[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 114 (Tuesday, July 17, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H7935-H7957]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]





                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will remind Members to direct all comments to 
the Chair, please.
  Mr. KENNEDY. If the gentleman doesn't understand, through the 
Chairman, doesn't understand the comparison between children working 
overseas, fighting, working to try to manufacture products that are 
going to compete against our unionized workers here at home or our 
manufacturer workers, whether they are unionized or not, if he doesn't 
understand that they are competing against one another, I can't explain 
it to them.
  If he can't understand and grasp that it's in our interest to make 
sure that our competitors don't use children that are being paid 
pennies on the dollar while our moms and pops are having to compete 
against them with minimum wage standards, I can't explain it to him. If 
he doesn't understand that, it's hard for me to give him an economics 
lesson that they are competing in a global economy that has 
transparency of products thanks to these trade agreements.

                              {time}  1745

  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I thank the gentleman from Rhode Island. And I also 
find it a bit peculiar that our friend from Florida, being from Ohio, 
we disagree on our favorite college basketball team, we disagree on our 
favorite college football team, so it is not a real surprise that we 
are going to disagree here. But I find it peculiar that he was saying 
that he was trying to support the workers. And I wish he would remember 
the vote on the minimum wage when he and the leadership of his party 
were consistently trying to prevent us from passing the minimum wage to 
help the American worker.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank my friend from Minnesota for bringing 
this issue forward. Madam Chairman, this is an extremely important 
issue, and I think it is important that we bring the debate back to the 
actual amendment.
  The amendment addresses the issue of funding for the Office of Labor 
Management Statistics, and that agency is the only agency of the 
government that is devoted to protecting the interests of dues-paying 
union members, the only one.
  The funding in last year, fiscal year 2007, was about $47 million. 
Funding proposed for this year is about $45 million. It is a cut of 
about $2 million. That is a cut. Not the cut that we have heard 
explained in other bills that were reductions in the increase; it is a 
cut. The President felt so strongly about this and felt so strongly 
about the success of this agency that he recommended an increase to $56 
million. So this proposal by the majority party is a decrease of $11.1 
million from the President's request.
  Now, it is curious the arguments that we are hearing on the other 
side. They have increased spending virtually across the board for every 
single agency except for this one, and this is the one that provides 
the enforcement for the Department of Labor. I have supported many 
appropriate reductions, there is no doubt about it, as we have moved 
through these appropriations bills, but I believe strongly that there 
is a message that is being sent in this cut that is being proposed by 
the majority party, and that message is that it is imperative that the 
debt that they owe to union bosses be paid.
  And why do I say that? This is an agency that has significant 
results. Since 2001, the indictments resulting from investigations by 
this agency have increased by 20 percent. Now, why would we want to 
decrease funding to an agency that is showing success in protecting 
dues-paying workers? Convictions have increased by 26 percent and the 
courts have ordered restitution of over $70 million in union members' 
dues that were stolen, stolen by union officials. That sounds like a 
project that would merit support by the majority party, but, as my good 
friend from Florida just said, it is clear that this is a trend that we 
are seeing by this new majority party, and that is that the protection 
of the rank-and-file worker is not what they have an interest in. And 
that was demonstrated clearly with the card check issue which, as he 
mentioned, took away the sacrosanct right of a secret ballot in union 
formation in this Nation. The majority party said, no, that wasn't 
important, that individuals ought to be exposed to the kind of 
intimidation that we see on both sides, both the employer and the union 
side.
  So, Madam Chairman, I guess it ought not be surprising that we see 
this included in the current bill, but it is disappointing. There is no 
doubt that it is disappointing. Because, again, we have an agency of 
the Federal Government, the Office of Labor Management Statistics, 
which is getting results, which is fulfilling its mission, which is 
fulfilling its charge, which is fulfilling its responsibility to the 
American people and to this Federal Government, and this new majority 
proposes to significantly cut the amount of funding to the agency. I 
think it exposes a flaw in the thinking of the majority party and, 
hence, this general statement that we are the only individuals for 
working people. In fact, tax cuts are for working people. In fact, 
decreasing spending at the level of the Federal Government is for 
working people. In fact, not passing the largest tax increase in the 
history of our Nation is for working people.
  So we stand proudly and honorably before the American people and say 
that the party that stands in favor of working people is the party that 
is most responsible with Federal spending. It is the party that holds 
to account Federal agencies. This Federal agency, this office is 
accomplishing its goal, it is accomplishing its mission, and so it 
ought not be one that we cut. There are certainly others that are 
available to be decreased. I urge support of the Kline amendment and 
ask all my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. MARCHANT. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MARCHANT. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  There are a couple of points I would like to address. It has been an 
interesting debate, as these things often turn in to be. We have heard 
the gentleman from Rhode Island say that this base bill just keeps it 
going presumably at the current level. And, as we have already heard 
established, this is in fact a $2 million cut, $11 million below the 
President's request.
  The gentleman from Rhode Island is right, though, when he talked 
about this being about people checking their own books and covering 
their tracks. That is exactly what this is about. He was talking about 
perhaps corporations, and we have already talked about increasing the 
money to provide oversight and law enforcement for corporations. But 
this is about unions. This is about American workers.
  We have looked at the money percentage cut/percentage increase. We 
have already confirmed that this is a $2 million cut, as my colleague 
from Georgia says. And I just find it interesting, looking at the 
figures here, we have added $935 million to President Bush's fiscal 
year 2008 budget request for the Department of Labor, and within that 
budget increase are individual funding increases for every single 
enforcement office within the agency except this one, this one whose 
job it is to make sure that union leaders who are misbehaving are not 
able to just check their own books and cover their tracks. Somebody 
else has got to hold them accountable.
  And this embezzlement is not restricted to one or two people in one 
or two States. We have examples over the last 3 or 4 years of 
misconduct by union leaders in 48, at least, of the 50

[[Page H7936]]

States. A couple of examples here might be relevant.
  Looking at the neighboring State of Wisconsin, on September 21, 2006, 
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of 
Wisconsin, Felix A. Robinson, former president of the Industrial 
Division of the Communication Workers of America, Local 84101, pled 
guilty to one count of embezzling union funds. The guilty plea followed 
investigation by the OLMS Milwaukee district office.
  Sad to say it happens in my own State. On February 22 of this year, 
2007, in the United States District Court for the District of 
Minnesota, Catherine Bronson, former business representative for Hotel 
and Restaurant Employees Local 21 in Rochester, Minnesota, was 
sentenced to 180 days of home confinement.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MARCHANT. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Could the gentleman tell me, have there been any more labor 
leaders indicted lately than Members of Congress?
  Mr. MARCHANT. Reclaiming my time, Madam Chairman, I yield to the 
gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. We have pages and pages of examples. Let me 
just give another one so that my colleagues and the workers of America 
understand that we are talking about misbehavior, illegal behavior on 
the part of people who have the responsibility for taking care of their 
union dues.
  November 7, 2006, in the United States District Court for the 
District of Minnesota, Timothy J. Pulvermacher, former financial 
secretary for USWA Local 9444 pled guilty to embezzling union funds.
  January 8, 2007, Kathryn Stark, former office manager for IBEW Local 
31 was sentenced to a 6-month confinement.
  Why? Because they are abusing their union members. They are stealing 
from them. And this is the only office that has the responsibility and 
authority for holding them accountable.
  So we can debate for all day, I suppose, who is for the worker and 
who is not for the worker and whether the tax cuts are good for the 
worker. We certainly believe they are on this side of the aisle. But 
that is not what my amendment is about. My amendment is about making 
sure that the office who has the responsibility for holding union 
leaders accountable for their workers' funds has the staff it needs to 
do the job.
  The base bill, cutting $2 million would force that office to cut 
staff members, the very people who conduct the investigations and bring 
these people to justice.
  Again, I encourage all of my colleagues to support this amendment 
which supports the union workers of America and holds those who 
misbehave accountable. And I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Madam Chairman, I rise today in support 
of the amendment introduced by my friend Mr. Kline of Minnesota, a 
dedicated U.S. Marine veteran, which restores much needed funding to 
the Office of Labor Management Standards (OLMS). I applaud 
Representative Kline's continued efforts to draw attention and support 
to this very important issue, and I appreciate his dedicated leadership 
in this area.
  This straightforward amendment would add $2 million to the current 
legislation and restore funding for OLMS to its fiscal year 2007 
levels. This addition would also enable the agency to hire 13 full-time 
employees.
  The Office of Labor Management Standards plays a vital role in 
administering and enforcing provisions of the Labor-Management 
Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, LMRDA. This bipartisan law was 
enacted by Congress to ensure standards of democracy and fiscal 
responsibility in labor organizations representing employees in private 
industry.
  When enacting the LMRDA, Congress expressed that union members and 
the general public would benefit by having access to information about 
labor unions. As a result, each union subject to LMRDA is required to 
submit annual financial reports to OLMS. This public accountability is 
achieved through the filing of LM-2 forms. Millions of working 
Americans have a portion of their paychecks given to labor 
organizations, and they deserve to know where their hard-earned money 
is going.
  According to a September 2006 Wall Street Journal article, up to 60 
percent of labor organizations' budgets are going to PAC contributions 
and lobbying activities. In one instance, only 36 percent of the funds 
actually went to representing union members in labor negotiations.
  There is a high level of demand for this information. In fact, 
between May 2006 and May 2007, there were 767,908 hits on OLMS's 
website. That's an average of about 64,000 per month and over 2,100 per 
day.
  Again, I am pleased to recognize the important work of the Office of 
Labor Management Standards, and I urge members to support this 
amendment.
  Mr. MARCHANT. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam 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 Minnesota will be 
postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Of the unobligated funds collected pursuant to section 
     286(v) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, $70,000,000 is 
     rescinded.

                            special benefits


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the payment of compensation, benefits, and expenses 
     (except administrative expenses) accruing during the current 
     or any prior fiscal year authorized by chapter 81 of title 5, 
     United States Code; continuation of benefits as provided for 
     under the heading ``Civilian War Benefits'' in the Federal 
     Security Agency Appropriation Act, 1947; the Employees' 
     Compensation Commission Appropriation Act, 1944; sections 
     4(c) and 5(f) of the War Claims Act of 1948 (50 U.S.C. App. 
     2012); and 50 percent of the additional compensation and 
     benefits required by section 10(h) of the Longshore and 
     Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, $203,000,000, together with 
     such amounts as may be necessary to be charged to the 
     subsequent year appropriation for the payment of compensation 
     and other benefits for any period subsequent to August 15 of 
     the current year: Provided, That amounts appropriated may be 
     used under section 8104 of title 5, United States Code, by 
     the Secretary of Labor to reimburse an employer, who is not 
     the employer at the time of injury, for portions of the 
     salary of a reemployed, disabled beneficiary: Provided 
     further, That balances of reimbursements unobligated on 
     September 30, 2007, shall remain available until expended for 
     the payment of compensation, benefits, and expenses: Provided 
     further, That in addition there shall be transferred to this 
     appropriation from the Postal Service and from any other 
     corporation or instrumentality required under section 8147(c) 
     of title 5, United States Code, to pay an amount for its fair 
     share of the cost of administration, such sums as the 
     Secretary determines to be the cost of administration for 
     employees of such fair share entities through September 30, 
     2008: Provided further, That of those funds transferred to 
     this account from the fair share entities to pay the cost of 
     administration of the Federal Employees' Compensation Act, 
     $52,280,000 shall be made available to the Secretary as 
     follows:
       (1) For enhancement and maintenance of automated data 
     processing systems and telecommunications systems, 
     $21,855,000.
       (2) For automated workload processing operations, including 
     document imaging, centralized mail intake and medical bill 
     processing, $16,109,000.
       (3) For periodic roll management and medical review, 
     $14,316,000.
       (4) The remaining funds shall be paid into the Treasury as 
     miscellaneous receipts:

     Provided further, That the Secretary may require that any 
     person filing a notice of injury or a claim for benefits 
     under chapter 81 of title 5, United States Code, or the 
     Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, provide as 
     part of such notice and claim, such identifying information 
     (including Social Security account number) as such 
     regulations may prescribe.


               special benefits for disabled coal miners

       For carrying out title IV of the Federal Mine Safety and 
     Health Act of 1977, as amended by Public Law 107-275, 
     $208,221,000, to remain available until expended.
       For making after July 31 of the current fiscal year, 
     benefit payments to individuals under title IV of such Act, 
     for costs incurred in the current fiscal year, such amounts 
     as may be necessary.

  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Madam Chairman, during the full committee markup 
of this bill, an amendment was added that would prohibit the use of 
Federal funds for administering thimerosal-containing influenza 
vaccines to children under 3 years of age. While

[[Page H7937]]

I respect the good intentions of the author of this amendment and my 
colleagues who supported it, this provision creates significant public 
health concerns for the protection of our youngest children from both 
seasonal and pandemic influenza.
  This past week, I have heard from numerous public health and 
scientific groups with expertise in immunizations. They all agree that 
there is no credible scientific or medical evidence that vaccination of 
young children with vaccines containing the preservative thimerosal 
causes autism or other neurodevelopmental disorders.
  Madam Chairman, our national immunization policies must be based on 
science. I strongly believe that the United States Congress should not 
substitute its judgment about which vaccines are safe for our children 
for that of the major vaccine and public health experts.
  Perhaps the most convincing statements against the amendment are in a 
communication from Dr. Julie Gerberding, the Director of the Centers 
For Disease Control and Prevention, dated July 16, 2007. Her opposition 
to the thimerosal amendment is as follows:
  ``There is no scientific basis to support a prohibition of use of 
thimerosal-containing vaccine. In particular, science does not support 
a causal association between thimerosal and autism. In fact, the 
Institute of Medicine concluded that, `the evidence favors rejection of 
a causal relationship between thimerosal-containing vaccines and 
autism.'

                              {time}  1800

  ``CDC respects this IOM conclusion.''
  The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, a diverse group of 
expert advisers on vaccine use, has made its position explicitly clear. 
``The benefits of influenza vaccination for all recommended groups 
including pregnant women and young children, outweigh the unproven risk 
from thimerosal exposure through vaccination.''
  Instead, ACIP recommends that children and adults who need 
vaccination may receive any available vaccine preparation licensed for 
use in the person's age and risk factor group with or without 
thimerosal.
  The supply of thimerosal-free vaccine is increasing, but we do not 
know precisely how many doses of vaccine licensed for use in children 
6-35 months of age will be available in 2008-2009. Based on information 
from the manufacturers, the supply is not likely to be large enough to 
vaccinate all the children whose parents want this protection for them.
  Even if the supply increases more than we expect, the realities of 
vaccine distribution make it impossible to precisely align supplies 
with vaccine demand in every practice or community.
  Passage of the proposed amendment would mean that some children would 
not have access to influenza vaccine because the supply would be 
reduced. Tragically, some of these unvaccinated children would suffer 
the more severe consequences of influenza, even though vaccination 
would otherwise have helped protect them. For this reason, CDC strongly 
opposes the proposed amendment.
  Madam Chairman, these are Dr. Gerberding's compelling arguments 
against this provision. I will not be offering an amendment today to 
strike it from the bill. However, considering the overwhelming outcry 
from the public health community against this amendment, I hope we will 
continue this discussion, and I look forward for a way to address these 
concerns in conference.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       For making benefit payments under title IV for the first 
     quarter of fiscal year 2009, $62,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended.


    administrative expenses, energy employees occupational illness 
                           compensation fund

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses to administer the Energy Employees 
     Occupational Illness Compensation Act, $104,745,000, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That the Secretary 
     of Labor is authorized to transfer to any executive agency 
     with authority under the Energy Employees Occupational 
     Illness Compensation Act, including within the Department of 
     Labor, such sums as may be necessary in fiscal year 2008 to 
     carry out those authorities: Provided further, That the 
     Secretary may require that any person filing a claim for 
     benefits under such Act provide as part of such claim, such 
     identifying information (including Social Security account 
     number) as may be prescribed. Provided further, That not 
     later than 30 days after enactment of this Act, in addition 
     to other sums transferred by the Secretary to the National 
     Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) for the 
     administration of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness 
     Compensation Program (EEOICPA), the Secretary shall transfer 
     $4,500,000 to NIOSH from the funds appropriated to the Energy 
     Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Fund (42 U.S.C. 
     7384e), for use by or in support of the Advisory Board on 
     Radiation and Worker Health (the Board) to carry out its 
     statutory responsibilities under EEOICPA (42 U.S.C. 7384n-q), 
     including obtaining audits, technical assistance and other 
     support from the Board's audit contractor with regard to 
     radiation dose estimation and reconstruction efforts, site 
     profiles, procedures, and review of Special Exposure Cohort 
     petitions and evaluation reports.

                    Black Lung Disability Trust Fund


                     (including transfer of funds)

       In fiscal year 2008 and thereafter, such sums as may be 
     necessary from the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund, to 
     remain available until expended, for payment of all benefits 
     authorized by section 9501(d) (1), (2), (4), and (7) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1954 and interest on advances, as 
     authorized by section 9501(c)(2) of such Act. In addition, 
     the following amounts shall be available from the Fund for 
     fiscal year 2008 for expenses of operation and administration 
     of the Black Lung Benefits program, as authorized by section 
     9501(d)(5) of such Act: $32,761,000 for transfer to the 
     Employment Standards Administration ``Salaries and 
     Expenses''; $24,785,000 for transfer to Departmental 
     Management, ``Salaries and Expenses''; $335,000 for transfer 
     to Departmental Management, ``Office of Inspector General''; 
     and $356,000 for payments into miscellaneous receipts for the 
     expenses of the Department of the Treasury.

             Occupational Safety and Health Administration


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses for the Occupational Safety and 
     Health Administration, $503,516,000, including not to exceed 
     $91,093,000 which shall be the maximum amount available for 
     grants to States under section 23(g) of the Occupational 
     Safety and Health Act (``the Act''), which grants shall be no 
     less than 50 percent of the costs of State occupational 
     safety and health programs required to be incurred under 
     plans approved by the Secretary of Labor under section 18 of 
     the Act; and, in addition, notwithstanding section 3302 of 
     title 31, United States Code, the Occupational Safety and 
     Health Administration may retain up to $750,000 per fiscal 
     year of training institute course tuition fees, otherwise 
     authorized by law to be collected, and may utilize such sums 
     for occupational safety and health training and education: 
     Provided, That, notwithstanding section 3302 of title 31, 
     United States Code, the Secretary is authorized, during the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, to collect and retain 
     fees for services provided to Nationally Recognized Testing 
     Laboratories, and may utilize such sums, in accordance with 
     the provisions of section 2 of the Act of April 13, 1934 (29 
     U.S.C. 9a), to administer national and international 
     laboratory recognition programs that ensure the safety of 
     equipment and products used by workers in the workplace: 
     Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated under 
     this paragraph shall be obligated or expended to prescribe, 
     issue, administer, or enforce any standard, rule, regulation, 
     or order under the Act which is applicable to any person who 
     is engaged in a farming operation which does not maintain a 
     temporary labor camp and employs 10 or fewer employees: 
     Provided further, That no funds appropriated under this 
     paragraph shall be obligated or expended to administer or 
     enforce any standard, rule, regulation, or order under the 
     Act with respect to any employer of 10 or fewer employees who 
     is included within a category having a Days Away, Restricted, 
     or Transferred (DART) occupational injury and illness rate, 
     at the most precise industrial classification code for which 
     such data are published, less than the national average rate 
     as such rates are most recently published by the Secretary, 
     acting through the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in accordance 
     with section 24 of the Act (29 U.S.C. 673), except--
       (1) to provide, as authorized by the Act, consultation, 
     technical assistance, educational and training services, and 
     to conduct surveys and studies;
       (2) to conduct an inspection or investigation in response 
     to an employee complaint, to issue a citation for violations 
     found during such inspection, and to assess a penalty for 
     violations which are not corrected within a reasonable 
     abatement period and for any willful violations found;
       (3) to take any action authorized by the Act with respect 
     to imminent dangers;
       (4) to take any action authorized by the Act with respect 
     to health hazards;
       (5) to take any action authorized by the Act with respect 
     to a report of an employment accident which is fatal to one 
     or more employees or which results in hospitalization of two 
     or more employees, and to take

[[Page H7938]]

     any action pursuant to such investigation authorized by the 
     Act; and
       (6) to take any action authorized by the Act with respect 
     to complaints of discrimination against employees for 
     exercising rights under the Act:

     Provided further, That the foregoing proviso shall not apply 
     to any person who is engaged in a farming operation which 
     does not maintain a temporary labor camp and employs 10 or 
     fewer employees: Provided further, That $10,116,000 shall be 
     available for Susan Harwood training grants, of which 
     $3,200,000 shall be used for the Institutional Competency 
     Building training grants which commenced in September 2000, 
     for program activities for the period of October 1, 2007, to 
     September 30, 2008, provided that a grantee has demonstrated 
     satisfactory performance: Provided further, That such grants 
     shall be awarded no less than 30 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act: Provided further, That the Secretary 
     shall provide a report to the Committees on Appropriations of 
     the House of Representatives and the Senate with timetables 
     for the development and issuance of occupational safety and 
     health standards on beryllium, silica, cranes and derricks, 
     confined space entry in construction, and hazard 
     communication global harmonization; such timetables shall 
     include actual or estimated dates for: the publication of an 
     advance notice of proposed rulemaking, the commencement and 
     completion of a Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
     Fairness Act review (if required), the completion of any peer 
     review (if required), the submission of the draft proposed 
     rule to the Office of Management and Budget for review under 
     Executive Order 12866 (if required), the publication of a 
     proposed rule, the conduct of public hearings, the submission 
     of a draft final rule to the Office and Management and Budget 
     for review under Executive Order 12866 (if required), and the 
     issuance of a final rule; and such report shall be submitted 
     to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate within 90 days of the 
     enactment of this Act, with updates provided every 90 days 
     thereafter that shall include an explanation of the reasons 
     for any delays in meeting the projected timetables for 
     action.

                 Mine Safety and Health Administration


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses for the Mine Safety and Health 
     Administration, $313,478,000 including purchase and bestowal 
     of certificates and trophies in connection with mine rescue 
     and first-aid work, and the hire of passenger motor vehicles, 
     including up to $2,000,000 for mine rescue and recovery 
     activities; in addition, not to exceed $750,000 may be 
     collected by the National Mine Health and Safety Academy for 
     room, board, tuition, and the sale of training materials, 
     otherwise authorized by law to be collected, to be available 
     for mine safety and health education and training activities, 
     notwithstanding section 3302 of title 31, United States Code; 
     and, in addition, the Mine Safety and Health Administration 
     may retain up to $1,000,000 from fees collected for the 
     approval and certification of equipment, materials, and 
     explosives for use in mines, and may utilize such sums for 
     such activities; the Secretary of Labor is authorized to 
     accept lands, buildings, equipment, and other contributions 
     from public and private sources and to prosecute projects in 
     cooperation with other agencies, Federal, State, or private; 
     the Mine Safety and Health Administration is authorized to 
     promote health and safety education and training in the 
     mining community through cooperative programs with States, 
     industry, and safety associations; the Secretary is 
     authorized to recognize the Joseph A. Holmes Safety 
     Association as a principal safety association and, 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, may provide funds 
     and, with or without reimbursement, personnel, including 
     service of Mine Safety and Health Administration officials as 
     officers in local chapters or in the national organization; 
     and any funds available to the Department may be used, with 
     the approval of the Secretary, to provide for the costs of 
     mine rescue and survival operations in the event of a major 
     disaster.

                       Bureau of Labor Statistics


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses for the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 
     including advances or reimbursements to State, Federal, and 
     local agencies and their employees for services rendered, 
     $497,854,000, together with not to exceed $78,264,000, which 
     may be expended from the employment security administration 
     account in the Unemployment Trust Fund, of which $5,000,000 
     may be used to fund the mass layoff statistics program under 
     section 15 of the Wagner-Peyser Act (29 U.S.C. 49l-2): 
     Provided, That the Current Employment Survey shall maintain 
     the content of the survey issued prior to June 2005 with 
     respect to the collection of data for the women worker 
     series.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Platts

  Mr. PLATTS. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Platts:
       Page 24, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $27,995,000)''.
       Page 25, line 22, after the first dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $10,163,000)''.
       Page 63, line 4, after the first dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $10,942,000)''.
        Page 77, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $50,000,000)''.
       Page 77, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $50,000,000)''.
       Page 92, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $900,000)''.

  Mr. PLATTS. Madam Chairman, before I address my amendment I certainly 
want to commend Chairman Obey and the ranking member, Mr. Walsh, and 
their staffs for their dedicated work on this very important 
appropriations bill. I sincerely appreciate their efforts.
  Madam Chairman, literacy skills are the cornerstone of our education 
system. I think that we can all agree that students who struggle with 
reading face challenges in all subject areas in school.
  Unfortunately, children of parents who themselves have difficulty 
reading English are even more likely to perform at low literacy levels. 
For this reason, my predecessor, the Honorable Bill Goodling, former 
Republican chairman of the Education and Workforce Committee, 
established the Even Start Family Literacy Program.
  Even Start is the only Federal education program that teaches 
literacy skills to both parents and their children. Through this 
program parents receive the necessary skills to become a teacher to 
their children and to improve their lives.
  Even Start serves the most economically and educationally 
disadvantaged population in the country. According to a Department of 
Education report, 84 percent of Even Start's families are at or below 
the Federal poverty level. Nearly half of Even Start families have an 
annual household income of under $6,000, and 84 percent of Even Start 
adults do not have a high school diploma or GED.
  Even Start is a program that provides disadvantaged families with an 
opportunity to provide a better life for their children. Parents enroll 
in Even Start to become better parents, to further their education, and 
to improve their children's chance of success in school.
  At the Even Start centers in my hometown of York, Pennsylvania, I've 
witnessed firsthand the positive and significant impact that this 
program is having on parents and children alike.
  The Even Start program has yielded successful results. A 2005 Texas 
A&M study has found that, on average, employment rates rise from 17 
percent to 51 percent after program completion. In addition, wages 
increased by more than 25 percent.
  Despite these positive results, and even with the Appropriations 
Committee's approximately $17 million proposed increase over the fiscal 
year 2007 funding level, the underlying bill's proposed funding level 
for the Even Start program is 60 percent less than the amount provided 
in 2002. Even Start centers struggled this past year to keep their 
doors open, and many had to close their doors permanently because of 
this drastic funding cut.
  For these reasons, I've introduced this amendment to H.R. 3043. My 
amendment would increase the appropriations for the William F. Goodling 
Even Start Family Literacy Program by $50 million, bringing its total 
appropriation to $149 million. While this increase may seem 
significant, it's important to put the proposed level of $149 million 
into perspective. Even with the increased proposed in this amendment, 
the total level of funding for Even Start will still be 40 percent less 
than the funding levels provided in fiscal years 2001, 2002, 2003 and 
2004 respectively. In fact, the underlying bill's funding level is less 
than what was provided even 13 fiscal years back, in 1995.
  I certainly thank Chairman Obey for his support and advocacy of the 
Even Start program throughout many years. The Even Start program helps 
our most disadvantaged parents better their lives for themselves and 
their children.
  I hope all Members will join me in supporting the Even Start program. 
I urge a ``yes'' vote.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I don't really enjoy opposing this 
amendment because I think this is a good program

[[Page H7939]]

that the gentleman seeks to expand. But let me put his amendment in 
context.
  The President of the United States tried to eliminate this program in 
his budget. The committee has provided $99 million for it, and for that 
the administration is criticizing us.
  I would also point out that in the last year, when the other party 
controlled the House of Representatives, the committee cut Even Start 
by $29 million. We've done none of that. We've restored the funding, 
and I have a great deal of confidence in the program. But I cannot 
support the idea of adding the additional money the gentleman proposes 
because he takes it from a very damaging place.
  Now, I know that there is no political constituency for the Bureau of 
Labor Statistics. No one is going to get excited if they hear that we 
are cutting back funding for that agency. But, in fact, the Bureau of 
Labor Statistics, which produces the Consumer Price Index, puts 
together the numbers that determine the way hundreds of billions of 
dollars flow in this budget and flow in this economy.
  We are operating on the basis of an ancient Consumer Price Index. The 
housing component of that index, which makes up almost 30 percent of 
it, is some 17 years out of date, and we know there's been a lot of 
change in housing stock over the last 17 years.
  And it just seems to me that while the gentleman is citing a worthy 
program for adding funds, I would suggest that it would do tremendous 
long-term damage to this country in terms of equity if we do not update 
and modernize the data being produced by the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics. Republicans can have their set of facts, Democrats can have 
their set of facts, but in the end we need to disregard both sets and 
we need to have statistics which underlie all of the economic decisions 
that we make. And it makes no sense to be proceeding on the basis of 
17-year old statistics.
  So, much as I regret having to oppose the gentleman's amendment and 
much as I regret having to call Bill Goodling, who is the original 
sponsor of the program, to tell Bill that I couldn't support the 
increase in this instance, I do think that the responsible thing to do 
in this instance is to vote ``no.''
  I forgot to mention, and far be it for me to defend the 
administration's Cabinet appointees. But the gentleman, as I understand 
it, would take a significant amount of this funding from the Department 
of Labor administration accounts.
  I would point out the administration is also complaining about the 
cuts we've made in the Labor Secretary's budget. Their Information and 
Technology Account has already been cut by 39 percent. The Office of 
the Secretary has already been cut by 17 percent. And we did not 
provide the requested funds for a core accounting system, and the 
administration specifically brings attention to their concerns about 
this. And I honestly do not think it's advisable to cut the agency even 
more deeply.
  And let me assure the gentleman that I would actually prefer that he 
withdraw the amendment and I'd be happy to try to work, as I'm sure the 
gentleman from New York would, to try to improve the Even Start 
position in conference.
  But if he has to rely on these kinds of offsets, I regret it, but I 
simply cannot see my way clear to support it.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Platts).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. PLATTS. Madam 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 Pennsylvania will be 
postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                 Office of Disability Employment Policy


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses for the Office of Disability 
     Employment Policy to provide leadership, develop policy and 
     initiatives, and award grants furthering the objective of 
     eliminating barriers to the training and employment of people 
     with disabilities, $27,712,000.

                        Departmental Management


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses for Departmental Management, 
     including the hire of three sedans, and including the 
     management or operation, through contracts, grants or other 
     arrangements of Departmental activities conducted by or 
     through the Bureau of International Labor Affairs, including 
     bilateral and multilateral technical assistance and other 
     international labor activities, $292,943,000, of which 
     $72,516,000 is for the Bureau of International Labor Affairs 
     (including $5,000,000 to implement model programs to address 
     worker rights issues through technical assistance in 
     countries with which the United States has trade preference 
     programs), and of which $18,000,000 is for the acquisition of 
     Departmental information technology, architecture, 
     infrastructure, equipment, software and related needs, which 
     will be allocated by the Department's Chief Information 
     Officer in accordance with the Department's capital 
     investment management process to assure a sound investment 
     strategy; together with not to exceed $318,000, which may be 
     expended from the employment security administration account 
     in the Unemployment Trust Fund.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Reichert

  Mr. REICHERT. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Reichert:
       Page 25, line 22, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $2,500,000)''.
       Page 33, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $2,500,000)''.

  Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
amendment. We don't have a copy of it.
  The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
  The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. REICHERT. Madam Chairman, as the former sheriff of King County in 
Seattle, Washington, and the cochairman of the Congressional Children's 
Health Care Caucus, I am proud to offer this amendment supporting 
emergency medical services for children.
  I am pleased to be joined in offering this amendment by Congressman 
Matheson, and to have the support of Congressman King from New York, 
both of whom have been outstanding leaders on this issue.
  Our amendment will provide $2.5 million in additional resources for 
emergency medical services for children's programs offset from the 
Department of Labor's General Administrative Account. This vital 
program provides grants to States and medical institutions, to expand 
and improve emergency care for children who need treatment for life-
threatening illnesses or injuries.
  This modest funding increase will help a program that has been nearly 
level funded for the past 6 years. It will better serve those who 
provide emergency care for our children.
  Children, as everyone knows, are not small adults. The illnesses and 
injuries that bring them into emergency rooms vary significantly, and 
they often need equipment that is smaller than what is used for adults, 
and medication in much more carefully calculated doses.

                              {time}  1815

  Although children account for 30 million annual visits to the 
emergency rooms, many hospitals and emergency management agencies are 
not well equipped to handle these patients. According to the Centers 
for Disease Control, only 6 percent of the United States emergency 
departments have all the supplies they need to handle pediatric 
emergencies.
  Emergency Medical Services grants have been awarded to all 50 States, 
the District of Columbia and five territories. They have been used to 
train first responders to buy pediatric equipment for hospitals and to 
establish and improve standards for emergency care for children. Other 
grants have been used to create pediatric treatment guides for school 
nurses to test best practices and to incorporate pediatric care into 
State disaster plans.
  Madam Chairman, this is a simple amendment with a significant impact 
on emergency care for our children. I urge all my colleagues to join in 
supporting this important measure.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin continue to reserve 
his point of order?
  Mr. OBEY. I withdraw the point of order and move to strike the last 
word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.

[[Page H7940]]

  Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, let me simply point out that the 
administration has sent us a statement of administration policy, or SAP 
as it is known in the trade, and they indicate that the President 
intends to veto this bill. And one of the reasons they intend to veto 
the bill is because they say this bill spends too much money. I would 
simply point out that virtually every Republican amendment that has 
been offered so far is an amendment to increase funding for a specific 
program.
  On this program the President zeroed out this very worthy program. 
The committee fully restored the funding at the previous year's level 
of $19.8 million, and now this amendment seeks to add a small amount in 
addition by taking it out of departmental management.
  As the Chair of the committee, I think it is my obligation to the 
administration to try to be somewhat objective about the funding level 
that they need in order to fund their agency activities. But if we are 
going to continue to get amendments from the administration's own side 
of the aisle that further reduce Cabinet Secretaries' operating 
budgets, who am I to object? So if the administration can't save itself 
from its friends, far be it from me to intercede, and so I would simply 
say that on this I will accept the amendment.
  Mr. WALSH of New York. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WALSH of New York. Madam Chairman, I won't take the full 5 
minutes. I would just like to say I am also prepared to accept the 
amendment. But I would make the note that this is not an increase in 
spending. There is an offset. We are moving money from one place to 
another. It does not increase overall spending. It is cost neutral.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Reichert).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Marchant

  Mr. MARCHANT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Marchant:
       Page 25, line 22, after each dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $58,419,000)''.

  Mr. MARCHANT. Madam Chairman, my amendment would reduce funding in 
the bill for the International Labor Affairs Bureau to the President's 
requested level of $14 million. This would save $58.4 million in this 
category.
  The underlying bill provides $72.5 million for this account. This 
amendment would reduce funding for the International Labor Affairs 
Bureau by $58.4 million to match the President's request.
  The bureau was originally responsible for the Department of Labor's 
overseas research projects and international labor workers' rights, 
primarily research and advocacy. However, in recent years the bureau 
has taken on grant-making activities. The bureau's grant assistance is 
already provided for by the Department of State, and this amendment 
would restructure the bureau's activities to advocacy and research 
only.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, this amendment is very simple. It seeks to 
reinstate the President's 81-percent cut in the International Labor 
Organization appropriation in the bill.
  Madam Chairman, I cannot walk into a union hall in my District, I 
cannot walk into a restaurant, I cannot walk into a barber shop without 
having someone say to me, Obey, what are you guys going to do to 
protect workers from unfair competition? What are you going to do to 
protect us from slave labor in China? What are you going to do to 
protect us from countries that pretend that they are free market 
countries when, in fact, they are centrally directed Marxist countries? 
When are you going to protect us from goods being produced by child 
labor around the world?
  The purpose of this International Labor Organization is to serve as 
the one agency that serves as a red flag when our workers' wages are 
being undercut unfairly.
  So I think the issue is very simple, and I don't intend to take the 
full 5 minutes. If you really are comfortable with the idea of just 
letting the wonders of the world market determine what wages are for 
American workers, if you are really comfortable with the idea of 
letting substandard wages and substandard working conditions undercut 
legitimate American workers' interests, then by all means vote for the 
gentleman's amendment. If you think that the American worker deserves a 
square deal in the midst of this globalization rampage, then I would 
suggest you vote against the amendment. And, I do think that workers 
and the organizations who represent them will be watching.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Chairman, I come to the floor 
tonight to rise in support of the gentleman's amendment. I come to the 
floor also to indicate my support for what we can do on this floor for 
labor here in America. And I think that is the optimum word, ``here'' 
in America.
  This amendment will do just that. It will protect laborers in this 
country, and that should be the first priority of this U.S. Congress. 
We do that first and foremost by protecting the fruits of their labor. 
Their wages, their income, what they work for, 9 to 5 and longer, 
Monday through Friday or longer during the course of the week. We do 
that by ensuring that the money that we spend, their hard-earned tax 
dollars, is appropriately spent and appropriately prioritized. And I 
commend the gentleman for doing just that with this amendment.
  There are many things that we would like to spend our dollars on. But 
when we are elected to public office, we are to come here and make sure 
that first and foremost the American citizen, and in this case, the 
American worker, is protected.
  As I come to the floor tonight, as I have said in the past, we have 
now marked about 6 months into Democrat control of this U.S. Congress. 
And what has it wrought during those 6 months? The largest tax increase 
in U.S. history. The attempts to change historic rules of this House 
and in operations. And, finally, attempts to create slush funds in 
which dollars can be misspent on other inappropriate items, dollars 
that are earned from the backs and sweat of American labor. And that is 
why I come strongly to support this amendment by the gentleman from 
Texas, to make sure that their hard-earned dollars are not misspent.
  How often have we gone back to our districts and heard the complaint 
of jobs in this country going overseas? Well, it is one thing to say 
the jobs are going overseas; it is another thing to ask the laborers in 
this country to support those jobs overseas. It is one thing to see our 
jobs flee from this country to go to foreign shores; it is another 
thing to ask the workers of this country, through their tax dollars, to 
in essence support the organizations' structure of those jobs overseas.
  We are elected to public office to protect the workers of this 
country. This gentleman's proposal does just that, by making sure that 
their tax dollars are focused first and foremost on workers and their 
quality of life and their standards here in this country. We will 
protect American workers. We will protect American jobs. And with this 
amendment, we will protect the budget of the workers of America as 
well.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Chairman, I am somewhat amused by the 
posture of the Appropriations Chair in the last two amendments, and I 
appreciate the difficult position he finds himself in. But on the one 
hand, the amendment before this one attempting to support the 
President's recommendation and then on this one lambasting the 
President's recommendation. So a case of whiplash, I understand, may be 
in order.

[[Page H7941]]

  But it is important to talk about exactly what this amendment does. 
And I want to commend my good friend from Texas for proposing this 
amendment.
  The Department of Labor proposes in the President's budget that $14 
million go to the International Labor Affairs Bureau, which would move 
the agency closer to its core mission of research and policy analysis. 
Remember this is the Department of Labor, not the Department of State. 
In 2008 the International Labor Affairs Bureau will continue to focus 
on administering over $530 million, $530 million, in projects that were 
launched in previous years, including in the field of child labor, as 
the chairman mentioned.
  The Department of Labor seeks to restore the International Labor 
Affairs Bureau to its original mission of research and advocacy by 
eliminating its grant-making activities. We have all sorts of 
duplication and redundancies in the Federal Government, and this 
certainly is one of them. As an example of that, between 1996 and 2001, 
the International Labor Affairs Bureau's funding rose by 1,500 percent 
over a 5-year period of time when the agency embarked on an expansive 
grant-making mission intended to combat international child labor, 
develop and disseminate AIDS prevention information in the 
international workplace, support core labor standards development, and 
provide bilateral technical assistance.
  Madam Chairman, grant-making activities are appropriately funded 
through the Department of State and through the USAID, the U.S. Agency 
for International Development, and other agencies. For example, the 
2008 budget includes $3 billion to continue international assistance 
activities in developing countries through the Millennium Challenge 
Account. The administration created the Millennium Challenge Account to 
provide targeted and accountable international development assistance 
to poor countries with a demonstrative commitment to ruling justly, 
investing in people, and encouraging economic growth. So there are more 
appropriate places to fund these kinds of grant activities.
  I would suggest, Madam Chairman, that the gentleman from Texas has 
proposed an appropriate amendment to return the level of funding in 
this appropriations bill to a level that would allow the International 
Labor Affairs Bureau to return to its core mission, its core mission of 
research and policy analysis and I believe better serve this Congress 
and the American people.

                              {time}  1830

  So I commend the gentleman for his amendment, and I encourage my 
colleagues to support the amendment.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Marchant).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MARCHANT. Madam 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 will be postponed.


               Amendment offered by Mr. Mc Caul of Texas

  Mr. McCAUL of Texas. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. McCaul of Texas:
       Page 25, line 22, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $2,000,000)''.
       Page 84, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $2,000,000)''.
       Page 84, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $2,000,000''.

  Mr. McCAUL of Texas. Madam Chairman, I rise today to offer an 
amendment in support of teacher training for deaf and blind children.
  Madam Chair, the Department of Education has provided funding from 
within its special education national activities account aimed at 
children who are both deaf and blind, commonly referred to as 
``deafblindness.'' This money trains teachers who have such children in 
their classes on how to educate and include them in daily classroom 
activities. This modest $12 million program has not received an 
increase in nearly two decades.
  Today over 110,000 people rely on this important program. Expanding 
this program will allow us to identify more children in need and 
increase the number of on-site technical assistance personnel.
  This amendment simply increases the Special Education National 
Activities Account to provide the DeafBlindness program with a modest 
but necessary increase.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McCAUL of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. If the gentleman would be willing to constrain his remarks, 
we would be willing to accept the amendment.
  Mr. McCAUL of Texas. That's an offer I would be remiss to refuse, and 
I will accept the offer.
  Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. McCAUL of Texas. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. WALSH of New York. Madam Chair, I rise in support of the 
amendment.
  Mr. McCAUL of Texas. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Shays

  Mr. SHAYS. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Shays:
       Page 25, line 22, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $500,000)''.
       Page 107, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $500,000)''.

  Mr. SHAYS. Madam Chairman, this amendment would increase the funding 
for the National Labor Relations Board by $500,000 and is offset by a 
decrease to the Department of Labor departmental management salaries 
and expenses. It is to allow the NLRB to start to reduce its cases. 
It's at 2 years now, and we're looking to reduce it. This is an 
amendment offered by Mark Udall and myself and Frank LoBiondo.
  The NLRB takes an extraordinary amount of time to review and render a 
decision on employment disputes.
  According to the NLRB, the median mount of time it takes from the 
filing of a charge to the issuance of the NLRB'S decision is over 2 
years.
  The funding in the Shays-Udall-LoBiondo amendment will allow the NLRB 
to retain some of its full-time staff, which they otherwise would have 
to let go due to the pay increase for Government employees.
  It will also be used to train supervisors and new employees to ensure 
they are handling the cases efficiently and effectively, without 
sacrificing quality.
  Funding, however, is not the only answer to the NLRB's problems.
  We need to create deadlines to ensure the NLRB renders decisions in 
an expedient manner.
  Mark Udall, Frank LoBiondo, and I have been working on legislation to 
require the NLRB to issue their decisions promptly.
  The bill will require the NLRB to issue a decision not later than 9 
months after the date on which the initial complaint was served.
  Should the Board not reach a decision within 9 months, it must 
transmit a report to Congress provide the reason or reasons the 
deadline was not met and what steps it is taking to reach a decision.
  One high-profile NLRB decision found the Smithfield Packing Company 
guilty of illegally assaulting, intimidating, and harassing its workers 
in Tar Heel, North Carolina, when they attempted to form a union in 
1994 and 1997. However, the NLRB's decision that the employer used 
unfair labor practices did not come down until 2005.
  Taking this amount of time is an absurdity.
  Mr. OBEY. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHAYS. Absolutely.
  Mr. OBEY. Again, same deal; if the gentleman will constrain his 
remarks, we would be happy to accept the amendment.
  Mr. SHAYS. I would be happy to. Could I just recognize Mark Udall?
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I thank the gentleman for his generous offer.
  I rise in support of the amendment.
  I'd like to thank Chairman Obey and Ranking Member Walsh and the 
Appropriations Committee for their leadership on this vital legislation 
that will help to provide quality healthcare, enhance education 
opportunities, and increase worker safety.
  This is a good bill, but I think this amendment would make it better.
  The amendment will increase the funding for the National Labor 
Relations Board (NLRB) by $500,000, and is offset by a decrease to the 
Department of Labor Departmental Management Salaries and expenses.
  As we all know the NLRB plays a vital role in labor-management 
relations.
  It hears appeals of unfair labor practices and resolves questions 
about the composition of bargaining units.

[[Page H7942]]

  We need to maintain its ability to do its job.
  But without the additional funding this amendment will provide, there 
is a danger that they will have to lay off some of their staff in order 
to pay for their required overhead, including salaries.
  The amendment would prevent that, and would also enable the NLRB's 
staff to handle cases efficiently and effectively, without sacrificing 
quality.
  Funding is not the only problem that faces the National Labor 
Relations Board but congress should make it easier not harder for the 
National Labor Relations Board to administer decisions.
  I urge the House to adopt the Shays-Udall amendment.
  Mr. SHAYS. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment offered by Mr. Jindal

  Mr. JINDAL. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Jindal:
       Page 25, line 22, after the first dollar amount insert 
     ``(reduced by $50,000,000)''.
       Page 38, line 18, after the aggregate dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $50,000,000)''.

  Mr. JINDAL. Madam Chairman, the Labor-HHS Subcommittee has funded the 
Center for Disease Control's Division of Tuberculosis Elimination at 
$150 million in this bill. Over the past 15 years, funding for this 
program has been level. There has been no increase in funding for this 
program since 1993.
  Madam Chairman, every State and most major cities have TB control 
programs. Approximately 75 percent of the funds appropriated for this 
program are used in the States.
  Funding for this program is critically important because just last 
year, in 2006, more than 20 of the 50 States had increases in TB cases. 
My home State of Louisiana, as well as most other States, have a large 
number of workers who travel the globe to share their expertise. Unlike 
tourists who stay in hotels in environments where TB exposure does not 
normally occur, Louisiana's oil and gas workers spend months working 
and living in environments among the local population where exposure 
can and does occur. TB exposure in these communities can result in many 
fatalities.
  Another key issue for States and cities is the huge number of 
foreign-born students attending universities in the United States. More 
than half of the TB cases in the United States stem from foreign-born 
students who come here on student visas and often return home for 
summers and holidays, risking exposure in their home country. While 
risk of exposure is high for these students, their return to 
universities in the United States with the possibility of a latent TB 
infection creates the same problem seen in oil and gas workers.
  If the disease is activated, the number of people exposed is 
tremendous. The last such case at a Louisiana university exposed 120 
contacts in classes as well as in the dorms.
  At present, there is no mandatory screening of this group, and no 
vaccine to prevent disease. The Georgia man whose case recently made 
headlines was exposed while volunteering overseas. As in his case, 
volunteers or overseas workers can return to the United States with a 
latent TB infection and activate the spread of this disease in the 
United States, later exposing family, friends and coworkers. No routine 
screening is performed, and no effective vaccine is available to 
prevent the spread of this disease.
  My amendment is supported by the American Lung Association, American 
Thoracic Society, National Coalition for the Elimination of 
Tuberculosis, and the National TB Controllers Association.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I don't like to have to oppose this 
amendment, but the fact is where some of the previous amendments were 
merely troublesome, this amendment is irresponsible.
  Now, let us point out what's happened so far. What we have going on 
here is a ``let's pretend'' game. We have the administration telling us 
that this bill is runaway spending, and they threaten to veto the bill 
when in fact this bill in real terms is only a little over a 2 percent 
increase over last year. It is a large difference with the President's 
budget, but that's because he tried to cut $7.5 billion of it. In real 
terms, this bill goes up by less than $5 billion.
  By now we have a number of people in this House who are trying to 
escape from the consequences of the President's budget. So we have 
pretended in one amendment that we can add money to AmeriCorps by 
taking money out of administrative management accounts for the Labor 
Department.
  Then we are pretending that we can take out, yes, just a small 
amount, $500,000, out of that same account in order to deal with 
National Labor Relations Board. Then we are having another effort to 
escape the squeeze on behalf of another very worthy cause, deaf and 
blind children. And those have been accepted.
  But now this amendment comes in, and it proposes to increase funding 
for a very worthy cause, Center for Disease Control TB Elimination 
Program. That is funded in the bill at $150.7 million, an increase of 
$13.7 million over fiscal 2007 and $13.9 million over the President's 
request. The funding included in this bill is a 10 percent increase 
over fiscal 2007.
  Now, everybody knows that we would like to be providing more money 
for that program and a dozen others in this bill. But we are trying, 
evidently, to give some credence to the administration's complaints 
about dollar levels in spending.
  So what does this amendment do? It savages the ability of the 
Secretary of Labor to run any programs at all, because what it does is 
to require a 25 percent cut in the ability of the Secretary of Labor to 
manage all of the programs within their jurisdiction. So that means 
that you have to chop the living guts out of the Secretary's own 
office; you have to chop the guts out of the Solicitor's office. And 
that is the office that deals with enforcement for mine safety, for 
OSHA, or even the OLMS union violations that were the subject of a 
previous amendment just a couple minutes ago.
  And what this all is is a giant ``let's pretend'' operation. It's a 
game that pretends that we are doing something real by adding money for 
these accounts, when you know that if you're going to be responsible, 
when we go to conference we're going to have to restore most of these 
management accounts or else we will have a government agency, 
admittedly one run by a very conservative Republican, but still a 
government agency which will be crippled in its ability to provide its 
functions.
  I have in my office two signs. And whenever anybody comes to me 
asking for money, I make them read those signs out loud. This is what 
one of them says: ``What do you want us to do for someone besides 
yourself that's more important than whatever it is you want us to do 
for you?'' And I think that's the basic question we always ought to be 
asking in a Judeo-Christian society.
  My problem with this amendment is, while it seeks funds for a very 
worthy cause, in the process it takes away crucial funds for many other 
worthy causes. And sooner or later, even in the Congress of the United 
States, we need to think about the needs of the whole. We need to think 
about all of the needs that the government has to deal with, not just 
one concern of one Member or one concern of another.
  So in the interest of responsibility, I would urge a, very 
regretfully, defeat of the gentleman's amendment.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALSH of New York. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WALSH of New York. Madam Chairman, I couldn't agree more with my 
colleague, the chairman of the subcommittee. It's difficult to oppose 
an amendment that increases funding for treating and dealing with 
tuberculosis. It's a very serious disease all across the Third World. 
And there is the potential for it coming into our society and creating 
real problems.
  Having said that, there is an increase in the budget, it's $14 
million above

[[Page H7943]]

what the President requested, a pretty substantial increase, a 10 
percent increase in the budget. And while I respect the gentleman's 
desire to strengthen our country against the disease, it's not proper 
to take that amount of the budget of the Department of Labor for this 
purpose. That would hamstring the Department of Labor. It would not cut 
the fat, it would cut the muscle, it would cut the arms out. It would 
cut the eyes out of the Department of Labor, and I don't think anybody 
wants that.
  So, I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  Mr. JINDAL. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALSH of New York. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. JINDAL. I won't take a lot of time. I just want to make one 
point.
  I do thank the gentleman and the chairman for recognizing the good 
intent behind the amendment. I do want to point out that the offset 
still leaves in that account more money than what the President 
requested in his budget. The rationale for offsetting from that account 
is that, according to the administration there is a duplication of 
effort between the Bureau of International Labor Affairs, the State 
Department, USAID, and other agencies. So, even with the offset, we 
still leave more money in those accounts than the administration itself 
requested.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. WALSH of New York. I thank the gentleman.
  Reclaiming my time, there have been a number of amendments that have 
cut into this salaries and expenses administrative account. I suspect 
there will be more. We need to be very careful about further deep cuts.
  And this is an especially large cut, $50 million. So I would, again, 
urge a ``no'' vote.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Chairman, I will be relatively brief on 
this.
  I want to commend my friend from Louisiana for offering the 
amendment. As a physician in my former life, I appreciate the 
remarkable increase in the incidence of tuberculosis and the need for 
surveillance as well as detection and treatment. So I commend my friend 
from Louisiana for offering this amendment. We all watched with some 
curiosity and some significant concern within the last couple of months 
as we tracked the travels of one individual from my City of Atlanta 
around the world who was felt to have a case of tuberculosis that 
needed to be treated urgently. So I commend my good friend for the 
amendment.
  I do want to say in the larger context, however, that I'm a little 
perplexed, for the Chair of the Appropriations Committee talks about 
``pretending'' to support AmeriCorps in previous amendments dealing 
with this section of the bill, ``pretending'' to support NLRB, 
``pretending'' to support deaf and blind children, and yet those are 
the amendments that he accepted.

                              {time}  1845

  So I am a little perplexed as to why this amendment isn't being given 
the same, at least the same pretending of, support from the Chair of 
the committee.
  I would also point out that the appropriately decreased reductions in 
the proposal from the administration in this area of the budget aren't 
taken in isolation. They are part of the entire, larger budget, which 
gets to the issue of the entire, larger budget that this new majority 
has passed, and that, as you well know, Madam Chairman, includes the 
largest tax increase in the history of our Nation. So I understand that 
somehow you have to pay for all these things, but I believe strongly 
that it is not the American people who desire to have the largest tax 
increase in the history of our Nation.
  So I rise to commend my good friend from Louisiana for proposing this 
sound amendment. I would encourage its adoption. I understand the 
concerns that others have regarding the underlying section in this area 
of the bill, but I encourage my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jindal).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. JINDAL. Madam 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 Louisiana will be 
postponed.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Shays

  Mr. SHAYS. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Shays:
       Page 25, line 22, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $6,800,000)''.
       Page 92, line 17, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $1,500,000)''.
       Page 97, line 16, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $8,300,000)''.
       Page 97, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $8,300,000)''.
       Page 98, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,500,000)''.

  Mr. SHAYS. Madam Chairman, this amendment transfers $6.8 million from 
the Department of Labor Departmental Management Salaries and Expenses 
and $1.5 million from the Department of Education Departmental 
Management Account to fund a $6.8 million increase in the AmeriCorps 
State and National program. The additional $1.5 million is needed to 
fund corresponding increases to the National Service trust fund for 
reimbursement of student loans.
  This amendment will provide adequate funding to ensure that 
AmeriCorps State and National program will maintain the 34,000 full-
time volunteer positions. Based upon the funding level in the 
legislation, the corporation will have to reduce its full-time 
enrollment by 600 positions and replace them with reduced, part-time 
positions.
  There is a great deal of support for increasing Pell Grants in this 
Congress, something with which I agree. It seems to me, however, that 
with Pell Grants, the government and our society get no direct return, 
whereas with AmeriCorps, recipients of this aid are required to perform 
service to their community and Nation. There is a stipend for 
education, but they have earned it through serving their country.
  To me, national service is one of the smartest investments our 
government can make. Not only is it a smart financial investment, but 
national service energizes our youth, empowers our volunteers and helps 
citizens make a very real, tangible impact on our communities.
  Madam Chairman, I concur that we are taking from an account that the 
chairman has some concern about. I would hope that where it is going 
would outweigh that.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
  The amendment was rejected.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                          office of job corps

       To carry out subtitle C of title I of the Workforce 
     Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2881 et seq.), including 
     Federal administrative expenses, the purchase and hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles, the construction, alteration and 
     repairs of buildings and other facilities, and the purchase 
     of real property for training centers as authorized by the 
     Workforce Investment Act; $1,649,476,000, as follows:
       (1) $1,507,684,000 for Job Corps operations, of which 
     $916,684,000 is available for the period July 1, 2008, 
     through June 30, 2009, and of which $591,000,000 is available 
     for the period October 1, 2008, through June 30, 2009;
       (2) $112,920,000 for construction, rehabilitation, and 
     acquisition of Job Corps centers, of which $12,920,000 is 
     available from July 1, 2008, through June 30, 2011; and 
     $100,000,000 is available for the period October 1, 2008, 
     through June 30, 2011; and
       (3) $28,872,000 for necessary expenses of the Office of Job 
     Corps, which shall be available for the period October 1, 
     2007, through September 30, 2008:

     Provided, That the Office of Job Corps shall have contracting 
     authority: Provided further, That no funds from any other 
     appropriation shall be used to provide meal services at or 
     for Job Corps centers: Provided further, That none of the 
     funds appropriated in this title for the Job Corps shall be 
     used to pay the salary of an individual, either as direct 
     costs or any proration as an indirect cost, at a rate in 
     excess of Executive Level I: Provided further, That a total 
     student training slot level of not less than 44,791 shall be 
     achieved by the end of program year 2008.

[[Page H7944]]

                    veterans employment and training

       Not to exceed $197,143,000 may be derived from the 
     employment security administration account in the 
     Unemployment Trust Fund to carry out the provisions of 
     sections 4100-4113, 4211-4215, and 4321-4327 of title 38, 
     United States Code, and Public Law 103-353, and which shall 
     be available for obligation by the States through December 
     31, 2008, of which $1,967,000 is for the National Veterans' 
     Employment and Training Services Institute. To carry out the 
     Homeless Veterans Reintegration Programs under section 
     5(a)(1) of the Homeless Veterans Comprehensive Assistance Act 
     of 2001 (38 U.S.C. 2021) and the Veterans Workforce 
     Investment Programs under section 168 of the Workforce 
     Investment Act (29 U.S.C. 2913), $31,055,000, of which 
     $7,435,000 shall be available for obligation for the period 
     July 1, 2008, through June 30, 2009.

                      Office of Inspector General

       For salaries and expenses of the Office of Inspector 
     General in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector 
     General Act of 1978, $72,929,000, together with not to exceed 
     $5,729,000, which may be expended from the employment 
     security administration account in the Unemployment Trust 
     Fund.

                           General Provisions


                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 101. Not to exceed 1 percent of any discretionary 
     funds (pursuant to the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 900 et seq.)) which are 
     appropriated for the current fiscal year for the Department 
     of Labor in this Act may be transferred between a program, 
     project, or activity, but no such program, project, or 
     activity shall be increased by more than 3 percent by any 
     such transfer: Provided further, That the transfer authority 
     granted by this section shall be available only to meet 
     unanticipated needs and shall not be used to create any new 
     program or to fund any project or activity for which no funds 
     are provided in this Act: Provided further, That the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
     and the Senate are notified at least 15 days in advance of 
     any transfer.
       Sec. 102. In accordance with Executive Order No. 13126, 
     none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available 
     pursuant to this Act shall be obligated or expended for the 
     procurement of goods mined, produced, manufactured, or 
     harvested or services rendered, whole or in part, by forced 
     or indentured child labor in industries and host countries 
     already identified by the United States Department of Labor 
     prior to enactment of this Act.
       Sec. 103. After September 30, 2007, the Secretary of Labor 
     shall issue a monthly transit subsidy of not less than the 
     full amount (of not less than $110) that each of its 
     employees of the National Capital Region is eligible to 
     receive.
       Sec. 104. None of the funds appropriated in this title for 
     grants under section 171 of the Workforce Investment Act of 
     1998 (29 U.S.C. 2916) may be obligated prior to the 
     preparation and submission of a report by the Secretary of 
     Labor to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate detailing the planned uses of 
     such funds.
       Sec. 105. The Secretary of Labor shall award the following 
     grants on a competitive basis: (1) Community-Based Job 
     Training Grants awarded from amounts provided for such 
     purpose under this title; and (2) grants during fiscal or 
     program year 2008 under section 414(c) of the American 
     Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of 1998 (29 
     U.S.C. 2916 note), as amended by section 428 of the 
     Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law 108-447).
       Sec. 106. None of the funds made available to the 
     Department of Labor for grants under section 414(c) of the 
     American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of 
     1998 (29 U.S.C. 2916 note) may be used for any purpose other 
     than training in the occupations and industries for which 
     employers are using H-1B visas to hire foreign workers, and 
     the related activities necessary to support such training: 
     Provided, That the preceding limitation shall not apply to 
     grants awarded under section 107 of this title and to multi-
     year grants awarded in response to competitive solicitations 
     issued prior to April 15, 2007.
       Sec. 107. Out of funds available to the Department of Labor 
     under section 414(c) the American Competitiveness and 
     Workforce Improvement Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2916 note), as 
     amended by section 428 of the Consolidated Appropriations 
     Act, 2005 (Public Law 108-447), up to $20,000,000 is 
     available (in addition to dislocated worker assistance 
     national reserve funds) for the purposes of grants to States 
     to address the gap in health care coverage faced by trade 
     adjustment assistance (``TAA'') participants and dislocated 
     workers awaiting TAA certification, to assure that these 
     dislocated workers can benefit from the tax credit for health 
     insurance costs authorized in section 35 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986.
       Sec. 108. The Secretary of Labor shall take no action to 
     amend, through regulatory or administration action, the 
     definition established in 20 CFR 667.220 for functions and 
     activities under title I of the Workforce Investment Act of 
     1998, or to modify, through regulatory or administrative 
     action, the procedure for redesignation of local areas as 
     specified in subtitle B of title I of the Act (including 
     applying the standards specified in section 116(a)(3)(B) of 
     such Act, but notwithstanding the time limits specified in 
     section 116(a)(3)(B) of such Act (29 U.S.C. 2831), until such 
     time as legislation reauthorizing such Act is enacted.
       Sec. 109. None of the funds made available in this or any 
     other Act shall be available to finalize or implement any 
     proposed regulation under the Workforce Investment Act of 
     1998, Wagner-Peyser Act of 1933, or the Trade Adjustment 
     Assistance Reform Act of 2002 until such time as legislation 
     reauthorizing the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 and the 
     Trade Adjustment Assistance Reform Act of 2002 is enacted.
       Sec. 110. (a) On or before November 30, 2007, the Secretary 
     of Labor shall, pursuant to section 6 of the Occupational 
     Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 655), promulgate a 
     final occupational safety and health standard concerning 
     employer payment for personal protective equipment. The final 
     standard shall provide no less protection to employees and 
     shall have no further exceptions from the employer payment 
     requirement than the proposed rule published in the Federal 
     Register on March 31, 1999 (64 FR 15402).
       (b) In the event that such standard is not promulgated by 
     the date required, the proposed standard on employer payment 
     for personal protective equipment published in the Federal 
     Register on March 31, 1999 (64 FR 15402) shall become 
     effective as if such standard had been promulgated as a final 
     standard by the Secretary of Labor.
       Sec. 111. None of the funds appropriated in this title may 
     be used to carry out a public-private competition or direct 
     conversion under OMB Circular A-76 or any successor 
     administrative regulation, directive, or policy until 60 days 
     after the Government Accountability Office provides a report 
     to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate on the use of competitive 
     sourcing at the Department of Labor.


                Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Sessions

  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam 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. Sessions:
       Strike section 111.

  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Chairman, my amendment would strike section 111 
of this legislation, which, as drafted, would have the same effect as 
language already included in a number of the Democrat majority's other 
appropriations bills which prevents funds from being spent to conduct 
public-private competitions.
  While this policy may be good for increasing dues payments to private 
sector union bosses, it is unquestionably bad for taxpayers and for 
Federal agencies because agencies are left with less money to spend on 
their core missions when Congress takes the opportunity to use 
competition away from them.
  In 2006, Federal agencies ``competed'' only 1.7 percent of their 
commercial workforce, which makes up less than one-half of 1 percent of 
the entire civilian workforce. This very small use of competition for 
services is expected to generate savings of $1.3 billion over 10 years 
by closing performance gaps and improving efficiencies.
  Competitions competed since 2003 are expected to produce almost $7 
billion in savings for taxpayers over the next 10 years. This means 
that taxpayers will receive a return of about $31 for every $1 spent on 
competition, with annualized expected savings of more than $1 billion.
  Specifically at the Department of Labor, since May 2004, 27 public-
private partnerships have competed, involving over 1,000 positions. And 
thanks to a 10 percent protection clause, 24 of these competitions have 
been won by the government. This overwhelming track record of 
government success in competing with private sector begs the question, 
why would the Democrat leadership insist upon preventing Federal 
agencies from running their operations in the most efficient manner 
when they have been successful in the past?
  I think the answer is clear, Madam Chairman, that when this 
appropriations bill cuts the budget for the Office of Labor Management 
Standards, which monitors union compliance with Federal law, and 
prevents competitive sourcing from taking place, that the Democrat 
leadership is clearly hearing from labor bosses that this bill 
represents a good opportunity to increase the power of labor bosses at 
the expense of taxpayers and good government.
  In this time of stretched budgets and bloated spending, Congress 
should be looking to use all of the tools it can to find taxpayer 
savings and reduce the cost of services that are already being provided 
by thousands of hardworking companies nationwide.

[[Page H7945]]

  I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense taxpayer-first 
amendment to oppose the underlying provision to benefit private sector 
union bosses by keeping cost-saving competition available to the 
government.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, this bill contains a provision that freezes 
public-private competitions at the Department of Labor under OMB 
circular A-76. That process is used to compete out jobs now performed 
by Federal employees. Significant resources have been spent by the 
Department over the last several years on contracting out government 
jobs, and the committee believes it is time to take a step back and 
examine how the process is working.
  Government-wide statistics cast doubt, frankly, on the overall 
effectiveness of this process. OMB reports in fiscal year 2006 that 
government employees won the competition in more than 85 percent of the 
cases where competitive sourcing was used. At DOL, the results have 
been similar. Since the process has begun, DOL employees have won 22 of 
the 25 competitions.
  Now, aside from questions about the lack of compelling evidence of 
cost savings or increased efficiency, there is concern about the fact 
that the Department is not taking proper care to assure that functions 
that ought to be considered inherently governmental or are otherwise 
unsuitable for contracting performance are excluded from these 
competitions.
  We have seen some competitions where regulatory and policy functions 
are included and believe that an independent look at the Department of 
Labor's use of this authority is warranted.
  The gentleman says that it is labor bosses who are concerned about 
this. The last time I looked, this was having a disproportionate impact 
on women and on minority workers, and we are asking the GAO to assess 
the impact on them.

                              {time}  1900

  The bill language freezes the A-76 process at the Department of Labor 
until the committee has the benefit of a GAO review of that process. 
What is wrong with that?
  The Comptroller General chaired a panel that submitted a report to 
Congress in 2002 and the request to GAO will be to ask for an 
assessment of the extent to which the sourcing principle adopted by the 
panel, including the recognition of inherently governmental functions, 
are being followed by the Department. This department is frankly not 
known to be a friend of the worker, certainly not under the present 
regime. It certainly is not known to be a friend to Federal workers, 
and it seems to me that we have seen in Iraq what happens when we 
contract out everything in sight. We have seen what happens in the 
Labor Department when 90 percent of one of their most important 
manpower programs, when 90 percent of the money in that program is 
farmed out on a noncompetitive basis. Frankly, we have sincere doubt 
about the balance with which the Department is approaching this issue.
  Therefore, we asked the GAO to review the process. What on earth is 
wrong with that? I urge opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Chairman, the moratorium on A-76 public-
private competition at the Department of Labor is the right provision, 
in the right bill at the right time.
  The moratorium is included in this Appropriations bill because the 
Department of Labor has made indications that the agency is trying to 
reach numerical privatization targets--quotas--for its outsourcing.
  The use of outsourcing quotas was first addressed by Congress when 
the Office of Management and Budget under the Bush Administration 
introduced its effort to outsource at least 15 percent of each agency 
to the private sector, with a goal of outsourcing up to half of the 
agency workforce.
  The problem with outsourcing quotas is that they are a ``one-size-
fits-all'' arbitrary privatization effort. Quotas never consider the 
unique needs of different Federal agencies, and they often lead to 
widespread cuts that harm the ability of Federal agencies to 
effectively carry out their mission.
  I offered an amendment to the Transportation-Treasury Appropriations 
Act in 2003 that shed light onto the administration's effort, and 
outlawed the outsourcing quota.
  Now it appears that the Department of Labor is taking the same 
approach.
  In the next two years, over 2,000 jobs are expected to be competed, 
many of which appear to be both inherently governmental and even 
discriminatory.
  These jobs include technical writers reviewing OSHA enforcement 
action, senior instructor for safety specialist responsibilities, and 
physical scientists that analyze toxic materials in working 
environments. It is vital that these positions provide sound, objective 
services that Federal employees can.
  Furthermore, the majority of employees impacted by the recent round 
of A-76 competitions were older African-American women. The GAO report 
will analyze whether the scheduled outsourcings are discriminatory.
  The DOL has won 21 out of 23 competitions conducted in the past 3 
fiscal years. Millions of dollars have been spent over the last several 
years on these initiatives; 90 percent of the cases are won by 
Government.
  The GAO report would give Congress an objective analysis of the 
outsourcing program at the Department of Labor from which to base 
further decisions.
  Competitive sourcing is not inherently a bad thing if it can save 
money for the Federal Government, but arbitrary quotas, numerical 
targets, are a bad thing.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam 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 will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

        This title may be cited as the ``Department of Labor 
     Appropriations Act, 2008''.

           TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

              Health Resources and Services Administration


                     health resources and services

       For carrying out titles II, III, IV, VII, VIII, X, XII, 
     XVI, XIX, and XXVI of the Public Health Service Act, section 
     427(a) of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act, title 
     V and sections 1128E, 711, and 1820 of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1320a-7e, 912, and 1395i-4), the Health Care 
     Quality Improvement Act of 1986, the Native Hawaiian Health 
     Care Act of 1988, the Cardiac Arrest Survival Act of 2000, 
     construction and renovation (including equipment) of health 
     care and other facilities, and section 712(c) of the American 
     Jobs Creation Act of 2004 (42 U.S.C. 300b-1 note), 
     $7,055,709,000, of which $63,538,000 from general revenues, 
     notwithstanding subsection (j) of section 1820 of the Social 
     Security Act, shall be available for carrying out the 
     Medicare rural hospital flexibility grants program under such 
     section: Provided, That of the funds made available under 
     this heading, $100,000 shall be available until expended for 
     facilities renovations at the National Hansen's Disease 
     Programs Center (as described in section 320 of the Public 
     Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 247e)): Provided further, That 
     in addition to fees authorized by section 427(b)(4) of the 
     Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986 (42 U.S.C. 
     11137(b)(4)), fees shall be collected for the full disclosure 
     of information under the Act sufficient to recover the full 
     costs of operating the National Practitioner Data Bank 
     authorized under such Act, and shall remain available until 
     expended to carry out such Act: Provided further, That fees 
     authorized under subsection (d)(2) of section 1128E of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320a-7e) to be collected for 
     the full disclosure of information under the national health 
     care fraud and abuse data collection program established 
     under such section, shall be sufficient to recover the full 
     costs of operating the program, and shall remain available 
     until expended to carry out that program: Provided further, 
     That $35,000,000 of the funding provided for community health 
     centers shall be used for base grant adjustments for existing 
     centers: Provided further, That no more than $40,000 is 
     available until expended for carrying out the provisions of 
     section 224(o)(6) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
     233(o)(6)) including associated administrative expenses: 
     Provided further, That $3,963,000 is available until expended 
     for the National Cord Blood Stem Cell Program: Provided 
     further, That no more than $45,000,000 is available until 
     expended for carrying out the amendments to section 224 of 
     the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 233) made by the 
     Federally Supported Health Centers Assistance Act of 1995 and 
     for expenses incurred by the Department of Health and Human 
     Services pertaining to administrative claims made pursuant to 
     such amendments: Provided further, That of the funds made 
     available under this heading, $310,910,000 shall be for the 
     program under

[[Page H7946]]

     title X of the Public Health Service Act to provide for 
     voluntary family planning projects: Provided further, That 
     amounts provided to such projects under such title shall not 
     be expended for abortions, that all pregnancy counseling 
     shall be nondirective, and that such amounts shall not be 
     expended for any activity (including the publication or 
     distribution of literature) that in any way tends to promote 
     public support or opposition to any legislative proposal or 
     candidate for public office: Provided further, That of the 
     funds available under this heading, $1,865,800,000 shall 
     remain available to the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services through September 30, 2010, for parts A and B of 
     title XXVI of the Public Health Service Act: Provided 
     further, That within the amounts provided for part A of title 
     XXVI of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300ff-11 et 
     seq.), funds are included to ensure that the amount of any 
     funding provided under such part to a metropolitan area for 
     the program year beginning in 2007 is not reduced by an 
     amount that is more than 8.4 percent, and the amount of any 
     funding provided under subpart II of such part to a 
     transitional area is not reduced by an amount that is more 
     than 13.4 percent, relative to the amount of the total 
     funding provided under such part to the metropolitan area or 
     transitional area, respectively, for the program year 
     beginning in fiscal year 2006: Provided further, That 
     $830,593,000 shall be for State AIDS Drug Assistance Programs 
     authorized under section 2616 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 300ff-
     26): Provided further, That in addition to amounts provided 
     herein, $25,000,000 shall be available from amounts available 
     under section 241 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
     238j) to carry out parts A, B, C, and D of title XXVI of such 
     Act to fund the special projects of national significance 
     under section 2691 of the Public Health Service Act (42 
     U.S.C. 300ff-101): Provided further, That, notwithstanding 
     section 502(a)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     702(a)(1)), not to exceed $170,991,000 is available for 
     carrying out special projects of regional and national 
     significance pursuant to section 501(a)(2) of such Act (42 
     U.S.C. 701(a)(2)).


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Stearns

  Mr. STEARNS. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Stearns:
       Page 33, line 25, after the aggregate dollar figure insert 
     ``(increased by $12,500,000)''.
       Page 90, line 7, after the first dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $12,500,000)''.
       Page 97, line 16, after the aggregate dollar amount insert 
     ``(reduced by $25,000,000)''.

  Mr. STEARNS. Madam Chairman, my amendment is very simple. My 
amendment transfers 10 percent or $25.5 million from AmeriCorp to the 
TRIO educational programs and the geriatric program. I have one of 
these programs in my congressional district, and I have a large 
university, two community colleges, so I thought it would be 
appropriate considering lots of time we talk about the loan process for 
the students, and particularly for low income, first generation college 
students, I thought it might be appropriate to take a very small 
portion of AmeriCorp and give it to these two programs.
  I think we all know that AmeriCorp has done some good work. When we 
talk about volunteerism, we talk about people who go out and help 
people after natural disasters. We have a lot of that in Florida. We 
recently had a tornado in Lake County. A lot of the people in the 
district donated blood. They helped mentor schoolchildren. We teach 
English to new Americans, we teach illiterate adults how to read. We 
also have volunteers who go in and clean up rivers and forests.
  AmeriCorp is a little bit different. It does have volunteers, but 
these volunteers, obviously, are paid. Remuneration in exchange for 
choosing to contribute one's time, energy and/or money clearly 
undermines the word ``volunteer.'' This is a different type of 
volunteerism. We have had a discussion whether it is necessary to pay 
volunteers. Paying people to volunteer sort of almost contradicts the 
spirit of the word, but we have sort of accepted that and the program 
has continued to flourish.
  There has been some question that Members on both sides have sought 
to legislate whether AmeriCorp members could spend time with political 
activities, campaigns, faith-based initiatives or unions. That got us 
into some controversy and some rhetoric. If the Federal Government were 
not involved in what should be a personal preference in the first 
place, we wouldn't have to have these conversations discussing whether 
we should allow these AmeriCorp members be involved with political 
activities, campaigns, faith-based initiatives, or unions.
  So I think when you look at the overall spectrum, I think the modest 
amount I am taking from AmeriCorp and putting into these two programs, 
I hope Members agree with me, it is worthwhile.
  Take a little money, give to TRIO programs. They are aimed, as I 
mentioned, at low-income, first generation college students. Currently 
there are 2,700 TRIO programs serving nearly 900,000 low-income 
students across the United States. TRIO is critical to our Nation's 
commitment to advance educational opportunities at our colleges and 
universities and, as a result, obviously our Nation's economic future.
  I have had the privilege of visiting several TRIO programs at schools 
in my district and had the privilege of hearing some of the wonderful 
success stories from these students. For that reason, I would like to 
give them a little more money.
  Also across many districts like mine there are geriatric programs. So 
I am taking part of this money from AmeriCorp and putting it into 
geriatric programs, roughly $12 million. These programs are currently 
funded at the same level as the previous fiscal year. Included in these 
programs are educational centers which provide crucial physician, 
dental and mental health training programs for the care of our seniors. 
Current Federal funding will continue the support of about 50 geriatric 
education centers and the training of over 50,000 health care 
providers. This funding should be increased to provide more education 
and training for more health care professionals so we can meet our 
aging population's future health care demands. This is particularly 
true in Florida.
  I ask my colleagues to consider putting part of the money from 
AmeriCorp into the geriatric educational centers. They have done a 
great job.
  In my district we have three of these geriatric centers. At the 
University of Florida, where one center is located, it was established 
in 1987 to provide educational services for faculty and practitioners 
in the State of Florida. Their goal is to provide better care for older 
Americans.
  I close, Madam Chairman, and urge support for my amendment so we can 
create better educational opportunities for underprivileged youth 
through the TRIO programs, and better ensure adequate and quality care 
for our seniors.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, once again we demonstrate the strangeness 
of the administration's statement of policy on this bill.
  This amendment would add $40 million to TRIO. We have already added 
$40 million above the amount that the President asked for for that 
program. It is a worthy program.
  The President also eliminated the funding for the other account that 
the gentleman wants to increase in this amendment. The President zeroed 
out the geriatrics program. The committee restored $32 million. So in 
both of these accounts, we are significantly above the President's 
budget; and yet we get another amendment from the other side of the 
aisle seeking to raise a worthy program.
  Now he seeks to pay for it by cutting, among other sources, 
AmeriCorp. I am a little confused by that because just a few minutes 
ago the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut had an amendment to 
try to add money for AmeriCorp. The House turned that down. Frankly, 
had I realized that the gentleman's amendment was going to be offered, 
in this instance I probably would have accepted the gentleman's 
amendment from Connecticut because I don't think it makes sense to 
reduce AmeriCorp, which has already been cut $9.2 million below last 
year, although I admit they do have carryover funds of $8 million.
  I guess what I am saying is I don't intend to stand in the way of 
this amendment, but it once again illustrates that when the 
administration claims that this bill is profligate, it is in fact far 
off the mark. Virtually every single amendment being offered today is 
being offered for the purpose of increasing funding for what is 
described as a worthy program.
  Now, yes, in order to pretend that we are all equally focused on the 
same things, they say that they have an offset. But it is clear that 
the offset is a

[[Page H7947]]

secondary motivation and the primary motivation is to raise funding for 
these programs, and I think it indicates that the committee has been 
far from profligate when it has set the funding levels that we have set 
in this bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHAYS. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SHAYS. I rise to oppose this amendment not because of where the 
money is spent but where it is taken from. That is what I want to 
address.
  I had an amendment to try to restore funds for AmeriCorp programs to 
bring it back to the level of 34,000 AmeriCorp workers. We can call 
them volunteers; we can call them workers.
  I was a Peace Corps volunteer. Peace Corps volunteers are given 
whatever the minimum wage is in the countries where we serve. We are 
given a stipend when we return, a modest stipend. We are called a 
``volunteer'' but we don't work for nothing. We have to have shelter 
provided as a Peace Corps volunteer, and we have to be paid something 
to buy food.
  AmeriCorp workers, ``volunteers,'' are given a minimum wage in order 
for them to buy food and to pay their minimum expenses like rent. They 
may have a 1-year assignment or a 2-year assignment. Most of these 
people are young kids out of high school who may never have even had a 
job before, and now they have a job as an AmeriCorp volunteer with this 
wonderful hope that they can use the 2 years, the stipend that they 
receive of about $4,600 a year, for college expenses, for educational 
expenses.
  Why would we increase a Pell Grant and not require anything of our 
young people, but we have an opportunity with AmeriCorp to have someone 
provide a service to their community, learn a skill and put aside money 
for education? They can't spend the stipend for anything other than 
educational needs.
  So I just really would encourage my colleague to reconsider doing 
this. It is destructive, I think, to the program. It is, I think, 
foolish to think that we would not want these young people gainfully 
employed in society.
  And I make this point particularly to my Republican colleagues. We 
helped write this bill. The Clinton administration was going to have a 
one-size-fits-all, and they said we will have a competitive model. We 
will run these programs State by State by State. We will have them be 
local programs so you have not the one-size-fits-all. The States then 
decide what programs competing on the State and local level should be 
funded. And the program really works well.
  I think, if anything, we should be adding more money to AmeriCorp, 
not less.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALSH of New York. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WALSH of New York. Madam Chairman, I reluctantly rise to oppose 
my friend and colleague's amendment. I certainly support the intent to 
provide more money for TRIO, and I also championed additional funds for 
the geriatric programs in the 2007 continuing resolution. But I can't 
support this cut to AmeriCorp.
  Like my colleague from Connecticut who just spoke, I was a Peace 
Corps volunteer. The point was made you are not a volunteer if you get 
paid. Well, nobody gets rich at these jobs. You have to have some money 
to live, to pay the rent, to buy your food, and to call home on 
occasion.

                              {time}  1915

  So you still can be a volunteer and receive a small portion of income 
to maintain your livelihood while you're providing this service, but 
this program gives young Americans the opportunity to express their 
idealism, to give something back and to learn and to round themselves 
out and to broaden their horizons.
  In fact, since AmeriCorps was established back in 1993, it has 
demonstrated some pretty remarkable results. Eighty-one percent of 
former members have volunteered. Additionally, after leaving AmeriCorps 
service in other areas, 89 percent of former members became employed in 
the public sector, and Lord knows we need good people working in the 
public sector. Ninety percent of organizations said AmeriCorps members 
helped their involvement with other organizations in the community.
  Young people are idealistic. They want to do something positive in 
their lives. This is one of the few programs that we have in the 
Federal Government that gives them that opportunity. So I would again 
reluctantly oppose the gentleman's amendment.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I'm pleased to yield to my friend from Florida.
  Mr. STEARNS. I thank my distinguished colleague from Georgia.
  Madam Chairman, I am just going to briefly respond to my two 
distinguished Peace Corps representatives. I know both of them have had 
ample experience understanding what the Peace Corps is all about.
  When they came to Congress, we didn't have the AmeriCorps. In fact, 
the AmeriCorps is only a recent program here in Congress, and it's been 
funded continually every year.
  I think this is a question not of the Peace Corps merits, but this is 
a question of priorities. And I think both of them would realize that 
the TRIO, which helps low-income students in college, is probably just 
as deserving, as well as geriatric education programs that are part of 
the amendment here which would get more funding. So it's only in terms 
of priority, and I think when you look at the two programs, I think 
they trump the AmeriCorps.
  I just would conclude by giving you an example, perhaps highlight two 
outstanding participants in the TRIO programs that are from my 
congressional district.
  A sophomore at Loften High School in Gainesville, Florida, Juliun 
Kinsey was one of only 30 students nationwide selected as a Young 
Entrepreneur of 2007 by the National Foundation for Teaching 
Entrepreneurship for his unique and high-quality business plan. As a 
result, he received an all-expense paid trip to an awards banquet in 
New York City and a cash award.
  Another example is Brooke Bostic, a TRIO program participant and a 
sophomore at Buchholz High School, which is also in Gainesville. He was 
one of only six students from Florida whose paper on global issues was 
selected for entry in the United Nations Association Student Paper 
Competition in New York City this spring.
  So both these students benefited from the TRIO program. I think it 
has ample accommodation for us to say it has a higher priority when we 
take just a small portion from the AmeriCorps to use for this TRIO 
program.
  So with that, Madam Chairman, I yield back to my distinguished 
colleague and thank him for the opportunity.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank my friend for his comments, and I would 
just like to underscore one point that he made, and that is, that all 
appropriations bills are bills that relate to priorities.
  And we oftentimes hear from our good friends on the other side that 
we're quibbling or pretending or all sorts of descriptions about what's 
going on here tonight, but Madam Chairman, what's going on here tonight 
is the work of our democracy and the work of representatives in 
Congress to best represent their constituents.
  And to scoff at ordering priorities for spending at the Federal 
level, I don't believe it's an appropriate message to send to the 
American people. This is important work. This is hard-earned taxpayer 
money, and it behooves us to spend as much time as any Member in this 
House so desires to determine the best way in which that money ought to 
be spent.
  So I commend my friend for standing up for the priorities that he 
believes are most appropriate in this bill.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. STEARNS. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

[[Page H7948]]

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida will be 
postponed.


               Amendment Offered by Ms. Wasserman Schultz

  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Wasserman Schultz:
       Page 33, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $3,500,000)'' .
       Page 38, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $3,500,000)''.
       Page 39, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $3,500,000)''.

  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Chairman, I congratulate the chairman 
and ranking member on a very well-crafted and bipartisan bill. I'd like 
to particularly thank the chairman for including a nearly $100 million 
increase to the Ryan White CARE Act.
  My amendment would add a $3.5 million increase to Ryan White title IV 
funding.
  Title IV's unique model of coordinated, family-centered care has 
proven successful at promoting better health. HIV-positive children 
treated by title IV have reduced hospitalizations, fewer symptoms, and 
fewer opportunistic infections, resulting in overall improved health 
and longer life. Babies are more likely to be born HIV-free if their 
HIV-positive mothers receive prenatal care through a title IV program.
  Nearly 90 percent of the people cared for by title IV live below the 
poverty level, and 88 percent are African American or Latino.
  As HIV infections in women and young people continue to rise, 
disproportionately impacting low-income women and youth of color, title 
IV programs have needed additional resources in recent years.
  A $3.5 million increase to title IV will prevent cuts to HIV services 
for women, children, youth and families living with HIV. Even this 
modest increase can help bring more pregnant women and young people 
into care and keep them in care.
  Madam Chairman, I thank the chairman of the committee and the ranking 
member as well, and I want to acknowledge the advocacy and support of 
Congressman Hank Johnson from the State of Georgia as well.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Jindal

  Mr. JINDAL. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Jindal:
       Page 33, line 25, after the aggregate dollar amount insert 
     ``(reduced by $37,200,000) (increased by $37,200,000)''.

  Mr. JINDAL. Madam Chairman, the current bill provides $37.2 million 
for nurse education and retention at level funding from the last fiscal 
year.
  Nursing is the Nation's largest health care profession, with an 
estimated 2.9 million active, licensed registered nurses. However, only 
212,927 of these RNs received their licenses after 2000.
  The Bureau of Labor Statistics projects there will be approximately 1 
million new job openings for registered nurses by 2010.
  In 1980, 26 percent of RNs were under the age of 30. Today, less than 
9 percent of RNs are under the age of 30, with the average nurse being 
46.8 years of age.
  In 2004, the highest level of educational preparation for nurses was 
17.5 with a diploma, 33.7 percent had an associate degree, 34 percent 
had a baccalaureate degree, and 13 percent with a master's or doctoral 
degree.
  The number of full-time nursing faculty required to fill this nursing 
gap is approximately 40,000. Currently, however, there are less than 
17,000 full-time nursing faculty in the system.
  The average age of a nursing professor is 52, and the average age of 
an associate professor is 49. Retirement accounts for about 25 percent 
of the decline in nurse faculty.
  In 2005, 81 percent of accredited nursing schools stated they needed 
additional faculty. Only 350 to 400 nursing students receive doctoral 
degrees each year. Given that 52 percent of nursing schools require 
doctorate degrees as a criterion for professorship, it is imperative to 
increase the number of student nurses receiving doctoral degrees.
  Because of the faculty shortage of those both willing and skilled to 
teach, nursing schools turned away over 30,000 qualified applicants in 
2005 and 16,000 in 2004 to entry-level BA nursing programs.
  Madam Chairman, my amendment directs an additional $37.2 million for 
nurse education retention, which would double funding from fiscal year 
2007 levels. This account targets the education, practice and retention 
in response to the growing nursing shortage.
  And in anticipating a potential objection that the amendment doesn't 
specify this, it will be possible to fund this amount from other 
accounts while still providing increased funding for other accounts, 
for example, like Job Corps' construction and renovation or Job Corps 
administration. In other words, within the underlying bill, it is 
possible to fund this amount while still providing increases to other 
accounts. Other accounts have been increased. I simply would like to 
make sure that we provide additional funding to address the critical 
nursing shortage that we are facing in our country, to both improve 
access, improve quality and decrease the cost of our health care.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALSH of New York. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WALSH of New York. Madam Chairman, if I could, I'd like to enter 
into a colloquy with the gentleman who's offered the amendment.
  I'd like to ask the gentleman from Louisiana what is the offset that 
he's proposed to pay for this additional expense.
  Mr. JINDAL. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALSH of New York. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. JINDAL. The amendment actually increases and reduces funding, so 
it's more to indicate an intent. But as an example, what I offered as 
an example was it would be possible to fund this amendment from 
accounts, for example, from the increase in the Job Corps construction 
and renovation account, from the Job Corps administration account, from 
other accounts that have been increased, while still leaving increases 
in those accounts.
  So, even though this amendment does not take money from those 
accounts, it could be funded in that way.
  Mr. WALSH of New York. Just a further inquiry to the gentleman. In 
order to add funds at a certain point in the bill, you have to derive 
those funds from another point in the bill. Would you please, for the 
record, identify where these $37 million come from.
  Mr. JINDAL. If the gentleman would yield, again the amendment 
increases and then reduces by $37.2 million. But, for example, the 
money could come from the Job Corps construction and renovation fund, 
which is currently funded at $12.9 million above the President's 
request, from the Job Corps administration fund, which is funded at $28 
million above last year's.
  Mr. WALSH of New York. Would the gentleman care to identify which of 
those two funds he will provide this offset from?
  Mr. JINDAL. Absolutely. The amendment doesn't do this. But, for 
example, $7.9 million could be taken from the Job Corps construction 
and renovation fund. From the Job Corps administration fund, $14 
million could be taken. From the community service employment fund, the 
remaining funds could be taken. In all three cases, it would actually 
leave more funding than was there in fiscal year 2007.
  So, again, the amendment doesn't actually reduce those accounts by 
those three amounts, but the funding could be provided in that way, 
still leaving increased funding in those three accounts.
  Mr. WALSH of New York. Reclaiming my time, Madam Chairman, my 
understanding is that these funds, the offset would have to be provided 
from within the HRSA account, and while the amendment may be in order, 
I don't believe the offset is correct procedure.

[[Page H7949]]

  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.

                              {time}  1930

  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Chairman, I rise to support the 
gentleman's amendment, leaving aside the underlying question of the 
funding issue of where the dollars come from. I appreciate the ranking 
member's point with regard to that.
  I want to go to the point the gentleman raises as far as the 
necessity and the importance of making sure that we have appropriate 
dollars spent on nurse education and retention and to have a level of 
funding for 2007. I come from the great State of New Jersey, and within 
the Fifth Congressional District, which I represent, I represent 
several, over five good hospitals and also long-term health care 
facilities as well.
  As I travel about the Fifth Congressional District, and I meet with 
the various hospitals and the administrators from such, and I also meet 
with the people from the long-term health facilities as well, when I 
travel down to Trenton, our State capital, to meet with our State 
hospital associations as well, one of the first issues that always 
comes up in our discussion is the issue of the availability and quality 
of nurses in the State of New Jersey, I should say the availability of 
quality nurses in the State of New Jersey. Every nurse that we have is 
a quality nurse. We just need more of them in the State.
  To that end, on a positive note I should add, we have initiated for 
some facilities in our State where we are providing more nurse training 
than we ever had before. One of the things, I will just say from a 
parochial interest, is once we do have that training for the nurses, we 
are going to do everything we possibly can to make sure that they stay 
after being trained in the State of New Jersey, but we will, of course, 
if need be, maybe allow them to go out to some other States as well 
down South, where I believe they probably have a need as well.
  But this is a bill from a national perspective. I know the gentleman 
can speak to this more eloquently than I. This is not simply an issue 
up in the Northeast, and this is not an issue down South as well. I am 
sure that I can speak to any Member of this body from any portion of 
this country, and they will tell me similar stories that I am 
recounting here right now, that we have a lack of quality, skilled 
nurses in this country.
  Maybe there are other underlying reasons for this. One that comes to 
mind, of course, is the rate of compensation for nurses. When you talk 
to nurses, when you consider the number of hours they put in as far as 
the training they have to go through initially, and then the net length 
of the time they have to get the other skills necessary to become a 
nurse, and then the amount of pay that they get, it is certainly not 
commensurate to what they provide to this community and to this 
country. On top of that, of course, is the long hours that they must 
struggle with in their jobs, and the conditions that they have to work 
with and under in certain circumstances as well.
  So I take my hat off to the nursing establishment, the nurses, the 
young people, men and women that decide to go into this career. If 
there is anything we can do as a national body to facilitate that and 
encourage and foster this, I will support it.
  So I commend the gentleman for coming up with the idea to make an 
amendment to the Labor-HHS appropriation bill to double funding for 
nurse education and retention, as they said, from the $37.2 million 
that's currently in the bill.
  I commend his work. If I can work with him on this initiative or 
other initiatives in the future to address the issue of nurse 
retention, I am more than happy to do so.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Chair, this is another one of those ``let's pretend'' 
devices that I guess we are going to be afflicted with the next 2 days.
  This amendment doesn't do nothing to nobody, and it doesn't do 
nothing for somebody. The fact is that it pretends to move $37 million 
out of this account, and then it puts $37 million back into this 
account and pretends that something has been accomplished.
  There is no congressional direction that I know of that's being 
accomplished by this amendment. There is no consensus about what it 
does. It makes no changes in either the bill or the report. As a 
practical matter, it doesn't do anything except let somebody pretend 
that they have just done something for nurses' education.
  If it makes you feel good to play a ``let's pretend'' game, go ahead 
and vote for it. But let's not kid ourselves. This amendment is not a 
real amendment. It has no real impact. It pretends to have an increase. 
It has, in fact, no offset. It's simply a shell game.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jindal).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. JINDAL. 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 Louisiana will be 
postponed.


              Amendment Offered by Mr. Smith of New Jersey

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Smith of New Jersey:
       Page 35, line 6, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $11,037,000)''.

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Chair, 2 years ago the President 
signed the Stem Cell Research and Therapeutic Act into law.
  This bipartisan legislation is designed to turn medical waste to 
medical miracles by deriving stem cells from umbilical cords and 
placentas after the birth of a child.
  Cord blood transplantation is saving lives and is doing so today. It 
is one of the most promising and exciting fields in the area of 
regenerative medicine. The bipartisan legislation, Madam Chair, 
establishes a nationwide integrated bone marrow core blood stem cell 
transplantation program.
  The good news, according to a July 13 technical assistance briefing 
memo by HRSA, is that six major grant recipients, Duke, New York Blood, 
Puget Sound Blood Center, Stem Cyte, the University of Colorado and the 
Anderson Cancer Center at the University of Texas have received funds 
for state-of-the-art programs that are now part of the newly created 
National Cord Blood Inventory.
  With significant infrastructure now in place, and more blood grant 
centers imminent, and single point of access to facilitate the delivery 
of those units, more than 4,600 units of lifesaving cord blood has 
already been collected.
  HRSA reports that approximately $22 million from fiscal years 2004 
and 2007 appropriations will make collection of some 17,000 cord blood 
units possible by the end of fiscal year 2007.
  ``The question is--then what?
  According to HRSA--in FY08--the new Cord Blood Program, just coming 
into it's own, will have to rely entirely on new appropriations.
  So the bad news, it seems to me, is that if funded at about $4 
million for FY08, the amount in the bill, the current grant recipients 
will have to dramatically scale back in their cord blood banking 
initiatives just as they're ramping up; just as breakout is occurring.
  At $4 million, only about 3,000 units will be available in FY08 for 
medical realization of the goal of 150,000 units the experts tell us is 
needed to provide genetic matches for over 90 percent of Americans who 
can be aided by cord blood transplant.
  We've come so far--the network is in place. And that money buys more 
cord blood which means more people cured and more research to save even 
more lives.
  The $15 million that my colleague from Alabama and I are asking 
Members to support comports with the authorized level and is derived 
from within the HRSA allocation, which in the underlying bill is being 
increased by $69 million over last year and $1.3 billion over the 
President's request. Our shift represents less than \1/4\ of 1 percent 
of HRSA's $7 billion.

[[Page H7950]]

  Surely, we can accommodate an $11 million shift--the net effect of 
the amendment--to a proven regenerative medical treatment that will 
mitigate--even cure--a myriad of diseases including leukemia and sickle 
cell anemia.
  Mr. OBEY. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. OBEY. Same deal as we have offered several times earlier today. 
If the gentleman is willing to shorten his remarks, we are willing to 
accept the amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I certainly appreciate that very generous 
offer.
  Mr. WALSH of New York. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WALSH of New York. Madam Chairman, I will be very brief.
  Cord blood has proven to be very effective for many lifesaving 
purposes. We need to support this research.
  I would urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment of the gentleman 
offered by New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment Offered by Mr. Barton of Texas

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Barton of Texas:
       Page 36, beginning at line 5, strike ``Provided further, 
     That within'' and all that follows through the end of the 
     proviso.

  Mr. BARTON of Texas (during the reading). Madam Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Chairman, I am willing to not speak at all 
if Mr. Obey is willing to take my amendment without me talking about 
it.
  I was chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee in the last 
Congress, and one of the things that I am most proud of was that in the 
late stages of that Congress we passed the Ryan White CARE 
Reauthorization Act of 2006. It's a 3-year reauthorization act. It was 
a bipartisan, bicameral compromise.
  Some of the House Members that worked on it included Congresswoman 
Mary Bono on the Republican side, Congresswoman Anna Eshoo on the 
Democrat side, Senator Enzi, Senator Kennedy, Senator Boxer, Senator 
Feinstein, Congressman Dingell, of course myself, and many, many 
others.
  One of the cornerstones of that reauthorization was a formula change 
in the dispensation of HIV/AIDS funding to more reflect where the 
epidemic is actually still in play in this country. Under the old 
formula you had one-half of funds based on a formula based on 
population, things like this, and then you had one-half of the funds 
based on a discretionary fund.
  Under the reauthorization we changed that to two-thirds formula and 
one-third discretionary. But because we were changing the formula, we 
did put in a hold-harmless provision for the formula funding.
  What we were trying to do was make more funds available to those 
areas of the country where the epidemic was still prevalent and 
growing, and less funds on a discretionary basis where the epidemic had 
once been centered but was now thankfully not as prevalent. The pending 
bill before us changes that formula.
  Now, normally, that would be considered legislation on an 
appropriations act, and a point of order would have been reserved by 
Chairman Dingell of the committee, and all we would have to do is make 
a point of order, and it would be sustained. Chairman Dingell did not 
reserve that point of order, so I have to rise to try to strike it.
  My amendment does not change the amount of funding for HIV/AIDS. It 
does prevent this reversion of the formula so that we would keep the 
bipartisan, bicameral agreement, that we would have two-thirds of funds 
based on a traditional formula and one-third of the funding based on 
discretionary.
  Now, the effect of the pending legislation that I am attempting to 
strike, if we don't strike it, two cities will benefit, Newark, New 
Jersey, and San Francisco, California. Every other city that currently 
receives AIDS funding and HIV funding will be disproportionately 
disadvantaged.
  So I hope that the House will accept my amendment, and we will keep 
the formula that was agreed to after intense negotiations where we have 
a two-thirds and one-third split based on formula and discretionary, 
and a hold-harmless on the formula side but not a hold-harmless on the 
discretionary side.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I wanted to ask the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Barton) a question if it's appropriate.
  I wanted to ask the gentleman a question specifically about his 
amendment and the hold-harmless clause and its impact possibly on Ryan 
White.
  I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. In the reauthorization bill that was carefully 
negotiated on both sides of the aisle and the Senate, we maintained a 
hold-harmless provision for the formula funding under the bill, but we 
did not put that hold-harmless provision to the discretionary funding 
in the bill.
  Discretionary funds are based on actual active case counts, how many 
HIV/AIDS patients you have. There is a methodology to determine how 
many of those individuals there are, and then the discretionary funds 
are distributed based on need.
  In the legislation that's pending in the appropriations bill, the 
hold-harmless provision, which in the authorization bill we had on the 
formula side, is also applied to the discretionary side. The effect of 
that would be that an area that at one time had a large number of HIV/
AIDS patients, but those patients had either passed away or been cured 
or moved out of the area, they wouldn't get to use the old patient 
count for their discretionary request. They could only count for 
discretionary purposes the number of active cases that they currently 
had in their area.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Reclaiming my time, what the chairman, I 
believe, and the committee sought to do by adding this language was to 
create a stop loss that does not prevent cuts, but rather reduces 
losses to a level that the jurisdiction can absorb in one fiscal year.
  For example, the San Francisco EMA, which includes San Mateo and 
Marin Counties, for example, will still receive about a $2.3 million 
cut. The language caps losses for eligible metropolitan areas like San 
Francisco at 8.4 percent, misrepresents the 5 percent hold-harmless 
loss that was agreed to in last year's reauthorization, plus the 
average loss for all title I jurisdiction, which was 3.4 percent.

                              {time}  1945

  But I think it is important to note, and then I would be happy to 
yield if the gentleman would like to respond, here are some of the 
other jurisdictions that will benefit from the stop loss language which 
included in the chairman's mark: Hartford, Connecticut, 892,000; New 
Haven, Connecticut, 712,000; Nassau-Suffolk, New York, 432,000; Puerto 
Rico, 310,000; Caguas, 286,000; Sacramento, 195,000. And it goes on and 
on and on.
  So what we are trying to understand here is how the chairman's 
language, which seeks to remedy a particular problem, is fundamentally 
changed by the gentleman's amendment.
  I would be happy to yield for his response.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Under the old law, the funding was based one-
half on a formula and one-half on discretionary, and the discretionary 
counted active cases and also cumulatively, I believe, cases of 
individuals who had expired because of the infection. Under the new 
formula that we passed in the reauthorization bill, we changed the 
formula to two-thirds instead of one-half, and we reduced the 
discretionary from one-half to one-third.
  We did put a hold harmless provision in on the formula side, but we 
did not apply that hold harmless to the discretionary side. So we also 
had a specific hold harmless for the first year of the

[[Page H7951]]

new authorization which we are currently in.
  The effect of the language that is in the pending bill basically puts 
hold harmless not only on the formula funding, which we increase from 
one-half to two-thirds, but it also puts it on the discretionary side, 
the effect of which would be areas which don't have as large a patient 
count as they once did would get more discretionary funding; 
conversely, those areas that 5 or 6 years ago, perhaps, didn't have 
much of an HIV/AIDS epidemic would be shortchanged.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Reclaiming my time, I know my time is just 
about expired; I know the chairman may have some concluding remarks, 
but this has been very difficult from the beginning, and the chairman's 
language in the mark seeks to remedy ongoing problems, and I would 
encourage my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chairman, over 20,000 people have died from AIDS 
in the San Francisco-Bay Area, and AIDS continues to be the second 
leading cause of premature death in our area. In addition, and it is 
because of improved treatments, because of programs like the Ryan White 
AIDS program, nearly 23,000 individuals are currently living with HIV/
AIDS, more than at any point in the history of the epidemic. Therefore, 
it is not the right time for the people in the San Francisco-Bay Area 
to have any cuts in their AIDS/HIV programs, because it is starting to 
work but it isn't working well enough, including my own county of Marin 
County north of San Francisco and the county of San Mateo south of San 
Francisco. Our communities have the third largest cumulative number of 
AIDS cases in the entire country.
  This amendment will recklessly and irresponsibly put the lives of 
many of our constituents at risk. The very idea truly astounds me, the 
very idea that these lifesaving programs would be cut, that there would 
even be an offer to cut them while we are spending $10 billion a month 
to occupy Iraq just is beyond my comprehension. I have to wonder, what 
are some people thinking about? What are their priorities? I can tell 
you my priorities are with the health and the well-being of our 
constituents.
  Treatments and support programs and systems for HIV/AIDS have come a 
long way. Now is not the time to pull the rug out from under the 
programs that are working and to stop supporting those who are living 
with AIDS and HIV, particularly in the most affected areas such as San 
Francisco and Newark, New Jersey. Therefore, I urge my colleagues, 
please oppose this misguided amendment.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. LEE. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. LEE. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Barton 
amendment. This issue of HIV and AIDS, first of all, is a matter of 
life and death, and I don't want to see us tamper around with the 
language which we have in this bill.
  Despite the inclusion of language in the Ryan White Reauthorization 
Act to protect against these drastic cuts that would destabilize 
existing systems of HIV and AIDS, one jurisdiction's award was cut by 
31 percent, or $8.6 million. Several other jurisdictions also received 
larger than anticipated cuts. So the language that we have creates just 
really a stop loss effort that doesn't prevent further cuts but just 
reduces losses to a level that a jurisdiction can absorb in one fiscal 
year, which still to me is just not acceptable, but it is the best we 
can do in this bill. For instance, as we said earlier, the San 
Francisco EMA will still receive a $2.3 million cut.
  The language also caps losses for eligible metropolitan areas like 
San Francisco at 8.4 percent, which represents the 5 percent hold 
harmless loss that was agreed to in last year's reauthorization plus 
the average loss for all title I jurisdictions, which was 3.4 percent. 
Also, the losses for transitional grant areas which were not protected 
by the hold harmless in the reauthorization will be capped at 13.4 
percent.
  We heard earlier some of the jurisdictions that were included in the 
chairman's mark, but in addition there is Jersey City, New Jersey; 
Dutchess County, New York; and others.
  My colleague from California just mentioned over 20,000 people have 
died from AIDS in the San Francisco EMA, and AIDS continues to be the 
second leading cause of premature death in the city and county of San 
Francisco. Also, nearly 23,000 people are currently living with HIV and 
AIDS, more than at any point in the history of the epidemic. San 
Francisco also has the third largest cumulative number of AIDS cases in 
the country. In fiscal 2006, San Francisco's EMA received about $27 
million. In fiscal year 2007, it is only $18 million. This represents 
again, what I said earlier, a 31.4 percent reduction.
  Provisions were included in last year's reauthorization to prevent 
drastic cuts of this sort, and we don't believe HRSA properly 
interpreted these provisions.
  I hope that we oppose the Barton amendment. We do not need any more 
destabilizing initiatives that would affect people's lives. This is a 
matter of life and death. We need to look at how we can begin to move 
forward to make sure that all of those that need the HIV/AIDS services 
receive those services in terms of care, treatment, and prevention, and 
start looking at how to do that rather than do the things that the 
Barton amendment does. So I urge us to oppose this amendment.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Madam Chairman, I had the privilege to serve 10 years as 
a county supervisor in the County of San Diego serving a community that 
desperately needed help with the HIV/AIDS epidemic, and I also happened 
to have been privileged enough to serve on Interstate and Commerce on 
the Health Committee that reauthorized the Ryan White Act.
  The biggest issue here that is being discussed by the Member from 
Texas (Mr. Barton) is the fact that the need should follow the patient. 
I am sure the gentleman from Chicago recognizes that all of these 
agencies and all of this money is supposed to be to service the people, 
not to groups, not to cities. It is human beings we are talking about 
in need. His motion is a compromise. It doesn't say don't strike the 
need on everything, but it says let's take half of it or take a portion 
and give priority to those who need it.
  Madam Chairman, this would be like somebody thinking that it would be 
appropriate to send as much money to an empty hospital that used to 
serve patients as it is to send it to the new hospital that is full of 
patients. All he is saying is, let's take a portion of this and commit 
it totally to need. Not all of it, but a portion of it. How can we go 
back to our districts and say the agency in a certain city was more 
important than the patients and the people who are sick who just happen 
not to be sick in that same area?
  The fact is having a formula that puts weight to those who used to be 
served is an inappropriate formula, and we all agreed in the 1990s that 
we were going to phase that out. The gentleman's motion only moves 
forward that agreement we have always had when we talked about Ryan 
White, that Ryan White was a young man, not an agency. Ryan White was a 
human being who had AIDS.
  This grant, this program was never meant to serve groups, cities, or 
agencies except if they were the victims of this hideous disease called 
AIDS/HIV.
  And so I think, let's stop a second. These groups and people that 
want us to send them money because they used to serve a large number of 
patients and realize that they may have to move or they might have to 
change their employment, that is not what this fund is for. It is for 
serving patients. And so all the gentleman is saying is, please, let's 
follow the need, and let's not say that it is for treating those who 
are sick if we are going to send it to agencies that are not serving. 
Let's send it to those agencies that are serving. At

[[Page H7952]]

least let's start moving towards the total amount of this fund. And the 
honor of Ryan White is to make these funds totally committed to serving 
patients that are ill today, the patients that need the service today, 
not patients of the past. We can't solve the problems of the past, but 
we can solve the problems that face us today, this year, and in the 
future, and that is by making sure funds are committed to those who are 
actually sick today.
  And I would support all of the funds going to only those based on a 
formula of today's service, because we are talking about this year that 
these funds are supposed to be sent. The gentleman has accepted a 
compromise; I am willing to accept that compromise. We should be able 
to go this far, and common decency says the gentleman should get a 
chance to be able to have this compromise worked out.
  I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Chairman, I want to point out in the brief 
time that the gentleman from California still has, the Barton amendment 
doesn't lessen funding for this; it doesn't change the total amount of 
dollars at all. It simply protects the agreed-upon compromise that the 
stakeholders, the House, and the Senate on both sides of the aisle 
agreed to in the last Congress. And what the compromise was is, we 
moved more to a formula funding mechanism, two-thirds, and one-third 
for discretionary. And on the discretionary side, that is totally based 
on active HIV/AIDS case counts. It does not include people who have 
passed away from AIDS.
  And the gentlelady that spoke earlier about the number of people in 
San Francisco that have contracted the disease and have passed away is 
totally right that those people, unfortunately, are no longer here. 
They should not be counted for the discretionary funding because you 
can't help them now.

                              {time}  2000

  We want the funding from the discretionary side to go to those that 
actually still have the infection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Madam Chairman, I would like to respond to 
the gentleman from California, but I think it's appropriate to 
recognize the gentlelady from California because I have struck the last 
word already. And if she will give me 15 seconds, I would be more than 
grateful.
  Ms. ESHOO. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. ESHOO. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Madam Chairman, we agree that this is about 
people and not about cities, and that's why the committee has an 
overall increase in the Ryan White funding.
  San Francisco has more people living, not dying of AIDS, but living 
AIDS, than any other point in the history of the epidemic. The need is 
not going down in any of the 11 jurisdictions protected by this 
language and, therefore, the committee is correct in opposing the 
Barton amendment.
  Ms. ESHOO. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to Mr. Barton's 
amendment. I believe that it will perpetuate a system of winners and 
losers in the allocation of Federal resources for AIDS.
  When Congress reauthorized the Ryan White AIDS program last year, we 
included language to allow the historic epicenters of the disease to 
continue providing care to those in need. The language was specifically 
intended to protect against drastic cuts that would destabilize the 
existing infrastructure for HIV/AIDS care.
  Now, my friend from Texas has been absolutely consistent, and so have 
I. He's always been opposed to what I've just described, and I have 
supported it. So it's gone back and forth. But we've both been 
consistent in terms of our positions. I obviously respectfully disagree 
with his amendment, because I think it's important to understand, 
number one, A, that you have to protect the infrastructure. This isn't 
simply, when we say the care of people, you have to have infrastructure 
for it. And I think, underlying the gentleman's amendment is the notion 
that dead people are being funded, and that simply is not the case. We 
are both on the Energy and Commerce Committee. We've debated it there, 
and that's why I'm bringing some of the flavor of what we've debated 
there.
  Over 20,000 people have died from AIDS in San Francisco's EMA. That's 
the eligible metropolitan area.
  Now, the gentleman from California that spoke just a few moments ago 
talked about his time on the Board of Supervisors. That's where I came 
from in San Mateo County. And San Mateo and the City and County of San 
Francisco have been partners in this. And it's what has really held up 
and helped to build the infrastructure to take very good care of 
people. We take it seriously. Every dollar in this, every dollar in 
this has an effect on human beings. So this is not some tidy formula 
that somehow is not going to affect the infrastructure. So that's 
another reason why I oppose this.
  San Francisco's award for fiscal 2007 was cut by 31.4 percent, or 
$8.6 million. Now, in Federal money, $8.6 million, unfortunately, is 
not considered serious money. This is devastating in this EMA. I know 
of what I speak. I've been there on the ground. I see where the dollars 
go and what people get.
  Now, several other jurisdictions also have received larger than 
anticipated cuts. So I don't believe that the HRSA properly interpreted 
these provisions and that this bill, very importantly, corrects that 
error.
  The stop loss language does not prevent cuts. Instead, it reduces 
losses to levels that can be reasonably absorbed in one fiscal year. 
And that's really a very important operational phrase, ``reasonably 
absorbed in one fiscal year.''
  Any Member of Congress want to take a 31.4 cut in what their income 
is to help them take care of what they have to take care of their 
responsibilities and obligations? It's absurd. It's absurd. So that's 
why we are rising in opposition to the amendment.
  So the language caps losses for the EMAs at 8.4 percent. And I think 
that this represents the 5 percent hold-harmless loss that was agreed 
to in last year's reauthorization.
  I think the Barton amendment would prevent us from responding to the 
real needs of people that suffer from HIV and AIDS, and I urge my 
colleagues to oppose it.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Chairman, I rise tonight in support of the Barton 
amendment. I hadn't intended to speak about this, but I was listening 
over in my office, and I am extremely concerned about the structure of 
this provision that has been added to the bill.
  By increasing the percentage of the ``hold-harmless aspect'' the 
concern has to be about where are those dollars going to come from to 
pay for those increases?
  My understanding is that other communities where authorized 
identified need may now be placed at risk. And yes, that would include 
my home district in north Texas. That would include the City of Fort 
Worth, Texas, where there are great numbers of people who, where 
unfortunately, the rate of acquisition of AIDS is increasing.
  Madam Chairman, this was a carefully negotiated compromise on our 
committee, appropriately so. It was an authorizing committee. At best, 
this activity tonight is authorizing on an appropriations bill. At 
worst, it is a thinly disguised earmark for the Speaker of the House. I 
urge my colleagues to vote for the Barton amendment.
  I yield to the ranking member of the committee.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Chairman, I don't want to belabor this, 
but I do want people to understand what the compromise was. Those that 
represent, as has been characterized, the epicenter of the original 
contagion on AIDS/HIV, are protected in the compromise.
  Two-thirds of the funding is based on a formula that advantages those 
areas where the epidemic started. And we hold that formula harmless. 
You can't have, on the formula funding, more than a 5 percent cut the 
first year. That's this year. Then next year you get 100 percent of 
what you got this year, and the third year you get 100 percent of what 
you got the second

[[Page H7953]]

year. So there's no drastic, there are some reductions because on the 
discretionary side the population centers are changing. And on the 
discretionary side, the compromise was not to have a hold-harmless, but 
to base those on actual active HIV/AIDS counts.
  Now, if you accept the base bill and reject the Barton amendment, 
you're going to have two areas, primarily, I'm told San Francisco and 
Newark, that get more funding, and every other area in the country gets 
less.
  And since all the AIDS groups supported the bipartisan compromise, 
and both Chambers did, I don't think it's fair to change that by 
putting something in a base text that there were no hearings on, there 
were no amendments on, it wasn't debated in the subcommittee or the 
full committee, the appropriations, it was just put in, and our only 
opportunity is to try to amend that bill right now.
  And again, if a point of order had been raised against it, all we'd 
have to do is make the point of order, but it wasn't reserved. So I 
think what the compromise was in the last Congress is eminently fair, 
and was carefully crafted and, as Mr. Burgess has pointed out, worked 
out with everybody having input, and that the Barton amendment, which 
just reverts it back to that base compromise should be supported.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. BURGESS. I'll be happy to yield to my friend from California.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Madam Chairman, many people in this country would think 
the compromise being proposed doesn't go far enough. I think most 
people would say that the money for AIDS should follow the patient, not 
a bureaucracy. But it's equal protection.
  Does somebody with AIDS in Fort Worth have any more or less of a 
right to Federal funds to take care of AIDS than somebody who lives in 
San Francisco? How about equal protection here?
  Does an AIDS patient in Fort Worth have equal rights with an AIDS 
patient in San Francisco? That's the question here.
  The compromise gives 75 percent preference to San Francisco. How much 
more preference do you want? And let's not talk about equal protection 
any more if you want to do this.
  He has bent over backwards to try to cooperate and meet the people 
from San Francisco halfway at phasing this out. All we're asking for is 
stick to the compromise rather than continue to go. And I don't think 
that anybody that believes in equal protection can honestly say that an 
AIDS patient who happens to be in Fort Worth doesn't have the same 
rights and shouldn't be given the same protection and just as much 
money per capita as somebody in San Francisco.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. 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 will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


           health education assistance loans program account

       Such sums as may be necessary to carry out subpart 1 of 
     part A of title VII of the Public Health Service Act. For 
     administrative expenses to carry out the guaranteed loan 
     program under such subpart, including section 709 of such 
     Act, $2,906,000.


             vaccine injury compensation program trust fund

       For payments from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust 
     Fund, such sums as may be necessary for claims associated 
     with vaccine-related injury or death with respect to vaccines 
     administered after September 30, 1988, pursuant to subtitle 2 
     of title XXI of the Public Health Service Act, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That for necessary 
     administrative expenses, not to exceed $3,528,000 shall be 
     available from the Trust Fund to the Secretary of Health and 
     Human Services.

               Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


                disease control, research, and training

       To carry out titles II, III, VII, XI, XV, XVII, XIX, XXI, 
     and XXVI of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 201 et 
     seq.) (``PHS Act''), sections 101, 102, 103, 201, 202, 203, 
     301, and 501 of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 
     1977 (30 U.S.C. 811, 812, 813, 841, 842, 843, 861, and 951), 
     sections 20, 21, and 22 of the Occupational Safety and Health 
     Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 669, 670, and 671), title IV of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), 
     section 501 of the Refugee Education Assistance Act of 1980 
     (8 U.S.C. 1522 note), and for expenses necessary to support 
     activities related to countering potential biological, 
     disease, nuclear, radiological, and chemical threats to 
     civilian populations; including purchase and insurance of 
     official motor vehicles in foreign countries; and purchase, 
     hire, maintenance, and operation of aircraft, $6,141,753,000, 
     of which $10,500,000 shall remain available until expended 
     for equipment, construction, and renovation of facilities; of 
     which $581,335,000 shall remain available until expended for 
     the Strategic National Stockpile under section 319F-2 of the 
     PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 247d-6b); of which $50,000,000 shall be 
     available until expended to provide screening and treatment 
     for first response emergency services personnel related to 
     the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade 
     Center; and of which $122,769,000 for international HIV/AIDS 
     shall remain available until September 30, 2009: Provided, 
     That in addition, such sums as may be derived from authorized 
     user fees, which shall be credited to this account: Provided 
     further, That in addition to amounts provided herein, the 
     following amounts shall be available from amounts available 
     under section 241 of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 238j): (1) 
     $12,794,000 to carry out the National Immunization Surveys; 
     (2) $120,000,000 to carry out the National Center for Health 
     Statistics surveys; (3) $24,751,000 to carry out information 
     systems standards development and architecture and 
     applications-based research used at local public health 
     levels; (4) $39,173,000 for Health Marketing; (5) $31,000,000 
     to carry out Public Health Research; and (6) $88,361,000 to 
     carry out research activities within the National 
     Occupational Research Agenda: Provided further, That none of 
     the funds made available for injury prevention and control at 
     the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used, 
     in whole or in part, to advocate or promote gun control: 
     Provided further, That up to $31,800,000 shall be made 
     available until expended for Individual Learning Accounts for 
     full-time equivalent employees of the Centers for Disease 
     Control and Prevention: Provided further, That the Director 
     may redirect the total amount made available under authority 
     of section 3 of the Vaccine and Immunization Amendments of 
     1990 (Public Law 101-502) to activities the Director may so 
     designate: Provided further, That the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate 
     are to be notified promptly of any such transfer: Provided 
     further, That not to exceed $12,500,000 may be available for 
     making grants under section 1509 of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 
     300n-4a) to not more than 15 States, tribes, or tribal 
     organizations: Provided further, That of the funds 
     appropriated, $10,000 is for official reception and 
     representation expenses when specifically approved by the 
     Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: 
     Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated may be 
     used to implement section 2625 of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 
     300ff-33): Provided further, That employees of the Centers 
     for Disease Control and Prevention or the Public Health 
     Service, both civilian and Commissioned Officers, detailed to 
     States, municipalities, or other organizations under 
     authority of section 214 of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 215), 
     shall be treated as non-Federal employees for reporting 
     purposes only and shall not be included within any personnel 
     ceiling applicable to the Agency, Service, or the Department 
     of Health and Human Services during the period of detail or 
     assignment.

                     National Institutes of Health


                       national cancer institute

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 241, 281 et seq.) with respect 
     to cancer, $4,870,382,000, of which up to $8,000,000 may be 
     used for facilities repairs and improvements at the NCI-
     Frederick Federally Funded Research and Development Center in 
     Frederick, Maryland.


             Amendment Offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey

  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey:

                  Offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey

       Page 80, line 2, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 41, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.

  Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
  The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Chairman, the amendment that I'm 
offering tonight is a very simple, straightforward one. As was just 
read, it would remove $10 million from a program that was in fact 
zeroed out in the Bush administration's budget request, and then use 
those dollars, that money to increase the level of funding currently 
appropriated to the National

[[Page H7954]]

Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health.
  Madam Chairman, some time ago President Nixon unofficially declared a 
war on cancer in his State of the Union Address back in 1971. Since 
then much progress has been made in the area of cancer research, 
thankfully. And over the last 3\1/2\ decades, science and research has 
continued to break down barriers in the fight against this dreadful 
disease.
  Today, cancer is no longer the mystery disease that it once was, and 
researchers know infinitely more now today about the prevention, the 
detection and the treatment of the disease than ever before in history.

                              {time}  2015

  The results from all of this research is now beginning to bear fruit 
on people's lives every day. Fewer people are dying from cancer in 2004 
than they were in 2003, according to the studies. An American public is 
witnessing declining rates for most major cases, including breast 
cancer, prostate cancer, and colorectal cancer as well.
  So, Madam Chairman, I think that the chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee has done a good job for increasing the budget of the National 
Cancer Institute this year in the bill, and Republicans supported a 
doubling of the budget at the National Institutes of Health in past 
sessions. I supported that. But I think we can do just a little bit 
more.
  The account that this amendment would take from is the Alaska Native 
Education Equity program. That is a program, like we hear so often on 
this floor, that is basically a redundant program that the President 
has eliminated in his budget request. According to the administration, 
the Alaska Native students already receive benefits from the department 
in Indian education programs, which provide more than $118 million in 
formula grants to school districts and competitive grants for 
demonstration and professional development programs.
  Now, Madam Chairman, when we consider how the Federal Government is 
prioritizing its spending, which really is what it is all about when we 
come to the floor on each and every one of these amendments, I submit 
that funding cancer research is more important than spending additional 
redundant money on a redundant Federal program.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The amendment proposes to amend portions of the bill not yet read. 
The amendment may not be considered en bloc under clause 2(f) of rule 
XXI because the amendment proposes to increase the level of outlays in 
the bill.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the gentleman's 
point of order?
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Chairman, we have had a number of 
amendments that have dealt with line items at one point in the bill and 
then at a point later in the bill that has not been read yet, so I 
would respectfully suggest that the point of order is not appropriate 
as it has not been utilized on other amendments that have been offered 
and that all Members ought to be treated with equity in the offering of 
their amendments.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, if I may be heard further, that is a very 
quaint interpretation of the House rules. And, nonetheless, it does not 
at all address the fact that the amendment proposes to increase the 
level of outlays in the bill, which I assume as a good conservative, 
the gentleman would be opposed to.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I would like to be heard on the objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. The objection, if I understand it 
correctly, is that the assertion is that this increases the total of 
number of outlays for the bill. That would be the case if we are simply 
asking for an increase of $10 million for the Cancer Research 
Institute, but that is not what we are asking to be done. We are simply 
asking that $10 million in one line, Page 41, line 7, be increased by 
the $10 million but another line, page 80 line 2, after the first 
dollar amount insert, ``would be reduced by $10 million.'' So in point 
of fact, this amendment does not increase the total net dollar output 
of the underlying bill. It is a balanced amount. No increase, no 
decrease.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, if I might point out to the gentleman, just 
because it is neutral in budget authority does not mean it is neutral 
in outlays. It is not neutral in outlays, and, therefore, it is out of 
order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule.
  To be considered en bloc pursuant to clause 2(f) of rule XXI, an 
amendment must not propose to increase the levels of budget authority 
or outlays in the bill. Because the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from New Jersey proposes a net increase in the level of outlays in the 
bill, as argued by the chairman of the Subcommittee on Appropriations, 
it may not avail itself of clause 2(f) to address portions of the bill 
not yet read.
  The point of order is sustained.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


               national heart, lung, and blood institute

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 241, 281 et seq.) with respect 
     to cardiovascular, lung, and blood diseases, and blood and 
     blood products, $2,965,775,000.


         national institute of dental and craniofacial research

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 241, 281 et seq.) with respect 
     to dental disease, $395,753,000.


    national institute of diabetes and digestive and kidney diseases

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 241, 281 et seq.) with respect 
     to diabetes and digestive and kidney disease, $1,731,893,000.


        national institute of neurological disorders and stroke

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 241, 281 et seq.) with respect 
     to neurological disorders and stroke, $1,559,106,000.


         national institute of allergy and infectious diseases

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 241, 281 et seq.) with respect 
     to allergy and infectious diseases, $4,632,019,000: Provided, 
     That $300,000,000 may be made available to International 
     Assistance Programs ``Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, Malaria, 
     and Tuberculosis'', to remain available until expended: 
     Provided further, That such sums obligated in fiscal years 
     2003 through 2007 for extramural facilities construction 
     projects are to remain available until expended for 
     disbursement, with prior notification of such projects to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
     and the Senate.


                   Amendment Offered by Mrs. Musgrave

  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mrs. Musgrave:
       Page 42, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $175,000)''.

  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Madam Chairman, the bill we are debating today will 
direct $300 million to the Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis 
and malaria. This is an organization that was founded to fight deadly 
diseases in the world's poorest countries.
  Madam Chairman, I have learned that the Global Fund's former 
executive director was spending money on activities well outside of its 
intended mission. According to a Boston Globe article which broke a 
story last February, the former executive director of the Global Fund 
frequently used Global Fund dollars in ways most of us, especially the 
American taxpayers, would find reckless.
  Global Fund documents say he spent between $91 and $930 per day for 
limousines in London, Paris, Rome, Washington and San Francisco, 
averaging $376 a day. He spent $1,695 for a dinner for 12 at the United 
States Senate dining room here in Washington, D.C.; $225.86 to rent a 
suit; $8,780 for a boat cruise on Lake Geneva in Switzerland; $8,436 
for a dinner in Switzerland for 63 people; $5,150 for a meal and drinks 
for 74 staff members at a retreat in Switzerland. The Global Fund 
documents cited other spending that included buying flowers for staff 
members and champagne at a retreat.
  Madam Chairman, this sounds like American tax dollars being spent to 
improve the lifestyle of Global Fund employees. If you add up all the 
lavish spending just listed in the Boston Globe article, it comes to 
$24,512.72. At a dollar a dose, that money could have saved the lives 
of 24,514 infants from dying from malaria. That money could

[[Page H7955]]

have protected almost 5,000 families from being infected with malaria 
for a year at the cost of about $5 to spray a house with the cheapest 
insecticide.
  Madam Chairman, the United States has contributed almost $3 billion 
to the Global Fund since 2001. I want to make sure that the Global Fund 
knows that the American people are watching the way they are spending 
their hard-earned dollars, and I want the director of the Global Fund 
to know that he is accountable to the United States taxpayers. And that 
is why my amendment reduces his salary from $320,000 a year to $145,000 
a year, which is equal to the salary of the United States Global Fund 
AIDS coordinator.
  I ask for support for my amendment. This is a shot over the bow to 
let the Global Fund know that we want American tax dollars spent to 
save lives, not to give lavish lifestyles to the Global Fund employees.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. LEE. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. LEE. Madam Chairman, I rise to strongly oppose the amendment 
proposed by the gentlewoman from Colorado.
  First of all, as one who wrote the initial legislation that 
established the framework for the Global Fund, I want the gentlewoman 
to know that the Global Fund is the only international organization 
multilateral that is providing for care, prevention and treatment of 
those living with HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis. It is a very 
successful effort. We have major international partners. We are the 
largest contributor to the fund. And I believe, and she can correct me 
if I am wrong, that the cut that she is talking about references a 
prior director of the fund who is no longer there. And, in fact, the 
fund has reorganized, is moving forward, and is doing quite well. And 
we discussed this in the subcommittee and we had testimony. We met with 
the officers and directors, the new executive director of the funds, 
and I would hate to see us cut a nickel from the Global Fund because we 
need every dime we can get to make sure that we address this global 
pandemic that is killing so many, especially those in sub-Saharan 
Africa and the Caribbean.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, could I inquire of the gentleman from New 
York, is the gentleman from New York intending to accept the amendment 
on his side?
  Mr. WALSH of New York. I do, Madam Chairman.
  Mr. OBEY. Then I would suggest accepting the amendment on this side. 
This is an amendment that does nothing, Madam Chairman, except, in my 
view, it is an effort to put people on the hook by ratifying some 
unacceptable conduct by someone who is no longer associated with the 
program. I don't intend to be associated with that kind of a problem, 
and so I think this is one of those nuisance amendments that is meant 
to enable someone to pose for political holy pictures without much 
effect.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave).
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  2030


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  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:
  An amendment by Mr. Kline of Minnesota.
  An amendment by Mr. Platts of Pennsylvania.
  An amendment by Mr. Marchant of Texas.
  An amendment by Mr. Jindal of Louisiana.
  Amendment No. 5 by Mr. Sessions of Texas.
  Remaining postponed votes will be taken at a later time.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


              Amendment Offered by Mr. Kline of Minnesota

  The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded 
vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Kline) 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 vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 186, 
noes 237, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 642]

                               AYES--186

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fortuno
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Manzullo
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--237

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Ellison
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Faleomavaega
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor

[[Page H7956]]


     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Bordallo
     Brown, Corrine
     Culberson
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Edwards
     Feeney
     Hastert
     Kucinich
     Marchant
     McMorris Rodgers
     Rangel
     Tancredo
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  2051

  Messrs. WELCH of Vermont, PALLONE and PERLMUTTER and Mrs. BIGGERT 
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. HOBSON, GILCHREST and PICKERING 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. Platts

  The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded 
vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Platts) 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 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 174, 
noes 250, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 643]

                               AYES--174

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carney
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Cleaver
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Lincoln
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fortuno
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Hobson
     Holt
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     Langevin
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mahoney (FL)
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McNerney
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Porter
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Sensenbrenner
     Shays
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Watt
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--250

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Butterfield
     Campbell (CA)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Ellison
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Faleomavaega
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hensarling
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Jordan
     Kagen
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (IA)
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Rohrabacher
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sestak
     Shadegg
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Bordallo
     Brown, Corrine
     Culberson
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Edwards
     Hastert
     Kucinich
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Rangel
     Tancredo
     Young (AK)


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised 1 minute remains 
in this vote.

                              {time}  2057

  Mr. POE changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. FORBES and Mr. McHUGH 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. Marchant

  The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded 
vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Marchant) 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 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 149, 
noes 277, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 644]

                               AYES--149

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Carter
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Flake
     Fortuno
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)

[[Page H7957]]


     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lamborn
     Latham
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shuster
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf

                               NOES--277

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Butterfield
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castle
     Castor
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Faleomavaega
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rahall
     Regula
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Bordallo
     Brown, Corrine
     Culberson
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Edwards
     Hastert
     Kucinich
     Rangel
     Tancredo
     Young (AK)


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised 1 minute remains 
in this vote.

                              {time}  2105

  Mr. MITCHELL changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. BRADY of Texas changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                          ____________________