest level in the history of the program, and it is very evident
from the chart there. And I would point out that if you take a look at
that chart, where we became the majority party in 1994, and you can see
the rapid ascendency of the Pell grant program.
As the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller) is aware, increasing the
Pell grant maximum award, even incrementally, is costly. Each $100 we
add is estimated to cost $420 million. As the number of low-income
students pursuing college continues to increase, the demand for Pell
grants will grow as well.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have worked closely with the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller) to
provide the resources necessary to help low- and middle-income students
gain access to college through Pell grants.
As for the conference negotiations, obviously I cannot guarantee any
particular outcome. However, I will make a good-faith effort to
increase the maximum Pell grant award, provided resources are available
to do so.
I thank the gentleman for engaging in this colloquy, and I look
forward to working with him in the future to continue to support this
important program.
Mr. KELLER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. KELLER. Mr. Chairman, in light of the comments by the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and the comments of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Boehner) to at least make a good-faith effort to try to increase the
maximum Pell grant award during the conference process, I will not
offer my amendment at this time.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Honda
Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Honda:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to require a local educational agency to provide
student information to military recruiters pursuant to
section 503(c) or title 10, United States Code, or section
9528(a) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965
(20 U.S.C. 7908(a)) without parental consent.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 23, 2005,
the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on this
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved. The gentleman from
California is recognized.
Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of parents and students within my own
Silicon district, and from parents and students across this country.
The privacy of high school students across this Nation is compromised
by a provision of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, also
known as No Child Left Behind, which requires school districts to
provide the personal, private information of students to military
recruiters at the risk of losing scarce Federal dollars.
Parents in my district complain to me that their children were being
persistently contacted at home by military recruiters. These parents
wanted
[[Page H5120]]
to know how the military recruiters got their children's personal,
confidential information, including home phone numbers and addresses.
My amendment would prohibit the Department of Education from
withholding education dollars from school districts that decline to
provide private student information to military recruiters. The
decision to join the military is a solemn one. Ideally this decision
should be made in consultation with people who love and care for the
child, not with a government official, however well intentioned, whose
very job is to recruit for the military.
As a policymaker and former high school teacher and principal, I am
concerned with the increasing pressure faced by schools and school
districts due to cuts in the Federal dollars of education. I support
the military's right to recruit on every high school campus, but I do
not believe the current provision advances our national security or
reflects our Nation's respect for individual privacy rights.
Indeed, other Federal privacy statutes explicitly recognize
individual privacy rights, particularly those of minors. The Children's
On-Line Privacy Act prohibits commercial Web sites or on-line services
from releasing personally identifiable information of minors.
Federal agencies are prohibited from divulging personal information
without written consent. Blockbuster is prohibited from releasing lists
of videos that their customers rent, yet for some reason it is
acceptable to force schools to provide military recruiters with
personal information of their students.
This violates the trust between schools and students and their
parents. Schools should not be in a position to choose between students
and Federal funding. More importantly, there is no reason for the
Federal Government to interfere with the values and choices made by
local school districts and boards.
{time} 1045
This amendment closely mirrors legislation I have introduced,
bipartisan legislation, cosponsored by 46 of my esteemed colleagues.
This legislation is supported by the National Parents and Teachers
Association, the PTA. This legislation has also received 24,537 citizen
cosponsors who have signed a petition to indicate their support of my
legislation. This includes 13,000 parents and 5,000 teachers from all
50 States who have lined up behind our efforts to secure privacy for
our Nation's students.
Opponents of this amendment will tell you that this amendment will
hurt military recruiting at a time of dwindling enlistees. What they
will not tell you is that in the past 2 years before the passage of
this provision, the military exceeded recruiting goals. Clearly, the
drop has no relationship with information provided by schools.
Our Nation has the best trained and most powerful Armed Forces in the
world, and maintaining our military superiority depends upon effective
recruiting. This country also has a proud history of personal rights
and privacy protection. I believe we can sustain one while preserving
the other.
We must protect the children and the students who represent the
future of our country. This includes protecting their privacy.
Just today, The Washington Post ran a story detailing Department of
Defense intentions to create a student data base which would include
personal information including Social Security numbers, ethnicity, and
grade point averages. This is but another egregious attack on the
privacy rights of our students. Students have neither the ability to
confirm nor correct information in its data base.
Finally, this information is gathered from commercial data brokers
and State registries by a third party. I urge my colleagues to send a
strong message to the country that the Congress supports privacy rights
of our Nation's students and vote for the Honda-Stark amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, maintaining my reservation of a point of
order, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I yield such time as
he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will suspend.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Honda).
Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I ask to reclaim the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. HONDA. May I reserve the remainder?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. HONDA. All of it?
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the balance of
the gentleman's time be reserved.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. HONDA. All 5 minutes have expired?
The CHAIRMAN. All 5 minutes of the gentleman's time have expired.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent for 2
additional minutes on each side.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) controls 7
minutes.
Mr. REGULA. Reserving my point of order, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman from
California's (Mr. Honda) amendment.
The gentleman talks about two distinct and particular points in his
amendment. First, schools routinely share students' information with
various vendors. And whether they sell that information or share it,
there are a lot of different forums. And during the consideration of No
Child Left Behind, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller)
and I worked closely to try to protect students' privacy. And what we
developed at the end of the bill was an opportunity for parents to have
their children's names opted out of the information that would be sold
or shared with outside vendors, thereby giving parents the right to
protect their children's privacy.
But a second point, a more important point, is that some schools were
sharing this information with private vendors, but would not share it
with the U.S. military. And the agreement that we came to on the floor
of this House in a very broad bipartisan way was that to the extent
that a school sells or shares student data, they must treat military
recruiters in a nondiscriminatory way, or, in other words, treat all
people who would want access to this data to have access to it in the
same way.
Now, if schools do not want to share the data with military
recruiters, that is fine. They cannot share the data then with anyone.
But to the extent that they want to sell that data to publishers and
others who would seek that, they must give the military the right to
that information as well.
I think students across America ought to have access to information
to the United States military. It has been a wonderful career for tens
of millions of Americans, and the fact is that the practice is going on
in far too many schools discriminates against the needs of our
military.
So I would ask my colleagues to reject the gentleman's amendment. We
have dealt with this issue in a comprehensive way in No Child Left
Behind, and we did it in a broad bipartisan way.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I respect those who choose to serve our
country in the military. I also understand that successful recruiting
is critical to the military's ability to protect our country.
But we also must protect the privacy of our children.
On top of Mr. Honda's discussion, Mr. Chairman, according to the
Washington Post, the Pentagon is now developing a comprehensive
invasive recruiting database on high-school and college students who
are age 16 or older.
The database will include personal information about these young
women and men, including their birth dates, social security numbers, e-
mail addresses, grade-point averages, ethnicity and what subjects they
are studying.
And, apparently, the Pentagon will be able, without notifying
citizens, to share this data for non-military purposes, including with
law enforcement agencies and state tax authorities.
More than ever, this highlights the Administration's gall in
believing they have the right to personal information about student
rights above parents.
[[Page H5121]]
If their war was justified, if the American people were not fed up
with it, young people would volunteer--but they aren't, and, they
won't, and, that is the very reason this invasive program has come up.
For these reasons, I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting
parents and children and their privacy. Vote for the Honda amendment.
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, while the men and women of our armed forces
serve bravely throughout the world, the ability of our U.S. military to
recruit highly qualified candidates is being put in jeopardy. Former
Commandant of the Marine Corps General Charles Krulak once remarked
that our all-volunteer military is an all-recruited force. The
amendment offered today by my colleague from California is a clear
threat to the continued success of that force.
This amendment would prohibit the Department of Education from
withholding Title I dollars from school districts that do not provide
private student information to military recruiters. Under the guise of
``privacy rights,'' our military recruiters would be denied the same
access to our nation's best young minds that is regularly provided to
recruiters for colleges or businesses.
Mr. Chairman, military service can be a noble and fulfilling choice
for our young men and women--including my son, a career Army officer.
Planning for the future can be an overwhelming experience. As they
consider their postsecondary options, our nation's students deserve to
be fully equipped with the information they need to make good
decisions.
While only a select few individuals choose to devote themselves to a
career in military service, the defense of America is not their
exclusive responsibility. Each one of us is charged with protecting our
nation by doing our part. The least we can do is to ensure those who
are interested are not prevented from learning about the opportunity to
pursue military service. School principals and administrators ought to
be introducing military recruiters to their students--not blocking
them.
Mr. Chairman, the people of the United States benefit from the
protection of the most highly qualified and well-trained military. I am
hopeful our actions today will ensure our U.S. military maintains the
ability to continue to serve its citizens most effectively.
Point of Order
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman makes the point that
this is legislation; and, therefore, Mr. Chairman, I make a point of
order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law
and constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill. Therefore, it
violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part: ``An
amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order if it
changes existing law.''
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield?
Mr. REGULA. We have a point of order pending, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
Does the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) wish to be heard further?
Mr. REGULA. No, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will rule.
The Chair finds that this amendment includes language requiring a new
determination. The amendment, therefore, constitutes legislation in
violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order.
Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Kolbe
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as a designee of the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. Kolbe:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to enforce Determination ED-OIG/A05-D0008 of the
Department of Education.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 23, 2005,
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment which is offered by
the entire Arizona delegation. I will consume very little time on this
because others have greater knowledge about it.
This amendment will ensure that all certified charter schools will
continue to be eligible to receive special education and low-income
funding.
This year, the Department of Education made a sudden determination
that charter schools operated by for-profit organizations are not
public schools and are, therefore, ineligible for Federal special
education funding under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act
and title I low-income students.
Charter schools across the U.S. are U.S. public schools. They operate
with taxpayer dollars and abide by the same laws as traditional
schools. Federal laws let States decide the qualifications for public
schools.
The Kolbe-Flake-Shadegg-Hayworth amendment would set aside the
Education Department's determination and allow appropriated funds to
continue to serve low-income students and special-needs students who
are schooled at charter schools. This has special significance for
Arizona.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Hayworth), a cosponsor of this amendment.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Arizona for
yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bipartisan amendment because
it is important not only to the State of Arizona but to the entire
Nation. As of last year, Mr. Chairman, 40 of our 50 States as well as
the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have passed charter school
laws. My good friend, a member of the Committee on Appropriations,
pointed out that charter schools are public schools, that charter
schools in fact offer services to children with special needs. And we
cannot stand by and allow the Department of Education by bureaucratic
fiat to decide to cut off these funds to deserving children in what are
public schools as set forth by State standards.
Education is a national priority and ultimately a local concern. And
just as Arizona has taken the lead in terms of formation and the
flourishing of charter schools, we want to see the funds there for the
children who deserve them.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition of the
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, not because I am
necessarily opposed, but because I might be if I understood this
correctly. This is not something that we have had a lot of notice to
discuss, and I must confess considerable disquiet at the idea that we
should overturn a report of the Department of Education Inspector
General with respect to the use of taxpayers' money.
As I understand it, the IG, and what I understand is on the basis of
a 2-minute briefing, what I understand is that the Inspector General
ruled that a number of these schools were, in fact, private and not
public and also questioned the way that at least two of the schools had
spent taxpayers' money.
Will the gentleman enlighten me with respect to the latter concern?
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. KOLBE. It is my understanding that this provision, the reason
that the gentleman has not had a lot of time to receive this
information is that it is a very new ruling from the Department of
Education that these charter schools heretofore have been given funding
because they are serving low-income students, special-needs students,
and suddenly they have decided that they are not eligible for that
funding.
All we do is suspend that funding until there is an attempt to deal
with this in the legislation.
Mr. OBEY. Reclaiming my time, let me simply say, I would be willing
to let this amendment go by and have it temporarily accepted by the
House, provided that there is an understanding that the committee
reserves the right to change its mind during the conference process if
we learn that the public interest requires us to oppose it.
I do not want acceptance to be interpreted as the committee's
willingness without examining this further to allow this to continue
until the authorization bill is passed. That might be a good idea, but
I think we ought to keep that as an open possibility rather than make
it as a commitment.
[[Page H5122]]
{time} 1100
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what the gentleman has said,
and obviously the committee always reserves the right in conference to
make a change to something as this; and if, indeed, information came
out that demonstrated that it should be changed, I would certainly
concur with that.
So I do appreciate what the gentleman has just said.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, in that case, I somewhat dubiously will
withdraw any objection to this amendment for the moment and hope that
we can clarify it further as we go to conference.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what the gentleman said.
Perhaps the comments that will follow will clarify that.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Flake).
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
This ruling did just come out, and in Arizona we have I think the
largest number of charter schools in the Nation. Most of them serve
low-income, special-needs kids. In this case, that is who they are
serving, and the ruling simply came out and said IF they are structured
as a for-profit; they cannot receive funds anymore.
Keep in mind, these are Title I funds. These are special education
funds. And for a school to be told, all right, you are not going to
receive them anymore, these are disadvantaged kids in most respects
that are going to be held at a loss.
What we are saying is simply if the Department of Education needs
clarification, we can do that with reauthorization, but do not in the
middle of a process say to these schools, we are going to treat you
differently just because of how you are structured; although, we did
not think it before, now we think it is different.
So I think that the gentleman is wise to go ahead and accept the
amendment, and as more information comes out, I am confident that
everyone will feel comfortable with this decision.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg)
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time, and I rise in strong support of the amendment.
I think the point that needs to be made here is what the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), my colleague, has already made, and that is,
this was indeed a rather sudden ruling, and it does change what is
happening.
These schools have, in fact, been funded for years, and the only
point that has not been made on this floor yet today, I do not believe,
is that if the ruling is allowed to stand, funding will be cut off in
less than 30 days. It will be cut off in about 12 days, on July 1.
My colleagues can say what they will about the impact upon the
school. I think we ought to focus upon the impact on students.
In Arizona, schools begin the school year as early as August 1. My
wife who is a teacher will be going back to school on August 1. Parents
need to plan where their children are going to go to school this fall,
and were this ruling to be allowed to stand, it would mean children
would have less than a month to try to find a new school. To do that to
low-income and special-needs children, to deprive those schools of the
funding they need to provide that type of education, and to do it on
that short of notice is inappropriate.
This is a ruling that directly affects Arizona today and about five
other States immediately, but it holds the potential of affecting all
50 States. The ruling I think ought to be discussed on the merits, and
I think the Congress should do that, but we appreciate the opportunity
to at least temporarily suspend its impact for the sake of the children
in Arizona who want to continue to be educated at these schools, many
of which are in low-income areas, and these moneys, in particular, go
to low-income needs.
So I thank the gentleman for his position.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 2 minutes
remaining.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, I would also say that I note in the letter in the final
audit report that there is a sentence which says: Additionally, two of
the charter schools that we audited did not expend Title I funds
entirely in accordance with applicable law and regulations.
I do not know what the facts are with respect to that sentence, but I
would simply say that I would not, in any way, want the acceptance of
this amendment to be an indication that the Congress is carte blanche
accepting the fact that funds ought to continue for those two schools,
because it seems to me we have an obligation to make certain that, even
if we are trying to deal with the temporary problem, we do not want an
improper expenditure of taxpayers' money.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Kind
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Kind:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to enforce the portion of the proposed rule
(published in the Federal Register on May 4, 2005, at page
23466) insofar as proposed section 485.610(d)(1) of title 42,
Code of Federal Regulations, requires, for new construction
of a critical access hospital (CAH) to be considered a
replacement facility, that ``the construction is undertaken
within 250 yards of the current building or contiguous to the
current CAH on land owned by the CAH prior to December 8,
2003''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 23, 2005,
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) and an opponent each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) for 5
minutes.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very simple. It is a prohibited use of
funds amendment to prevent a new rule from being implemented by CMS
that would adversely affect and penalize hospitals that have critical
access designation throughout the country, of which there is
approximately 1,119 serving predominantly rural communities throughout
our Nation.
What the new rule that is moving forward would do is, in essence, to
strip these hospitals from critical access designation, along with the
funding that follows, if they decide to modernize and relocate their
facilities further than 250 yards away from their present location.
Obviously many of us in the Rural Health Coalition in this Congress
feel is a very restrictive rule, a draconian attempt to try to
accomplish something that is laudable, trying to keep these facilities
servicing these high-need areas and the people that they are currently
servicing, but a 250-yard rule seems overly restrictive to accomplish
that purpose.
This would affect the modernization of new facilities that may occur
across the street or down the road or a few blocks away or perhaps in a
different location in the community in which they are servicing or
perhaps even affecting a hospital that was recently impacted by the
earthquakes in California and are now forced to have to locate in a
different place because of the damage that has been done.
There is another rule that is moving forward by CMS that makes a lot
more sense. It would require that if a critical access hospital does
move, that they still have to serve at least 75 percent of the current
population, the patients and staff that they are already serving. That
makes more sense.
So we are hoping today to be able to raise attention to this very
important issue. We still have a little bit of time to work this out
with CMS. I have recently had conversations with the
[[Page H5123]]
chair of the Committee on Ways and Means and the chairwoman of the
subcommittee of the Committee on Ways and Means who are interested in
working with many of us to try to resolve this issue with CMS.
Based on their assurances in those conversations, we feel very
confident that we should be able to work this out with CMS so that we
do not go forward on this very restrictive and narrow rule.
I do want to thank, however, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Stupak), the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran) and also the gentleman
from Nebraska (Mr. Terry) for their assistance with this amendment and
helping to elevate the education in this House in regards to what is
taking place.
Hopefully through the conference process, hopefully through the
cooperation we expect to receive through CMS, further legislation on
this matter will not be necessary.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Regula).
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding the gentleman is
going to withdraw this amendment; is that correct?
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, that is correct.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, in light of that, I do not oppose it.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of the time. And
let me just conclude, that based on assurances that we received from
the appropriate people on the Committee on Ways and Means, the chair,
the subcommittee chairwoman, and also the fact that we still have time
in which to cut this rule off before it is fully implemented, it is my
intent today to ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment and
hope that we can get this resolved without further legislative action
being taken.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Tancredo
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Tancredo:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec.__. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act may be used to pay the salaries and
expenses of personnel to carry out the provisions of section
1011 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and
Modernization Act of 2003 (Public law 108-173.)
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 23, 2005,
the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) and the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
We have had a number of debates already on this issue, on the issue
of how much money is in this bill and whether it is enough money to
fund all of the worthy programs that are out there. I suggest to my
colleagues there is a place we can easily go and get at least $1
billion out of this bill and use it for the other programs that have
been so eloquently advocated on this floor.
My amendment is simple and straightforward. It essentially prevents
the implementation of section 1011 of the prescription drug bill passed
by the Congress last year. As my colleagues may recall, this is the
controversial provision of the law that provided $1 billion to cover
the health care costs of illegal aliens.
It is also important to note that many of these States that are
incurring these heavy costs and hospitals inside these States that are
incurring these costs for treating illegal aliens, some of these States
and some of these localities have helped create their own problems. In
many cases, they have taken steps to make themselves magnets for
illegal immigration. These health care costs are now burdened by
permitting them to obtain driver's license, enroll in institutions, and
luckily we stopped the driver's license part, enroll in institutions of
higher education at in-State rates, and obtain public services through
the use of consular ID cards. So a lot of the burden, as I say, they
have brought upon themselves.
But nonetheless, we have gone the next step, then, and we have
written regulations. We promulgated regulations and rules designed to
implement section 1011, and they certainly fall short of establishing
any meaningful accountability for the money, and more importantly, they
do not require information sharing with homeland security.
As a matter of fact, on the final page of the payment determination
form, it says patients should be aware that the Department of Homeland
Security will not access or use information related to medical care to
initiate enforcement of United States immigration laws unrelated to an
ongoing terrorism or criminal investigation.
There is another part of these regulations that, frankly, I do not
recall us debating it when the original amendment was proposed to the
Medicare and prescription drug bill. That is one that now allows for
not only people who are here illegally to be given services under this
act, but people who are here with the 72-hour border crossing card.
In 2002, as I recall, as I have been told, there were already 5
million of these border crossing cards that had been issued. Five
million people, mostly, in fact I think entirely, Mexican nationals,
are now also eligible for reimbursement under this act, under this
section, if they come across the border and choose to access the
hospitals in those border States. Again, I do not recall that was part
of the original debate, but that is part of the regulations that have
been promulgated.
It is a sad irony that many of the Americans who are being asked to
cough up to this $1 billion to fund health care costs for illegal
aliens and for nationals of another country do not oftentimes have
enough money to buy health insurance themselves.
This is a bad giveaway for taxpayers. It sends the wrong message to
illegal aliens and Americans alike. It comes at far too high a price.
It was wrong when it was passed. It is wrong today.
I hope my colleagues will support the amendment and help save the
American taxpayers $1 billion.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I do rise in the strongest possible opposition to this
amendment. It is anti-public health. It undermines current law, and it
deserves to be defeated, just as it was defeated last year.
Hospitals and trauma care facilities are required by Federal law to
treat anyone who comes into an emergency room, including undocumented
immigrants. If hospitals are not reimbursed for this treatment, their
very existence is in danger. That threatens the health of everyone. Yet
that is exactly what this amendment would do.
It would deny reimbursement to hospitals for care that the government
requires them to provide. This is especially dangerous for Americans
who live along the border. Let me provide an example.
The Tucson Medical Center in my home State of Arizona, a crucial
level 1 trauma facility, shut its doors on its trauma facility because
of uncompensated care. Now there is only one trauma center serving all
of Tucson, with a population of nearly 1 million people.
I understand that the sponsor of this amendment does not live close
to the border, and it may be hard for him to sympathize with those who
do. So let me be clear.
This amendment is an attack on our communities. It will shut down
hospitals simply because of the Federal Government's inability to
secure our border. It will punish Americans by denying them access to
care.
Again, the Federal Government mandates that hospitals treat anyone in
need of emergency care. If the sponsors of this amendment oppose this,
then they should try to change EMTALA, the emergency medical treatment
law, that requires that hospitals provide this treatment, change it so
they are not required to treat undocumented aliens.
[[Page H5124]]
{time} 1115
Until then, the Federal Government is responsible for funding its
mandates.
So let there be no mistake about this amendment: it will close
hospitals, it will close health clinics for Americans who live along
the border, and it will result in an unfunded mandate. I am appalled by
this proposal. I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment and
vote for hospitals that care for Americans living along our border.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing in the EMTALA Act that
requires States and localities to actually pass laws and regulations
creating sanctuary States, creating sanctuary cities, becoming magnets
for illegal aliens themselves. There is nothing that requires them to
do that; yet they do that. Then they come here and say, We are having a
problem. It is undeniably true that the problem exists. It is
undeniably true that they are being overwhelmed by illegal immigration.
It is also undeniably true that much of this is the fault of the
Federal Government. I do not deny that for a moment. Nor do I deny that
there may be some responsibility here for us to help pay for it.
But what I am saying is you pass a law like this and then you pass
regulations that make it completely and totally irrelevant in a way to
determine. They say, We don't want to ask. We cannot ask. We will not
even ask you if you are here illegally. By the way, even if you aren't
here illegally, if you are one of the 5 million people who live in
Mexico, Mexican nationals who have a border crossing card, we'll treat
you also.
Does that not encourage even more people to come to the United States
and obtain these services, putting even more of a burden on these
hospitals? Of course it does. These regulations are the problem. They
are a significant problem that only exacerbates the underlying problem
of massive costs being incurred by these hospitals in these States.
My hope is that if in fact we have to put money into a program like
this, we do so only after we have passed meaningful and purposeful
regulations, regulations that at least make these hospitals
accountable.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is misdirected, misguided, and stupid.
If you are out in the woods with a rifle and you are hunting and you
shoot at something, it would be nice if you are shooting at the right
target.
This amendment does not do anything about illegal immigration. This
amendment simply shoots the victim of illegal immigration by damaging
the local hospitals. If we have illegal immigrants in this country, it
is because of a failure of the Federal Government to effectively
enforce its immigration laws. That is the problem.
The problem with the gentleman's amendment is that because he does
not like the fact that the Federal Government has been ineffective with
respect to immigration, he wants to take it out on the local hospitals.
The local hospitals when someone shows up on their door, they have an
obligation under the law to treat that patient. If the Federal
Government does not pay for the treatment of that patient, then local
taxpayers and local hospitals get stuck with the bill.
I have a similar situation in my district. I have a huge percentage
of Hmong who have come to this country since the end of the Vietnam
War. They came because of a decision of the Federal Government. Yet
after they come to my district, after a very few months of Federal
support, the financial cost for maintaining them, for educating them
and for dealing with their medical needs winds up being assumed by the
local government. That is not fair. Local governments do not make the
foreign policy decisions that determine who our refugees are, and local
governments do not have anything to do with what policies the Federal
Government follows with respect to immigration.
I would suggest to the gentleman if you do not like Federal
immigration policy, shoot the right messenger. This one shoots the
wrong messenger. This amendment deserves to be roundly defeated, unless
you believe that somebody should pay for somebody else's mistakes.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda
T. Sanchez).
Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Mr. Chairman, envision this: an undocumented immigrant suffers from
severe chest pains and a nagging cough. Too frightened to seek out
medical attention in the beginning, he lets this condition persist. He
finds himself in the emergency room of the local hospital. The first
order of business for the emergency physician or nurse is not to ask
them where it hurts and do a physical exam to see if their life is in
imminent danger, but to ask their immigration status and get a sworn
statement to that effect.
And if that patient cannot prove their legal status because they do
not happen to have the documentation on them, that same doctor must
make the choice not to provide care to this person or at least they
must report them to immigration officials before providing lifesaving
treatment. I ask you, in this universe, what kind of choice is that?
There is no choice in asking a person to choose life or death. This
amendment unfairly and wrongly punishes health care professionals for
doing what they are ethically and legally obligated to do. Our doctors
and nurses do everything they can to help these individuals, regardless
of their status, in order to save lives and to nurse them back to
health. Today's hospitals are already underfunded, understaffed, and
under tremendous pressure to meet the new demands of homeland security
preparedness.
I think we can all agree that our Nation's immigration system is
broken. It does not meet our security needs, our economic needs, nor
does it reflect the American values of strong families and respect for
work. However, we will never fix our country's immigration ills by
punishing our local hospitals for treating the ill.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Tancredo amendment.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Crowley).
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding me this
time, and I thank both the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for his
comments and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez). I
think that this amendment is wrongheaded. I do not believe it will have
the effect that the sponsor wants to have, and that is that all
undocumented illegal aliens will just ship up and move back home. It
plays well on some radio and television stations, but in reality it
will have no effect. In the State of New York, our constitution
requires that every child be afforded an education, whether that child
is a legal citizen and resident or an undocumented alien or their
parents are.
TB does not have the ability to discern as to whether someone is
documented or undocumented. When that child's mother or father
contracts that disease, they give it to their child and their child
goes to school. Our children are the ones who are exposed to those
diseases. Our children then become the victims of what this amendment
would do if it were to pass. This amendment will not have that effect.
It will just be a chilling effect on all people who question their
status in this country, and they will then not go and get the care that
they need to protect the rest of our children.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
Mr. Chairman, I think the salient points have been made here. Our
Federal Government says to hospitals, you have to treat whoever comes
in your door. It is not the hospital's choice. I have toured the border
hospitals. It is not just the border hospitals in Arizona. It is
hospitals 100 miles from the border. It is hospitals in Tucson. It is
hospitals in Phoenix. It is others. They do not have the luxury of
deciding who they are going to treat. Yet this amendment would say,
sorry, you have to treat them, and because of our failure to impose
control at the border, you are just stuck with the bill. That is simply
not right.
[[Page H5125]]
Nobody is more convinced than the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe)
and me of the need for immigration reform. That is why we have
proffered legislation to do that. I would challenge those who have
offered this amendment, please join us or offer your own legislation.
We cannot continue with the status quo. It is just eating us alive in
Arizona, not just health care costs but education costs, criminal
justice costs, across the board.
But let us find a solution. Let us not simply pretend that it does
not exist, pretend that those who are here just do not exist. They do.
We have got to do something about it. Let us work together and do it,
not just say, hey, unfunded mandate, sorry, got to deal with it. And to
say that, Well, let's not entice them further, let's not provide any of
the funding until we get immigration reform, tell that to the hospitals
who could not survive. They will be closed. They simply are doing what
the Federal Government tells them to do in terms of admitting patients
and under this they would simply say, Sorry, we can't fund it. We're
going to have to close our doors.
I commend the gentleman for opposing the amendment. I join with him,
and I encourage all of my colleagues to say, Let's find a solution.
Let's have meaningful, comprehensive immigration reform that will deal
with issues like this. But let us not bury our heads in the sand.
Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment
because if passed, this measure will place extreme financial and legal
hardships on border and urban hospitals. Because this measure addresses
emergency medical care, our hospitals and our doctors are bound by law
and their medical oath to treat individuals who are in desperate need
of medical attention.
This measure cuts critical funding for our hospitals to cover
emergency room care. Due to the high degree of cost associated with
this type of care, this amendment will leave hospitals with a choice of
two evils, bankruptcy or closing their doors to these communities.
Either way, this measure results in a dramatic cut in access to
health care facilities for all residents.
This measure is irresponsible, impractical, and will destroy
healthcare in American communities, especially in border states.
Therefore, I respectfully ask my colleagues to vote no on this
amendment and yes to safeguarding access to health care in all cities.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
The amendment was rejected.
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Filner
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. Filner:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. ____. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to place social security account numbers on
identification cards issued to beneficiaries under the
medicare program under title XVIII of the Social Security
Act.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 23, 2005,
the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) and the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Regula) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, everyone in this House and everyone in this country
knows that identity theft is one of the fastest growing crimes of our
decade and creates a nightmare for those who become victims. Identity
thieves make off with millions of dollars each day, and each day more
than a thousand people are being defrauded. We just saw millions of
credit card numbers stolen from the Visa and the MasterCard
distribution centers. The Federal Trade Commission has said that
identity theft is the top consumer complaint. We all know how credit
can be destroyed, earned income can be taken, and a rejection for
everything from a college loan to a mortgage can be done. And law
enforcement will generally not pursue these identity theft cases.
Part of that peril is, in fact, contributed to by the Federal
Government. By including Social Security numbers on Medicare cards, the
Department of Health and Human Services places millions of Medicare
beneficiaries at risk of becoming victims of identity theft.
I have a simple amendment, Mr. Chairman. It prohibits the Department
of Health and Human Services from including Social Security numbers on
Medicare cards. Many commercial health insurance companies and States
have already taken such steps. Some States prohibit companies from
displaying Social Security numbers internally and assign consumers
unique numbers that would appear on Medicare cards. It is time for the
Federal Government to catch up and help protect an individual's
personal privacy. Even the GAO has published a number of reports and
has concluded that there is no reason why the Social Security number
cannot be removed from the Medicare card.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This would prohibit CMS from spending any funds related to using
Social Security numbers on a Medicare identification card. It would
really interfere with the operation of the current system. This is a
long-time use of Social Security numbers. It is an outgrowth of the
claims process. I think it is important from the standpoint of avoiding
fraud. The cost of converting the system for 43 million Medicare
beneficiaries would be substantial, both in beneficiary education,
system reprogramming and related costs. While CMS may well convert to
some type of an electronic identification system over time, and I think
that will happen, in the meantime to try to make a change at this point
would be wrong.
This amendment would limit their ability to effectively deal with it.
And, of course, they have got the new drug benefit to implement. I
think it is just the wrong time to start tampering with a system that
has been in place for a long time.
{time} 1130
I would urge Members to vote against that if this amendment comes to
a vote.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Indiana (Ms. Carson).
Ms. CARSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr.
Filner) for bringing this very critical issue to the ears and eyes of
the Congress as well as the ears and eyes of America.
In Indianapolis, Indiana, we have over 100,000 Medicare recipients,
and in Indiana we have over 877,000. And as all of the Members know,
the criminals devise ways at all times to break laws and to steal
people's identity. People in nursing homes die unexpectedly, and
workers, not all of them of course, steal Social Security numbers and
abuse them before the Social Security Administration has an opportunity
to close down that particular number.
So I appreciate very much this effort. I think it is very vital. And
as I read the amendment, it is on new Medicare cards and not ones that
exist at the present time. So it would not require an entire
overhauling of the Medicare card system to implement this particular
amendment.
And I would again commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner)
for his insight and foresight in bringing this very vital issue to the
Congress.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time.
I rise in strong opposition to this amendment, although I appreciate
the concern of the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).
First of all, we all know how important Medicare is to our seniors.
Two hundred thousand new beneficiaries sign up every month, and
anything that would disrupt their entry up into the system would be a
terrible hardship to impose on our seniors. This amendment would
actually interfere with the operation of the current system before a
new system could be put in place, causing serious disruption in the
Medicare program in the enrollment process for new beneficiaries.
That much said, CMS does share the gentleman's concern and is in the
process of examining this issue. That
[[Page H5126]]
project is currently in the information-gathering phase, focusing on
identifying all of the systems and entities and understanding the
nature of the transactions that rely on a beneficiary identifier. There
are many parties involved, with a variety of information claims
processing and data exchange systems, and once they get this base
research done, they can move forward on reforming the use of the Social
Security system. I would tell the Members that in the new drug plan
they do not use the Social Security identifier.
So I would urge the gentleman to maintain his interest in this
subject to work with the committee as we oversee CMS's gathering of
this material and evaluation of this problem; and the fact that they
have managed to develop the drug plan without using a Social Security
identifier indicates to us that they will take the time and invest the
resources to change the base underlying system. But any radical change
to that system will deny current beneficiaries coming into the system,
month by month, their benefits.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I find it strange that the distinguished chairman and the
distinguished chairwoman, both of whom are well known for their support
of Medicare, Social Security, and seniors in this Nation would object
to what is really just a bureaucratic change, a change that can be done
through computers in a very quick fashion.
The Department of Health and Human Services has said that the health
insurance claim number that they use is merely a variation of the
recipient's Social Security number, not the actual number, and has
noted that the number may be based on the Social Security number of a
spouse or parent. However, more often than not, the number the agency
uses is the person's Social Security, preceded or followed by a single
letter of the alphabet. The agency has said it has no immediate plans
to stop this practice. What more can the Department of Health and Human
Services do to the theft of our identity? Give thieves and unscrupulous
people mothers' maiden names?
Not so long ago, I would tell the chairman, we experienced the same
problem with the mailing labels sent to us from the IRS. I was told
there was no way the IRS would change its practice and any disruption
would disrupt the whole tax collection system of the Nation. I found
that incomprehensible, simply a defense of bureaucratic inertia, and
said that they can change a computer system very quickly so booklets
that would be mailed out to millions of Americans would not have the
Social Security number. I introduced a similar bill to stop the IRS
from putting Social Security numbers on its mailings, and the IRS found
a way in short time to stop the practice that could lead to identity
theft.
There is simply no excuse, Mr. Chairman, for leaving Medicare
beneficiaries vulnerable to identity theft with a thinly disguised
Social Security number on Medicare-related mailings. This is merely
bureaucratic inertia. It only requires a computer software change. No
benefits to Medicare or Social Security will be held up. It is about
time this Congress said to a bureaucracy, cut the fooling around, break
through the red tape, and protect our seniors and all our families in
America from identity theft.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I simply want to say that I rise in support of the
gentleman's amendment. I would fully grant that I think there is a
problem with the timetable associated with the amendment because of its
immediacy, but the fact is that under the rules of the House, the
gentleman had no choice but to draw the amendment that way in order for
it to be eligible to be offered as an amendment.
The committee, if it so chooses, can easily fix this problem in
conference. It can easily delay the effective date of the gentleman's
amendment, and I think that is what we ought to do. I think the Social
Security Administration, I think the Federal Government, I think the
Pentagon, I think our banks and other financial institutions, have been
incredibly reckless in protecting the privacy of American citizens. And
we are increasingly going to see this as a huge problem, and we are
also going to see identity theft mount exponentially.
I congratulate the gentleman for trying to do something about it.
That is more than one can say for most of this Congress. And if there
are technical problems, this committee, if it is worth its salt, can
easily have them fixed before the bill is reported back in conference.
I urge support for the amendment.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I understand what the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is saying,
and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) will be a conferee, and it
is something we probably need to discuss there. But in the meantime,
there are 43 million people who are on Medicare. We add 200,000 every
month, and I would like to get more information from CMS as to just
what impact this would have in terms of cost and their ability to
manage the system.
The key to this is that we want the system managed as effectively as
possible, and all of us as Members hear from time to time from people
who are not getting their Medicare claims taken care of or they are
having problems with Medicare. So some system of keeping track of these
and to identify them, we can imagine with 43 million people, it is not
easy.
So I would hope the gentleman would withdraw his amendment and I
would work with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) in conference
to see if there is some way we can refine this language, and I would
like to discuss it with the Medicare people, with CMS, to see what the
impact would be or whether a workable system that would ensure privacy
could be put in place.
For that reason I would oppose the amendment if there is a vote on
it.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the gentleman from
California's amendment.
The public, whether shoppers, investors, or Medicare beneficiaries,
should be confident that their personal information is secure, and it
is obvious from recently revealed breaches that more must be done to
protect consumer data. As Chairman of the Commerce, Trade & Consumer
Protection Subcommittee, I have held many hearings on data breaches and
consumer data security and showed broad support for a comprehensive
federal notification requirement to consumers for these security
breaches. According to the Federal Trade Commission, 27.3 million
Americans have been victims of identity theft in the last five years,
and the Social Security Number is one of the primary tools.
Private health insurers do not rely on the SS No., and neither should
our Nation's health provider for seniors and the disabled. A non-
identifying, random, set of characters can be generated that would be
less meaningful to an individual's entire financial . . . The GAO is
well-published on the risk of using SS Nos., and the facility with
which the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) could assign
an alternate number.
I support the gentleman's amendment and urge my colleagues to do so.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Fossella). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. Filner) will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. King of Iowa
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. King of Iowa:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. ___ None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to reimburse, or provide reimbursement, for Viagra,
Levitra, or Cialis.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 23,
2005, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
[[Page H5127]]
Mr. Chairman, first I would like to state my appreciation for the
work done by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), committee chairman,
on this overall bill and his work and cooperation at all levels and the
flexibility that he has demonstrated in the interests across this broad
country.
I bring before this Congress an amendment that addresses an issue
that Americans understand, and it is an issue that I think Congress
needs to understand maybe more thoroughly than they do at this point.
And that is that government has a role in promoting the general welfare
in the United States, but we have gone past that role; and now with our
Medicaid and Medicare funding, we are opposed to be purchasing sexual
impotence drugs with taxpayers' dollars all across this country. We
have been doing so since 1998 with regard to Medicaid, and now CMS is
poised to do so also with Medicare. That will be implemented in
January, simply 6 months from now, and if we are not able to put a stop
to this bureaucratic decision, then we will be down the slippery slope
of millions of people who believe the entitlement is taxpayer-funded
recreational sex drugs.
So my amendment simply prohibits any use of any of the resources or
funds provided in this act from being used for the administration or
funding of Viagra, Levitra and Cialis. It is that simple. It is
something that I think we have a consensus on.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance my time.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I just want to discuss it. I do not think anyone has asked to claim
time in opposition at this juncture.
As the Members know, the bill already has a provision restricting
health programs from paying for impotence drugs for sex offenders. This
amendment simply takes the provision a step further by prohibiting the
payment for all beneficiaries.
The authorizing committee has been discussing it with the Member, and
apparently there has been no resolution. So perhaps this is one that
Members ought to make a judgment on. I think the issue is fairly clear
as it has been framed by the sponsor. And if he were to ask for a vote,
that would be an appropriate thing to do at this juncture.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut
(Mrs. Johnson).
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I do rise in strong
opposition to this amendment. I certainly support denying impotence
drugs to sex offenders, but to arbitrarily eliminate any class of drugs
from a formulary, first of all, sets a terrible precedent and has the
same potential for mischief as State mandates on health plans have
demonstrated is possible. So the precedent being set here is one I
object to.
{time} 1145
But much more important, these drugs are often medically necessary.
ED drugs help men who have lost sexual function caused by prostate
cancer, diabetes, multiple sclerosis, nerve damage, or cardiac
conditions. It is important that these drugs are available when they
are medically appropriate and there is no evidence of abuse for
medically appropriate situations. They are not sold over the counter,
they are prescription, must be prescribed by a physician, and they are
so important in the cases where they are medically needed, that it
would be, in my mind, a gross disservice to our seniors to
automatically deny them access under our prescription drug program to
these drugs.
First of all, where does this approval end? We do not say to seniors,
we will not prescribe cholesterol medications for you or drugs for high
blood pressure until you have changed your diet and exercised. Yet diet
and exercise could eliminate the need for taxpayer-funded drugs in many
categories, but we do not require that.
Secondly, we are very interested in, and increasingly interested in,
early identification and prevention of serious illness, and sexual
dysfunction is often an early sign of other very serious conditions.
Those diseases may go untreated and undetected if there is no need to
go to the doctor to talk about impotence, to evaluate the causes of
impotence and, therefore, be entitled to the prescription. So it
interferes with early diagnosis and prevention in certain diseases.
It is also extremely important to consider this issue in the context
of mental health and the costs of mental health in our elderly
population. Certainly, in a long-term marriage, a healthy sexual
relationship is important to the strength of that relationship and
important to the mental health of the people involved. Would we rather
pay for depression treatment, or would we rather have that couple
eligible for the kind of medications that the gentleman wishes to ban
from the Medicare program?
So if we take a holistic approach to health and remember that mental
health is important to reducing the cost of physical disease and that
early identification and prevention of serious health problems is
extremely important to lowering the long-term costs of Medicare and
giving the program sustainability that is crucial to the well-being of
our seniors, then my colleagues will vote against this amendment, even
though I appreciate that, superficially and politically, voting for it
would be a desirable vote.
I would urge my colleagues to oppose the availability of these drugs
for sex offenders. I would urge my colleagues to oppose eliminating
them from the Medicare formulas, because they are often medically
appropriate and they are important to the long-term health and well-
being and early identification of disease in our seniors.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I think the gentlewoman from Connecticut has indicated
correctly that there are a number of technical problems with this
amendment; yet I think I know that if there is a roll call, it will be
passed overwhelmingly.
So what I would suggest in the interest of time, unless we want to
stay here until midnight, is to simply accept a number of these
amendments which we know have significant technical flaws, but which
can be corrected in conference. Otherwise, we are going to have a lot
of meaningless debates, and they will simply consume a lot of time, and
we will wind up in the same place.
So what I would simply urge is that the committee accept the
amendment, recognizing that it needs to be fixed substantially in
conference, and deal with some of the very practical problems just laid
out by the gentlewoman.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time.
I support this amendment, even though I can fully understand where
the gentlewoman from Connecticut and the gentleman from Wisconsin are
coming from. But part of the problem we are trying to address here goes
back to the Medicare prescription drug legislation which requires that
the Federal Government pay the full retail cost of these drugs.
A substantial part of the cost of these ED drugs is attributable to
TV advertising. They are spending approximately a half a billion
dollars a year on television advertising, saturating the airwaves
during family viewing hours when they know the parents and the kids are
sitting in front of the television; and now the taxpayer is going to be
paying for this cost of advertising. That is the difficulty.
While I understand that we do not want to go down a slippery slope,
bear in mind that when we start including these lifestyle drugs in
Medicare, that is money that could be spent against cancer and heart
disease and Alzheimer's and all the higher priorities that we ought to
be using Medicare trust funds for.
So I support the gentleman. I do not think that ED is a health care
priority. But the larger issue is should the taxpayers be required to
pay for TV advertising, much of which is inappropriate in its message.
I did not have any problem, I have to say, when Bob Dole was
[[Page H5128]]
the pitch man; nobody would, except maybe Elizabeth for sharing more
than the world necessarily needed to know about their personal lives.
But the point is, these ads on TV today are offensive, and we are
spending half a billion dollars on them. The American public does not
want them saturating the airwaves, and they certainly do not want to be
paying for them; and unless this amendment passes, they will be paying
for them.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Barton), the chairman of the Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I speak in rabid opposition to
this amendment, not because I oppose the total intent of it, but
because it is legislating on an appropriations bill. If it were to pass
and remain in the bill, it would make the Committee on Energy and
Commerce much more difficult on reconciliation.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
the State of Washington (Mr. Inslee).
(Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, those who believe in privacy and not being
dictated to by the U.S. Congress in their most private, intimate
decisions should vote against this amendment.
Two friends of mine my age recently went in for prostate treatment.
When you go in for prostate cancer, they tell you you have a choice of
various alternatives. Some may give you a higher chance of survival,
but also a higher chance of impotency.
A University of Chicago study showed that if you tell men that they
have a chance of impotency that cannot be cured because you do not have
access to these ED drugs, they will, 68 percent of the time, take
surgery that could lessen their chances of survival. This is not
recreation. These are helping men make decisions that are going to help
prolong their lives. We should reject this amendment.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.
To bring this towards a close, as I listen to this debate, I think it
is clear to us that this is an inappropriate investment on the part of
taxpayers' dollars for us to compel the taxpayers to pay for sexual
impotency drugs. I take issue with some of the statements made, for
example, no evidence of abuse for medically appropriate situations
exist. Certainly it does.
I recognize that the amendment of the gentleman from California (Mr.
Doolittle) in the bill addresses some of the abuse, and that is the
abuse of these prescriptions going into the hands of sexual predators,
rapists, and child molesters. Now, this amendment would not be
necessary to do that, but there is other abuse that goes beyond that.
There is record of abuse that existed.
No one paid any attention, until I raised this issue last November
and December, and the traction has not been there for a policy change.
That is why I need to bring this amendment here in the only fashion
that I can with the leverage I have in this Congress.
We will spend, over the next 10 years, over $2 billion, our CBO score
runs it up over $2 billion, and $105 million in this next year.
This is, as the gentleman from Virginia said, the only opportunity
that we have to stop this funding under Medicare and also to stop the
balance of this funding under Medicaid before such time as it becomes a
huge entitlement.
There are only two reasons for sex, there has only been, and one of
them is for procreation. We do not subsidize any kind of fertility
drugs under any kind of Medicare or Medicaid, because we decided that
that is inappropriate. So we do not either subsidize procreational sex.
Recreation is another thing. We do not subsidize the recreation of
others either. So under either one of those categories, this is wrong.
I urge the adoption of this amendment against Federal funding for
Viagra, Cialis, and Levitra.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Fossella). The gentleman will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Chairman, I rushed over here in a big rush hoping to
get some time to speak against what I think is a very, very bad
amendment and bad public policy. It is my understanding that there is
no time left to speak in opposition to this amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. All time for debate on this amendment has
expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa
(Mr. King).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr.
King) will be postponed.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I do so so that I can facilitate a colloquy between the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Regula), and I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I wish to enter into a colloquy with the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula).
As the gentleman knows, HHS at one time conducted a program on Gulf
War illnesses research. And the gentleman also knows that, according to
the congressionally chartered Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War
Veterans' Illnesses, there has never been a better time to invest in
this research. The potential causes have been narrowed, more diseases
are being discovered, parallel benefits to national security are more
urgently needed, and there is still no treatment for our ill veterans.
Would the gentleman agree to work with the agency and me to encourage
NIH to establish its research portfolio in this area?
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman calling to our
attention the recent report of the Department of Veterans Affairs about
the research opportunities in Gulf War illness research. NIH has
conducted research in this area in the past, largely through the
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. The gentleman
describes opportunities in neuroscience research that might most
appropriately reside in the National Institute for Neurological
Disorders and Stroke.
We would be pleased to ask the director of NIH to report to us what
research NIH currently plans to conduct during the fiscal year 2006
that addresses the priority areas the DVA report identifies. In our
hearings next year, we will conduct a line of questioning to learn more
about NIH's commitment to this area of research.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague, the
gentleman from Ohio, and also express my appreciation to the gentleman
from Wisconsin for yielding.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for raising this issue.
Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Hefley
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 16 offered by Mr. Hefley:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. Appropriations made in this Act are hereby reduced
in the amount of $1,425,140,000.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 23,
2005, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I do not want to take a lot of time for this because I think we all
know the scenario that is the result of this, but I do want to make the
point again.
What I am rising to do is to cut the level of funding in this
appropriation bill by 1 percent. This amount equals $1.425 billion,
which represents only one penny off of every dollar.
This is not an across-the-board cut. The way it is structured, it
lets the Department decide where this money should come from.
[[Page H5129]]
As most Members are aware, I have offered a series of these
amendments over many appropriation bills. We need to draw the line; and
the budget we have for the next year is too large, and we can do
something about the deficit right now. By voting for my amendment, you
are stating to the American taxpayers that they should not have to pay
higher taxes in the future, because we can control our spending today.
As hard as the chairman and ranking member have worked on this bill,
there are still many wonderful things in the bill, very meritorious
things in the bill, but things that do not have to be done, some of
them.
{time} 1200
This fiscal year's 2006 Labor-HHS appropriations bill provides over
$142.5 billion in total discretionary resources. And we have seen
discretionary spending increase in this bill by an average of more than
5 percent a year over the last 5 years, even though it is less this
year than it was last year. I commend the committee and the chairman on
that.
This bill spends $924 million over the President's request. Our
budget should be no different than our individual budgets at home. When
we have less money, we spend less money. I would encourage support of
the Hefley amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
Mr Chairman, I will not take much time. I think all of the Members
are familiar with this. It has been on the docket before. And the
problem with this type of an amendment, it goes across the board, as
the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) said.
There are many great programs in this bill. And the way this
amendment is crafted, it hits the good with the indifferent and with
those that are maybe not so desirable. So I would oppose the amendment.
I would hope my colleagues would agree in voting against this if it
were brought up on a roll call vote.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Fossella). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado
(Mr. Hefley) will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Hinchey
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Hinchey:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used--
(1) by any department, agency, officer, or employee (as
defined by section 5701 of title 5, United States Code) of
the United States to exercise any direction, supervision, or
control over the content or distribution of public
telecommunications programs and services in violation of
section 398(c) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C.
398(c)); or
(2) in violation of section 396(a) of such Act (47 U.S.C.
396(a)).
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 23,
2005, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, Congress created the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting in 1967 to encourage the development of a public
broadcasting system, and just as importantly, to shield public
broadcasting from any political interference.
Despite this clear directive, Kenneth Tomlinson, the chairman of the
corporation, has engaged in a deliberate campaign to politicize public
broadcasting and interfere with the content of public television and
radio stations across the country.
Mr. Tomlinson is essentially warning public broadcasters, conform to
his ideology or he will cut off their funding. This is political
intimidation in the truest and worst sense of the term, and we must
stamp it out today with this amendment.
This amendment would prohibit Mr. Tomlinson, who is considered a
part-time government employee because of his position as chairman of
the board of broadcasting governors, from exercising direction,
supervision, or control over the content or distribution of public
telecommunications programs and services.
It also prohibits the CPB from violating the policies set forth by
Congress, which include a prohibition on outside interference. The
United States of America is already suffering from a shortage of
independent voices in the media.
Public broadcasting remains one of the outlets available that offer
high-quality, unbiased, independent reporting, which is why we must
ensure its independence from political tampering. It is a shame that
this even has to come up. But the actions of Kenneth Tomlinson demand
that this amendment be brought before the House.
At the rate Tomlinson is going, it is only a matter of time before he
changes PBS' name to FOX-2, and starts forcing Big Bird and Elmo to
talk about the merits of the war in Iraq or the value of privatizing
Social Security.
We must have independent public broadcasting that reports the facts
and holds both Democrats and Republicans accountable for their actions.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Barton).
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in as strong as possible
opposition to the Hinchey amendment. We have public television today,
and I am very proud that we do. Public television used to say that they
had a reason to exist, because if they did not exist, who would provide
the public aspect of some of our television programming?
That was an effective argument 30 years ago, and to some extent it is
still effective today. But whereas yesterday the PBS station in the
local market was maybe the third or fourth station, today it may be one
of dozens of stations, and if you count cable, it may be one of
hundreds. So the argument for continuing to spend taxpayer money for
public television is not quite as strong as it used to be.
Having said that, I think there is a role for public television in
the marketplace. We are now led to believe, though, that for some
reason, the current head of public television is trying to move public
television, you know, to the right. I disagree with that.
In last year's Presidential debates, I am told that many, many
viewers who watched not the debates but the campaigns, seemed to think
that NPR was simply for the Bush-haters. In fact, I had a constituent
come up to me and say, well, we have now heard from the Bush-haters
after listening to an NPR news commentary.
Rightly or wrongly, a lot of people where I come from think that NPR
represents the left. I know that is exactly the opposite of what my
friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) thinks.
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting allocates Federal funds for
public radio and television. It is about 4 percent of the total funding
that they receive, if my numbers are correct. I do not have a problem
with this. I do not have a problem with Mr. Obey's amendment yesterday
that restored funding to PBS.
Having said that, I think the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and
the full committee were right to reduce funding, because their
committee's budget was short billions of dollars and they simply
subjected the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to the same scrutiny
that they subjected all of the other programs under their
subcommittee's jurisdiction.
I commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) for doing that. What
we
[[Page H5130]]
really have here, in my opinion, is to some extent perhaps a personal
vendetta against the current head of CPB, a gentleman named Mr.
Tomlinson. He apparently has riled some feathers.
He apparently, in trying to be balanced, is, to some of my friends on
the other side of the aisle, indicating that he is maybe going too far.
I disagree with that. I think he is an honorable man. I think he is
trying to do the right thing.
I think the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey's) amendment is well
intentioned, as it appears to be, could be perceived by some, as just
trying to stop somebody from doing their job to provide a fair,
balanced approach for our funds that are spent by the CPB.
Mr. Chairman, I hope that we would adhere to the committee position
and oppose the Hinchey amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman said, for some reason we think that Mr.
Tomlinson is being political. I wonder why? Mr. Tomlinson is the follow
who said that public radio stations should get in line with the
Republican election victory.
Mr. Tomlinson is the person who appointed a consultant in order to
try to measure the number of instances when people on PBS programs
were, quote, anti-Bush or, quote, anti-DeLAY.
Mr. Tomlinson is the person who recommended the appointment to head
the Corporation of a former cochairman of the Republican National
Committee. If Bill Clinton had appointed the former Democratic National
Chairman to the public broadcasting board, the other side would be
having a conniption fit. The other side would be screaming in outrage
and passing out motions of impeachment; they have had a lot of practice
at that.
It is also Mr. Tomlinson who was reported to have worked to raise
money in order to put the Wall Street Journal editorial board on public
broadcasting. Now, there is an objective operation for you.
I would also suggest that what is at work here is something broader
than Mr. Tomlinson. What I think is happening is this, Mr. Chairman. I
think we have a ``thought police'' brigade loose around the country.
And we have seen evidence of it in a number of places.
We saw it in the Schiavo case, where the Republican majority tried to
tell every American family how they had to handle an end-of-life
decision. Then we saw it in the efforts of the majority leader, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), who fired a shot at every judge in
the country who had the temerity to think for themselves, warning them
if they did not toe the line, he would go after their jurisdiction.
And then you have this effort to appoint the chairman of the
Republican National Committee as head of public broadcasting. And then
I wonder why the American people get a little nervous about the thought
police at work.
The fact is that every public opinion poll shows that the American
people have more confidence in the objectivity of public television and
public radio than they do any other news outlet, and certainly more
confidence in their objectivity than they have in us as a body.
We have hit a new low recently in terms of public approval of the way
this Congress is operating, I would say with good reason, because this
Congress spends so much time worrying about things that affect itself
rather than worry about things that affect the American people.
So I think there is a very good reason for the gentleman's amendment.
I regret that there is a necessity to bring it up. But I do think that
Mr. Tomlinson is primarily responsible for politicizing this entire
issue.
Mr. Chairman, I do not mind seeing Republicans on public
broadcasting. I do not think there was a better show on television than
Bill Buckleys's program through the years. Bill Buckley had a huge
intellect, and I think the country was served by the programs that he
had on that program for many years.
I do not think the country is served well when Mr. Tomlinson takes
upon himself the duty of being the thought policeman for the entire
country on public television. That crosses the line. He ought to go. He
ought to resign. This Congress ought to demand that he do so.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of our time.
Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Barton made the case in opposition to this.
And for that reason, I would urge my colleagues to vote against this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from
New York (Ms. Slaughter).
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Tomlinson ought to go. Mr. Tomlinson
had people do some polls. What they found on these polls is 80 percent
of Americans say PBS is fair and balanced; 90 percent said they had
high-quality programming, more than any channel, as the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has pointed out.
But Mr. Tomlinson did not reveal those results to anybody. He kept it
all to himself. You bet there is bias at CPB. It is embodied in this
chairman, who must cease and desist his politicization of the agency,
which is why I urge you to vote for this amendment. How the House can
best aid public broadcasting would be to vote this amendment and for
the President of CPB to submit his resignation.
Yesterday, this body voted by a substantial margin to restore funding
for public broadcasting. We did so after an unprecedented outpouring of
public sentiment. Over 1 million people signed petitions within one
week's time--proving Americans demand their public broadcasting
continue. But we did so mainly because it was the right thing to do.
For almost 40 years, only one television channel among the 500
operating today has consistently been regarded by the public as the
gold standard of broadcasting.
Chairman Tomlinson discovered that for himself when he hired the
right-leaning Tarrance group to investigate claims of bias. After
conducting two ``National Public Opinions,'' his handpicked pollsters
found that 80 percent of Americans saw PBS as ``fair and balanced,''
while 90 percent believed that PBS ``provides high quality
programming.'' Further, a majority of respondents called PBS ``more
trustworthy than CNN, Fox News Channel and other mainstream news
outlets.''
Does it surprise anyone to hear that Chairman Tomlinson did not
reveal the results in his annual report to Congress--or even to PBS and
NPR? Yes, there is bias in action at CPB. It's embodied in its
chairman, who must cease and desist his politicization of the agency,
which is why I urge you to vote for this amendment. That's how the
House can best aid public broadcasting. What the chairman could do for
CPB is to submit his resignation.
{time} 1215
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Watson).
Ms. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, I agree with my colleagues that Mr.
Tomlinson needs to go, because yesterday Patricia Harrison, who was the
former cochairman of the National Republican Committee, was selected as
the next president. He has secretly coordinated with a White House
official to formulate guiding principles for the appointment of two
partisan ombudsmen to monitor and critique all public broadcasting
content.
Our first amendment rights are being eroded away and we can see
through that. There needs to be transparency.
Mr. Chairman, once again our public broadcasting system is under
attack by reactionary forces inside the beltway. This time, it is
suffering a two-pronged assault; one on content, one on funding, and
both politically motivated.
Congressman Hinchey and I are offering an amendment to reinforce
existing law and buffer PBS from the kind of political attacks that
Corporation of Public Broadcasting (CPB) Chairman, Kenneth Tomlinson,
has brought upon Big Bird and Elmo. Mr. Tomlinson has revealed his
personal crusade to discredit and destroy public broadcasting by
unjustly accusing PBS and NPR of liberal bias, and working behind the
scenes to stack the CPB's board and executive offices with operatives
who share his ideological views.
Yesterday, Patricia Harrison, the former co-chairwoman of the
Republican National Committee, was elected as CPB's next president. Mr.
Tomlinson also secretly coordinated with a White House official to
formulate ``guiding principles'' for the appointment of two partisan
ombudsmen to monitor and critique all public broadcasting content.
Tomlinson suppressed a public poll showing that 80 percent of Americans
judge PBS to be ``fair and balanced'', compared to network and cable
television.
[[Page H5131]]
Tomlinson, also diverted taxpayers' money to hire a partisan researcher
for a stealth study to track so called ``anti-Bush'' and ``anti-Tom
DeLay'' comments (by the guests) of ``NOW with Bill Moyers''--a move
that currently is being investigated by the Inspector General.
Mr. Chairman, the law is clear on this. The Public Broadcasting Act
of 1967 clearly forbids ``any direction, supervision, or control over
the content or distribution of public telecommunications programs and
services.'' Congress established the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting to ``encourage the development of public radio and
television broadcasting'' and to ``afford (public broadcasting) maximum
protection from extraneous interference and control.'' Under the
direction of Tomlinson, however, the CPB has engaged in a deliberate
campaign to inject politics into public broadcasting.
The taxpayer-funded CPB is supposed to serve as a firewall between
Washington DC politics and public broadcasting. Mr. Chairman, we must
take the politics out of public broadcasting--and put the public back
in. Our amendment will prohibit the CPB President from exercising any
direction, supervision, or control over the content or distribution of
public broadcasting. It would also reaffirm the long-standing policy
that public broadcasting must be free from outside interference. This
is about the future of a vital public trust, a resource that is owned
and enjoyed by everyone, and not allowing it to be hijacked by the
nefarious agenda of a few political operatives. It is a shame that it
has even come to arguing for safeguards we used to take for granted,
but the actions of Mr. Tomlinson demand it. I urge my colleagues to
support our amendment.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New York's (Mr. Hinchey)
amendment just restates existing law. What Ken Tomlinson wants to do is
turn NPR into the NRC, the National Republican Committee, rather than
National Public Radio. That is what it is all about.
CPB used to stand for Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Now it
will stand for Corporation for Political Boondoggles, as this
Republican administration seeks to politicize something that in all
national polling is the most respected news outlet in the United States
of America.
This is wrong. Support the Hinchey amendment.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last words.
Mr. Chairman, we oppose this amendment. There is already language in
the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 that prevents the Corporation for
Public Broadcasting from controlling the content of public broadcasting
services.
I do not see why this language is necessary today. The law is already
there. You have different points of view as to what is the
characteristics of public broadcasting, and that is conservative,
liberal or whatever. I think this amendment is unnecessary in light of
current law. Let CPB do its job and stop trying to politicize it.
I will point out one further thing. This amendment would negatively
impact on CPB's ability to assist in the production of quality
educational programming. For example, if this amendment were to be law,
if Ken Burns, whom we all are familiar with, were to serve as a
consultant to the National Park Service on battlefield conservation, he
then would be prohibited from producing any documentaries for PBS or
local public TV stations. The amendment would alter public
broadcasting's authorization that is presently in the law, and I think
it would cripple the abilities of CPB to do what our colleagues on the
other side of the aisle want it to do, and that is to be an objective
medium, to present all sides of every issue, and not attempt to
politicize the message.
With the present law, it seems to me that there is no need for this
amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote against it if we do have a roll
call vote.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Fossella). The gentleman from New York (Mr.
Hinchey) has 30 seconds remaining.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, my favorite quote from Abraham Lincoln is this: You can
fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of
the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.
I think that this House ought to understand that because that is what
is trying to be done here. They are trying to fool all of the people
all of the time. They have done it with Iraq, they are trying to do it
with Social Security, and now they are trying to do it by controlling
the airwaves, controlling the information that people get, and most
recently by politicizing public broadcasting.
The law that my good, dear friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Regula), just mentioned is not being enforced. That is the problem.
That is why we have this amendment. That is why we need its passage.
Public broadcasting should not be political. It needs to be objective
and reliable. Pass this amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Hinchey) will be postponed.
Sequential Votes Postponed In Committee Of The Whole
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were
postponed in the following order:
amendment by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price); amendment by the
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller); amendment by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown); amendment No. 8 by the gentleman from
California (Mr. Filner); amendment by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr.
King); amendment No. 16 by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley);
amendment by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Price of Georgia
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Price) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 102,
noes 298, not voting 33, as follows:
[Roll No. 308]
AYES--102
Akin
Barrett (SC)
Beauprez
Bilirakis
Blackburn
Brady (TX)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Cannon
Carter
Chocola
Coble
Cox
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal (GA)
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Emerson
English (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gibbons
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Hayes
Hayworth
Herger
Hostettler
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Istook
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
Kline
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McHenry
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Murphy
Musgrave
Neugebauer
Ney
Norwood
Otter
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Pombo
Price (GA)
Radanovich
Ramstad
Renzi
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)
NOES--298
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Allen
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
[[Page H5132]]
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Burgess
Butterfield
Camp
Cantor
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Castle
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DeLay
Dent
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Farr
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Gordon
Granger
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hefley
Hensarling
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lynch
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKinney
McMorris
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Melancon
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Reynolds
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiberi
Tierney
Turner
Udall (CO)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--33
Andrews
Bartlett (MD)
Becerra
Boozman
Boyd
Capito
Chabot
Davis, Tom
Delahunt
Evans
Fattah
Gohmert
Gutierrez
Harman
Honda
Jones (NC)
Kingston
Lewis (GA)
Meeks (NY)
Mollohan
Rahall
Reyes
Rogers (AL)
Simmons
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Towns
Udall (NM)
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Young (FL)
{time} 1243
Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, Mrs.
DRAKE, Ms. KAPTUR, and Messrs. POE, GORDON and MELANCON changed their
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. SULLIVAN, CARTER, CALVERT, CHOCOLA, CUELLAR, FOLEY, KING of
Iowa, SMITH of Texas, HALL, HERGER, MARCHANT, TANCREDO, Mrs. EMERSON,
Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida, and Mrs. BLACKBURN changed their vote
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mr. George Miller of california
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. George
Miller) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 219,
noes 185, not voting 29, as follows:
[Roll No. 309]
AYES--219
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bono
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
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Feeney
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Ford
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Goode
Gordon
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hyde
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Melancon
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Otter
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Poe
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rangel
Reichert
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Strickland
Stupak
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Udall (CO)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOES--185
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
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
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Latham
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCrery
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Oxley
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schwarz (MI)
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Sullivan
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
[[Page H5133]]
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--29
Andrews
Bartlett (MD)
Becerra
Boozman
Boyd
Capito
Cox
Davis, Tom
Delahunt
Fattah
Gohmert
Gutierrez
Harman
Jones (NC)
Kingston
Lewis (GA)
Meeks (NY)
Mollohan
Pickering
Rahall
Reyes
Rogers (AL)
Simmons
Taylor (MS)
Towns
Udall (NM)
Whitfield
Wilson (NM)
Young (FL)
{time} 1252
Mr. SCHWARZ of Michigan changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Brown of Ohio
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 170,
noes 237, not voting 26, as follows:
[Roll No. 310]
AYES--170
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Melancon
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Rangel
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Shimkus
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Udall (CO)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
NOES--237
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boren
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cox
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
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
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Manzullo
Marshall
Matheson
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moore (KS)
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salazar
Saxton
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shuster
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
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 (SC)
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--26
Andrews
Bartlett (MD)
Becerra
Boozman
Boyd
Capito
Davis, Tom
Delahunt
Fattah
Gohmert
Gutierrez
Harman
Jones (NC)
Lewis (GA)
Marchant
Meeks (NY)
Mollohan
Rahall
Reyes
Rogers (AL)
Simmons
Taylor (MS)
Towns
Udall (NM)
Wilson (NM)
Young (FL)
{time} 1300
Mr. TANNER changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Filner
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner)
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 314,
noes 94, not voting 25, as follows:
[Roll No. 311]
AYES--314
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Bean
Beauprez
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonner
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Butterfield
Buyer
Camp
Cannon
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dent
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Duncan
Edwards
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hall
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
[[Page H5134]]
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKinney
McMorris
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Melancon
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Otter
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Putnam
Ramstad
Rangel
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Sherman
Shimkus
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Strickland
Stupak
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tierney
Turner
Udall (CO)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Wexler
Wicker
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
NOES--94
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Bass
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bonilla
Bono
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Cantor
Chocola
Coble
Crenshaw
Davis (KY)
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dreier
Ehlers
Everett
Franks (AZ)
Gilchrest
Gutknecht
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Herger
Hobson
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Kanjorski
Keller
King (IA)
Kingston
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Manzullo
McCrery
McHenry
McKeon
Mica
Miller, Gary
Myrick
Norwood
Nunes
Osborne
Oxley
Pearce
Pitts
Porter
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Regula
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Sabo
Saxton
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shuster
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Sullivan
Sweeney
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Walden (OR)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
NOT VOTING--25
Andrews
Bartlett (MD)
Becerra
Boozman
Boyd
Capito
Davis, Tom
Delahunt
Fattah
Gohmert
Gutierrez
Harman
Jones (NC)
Lewis (GA)
Meeks (NY)
Mollohan
Rahall
Reyes
Rogers (AL)
Simmons
Taylor (MS)
Towns
Udall (NM)
Wilson (NM)
Young (FL)
{time} 1309
Mr. KING of New York and Mr. PUTNAM changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by King of Iowa
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) on which
further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by
voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 285,
noes 121, not voting 27, as follows:
[Roll No. 312]
AYES--285
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Baca
Baker
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bass
Beauprez
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (FL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
DeFazio
DeLauro
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Emanuel
Emerson
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Feeney
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Gutknecht
Hall
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Hunter
Hyde
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kind
King (IA)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Manzullo
Marchant
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
Meek (FL)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moore (KS)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Otter
Oxley
Pascrell
Paul
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Royce
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Saxton
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Sodrel
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Tancredo
Tanner
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Turner
Udall (CO)
Upton
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Wamp
Waters
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
NOES--121
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Bachus
Baird
Barton (TX)
Bean
Berkley
Berman
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bono
Brown (OH)
Burgess
Butterfield
Buyer
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Case
Clay
Costa
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Deal (GA)
DeGette
Dicks
Ehlers
Engel
Evans
Farr
Ferguson
Filner
Fossella
Gilchrest
Gonzalez
Grijalva
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
King (NY)
Langevin
Larson (CT)
Latham
Lee
Levin
Lowey
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
McCollum (MN)
McCrery
McDermott
McHugh
McMorris
McNulty
Meehan
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore (WI)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norwood
Ortiz
Osborne
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Rangel
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Snyder
Stark
Sweeney
Tauscher
Thomas
Velazquez
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wasserman Schultz
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Wexler
Whitfield
Woolsey
Wynn
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--27
Andrews
Bartlett (MD)
Becerra
Bonilla
Boozman
Boyd
Capito
Davis, Tom
Delahunt
Fattah
Gohmert
Gutierrez
Harman
Jones (NC)
LaTourette
Lewis (GA)
Meeks (NY)
Mollohan
Rahall
Reyes
Rogers (AL)
Simmons
Taylor (MS)
Towns
Udall (NM)
Wilson (NM)
Young (FL)
{time} 1318
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
[[Page H5135]]
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California and Ms. LEE changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above reported.
Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Hefley
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 84,
noes 323, not voting 26, as follows:
[Roll No. 313]
AYES--84
Akin
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Brady (TX)
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Cannon
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cox
Cubin
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal (GA)
Diaz-Balart, M.
Duncan
Feeney
Flake
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Goodlatte
Graves
Gutknecht
Harris
Hart
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hostettler
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jenkins
Jindal
Keller
King (IA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
McCotter
McHenry
Mica
Miller (FL)
Moran (KS)
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Norwood
Otter
Paul
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Poe
Price (GA)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Tanner
Terry
Thornberry
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)
NOES--323
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Allen
Baca
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrow
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Carter
Case
Castle
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fortenberry
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Gordon
Granger
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hall
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Israel
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lynch
Maloney
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McMorris
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Melancon
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Ney
Northup
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (KY)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shuster
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Sodrel
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Sweeney
Tauscher
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Turner
Udall (CO)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--26
Andrews
Becerra
Boozman
Boyd
Capito
Davis, Tom
Delahunt
Fattah
Gohmert
Gutierrez
Harman
Jones (NC)
LaTourette
Lewis (GA)
Meeks (NY)
Mollohan
Nunes
Rahall
Reyes
Rogers (AL)
Simmons
Taylor (MS)
Towns
Udall (NM)
Wilson (NM)
Young (FL)
{time} 1326
Mr. SULLIVAN changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Hinchey
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey)
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 187,
noes 218, not voting 28, as follows:
[Roll No. 314]
AYES--187
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
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
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Melancon
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rangel
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Serrano
Shays
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Udall (CO)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOES--218
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
[[Page H5136]]
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
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
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
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 (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--28
Andrews
Becerra
Boozman
Boyd
Capito
Davis, Tom
Delahunt
Fattah
Gohmert
Gutierrez
Harman
Jones (NC)
Kaptur
LaTourette
Lewis (GA)
Meeks (NY)
Mollohan
Nunes
Rahall
Reyes
Rogers (AL)
Scott (VA)
Simmons
Taylor (MS)
Towns
Udall (NM)
Wilson (NM)
Young (FL)
{time} 1333
Mr. HALL changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
personal explanation
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I was unavoidable detained on official
business this morning. I was in West Virginia with Chairman Anthony
Princippi, and over West Virginia delegation to discuss BRAC
recommendations. I missed rollcall vote 308 through 314. Had I been
present, I would have voted in the following manner: rollcall vote 308:
``nay''; rollcall vote 309: ``yea''; rollcall vote 310: ``yea'';
rollcall vote 311: ``yea''; rollcall vote 312: ``yea''; rollcall vote
313: ``nay''; and rollcall vote 314: ``yea''.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I was regrettably delayed in my return to
Washington, DC from an official visit to Norfolk Naval Station,
Virginia and was unable to be on the House floor for rollcall votes 308
to 314. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall 308,
an amendment offered by Representative Price (GA); ``yea'' on rollcall
309, an amendment offered by Representative Miller (CA); ``nay'' on
rollcall 310, an amendment offered by Representative Brown (OH);
``yea'' on rollcall 311, an amendment offered by Representative Filner;
``nay'' on rollcall 312, an amendment offered by Representative King
(IA); ``nay'' on rollcall 313, an amendment offered by Representative
Hefley; and, ``nay'' on rollcall 314, an amendment offered by
Representative Hinchey.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, many of my colleagues have asked about time, and it is
pretty difficult to just quantify exactly where we will be. We have six
or seven amendments yet to go and possibly a motion to recommit. The
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is indicating there will be, so we
can draw our own conclusions as to what kind of a time number we are
looking at, with that many amendments and with a motion to recommit.
While we are trying to get some of the mechanics here of the en bloc
amendment worked out, I would just like to comment that this bill does
some really good things in education, and I think this is something
that we are all interested in.
I do not know if any of my colleagues have read Tom Friedman's book
in which he points out the flat Earth, how important education is to
the Nation's future. I mentioned yesterday Dave Broder's column in
which they polled Americans who said that they thought that the most
significant thing in the success of the United States was our
educational system.
So it was a great thing, and I believe Thomas Jefferson was the
person who, and I am not sure of that, who developed the idea of a free
public education, which was pioneering at the time because there was
not anything like it in the rest of the world. Many others have
duplicated it or some copy thereof. But I do think that what we have
tried to do with this bill is to emphasize good teachers, good
principals, good schools.
I have said many times that I have three goals on the committee. One
was to get a good teacher in every classroom and with that, a good
principal in every building and a good superintendent. Secondly was to
lower the dropout rate. I think it is tragic that 32 percent of our
students nationwide do not finish high school. Thirdly is to ensure
that every child learns to read. I believe that the dropout rate is a
result, in part, of the fact that people do not learn to read early in
their educational experience.
Amendments En Bloc Offered by Mr. Regula
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendments en bloc.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendments en bloc.
The text of the amendments en bloc is as follows:
Amendments en bloc offered by Mr. Regula:
Page 2, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $58,000,000)''.
Page 22, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.
Page 22, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $500,000)''.
Page 22, line 12, after the first dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $3,000,000)''.
Page 45, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $22,000,000)''.
Page 54, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $12,000,000)''.
Page 54, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $12,000,000)''.
Page 75, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $27,000,000)''.
Page 82, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.
Page 82, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $2,500,000)''.
Page 84, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``reduced by $2,500,000)''.
Page 99, line 5, insert: ``directly or indirectly,
including by private contractor,'' after ``shall be used,''.
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
``Sec. . None of the funds made available under this Act
to the Department of Education may be expended in
contravention of section 505 of the Illegal Immigration
Reform and Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1623).''.
____
``Sec. 5__. None of the funds made available in this Act
may be used by the National Institute of Mental Health for
any of the following grants:
(1) Grant number MH060105 (Perceived Regard and
Relationship Resilience in Newlyweds).
(2) Grant number MH047313 (Perceptual Bases of Visual
Concepts in Pigeons).
____
``Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to implement any strategic plan under section 3 of
Executive Order 13335 (regarding interoperable health
information technology) that does not require the Department
of Health and Human Services to give notice to any patient
whose information maintained by the Department under the
strategic plan is lost, stolen, or used for a purpose other
than the purpose for which the information was collected.''
____
``Sec. 5__. None of the funds made available in this Act
may be used by the Department of Health and Human Services to
appoint an individual to a Federal advisory committee on the
basis of political affiliation, unless required by Federal
statute.''
Pursuant to the order of the House of June 23, 2005, the gentleman
from Ohio
[[Page H5137]]
(Mr. Regula) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula).
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, these have all been agreed upon as part of the en bloc,
and I would urge the Members to vote for it.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that while I am dubious
about the content of several of these amendments, in the interest of
moving the bill forward, I would also urge that we accept the en bloc
amendments and move on to the others.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for helping us to
work it out.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
(Mr. LEACH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I would only say to my distinguished
chairman, I realize how difficult these circumstances are. There is one
amendment in that en bloc circumstance, the Neugebauer amendment, that
I think the House should be alerted to. It could put us down a slippery
slope of reviewing peer review scientific approaches; and since it is
targeted at a program in a university in my district, I am particularly
sensitive to it.
But unrelated to the fact that it is in my district, this subject is
something that I hope in the conference will get the attention of
Members in terms of the overriding principle of whether we ought to be
political seers overriding scientific peers.
Secondly, in the statement I will submit for the Record, I have
outlined a reason for this particular grant that is, in my view, again
very compelling, which makes a political attack on it quite, again in
my view, uncompelling.
So at this time, I simply ask respectfully that the chairman and the
ranking member give this perspective serious consideration as you move
to conference.
Mr. Chairman, I recognize that sometimes committees decide to accept
a series of amendments to bills ``en bloc'' on the House floor and then
review them further in conference. In this circumstances, I rise to
express a great disappointment that the committee has agreed to accept
for the time being the Neugebauer amendment which represents a
philosophical assault on the peer review process that serves as a
hallowed barrier to scientific censorship.
Mr. Chairman, the Neugebauer amendment is about exasperation with NIH
research on non-humans--i.e., animals and birds--and targets a grant
given a respected research institution in my District--the University
of Iowa.
First, let me stress that 60% of all human diseases are zoonotic--
that is, derived or related to animals and birds. It is no accident
that the remarkable results that have been obtained in developing
miracle drugs and intervention approaches in so many diseases begins
with research on animals and birds.
Secondly, let me stress that NIH and NIMH operate in a more non-
politicized manner than other governmental entities. All their research
approaches are peer-reviewed by scientists across the country. We in
Congress authorize the appropriations for NIH and NIMH, but scientists
rather than politicians determine which research applications should be
funded. Science, in this sense, by Congressional directive, has largely
been de-politicized.
As for this specific grant, the pigeon has been selected to study
because it has a remarkably well developed visual system with such high
acuity that it can make extraordinary decisions without the mediation
of language.
The research, which focuses on how the pigeon discriminates between
visual stimuli, could be singularly important to our understanding of
how brains and mental processes operate. The knowledge garnered is
designed to be of particular use in the treatment of mental illnesses
and disorders like autism and schizophrenia.
Knowledge of the operation of advanced cognitive processes in the
absence of language can also provide important clues to possible
remedial methods that could be effective with language impaired human
patients. New thinking and teaching methods which may develop from
research on pigeons and other life forms could better enable impaired
individuals to interact with a world of complex patterns and
categories, thus allowing them to be productive decision-makers, less
likely to need institutionalization.
Mr. Chairman, let me reiterate that research with birds and animals
is critical for human health. The pigeon may seem an obscure subject,
but the application of research on this bird, which is so talented it
can find its way home even if transported and released thousands of
miles away, could be quite meaningful.
There is no certainty any research approach will be productive, but
there is certainty that politicizing science will shackle its potential
for lengthening and ennobling life.
Accordingly, I urge the committee as it reviews this ``en bloc''
amendment in conference to give particular attention to whether it
wants to establish a precedent of political ``seers'' overriding
scientific peers. This is a slippery slope that I hope conferees will
not slide down.
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that the
chairman accepted an amendment that would strengthen the privacy
safeguards within the Office of Information Technology to which our
committee appropriated over $75 million for safeguarding information.
Medical information is so critically important as we start to put
together a national infrastructure of information technology that is
interoperable and that is transparent and that will allow providers to
adequately provide the care that they need to, with all of the
knowledge of the patient's background that they need to have, in order
to make the right decisions at the point of care.
I thank the chairman for yielding to me and for supporting this
amendment.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my strong support for the
Chairman Regula's, amendment and urge my colleagues to vote in favor of
increased funding for programs aimed at getting veterans into jobs.
Mr. Chairman, the National Veterans Employment and Training Institute
is run by the University of Colorado under contract to the Department
of Labor. Their mission is to train Disabled Veteran Outreach Program
Specialists and Local Veterans Employment Representatives (DVOPS and
LVERs) how to place veterans who are seeking employment in good-paying
jobs.
I want to emphasize that DVOPS and LVERs are state employees who
usually work for the state employment service. The extra 500 thousand
dollars will allow NVTI to increase its training load for the next year
by nearly 20 percent. That means that more DVOPS and LVERs will get
basic and advanced training in such skills as case management,
compliance investigation, job coaching, promoting partnerships,
presentation skills, and Transition Assistance for those being
discharged.
The Homeless Veterans Reintegration Act, or HVRP, is designed to get
homeless veterans off the streets and back into the labor market. The
typical grantee provides the safe living quarters and supportive
services to men and women who have hit bottom and are seeking a way out
of what may have been decades of homelessness. Recent data indicates
this is a highly cost effective program. For a program cost of a little
over $2,200 per job placement averaging about $9.25 per hour, an HVRP
client potentially returns about $2,800 in taxes per year to the
federal government. I call that a good investment in human capital.
The Chairman's amendment will add three million dollars to the $22
million proposed by the President. I salute the Chairman for his
efforts on behalf of homeless veterans. This additional funding will
provide opportunities for hundreds more homeless veterans. According to
the Veterans Employment and Training staff, three million dollars will
fund nine to 12 new grantees and service over 1,000 more homeless
veterans. Surely, this is a worthy cause.
Mr. Chairman, this is a good amendment that every Member can take
pride in and I urge my colleagues to vote yes.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to prohibit
the Department of Health and Human Services from using political litmus
tests in making appointments to scientific advisory committees.
Advisory committees play a crucial role in the development of policy.
That role is to offer policymakers the best available expertise on
scientific matters. Science is not liberal or conservative. It is not
Democratic or Republican. In order to develop the best policy, our
government needs to hear the facts from the most qualified experts,
regardless of their political affiliation.
This common sense principle is widely accepted in the scientific
community. It has been
[[Page H5138]]
endorsed by the National Academy of Sciences, the American Academy for
the Advancement of Science, and numerous other scientific
organizations.
This amendment simply adopts this principle into policy. It would
prohibit funding for any committee where members are chosen on the
basis of political affiliation, unless required by law.
Unfortunately, the current Administration has a terrible track record
on this issue. It has repeatedly applied political litmus tests in
making appointments to advisory committees.
A nationally recognized expert on substance abuse was asked if he had
voted for President Bush. After he answered honestly, he was not
appointed.
An expert in marine ecology was asked if she supported the
President's economic and foreign policy agenda. After she told the
truth, she was immediately dropped from consideration.
A Nobel Prize winner was nominated for an important NIH panel on
international health. According to a senior NIH official, he was not
picked because he had ``signed too many full page letters in the
Times.''
The Administration's use of political litmus tests has generated
outrage in the scientific community.
The editor of the journal Science has stated, ``I don't think any
administration has penetrated so deeply into the advisory committee
structure as this one, and I think it matters. . . . If you start
picking people by their ideology instead of their scientific
credentials, you are inevitably reducing the quality of the advisory
group.''
These actions are unacceptable. Expert advisory panels should be
filled with scientific experts, not party loyalists. This is the only
way our government will have the information it needs to make the best
policies on behalf of the American people.
Our country's premier scientific organizations have affirmed the core
principle that scientific advice should be provided by the best
scientists. I urge my colleagues to endorse this principle and support
this amendment.
Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Markey-
Emanuel amendment which is part of the en bloc amendment proposed by
Chairman Regula. Our amendment is simple and straightforward. It
requires patients to be notified if their medical records contained in
the new national health information network are lost, stolen or used
for unauthorized purposes.
While a national health information network could provide significant
benefits for the entire medical community, that network must come with
guaranteed privacy protections. As the revelations by MasterCard and
Visa that the personal information of as many as 40 million customers
was compromised demonstrates, identity theft has become an epidemic.
A national health information network without strong privacy
protections would undermine all of its other benefits. Without privacy
protections, patients won't have confidence that their medical records
will be kept confidential, which is essential to quality health care.
In the 108th Congress, I introduced legislation to protect credit
consumers' sensitive medical information. That bipartisan legislation
was signed into law last year. By ``blacking out'' health information,
we created a zone of privacy and gave consumers the confidence that
their medical records are being protected. We should do the same thing
here.
Mr. Chairman, major data security breaches are occurring on a daily
basis and identity theft is the fastest-growing white collar crime in
the country. It's essential that we get this right at the beginning by
making strong privacy protections a part of this health information
network.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Manager's
amendment.
The Manager's amendment includes an amendment that I filed to offer
to the bill yesterday, which would address an important privacy
protection issue.
Mr. Chairman, the recent wave of massive data thefts has swept up the
precious, private information of millions and millions of Americans.
Everyday seems to bring new examples of gaping holes in databases
being exploited by criminals: ChoicePoint, Lexis-Nexis, and CardSystems
Solutions.
These are just 3 recent examples of huge heists of personal
information.
And when Americans' financial records are drained from databases,
does Federal law require the victims to be notified? No!
When Americans' Social Security numbers are siphoned from databases
by criminals, does Federal law require that the victims are at least
notified? No!
And, most importantly, when Americans' most private health
information is plundered from databases, does Federal law require the
victims to be notified? Shockingly, Unbelievably--No!
Mr. Chairman, the bill before us today provides $75 million to
support the creation of a new network of databases containing the
health records of millions of Americans across the country. This new
health information network will be, in effect, the ``Mother of All
Databases.'' This network, when it is completed, will provide
unprecedented access to the most private, personal health records of
tens of millions of Americans.
The nationwide network holds tremendous promise. But it also holds
enormous peril for the privacy of Americans' medical records. That's
because we know that databases currently maintained by the Federal
government are vulnerable to infiltration by the data thieves.
How do we know this?
In February 2005, President Bush's Information Technology Advisory
Committee reported that:
The information technology infrastructure of the United
States . . . is highly vulnerable to terrorist and criminal
attacks and [T]he Federal Government needs to fundamentally
improve its approach to cyber security.
In May 2005, GAO reported that:
[T]he Federal Government is limited in its ability to
identify and respond to emerging cybersecurity threats,
including sophisticated and coordinated attacks that target
multiple federal entities.
Even with the most sophisticated and modern cybersecurity, we have
learned that reels of data can be lost off the back of a truck.
While there is much we must and should do to minimize that loss of
data, it is simply unforgivable to hide a known breach from the
individuals whose personal data has fallen into unauthorized hands.
An individual can sometimes take action to protect herself while
authorities try to puzzle out what happened to cause a breach. At least
they should know when they are at risk.
A national health information network could provide significant
benefits for patients, physicians, hospitals, and other health
providers. But to realize these benefits, this new network must have
strong privacy safeguards.
My amendment, which is now part of the Manager's amendment, would
simply require that patients whose health information is maintained by
the Department of Health and Human Services as part of this new health
records database must be notified if their records are lost, stolen or
used for an unauthorized purpose.
Our amendment would apply to the tens of millions of Medicare and
Medicaid beneficiaries whose personally identifiable health information
is maintained by the Federal Government.
As the Department begins to develop the standards for this enormous
database, privacy of patients must be a priority.
As many of us know, people can be more concerned about their medical
information being public than their financial information.
There are things in medical records that people don't even tell
members of their own families.
We are at the dawn of the development of this new database. Now is
the time to ensure that privacy is paramount.
Our amendment will ensure that patients victimized when their health
information in the database is stolen or misused are simply notified so
they can take the necessary steps to protect themselves.
In fact, the following 13 states already have enacted similar
notification requirements for patients whose personal information has
been stolen from electronic databases: Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida,
Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, North
Dakota, Texas and Washington.
This is a vital, common-sense amendment, and I am pleased that it has
been incorporated into the Manager's amendment. I urge its adoption.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the scientific peer
review process at the National Institutes of Health and in opposition
to the Neugebauer Amendment.
For the third year in a row, the House is considering an attempt to
score cheap political points at the expense of NIH research. This
year's targets are two grants from the National Institutes of Mental
Health.
Both of these grants passed NIH's rigorous peer review process. This
process involves two stages of review. In the first, scientists from
leading institutions around the country make independent evaluations of
each proposal. In the second stage, advisory councils with broad
representation set priorities and approve the studies.
Our system of peer review is the envy of the world, and for good
reason: It is based on science, and it is immune from political
interference.
Congress should be proud of the NIH and what it has accomplished.
Instead, this amendment strikes at the heart of scientific integrity at
the agency.
Supporters will say that the amendment is just about two grants. In
their view, apparently, NIH should not be funding research in animal
[[Page H5139]]
models that can expand our understanding of brain disorders . . . or
research on psychological distress and marriage that can reduce
domestic violence.
Just looking at the two grants, I am far from persuaded. Marriage is
a key institution in our society, and we should use science to
understand how it can be strengthened. Research in animal models has
provided important insights into brain disorders. I fail to see any
justification in eliminating the funding these grants.
More fundamentally, it is inappropriate for us to be debating the
merit of these grants in the U.S. House of Representatives. This is not
a grant review panel. We are not scientific experts. Our country has
succeeded by leaving scientific judgments to scientists, and we should
continue to do so.
Our Nation's research community is watching this House today.
Universities and researchers want to know if they can do their jobs
without wondering whether Congress will step in at the last moment to
slander their research and sabotage their careers.
The Administration is also opposed to this amendment. The Director of
the National Institutes of Health Dr. Elias Zerhouni stated yesterday:
Defunding meritorious grants on the floor of Congress is
unjustified scientific censorship. It undermines the
historical strength of American science, which is based on
our world renowned, apolitical, and transparent peer review
process.
I hope these words give this House pause. Let us not vote for
scientific censorship. Let us not undermine the historical strength of
American science.
To paraphrase the editors of the New England Journal of Medicine, let
us not rub the gem of worldwide biomedical research in political dirt.
I urge you to join me in rejecting this ill-advised amendment.
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, my amendment will prohibit the National
Institute of Mental Health from further funding two grants whose
research falls outside the mission set by NIMH. The amendment would not
reduce overall research funding. Rather, it would focus the funding
toward serious mental health issues.
According to NIMH, its goal is to ``reduce the burden of mental
illness and behavioral disorders'' and prevent ``disabling conditions
that affect millions of Americans.''
This is a noble goal. Serious mental health diseases such as autism
and Alzheimers do affect the lives of many Americans. And finding cures
and treatments for these debilitating diseases is something we all hope
for.
This is why I was curious when I saw that two NIMH grants have been
going on for years that do not focus on our most pressing mental health
issues.
For nearly 15 years, more than $1.5 million has been awarded to study
``Perceptual Bases of Visual Concepts.'' According to NIMH, this study
trains pigeons to distinguish between natural and man made objects.
Now on its fifth year, a second study has spent hundreds of thousands
of taxpayer dollars to determine how the self-esteem of newlyweds
affects their marriage. Now, I am a fan of marriage. In fact, I have
actively participated in one for 35 years. But what does this research
contribute to the effort to find better treatment, or even a cure, for
Alzheimers or autism or Schizophrenia? Whatever scientific merits these
research projects may have, they are not directed at serious mental
health disorders.
Sending millions of dollars to research that falls outside the
mission of NIMH is problematic enough. However, this problem is
compounded when you look at the list of grants that have been rejected
over the same time period. If you look at the list, you will find grant
after grant which specifically targets serious mental health diseases,
such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.
According to a 2003 study done by a group of mental health
professionals and entitled, ``A Federal Failure in Psychiatric
Research,'' only 1 out of every 17, 2002 research grants is reasonably
likely to improve the treatment and quality of life for individuals
presently affected by serious mental health illness.
Some here today may feel hesitant about ending these grants. But,
ladies and gentleman, as members of Congress, we must become better
stewards of taxpayer dollars.
I urge my colleagues to support research on serious mental health
issues by supporting the Neugebauer amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendments en bloc offered by
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula).
The amendments en bloc were agreed to.
Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Hayworth
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 14 offered by Mr. Hayworth:
At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used by the National Labor Relations Board to exert
jurisdiction over any organization or enterprise pursuant to
the standard adopted by the National Labor Relations Board in
San Manuel Indian Bingo and Casino and Hotel Employees &
Restaurant Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC and
Communication Workers of America, AFL-CIO, CLC, Party in
Interest, and State of Connecticut, Intervenor, 341 NLRB No.
138 (May 28, 2004).
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 23, 2005,
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, in May 2004, the National Labor Relations Board
overturned 30 years of its own precedent and ruled that it has
jurisdiction over tribal government enterprises located on tribes' own
sovereign lands. Where tribal law has governed relations between tribes
and their employees, the NLRB seeks to replace that law with its
authority in this area. This decision is a frontal assault on tribal
sovereign rights.
The National Labor Relations Act expressly exempts States, cities,
and local governments from its coverage; and the NLRB has ruled that
territorial governments, such as Puerto Rico and Guam, are also exempt
from NLRB jurisdiction. But the NLRB incorrectly decided that it should
exercise its jurisdiction over tribal governments on their own lands.
If this unfair decision stands, the only governments that will be
subject to NLRB jurisdiction will be tribal governments.
The NLRB misunderstands that tribal governments, like State
governments, rely upon government-owned enterprises to generate
revenues to support governmental purposes such as reservation, law
enforcement and fire services, and programs for the health, education,
and welfare benefit of tribal members. Consistent with the policy
behind the NLRB exemptions for governments, private parties such as
labor unions should not be able to hold government-owned enterprises
hostage when disagreements arise.
Ironically, the NLRB specifically ruled against the San Manuel Band
of Mission Indians, a tribe based in Southern California that has
enacted into its tribal law a tribal labor relations ordinance with
greater labor union rights than the National Labor Relations Act.
{time} 1345
In fact, the tribe has a collective bargaining agreement with the
Communication Workers of America. The heavy-handed activist NLRB
overlaid an incompatible legal regime where a tribal one, agreed to on
a government-to-government basis with the State of California, was in
place and was working.
Now, San Manuel and other tribes have conflicting laws and great
uncertainty about which one applies.
Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, make no mistake, sovereignty cannot be
situational. To reverse 30 years of policy by bureaucratic fiat is
wrong. Adopt the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve balance of my time.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might consume. Mr.
Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. Last year, Members
from both sides of the aisle voted down a similar amendment. I had
hoped that in a year's time the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth)
and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) would work together to
address this issue in the committee of jurisdiction. But that did not
occur.
The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and I have had discussions on
scheduling hearings in the committee of jurisdiction, the Committee on
Education and the Workforce. During my 40 years of public service, I
have established a strong record for defending the sovereign rights of
Indian tribes. I have often led the fight to defeat legislative riders
on appropriation bills because of my confidence in the regular
procedures guiding us through the legislative process.
[[Page H5140]]
I am committed to finding a permanent solution to this issue, but the
appropriations process is not the way to solve this issue. I urge my
colleagues to vote no on the Hayworth amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, the bottom line here is not process or legislative
jurisdiction. Until Congress can consider a permanent solution to this
problem, this amendment simply calls for a temporary time-out to allow
us to work together for a more substantive solution, to avoid
additional confusion among the tribes.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, in politics there are show
horses and there are work horses. This process, instead of seeking a
solution, only sought headlines. We had an opportunity to make real
progress and address the concerns of these tribes.
Instead of addressing this issue in a substantive manner in
committee, we are once again addressing it in a political way on the
floor of the House simply for political gain.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, quoting the words of my friend, the gentleman from
Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy) to Indian Country Today Newspaper, he said
he would push for a compromise bill through Congress that would support
on-reservation tribal sovereignty against the jurisdiction of the
National Labor Relations Board, while accepting the board's role as
arbiter of labor-employee disputes and union organizing on off-
reservation tribally owned business.
The only workable bill is an authorizing bill, H.R. 16. As I have
pointed out, we come here with this recourse because of uncertainty and
because of bureaucratic fiat. Adopt this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Nevada (Ms. Berkley).
Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the
Hayworth amendment. Tribal Nations have established commercial gaming
enterprises because of the economic boom it brings to their community.
My hometown of Las Vegas looked to gaming many years ago, and now it
has the one of the most vibrant economies in the country.
One of the keys to Las Vegas' success has been a strong relationship
between labor and management. Because of this relationship, workers
have good-paying jobs and benefits and safe working conditions, and can
take care of their families. We should give the workers at the tribal
gaming facilities the same chance.
Last year the National Labor Relations Board correctly ruled that it
had jurisdiction over on-reservation commercial tribal enterprises such
as casinos.
Make no mistake about it, Indian gaming is a big business. And the
people working in Indian gaming on the reservations have the right and
are entitled to the protections of the NLRB. I encourage the Indian
tribes and the tribal workers and the labor unions to work together to
protect workers like they have done in Las Vegas. I urge my colleagues
to vote against this ridiculous amendment.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, we would do well to heed the marketing
advice, What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas. What happens on tribal
lands with their sovereignty should likewise be governed by the
sovereign governments there. Sovereignty is not situational.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller) the ranking member of the Education and
Workforce Committee.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman
for yielding me time. And first and foremost, we must understand that
this amendment that is being offered has no impact on this process.
These tribes will not know whether or not they are violating the law or
not violating the law. This amendment does nothing for that.
The law as is currently interpreted continues to go forward. What
this amendment does is suggest that somehow that those workers on a
reservation, working in a casino, who are not enrolled members of that
tribe have no rights; have no rights. In California they do, under a
compromise that was worked out.
Last year we were working out a compromise for the first time ever.
We had labor and the union and tribes sit down together. They left the
room because this amendment was offered last year, and nobody has come
back because this amendment continues to be dangled as somehow it is
the answer to the concerns that they have.
This amendment does not answer a single concern. It just kicks the
can down the road, and people are still in limbo if they are seeking to
work out an arrangement for those tribal lands and for labor relations
on those tribal lands. That has not happened.
We were engaged in those historic conversations when the gentleman
offered this amendment last year. And nobody has come back to the table
since then.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
My friend from California proves my point. He admits that in a
government-to-government relationship, as the San Manuel Band has done
already, they actually put together an agreement with greater union
rights than the NLRA. That is precisely the point. Tribes should have
the sovereign ability to decide that if they want to bring in those
expansion of rights, yes. But it should be their decision.
Sovereignty is not situational, and any attempt to paint this
otherwise is wrong. That is why the amendment should be passed.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I want to explain to the House why it is that I
vigorously oppose this amendment. I am the only Member of the Chamber
who was exposed to a recall effort because of my support for tribal
sovereignty. Even though the Constitution of the United States does not
provide for such a recall, our State constitution thought it did. And
so I had to endure an effort in recall because of my fierce support for
tribal sovereignty.
But having said that, I want to say that the gentleman's amendment
goes far too far in that regard. Now I will tell you why.
In my State, we had an experience in which one of the tribes
contracted out to a private party to run their casino. That private
party took advantage of the fact that the compact that the Governor set
up with the tribe was defective. And under that defect, they made quite
clear to female employees of the casino that it was their obligation,
in blunt language, to either put out or get out.
Now, we all know what that means. And what the gentleman's amendment
means under those circumstances is that when you remove the protection
of the National Labor Relations Act, you subject individuals with no
power at all to that kind of treatment by shysters and bums.
Now, as far as I am concerned, I heard a whole lot about family
values from that side of the aisle. You think this amendment represents
family values in that situation? Give me a break. It does not.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has
exactly made the point. These casinos now hire thousands of workers who
are nonresidents of the reservation, who are not enrolled members of
the tribe. If the tribe chooses not to grant them any rights, then they
have no rights.
We lecture countries all over the world that you cannot do this to
workers, that you have to have minimum standards. But right here in the
middle of the United States, under this amendment, a tribe can grant to
their workers no rights. That is just untenable.
[[Page H5141]]
And we understand how strongly held sovereignty is. It is fundamental
and basic to these tribes. We also understand how fundamental and basic
the right to organize and the freedom of association is to the workers.
We have been trying to work that out. This amendment is not helpful in
working that out.
But the gentleman is exactly right. You can end up with thousands of
American workers having no rights. This is like the situation you had
in the northern Mariana Islands, where you had people who could not get
a minimum wage, who could not get protection of immigration laws. This
is re-creating this on these lands.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I simply want to say
institutions, no matter what they are, whether they are tribe or any
other institution, they have a capacity to violate human rights. And
with the gentleman's amendment, you will be opening a loophole in the
law as big as a 65-foot truck. This amendment is a terrible amendment.
It ought to be buried in a box and we ought to pretend it never was
presented.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 45 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, after the rhetorical display, I know my friends did not
mean to insinuate that tribes are composed of bums and scoundrels. Yet,
what we are hearing here is that somehow the very worst in human nature
would come out.
Mr. OBEY. But the contractors are bums.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, this is my time, is it not?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin will suspend. The
gentleman from Arizona controls the time.
Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank the chairman. We are making the point that we
are dealing with sovereignty. Yes, this is an imperfect world. But I
scarcely imagine that a gross violation of human rights will transpire
when we live up to Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which
says: The Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with
foreign nations, and among the several States, States, and with the
Indian tribes.
Tribes have sovereign immunity. They have sovereignty. It is not
situational, no matter what some leaders in the AFL-CIO may say.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kildee) a well-known champion for Native
American rights. We all have Native Americans in our States, and we
have gaming.
But, Mr. Chairman, sovereignty is not inconsistent with decency and
humanity and human rights. Sovereignty is not inconsistent with
protecting underage workers and juveniles who are working. Sovereignty
is not inconsistent with making sure that workers have a quality of
life. And sovereignty is not inconsistent with international treaties
which ensure that that happens in nations around the world.
This is a bad promise on a bad premise. And what we need to do is to
work with the committees of jurisdiction and solve the problem, not
eliminate the rights. I would hope that my colleague would join me on
finding an amendment to stop the abuse of lobbyists who take money from
Native Americans and Indian tribes and reservations and not do a darn
thing with it.
I am offended by that. I will join the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Hayworth) anytime he wants to come to the floor to get rid of lobbyists
who take money from unsuspecting Native Americans and their businesses.
That should be a question of criminal violation, but this one is one
that can be solved with good law and good negotiations. I ask my
colleagues to vote ``no.''
{time} 1400
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry. During
the course of my previous presentation, was the extra-curricular
activity outburst included in my time when others sought control of the
microphone?
The CHAIRMAN. No, it was not.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) has 45
seconds remaining. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) has 30
seconds remaining.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, do I have the right to close?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) has the right
to close.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I have been involved in defending Indian sovereignty
for 40 years when I began my tenure in the Michigan legislature. And I
will never abdicate my responsibility on that.
I think it is extremely important that this Congress on an issue so
delicate and so important to two groups for whom we have great
affection, be done in the appropriate committee, the committee of
jurisdiction. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and I have
discussed having hearings in that committee.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, the choice is simple, either you support the premises
of sovereignty as reflected in article I, section 8 of the Constitution
or you equivocate or you try to give the National Labor Relations Board
preeminence over the Constitution of the United States. I do not
believe that sovereignty is situational. This is a mechanism where we
can actually correct the wrong and put in place what had stood 30 years
previously respecting sovereignty.
Vote for the amendment.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am a strong supporter of tribal
sovereignty but rise in reluctant opposition to this amendment because
it has not been subject to full debate in committee or the House.
I would like to articulate the importance of tribal sovereignty.
Because Indian tribes are sovereign governments, the U.S. Government
has long read the Commerce Clause and the 11th Amendment as upholding
the sovereign immunity of tribes. Congress's intent in preserving
sovereignty has been recognized even recently; in 1991, in Oklahoma Tax
Common v. Potawatomi Tribe, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the long-
standing existence and importance of tribal sovereignty:
In light of this Court's reaffirmation, in a number of
cases, of its longstanding doctrine of tribal sovereign
immunity, and Congress' consistent reiteration of its
approval of the doctrine in order to promote Indian self-
government, self-sufficiency, and economic development, the
Court is not disposed to modify or abandon the doctrine [of
sovereign immunity].
Tribal sovereignty is and should remain one of the fundamental
principles of the United States, and we should not define its
parameters in a ten minute debate.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth)
will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Van Hollen
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Van Hollen:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to administer or pay any special allowance under
section 438(b)(2)(B) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20
U.S.C. 1087-1(b)(2)(B)) with respect to--
(1) any loan made or purchased after the date of enactment
of this Act;
(2) any loan that had not qualified before such date of
enactment for receipt of a special allowance payment
determined under section 438(b)(2)(B) of the Higher Education
Act of 1965; or
(3) any loan made or purchased before such date of
enactment with funds described in the first or second
sentence of section 438(b)(2)(B)(i) of such Act if--
(A) the obligation described in the first such sentence
has, after such date of enactment, matured, or been retired
or defeased; or
[[Page H5142]]
(B) the maturity date or the date of retirement of the
obligation described in the first such sentence has, after
such date of enactment, been extended.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 23, 2005,
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is designed to stop what is an ongoing
scam in the college student loan program whereby a small handful of
lenders are receiving a guaranteed 9.5 government-paid return on
certain student loans. As a result of this 9.5 percent loan scheme, the
Government Accountability Office has found that certain lenders are
pocketing billions of dollars in taxpayer money that would otherwise go
to students.
The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller), and I have offered legislation to
address this issue, but we should address this issue right here on the
floor and right now.
We have heard a lot of people coming to the floor saying that we need
more funds for higher education; we need more money for Pell grants; we
need to provide more opportunities for students to make sure college is
affordable. That is what this is about.
If we adopt this amendment, we will close the loophole and we will
free up billions of dollars that can go to the purposes we all want
them to go to, which is to provide greater opportunities for students
to go to college.
The Department of Education has estimated that closing the loophole
will save over $7 billion. Other estimates take the number even higher.
So I urge this House to adopt this amendment and provide greater
opportunities for our students to go to college.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, last year Congress took action to shut down these
excess subsidies that are paid to lenders through the 9.5 percent floor
loans. That led to the Taxpayer-Teacher Protection Act, which was
crafted to immediately halt the practice while ensuring that this issue
would ultimately and permanently be addressed in the Higher Education
Reauthorization Act.
Now that bill, the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, is to
be before the Committee on Education and the Workforce immediately upon
the return of Congress from the July 4 district work period. And we do
expect that we will look at this in a comprehensive way.
And while I share some of the concerns of my colleague from Maryland
(Mr. Van Hollen), we have got to be very careful as to how we proceed
in this area. There are a lot of nonprofit lenders across the country
who were the recipients of these 9.5 percent loans; and if we were to
adopt the gentleman's amendment, we could cause many of these nonprofit
students lenders to be put out of business. And I think the gentleman
realizes that we have been going through a very methodical process of
trying to make some determination about how to shut these loans down
permanently and how to deal with the issue of recycling. I wish it was
as clean and easy as saying, we are just not going to do it any more.
But as I have looked at this and I think others have looked at it, it
is just not that easy. But as the committee deals with the Higher
Education Reauthorization next month in both the subcommittee and full
subcommittee, there is no question that this issue will be dealt with
in its entirety.
With that, I would ask my colleagues to oppose the gentleman's
amendment. I would really like to ask him to withdraw the amendment and
allow the regular process, the regular order, to occur in the
committee.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, the chairman of the Committee
Education and the Workforce, for those remarks; but the action the
Congress took last year was too limited. First of all, it only lasted a
year so we could come back this year to fix the problem; but the other
part of the problem was it left a big part of the loophole still in
place, what is called ``recycling,'' so that the lenders can continue
to receive this windfall of 9.5 percent guarantee on those loans.
This amendment is prospective only. It does not look back; it only
looks to the future. Nobody who has been promised certain returns on
their loans will lose the promises they have been made. But what it
prevents from happening is future recycling, future abuse in this
program. So I urge adoption of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to close.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) has 3
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) has 3 minutes
remaining.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Does the chairman of the committee have the right to
close?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), the
amendment's sponsor, has the right to close.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) seeks to, as he says,
prospectively end the practice of recycling new loans through these 9.5
percent bonds that are out there. But here is the problem: some of
these nonprofits student loan lenders around the country have these
bonds in place for the next 5, 10, some even 15, years. And if we were
to end the practice of recycling new loans through there, we would put
those nonprofit lenders literally out of business because those bonds
were sold to the public under this 9.5 percent scheme.
Now, I am as disgusted by this scheme as the gentleman from Maryland
is, I can tell you; and why this practice went on for as long as it has
is really very troubling to me. But having said that, for nonprofit
lenders who had gone out and secured bonds with the backing of these
9.5 percent interest rate loans, I think that with the adoption of this
amendment we could cause great problems with many of the lenders that
are all across the country that help fund student loans for many needy
students.
So I would ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment. This is a very
dangerous step that could affect the ability of millions of American
students to get a student loan to allow them to go to a post-secondary
institution. And, secondly, the committee is in fact going to deal with
this. The gentleman from Maryland is well aware that the committee is
going to deal with this as we reauthorize the Higher Education Act.
Again, I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I have a very different view of this amendment and what
it will do, obviously, than the chairman of the Committee on Education
and the Workforce.
In fact, what this will do is free up additional funds that can be
used to make sure more students have the opportunity to go to college,
because what is happening right now through this recycling scheme is
that the lenders, the makers of the loan, are getting a 9.5 percent
essentially guaranteed payment when we could in fact be using those
monies instead to provide lower-cost loans to more students and to
provide Pell grants.
This will give the Subcommittee on Education of the Committee on
Education and the Workforce the opportunity to provide more funds to do
what they have been saying all afternoon that they want to do.
The fact of the matter is this applies prospectively. This is not
going to have a negative impact on these non-profit lenders. If you
already have one of those loans out there, if you are already getting
the sweetheart deal of 9.5 percent, you are still going to get that
return. But what this would prohibit
[[Page H5143]]
you from doing is that when you get that income from the students and
the government, all those additional revenues, you cannot go out and do
it again. You cannot keep this perpetual-motion machine going.
According to some estimates, if we do not plug this hole, we will
cost the taxpayers $13 billion, if we let it go on indefinitely. Monies
that could be spent, again, could make sure that more students have the
opportunity to go to college.
I know that we will be dealing with it in the Committee on Education
and the Workforce; but in the budget that passed this House, we did not
deal with this issue. The budget does not envision closing the
recycling loophole. The President 2 years ago submitted a budget that
did envision closing the recycling loophole, but a bunch of lenders
with interest in this, a lot of lenders who are making a ton of money
obviously built up the pressure and it was heard. As a result, the
budget does not close the loophole fully. Let us close the loophole
fully.
Let me say in closing, Mr. Chairman, the issue of the 9.5 percent
loans is costing the American taxpayer and the American students
billions of dollars a year. The General Accountability Office has
looked into this issue. They have done an investigation. They have
determined the Department of Education had the authority to shut this
down. The Department of Education has not used that authority. Congress
must use its authority, and it should do it now.
I cannot think of any better place to deal with this issue than in
the bill that provides funding for higher education. Because if we
adopt this amendment, if the Congress adopts this amendment, it will
immediately free up additional resources that we can spend as a Nation
on providing students with more loans and providing more grants. So as
a result of this amendment, more students will have the opportunity to
go to college. I urge its adoption.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van
Hollen) will be postponed.
Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. Hayworth
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 15 offered by Mr. Hayworth:
At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the
following new section:
Sec. ___. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be
used by the Commissioner of Social Security or the Social
Security Administration to pay the compensation of employees
of the Social Security Administration to administer Social
Security benefit payments under a totalization agreement with
Mexico which would not otherwise be payable but for such
agreement.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 23, 2005,
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. We have been
working to introduce new language that I believe both sides have agreed
to on this particular amendment, and my inquiry is, do I have to offer
an amendment to the amendment?
I do not. I stand corrected. So we do have the new language.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman seek to modify his amendment by
unanimous consent?
Mr. HAYWORTH. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
Modification to Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. Hayworth
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the
amendment be modified.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
The Clerk read as follows:
Modification to amendment offered by Mr. Hayworth:
Line 6, strike ``would not otherwise be payable but for
such agreement'' and insert ``are inconsistent with Federal
law.''
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the modification offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth)?
There was no objection.
The text of the amendment, as modified, is as follows:
At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the
following new section:
Sec. ___. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be
used by the Commissioner of Social Security or the Social
Security Administration to pay the compensation of employees
of the Social Security Administration to administer Social
Security benefit payments under a totalization agreement with
Mexico which are inconsistent with federal law.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, we are prepared to accept the amendment, as
modified.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I will not take the full 5 minutes. I will simply say
to both the majority and minority staff of the Committee on
Appropriations and to Members on this side, the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Gingrey), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode), the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Culberson), the gentleman from California (Mr.
Rohrabacher), the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan), who were all
prepared to speak on this amendment, we thank them for their
involvement.
This revised amendment ensures that a proposed Social Security
totalization amendment or agreement with Mexico now fully subscribes to
what has been signed into law, H.R. 743, the Social Security Protection
Act. And this ensures that any proposed totalization agreement would
not have funds going to anyone from our neighbor to the south employed
here illegally.
{time} 1415
I thank both sides for their cooperation on this, and though we may
have sincere differences in the challenges of the day, I do appreciate
everyone's constructive attitude on this amendment. It shows the
American people that, yes, we can get things done.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield
to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished
gentleman for yielding. I hope we can find an opportunity to find
common agreement.
Let me just say that my colleagues need to understand that the
administration believes in this structured agreement, a totalization
agreement, because they understand that when Americans are overseas
working and getting benefits, that they would like those Americans to
ensure that their benefits go with them. That is the same relationship
we should have with Mexico, that when workers are here, their benefits
gained here should follow them to Mexico.
I would oppose any language that would deny that right. I think the
question of whether or not they are documented or undocumented, the
administration needs to make that determination. I do not know if my
colleagues are going to thwart the administration's desire to find some
common ground on immigration.
If this language says that it is consistent with Federal law, then I
hope that this Congress will work with the administration so that we
will not be embarrassed internationally by denying nationals of another
country their well-gained rights or benefits that they have gained
working. We would not want that to happen to us.
I will listen further to the debate. I raise a concern that they are
denying those who are working their well-earned benefits. One thing we
can stand for is you deserve your pension rights, you deserve your
Social Security rights, you deserve your uninsurance rights, your
health care rights, and it should not be taken away from you.
Nevertheless, I hope my friends on the other side do not do that. If
the
[[Page H5144]]
language does not do that, I would say to my colleagues that if this is
a good resolution, we certainly will join in with it.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me simply say that,
like the gentleman from Ohio, I see no problem with accepting the
amendment on this side because, as I read it, it does not do nothing to
nobody for anybody or about anybody. And so with that, I am happy to
accept the amendment.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Again, I thank the gentleman. I may have a little different
interpretation and assessment of what the amendment does, but I am
pleased to see we could work this out, and we will enforce existing
law.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak against
this amendment which seeks to restrict illegal aliens access to the
U.S. Mexican Social Security Totalization agreement. I cannot support
this agreement, not for its intent, but because of the consequences of
enforcing it. I agree with Mr. Hayworth that immigration is an issue
that must be addressed. However, the remedy that this amendment creates
would lead to more harm then good and violates a fundamental aspect of
American ideals.
This amendment seeks to ensure that benefits can't be paid under the
U.S. Mexico Totalization agreement for work inconsistent with federal
law. Undocumented aliens working within the United States would meet
the criteria of work inconsistent with federal law and therefore would
be denied benefits. This method of dealing with our nation's
immigration problem is not the answer. Social Security is a contract:
you put money in, you get money out. Denying undocumented aliens the
money that they put into social security is to violate what is at the
very center of Americn ideals. Weare a country that values hard work.
You get what you give. Refusing to grant Social Security benefits to
undocumented aliens who have spent their entire lives working and
contributing to the system is a blatant violation of contract law.
Our nation faces many challenges on the issue of immigration. Our
Immigration system is far from perfect. We have Filipinos waiting 18
years just to have a person look over their application. We have
families who are forced to wait years upon years to be reunited with
their brethren. We need comprehensive reform. This amendment would
denigrate the hard work of thousands of workers who have spent their
lives working hard in this great nation. If an undocumented alien puts
a dollar into the social security system this amendment would rob him
of that dollar.
Is this the GOP's plan to solve the social security conundrum; to rob
undocumented aliens of their social security benefits. To refuse to put
more boarder guards on our frontiers, only to rob those who are
attempting to create a better life for themselves. This is not
immigration reform.
Our immigration situation is a problem that needs to be solved. I
will be the first to admit that. But reforms such as this amendment are
not the correct method to achieve that goal. We need comprehensive
immigration reform.
I can not support this amendment because I feel it unduly robs
undocumented aliens of their hard earned wages. This amendment will not
solve our nation's immigration problems. It only serves to violate
simple contract theory. I believe in an American in which you get what
you put in. This amendment contradicts that belief and therefore I must
oppose it.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member seek the time in opposition?
The question is on the amendment, as modified, offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield
to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
important time, and we have all observed with awe the marvelous photos
of construction workers sitting on I-beams swinging high above New York
City as we admire their bravery, their daring and their skill. These
tradespeople built America, and I cannot think of a citizen in our
country that does not respect their prowess.
Well, the worst construction accident in Federal transportation
history in the city of Toledo took place on February 16 last year,
effecting serious loss of life and injuries among these modern soldiers
of the sky.
Crushed to death on the job were Mike Phillips, age 42; Arden Clark,
age 47; Mike Moreau, age 30; and Robert Lipinski, Junior, age 44. There
were injuries sustained by many other workers.
Joe Blaze, the president of the Local Ironworkers observed: ``What
happened will affect us for generations.'' The local paper reported,
the Toledo Blade, ``Workers told investigators the crane's rear legs
were held up with 14 inches of shims and no anchors, while each front
leg had shims and only one of two anchors.'' These workers were crushed
to death by a several-million-ton crane falling on them.
I tried at the full committee level to place simple report language
in this bill, merely asking the Department of Labor's Occupational
Health and Safety Administration to gather all records relating to
inspections, or the lack thereof, on this job and to also provide any
communications that have occurred with the U.S. Justice Department
related to this accident. This was denied to me by the Republican
majority.
I, along with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens), the ranking
member of the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, were prepared to
offer an amendment right here today to ask the Department of Labor to
assist our county prosecutor in the investigation of this tragedy. This
amendment is also being denied to me on a technicality rather than
being discussed on its merits.
OSHA's Midwest office had ruled there was willful negligence on this
job, and for reasons not completely understood, they have changed that
ruling to unclassified. So as the individual court cases move forth
locally, somehow civil litigation will be affected by that change in
words.
Now, guess how much OSHA is able to fine the company and others
responsible for this serious loss of life? $280,000. That is $70,000
for each lost life, and this money goes to the U.S. Treasury, not even
to the victims' families.
Well, there should be more than civil damages and OSHA's fines paid
to these families. Our chief of police has bluntly stated these men
were murdered. There is criminal wrongdoing here.
My question is: Where was OSHA? Where was the State of Ohio on this,
the largest Federal transportation project in Ohio history? Why is this
Congress now denying me the ability to get a vote on this amendment
which merely asks the Department of Labor to engage with our county
prosecutor to investigate the real causes of those deaths?
We have been now told OSHA has not developed a standard or
promulgated a rule stating that foreign manufactured cranes, like this
one, must equal or exceed U.S. safety standards. Recommendations for
such a standard were made nearly a year ago, but it has not been acted
upon. Why not? Why has this Congress not demanded and implemented as
soon as possible these regs, or made meeting U.S. standards a condition
of eligibility for Federal funding? There is a serious abdication of
responsibility by the U.S. Department of Labor because this Congress
has not held them to a higher standard.
These men died, in my view, because of the apparent willful
negligence of the U.S. Department of Labor and OSHA and their allies
here in the Congress who have been cutting back on worker safety laws
and who have abdicated their responsibility to conduct aggressive
oversight.
Today, it is likely that my amendment would have been ruled out of
order, as my simple effort to get on the record information from the
Department of Labor was denied to me as a Member of Congress, because
the full committee would not even allow report language, a most unusual
practice.
Instead, today, I am left with a personal appeal to the Secretary of
Labor to use her existing authority to provide assistance to the Lucas
County prosecutor for the full prosecution of this case, wherever it
may lead, and I ask that we all push for the swift implementation of
construction crane safety standards so that no other family or
community need endure the great tragedy that has befallen us in
northwest Ohio on the largest Federal transportation project in our
State's history.
I want to thank the ranking member for yielding me this time and to
state also I will place in the Record at this point as part of my
remarks today a
[[Page H5145]]
letter we are sending to U.S. Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, June 24, 2005.
Hon. Elaine L. Chao,
Secretary, Department of Labor,
Washington, DC.
Dear Secretary Chao: The City of Toledo's police department
and the Lucas County (Ohio) Prosecutor's office are
attempting to carry out an exhaustive investigation into
whether criminal charges should be filed regarding safety
violations resulting in the deaths of four ironworkers on
construction of the I-280 Maumee River Crossing in Toledo,
Ohio. Madame Secretary, I ask that you use the authority you
have to assist the Lucas County Prosecutor's office in their
investigation. You have been provided the general authority
to use the services of any State or political subdivision
with reimbursement under section 7 (c) of the OSH Act.
On February 16, 2004 our community was shocked by tragedy,
when a two million-pound construction crane collapsed at the
I-280 Maumee River Crossing construction site in Toledo,
Ohio. The collapse resulted in the deaths of four
Ironworkers. It is with great sadness and a deep sense of
responsibility that I bring to your attention further details
surrounding this accident and possible criminal wrongdoing by
the firm responsible for the bridge's construction.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
has fined the project's general contractor, Fru-Con, $280,000
for the incident. OSHA has said that Fru-Con committed
``willful'' safety violations prior to the crane's collapse.
OSHA has said that Fru-Con committed ``willful'' safety
violations only to reclassify them as ``unclassified,'' and
the agency has also pulled out of a special safety
``partnership'' with Fru-Con, saying the firm didn't live up
to the deal.
An investigation of criminal wrongdoing on a project of
this magnitude is an enormous task for any local agency. I
believe that the Department of Labor can be of immeasurable
assistance to the local entities in this pursuit. I look
forward to your involvement and counsel.
Sincerely,
Marcy Kaptur,
U.S. Representative.
Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Paul
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 11 offered by Mr. Paul:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to create or implement any universal mental health
screening program.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 23, 2005,
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Regula) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is straightforward: ``None of
the funds made available in this a may be used to create or implement
any universal mental health screening program.''
This does not deny any funds for any testing of those individuals who
may show signs of mental illness. It only denies funding for any
universal, read by many as mandatory, which is a bit of overkill as far
as I am concerned. There is $26 million in this bill for these
programs. Eight States have already been involved, and three more have
applied for grants.
The main reason why I oppose this is I think there is a lot of
overtreatment of young people with psychotropic drugs. This has been
going on for a lot of years, and there are a lot of bad results, and
once we talk about universal testing of everybody, and there is no age
limit, matter of fact, in the recommendation by the New Freedom
Commission, there is a tendency for overdiagnosis and overuse of
medication. There are as many complications from overuse of medication
as there is with prophylactic treatment.
There is no evidence now on the books to show that the use of this
medication actually in children reduces suicide. Matter of fact, there
are studies that do suggest exactly the opposite. Children on
psychotropic drugs may well be even more likely to commit suicide. It
does not mean that no child ever qualifies for this, but to assume
there is this epidemic out here that we have to test everybody is
rather frightening to me.
Matter of fact, when the State gets control of children, they tend to
overuse medications like this. Take, for instance, in Texas, 60 percent
of the foster children are on medication. In Massachusetts, it is close
to 65 percent. In Florida, 55 percent of the children in foster home
care are receiving these kinds of medication.
Once again, I want to make the point that this does not deny funding
for individual children who show signs that they may need or they have
a problem and need to be tested. It is just to make sure that this is
not universal and not be mandatory and that parental rights are guarded
against and that the parent is very much involved.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, and I would
point out to my colleagues, we had the identical amendment last year
and it failed by a vote of 315 to 95. So, many of my colleagues have
already voted against this amendment.
Let me point out, there is no universal mental health screening
funded in the underlying bill. This is an inflammatory amendment. It is
not necessary.
During our hearings, Secretary Leavitt from Health and Human Services
told the committee that the administration does not support and has no
plans to implement universal mental health screening, and then they
made it very clear that in all programming involving kids there is a
requirement that parents participate and give their informed consent,
and that would be in a different program.
We have never proposed in appropriations any program of universal
mental screening, and all it does really, this amendment, is to
stigmatize the issue of mental health.
The sponsor mentions $26 million, and let me point out that the funds
provided in this bill that respond to recommendations put forward in
the final report of the President's New Freedom Commission on Mental
Health, ``Achieving the Promise: Transforming Mental Health Care in
America,'' go toward State incentive grants for transformation to
support the development of comprehensive State mental health plans, and
has absolutely no funding included for universal mental health
screening.
So the $26 million has nothing to do with this amendment as far as
universal mental health screening.
{time} 1430
As a matter of fact, the President's Commission did not recommend
either universal or mandatory mental health screening. So I think it is
clear that the President's Commission did not feel this was in any way
necessary, and for this reason I oppose the amendment. I think that is
why the great majority of Members voted against it last year, and I
would urge Members to vote the same way this year on this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) said, there are
no plans for anyone in the Federal Government to conduct universal
screening, and there are no funds in this bill for any such purpose.
Having said that, let me simply say I do not think our problem in this
country is that we do too much screening for mental health problems
with young people.
We are all familiar with the problem of youth depression. There are a
very significant number of teenagers who are afflicted with that
problem. We are, I think, all familiar with the sad situation with
regard to teenage suicide. Two friends of each of my sons committed
suicide. So I do not think the problem in this country is that we know
too much about mental health problems for young people. The problem is
just the opposite; we know too little. So I agree with the concerns
expressed by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula).
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, the danger in our society
now is basing policy on old stereotypes
[[Page H5146]]
that somehow mental health and mental science is not real science.
I have here a board that shows that there is a different metabolizing
in people's brains for those who have mental illness versus those who
do not. We have the tools today with PET scans and MRIs to be able to
diagnose brain disorders and mental illnesses, and these things are
backed up by science.
The notion in this amendment that somehow mental illness is not a
real illness, that mental health is not real health, and that is why in
this country we continue to discriminate against these illnesses by
having them pay higher copays, higher premiums, and higher deductibles
than other health care costs.
What is the difference between treating an organ in the brain and
diabetes and kidneys? What is the difference between treating an organ
in the brain or the lungs or the heart? Nothing is different.
The fact of the matter is in our schools we ought to be looking at
this. We have more people committing suicide, 10 young people a day.
More youth die from suicide each year than from cancer, heart disease,
AIDS, birth defects, stroke, pneumonia, influenza, and chronic lung
disease combined. All of them combined do not rank as high as the cost
of suicide to our young people.
Mr. Chairman, in the next year we are going to lose 1,400 young
people in our colleges and universities because of suicide. We have
twice the rate of homicide as our suicide rate. For every homicide in
this country, there are two suicides.
The problem here is not overtreatment, it is undertreatment. That is
why I think the Paul amendment, unfortunately, continues to ascribe to
the stereotypes of the past that mental illnesses are not real
illnesses and therefore they should not be treated and taken care of.
That is why I would ask my colleagues to please vote against the
discrimination, the intolerance, the stigma of the Paul amendment.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise also in opposition to the Paul
amendment that is not cognizant of the fact that suicide is the third
leading cause of death amongst youngsters. It would affect current
funds used by States for mental health services and future planning to
address this issue. It is a major medical concern, and this amendment
does not provide for a solution.
This amendment must not pass because it is harmful not only to our
youth but to our families, to our Nation, and would risk increasing the
current statistics.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy).
Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman, speaking as a psychologist and one who has
spent a career working with children, let me say that this amendment is
misguided, misinformed, wrong for America, and wrong for medicine.
First of all, this bill does not fund universal screening. HHS
Secretary Michael Leavitt and SAMHSA Director Charlie Curie have both
testified that mandatory screening of all children for mental illness
has never been, nor will it ever be, a part of the Federal plan to
respond to the Nation's mental health crisis.
The President's New Freedom Commission on mental health clearly
stated that schools should work collaboratively with families on mental
health services and support to children.
This amendment is another witch hunt against mental illness and its
passage will only serve to further stigmatize mental illness. If our
concern is about overmedicating children, let us deal with that. You do
not deal with it by attacking screening.
Just as pediatricians routinely screen newborns for heart and liver
diseases and sickle cell anemia, appropriate mental health screening
done by qualified professionals is vital to identifying mental health
and the potential substance abuse problems of our youth. Screening does
not cause diabetes, screening does not cause metabolic disorders,
screening does not cause cancer, and screening does not cause
hyperactivity. With over 75 percent of all prescriptions for
antidepressants prescribed by non-psychiatrists, including
pediatricians, OB-GYNs, and primary care practitioners, with little or
no training in psychiatry, the answer is to do screening the right way
with parental consent and by qualified mental health professionals, not
to take away the ability to do it at all.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Paul amendment to do what
is right for medicine, what is right for mental health, and what is
compassionate for those with mental illnesses.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
Let me assure Members that you are misconstruing the amendment. It is
as if we are banning screening. That is not the case. I am just saying
screening everybody is what I am trying to prevent. If there is one
person out of 100,000 that commits suicide, why are Members compelled
to have a program that may test 99,999 people?
This does nothing to the individual that shows the problem. You can
still test them, preferably with parental consent.
Let me add that the gentleman from Ohio stated that the vote went
against this amendment last year. This came up at the last minute. Let
me tell Members, people in this country have been well informed about
this, and they do not like this program.
I also would like to quote from the New Freedom Commission because it
is true the New Freedom Commission, which is the guideline the
gentleman from Ohio brought up; he brings it up, he cites what it says,
so they have some value. They never say ``mandatory,'' but they never
say ``voluntary.'' What they say is ``universal.''
How can you have something universal if you are not going to be
testing everybody? Also from the Freedom Commission, it should be for
consumers of all ages, screen for mental disorders in primary health
care across the life span. These are the guidelines of the New Freedom
Commission, as well as saying the schools must be partners in the
mental health care of our children. Why do they not say the parents
should be partners in the health care of our children?
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, we are in opposition to the amendment. There is no
universal mental health screening in this bill. Secretary Leavitt has
made it clear there is nothing like this under consideration. It is an
amendment that is not needed because it addresses a problem that does
not exist.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, as a physician, having practiced medicine for well over
30 years, let me tell Members, there is a crisis in this country. There
is a crisis with illegal drugs, but there is a crisis in this country
with an overuse of all drugs, especially in the area of psychiatry.
Psychiatrists, if they are honest with you, will tell you that
diagnoses are very subjective. It is not like diagnosing appendicitis.
It is very, very subjective. If you push on this type of testing, the
more testing you have, let me guarantee it, the more drugs you will
have. Sure, there are mental diseases. I am not excluding any of this
when a person has true mental illness, but I am talking about the
overuse of Ritalin and Prozac and many of these drugs that are pushed
on these kids.
Let me tell Members, there have been some real problems with families
who will not let their kids go on drugs because the schools pressure
them to. They have been charged with child abuse, and threatened with
taking their children away because they will not be put on these drugs.
That is the kind of abuse I am calling to Members' attention, and that
is why you need to vote for this amendment. It does not change
anything. It does not deny anybody testing and treatment. All it does
is say universal testing of everybody of all ages in this country is
not the direction that we want to go. Please vote for my amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate on this amendment has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Paul).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
[[Page H5147]]
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) will be
postponed.
Amendment Offered by Ms. DeLauro
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Ms. DeLauro:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available under this Act
may be used to enforce or carry out item 6B of the settlement
agreement between the Wage and Hour Division of the
Department of Labor and Wal-Mart Stores, Incorporated, signed
January 11, 2005, whereby the Wage and Hour Division agrees
to provide Wal-Mart Stores, Incorporated, with 15 days prior
notice of any audit or investigation to be conducted by such
Division.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the order of the House of June
23, 2005, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) and the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment would prohibit the Department of Labor
from using Federal funds to enforce or carry out item 6B of the
settlement agreement between the wage and hour division of the
Department and Wal-Mart Stores, the provision providing Wal-Mart with
15 days of advance notice prior to any audit or investigation.
This amendment is important to ensuring the safety of our children.
On January 6, the Department of Labor entered into an agreement with
Wal-Mart to settle violations of child labor laws in 3 States:
Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Arkansas. It found that Wal-Mart
employed 85 minors, ages 16 and 17, who performed prohibited
activities, including operating cardboard balers and chain saws, which
are considered particularly hazardous jobs, jobs Wal-Mart and other
employers cannot legally permit anyone under the age of 18 to perform.
{time} 1445
For these violations, the Labor Department fined Wal-Mart, a company
with $285 billion of revenues last year, a total of $135,540.
Perhaps the most egregious part of the agreement is the provision,
6B, that grants Wal-Mart 15 days' advance notice before the government
investigates any wage-and-hour law complaints, notice that applies not
just to child labor complaints in the three cited States but all Wal-
Mart stores nationwide.
Wal-Mart has a history of prior child labor violations. In 2000, Wal-
Mart was found to have 1,436 violations in 20 Maine stores. Last year,
Wal-Mart's own internal audit found 1,371 violations of child labor
laws between 1997 and 1999. Granting 2 weeks' advance notice is
essentially daring repeated child labor law violators like Wal-Mart to
conceal any further violations.
And if we need any proof of that, I would point my colleagues to the
weekend papers in Connecticut which cite a State investigation that
found 11 more violations of child labor laws at three of our Wal-Mart
stores. Three violations involved the store not even bothering to check
the age of their workers.
It is clear the settlement is not stopping Wal-Mart from violating
child labor laws. In fact, the Governor of Connecticut has ordered
periodic, unannounced visits by State inspectors at Wal-Mart stores to
ensure that any future violations are promptly revealed and addressed.
Why can the Federal Government not do the same? If a State government
can get tough on a child labor violator, one that happens to be our
Nation's largest private employer, there is no reason the Federal
Government should not be able to do so as well.
Congress needs to send Wal-Mart a message that companies who violate
child labor laws will not be tolerated. Our society long ago stopped
tolerating the kind of sweatshop conditions that my mother worked in
when I was growing up. It is time that this administration did so as
well.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the DeLauro amendment raises serious constitutional
concerns under the due process clause because it effectively repudiates
the government's contract with Wal-Mart. The DeLauro amendment would
cause the government to breach its contractual agreement with Wal-Mart.
As a result of the government's breach, Wal-Mart would be released from
obligations under the agreement, including its obligation to implement
numerous measures that go beyond what the law requires to prevent
future child labor violations.
For example, Wal-Mart would no longer be required to provide
additional training to Wal-Mart managers regarding the requirements of
the child labor laws, would no longer be able to discipline managers
who fail to comply with the child labor laws, would no longer be
required to post warning stickers on all equipment the Secretary has
designated as hazardous for the operation by minors, would no longer be
able to perform quarterly self-audits of all of its stores for the
duration of the agreement, and it would not stop Wal-Mart from
receiving advance notice of most investigations.
The 15 days is a common practice in this type of thing. I think
whether you disagree or agree with the settlement that was made between
the Department of Labor and Wal-Mart, let us not get into the business
of second-guessing it and, in the process, create a lot of additional
problems and, in fact, it would be detrimental to the employees in
terms of what has been agreed to in the settlement of this issue.
For this reason, I would oppose the amendment, and I hope my
colleagues would do likewise if we do have a vote on this.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller).
(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to
revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the
gentlewoman from Connecticut for offering this amendment. This is an
outrageous practice that the government entered into in secret with
Wal-Mart so that those employees who were concerned and want to file a
labor grievance or a child labor protection law grievance with Wal-Mart
who thought they were talking to the Department of Labor now find that
they are talking directly to the Wal-Mart corporation.
So where do they get the protection in filing these complaints? You
say, Well, they don't need it because Wal-Mart is a good employer and
Wal-Mart is going to take care of them. Wal-Mart is a repeat serial
offender and has been found guilty of violating wage-and-hour laws,
immigration laws, child labor laws, discrimination laws, pay-equity
laws and worker-safety laws. And this is the corporation that you give
15 days' notice to, that you give this kind of special privilege to?
As the gentlewoman from Connecticut pointed out, the violations of
child labor are ongoing. All Wal-Mart does is get a heads-up and finds
out who is complaining against them who is employed by them. How are
these employees supposed to register their complaints with this
corporation under this agreement? It is an outrageous violation of
these workers' rights.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Let me correct an error that was made. The very fact is that the
amendment would only restrict funds for the provision that gives Wal-
Mart the 15 days' advance notice before the Department investigates any
wage-and-hour law complaints. It does not abrogate the entire
settlement. That is what Wal-Mart would like to have everyone believe.
It is just the 15-day notice.
The fact is that this is not a typical agreement. None of the
agreements that the Department of Labor made with Genesis Health
Ventures, Footlocker, and Sears provided a blanket promise of advance
notice nationwide to all their stores. This one does. It is a
sweetheart deal with Wal-Mart. Nor did they provide for a 10-day window
[[Page H5148]]
for the company to come into compliance in the event of child labor
violations. These companies were expected to fix the problem
immediately or to face serious penalties.
This is hardly standard procedure. That is why the Labor Department's
own Inspector General has been investigating how this settlement was
negotiated. We are talking about the safety of our children. That is
why the amendment is necessary, and that is why I ask my colleagues to
vote for this amendment.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
There are dozens of these settlements made every month. If we get
into the role of trying to second-guess and to pass judgment on them,
there is no end to it. I think what we know of the merits of this is
something that the Department of Labor worked out with Wal-Mart. This
is not an uncommon thing to give 15-day notice. In fact, it is almost a
standard procedure.
I say to my colleagues, we do not belong in involving ourselves, or
this body, in trying to second-guess the judgment that has been made by
the Department of Labor. I am sure they acted in good faith to protect
the rights of children, to protect the rights of people that work at
not only Wal-Mart but other similar types of employment. Therefore, I
would urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms.
DeLauro) will be postponed.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, all through last year on this side of the aisle, we
continually insisted that we needed more money for veterans health care
and were consistently told by the administration and the other side
that we did not. As recently as April 5, Mr. Nicholson, the head of the
VA, told the Senate in an effort to defeat a Democratic amendment, ``I
can assure you that the VA does not need emergency supplemental funding
in fiscal 2005 to continue to provide timely, quality service that is
always our goal.'' We were again told this year when we tried to add
money to the VA for veterans health care that it was not needed, that
we were simply pandering to veterans.
Well, now the facts are out. Today's Washington Post: ``Funds for
Health Care of Veterans Short $1 Billion.'' What we find out is that
now the Bush administration is belatedly admitting to the Congress what
we have been trying to tell people for months, namely, that the VA
budget is inadequate and their accountants indicate that they are going
to need more than $1 billion.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) is going to shortly be asking
unanimous consent to consider an amendment which would, on an emergency
basis, add the $1 billion which the administration is saying is
necessary to pay the bills at the VA. I would hope that the Congress
could find a way to accomplish this. At a time when we are having
trouble with recruiting, it makes no sense to be sending messages to
our veterans that, Okay, you can go over and fight in Iraq, but we are
not so sure about what services you are going to get when you get home.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, the fact that there is a funding crisis in
VA hospitals this year to the tune of $1 billion should be a surprise
to no one. On March 23, 2004, the legislative directors of the Disabled
American Veterans, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, and the Veterans
of Foreign Wars said that passage of the budget resolution as presented
would be a disservice to those men and women who serve this country and
who are currently serving in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world in
the fight against terrorism.
The bottom line is, this House on a partisan basis, through the
budget resolution, has underfunded VA medical care. Veterans groups
knew it, Democrats in this body knew it, Democrats in the other body
knew it. In fact, I made a specific effort in the emergency
appropriation bill for Iraq to get additional funding for VA hospitals
this year, but was rebuffed by the House leadership that said that
money was not necessary.
As the gentleman from Wisconsin has pointed out, that money is
necessary. We have a crisis. It is inexcusable for the leadership of
the Veterans Administration to testify just a few months ago, 2 months
ago, that they did not need any extra money to provide adequate health
care for veterans. Now, just 60 days later, they admit there is a $1
billion crisis in funding. We need to find out why the VA misled the
Congress; and, most importantly, we need to address this problem. I
would welcome a bipartisan effort in trying to address the funding
needs for veterans.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. WALSH. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank both the
gentlemen for raising this issue.
Mr. Chairman, this is a serious problem. There is a great deal of
alarm about the uncovering of this information. It is a great
disappointment. I thank the two gentlemen for bringing this up, even
though it is not germane to this bill. The gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Edwards) and I have discussed this. We will be holding an oversight
hearing on Tuesday at 9 a.m. at which time members of the Veterans
Administration, I believe we will also have people from defense health
and possibly the Office of Management and Budget, will come up and give
us the straight scoop on what actually happened and who knew what and
when.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I insert at this point in the Record the text
of the amendment that the gentleman from Texas would like to offer to
correct this egregious situation.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following new title:
TITLE __
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Veterans Health Administration
MEDICAL SERVICES
For an additional amount in fiscal year 2005 for necessary
expenses for furnishing, as authorized by law, inpatient and
outpatient care and treatment to beneficiaries of the
Department of Veterans Affairs and veterans described in
section 1705(a) of title 38, United States Code, including
care and treatment in facilities not under the jurisdiction
of the Department of Veterans Affairs, and including medical
supplies and equipment and salaries and expenses of health-
care employees hired under title 38, United States Code, and
aid to State homes as authorized by section 1741 of title 38,
United States Code; $1,000,000,000: Provided, That the amount
provided under this heading is designated as an emergency
pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95 (l09th Congress),
the concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal year
2006.
Request For Recognition to Offer Amendment
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Chair to recognize
me at this point so that we could call up the amendment which I have at
the desk that would provide $1 billion of emergency funding to the VA
health care system this year to meet the funding shortfall that the VA
leadership has just admitted to as of yesterday.
The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman offering an amendment covered by the
order of the House of June 23, 2005?
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, this emergency funding for veterans health
care, the need for it, was just admitted yesterday by the
administration leadership. For that reason, this amendment was not in
the unanimous consent order.
The CHAIRMAN. Therefore, the Chair is constrained not to recognize
the gentleman.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
(Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STEARNS. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Ohio for
yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I wanted to just briefly thank him for making part of
his en bloc amendment and also the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey)
for
[[Page H5149]]
his consideration providing $2 million to the Homeless Veterans
Reintegration Program, the HVRP, and $500,000 to the National Veterans
Employment and Training Services Institute. These particular moneys
that he has made part of his en bloc amendment are very much
appreciated. This was part of my amendment that I had which,
unfortunately, I did not get to the House floor; but through both the
gentleman from Wisconsin and the gentleman from Ohio, they have made
this part of the en bloc amendment and I want to thank them very much
for it. se 000
Mr. Chairman, my amendment I intended to offer yesterday would reduce
$10 million of proposed funding from Corporation For National And
Community Service's (CNCS) AmeriCorps grants, and increase two
worthwhile, veterans programs in the Department of Labor.
First, my amendment would transfer $9,000,000 to the Homeless
Veterans' Reintegration Program (HVRP). This well-regarded program
assists finding homeless veterans a meaningful place in the workforce.
HVRP funds are awarded competitively to grant-seekers ranging from
State and local agencies, commercial entities, and non-profits
including community-and faith-based organizations.
Uniquely, since its inception, HVRP has featured an outreach effort
using veterans who themselves have experienced homelessness. Formerly
homeless veterans engage in counseling, peer coaching, and follow-up
services. The program coordinates with various veterans' services
programs and organizations, such as the Disabled Veterans' Outreach
Program and Local Veterans' Employment Representatives stationed in the
local employment service offices of the State Workforce Agencies. Many
veterans groups also are eligible, such as the American Legion,
Disabled American Veterans, and Veterans of Foreign Wars.
Next my amendment would transfer $1,000,000 to the National Veterans'
Employment and Training Services Institute (NVTI). NVTI provides
training to the employees who ultimately work with veterans seeking
employment and training. Like the Homeless Veterans Reintegration
Program, most of these Training Institute dollars (about 70 percent)
flow directly to States. Impressively, while the Appropriators have
funded the program at the President's request and FY05 amount ($1.9
million), the NVTI does such an efficient job that they forecast with
the nearly 50 percent increase my amendment would deliver, they could
increase their throughput nearly \2/3\, processing many more veterans
through (again, mostly via employees in your State). Since 1986, NVTI
has developed and enhanced the professional skills of veterans'
employment and training service providers nationwide. It is
administered by the University of Colorado at Denver with training
conducted in Denver, Colorado and at selected regional sites in the
U.S. To date 50,000+ veterans' employment and training professionals
have attended NVTI training. In addition to the basic employment and
training professional-skills course, training is offered in veterans'
benefits, transition assistance, case management, marketing and
accessing the media, and management of veterans' services. NVTI also
offers courses in veterans' reemployment rights case investigation and
grants management, to address the training needs of the U.S. Department
of Labor Veterans' Employment and Training Service (VETS) staff.
As an unexpected benefit, CBO has scored my amendment to be Budget
Authority-neutral, but to save $1,000,000 in FY06 outlays.
Now, 1 million dollars sounds like chump change up here to us, but to
Americans voting back home, and to the veterans who are on the streets
and in despair, it would pay for quite a lot. And AmeriCorps, I point
out, is receiving over a quarter of a billion dollars, so I think the
program could spare a mere $10 million.
Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment about priorities. AmeriCorps pays
people handsomely for pseudo-volunteerism: $4,725 for a year of full-
time service; ``a modest living allowance'', ``limited health benefits,
may qualify for child care assistance, and may get your relocation
expenses covered''. This is not community service, this is a job.
Further, AmeriCorps has a history of accountability problems. Just
two years ago, they had severe overcommitments of their funding, which
Congress admonished. And this year, the Committee's report has language
``directing the Inspector General to levy sanctions in accordance with
standard Inspector General audit resolution procedures, which include,
but are not limited to, debarment of any grantee found to be in
violation of AmeriCorps' program requirements, including using grant or
program funds to lobby the Congress''. I can assure you they most
certainly do lobby the Congress, because my amendment has been on the
(negative) receiving end of this.
One other point that the Chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee
has shared: AmeriCorps competes with Armed Services recruiting. It
shouldn't, the program on which it was modeled didn't: according to
AmeriCorps' website, it is based upon ``Franklin D. Roosevelt's vision
of the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) in 1933--a program created by
President Roosevelt to provide relief for the unemployed during the
Great Depression and to implement conservation projects. Over 3 million
young men served until the program disbanded eight years later, when
the United States entered World War II.''
Sir, America has relied on the contributions of selfless volunteers
for centuries, and the generosity of Americans will endure without a
Federal program.
In contrast, veterans are our Federal responsibility, and these two
worthwhile programs provide needed help.
administrative provisions
The Committee recommendation includes a number of
administrative provisions carried previous years: (1)
Language regarding qualified student loans eligible for
education awards; (2) language regarding the availability of
funds for the placement of volunteers with disabilities; (3)
language directing the Inspector General to levy sanctions in
accordance with standard Inspector General audit resolution
procedures, which include, but are not limited to, debarment
of any grantee found to be in violation of AmeriCorps'
program requirements, including using grant or program funds
to lobby the Congress; (4) language which requires the
Corporation to ensure that significant changes to program
requirements or policy are made only through public notice
and comment rulemaking; and
{time} 1500
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I now yield to the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Kirk) for the purposes of a colloquy.
Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today urging the conference, when it meets, to
restore funding to the Javits gifted and talented program, which was
unfortunately zeroed out in this bill. Javits reaches a critical group
of diverse gifted children who are not high income. In fact, they are
low income, but have extraordinary abilities.
In my home State of Illinois, education for gifted kids has been cut
completely out of the State's budget. In response I developed my own
Tenth District laureates program as a way to challenge gifted students
in my own district. The program has become a huge success, providing
these students with behind-the-scenes access to top academic and
cultural institutions in Chicago and surrounding suburbs. And these
gifted children were motivated by this unique opportunity.
I think we must fund gifted education on a national level to allow
millions of children across the country to have the same types of
challenges our Tenth District laureates enjoy. As the only federally
funded national gifted program, grants provided through Javits have
provided 125 State and local education districts since its inception in
1989, reaching 2 million gifted students nationwide. Last year the
program was funded at $11.1 million. It is a program particularly
needed, given the low scores of Americans on standard international
math and science tests.
Positions in the field of science and engineering are growing at a
rapid rate, yet the United States is facing a critical shortage in
these areas. Just one demonstration program funded by this grant, the
project creating urban excellence in the Bronx, resulted in a 20
percent improvement in math and science scores for all students of the
entire school.
I think we must invest in the future of our children, and I urge the
conferees to restore funding for the Javits gifted and talented
program.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman
for his comments. And I do agree that funding gifted and talented
education in this country is an important mission. We must continue to
provide support for our brightest students to succeed, especially in
the areas of math and science.
I hope the gentleman understands that with such a tough budget
allocation, we did not have the resources to support everything we
would have liked to have done, including some important and successful
programs like the Javits program for gifted and talented students.
I will work with the gentleman from Illinois to address this issue in
conference.
[[Page H5150]]
Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I want to thank
my chairman.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Hinchey
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Hinchey:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. ___. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to carry out section 1860D-1(b)(4) of the Social
Security Act.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 23, 2005,
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) and the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Regula) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, Congress has been moving for the last few years to
protect the identities, personal information, and privacy of Americans.
Almost 2 years ago, the House pushed for a creation of the Federal Do
Not Call Registry. Months later, however, Congress passed legislation
that will put millions of people's personal information and privacy in
jeopardy.
The Medicare Modernization Act allows and encourages the Secretary of
Health and Human Services to distribute the personal information of
millions of Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries to private companies
for marketing purposes. In light of the number of significant breaches
of personal information recently and the widespread reports of identity
theft, this amendment would prevent the government from distributing
the personal information of millions of Americans to the many companies
that may be providing prescription drug plans when the so-called
Medicaid Modernization Act goes into effect. If personal Medicare
information is given to these providers, our constituents will be
subjected to calls from any of the prescription drug plan providers. If
we have learned anything from telemarketers, it is that our senior
citizens will be harassed at home by plan providers calling and sending
direct mail.
Personal privacy is a nonpartisan issue. During the 108th Congress,
over 400 Members voted in favor of creating the Do Not Call Registry.
Millions of Americans have had their identity stolen, no matter their
political affiliation. We can stop the spread of this personal
information being carelessly distributed.
I urge support of the gentleman from Oregon's (Mr. DeFazio)
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Obviously this is a Committee on Ways and Means and Committee on
Energy and Commerce issue. But let me point out that this amendment
will prevent seniors from getting essential coverage information, and
that is important. They want to know what their coverage is. They want
to know what the coverage will be under the new medical services. This
enrollment starts in less than 5 months, and I think this would be a
poor time to take away the ability to give seniors information about
the new drug benefit. We have a lot of, a considerable amount of money
in this bill to provide the necessary employees to disseminate
information, take phone calls from seniors who want to find out about
the Medicare Modernization Act, and to deprive the CMS of the ability
to meet this need would be a serious problem for seniors.
Let us give them every chance to call and to find out about the new
Medicare Modernization Act. Let us not in any way limit the
availability of information and the access that seniors should have to
information about this possible benefit.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I appreciate the sentiments expressed by the gentleman from Ohio, my
good friend, and I understand that he is interested in the best
interests of the people in this country, particularly the Medicare and
Medicaid beneficiaries.
But the fact of the matter is we have experience in this regard. We
have the Federal Employees Health Benefits plan. None of the
information about who they are, where they are located, what their
telephone numbers may be, is distributed to anyone so that they may be
contacted under the provisions of the Federal Employees Health Benefits
plan. So why, under this new so-called Medicare Modernization Act, are
we communicating that kind of information indiscriminately to a whole
host of companies that are now going to besiege senior citizens with
phone calls that they are not going to welcome?
We have ways to communicate whatever information we want to to the
people who may be the beneficiaries under this program, and they can do
that through the existing Medicare and Medicaid programs very simply.
There is no reason whatsoever to give this information out
indiscriminately so that these people can be harassed.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I just want to point out to my colleagues that are listening to this
debate that the senior organizations want beneficiaries to have access
to the new drug benefit. This is why the AARP, the Seniors Coalition,
the National Coalition for Women with Heart Disease, the National
Kidney Cancer Association, the National Association of Manufacturers,
the National Chamber of Commerce, and many others oppose this
amendment. I would think that Members would take that into
consideration because these cover a broad spectrum of opinions on this
and they universally agree that this is a bad amendment.
For this reason I urge Members to vote against it when we have the
opportunity to do so.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I have been in the highway conference, and I am sorry I was not here
earlier, but I understand the chairman may have represented that AARP
is opposed. They had bad information yesterday, provided perhaps by
majority staff. They are now neutral on this amendment. I have had a
conversation with them today. They now understand the amendment goes to
the issues of privacy. It does not undermine the outreach program. All
it says is we will not give out personal private information. We will
not waive the ``Do Not Call'' list for America's seniors and have them
solicited by telemarketers at dinner after they have indicated they do
not want any telemarketers calling them. That is all we are talking
about here. We are saying one small section buried in this huge bill,
that no Member here wants to take credit for, that says we are taking
away the privacy of seniors to profit private insurance companies and
make it easier for them.
Private insurance companies have vast resources. They can find these
seniors in other ways. The outreach can be done without violating their
privacy. That is what we are talking about here, plain and simple: the
privacy of America's most vulnerable. Many seniors are aged. They are
not well. They are at risk in this whole process, and they do not want
those telemarketing phone calls.
So if we continue with this program, the administration is going to
waive those rights, those protections for our seniors, plain and
simple. This amendment only restricts the waivers of privacy and an
incredible extension of waiving all privacy laws relating to people on
Medicare or Medicaid and giving discretion to the Secretary of Health
and Human Services to turn over that data as he sees fit, no matter
what the will of the seniors is.
Let the seniors make the choice, not the Secretary of Health and
Human Services, not the private insurance companies. They should not be
telemarketed. This is plain and simple, something that I do not believe
a majority of this House knew was in that bill when it was passed.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
[[Page H5151]]
Mr. Chairman, there is no privacy concern because no health
information is shared. No personal health information can be disclosed
to plan sponsors, period, and all plans are covered under the Federal
privacy rule, HIPAA, that restricts the use and disclosure of personal
health information. Furthermore, plans are only allowed to use the
contact information for marketing Medicare prescription drug plans and
facilitating beneficiary enrollment. They cannot use the contact
information for any other purpose.
For all these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote against this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey)
will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Engel
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Engel:
Page 108, after line 21, insert the following section:
Sec. 5__. With respect to amounts appropriated for any of
the fiscal years 2000 through 2005 for carrying out part A or
B of title XXVI of the Public Health Service Act, amounts
that have been provided as grants under such parts and that
lapse at the end of fiscal year 2005 if unexpended by the
grantees are hereby made available through the end of fiscal
year 2006.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentleman's amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 23, 2005,
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I am offering this amendment and I will withdraw it because of a
scoring problem, but I did want to bring this to the committee's
attention. Today over 1 million individuals in the United States are
infected with HIV, including about 406,000 with AIDS. New York City is
one of the national epicenters of the HIV/AIDS epidemic, with over
110,000 people infected with HIV. Over 30 percent of those infected in
New York City are women, and 75 percent are from minority groups. These
devastating numbers are ones that my constituents are all too familiar
with.
Like many of our colleagues, I was deeply disappointed that the
critical AIDS drug assistance programs, known as ADAPs, only received a
$10 million increase in this year's Labor-HHS appropriations bill.
There is no question of the need for ADAPs. They have become a
cornerstone of the Ryan White CARE Act since advances in drug
treatments like antiretroviral therapies have had a profound effect on
extending the quality and length of life of those infected with HIV/
AIDS.
{time} 1515
Appropriate and consistent treatment results in near complete
suppression of HIV as well as preventing the emergence of drug
resistance. Yes, it is expensive, but every life saved is worth it.
The President last year authorized a $20 million one-time emergency
supplement to the ADAP program that will expire this September. Even
with this emergency measure, as of May 12 of this year, almost 1,900
individuals were on ADAP waiting lists in 10 States. Nearly every ADAP
State has already had to make incredibly tough choices on cost
containment measures, such as closed enrollment, reduced formularities,
per capita expenditure limits, lowered income eligibility, waiting
lists, and increased client cost-sharing. Nine States even require
individuals applying for ADAP to demonstrate HIV/AIDS advanced disease
progression, at which point drug assistance has only a limited benefit.
Now, Mr. Chairman, it has come to my attention that many States have
Ryan White CARE Act funds appropriated to them in previous legislative
years that are at risk for expiration. My amendment simply grants a 1-
year extension to States to use expiring, unexpended CARE Act funds,
rather than allowing the funds to return to the Treasury. I do not
understand why this was scored the way it was, and I intend to fight
for a change.
The unspent funds typically result in delays in notice of grant
awards from the Federal Government, timing issues relating to
subcontracting of services, payroll savings due to State hiring delays
or freezes, expenditure of other grant funds for similar services, or
other unanticipated fluctuations in spending at the State level.
This Congress, we will reauthorize and continue to improve the Ryan
White CARE Act, which will likely address some of these financing
issues.
In the meantime, it is unfortunate that CBO scored my amendment as a
new appropriation, as preserving these expiring, previously
appropriated funds would have given States a new window of opportunity
to help more people.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member seek time in opposition?
Point of Order
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes
legislation in an appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2
of Rule XXI, which states in part: ``An amendment to a general
appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''
This amendment addresses funds in other acts.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to speak on the point of order?
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from New York. It is my
understanding the gentleman is going to withdraw the amendment.
Mr. ENGEL. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio may not yield on a point of
order.
The Chair will recognize the gentleman from New York on the point of
order. Does the gentleman seek to speak on the point of order?
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is again reserved.
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) has 2 minutes remaining on
his amendment.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished
gentleman for yielding me this time. I would like to compliment him on
a very thoughtful amendment.
I would hope, as this idea makes its way through conference, we can
be constructive as the reutilization of unexpended Ryan White CARE Act
funds will be a very great need to our various States.
In 1988, 1989 when the Ryan White CARE Act was initially authorized,
Texas was number 13 on the list of HIV-infected persons. We are still
facing the devastation of HIV/AIDS, and we realize that the number one
killer of African American women from 25 to 44 is HIV. In addition, we
have seen it increasing in other populations, Hispanics and Asians.
So for the sake of States that have not yet expended these dollars,
this is a very important amendment. In particular, in my community, the
Donald Watkins Foundation, Brentwood, St. John's, Montrose Clinic,
Montrose Counseling, and the St. Thomas Clinic would benefit from these
dollars. But I hope we will find a way to work through with the
gentleman, and I thank him very much for a very thoughtful amendment.
We need these unexpended funds, and we need them now.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, for the balance of my time I would like my
friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the chairman of the
subcommittee, to engage me in a brief colloquy.
Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned before, I intend to withdraw this
amendment, but I hope this is an issue with which we can work as this
bill moves through
[[Page H5152]]
the process. Ryan White funds and the AIDS Drug Assistance Programs
provide critical assistance to our communities and our States, and they
need further flexibility to expend expiring Ryan White CARE Act funds.
I would ask the chairman if he would work with me in this regard.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ENGEL. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, in response to the gentleman's comments, I
would point out that we do have a modest increase in this program, and
we will be sensitive to the gentleman's concerns in conference as we
try to balance out all of the challenges that we have in this bill in
terms of the resources available.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his attention.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker I rise today to speak in
support of Mr. Engel's amendment to the H.R. 3010, the Labor HHS
Appropriations bill. Mr. Engel's amendment would grant states an
extension to use their expiring, unexpended Ryan White CARE Act funds,
appropriated in previous years, through fiscal year 2006. The amendment
would therefore prohibit expiring funds from being returned to the
Treasury before the end of FY06. Reports indicate that State AIDS
directors unanimously agree that expiring unexpended funds must be put
back into the CARE Act, rather than being returned to the Treasury as
is currently the case.
While administering Ryan White Care Act funds, States and Eligible
Metropolitan Areas periodically finish fiscal years with small amounts
of unspent funds. These amounts, typically ranging from five or ten
percent of overall awards, may be requested in the subsequent fiscal
year to provide services during that fiscal year. The unspent funds
typically result from delays in notice of grant awards from the Federal
government, timing issues related to subcontracting of services,
payroll savings due to State hiring delays or freezes, expenditure of
other grant funds for similar services, or other unanticipated
fluctuations in spending at the State level. Occasionally, the amount
of unexpended funds reaches beyond ten percent of a grantee's overall
award for reasons specific to the individual jurisdiction.
Currently, the FY06 Appropriations bill provides $2.1 billion for
Ryan White AIDS programs, which is $10 million (2 percent) more than
the current level but equal to the administration's request. This total
includes $610 million for the emergency assistance program--which
provides grants to metropolitan areas with very high numbers of AIDS
cases--$1.1 billion for comprehensive-care programs, $196 million for
the early-intervention program, and $73 million for the Pediatric HIV/
AIDS program.
In closing, it is important for me to say a few words about Ryan
White. As many of you know, as a result of his infection, Ryan White
was expelled from his school, on the account of being a `health risk'
to other students. This shameful behaviour on behalf of the school
board, as well as multiple death threats to him and his family,
required the White family to move to Cicero, Indiana. Having found
relative peace in Cicero, Ryan White began a nationwide campign to help
educate communities about HIV/AIDS. His inscesant work landed him in
Washington, DC to testify before the President's Commission on AIDS.
His words, works, and wills, were enshrined in The Ryan White CARE
(Comprehensive AIDS Resource Emergency) Act, signed 4 months after his
death (April 8, 1990).
This is a very important issue, and I urge my colleagues to support
the Engel amendment.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I take this time at the end of the bill to explain why
I am going to vote against the bill. I am speaking as one Member of the
House; I am not speaking as ranking Democrat on the subcommittee or
committee. I simply wanted people to know why I am going to oppose this
bill; and I want to, at the same time, explain my motion to recommit.
The good thing about this bill is that we repaired most of the damage
to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Most, but not all. But let
us understand, this bill, in my view, is still an assault on the
country's future. This bill is just the start of cuts planned over a 5-
year period to implement the Republican budget resolution that is
placing the importance of $140,000 tax cuts for those making $1 million
a year ahead of our long-term investments in education of our children,
the health care of our people, and the security of American workers.
This is the most important bill that we will consider this year in
terms of meeting the needs of the average American family and in
building the long-term strength of our society. More than any other, it
is the bill where we care for our neighbors. It is the bill that
determines how well we meet our obligations to those in society who
have not been among the most fortunate. This bill fails to meet those
tests in some dramatic ways, and I would like to point out just a few
of them.
Because of the fact that this House is deciding that large tax cuts
for very well-off people are more important than anything else, this
bill, on the worker protection front, guts the program that we rely on
to try to protect our workers from having to compete against child and
slave labor. It cuts that program by 87 percent, this at a time when
the administration is asking that we pass new trade legislation with
CAFTA.
Seven and a half million Americans are out of work, but this bill
cuts the employment service by $116 million. Forty-five million
Americans are without health insurance, but this eliminates community
access programs that help people get that health care. This bill cuts
by 84 percent the funding for training grants for health care
professionals. It cuts rural health programs by 41 percent.
The number of grants at NIH for research in all kinds of diseases
will be cut by 500 from just 2 years ago. The community services block
grant, the program where the poorest people in this country turn when
they have nowhere else to go, is cut by half in this bill, and the No
Child Left Behind bill is cut by some $800 million below last year. Mr.
Chairman, 1.7 million fewer disadvantaged children will receive care
under after-school programs, and 56,000 fewer teachers will get high-
quality training. This bill provides only half of the increase promised
by the Republican majority for the maximum Pell grant.
So for all of those reasons, I am going to offer a straight motion to
recommit so that this bill can go back to committee, so that these
items can be corrected, with one addition. As we said earlier, we found
out today that our efforts to try to increase funding for veterans
health care for the last 6 months were absolutely necessary, even
though we had been told by the VA that they had more than enough money
for veterans health care.
We want this bill to go back to the committee so that the committee
can also do what it should have done in the first place, which is to
add $1 billion on an emergency basis to take care of the shortfall in
VA health care that the White House and OMB have been hiding from the
American people and hiding from veterans for months.
So I will personally urge a vote for my motion to recommit; and when
the vote on final passage comes, I will vote against it, because this
bill just does not measure up to our national obligations.
Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will
now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were
postponed in the following order:
Amendment No. 14 offered by Mr. Hayworth of Arizona; amendment
offered by Mr. Van Hollen of Maryland; amendment No. 11 offered by Mr.
Paul of Texas; amendment offered by Ms. DeLauro of Connecticut; and
amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Hinchey of New York.
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Hayworth
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth)
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
[[Page H5153]]
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 146,
noes 256, not voting 31, as follows:
[Roll No. 315]
AYES--146
Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Blackburn
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boren
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Cantor
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
Kingston
Kline
Kolbe
Latham
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Musgrave
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Otter
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Pickering
Pitts
Pomeroy
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Sullivan
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
NOES--256
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonilla
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Calvert
Cannon
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Chandler
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dent
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Ford
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Melancon
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Reynolds
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Simmons
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Strickland
Stupak
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiahrt
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Wexler
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--31
Andrews
Baca
Becerra
Bilirakis
Blunt
Boozman
Boyd
Camp
Capito
Clay
Davis, Tom
Delahunt
Fattah
Gohmert
Gutierrez
Harman
Harris
Jones (NC)
LaTourette
Lewis (GA)
Meeks (NY)
Nunes
Reyes
Rogers (AL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ryan (OH)
Slaughter
Taylor (MS)
Udall (NM)
Watson
Wilson (NM)
{time} 1549
Ms. GRANGER, Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan, Ms. CORRINE BROWN of
Florida, and Messrs. MARSHALL, GONZALEZ, BOEHLERT and GRAVES changed
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. EVERETT, BONNER, GILCHREST, MARCHANT, RYAN of Wisconsin and
Mrs. NORTHUP changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Announcement of Intention to Permit 5- Minute Voting on Motion to
Recommit
(Mr. DeLAY asked and was given permission to speak out of order.)
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to put all Members on notice
that as soon as the Committee rises, I will seek an order of the House
to permit 5-minute voting on any motion to recommit.
I mention this now so that Members can have as much notice as
possible.
Announcement By the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, 5-minute voting in the Committee of
the Whole will resume.
There was no objection.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Van Hollen
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van
Hollen) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 224,
noes 178, not voting 31, as follows:
[Roll No. 316]
AYES--224
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass
Bean
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Chabot
Chandler
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Ferguson
Filner
Foley
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Gordon
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Melancon
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Northup
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Otter
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Renzi
Rogers (MI)
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
[[Page H5154]]
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shadegg
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weller
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOES--178
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Beauprez
Berry
Biggert
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Cannon
Cantor
Carter
Castle
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cox
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Goodlatte
Granger
Gutknecht
Hall
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Keller
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Matheson
McCaul (TX)
McCrery
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Osborne
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Reynolds
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shaw
Sherwood
Shuster
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--31
Andrews
Baca
Becerra
Bilirakis
Boozman
Boyd
Camp
Capito
Clay
Davis, Tom
Delahunt
Fattah
Gohmert
Gutierrez
Harman
Harris
Jones (NC)
LaTourette
Lewis (GA)
Meeks (NY)
Nunes
Reyes
Rogers (AL)
Ryan (OH)
Skelton
Slaughter
Taylor (MS)
Thomas
Udall (NM)
Watson
Wilson (NM)
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised that 2 minutes
remain in the vote.
{time} 1557
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Paul
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 97,
noes 304, not voting 32, as follows:
[Roll No. 317]
AYES--97
Aderholt
Akin
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Biggert
Blackburn
Brady (TX)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burton (IN)
Cannon
Chabot
Chocola
Cole (OK)
Cox
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Drake
Duncan
Everett
Feeney
Flake
Forbes
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hart
Hayes
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hinchey
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
Kingston
Kline
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCotter
McHenry
McKinney
McMorris
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Norwood
Otter
Paul
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Poe
Price (GA)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Simpson
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Upton
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wexler
NOES--304
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Burgess
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Cantor
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Carter
Case
Castle
Chandler
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Foley
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Gordon
Granger
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hall
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Herseth
Higgins
Hinojosa
Hobson
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Melancon
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Ney
Northup
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pickering
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (KY)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shuster
Simmons
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--32
Andrews
Baca
Becerra
Bilirakis
Boozman
Boyd
Camp
Capito
Clay
Davis, Tom
Delahunt
Fattah
Gohmert
Gutierrez
Harman
Harris
Jones (NC)
LaTourette
Lewis (GA)
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Nunes
Peterson (PA)
Reyes
Rogers (AL)
Ryan (OH)
Skelton
Slaughter
Taylor (MS)
Udall (NM)
Watson
Wilson (NM)
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there are 2
minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1604
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
[[Page H5155]]
Amendment Offered by Ms. DeLauro
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms.
DeLauro) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 165,
noes 234, not voting 34, as follows:
[Roll No. 318]
AYES--165
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Chandler
Cleaver
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Filner
Frank (MA)
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Melancon
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Simmons
Smith (WA)
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tauscher
Tierney
Udall (CO)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
NOES--234
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Berry
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boren
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Cannon
Cantor
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cox
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal (GA)
DeGette
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kind
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
Matheson
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moore (KS)
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salazar
Saxton
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Towns
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--34
Andrews
Baca
Becerra
Bilirakis
Blunt
Boozman
Boyd
Camp
Capito
Clay
Costa
Davis, Tom
Delahunt
Fattah
Gohmert
Goode
Gutierrez
Harman
Harris
Jefferson
Jones (NC)
LaTourette
Lewis (GA)
Meeks (NY)
Nunes
Reyes
Rogers (AL)
Skelton
Slaughter
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Udall (NM)
Watson
Wilson (NM)
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there are 2
minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1610
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Hinchey
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey)
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 192,
noes 210, not voting 31, as follows:
[Roll No. 319]
AYES--192
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Berkley
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Chabot
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Melancon
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Otter
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Smith (WA)
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Udall (CO)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOES--210
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
[[Page H5156]]
Bono
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Cannon
Cantor
Carter
Castle
Chocola
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cox
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (KY)
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Osborne
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
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)
Snyder
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Towns
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--31
Andrews
Baca
Becerra
Berman
Bilirakis
Boozman
Boyd
Camp
Capito
Davis, Tom
Delahunt
Fattah
Gohmert
Goode
Gutierrez
Harman
Harris
Jones (NC)
LaTourette
Lewis (GA)
Meeks (NY)
Nunes
Reyes
Rogers (AL)
Skelton
Slaughter
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Udall (NM)
Watson
Wilson (NM)
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised 2 minutes remain
in this vote.
{time} 1618
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, due to a previous and unavoidable
appointment, I was unable to vote on several amendments to H.R. 3010,
the FY 2006 Labor, Health and Human Services, Education Appropriations
Act. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall votes
numbered 315, 316 and 317, and ``no'' on rollcall votes numbered 318
and 319.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read the last three lines of the bill.
The Clerk read as follows:
This Act may be cited as the ``Departments of Labor, Health
and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2006''.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
proposals that seek to prohibit the use of funds in the bill to
distribute the personal information of Medicare and Medicaid
beneficiaries to private companies for marketing purposes. The
Americans who receive Medicare and Medicaid benefits already suffer
from ailments that debilitate and weaken them from a health standpoint.
This legislation should not be permitted to debilitate them from a
fiscal standpoint either.
According to data, more people were covered by Medicare and Medicaid
in 2003 than in 2002, while the percentage and number of people covered
by their employers fell from 61.3 percent--175.3 million people--to
60.4 percent--174 million people. Mr. Chairman, this is a lot of people
whose personal information could be jeopardized by the haphazard
distribution to the marketing community.
The situation with Choicepoint and others should provide more than
adequate proof that information can be used to harm people and that it
can be done rapidly. Allowing funds to facilitate the free
dissemination of personal information by the Federal Government only
exacerbates the vulnerable nature of personal information databases.
The Medicaid and Medicare databases were not created for the purpose of
business development; therefore, the information contained in these
databases should be protected unless consent is obtained from the
person described therein.
For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I support the gentleman's amendment.
Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, the bill would decrease
funding for disadvantaged children in low income schools by $115.2
million from FY 2005 levels. The bill also included $258.5 million less
for the Bureau of Health Professions in the Health Resources and
Services Administration that administers important health professions
training, scholarship, and loan repayment programs, including programs
encouraging diversity in the health workforce. The legislation included
$84.6 million less for rural health programs than was provided in FY
2005. Because I believe this bill would have inadequately funded
important education and health programs, I would have voted against the
legislation.
Mr. MOORE of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the
funding levels in H.R. 3010, the FY 2006 Labor-HHS-Education
Appropriations Act, for the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and Title VII
Health Professionals programs.
I voted for NCLB because I believe in increased accountability for
our nation's public schools to ensure that the promise of a high-
quality public education can be realized for each student in our
nation. Before the vote on NCLB, I heard reservations from local
educators and my constituents that NCLB not become another unfunded
mandate like IDEA for special education. When Congress approved and the
President signed NCLB, however, I believed that the federal government
would provide the promised funding to enact these reforms.
Since 2002, Congress and the Administration have not fully funded
NCLB. In H.R. 3010, Congress and the Administration cut NCLB overall
funding by $806 million (3.3 percent) below the current level. Under
this bill, the NCLB funding shortfall will be $13.2 billion for FY 2006
and over $40 billion since the law's enactment.
In addition, H.R. 3010 cuts the $603 million increase the
Administration proposed for Title I to help low-income children improve
their reading and math skills to only an $100 million increase. The
Administration's request was already inadequate, but these additional
cuts put Title I funding $9.9 billion under what is promised under NCLB
for FY 2006.
Congress and the Administration have not fully funded IDEA, a program
that helps local schools and school districts pay for the costs of
providing educational services to special needs children that are
mandated by federal law. The federal government has never provided 40
percent of the costs it initially promised when it enacted this
important law. H.R. 3010 provides $3.9 billion less than Congress
promised in the IDEA Improvement Act of 2004. In addition, this bill
even cuts the $508 million increase proposed by the Administration to
only $150 million. Under this bill, the federal share of special
education costs will actually drop from 18.6 percent to 18.1 percent
next year.
In the 2004-2005 school year, 10 states and 7,194 school districts
saw cuts in Title I funding, including my state of Kansas. For the
2005-2006 school year, Kansas along with nine other states will again
receive less Title I funding. For my home state of Kansas, the combined
funding shortfall for NCLB and IDEA for FY 2006 is $240 million, which
is shifting the burden of meeting these new requirements back to Kansas
taxpayers. With the deadline of expanding assessment to grades 3
through 8 scheduled for the 2005-2006 school year and more districts
being identified under Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), Congress and the
Administration are not keeping pace with increasing demands at the
local level.
The federal government must provide our school with the resources and
tools necessary to help them meet the new standards imposed by NCLB. It
is simply a matter of fairness and common sense. This is why I have
introduced H.R. 2694, the Keeping our Promises to America's Children
(KPAC) Act of 2005. This legislation would suspend implementation of
NCLB until the law is fully funded.
I would also like to express my concerns about the cuts to Title VII
Health Professions programs included in H.R. 3010. The elimination of
the programs will have an immediate impact on the training and
recruitment of health professions students and the educational
opportunities developed and supported by Title VII.
Title VII programs are unique in that they are the only federal
investment in interdisciplinary training, which is vitally important,
as care is often provided in several different settings.
The programs are also designed to enhance minority representation in
the health care workforce and reduce shortages of health professionals
in underserved areas, such as inner cities and the many rural regions
throughout
[[Page H5157]]
the country. Community Health Centers and the National Health Service
Corps, for example, rely on graduates of Title VII programs to fill
their ranks.
Congress talks a lot about values. I think a true measure of values
is not what people say, but where Congress decides to spend our money
or make budget cuts. Funding for these important programs must be
restored in the final FY 2006 Labor-HHS bill. These cuts account for
almost $6 million in Kansas and $5 million for the K.U. Medical Center.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, today we will vote
on H.R. 3010, the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education bill
for fiscal year 2006. On behalf of the educators, administrators and
students in Dallas, Texas, I would like to express my strong opposition
to the education appropriations outlined in this measure. The
inadequate overall funding in H.R. 3010 completely undermines the
public prioritization of education as a paramount concern.
Make no mistake--these education cuts come as no surprise. Beginning
with the passage of the House budget resolution for FY 2006, my
Republican colleagues have shown their true intentions with regard to
education funding. As passed, the budget resolution provides $56
billion in discretionary funding for the Department of Education. This
is a $530 million, or 0.9 percent decrease over the current fiscal year
(FY 2005). This is the first time in over a decade that total education
funding has been cut.
Although our children have no legislative voice, they represent our
Nation's future and deserve our investment in their education today. As
it stands, H.R. 3010 would cut funding for reading tours, teacher
quality initiatives, bilingual instruction, class size reduction,
school modernization, violence prevention initiatives, afterschool
services and many other vital programs.
Specifically, the House Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations bill would
cut. No Child Left Behind by $806 million (3.3 percent) below the
current level. Under this bill, the NCLB funding shortfall will be
$13.2 billion next year and over $40 billion since enactment. The bill
also cuts the $603 million increase the Administration proposed for
Title I to help low-income children improve their reading and math
skills to only $100 million. The Administration's request was already
inadequate. However, under this bill, Title I funding will be $9.9
billion below NCLB's funding promise for FY 2006.
The bill freezes After School Centers, virtually for the fourth year
in a row at $991 million even though only 38 percent of all after
school applications nationwide could be funded last year. We are
turning away children even though more than 14 million kids are
unsupervised after school each day.
It slashes Education Technology by $196 million (39.5 percent) on top
of a $196 million cut last year. One in four states have no other
dedicated technology funds to track NCLB student achievement data,
improve teachers' use of technology, and close the achievement gap
through online learning.
It eliminates Comprehensive School Reform grants to 1,000 high-
poverty schools by eliminating the program. Rigorous independent
evaluations have shown that comprehensive school reform models such as
Success for All, America's Choice, High Schools That Work, First Things
First, and Talent Development are making a significant difference in
helping schools implement integrated, schoolwide reform strategies.
This bill turns its back on these schools.
The bill cuts investments in teachers. It freezes the main NCLB
program to put a qualified teacher in every classroom--Teacher Quality
State Grants--at $2.9 billion for the 3rd consecutive year of a freeze
or cut. The bill denies 80 percent of the Administration's $500 million
request to provide an incentive for the best teachers to teach in the
most challenging high-poverty schools. It cuts funds requested for math
and science teachers by $79 million (29 percent). It even cuts teacher
training in American history by $69 million (58 percent).
It freezes Impact Aid payments to 1,300 school districts for over 1
million military and other Federally-connected children, funding Impact
Aid at approximately 35 percent below the maximum payments authorized
for FY 2006. The bill also freezes flexible innovative education
grants, English language training, civic education, State assessments,
and rural education. Some of these programs have been frozen for four
years in a row.
Although the Republican Majority promised low-income students a $100
increase in the maximum Pell Grant in the 2006 Budget Resolution, this
bill provides only half that. The $50 increase would offset only 2
percent of the additional $2,300 in four-year public college costs
since 2001.
If enacted, H.R. 3010 would be a grave disservice to our children and
the future of our Nation. For these reasons and more, I oppose the
unsatisfactory education funding levels in this appropriations bill.
Unfortunately, underfunded education initiatives is not the only
problem with this bill. The bill disinvests in job training and help
for the unemployed--cutting these programs by $346 million below the
current level while 7.6 million Americans remain out of work.
Finally, this legislation lacks appropriate funding levels for in the
human services area, the Committee cuts in half the Community Services
Block Grant, a program aimed at helping the poorest people in our
communities who often have no other place to turn. This is an
improvement over the President's plan to abolish the program entirely,
but it still leaves more than 1,000 local community services agencies
seriously short of resources to assist low-income people. The purpose
of this block grant is to provide flexible funds to meet whatever a
local community considers their most important needs, whether it be for
job training, emergency food aid, programs for low-income seniors, or
home weatherization.
The bill also cuts the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program
(LIHEAP) by almost $200 million--even though there's no reason to
expect that we won't have another winter of sky-high heating oil and
natural gas prices. Over the past four years, the average cost of
heating a home with oil has almost doubled, and the share of that cost
covered by the average LIHEAP grant has fallen by half, from 49 percent
to 25 percent.
Clearly, I cannot support this bill as written. In its current form,
this legislation is nothing less than an insult to the American people.
It inadequately and irresponsibly allocates money to Labor, Health and
Human Services, and Education. However, should this bill return from
the Senate with the appropriate funding levels, I will gladly support
it. I sincerely hope we can work out the problems and pass a
responsible bill that responds to the needs of our children, workers,
and elderly citizens.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to
the Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations bill. I say reluctant because as
a member of the Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Subcommittee I have
worked closely with the other members of the subcommittee during our
budget oversight hearings and especially with our chairman, Ralph
Regula, to highlight programs of importance to my constituents.
Chairman Regula and the staff of the subcommittee have been extremely
patient with my many requests, and Chairman Regula has been extremely
generous, within his tight budget allocation, in trying to make
progress on several important priorities of mine.
The first of those priorities is the national media campaign to fight
underage drinking, which is currently underway by the Ad Council.
Although the subcommittee has provided project funds for this important
effort in the past, for the first time, the chairman has included this
funding as a programmatic priority in the office of the Secretary of
Health and Human Services. Representative Frank Wolf and I were joined
by 44 of our colleagues in requesting the funds to carry out a
multimedia campaign directed at parents, and I am grateful to Chairman
Regula, who understands the terrible impact of underage drinking on our
youth and the importance of an effective national media campaign to
address it.
In addition, Chairman Regula has provided increases in two areas to
help infants and their families. First, CDC--the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention--conducts a national program for education and
prevention of birth defects by encouraging women of child-bearing age
to take the recommended amount of folic acid daily. Based on this
effort, as well as the fortification of U.S. grain products with folic
acid, the rate of neural tube defects has decreased by 26 percent over
7 years, and the committee has continued to provide incremental
increases to this important CDC program. Second, the committee has
increased funds for the Health Resources and Services Administration's
newborn screening program for early identification of infants affected
by certain genetic, metabolic, hormonal and or functional conditions
for which there are effective treatment or intervention. In the report,
HRSA is encouraged to use these new funds for the development of
parental and provider education material and programs to promote the
importance of newborn screening.
I appreciate Chairman Regula's generosity in providing funds for
these priorities. He truly understands that the Labor-HHS-Education
Appropriations bill is the people's bill. It makes it doubly difficult
for me to cast a vote in opposition to the bill because I know he has
worked hard to distribute the limited resources he has been given in a
fair and conscientious way. My ``no'' vote on this bill should
therefore in no way be seen as a lack of respect or lack of
appreciation for Ralph Regula and his efforts on behalf of those who
depend on the resources provided in this bill.
However, this bill, more than any other appropriations bill we act
on, by providing the funds for health and education programs of
importance to our constituents, I goes to the
[[Page H5158]]
heart of what we Democrats in the House stand for and for what I stand
for as a Member of Congress representing the people and communities of
the 34th District of California. These programs are just too important,
and the cuts and terminations in this bill are just too severe, for me
to vote for this bill at this time.
I will continue to work with Chairman Regula, Ranking Member David
Obey, and the other members of our subcommittee as we conference the
bill with the Senate, with the hope that we can identify additional
funds and make the improvements to this bill that will make it one of
which we can all be proud and which we can all support.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my concern that funding
for Title VII programs have been cut in this bill. VII programs provide
direct financial support for healthcare workforce development and
education. It is imperative to provide adequate funding so that well-
trained health care providers can continue to meet the needs of the
American people.
The house showed great leadership last year by providing $300 million
in funding, and I believe that any decrease could hamper the programs'
ability to train health professionals to care for the neediest
populations.
The President's budget proposes, for the fifth year in a row, to
eliminate many of the programs that educate and train a variety of
health care providers, such as pharmacists, dentists and pediatricians.
For a number of years now, I have organized Members to express
support for this important program, and urged the Appropriators to
fully fund it in the Labor-Health and Human Services-Education bill.
For the first time this year, the House has failed to restore this
funding.
These massive cuts will eliminate key programs that make it possible
for our health professions schools to develop training infrastructures
and high quality education.
The Title VII Health Professions programs are also the only federal
programs designed to train providers in interdisciplinary settings to
respond to the needs of special and underserved populations.
The programs have shown to increase minority representation in the
health care workforce, which I believe is absolutely essential for our
health system.
At a time when the American people have come to rely on their health
care providers more than ever, eliminating this resource would be
devastating to the country's neediest communities.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to prohibit any
funds from being spent by the Department of Education in violation of
current federal law.
According to existing federal law, any state providing illegal aliens
in-state tuition discounts must provide these discounts to all
students, regardless of state of residence. Section 505 of the Illegal
Immigration Reform and Responsibility Act of 1996 clearly states that:
``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an alien who is not
lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible on the
basis of residence within a State (or a political subdivision) for any
postsecondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the
United States is eligible for such a benefit (in no less an amount,
duration, and scope) without regard to whether the citizen or national
is such a resident.''
My amendment simply seeks to enforce existing law.
Not only is providing in-state tuition to illegal aliens against the
law, it would also place a huge financial burden on our society. The
costs to states of providing in-state tuition to illegal aliens
throughout the U.S. help illustrate the high cost of these measures.
Approximately 126,000 illegal aliens under 21 were enrolled in college
in the year 2000. At non-resident tuition rates, they would pay between
$503 million and $655 million annually. If they were made eligible for
in-state tuition discounts, they would pay only $155 million to $201
million--leaving taxpayers to make up the difference of $349 million to
$454 million. Given the fiscal constraints our nation is currently
under, no good reason exists to spend additional money to give tuition
discounts to illegal aliens.
As public universities across the country increasingly limit
enrollment increasing the intake of illegal aliens into these schools
will mean fewer opportunities and less aid for United States citizens
and legal immigrants. This will also result in greater expense to the
state taxpayers. Out-of-state tuition is typically two to three-and-a-
half times higher than in-state tuition. The revenue lost as a result
of providing in-state tuition to illegal aliens would have to be paid
for by someone.
Finally, giving special treatment to illegal aliens is fundamentally
unjust to legal immigrants who have invested a great deal to comply
with our immigration laws or obtain legal citizenship. We should not
reward those who have broken our immigration laws with the same
benefits as those who have made an effort to respect the law. This
measure is a fundamentally unjust and expensive attempt to integrate
illegal aliens into our state and federally funded higher education
systems.
Please join me in supporting this amendment to enforce existing law
and avoid rewarding law-breakers.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, the fiscal year 2006 Labor, Health and
Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies appropriations bill is
one of the most important bills for shaping our domestic priorities.
Unfortunately the bill before this Congress imposes draconian cuts to
the essential services that Americans rely on everyday.
The $1.2 billion cuts spread throughout these agencies will be
devastating to the future of our Nation. I am astonished to see that
the Department of Education will see its smallest increase in a decade,
which comes at a time when school districts across the Nation are
struggling to come up with adequate funding to address the unfunded
mandates of President Bush's No Child Left Behind. This is the wrong
kind of message to be sending to our children and teachers.
The one positive point during this debate was the passage of the
amendment to restore the $100 million cut to the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting (CPB). This vote signaled the bipartisan support that can
be rallied to overrule the ideologically driven agenda of some in
Congress. Millions of people across the country contacted Congress this
week in support of CPB and the overwhelming vote in favor of the
amendment to restore funding (284-140, 87 Republican and every Democrat
in support) is an indication of the more reasonable approach the
country expects from Congress.
Unfortunately, this bill eliminates 48 programs and slashes funding
for critical programs across the country. I will not support a bill
that falls so short in meeting America's needs, in fact, creates more
disparities. We must do better to address the obligations we have to
the people of this country.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr.Chairman, I rise today to join my colleagues in
urging full funding of the National Children's Study.
Two of the most important health studies ever conducted were large,
ambitious epidemiological studies. The Framingham Study followed the
health and risk factors of thousands of men and women for fifty years.
The result has been a major change in the way we view, treat and
prevent heart diseases. The Nurse's Study has monitored the health of
over one hundred thousand women for decades. It, too, has resulted in
unprecedented leaps forward in public health.
Now, we must turn our attention to one of the biggest sources of
public health threats of our time: our own environment. The National
Children's study will follow 100,000 children from before birth until
age 21. Similar to the Framingham study and the Nurse's study, it could
yield giant steps forward in our efforts to solve some of the most
complex and pervasive health problems of our time: obesity, asthma, and
autism are just a few. And we could start to see results within a few
years of data collection.
Yet the study has been left in a holding pattern. In order to begin
recruiting participants in the study, 69 million dollars is required
for this year. Only 12 million dollars is provided in the FY 06 Labor
HHS bill.
I hope that the conference committee allocates 69 million dollars in
the conference report for the FY 06 Labor HHS Appropriations bill to
the National Children's Study. We are not doing our future children any
favors by postponing this study until it is financially convenient. The
need is here. The possibilities are here.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, today I rise to express my deep
concerns about how this bill falls $1.6 billion short in funding our
Nation's most critically important domestic priorities--particularly
education. This bill is a stunning example of the impact that this
Congress's misplaced priorities can have on what most consider to be a
basic human right--access to a quality education.
We have made a conscious choice: While we give away tax cuts worth
$140,000 to millionaires, families earning $25,000 to $30,000 a year
won't be able to afford sending their children to college this year.
It's an unconscionable choice that defies our priorities and our values
of standing up for middle class Americans.
Before I was elected to Congress, I spent 30 years as a college
administrator. In that time, I came to fully understand how difficult
it is for students and their families to afford college. Every day, I
worked with parents and their children--scraping up money, grants,
scholarships, whatever we could find--to help them realize part of the
American dream--the opportunity to earn a college education.
But for the fourth straight year, Congress has short-changed students
by cutting billions of dollars from the authorized level under law--
$13.2 billion short of what is authorized for FY 06 and over $40
billion short since its enactment in 2001.
[[Page H5159]]
Another public law we have abandoned is the IDEA Improvement Act,
which has been underfunded by nearly $4 billion since its enactment.
For our Nation's 7 million disabled children, IDEA Part B grants alone
fall short of the President's budget request by over $500 million.
At a time when some of the Nation's poorest school districts are
fighting to stay open, this bill cuts Title I funding for the neediest
of our elementary and secondary schools by $500 million below the
President's request.
While in the past year alone, tuition has increased an average of
10.5 percent at 4-year public universities, this bill provides only a
modest $50 increase in the maximum Pell grant--a full $1,000 short of
what the President promised in 2001.
And, ironically, at a time when this Administration and Republican
Congress talk about morality and family values in public affairs, this
bill cuts local public TV and radio funds for childrens' shows like
Sesame Street and Reading Rainbow.
My specific concerns about the higher education shortfalls stem from
my belief that a quality education is integral to the success of
Americans and the nation as a whole. As an increasing number of
students graduate from high school and pursue postsecondary education
and training, we must make the necessary investment to deliver
accessible, affordable and excellent education to all Americans.
Each year, millions of hardworking American students and their
families struggle to cover the cost of attending college, even after
exhausting all of the options available to them such as scholarships,
student loans, Pell grants, and college work-study.
The typical low-income student falls $3,800 short of college costs
even after their family contribution, student loans, grants, and work
have been accounted for.
Today, an affluent student in the bottom percentile of their class is
more likely to go to college than an economically disadvantaged student
at the top of their class.
With college enrollment expected to expand by 14 percent, to more
than 15 million students over the next decade, now is the time that
Congress must invest its resources towards helping students gain access
to college.
But under this bill, the percentage of college costs covered by the
Pell Grant would drop to a new low of 32 percent. This is compared to
thirty years ago when the Pell Grants paid for 72 percent of the cost
for a 4-year public college.
The lack of a significant increase in the Pell Grant comes at a time
when changes to the tax allowance formula used to calculate the
Department of Education's ``Expected Family Contribution'' eliminated
Pell Grant awards for over 90,000 students, and reduced scholarships
for an additional 1.3 million students.
For the second year in a row, this bill also freezes funding for
Supplemental Education Opportunity Grants (SEOG) and College Work
Study. This is the second year in a row that SEOG and Work-Study have
received flat funding.
With this bill, we have made a conscious choice--to provide more
comfort for the comfortable at the expense of those who are trying to
make a better life for themselves.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3010, the
Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Fiscal
Year 2006 Appropriations Act. H.R. 3010 severely under funds education,
health care, and job training efforts that are crucial to North
Carolina and to the country.
As the only former state schools chief serving in Congress, I know
firsthand the devastating effects that these education cuts will have.
At a time when we are asking our schools to do more than ever, these
education cuts will destroy the morale of our teachers, parents and
students. Not only does this appropriations bill continue to under fund
No Child Left Behind, but it also shortchanges special education for
6.9 million children, fails to raise the maximum Pell Grant and
eliminates successful education initiatives like drop out prevention.
These education cuts will make it impossible for our schools to meet
high standards of accountability.
Unfortunately, H.R. 3010 also fails to provide adequate funds for key
health care programs. In rural communities it is often hard to find a
doctor, and emergency rooms can be dangerously far away. This
appropriations bill slashes funding for rural and preventative health.
Activities that would be terminated include initiatives designed to
encourage new medical and dental school graduates to choose primary
care specialties and to practice in rural and urban under-served areas.
I am also concerned about the inadequate funding for Preventative
Health Block Grants and Community Health Centers, both of which provide
much needed services to the people of North Carolina's 2nd District.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote against this bad bill.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R.
3010, which provides federal funding for health, education and worker
programs. This bill contains $1.6 billion less than the current year
and fails miserably to make important basic investments in education,
healthcare, job training and job protection programs.
On healthcare, the bill takes a huge step backward in efforts to
maintain basic health care services for the people in this country who
are uninsured or underinsured. It eliminates the Healthy Communities
Access Program, which helps health centers and public hospitals provide
care for the uninsured. The bill cuts rural health care program funding
almost in half, and it wipes out almost all of the Title VII health
profession training programs that institutions like the CU Health
Sciences Center need in order to provide critical training and
education for medical students and residents who aim to practice in
rural, low-income, and under-served areas.
And while the bill eliminates or cuts funding for several programs,
it also fails to adequately fund others. The bill is $200 million short
for community health centers to cover rising health care costs at
existing centers or to expand care for the uninsured. The National
Institutes of Health, which works to find cures for many diseases, gets
a paltry .5 percent increase in funding, the smallest percentage
increase in 36 years which is not even enough to keep up with inflation
in research costs. State and local health departments will be hobbled
in protecting the public against infectious and other diseases because
the bill cuts the Preventive Health Block Grant by 24 percent. Further,
grants that help health departments improve their preparedness against
bioterrorism and other public health emergencies are cut by $75
million. And the Ryan White AIDS programs funding is frozen, even
though the number of people living with HIV/AIDS has been rising by
more than six percent each year.
On the education front, the Republican Majority has imposed the first
freeze on education funding in a decade while requiring local school
districts to implement federal mandates under the No Child Left Behind
Act. Though I am pleased to see some of the programs that were cut in
the President's budget were restored in this bill such as vocational
programs, I am concerned by the low levels of funding for several
education programs.
Our nation has seen a decreased number of students studying the
science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) disciplines,
and in turn fewer Americans are seeking careers in STEM fields. The
Math and Science Partnership provides grants to recruit STEM majors
into teaching, and links current teachers with state agencies or
universities to improve teaching skills. This program, coupled with its
counterpart at the National Science Foundation, works to improve the
quality of teaching in math and sciences that will excite students to
study these disciplines. This bill cuts this program by $11 million
from the current budget and $79 million below the President's request.
Unless we invest in these programs we will continue to see the decline
in the number of STEM majors and those seeking these careers.
I am also concerned by the funding levels provided for Part B state
grants under IDEA. Last Congress we passed an authorization for IDEA
that sought to reach full funding of the program by 2011. This budget
is $3.9 billion below the FY2006 level authorized in the IDEA
Improvement Act. Though I am pleased to see this program received an
increase of $140 million over the FY05 level, I do not think we are
doing enough to help states provide adequate education for disabled
students.
I am pleased that the House approved the Obey amendment to restore
$100 million for public broadcasting. The Corporation for Public
Broadcasting provides an important service to Americans that could not
be possible without federal funding. In an effort to maintain
independence the Corporation for Public Broadcasting receives funding
two years in advance. I believe it is important to maintain the
independence of public broadcasting and we should not be taking from
already appropriated funds. I am proud that the House acted to protect
this excellent programming and reject the cuts originally included in
this bill.
Overall, this bill makes drastic cuts to critically important health
care, education and job training programs, and it fails to adequately
fund other programs and that is why I cannot support it.
Mr. KELLER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that both Republican and
Democrats have accepted my amendment and that it has passed today as
part of the unanimous consent agreement.
Mr. Chairman, I believe it was a colossal waste of taxpayer dollars
by the U.S. Department of Education to pay $240,000 to columnist
Armstrong Williams to promote The No Child Left Behind Act.
This amendment ensures that it will never happen again by providing
that no taxpayer
[[Page H5160]]
funds shall be used, either directly or indirectly, by private
contractors, which include public relations firms, journalists, and
media commentators, to support or defeat legislation pending before
this Congress.
The policy behind my amendment is straightforward. Using taxpayer
dollars to bribe journalists to bias their news coverage in favor of
legislation is a waste of taxpayer money, it is a black eye on the
independence of our free press, and it undermines the integrity of our
democracy.
Mr. Chairman, let me give you some background as to why this
amendment is necessary. In January of this year, media reports revealed
that the U.S. Department of Education entered into a $1 million
contract with a private contractor, known as the Ketchum Public
Relations firm. This PR firm then turned around and paid $240,000 in a
sub-contract to newspaper columnist and TV commentator Armstrong
Williams to promote The No Child Left Behind Act.
Specifically, under the contract, Armstrong Williams was paid to
``regularly comment on NCLB during the course of his broadcasts,'' to
``encourage the producers'' of a cable TV program to ``periodically
address'' the NCLB law, and it specified that the Secretary of
Education and other education officials would have the right to appear
from ``time to time'' as guests on Williams' TV programs.
Shortly after learning about this situation, President Bush
criticized the Education Departments $240,000 payout to Armstrong
Williams and ordered his cabinet secretaries not to hire columnists or
commentators to promote administration policies.
Specifically, President Bush stated: ``All our cabinet secretaries
must realize that we will not be paying commentators to advance our
agenda. Our agenda ought to be able to stand on its own two feet. We
need to make sure this kind of thing doesn't happen again.''
I agree with President Bush.
This is not a Republican or Democrat issue. It's a common sense
issue. For example, while the Armstrong Williams matter happened during
the Bush administration's watch, similar problems happened during the
Clinton administration.
For example, the GAO noted that the Clinton administration's Health
and Human Services department used actors in October of 1999 to portray
reporters in fake news segments that were distributed to TV stations,
without disclosing that the government had actually funded and produced
the supposed news segments.
Mr. Chairman, it is dead wrong to use taxpayer dollars to pay private
contractors, such as public relations firms, journalists and media
commentators, to promote legislation pending before this Congress, and
for that reason, I wholeheartedly thank my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle for voting ``yes'' on my amendment.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Labor-
HHS-Education appropriations bill today. This bill grossly underfunds
key domestic priorities in education, health, human services, job
training, public broadcasting, and the list goes on and on.
Appropriations bills typically include at least a slight increase in
spending from the following year to make up for inflation, if nothing
else. Instead, this bill actually cuts spending below last year's level
by $1.6 billion. The cuts are so plentiful that it is hard to put
together a concise statement highlighting my rationale for voting no.
President Bush and the Republicans in Congress proudly proclaimed
their support for improving our Nation's education system when they
passed the bipartisan No Child Left Behind law. Ever since that time,
they've been avoiding putting the dollars behind that commitment.
Today's bill is another example of this retreat.
The bill before us underfunds No Child Left Behind by $13.2 billion.
It also goes on to freeze funding for after-school programs even though
only 38 percent of eligible programs can obtain funding at these
levels. It also shortchanges special education for 6.9 million children
by failing to meet our government's commitment to IDEA. Head Start, a
program well-documented in its effectiveness, fails to obtain the
resources necessary for it to give a step up for millions of eligible
children.
The bill is no better when it comes to important health care
priorities. President Bush has gone out of his way to emphasize his
commitment to ending AIDS around the globe. But, when it comes time to
turn that sound bite into reality, he and his party turn their backs.
This bill eliminates funding to the Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS and
freezes almost all funds in the Ryan White AIDS programs which provide
services to people suffering from HIV and AIDS here at home. At the
same time the bill wastes $115 million on unproven abstinence only
education programs.
This bill eliminates funding for HHS health professions training
programs, slashes funding for public health efforts to increase
preventive care, eliminates the Healthy Families Communities Access
Program aimed at helping local advocates and governments develop
solutions to cover the uninsured, and provides the smallest increase in
36 years for the NIH.
On the human services front, this bill fails to provide needed funds
for child care. For the 4th year in a row, it freezes federal funding
for the Child Care Block Grant even though millions of low-income
families cannot afford adequate, safe child care for their children. It
also cuts vital funding for low-income home energy assistance. And, it
slashes funding for the Community Services Block Grant which provides
funds to local communities to help them provide basic services to low-
income families.
The provision in this bill that has received the most public
attention is the provision to gut $100 million in funding for public
education. I'm pleased that we passed an amendment on the House floor
to eliminate that cut. So, we've protected PBS, NPR and other public
broadcasting initiatives for now. But, make no mistake about it, the
Republicans want to go much further than reducing funding. Much like
they're working to privatize Medicare and Social Security, they would
happily turn our airwaves--which are public space--over to the private
sector as well.
These are a sampling of the many reasons I oppose the bill before us
today. I urge my colleagues to join with me in voting ``no'' on the
wrongheaded priorities of the Republican majority. Health, education
and human services are core responsibilities of our Federal Government.
This bill fails on all fronts.
Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to
this bill.
Let me begin by thanking Chairman Regula, Ranking Member Obey and
their staff for their hard work in bringing this bill to the House
floor.
Although the Committee has done its best, it is shameful the
Committee had a limited amount of money to fund America's highest
domestic priorities. This Republican led Congress and the
Administration has put the $140,000 tax cuts for people who make $1
million or more a year; and spending $250 billion fighting the war in
Iraq and Afghanistan ahead of the need to invest in our children, our
education system, our health care system, and job training programs
that will help American families.
This bill does fund many of the programs that the Administration
wanted to cut or eliminate programs such as TRIO, GEAR UP, Vocational
Education State Grants and Adult Education programs.
However, the bill before us today sorely underfunds or eliminates too
many programs. The bill zeroes out 48 programs. The list is enclosed.
Also, the bill provides the smallest increase for the National
Institutes of Health in 36 years.
This bill cuts $806 million from No Child Left Behind.
This bill provides only a $50 increase in Pell grants, despite
hundreds of dollars of increases in college tuitions and costs.
This bill cuts the Employment Service program by $116 million. The
Employment Service program helps the unemployed with finding jobs and
with 7.6 million Americans out of work this program is critical.
Quality pre-natal care and health services for low-income mothers and
infants should be a priority but this bill cuts the Maternal and Child
Health Block Grant program by $24 million and the Healthy Start program
targeted to communities with high infant mortality by $5 million.
The Low-Income Energy Assistance Program that helps families pay
heating bills is cut by $198 million at a time when gas prices are at
their highest.
The Safe and Drug Free Schools program to keep school aged children
off drugs and alcohol is cut by $37 million, which will devastate many
families and communities.
Preventative Health Block Grants to state health departments are cut
by $31 million.
The bill slashes the Education Technology Program by $196 million.
The Community College Initiative is cut in half by $125 million.
It freezes after-school centers for the fourth year in a row.
Mr. Chairman, this bill eliminates 48 programs, including the
elimination of $100 million Department of Health and Human Services'
contribution to the Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, Malaria and
Tuberculosis.
It eliminates comprehensive school grants for 1,000 high-poverty
school districts by eliminating the program.
This bill eliminates 10 out of the 12 Title VII health profession
training programs. These programs help ease the shortage of doctors,
dentists, and other health professionals in underserved areas.
This bill eliminates the Health Communities Access Program that helps
health centers and public hospitals better serve the uninsured.
Mr. Chairman, HR 3010 does not invest in our future, our families, or
our country. The needs and values of Americans are not addressed. This
bill shortchanges the American
[[Page H5161]]
people. The Appropriations Committee had to make tough choices because
of the strict budget allocations brought on by the misguided and
irresponsible tax cuts for the richest of Americans and the cost of the
war, but programs that help millions of Americans should not be on the
chopping block.
Congress is walking away from our commitment to equal opportunity and
a better quality of life for all Americans. Greater access to job
training, better jobs, affordable healthcare, quality education, and
closing the disparity gap should be our goal.
The Labor, Health & Human Services, and Education bill falls far
short of achieving these goals and strengthening American families.
FY 2006 LABOR-HHS-EDUCATION APPROPRIATIONS BILL PROGRAM TERMINATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2005 FY 2006
Comparable Committee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Labor
Responsible Reintegration of Youth...... 49,600,000 0
Denali Commission....................... 6,944,000 0
-------------------------------
Subtotal, Department of Labor....... 56,544,000 0
Department of Health and Human Services
Healthy Communities Access Program 82,993,000 0
(HCAP).................................
Health Professions Diversity: Faculty 1,302,000 0
Loan Repayments & Fellowships..........
Health Careers Opportunity Program 35,647,000 0
(HCOP).................................
Training in Primary Care Medicine and 88,816,000 0
Dentistry..............................
Area Health Education Centers........... 28,971,000 0
Health Education and Training Centers... 3,819,000 0
Geriatric Health Professions Training 31,548,000 0
Programs...............................
Quentin N. Burdick Program for Rural 6,076,000 0
Interdisciplinary Training.............
Allied Health and Other Disciplines 11,753,000 0
Training...............................
Public Health, Preventive Medicine and 9,097,000 0
Dental Public Health Training..........
Health Administration Training Programs. 1,070,000 0
Health Professions Workforce Information 716,000 0
& Analysis.............................
Sickle Cell Demonstration Program....... 198,000 0
Rural Health Research & Policy 8,825,000 0
Development............................
Rural Emergency Medical Services 496,000 0
Training...............................
State Planning Grants for Health Care 10,910,000 0
Access.................................
Trauma Care/Emergency Medical Services.. 3,419,000 0
Denali Commission....................... 39,680,000 0
NIH Extramural Research Facilities 29,760,000 0
Grants.................................
Community Food and Nutrition............ 7,180,000 0
National Youth Sports Program........... 17,856,000 0
Early Learning Opportunities Program.... 35,712,000 0
-------------------------------
Subtotal, Department of Health and 455,844,000 0
Human Services.....................
Department of Education
Comprehensive school reform*............ 205,344,000 0
Parental information and resource 41,886,000 0
centers................................
Byrd scholarships....................... 40,672,000 0
Arts in education....................... 35,633,000 0
Alcohol abuse reduction................. 32,736,000 0
Ready to Learn.......................... 23,312,000 0
State grants for incarcerated youth 21,824,000 0
offenders..............................
Star schools............................ 20,832,000 0
Foreign language assistance............. 17,856,000 0
Ready to teach.......................... 14,291,000 0
Javits gifted and talented education.... 11,022,000 0
Occupational and employment information. 9,307,000 0
Exchanges with historic whaling and 8,630,000 0
trading partners.......................
Demonstration projects for students with 6,944,000 0
disabilities...........................
Community technology centers............ 4,960,000 0
Literacy programs for prisoners......... 4,960,000 0
Mental health integration in schools.... 4,960,000 0
Dropout prevention program.............. 4,930,000 0
Tech-prep demonstration................. 4,900,000 0
Thurgood Marshall legal opportunity 2,976,000 0
program................................
Women's educational equity.............. 2,956,000 0
Underground railroad program............ 2,204,000 0
Excellence in economic education........ 1,488,000 0
Interest subsidy grants................. 1,488,000 0
-------------------------------
Subtotal, Department of Education... 526,111,000 0
===============================
Total--48 Programs.............. 1,038,499,000 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The Committee bill includes $10 million to close out national
activities and evaluations.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose the massive cuts to
the Title VII health professions training programs which play a
critical role in addressing the shortage of doctors, nurses, dentists
and other health professionals in underserved areas and have proven to
increase the diversity of the health care workforce.
The Republicans' fiscal year 2006 budget gives away $106 billion in
tax cuts to the wealthiest in our society. Now, in order to pay for
those cuts, they are making huge cuts to critical programs for the poor
and the most vulnerable in our country. The Title VII health
professions training programs are some of the many casualties of these
tax giveaways.
In order to pay for tax cuts to the wealthy, this bill slashes
funding for the Title VII programs by 84 percent, cutting the programs
from $300 million to $47 million. These Title VII programs promote
access to quality health care to for our nation's neediest citizens and
they are only federal programs designed help prepare health
professionals to respond to the needs of these special and underserved
populations.
These programs are a vital component of the health education system
in our country and are necessary to maintain the high quality health
care that we expect. These cuts will have a dramatic impact on the
system at a time when essential health care services are already facing
funding cuts and program eliminations.
I urge you to oppose these cuts and I am hopeful that the Committee
will work to increase funding for these programs in Conference.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, many Americans seeking disability
benefits under the Social Security Disability Insurance program, more
commonly know as SSDI, face intolerable delays in the processing of
their claims.
SSDI is a true insurance program. All American workers pay into the
program, and any working American who becomes disabled is eligible for
assistance.
The Social Security disability system has a backlog of more than a
half-million cases on appeal. Social Security Commissioner Jo Anne
Barnhart testified last year that, on average, it took more than 3
years to complete processing of a disability claim on appeal, from the
day it's filed to the day it's finally adjudicated.
These delays come with a high cost for the men and women forced to
wait. For some, it means exhausting their life savings. Others lose
their health insurance coverage, the family car, and even their homes.
And as once-proud workers unable to pay their bills are reduced to
borrowing from friends and family, some Americans lose even their
dignity.
These delays have hit home in my Ohio district. One constituent,
Bobbi from Sheffield, Ohio--a single mom injured in an auto accident in
2001--exhausted her life savings and was forced onto welfare while she
waited. She finally received the support she had earned just last
month, after waiting 4 years.
[[Page H5162]]
Another constituent, Ronald from Elyria, Ohio has a heart condition
that left him disabled in 2001, but he had to wait 3 years for
benefits.
The appropriations bill before us today offers a chance to improve
the system, for these Ohioans and every American. This bill provides a
badly-needed increase in administrative funding for the Social Security
Administration.
A lot of these resources will go to funding administration of the new
Medicare prescription drug benefit. But significant funding will be
used to help SSA improve disability processing and reduce the claims
backlog--with new technology and staffing.
I support the SSA administrative funding provision in this bill. But
we can do better. The bill falls more than $100 million short of
President Bush's request for Social Security administrative funding.
Advocates for disabled Americans agree with the President that SSA
needs every dollar of the President's request to attack the disability
backlog.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the SSA administrative
funding level in this bill.
But I urge you then to work with me as this bill advances, to seek
full funding of President Bush's SSA administrative budget request.
There has been a lot of talk lately about the future of Social
Security. But our first obligation should be to make Social Security
work as well as it can right now.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, today we are considering the largest--and
arguably most complex--of the domestic appropriations bills--the
measure for Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, H.R. 3010.
I am pleased to say, as it addresses many of Congress's most sensitive
domestic priorities, it also meets our fiscal responsibilities: it
complies with the Budget Act, with our agreed spending levels, and with
specific provisions of the budget resolution for fiscal year 2006.
The Budget Resolution
H.R. 3010 provides $142.5 billion in discretionary budget authority
and $143.7 billion in new outlays for programs within the Departments
of Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and related agencies.
This level represents a slight reduction from 2005: $329 million in
budget authority. This reflects the need to restrain the rate of
increase for non-defense, non-homeland security domestic discretionary
programs, which provided the overall policy framework for this year's
budget resolution. The $329-million reduction from 2005--which is just
two-tenths of 1 percent--may feel more like $1 billion to the agencies
funded by the bill. That is because the Appropriations Committee, in
response to a White House request, included about $890 million for the
2003 Medicare prescription drug law's startup costs. Other programs in
this bill had to make up the difference.
But such trade-offs are intrinsic to budgeting. As a result, as
noted, the bill complies with the FY 2006 Budget Resolution. Its
spending levels are within the subcommittee's 302(b) suballocation of
new budget authority. To meet the cap, the bill includes a few
rescissions. The bill does not contain emergency funds. It complies
with the budget resolution provisions on advance appropriations.
Regarding this last point, the FY 2006 Budget Resolution places a
total limit for advance appropriations in FY 2006 at $23.158 billion.
The bill before us today will consume most of those funds, by providing
$18.885 billion in advance appropriations for FY 2007. All of the
accounts for which advances are made in the bill are listed as eligible
within the budget resolution. Because no advance appropriations have
yet been enacted this year, the bill does not cause a breach of this
limit. Still, the House should be aware only $4.273 billion will remain
available for advance appropriations.
Programmatic Provisions
Under this bill, Education would enjoy a slight ($120 million)
increase, to $56.7 billion--which is $478 million over the President's
request. In addition to that figure, the bill includes $4.3 billion to
make up the Pell Grant backlog. This amount does no count against
budget limits because it is scored as mandatory.
Additionally, the bill continues the commitment the House has made to
the National Institutes of Health, providing $230 million more than
last year. This brings total NIH funding to $28.5 billion. Worker
retraining and dislocated worker assistance programs are also restored
and augmented, which should help us continue to expand employment and
ensure that Americans who want to work will be able to find good jobs.
Dislocated Worker Assistance is funded at $1.4 billion, $62 million
above the request.
Conclusion
I commend the Committee on Appropriations for bringing us a bill that
funds many priority programs Members care about while living within our
means in an era requiring tougher fiscal discipline. This is a
responsible bill that fulfills our commitments to the public while
living within the constraints of difficult fiscal times.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to
the proposed cuts of more than $100 million to the Corporation for
Public Broadcasting. This organization funds over 1,000 public
television and radio stations nationwide, and the funding from Congress
is essential to its functioning. CPB also funds producers, educators
and technology specialists for the development of new public television
and radio programming and new media. The CPB supports educational
programs, as well as, provides education resources for parents and
teachers.
I support the mission of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting in
its goal of providing the public with education and informative media
sources. In a time when much furor exists over the decency of much of
what is broadcast on our televisions and radios, it is only logical
that Congress support an organization that has held traditional values
to a high standard which is reflected in its programming. Children's
programs such as Sesame Street and Arthur, programs which undoubtedly
educate our children and instill them with positive values, will lose
the necessary funding that keeps them on television. This is simply
unacceptable.
When CPB comes to the Hill, it is clear that children of lawmakers
from both sides of the aisle watch public television. Children from
both parties laugh at Elmo and get their picture taken with Cookie
Monster. Like my colleagues, my office has also received hundreds of
phone calls urging Congress to restore funds for public broadcasting.
Our constituents do not support these cuts which represent 25 percent
of CPB's overall funding. I urge my fellow members to oppose the
proposed cuts to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge that full funding for
Title VII health professions programs be restored in the FY 2006 Labor-
HHS Bill. The elimination of funding for valuable programs such as the
Area Health Education Center (AHEC) and the Health Education and
Training Center (HETC) would have an immediate, damaging impact on
medical education, care, and research, especially in the State of New
York.
Title VII authorizes grants for important programs designed to
address problems such as recruitment and retention of providers for
health centers, shortages in nursing and allied health, and the under-
representation of minorities in the health care professions. These
healthcare training programs are the only federal programs designed to
increase the supply of primary medical care providers and public health
professionals in underserved areas, such as inner cities and rural
regions throughout the country. In addition, these programs seek to
train more health professionals in fields experiencing shortages,
improve the geographic distribution of health care personnel, and
enhance minority representation in the pool of practicing health
professionals.
New York has benefited greatly from Title VII health professions
programs. In FY 2005, New York institutions received over $20 million
in Title VII programs. However, continual annual budget cuts pose a
great risk to health care in the state of New York. Without federal
funding, the AHEC system will be greatly hindered in its ability to
address the problems of access to health care, diversity of the health
care workforce, and recruitment and retention of health care
professionals in medically underserved areas. For these reasons I
support the restoration of funding for Title VII health professions
programs through the FY 2006 Labor-HHS Appropriations bill.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, due to a family medical
emergency, I am departing Washington, DC, at 10:30 a.m. on Friday, June
24th.
As a result, I will miss votes on the amendments to and final passage
on H.R. 3010, the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services,
Education and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006.
Upon my return to Washington, I will submit a statement indicating how
I would have voted had I been present.
Ms. HOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that elements of the amendment
I had intended to offer were incorporated into the en bloc amendment
offered by Chairman Regula.
As our troops return home from active duty service, a growing number
of them are unable to return to the jobs they left behind. In the
transition back to civilian life, they are encountering problems
ranging from difficulties finding employment to being passed over for
promotions to getting laid off under suspicious circumstances.
The Veterans Employment and Training Service (VETS) provides these
veterans with the resources and services they need to make the
transition from military to civilian life. VETS provides veterans with
valuable training and job placement services as well as protecting the
employment and reemployment rights of veterans, Reservists and National
Guard Members.
With the influx of returning soldiers, the Veterans Employment and
Training Service
[[Page H5163]]
needs additional resources to meet the growing demands of our veterans.
More and more veterans will be looking for employment, which means
increased demands for both job training and placement services as well
as assistance with any discrimination claims.
This amendment will address these issues by providing $5 million to
the Veterans Employment and Training Service so they have the money
they need to meet the needs of our returning troops.
Of this funding, $3 million will go to the Veterans Workforce
Investment Program which provides employment services to recently
separated and service-connected disabled veterans. This program is
currently funded at $7.5 million, a $1 million cut from last year. At a
time when more and more soldiers are returning home and looking for
jobs, we need to be providing more funding for this vital initiative,
not less.
It also includes $500,000 for the National Veterans Training
Institute, which conducts specialized training for veterans' employment
and training service providers.
The remaining $1.5 million would be used to educate both service
members and employers about the employment rights of veterans,
including their rights and responsibilities under the Uniformed
Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), which
prohibits workforce discrimination based on military service.
America has a responsibility to those who risked their lives to
secure our freedom. Particularly today, as more soldiers come home from
the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan, we must make every effort to
help veterans reintegrate into civilian life, and that means helping
America's veterans get back to work.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise and
report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, with the
recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as
amended, do pass.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Thornberry) having assumed the chair, Mr. Putnam, Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration 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, had directed him to
report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, with the
recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as
amended, do pass.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 337, the
previous question is ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will
put them en gros.
The amendments were agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the minimum time
for electronic voting on any motion to recommit may be 5 minutes,
notwithstanding that it would be the first vote in a series.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, we cannot hear.
Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my objection, and I support the gentleman's
motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Obey
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. OBEY. I most certainly am.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Obey of Wisconsin moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 3010, to the
Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. OBEY (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that the motion be considered as read and printed in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the motion be
debatable and that debate be limited to 2 minutes, equally divided
between the proponent and an opponent.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for 1 minute on the motion to recommit.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, this is a simple, straight motion to recommit
so that the committee can repair the shortcomings in the education,
health care and worker protection programs in the bill, and so that the
committee can respond to the announcement of the Veterans
Administration yesterday by adding a billion dollars to veterans health
care programs.
I urge an ``aye'' vote on the motion to recommit. I will be voting
against final passage, and I would hope a good many others will, too.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the motion
to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``nay'' vote on the motion to recommit. I think
this bill is fair, balanced, and good given the amount of money that is
available. We do a lot of important things in education, health
research, and in the Department of Labor. I urge all my colleagues to
vote for the bill.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of
the motion to recommit offered by Ranking Member Obey to increase
funding for priority education, health care, human services and job
training programs by $11.8 billion. In terms of education programs, the
bill eliminates 24 education programs funded at $526 million in 2005.
The largest of the terminated programs is Comprehensive School Reform.
The bill also eliminates drop out prevention activities, parent
assistance centers, arts education, K-12 foreign language instruction,
Ready to Learn, Ready to Teach, and community technology centers.
In addition, the bill cuts No Child Left Behind below the current
level. Specifically, H.R. 3010 cuts the program by $806 million (3.3
percent). Next year, school districts must achieve increasingly
rigorous NCLB academic standards, administer annual reading and math
tests to 3rd through 8th graders, and meet new standards for highly-
qualified teachers. Despite these facts, funding for the program will
fall $13.2 billion below its FY06 authorization and cumulative
shortfall since enactment of the program will exceed $40 billion under
the bill.
As it relates to health care issue, the bill continues to make cuts
across the board which either eliminates important programs or at least
cuts there funding in half. For example, the bill cuts rural health
outreach grants from $39 million in FY05 to $11 million in FY06. These
grants support rural hospitals, clinics, health departments and other
providers to help improve primary health cares services in rural areas
(including dental care, mental health treatment, and hospice care).
H.R. 3010 also supports fewer healthy start grants. Specifically, the
bill produces a $5 million (5 percent) cut in the Healthy Start
initiative, which makes targeted grants to improve prenatal and infant
care in areas with high infant mortality rates. This funding level will
allow renewal or replacement of only about half the 12 Healthy Start
grants up for re-competition in FY06.
I would also like to take a moment to express my concerns with some
of the many funding cuts for Title VII programs in this year's
appropriations bill. While I am pleased to see that funding was
provided for Minority Centers of Excellence ($12 million) and
Scholarships for Disadvantage Students ($35 million), I am disappointed
that Area Health Education Centers, Health Education and Training
Centers, and Health Professions Training Programs were all zeroed out.
These programs have been addressing the needs of medically underserved
communities in Texas since 1991 by playing a key role in providing
health services and health care professionals for our most vulnerable
populations.
In regards to job training, H.R. 3010 makes cuts to training,
employment and unemployment services. Although the economy has not
fully recovered from the last recession, and 7.6 million Americans
unemployed in May 2005, the bill cuts $346 million (3.6 percent) from
critical services to unemployed, displaced and incumbent workers.
In light of the above stated cuts, I strongly support the amendment
by Mr. Obey. Again, his amendment would increase funding for priority
education, health care, human services and job training programs by
$11.8 billion. These are very important programs and we must provide
funding for them. I encourage my colleagues to support the Chairman's
amendment.
[[Page H5164]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House today,
this will be a 5-minute vote, and pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the
Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for the electronic vote
on the question of passage.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 185,
noes 216, not voting 32, as follows:
[Roll No. 320]
AYES--185
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Berkley
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
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Melancon
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOES--216
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Cannon
Cantor
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
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
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
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
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
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--32
Andrews
Baca
Becerra
Berman
Boozman
Boyd
Camp
Capito
Davis, Tom
Delahunt
Fattah
Gohmert
Goode
Gutierrez
Harman
Harris
Jones (NC)
LaTourette
Lewis (GA)
Meeks (NY)
Moran (KS)
Nunes
Reyes
Rogers (AL)
Skelton
Slaughter
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Udall (NM)
Watson
Wilson (NM)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry) (during the vote). Members
are reminded that 2 minutes remain in this vote.
{time} 1629
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
Under clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 250,
nays 151, not voting 32, as follows:
[Roll No. 321]
YEAS--250
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Cannon
Cantor
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Evans
Everett
Farr
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hensarling
Herger
Higgins
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Kanjorski
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kildee
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
Matsui
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Osborne
Oxley
Pascrell
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Sullivan
Sweeney
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Towns
Turner
Upton
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
[[Page H5165]]
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--151
Ackerman
Allen
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Berkley
Berry
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dingell
Doggett
Edwards
Emanuel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Filner
Flake
Ford
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Gibbons
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hastings (FL)
Hefley
Herseth
Hinchey
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Melancon
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Otter
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Price (NC)
Ramstad
Rangel
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (VA)
Sherman
Simmons
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Strickland
Stupak
Tancredo
Tauscher
Tierney
Udall (CO)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
NOT VOTING--32
Andrews
Baca
Becerra
Berman
Boozman
Boyd
Camp
Capito
Davis, Tom
Delahunt
Fattah
Gohmert
Goode
Gutierrez
Harman
Harris
Jones (NC)
LaTourette
Lewis (GA)
Meeks (NY)
Moran (KS)
Nunes
Reyes
Rogers (AL)
Skelton
Slaughter
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Udall (NM)
Watson
Wilson (NM)
{time} 1637
Mr. McINTYRE changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. MEEHAN and Mr. WYNN changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________