[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 115 (Wednesday, July 18, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H8000-H8036]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Welch of Vermont). Pursuant to House
Resolution 547 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further
consideration of the bill, H.R. 3043.
{time} 1025
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 3043) making appropriations for the Departments of
Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes,
with Mrs. Tauscher in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Tuesday, July
17, 2007, amendment No. 5 printed in the Congressional Record by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) had been disposed of and the bill
had been read through page 42, line 21.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Graves
Mr. GRAVES. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Graves:
Page 42, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $125,000,000''.
Page 42, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $125,000,000)''.
Page 84, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $125,000,000)''.
Mr. GRAVES. Madam Chairman, let me begin by thanking the chairman and
ranking member of the Appropriations Committee for working together in
a true bipartisan fashion to begin providing a long overdue down
payment to special education funding. In particular, I want to thank
Ranking Member Walsh for his amendment in committee to provide a $335
million increase in special education funding for fiscal year 2008.
When the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act was signed into
law more than 30 years ago, the Federal Government committed to pay the
States 40 percent of the costs of providing services to students
covered under this act. However, for three decades the Federal
Government has often provided less than half the money promised.
What has this shortfall meant? For one, it has meant higher taxes at
the State and local levels and less funding for other education
programs as States and local governments struggle to make up the
shortfall in Federal resources.
The amendment I introduce today builds on the bipartisan cooperation
of the House Appropriations Committee by providing a further $125
million increase in funding for IDEA part B grants to the States. To
pay for my amendment, I offset the cost by reducing a portion of the
U.S. contribution to the Global Fund. My amendment helps us fulfill our
commitment to funding special education while also providing a small
increase in funding to the Global Fund as was provided last year. I
don't take this money from any domestic program. These funds are
dedicated to an overseas program, and they still see a $1 million
increase over last year.
My amendment sets the right priorities for our Nation's children with
special needs, and I urge support from all of my colleagues. Again, I
would thank the chairman and ranking member for their hard work on
this.
Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, frankly, I am looking for my ranking
minority member. But until he gets here let me take a little time and
say that I would simply suggest to the gentleman, if he thinks this is
a good idea, that he take this idea up with the President of the United
States.
What this committee has tried to do both on this subcommittee and on
the Foreign Operations Subcommittee is to respect and work with the
administration in their effort to provide global leadership to deal
with the AIDS epidemic around the world. And the fact is that this item
in this bill is a critical piece of the President's program.
Given our disarray around the world because of Iraq, I think it is a
wonderful exception when we can be seen to be providing constructive
leadership in the world on something. And certainly, although I have
many differences with the President, this is one area where I think he
has exercised significant leadership.
{time} 1030
And I think it would undercut our standing yet again in the world if
we were to withdraw this funding.
I just think that we've struck a good balance with respect to this
program. I think both subcommittees have tried to see to it that we
meet our international responsibilities.
You and I are very lucky human beings. Our souls were, thanks to God,
infused in a body that lives in the United States. If they had been
infused in a body that was born in Africa or in Asia or in some of the
other hot spots in the world in terms of these diseases, I think we
would take a look at this issue in a quite different way.
This program provides the only real leadership in the world to attack
this program. I think it would be a horrendous mistake if we were to
adopt the gentleman's amendment. I would urge defeating 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 Missouri (Mr. Graves).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
[[Page H8001]]
Mr. GRAVES. 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 Missouri will be
postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
national institute of general medical sciences
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 general medical sciences, $1,966,019,000.
national institute of child health and human development
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 child health and human development, $1,273,863,000.
national eye 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 eye diseases and visual disorders, $677,039,000.
national institute of environmental health sciences
For carrying out sections 301 and 311 and title IV of the
Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 241, 243, 281 et seq.)
with respect to environmental health sciences, $652,303,000.
national institute on aging
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 aging, $1,062,833,000.
national institute of arthritis and musculoskeletal and skin 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 arthritis and musculoskeletal and skin diseases,
$516,044,000.
national institute on deafness and other communication disorders
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 deafness and other communication disorders, $400,305,000.
national institute of nursing 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 nursing research, $139,527,000.
national institute on alcohol abuse and alcoholism
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 alcohol abuse and alcoholism, $442,870,000.
national institute on drug abuse
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 drug abuse, $1,015,559,000.
national institute of mental health
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 mental health, $1,425,531,000.
national human genome research 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 human genome research, $493,996,000.
national institute of biomedical imaging and bioengineering
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 biomedical imaging and bioengineering research,
$303,318,000.
national center for research resources
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 research resources and general research support grants,
$1,171,095,000.
national center for complementary and alternative medicine
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 complementary and alternative medicine, $123,380,000.
national center on minority health and health disparities
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 minority health and health disparities research,
$202,691,000.
john e. fogarty international center
For carrying out the activities of the John E. Fogarty
International Center (described in subpart 2 of part E of
title IV of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 287b)),
$67,599,000.
national library of medicine
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 health information communications, $325,484,000, of which
$4,000,000 shall be available until expended for improvement
of information systems: Provided, That in fiscal year 2008,
the National Library of Medicine may enter into personal
services contracts for the provision of services in
facilities owned, operated, or constructed under the
jurisdiction of the National Institutes of Health: Provided
further, That in addition to amounts provided herein,
$8,200,000 shall be available from amounts available under
section 241 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 238j)
to carry out the purposes of the National Information Center
on Health Services Research and Health Care Technology
established under section 478A of the Public Health Service
Act (42 U.S.C. 286d) and related health services.
office of the director
For carrying out the responsibilities of the Office of the
Director, National Institutes of Health, $1,114,422,000, of
which up to $14,000,000 shall be used to carry out section
214 of this Act, of which $110,900,000 shall be for
continuation of the National Children's Study, and of which
$495,153,000 shall be available for the Common Fund
established under section 402A(c)(1) of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 282a): Provided, That funding shall be
available for the purchase of not to exceed 29 passenger
motor vehicles for replacement only: Provided further, That
the National Institutes of Health is authorized to collect
third party payments for the cost of clinical services that
are incurred in National Institutes of Health research
facilities and that such payments shall be credited to the
National Institutes of Health Management Fund: Provided
further, That all funds credited to such Fund shall remain
available for one fiscal year after the fiscal year in which
they are deposited: Provided further, That no more than
$500,000 shall be available to carry out section 499 of the
Public Health Service Act(42 U.S.C. 290b): Provided further,
That amounts appropriated to the Common Fund shall be in
addition to any amounts allocated to activities related to
the Common Fund through the normal research priority-setting
process of individual institutes and centers: Provided
further, That of the funds provided $10,000 shall be for
official reception and representation expenses when
specifically approved by the Director of the National
Institutes of Health: Provided further, That the Office of
AIDS Research within the Office of the Director of the
National Institutes of Health may spend up to $4,000,000 to
make grants for construction or renovation of facilities as
provided for in section 2354(a)(5)(B) of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300cc-41(a)(5)(B)).
buildings and facilities
For the study of, construction of, renovation of, and
acquisition of equipment for, facilities of or used by the
National Institutes of Health, including the acquisition of
real property, $121,081,000, to remain available until
expended.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
substance abuse and mental health services
For carrying out titles V and XIX of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 290aa et seq., 300w et seq.) (``PHS
Act'') with respect to substance abuse and mental health
services, the Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with
Mental Illness Act (42 U.S.C. 10801 et seq.), and section 301
of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 241) with respect to program
management, $3,272,928,000: Provided, That notwithstanding
section 520A(f)(2) of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 290bb-32(f)(2)),
no funds appropriated for carrying out section 520A are
available for carrying out section 1971 of such Act: Provided
further, That in addition to amounts provided herein, the
following amounts shall be available under section 241 of the
PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 238j): (1) $79,200,000 to carry out
subpart II of part B of title XIX of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C.
300x-21 et seq.) to fund section 1935(b) of such Act (42
U.S.C. 300x-35(b)) relating to technical assistance, national
data, data collection, and evaluation activities, and further
that the total available under this Act for activities under
such section 1935(b) shall not exceed 5 percent of the
amounts appropriated for subpart II of part B of title XIX of
such Act; (2) $21,413,000 to carry out subpart I of part B of
title XIX of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 300x-1 et seq.) to fund
section 1920(b) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 300x-9(b)) relating to
technical assistance, national data, data collection, and
evaluation activities, and further that the total available
under this Act for activities under such section 1920(b)
shall not exceed 5 percent of the amounts appropriated for
subpart I of part B of title XIX of such Act; (3) $16,000,000
to carry out national surveys on drug abuse; and (4)
$4,300,000 to evaluate substance abuse treatment programs.
Amendment No. 29 Offered by Mr. Whitfield
Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 29 offered by Mr. Whitfield:
Page 49, line 25, before the period insert ``Provided
further, That, of the funds made available under this
heading, $10,000,000 is for carrying out section 399O of the
Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 280g-4)''.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chairman, in 2005, the U.S. Congress adopted the
National All Schedules Prescription Electronic Reporting Act, which was
signed into law by the President in 2005. The amendment at the desk
simply provides funding of $10 million for this authorized program. The
$10 million is taken from the Secretary's Management Account, so the
offset is taken care of.
On March 29 of this year, 2007, Chairman Dingell, Ranking Member
Barton and the chairman and ranking
[[Page H8002]]
member of every subcommittee of Energy and Commerce, as well as other
Members, sent a letter to Chairman Obey and Ranking Member Lewis
requesting that they consider funding this program. And we had hoped
that it would be included in this HHS appropriation bill because
NASPER, as passed by the Congress, is located and placed at HHS.
Now, the Appropriations Committee on another bill has provided
funding for an unauthorized drug monitoring program located at the
Department of Justice. That program is primarily based and focused on
law enforcement. And we do not object to that program in any way, but I
might say that last year, for 2007 and 2006, money was made available
for both the NASPER program at HHS and the Department of Justice
program, which is more based on law enforcement. The NASPER program
really addresses the prescription drug addiction problem and helps
physicians work with patients and makes physicians aware of
prescriptions that those patients have. So last year we were quite
pleased that both programs were funded. And we were disappointed that
this year's program, the authorized program, was not funded; the
unauthorized program was funded.
And so we come today and ask the chairman of the Appropriations
Committee and the ranking member, both of whom have worked diligently
on a very complicated bill that provides great services to our country,
we come this morning and ask them to consider funding this authorized
program.
I might add that Secretary Leavitt testified for it. We had 2 years
of hearings on this program. Secretary Leavitt endorsed it. Former
Secretary Tommy Thompson endorsed it. And as I said, we're not asking
that they defund the unauthorized program because we know that it's
doing a good job, but we're simply saying the Energy and Commerce
Committee had 2 years of hearings, passed this legislation. It passed
the Senate overwhelmingly. The President signed it. It was funded last
year, and we strongly request that the chairman consider funding it
again this year.
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 rise in reluctant opposition
to my friend's amendment.
The gentleman's amendment really is unnecessary, and it duplicates
work that the Justice Department is engaged in under the Prescription
Drug Monitoring Grant Program.
I understand that primarily, as a result of the efforts of Mr. Rogers
of Kentucky, the Justice Department has been operating for several
years, running a grant program to assist States in building and
enhancing prescription drug monitoring systems, facilitating the
exchange of information among States, and providing technical
assistance and training for effective State programs.
The Office of Justice Programs runs this grant program, along with
the assistance and technical expertise of the Drug Enforcement
Administration and is currently funded at $7.5 million.
From all accounts, the Justice Department effort is well run and
effective. For that reason, I ask Members to oppose this amendment,
which would set up a competing and duplicative program.
Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. STUPAK. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. STUPAK. Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of Mr.
Whitfield's amendment that would amend funding for the National All
Schedules Prescription Electronic Reporting Act, or NASPER.
Two years ago, Congress passed NASPER and it was signed into law,
making it the only statutory authorized program to assist States in
combating prescription drug abuse of controlled substances through
prescription drug monitoring programs. Congress realized that more
needed to be done to aid States to set up or improve State systems that
enable authorities to identify prescription drug abusers, as well as
the problem doctors who betray their high ethical standards of their
profession by over or incorrectly prescribing prescription drugs.
The new law, NASPER law, authorized $10 million in fiscal year 2008
and $10 million each year through fiscal year 2010. Although NASPER has
been signed into law, Congress has yet to appropriate funds to the HHS
for this program for the past 3 years. Given the existence of this
authorized program, it would seem to be inappropriate not to fund
NASPER, while funding unauthorized prescription drug monitoring
programs. By doing this, Congress sets a bad precedent in sanctioning
the creation and continued operation of Federal programs through the
appropriation process.
NASPER was passed with bipartisan support after many years of hard
work by many Members on both sides of the aisle and those of us who are
on the Energy and Commerce Committee. NASPER is the only solution which
will assist physicians, establish minimum standards for State
prescription drug monitoring programs, and substantially reduce
prescription drug abuse.
I urge all my colleagues to support the Whitfield amendment.
Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the Whitfield
amendment to fund NASPER, the National All Schedules Prescription
Electronic Reporting Act, which the gentleman from Kentucky and I
sponsored in the last Congress.
As was mentioned already, this is the authorized program that would
deal with this issue. And I don't want to get into necessarily
contrasting this with the other program that the gentleman from New
York mentioned, but I do think it's necessary to understand that this
program is authorized and it's not funded. I mean, obviously we should
be funding programs that are authorized, not those that are not.
But beyond that, the bottom line is that the NASPER program mandates
that States participate in the program. We only have about 22 States
now that are participating, so I would certainly argue that the status
quo with this alternative Justice Department program simply is not
working. If we want more States to get involved, we need to fund the
authorized program.
During the time since August of 2005 when this became law and has not
been funded, during this time since then prescription drug abuse has
reached an all-time high, with an estimated 9 million Americans using
prescription drugs for nonmedical purposes. Most disturbing is the fact
that there is an epidemic of prescription drug abuse among teenagers.
So if the argument is that the existing Justice Department program is
working and we don't need to fund this authorized program, I think the
facts show very much the opposite.
NASPER will ensure that prescription drugs are only being used for
medical purposes. With better monitoring and tracking systems, people
will not be able to seek multiple prescriptions or cross State lines to
get prescriptions filled without their provider knowing. NASPER reaches
across State lines, with timetables and benchmarks aimed at eliminating
the problem of prescription drug abuse. It's a public health program in
the Department of Health and Human Services, where it belongs, not in
the Justice Department. And most important, it is the only statutorily
authorized program to assist States in combating prescription drug use.
Right now, a lot of the program is with doctors. The Justice
Department program doesn't really help doctors prevent this epidemic.
Also, the Justice Department program is totally focused on enforcement,
not on trying to get people more involved in the States at a preventive
level dealing with the doctors. We have enforcement as well, but it's
not the only thing.
I would simply say that we've made this pledge a couple of times. My
understanding is that this amendment is going to be withdrawn. But I
just need to ask the appropriators, please consider the fact that in
the future we need to address this. This needs to be
[[Page H8003]]
affected. The other program that's in effect now is not doing the job.
We simply ask that you collectively take a look at this and figure out
how to do it so we can get funding for the NASPER program, which is the
one that the Congress authorized and which will address this epidemic
effectively. We're not having an effective response right now.
With that, Madam Chairman, I would yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the
last word.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Kentucky?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. WHITFIELD. I would say to the chairman of the Appropriations
Committee and the ranking member that we didn't really want to force
this issue this morning. But it is a program, as has been said, we
spent 2 years having hearings on this program. It mandates States to
adopt these programs. We feel like it is a great program. It was funded
last year, and we would respectfully request that at conference maybe
the chairman and ranking member would work with us in trying to address
the issue.
Mr. OBEY. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WHITFIELD. Yes, sir.
Mr. OBEY. Let me simply say that we sort of feel like we're caught in
the middle of this one because Mr. Lewis, the ranking member of the
Appropriations Committee, gave us a lecture yesterday about how we
should avoid duplicative programs.
{time} 1045
Then, today, this amendment would have the effect of creating in one
department a program that is virtually identical to a program that
already exists in another department. So we can't win, no matter how we
deal with the issue. I don't care which agency this is in. I just want
it to be wherever it would be run the most efficiently and effectively.
I am certainly willing to discuss with anybody involved in the issue
how we resolve this issue. We didn't put it in in the first place. It
was put in by, as you know, a person from your party from your own
State.
So we are happy to work with all of you, but I don't want to get
cross-wised between two people from the same State. I don't want to be
standing here accepting an amendment that creates a duplicative
program.
So I think the most constructive result would be if the gentleman
would withdraw his amendment and we try to work this out down the line,
so that if it is not in the right place, we can talk about how to get
it in the right place.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Chairman Obey, I am going to withdraw the amendment,
but I would like to make this point: This is an authorized program that
we are talking about. We had 2 years of hearings on this project. There
is some sentiment in the Congress, I believe today, that the
appropriators seem to authorize on their appropriations bill when it is
convenient for them.
Madam Chairman, I am going to withdraw the amendment because of the
respect that I have for the gentleman from Wisconsin and the ranking
member, as well as the Member from Kentucky that was talked about.
I do believe that this is an effective program. We look forward to
working with you as we continue through the process to try to resolve
it in some way.
Mr. OBEY. If the gentleman will yield further, if I can simply say
again, on this side of the aisle I feel like I am being whipsawed. This
was in the other bill because we were trying to accommodate a
Republican Member of the House who felt strongly that it ought to be in
that bill. Now we are being criticized by another Republican from the
same State because we accommodated the other Republican. I can't go in
both directions at the same time, which is why I don't seek to have
this program in any department. I don't care where it is.
I would just as soon that you settle your differences with your
colleague from your own State, and when you have, come and see me. I
will try to work with whoever is the winner of the rassling match.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I am here as an
advocate for the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
healthcare research and quality
For carrying out titles III and IX of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 241 et seq., 299 et seq.), and part A
of title XI of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1301 et
seq.), $329,564,000; and in addition, amounts received from
Freedom of Information Act fees, reimbursable and interagency
agreements, and the sale of data shall be credited to this
appropriation and shall remain available until expended:
Provided, That the amount made available pursuant to section
937(c) of the Public Health Service Act shall not exceed
$47,064,000.
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
grants to states for medicaid
For carrying out, except as otherwise provided, titles XI
and XIX of the Social Security Act, $141,630,056,000, to
remain available until expended.
For making, after May 31, 2008, payments to States under
title XIX of the Social Security Act for the last quarter of
fiscal year 2008, for unanticipated costs, incurred for the
current fiscal year, such sums as may be necessary.
For making payments to States or in the case of section
1928 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396s) on behalf
of States under title XIX of the Social Security Act for the
first quarter of fiscal year 2009, $67,292,669,000, to remain
available until expended.
Payment under title XIX may be made for any quarter with
respect to a State plan or plan amendment in effect during
such quarter, if submitted in or prior to such quarter and
approved in that or any subsequent quarter.
payments to health care trust funds
For payment to the Federal Hospital Insurance and the
Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds, as
provided under sections 1844 and 1860D-16 of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w, 1395w-116), sections 103(c)
and 111(d) of the Social Security Amendments of 1965 (42
U.S.C. 426a(c), 1395i-1), section 278(d) of the Tax Equity
and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 426 note),
and for administrative expenses incurred pursuant to section
201(g) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401(g)),
$188,828,000,000.
In addition, for making matching payments under section
1844 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w), and
benefit payments under 1860D-16 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-
116), not anticipated in budget estimates, such sums as may
be necessary.
program management
For carrying out, except as otherwise provided, titles XI,
XVIII, XIX, and XXI of the Social Security Act, titles XIII
and XXVII of the Public Health Service Act, and the Clinical
Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988, not to exceed
$3,230,163,000, to be transferred from the Federal Hospital
Insurance and the Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance
Trust Funds, as authorized by section 201(g) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401(g)); together with all funds
collected in accordance with section 353 of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 263a) and section 1857(e)(2) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-27(e)(2)), funds
retained by the Secretary pursuant to section 1893(h)(1)(C)
of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ddd(h)(1)(C)), and
such sums as may be collected from authorized user fees and
the sale of data, which shall remain available until
expended: Provided, That all funds derived in accordance with
section 9701 of title 31, United States Code, from
organizations established under title XIII of the Public
Health Service Act shall be credited to and available for
carrying out the purposes of this appropriation: Provided
further, That $49,869,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2009, is for contract costs for the Healthcare
Integrated General Ledger Accounting System: Provided
further, That $163,800,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2009, is for Medicare contracting reform
activities of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services:
Provided further, That funds appropriated under this heading
are available for the Healthy Start, Grow Smart program under
which the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services may,
directly or through grants, contracts, or cooperative
agreements, produce and distribute informational materials
including, but not limited to, pamphlets and brochures on
infant and toddler health care to expectant parents enrolled
in the Medicaid program and to parents and guardians enrolled
in such program with infants and children: Provided further,
That the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall collect
fees in fiscal year 2008 from Medicare Advantage
organizations pursuant to section 1857(e)(2) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395s-27(e)(2)) and from eligible
organizations with risk-sharing contracts under section 1876
of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395mm) pursuant to section
[[Page H8004]]
1876(k)(4)(D) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395mm(k)(4)(D)).
health care fraud and abuse control account
In addition to amounts otherwise available for program
integrity and program management, $383,000,000, to be
transferred from the Federal Hospital Insurance and the
Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds, as
authorized by section 201(g) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 401(g)), of which $288,480,000 is for the Medicare
Integrity Program at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services to conduct oversight of activities authorized in
titles I and II of the Medicare Prescription Drug,
Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-
173), with oversight activities including those activities
listed in section 1893(b) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1395www(b)); of which $36,690,000 is for the
Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector
General; of which $21,140,000 is for the Medicaid program
integrity activities; and of which $36,690,000 is for the
Department of Justice: Provided, That the report required by
section 1817(k)(5) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1395i(k)(5)) for fiscal year 2008 shall include measures of
the operational efficiency and impact on fraud, waste and
abuse in the Medicare and Medicaid programs for the funds
provided by this appropriation.
Administration for Children and Families
payments to states for child support enforcement and family support
programs
For making payments to States or other non-Federal entities
under titles I, IV-D, X, XI, XIV, and XVI of the Social
Security Act and the Act of July 5, 1960 (24 U.S.C. ch. 9),
$2,949,713,000, to remain available until expended; and for
such purposes for the first quarter of fiscal year 2009,
$1,000,000,000, to remain available until expended.
For making payments to each State for carrying out the
program of Aid to Families with Dependent Children under
title IV-A of the Social Security Act as in effect before the
effective date of the program of Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families (TANF) with respect to such State, such sums
as may be necessary: Provided, That the sum of the amounts
available to a State with respect to expenditures under such
title IV-A in fiscal year 1997 under this appropriation and
under such title IV-A as amended by the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of
1996 shall not exceed the limitations under section 116(b) of
such Act.
For making, after May 31 of the current fiscal year,
payments to States or other non-Federal entities under titles
I, IV-D, X, XI, XIV, and XVI of the Social Security Act and
the Act of July 5, 1960 (24 U.S.C. ch. 9), for the last three
months of the current fiscal year for unanticipated costs,
incurred for the current fiscal year, such sums as may be
necessary.
low-income home energy assistance
For making payments under section 2604(a)-(d) of the Low-
Income Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981 (42 U.S.C. 8623(a)-
(d)), $1,980,000,000.
For making payments under section 2604(e) of the Low-Income
Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981 (42 U.S.C. 8623(e)),
$682,000,000, notwithstanding the designation requirement of
section 2602(e) of such Act.
refugee and entrant assistance
For necessary expenses for refugee and entrant assistance
activities and for costs associated with the care and
placement of unaccompanied alien children authorized by title
IV of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1521-
1524) and section 501 of the Refugee Education Assistance Act
of 1980 (8 U.S.C. 1522 note), for carrying out section 462 of
the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 279), and for
carrying out the Torture Victims Relief Act of 1998 (22
U.S.C. 2152 note) $650,630,000, of which up to $9,814,000
shall be available to carry out the Trafficking Victims
Protection Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.): Provided,
That funds appropriated under this heading pursuant to
section 414(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act and
section 462 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 for fiscal
year 2008 shall be available for the costs of assistance
provided and other activities to remain available through
September 30, 2010.
payments to states for the child care and development block grant
For carrying out the Child Care and Development Block Grant
Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858 et seq.), $2,137,081,000 shall be
used to supplement, not supplant, State general revenue funds
for child care assistance for low-income families: Provided,
That $18,777,370 shall be available for child care resource
and referral and school-aged child care activities, of which
$982,080 shall be for the Child Care Aware toll-free hotline:
Provided further, That, in addition to the amounts required
to be reserved by the States under section 658G, $267,785,718
shall be reserved by the States for activities authorized
under section 658G, of which $98,208,000 shall be for
activities that improve the quality of infant and toddler
care: Provided further, That $9,821,000 shall be for use by
the Secretary for child care research, demonstration, and
evaluation activities.
social services block grant
For making grants to States pursuant to section 2002 of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397a), $1,700,000,000.
children and families services programs
For carrying out, except as otherwise provided, the Runaway
and Homeless Youth Act (42 U.S.C. 5711 et seq.), the
Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act
of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 15001 et seq.), the Head Start Act (42
U.S.C. 9831 et seq.), the Child Abuse Prevention and
Treatment Act (42 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.), sections 310 and 316
of the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (42 U.S.C.
10409, 10416), the Native American Programs Act of 1974 (42
U.S.C. 2991a et seq.), title II of the Child Abuse Prevention
and Treatment and Adoption Reform Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 5111
et seq.) (adoption opportunities), sections 330F and 330G of
the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254c-6, 254c-7), the
Abandoned Infants Assistance Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 670
note), sections 261 and 291 of the Help America Vote Act of
2002 (42 U.S.C. 15421, 15461), subpart 1 of part B of title
IV and sections 413, 1110, and 1115 of the Social Security
Act, for making payments under the Community Services Block
Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9901 et seq.), sections 439, 473B, and
477 of the Social Security Act, and the Assets for
Independence Act (42 U.S.C. 604 note), and for necessary
administrative expenses to carry out such Acts and titles I,
IV, V, X, XI, XIV, XVI, and XX of the Social Security Act,
the Act of July 5, 1960 (24 U.S.C. ch. 9), the Low-Income
Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981, title IV of the
Immigration and Nationality Act, section 501 of the Refugee
Education Assistance Act of 1980, and section 505 of the
Family Support Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 9926), $9,125,940,000,
of which $9,500,000, to remain available until September 30,
2009, shall be for grants to States for adoption incentive
payments, as authorized by section 473A of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 673b) and may be made for adoptions
completed before September 30, 2008: Provided, That
$6,963,571,000 shall be for making payments under the Head
Start Act, of which $1,388,800,000 shall become available
October 1, 2008, and remain available through September 30,
2009: Provided further, That $701,125,000 shall be for making
payments under the Community Services Block Grant Act:
Provided further, That not less than $8,000,000 shall be for
section 680(3)(B) of the Community Services Block Grant Act:
Provided further, That in addition to amounts provided
herein, $6,000,000 shall be available from amounts available
under section 241 of the Public Health Service Act to carry
out the provisions of section 1110 of the Social Security
Act: Provided further, That to the extent Community Services
Block Grant funds are distributed as grant funds by a State
to an eligible entity as provided under the Act, and have not
been expended by such entity, they shall remain with such
entity for carryover into the next fiscal year for
expenditure by such entity consistent with program purposes:
Provided further, That the Secretary of Health and Human
Services shall establish procedures regarding the disposition
of intangible property which permits grant funds, or
intangible assets acquired with funds authorized under
section 680 of the Community Services Block Grant Act, to
become the sole property of such grantees after a period of
not more than 12 years after the end of the grant for
purposes and uses consistent with the original grant:
Provided further, That funds appropriated for section
680(a)(2) of the Community Services Block Grant Act shall be
available for financing construction and rehabilitation and
loans or investments in private business enterprises owned by
community development corporations: Provided further, That
$64,350,000 is for a compassion capital fund to provide
grants to charitable organizations to emulate model social
service programs and to encourage research on the best
practices of social service organizations: Provided further,
That $15,720,000 shall be for activities authorized by the
Help America Vote Act of 2002, of which $10,890,000 shall be
for payments to States to promote access for voters with
disabilities, and of which $4,830,000 shall be for payments
to States for protection and advocacy systems for voters with
disabilities: Provided further, That $136,664,000 shall be
for making competitive grants to provide abstinence education
(as defined by section 510(b)(2) of the Social Security Act)
to adolescents, and for Federal costs of administering the
grant: Provided further, That grants under the immediately
preceding proviso shall be made only to public and private
entities which agree that, with respect to an adolescent to
whom the entities provide abstinence education under such
grant, the entities will not provide to that adolescent any
other education regarding sexual conduct, except that, in the
case of an entity expressly required by law to provide health
information or services the adolescent shall not be precluded
from seeking health information or services from the entity
in a different setting than the setting in which abstinence
education was provided: Provided further, That within amounts
provided herein for abstinence education for adolescents, up
to $10,000,000 may be available for a national abstinence
education campaign: Provided further, That in addition to
amounts provided herein for abstinence education for
adolescents, $4,500,000 shall be available from amounts
available under section 241 of the Public Health Service Act
to carry out evaluations (including longitudinal evaluations)
of adolescent pregnancy prevention approaches: Provided
further, That up to $2,000,000 shall be for improving the
Public Assistance Reporting Information System, including
grants to States to support data
[[Page H8005]]
collection for a study of the system's effectiveness.
Amendment No. 34 Offered by Mr. Holt
Mr. HOLT. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 34 offered by Mr. Holt:
Page 58, line 21, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(increased by $21,000,000)''.
Page 60, line 12, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(increased by $21,000,000)''.
Page 60, line 13, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(increased by $15,00,000)''.
Page 60, line 15, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(increased by $6,000,000)''.
Page 63, line 4, insert after the first dollar amount the
following: ``(reduced by $21,000,000)''.
Mr. HOLT. Madam Chairman, as you may know, the funding authorized for
the Help America Vote Act of 2002, known as HAVA, for disability access
and protection and advocacy payments, was never fully appropriated.
Section 261 of HAVA authorized $100 million in disability access
funding to make polling places accessible to individuals with
disabilities and to provide them with information about the
accessibility of polling places.
I am sure the Chair and my colleagues would agree, it is important
for equality under the law that all voters have good access to voting.
In addition, section 291 authorized $10 million annually for fiscal
years 2003 through 2006 and such sums as necessary thereafter to pay
for the protection and advocacy systems of each State to ensure full
participation in the electoral process for individuals with
disabilities, including the process of registering to vote, casting a
vote and gaining access to polling places. To date, only $55 million of
that amount has been appropriated under HAVA to fund accessibility, and
only $22 million has been appropriated to fund protection and advocacy
systems.
Voting is indeed the cornerstone of our democracy, and unless all
eligible voters are assured access to the polls, that fundamental right
and the integrity of our electoral system generally are severely
undermined. Therefore, I seek to amend the bill to provide $15 million
in funding for accessibility under section 261 of HAVA, and an
additional $6 million in funding for protection and advocacy systems
under section 291 of HAVA, for a total increase of $21 million. This
would result, as you can quickly calculate, in several hundred thousand
dollars per State to assist in voting for voters with disabilities.
I urge my colleagues to support this increase.
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 from Wisconsin is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I understand the motivation behind this
amendment. The gentleman wants to provide additional funding for a very
legitimate purpose. It is something we should have done a long time
ago, and I understand that. But having said that, I am simply tired of
having to defend administrative accounts from people on both sides of
the aisle.
So I am not going to object to the amendment, but I do want to point
out to the gentleman, as I will point out to many other Members who
offer similar amendments today, that this committee is being whipsawed.
We are being told by the White House that there is too much money in
this bill, yet virtually every amendment that has been offered, save
one, has been motivated principally by a desire to increase rather than
decrease funds in this bill. This is another similar amendment. While I
recognize that it has an offset, it is a ``let's pretend'' offset, just
like a number of the offsets were last night.
Anybody who understands how government works needs to understand that
if an agency is a grant-making agency and if you gut its administrative
budget, then there ain't going to be nobody in the agency to issue the
grants in the first place. Therefore, I want Members who offer these
amendments to understand that even if they are accepted, when we go to
conference we are going to have to make very large adjustments, and a
lot of what is adopted on the House floor, if it is based on some of
these ``let's pretend'' offsets, will in fact wind up on the cutting
room floor by the time we get back from conference. That is just a
practical fact of life.
Madam Chairman, as I say, I will not object to the gentleman's
amendment, but I don't want anyone to be under any illusion that we can
fund all of these additional wonderful things by simply going to the
administrative budgets of the agencies, because occasionally you need
somebody in that office to turn on the light.
Mr. HOLT. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. HOLT. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his agreement,
and simply ask that he continue, as he always has, to stand up for the
American ideal of equality for all at the polling place.
Mr. OBEY. 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. I will be very brief, Madam Chairman. I
absolutely agree with the chairman's statement. It is a responsible
statement. We can't continue to do the nice things on the one hand by
looking like we are putting more money into a program, and at the same
time cutting the fat, muscle and limbs of the departments that are
supposed to administer these programs. So I support the chairman's
contention. We will deal with this in conference.
Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Rhode Island is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam Chairman, I just want to commend the chairman for
the work that this committee has done to achieve the very purpose that
this amendment that the gentleman from New Jersey has proposed.
{time} 1100
Frankly, we have this year on July 26 the anniversary of the
Americans With Disabilities Act, and we have taken many steps backward
as a Nation in guaranteeing the civil rights of all Americans with
disabilities. Clearly that means we need to guarantee nothing special
for people with disabilities, just the same rights. Guaranteeing equal
access regardless of ability is what we need to do in this country.
This amendment seeks to do that; but I might add, so does the
underlying bill. I hope that Members listening to this debate do not
come away with the understanding that it is because of amendments like
this that we are accomplishing it. The underlying bill, if people were
to see it and really look at it, does so much to offer independence and
hope to people who previous to this bill were denied many opportunities
because of previous budgetary priorities that shut people out in this
country.
So I want to commend the chairman and the ranking member for
producing a good bill that goes along the same lines as this amendment
by opening up the doors of opportunity to all Americans.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 41 Offered by Mr. Hensarling
Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 41 offered by Mr. Hensarling:
Page 58, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $8,000,000)''.
Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chairman, if my ears did not deceive me, I
think I heard the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations
Committee either observe or lament that with one exception, every
amendment offered on this bill, its purpose was to increase
[[Page H8006]]
spending. If that was a lamentation, I certainly share his angst. Not
wanting to disappoint, I am coming to the floor with several amendments
that are designed to do just the opposite, spend less of the people's
money to try to save hardworking American taxpayers more, let them keep
more of what they earned.
Now, Madam Chairman, this is a modest amendment, but it represents a
very, very important principle. Today, right now, the Federal
Government is spending $23,289 per family. This is the highest level
spent in real inflation-adjusted terms since World War II.
Earlier this year, the Democrat budget resolution included the
largest single tax increase in American history which when fully put in
place would put $3,000, an average of $3,000, additional tax burden on
the average American family. And now even if Congress were for some
reason to just disband today and add no new government, just the
government programs we have on automatic pilot threaten to double taxes
on the next generation. So we need to find every opportunity that we
can today to save the poor beleaguered taxpayer even more money.
Madam Chairman, I do not myself know exactly how many Federal
programs exist. I have seen one estimate, I believe, from the Heritage
Foundation that we have over 10,000 Federal programs spread across 600
different agencies. I defy any man, woman or child to tell me what each
and every one of them does. Some of them I am sure do good things; but
the question is given the fiscal challenges that we face, are they
truly a priority.
Madam Chairman, some may have even completed their mission. And some,
perhaps like the amendment that I am offering today, are actually
duplicative. This is a modest amendment that would save the American
taxpayer $8 million. In this particular program, ostensibly, funding is
used for training and technical assistance in developing and managing
water facilities. But the Office of Management and Budget has
recommended that this particular program be eliminated, stating that
``the program is duplicative of other Federal entities such as the
Bureau of Reclamation's rural water program which is responsible for
water and wastewater treatment facilities.'' That is from the Office of
Management and Budget.
So we ought to make sure that we are not simply engaging in
legislation by symbolism. I know every single program has a lofty-
sounding name to help some constituency that is important to us. But we
have to look beyond that and see if it is actually achieving its
purpose, are there other programs that are also achieving its purpose
as well. And according to the Office of Management and Budget, this
program is duplicative of other programs.
So we have to ask ourselves a very important question. In light of
the fact that the Federal Government has never ever spent since World
War II so much money of the American family, $23,289, given that the
Democrat budget resolution includes the single largest tax increase in
history, given that although the national deficit has come down, not
due to any spending discipline but due to the fact that we are awash in
tax revenues, we still have a tax deficit. So it is a simple question:
Do we want to fund a program that the administration considers
duplicative given that if we don't, either the funds are coming from
the Social Security trust fund, and many of my colleagues have pledged
not to do that, if it is not coming from that, it is going to add to
this $3,000-per-American-family tax burden, or more debt will be passed
on to our children.
I believe we ought to use this opportunity to eliminate one
duplicative Federal program and return $8 million to the American
taxpayer.
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 was going to yield a minute of my time to
the gentleman from Texas to explain his amendment. I appreciate his
speech, and I thought the gentleman's speech was a thoughtful speech.
He has come to the floor consistently on every appropriations bill in
an effort to save money, but I would like to yield to the gentleman
just so he can tell us what his amendment does in this bill. If the
gentleman would be kind enough to explain that to us, we would
appreciate it over here on the majority.
Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
If I was not clear, this amendment would save the American taxpayer
$8 million. It would remove a duplicative program, according to OMB,
the Rural Community Facilities Program. I don't need a minute to
explain what the amendment does. That is it. I certainly apologize to
my colleague if I was unclear as to the purpose of the amendment or how
it operates.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I appreciate the gentleman and his analysis.
At least as I read page 58, line 21, the gentleman seeks to reduce by
$8 million section 501 of the Refugee Education Assistance Act of 1980
and section 505 of the Family Support Act of 1988. That reduction the
committee fundamentally opposes in part because of Refugee Education
Assistance Act of 1980 and the Family Support Act of 1988 are reputable
programs that have provided an enormous benefit to the American
taxpayer. That is precisely why it is in the bill. And it is
specifically in the section of the bill ``Children and Families
Services Programs'' because of its enormous benefit to the American
taxpayer.
I appreciate the gentleman's effort at fiscal accountability and
fiscal responsibility, and the gentleman has clearly led a crusade
through every single one of these appropriations bills, but I would
encourage Members to oppose the Hensarling amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam Chairman, I tell the gentleman, in my State, I
will give you a perfect example of where this would make a difference.
In a rural part of my State we had a contamination of our well water,
and it was a contamination because of the MTBE, the chemical that goes
into gasoline. I might add under the Republican majority, you all
indemnified the oil and gas industry from lawsuits so that my community
can't get the justice it deserves so it can clean up its wastewater and
make due reparation to my constituents. What they had to do is they had
to go down to the local high school to take showers. They had to attach
a pump through the fire department to the next-door community.
Now under this section of the bill, this is a public health hazard.
You know why, because even at home when they turn on the water, they
were getting lesions on their skin because the shower water was giving
them lesions. Even when they turned on the steam, the children were
breathing in the steam and were getting asthma attacks. Now if you are
wondering what the nexus is, this is what the nexus is between your
amendment and health and why infrastructure makes an enormous
difference in providing clean, safe drinking water to rural
communities.
Now I don't come from a very rural State so you might think that it
is kind of interesting that I would come up and speak on behalf of
this. I would think that your State would probably benefit a lot more
from this. Your constituents must be wondering about you offering an
amendment against a section that would benefit your State more than it
does mine. Frankly, this is an important program.
If anything in this country, we haven't invested enough in
infrastructure. Mr. Jackson, I'm sure, has talked to his mayors and
local community leaders, and they have told him that their
infrastructure is falling apart. I would just commend all of us to say
that if we have to do anything, we have to do more in the way of
infrastructure, not less.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Reclaiming my time, I want to make sure, and
I appreciate the gentleman from Rhode Island's thoughts on the subject,
but I want to make sure that this amendment is going to the heart of
Refugee Education Assistance Act of 1980 and Family Support Act of
1988.
Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PENCE. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 minutes.
[[Page H8007]]
Mr. PENCE. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Hensarling
amendment. I love a good debate. It is a great privilege for me to be
able to come to the floor at a time when Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Jackson
are here. I find them to be two of the most forceful and effective
advocates of their view in the Congress in the majority, and so I
welcome this opportunity to join in the debate. And I thank the
gentleman from Texas who is consistently the strongest advocate for
fiscal discipline and reform in the House of Representatives.
I will leave aside for the moment the whole question of which party
forced the requirement of MTBE to be added to gasoline and created the
regulatory challenges that the gentleman refers to, and just get to the
larger question here.
Madam Chairman, we have an $8 trillion national debt. This is an
amendment to cut $8 million. And it is being forcefully opposed. I
think for anyone who would be looking on the people's House today, that
is a rather dramatic comparison. Let me repeat that again. The
Hensarling amendment, facing the stark reality of $8 trillion in
national debt, comes to the floor with an idea to ask the Federal
Government to do without spending $8 million.
The new majority, and I congratulate them again on securing the
majority in the Congress, the American people spoke. But I do remember
the new majority pledged no new deficit spending. I remember promises
by this new majority in last year's campaign season that we would pay
as we go in the Federal budget. If there was to be spending increases,
they would be offset by cuts in other areas.
Yet this legislation, the bill is $7 billion over the 2007 request,
$10.2 billion over the President's request, and it follows seven other
pieces of legislation all of which have increased spending. And some of
which, Madam Chairman, I have supported, but not all.
And it does seem to me as I walked here to this floor, I passed one
sign after another in front of the offices of some of my most
distinguished Democrat colleagues that bear the number $8 trillion writ
large. If we are to be concerned about $8 trillion, will we not support
an effort to cut $8 million?
{time} 1115
That's the choice here today and whether the gentleman from Illinois,
who I deeply respect, considers that this $8 million to be an enormous
benefit, might there not be States and local governments that could
make up for that, with the recognition that we are creating a burden
for future generations of Americans that we ought not to create?
So I support the Hensarling amendment. It is the least we can do to
take a step backwards.
I want to associate myself with the distinguished chairman of this
committee who rose earlier to say, and I'm quoting now, that he was
tired of defending administrative accounts with amendments by people
who were coming to ask for more spending in other areas.
It is greatly to the credit of the gentleman from Texas that he is
coming to this floor simply asking that we not spend this money.
There's no other amendment or no other spending request that he's
making in this regard, and it's what the American people ask us to do.
In fact, I would close, Madam Chairman, simply by saying I think the
American people are tired of the national debt. I think they're tired
of the sea of red ink. I think they were tired of it when my party had
control of the place, and as the gentlewoman knows, I was one of the
strongest opponents of wasteful government spending when my own party
was in charge.
And so I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle know the
gentleman from Texas and myself and other colleagues, we come to this
floor with sincerity of purpose and with consistency that we think
government ought to live within its means and pay its bills, and we
think we ought to balance budgets. And the Hensarling amendment simply
asks that we might cut $8 million as a modest response to $8 trillion
in national debt.
And I challenge my colleagues, in the spirit of goodwill, let's make
this statement, let's start in the direction of fiscal discipline and
reform or, for heaven's sake, Madam Chairman, and I say with a smile,
let's take the signs down from the hallways. Let's stop pretending that
we worry about the national debt if we cannot come together as a
Congress and as a nation and accept an $8 million cut to deal with an
$8 trillion national debt.
Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. OBEY. Drone on, drone on, O ship of State. That's what I'm
tempted to recite when I hear these repetitious dronings on bill after
bill after bill.
Let me simply say, I think it is legitimate for individual Members of
this body to offer amendments in order to illustrate their concern
about a larger question. I've done that many times myself in this
institution.
But I think that after 3 weeks of hearing the same point made again
and again, we understand that these gentlemen believe that we are
putting too much money into education and health care and science and
other areas that we regard as crucial investments, and that's a
perfectly legitimate position to have. But please spare me the
sanctimony, spare me the nonsense that somehow these amendments will
contribute in any meaningful way to significant deficit reduction.
Let me simply point out, if people were interested in significant
deficit reduction, they would not be supporting an Iraqi war which has
already spent over $400 billion and which we'll spend another 140
billion bucks by the time we pass the President's supplemental. They
would not be insisting that we provide $57 billion in tax cuts to
people making a million bucks a year. No, they don't argue about those
two things.
What do they do? They come to the floor and squawk about an $8
million program to help the poorest rural communities in this country
get basic services like sewer and water. I represent many towns in my
District with populations of less than a thousand people. At least half
the households in many of those towns are headed either by senior
citizens or a woman with a low income, and that means that when they
get hit with the DNR order to clean up their water or clean up their
sewer, they do not have the tax base to proceed, and they don't have
technical expertise even to know how to begin going about it.
We've got a $385 billion backlog in this country of sewer and water
needs, and yet we're hearing these complaints about this tiny little
program and what terrible abuse it is for the taxpayer.
Imagine a congressional committee trying to do something to help poor
communities deal with their sewer and water problems. Isn't that awful?
Isn't that wasteful? Good God, Almighty, we ought to be putting that $8
million into the pockets of millionaires in additional tax cuts, right?
At least that's what their record shows they believe. Nonsense.
I'm getting up once on this amendment, but I don't intend to
continually get up in what is a filibuster by amendment. So I wanted to
get that off my chest once, and then I'm just going to sit back and let
people drone on, drone on, O ship of State, and occasionally I might
even listen.
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. Hensarling).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. HENSARLING. 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 No. 42 Offered by Mr. Hensarling
Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 42 offered by Mr. Hensarling:
Page 58, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $5,000,000)''
Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chairman, I listened intently to the
distinguished chairman of the committee, as
[[Page H8008]]
I do whenever he is on the floor. Apparently he does not like
amendments that increase spending in this bill, and apparently he
doesn't like amendments that decrease the spending in the bill. So
apparently he doesn't like amendments. So that much is clear.
Second of all, Madam Chairman, when I come down to the floor in
efforts to try to save taxpayers money, let them keep more money for
their education programs, their health care programs, their energy
programs, sometimes we're told that, well, this is so draconian, you
know, to try to save this much money. And then other times we're told,
well, this is just a piddling little amount.
Well, I'm reminded first of a famous quote from the late Senator
Everett Dirksen, a billion here, a billion there, pretty soon we're
talking about real money. I'm even talking about more modest amounts
today.
But there's a fundamental principle involved here, and the
fundamental principle is that we have a Federal budget growing way
beyond the ability of the family budget to pay for it. Make no mistake
about it, Madam Chairman, government will be paid for. It's either
going to be paid for in the short term by continuing to raid the Social
Security Trust Fund, which is what's going to happen if this particular
amendment fails. It will be funded by the single largest tax increase
in American history which my friends on the other side of the aisle,
the Democrat majority, has done in their budget, or perhaps it may even
be funded by sending more debt to our children and grandchildren.
I think we should look for every opportunity. Given the challenges
that we face, the Comptroller General of America has said we are on the
verge of being the first generation in America's history to leave the
next generation with a lower standard of living. Never happened before
in the history of America.
So, Madam Chairman, I make no apologies for, to use the distinguished
chairman's term, droning on about what fiscal perils lay in wait for
future generations if we don't start now. And then, again, it's a
little bit like Goldilocks and the three bears. Either the porridge is
too hot or the porridge is too cold. When is the porridge just right to
try to save the family budget from the onslaught of the Federal budget?
So when we have the Office of Management and Budget single out a
number of different programs, and I certainly think that their
expertise in this area is great, to single out certain programs that,
one, have outlived their usefulness; number two, are not meeting their
objective; or number three, are duplicative, I think amendments are in
order for the people's House to save the people money.
We have to quit engaging again in the fact of legislation by
symbolism. It has a lofty name or it has a lofty purpose, well, let's
look at what's actually happening to the money.
So this is a modest amendment, and I admit it's modest. I've tried to
save big chunks of money and haven't been terribly successful there,
and so we're going to attempt to save little chunks of money and
perhaps set a precedent here.
So this amendment is designed to save the American taxpayer $5
million by hopefully zeroing out the account of a program which the
Office of Management and Budget has said does not have performance
standards. They do not have performance standards to assess their
impact or are too narrowly focused to have a major benefit. They
duplicate other Federal programs and award grants on a noncompetitive
basis.
Now, ostensibly this program is a job opportunities program for low-
income individuals, but I happen to know that practically every single
one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle voted against the
tax relief that has created 8 million new jobs in our economy, which is
an undeniable fact. That's truly the best job opportunity program for
low-income individuals.
And I know that this body recently voted against the maximum
opportunity to create an artificial wage to deny some people their
opportunity to get on the lowest rung of the economic ladder.
There's a lot of ways that we can help low-income people with job
opportunities, but one more duplicative program that awards grants on a
noncompetitive basis is not it. Let's not raid the Social Security
Trust Fund. Let's not be a part of the largest single tax increase in
American history. Let's save the American people $5 million.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. HENSARLING. 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:
promoting safe and stable families
For carrying out section 436 of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 629f), $345,000,000 and for section 437 of such Act
(42 U.S.C. 629g), $89,100,000.
payments to states for foster care and adoption assistance
For making payments to States or other non-Federal entities
under title IV-E of the Social Security Act, $5,082,000,000.
For making payments to States or other non-Federal entities
under title IV-E of the Social Security Act, for the first
quarter of fiscal year 2009, $1,776,000,000.
For making, after May 31 of the current fiscal year,
payments to States or other non-Federal entities under
section 474 of title IV-E of the Social Security Act, for the
last three months of the current fiscal year for
unanticipated costs, incurred for the current fiscal year,
such sums as may be necessary.
Administration on Aging
aging services programs
For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided, the
Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3011 et seq.) and
section 398 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 280c-
3), $1,417,189,000.
{time} 1130
Amendment No. 44 Offered by Mr. Hensarling
Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 44 offered by Mr. Hensarling:
Page 62, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $21,400,000)''.
Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chairman, again we have another modest
amendment aiming at saving the American taxpayer, in this case $21.4
million. Again, we have a program that has a very lofty name,
Preventive Health under the Administration of Aging. But I think that,
again, the program needs to be put in the larger context.
We are being asked now to provide in this particular appropriations
bill $152 billion in discretionary funding, one of the largest bills
that will come to the people's House. It has, I believe, a 4.8 percent
increase over last year, when I assure you, American families who are
being asked to pay for this did not enjoy a 4.8 percent increase.
We, once again, have another portion of the Federal budget growing
beyond the ability of the family budget to pay for this. So we all know
that this is a part of a plan that will increase an additional $26
billion for domestic programs under the budget resolution of the
Democrat majority, on top of the $6 billion that has been added to the
current year omnibus, on top of the $17 billion in nonwar emergency
spending they have added to the Iraq war supplemental.
Again, I recall the words of the distinguished chairman of the
Appropriations Committee, referring to those of us who may drone on
about attempting to save the Federal taxpayer money, but there are also
those who seemingly use the same old argument that government knows how
to spend money better than the American family.
Somehow, if we take money away from American families, that's an
investment. But if they somehow keep it, well, that's waste, or somehow
that's going to bring down the government to its knees. I just don't
buy that argument. Somehow we are supposed to believe in the roughly
10,000 Federal programs spread across 600 different agencies, growing
at roughly twice the rate of inflation, growing beyond the ability of
the family budget to pay for it, that somehow, somehow, every single
penny of Federal expenditures is sacrosanct.
[[Page H8009]]
Yet there is nothing sacrosanct about the money we take away from the
American people to pay for that.
Now, the funds in this particular program are awarded to States and
territories that supposedly educate older Americans about the
importance of healthy lifestyles, a very noble purpose. But I would
note with the exception of, I think, two, maybe three States, every
single one of them is running a surplus.
We are granting money to 95, 98 percent of the States that are
running the surplus, while the Federal Government continues to run a
deficit. Although that deficit is coming down because we are awash in
tax revenues, it certainly hasn't been from any spending disciplines.
The bottom line is we are running a deficit, and we are handing out
money to States that are running surpluses.
Again, this is a program that the Office of Management and Budget
says should not be funded: ``It is duplicative of services that States
can provide to the Administration on Aging's community-based supportive
services program.''
I have heard nobody address or take the opposite viewpoint of OMB and
say the program is duplicative. So maybe they approve of duplication.
If they think that OMB has got it wrong, I would be interested in
hearing that particular argument or that particular debate.
Furthermore, OMB says that AOA and visions integrating, prevention is
an underlying principle in its core programs and that is better than
the current mechanism of providing a small funding stream of unfocused
seed money through the Preventive Health Services Program. Again, I
feel we have too much legislation by symbolism.
We should never forget, when we are talking about the lofty purposes,
that this will provide in vital investments and health care. Let's
remember the vital investments in health care that the American people
have. I mean, they are going to have to pay for this.
Again, I often hear from my constituents, like Joyce in Tennessee
Colony, Texas, says, ``Please do what you can to stop the wasteful
spending. I am retired and disabled. I am raising my three
grandchildren and now one great grandchild. I sometimes can't afford my
own medicine.''
So here we have a choice. We can take money away from Joyce in
Tennessee Colony, take money away from her health care program, to
engage in this particular program which OMB says is duplicative.
I have heard from David in the city of Garland.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Rhode Island is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam Chairman, I think this is a perfect, perfect
example of a gentleman offering an amendment where he knows the cost of
something but the value of nothing.
If he were to visit any congregate meal site in his district or were
to visit any of the Meals-on-Wheels programs in this country and was
able to see what a difference those programs make in people's lives, he
would understand that it was these kinds of programs that saved the
taxpayer money.
I guess, by this amendment, he is saying what a waste it is for us to
pay for someone's illness. Let's put off paying for their illness until
they get really sick. Then they have got to get hospitalized. Then
let's pay for it through Medicare.
Frankly, the former Speaker Newt Gingrich, every modern health care
magazine, Republican Presidential contender Tommy Thompson, former HHS
director, every leader and study in health care knows we ought to be
going in the opposite direction. It's all about health. In case anybody
has not been looking, our health care system is an acute care system.
It's a sick care system. We need to be going preventive care. We need
to be going health care. We need to be going chronic care management.
What in the world are we thinking by considering that we are going to
actually go back to the dark days where we are going to actually spend
more money on the back door to wait until people get sick as opposed to
trying to prevent people from coming in and getting sick in the first
place. I find this amendment absolutely mind boggling that it would
even be offered as an excuse for saving money.
Quite frankly, it will end up costing the taxpayer money. Tragically,
more than costing us money, it will cost us lives. It will cost us
lives, and it will cost us misery amongst those senior citizens who are
going to have to suffer the consequences of the cutbacks that this
amendment will propose. I think that's a very unfortunate thing.
I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Chairman, as I understand Mr. Hensarling's amendment, he goes
at the heart of the Administration on Aging, section 204 of the report,
and these programs, including supportive service centers, preventive
health, are protection for vulnerable and older Americans that are at
the heart of the bill. It's clear to me that according to the Health
and Human Services budget in brief that consumer empowerment, healthy
lifestyles, community living incentives, are a critical part of taking
care of families and their caregivers. And I just don't know where the
gentleman arrives at the numbers that he seeks to cut in the bill.
The committee learned through exhaustive testimony from the Office of
the Secretary of Health and Human Services the importance of funding
this program. As the gentleman, Mr. Hensarling knows, the President has
sought to fund the program, and the committee has worked in a
Republican and Democrat bipartisan way, sought to increase the program,
and so we are going to stick with this number.
I want to thank the gentleman from Rhode Island for yielding me the
time. I am encouraging members of the committee to oppose the
Hensarling amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam Chairman, reclaiming my time.
I am pleased that in other bills that we are going to be taking up
this year, we are going to be offering, the Democrats, medical home
legislation that will allow us to invest in preventive medicine.
Because we, as Democrats, believe we need to not rearrange the deck
chairs on this Titanic of our health care system.
We need to reinvent our health care system and invest in health care,
which is broken in this country, and start investing in prevention and
not go down this road that has gotten us in so much trouble to begin
with, and that is try to take care of the problem after it's already
broken. Let's take care of people first and keep them out of the
hospital.
Unfortunately, this amendment goes a great deal of distance in the
wrong direction, not the right direction.
Madam Chairman, I yield back my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
The amendment was rejected.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Departmental Management
office of the secretary
general departmental management
For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided, for general
departmental management, including hire of six sedans, and
for carrying out titles III, XVII, XX, and XXI of the Public
Health Service Act, the United States-Mexico Border Health
Commission Act, and research studies under section 1110 of
the Social Security Act, $363,224,000, together with
$5,851,000 to be transferred and expended as authorized by
section 201(g)(1) of the Social Security Act from the Federal
Hospital Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Supplementary
Medical Insurance Trust Fund, and $46,756,000 from the
amounts available under section 241 of the Public Health
Service Act to carry out national health or human services
research and evaluation activities: Provided, That of the
funds made available under this heading for carrying out
title XX of the Public Health Service Act, $13,120,000 shall
be for activities specified under section 2003(b)(2), all of
which shall be for prevention service demonstration grants
under section 510(b)(2) of title V of the Social Security Act
without application of the limitation of section 2010(c) of
such title XX: Provided further, That of this amount,
$51,891,000 shall be for minority AIDS prevention and
treatment activities; and $5,941,000 shall be to assist
Afghanistan in the development of maternal and child health
clinics, consistent with section 103(a)(4)(H) of the
Afghanistan Freedom Support Act of 2002.
[[Page H8010]]
Amendment Offered by Mr. Ferguson
Mr. FERGUSON. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Ferguson:
Page 63, line 4, after the first dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $10,000,000) (increased by $10,000,000)''.
Mr. FERGUSON. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of the
Ferguson-Langevin amendment that will set aside $10 million for
implementation and to fund the Lifespan Respite Care Act.
I know the gentleman from Rhode Island, Mr. Langevin, will be
speaking on this amendment as well. I really want to praise him and
thank him for his great leadership on this issue over the years. He and
I have worked together as friends and partners on this issue in
particular. I have great respect and admiration for the work that he
has done on this issue.
Together, we have worked to pass the Lifespan Respite Care Act. It
was unanimously approved by this Chamber and the Senate last Congress.
It deserves the funding necessary to launch this critically important
program. Funding the Lifespan Respite Care Act will, for the first
time, establish a national policy to help our Nation's 50 million
family caregivers who provide daily care for their loved ones with
disabilities or chronic conditions or illnesses.
This program allows families to care in home for their loved ones
instead of an institutionalized setting. In-home family caregivers
provide minute-by-minute special assistance to their loved ones due to
disability or critical illness or chronic condition.
Family caregivers are remarkable people. They make extraordinary
sacrifices to help those who they love so dearly.
I saw an example of this firsthand in my own family. Ten years ago my
mom was diagnosed with cancer. For 6 years I got to watch my dad as he
cared for my mom through this very difficult struggle with cancer.
Three years ago yesterday she lost that battle with cancer, but it was
a great example to our family and so many others that we know of a
great example of a family caregiver who made extraordinary sacrifices.
There are some 50 million people just like my dad who provide care for
a loved one in their own family.
These are folks who may not be blessed with a support structure that
we had in our family. We had my siblings and me and others in our
family who were able to give my dad a break when he needed a break from
that family caregiving. There are many people in our country who are
not fortunate enough to have that support structure around them. They
are desperately in need of a break from time to time.
While the benefits that come from in-home care can be enormous, for
caregivers and for that loved one who is ill, the cost for the family
caregiver, from emotional to financial, can really be overwhelming.
Lifespan Respite Care will provide much-needed breaks for caregivers
who are providing intense and exhaustive care 24 hours a day. An
occasional break can literally be a lifesaver.
I had a conversation with a constituent from my district, Ms. Pinter,
who told me that caring for her special-needs child can be a very
joyful but also can be a very challenging experience. You know what?
She is exactly right.
Two-thirds of caregivers report physical or mental health care
problems linked to their own caregiving. Recent studies have found that
family caregivers suffer poor health or even higher mortality rates
than nonfamily caregivers. Currently our Nation lacks a coordinated
approach between different levels of government or advocacy groups to
aid those who are in need of respite care.
Respite care is in short supply or doesn't exist at all in some areas
of our country. This legislation and these funds would change that.
Funding the Lifespan Respite Care Act would improve coordination and
access for respite care to recruit and train respite care providers,
would aid family caregivers regardless of age or disability or their
family situation, help them to find and pay for respite services.
Through competitive grants, States would get funding to make quality
respite care available and accessible regardless of age or disability
or family situation.
Respite care improves the health and the well-being of caregivers and
reduces the risk of abuse or neglect. Importantly, it also delays or
even avoids more costly hospitalizations or placements in nursing homes
or in foster care.
I want to thank all of the family caregivers in our Nation who
provide tireless care for their loved ones, and I also want to extend
my thanks to the numerous groups and organizations around this country
in their exhaustive effort to establish this Lifespan Respite Care
program. Providing relief to our Nation's family caregivers is long
overdue.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Once again, I am
pleased and honored to have worked with the gentleman from Rhode Island
(Mr. Langevin) on this important legislation.
{time} 1145
Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time
Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Rhode Island is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to rise in strong support
of the Ferguson-Langevin amendment. Last year, I was so pleased to work
closely with Mr. Ferguson to ensure the passage of the Lifespan Respite
Care Act, which will offer relief to so many family caregivers across
the country.
I had the privilege of traveling with Mr. Ferguson to Iraq going back
a couple of years now, and I know his personal commitment to this
issue. He shared the story with me about his mom, and so I know, as in
my case as well as with Mr. Ferguson, this is certainly a very personal
issue that we have personal knowledge about and we care passionately
about. So I am pleased to join him today and in the effort to direct
funding now for this important program. As I mentioned, I know
firsthand what a difference a dedicated caregiver can make in the life
of a person with a disability or chronic condition.
Family caregiving is an essential yet often overlooked aspect of our
Nation's health care system. The ability to live at home and remain a
part of one's community can make a tremendous difference in a person
achieving independence, recovery, or treatment. And whether they are
caring for a child with a behavioral disorder or a parent with ALS or a
spouse with multiple sclerosis, we all know someone who is a family
caregiver. They live in all of our communities and they are often
silent heroes, ensuring family stability and helping those who struggle
with disease or disability to avoid more costly out-of-home placements.
We were so excited last year when this Congress really took a bold
initiative in enacting the Lifespan Respite Care Act, and it gave hope
to so many families across America. Today, this amendment that we are
proposing directs $10 million toward the Lifespan Respite Care Act,
which would authorize grants to make quality respite care available and
accessible to family caregivers regardless of age or disability. So it
is exciting if we can actually put now the funding into the Lifespan
Respite Care Act that we so desperately need to help America's families
who are providing this type of care in the home.
I urge all of my colleagues who are so supportive of the passage of
this bill to vote in favor of the Ferguson-Langevin amendment.
I also want to commend my colleague Mr. Ferguson, the gentleman from
New Jersey, for his passion and dedication on this issue. It has truly
been a team effort. And, again, I urge my colleagues to support it.
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 from Wisconsin is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, again, I feel required to make the same
comments that I made on a previous amendment that was offered about
one-half hour ago.
[[Page H8011]]
This amendment seeks to do a very worthy thing: It seeks to increase
support for respite care. God knows, having watched my mother-in-law
for 7 years, having watched my father-in-law take care of her every
day, God knows that anyone who has ever seen something like that
understands that we need a lot more respite care.
But having said that, I want again to use this amendment to
illustrate what is happening on this bill, because here is what the
amendment says:
Page 63, line 4: After the first dollar amount insert, reduce by $20
million, increase by $20 million.
Now, what the amendment really does is simply to serve as a vehicle
by which these two worthy Members can raise the issue that there is not
enough money in this bill for respite care. And you know what? There
isn't. And there isn't enough money in this bill for CDC; there isn't
enough money in this bill for NIH; there isn't enough money in this
bill for education; there isn't enough money in this bill for Pell
Grants; there is not enough money in this bill to sufficiently reduce
the Social Security backlog; there is not enough money in this bill to
keep all the Social Security offices open that are closing around the
country. And, yet, the administration is sending out a letter telling
Members of Congress that they ought to vote against this bill because
there is too much money.
Now, I don't fault the two gentlemen at all for using this device in
order to raise their concerns; it is about the only thing they can do.
But the fact is, as chairman of this committee, I have an obligation to
point out to the House and to the occasional other person who might be
listening that Members are being forced to go through these kinds of
machinations because instead of meeting our obligations to the most
needy people, the most vulnerable people in this society, we are
instead squirting away billions of dollars on an Iraq war and billions
more dollars in tax cuts for persons who make over $1 million a year.
The day that we decide not to do that, the day that we decide that we
are not going to spend $150 billion more in Iraq this year, the day
that we decide that we are not going to put tax cuts for millionaires
ahead of the needs of our disabled and ahead of the needs of our
isolated seniors, then that is the day when amendments like this will
be real, because then there will be sufficient room in the budget to do
what we ought to be doing on these programs.
Again, I will not stand in the way of this amendment because it is a
worthy cause. But, understand, this is not a real offset; it doesn't
add any new money to this account; and when we go to conference, we are
going to have to jettison much of what is adopted on the floor because,
like this amendment, in reality, because of budget constraints, it
ain't real.
Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Ferguson).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. FERGUSON. 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 New Jersey will be
postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
office of medicare hearings and appeals
For expenses necessary for administrative law judges
responsible for hearing cases under title XVIII of the Social
Security Act (and related provisions of title XI of such
Act), $65,000,000, to be transferred in appropriate part from
the Federal Hospital Insurance and the Federal Supplementary
Medical Insurance Trust Funds.
office of the national coordinator for health information technology
For expenses necessary for the Office of the National
Coordinator for Health Information Technology, including
grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements for the
development and advancement of an interoperable national
health information technology infrastructure, $13,302,000:
Provided, That in addition to amounts provided herein,
$48,000,000 shall be available from amounts available under
section 241 of the Public Health Service Act to carry out
health information technology network development.
office of inspector general
For expenses necessary for the Office of the Inspector
General, including the hire of passenger motor vehicles for
investigations, in carrying out the provisions of the
Inspector General Act of 1978, $44,687,000: Provided, That of
such amount, necessary sums are available for providing
protective services to the Secretary and investigating non-
payment of child support cases for which non-payment is a
Federal offense under section 228 of title 18, United States
Code.
office for civil rights
For expenses necessary for the Office for Civil Rights,
$33,748,000, together with not to exceed $3,314,000 to be
transferred and expended as authorized by section 201(g)(1)
of the Social Security Act from the Federal Hospital
Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Supplementary Medical
Insurance Trust Fund.
retirement pay and medical benefits for commissioned officers
For retirement pay and medical benefits of Public Health
Service Commissioned Officers as authorized by law, for
payments under the Retired Serviceman's Family Protection
Plan and Survivor Benefit Plan, for medical care of
dependents and retired personnel under the Dependents'
Medical Care Act (10 U.S.C. chapter 55), such amounts as may
be required during the current fiscal year.
public health and social services emergency fund
(including transfer of funds)
For expenses necessary to support activities related to
countering potential biological, disease, nuclear,
radiological and chemical threats to civilian populations,
and for other public health emergencies, $757,291,000, of
which not to exceed $22,363,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2009, is to pay the costs described in section
319F-2(c)(7)(B) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
247d-6b(c)(7)(B)).
For expenses necessary to prepare for and respond to an
influenza pandemic, $948,091,000, of which $870,000,000 shall
be available until expended, for activities including the
development and purchase of vaccine, antivirals, necessary
medical supplies, diagnostics, and other surveillance tools:
Provided, That products purchased with these funds may, at
the discretion of the Secretary of Health and Human Services,
be deposited in the Strategic National Stockpile: Provided
further, That notwithstanding section 496(b) of the Public
Health Service Act, funds may be used for the construction or
renovation of privately owned facilities for the production
of pandemic vaccine and other biologicals, where the
Secretary finds such a contract necessary to secure
sufficient supplies of such vaccines or biologicals: Provided
further, That funds appropriated herein may be transferred to
other appropriation accounts of the Department of Health and
Human Services, as determined by the Secretary to be
appropriate, to be used for the purposes specified in this
sentence.
covered countermeasure process fund
For carrying out section 319F-4 of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 247d-6e) to compensate individuals for
injuries caused by H5N1 vaccine, in accordance with the
declaration regarding avian influenza viruses issued by the
Secretary of Health and Human Services on January 26, 2007,
pursuant to section 319F-3(b) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 247d-
6d(b)), $5,000,000, to remain available until expended.
General Provisions
Sec. 201. Funds appropriated in this title shall be
available for not to exceed $50,000 for official reception
and representation expenses when specifically approved by the
Secretary of Health and Human Services.
Sec. 202. The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall
make available through assignment not more than 60 employees
of the Public Health Service to assist in child survival
activities and to work in AIDS programs through and with
funds provided by the United States Agency for International
Development, the United Nations International Children's
Emergency Fund, or the World Health Organization.
Sec. 203. None of the funds appropriated in this Act for
the National Institutes of Health, the Agency for Healthcare
Research and Quality, and the Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration shall be used to pay the
salary of an individual, through a grant or other extramural
mechanism, at a rate in excess of Executive Level I.
Sec. 204. None of the funds appropriated in this title for
Head Start shall be used to pay the compensation of an
individual, either as direct costs or any proration as an
indirect cost, at a rate in excess of Executive Level II.
Sec. 205. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be
expended pursuant to section 241 of the Public Health Service
Act, except for funds specifically provided for in this Act,
or for other taps and assessments made by any office located
in the Department of Health and Human Services, prior to the
preparation and submission of a report by the Secretary of
Health and Human Services to the Committees on Appropriations
of the House of Representatives and the Senate detailing the
planned uses of such funds.
Sec. 206. Notwithstanding section 241(a) of the Public
Health Service Act, such portion as the Secretary of Health
and Human Services shall determine, but not more than 2.4
percent, of any amounts appropriated for
[[Page H8012]]
programs authorized under such Act shall be made available
for the evaluation (directly, or by grants or contracts) of
the implementation and effectiveness of such programs.
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 207. 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 Health and Human Services in this Act may be transferred
between appropriations, but no such appropriation shall be
increased by more than 3 percent by any such transfer:
Provided, That an appropriation may be increased by up to an
additional 2 percent subject to approval by the Committees on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the
Senate: 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.
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 208. The Director of the National Institutes of
Health, jointly with the Director of the Office of AIDS
Research, may transfer up to 3 percent among institutes and
centers from the total amounts identified by these two
Directors as funding for research pertaining to the human
immunodeficiency virus: Provided, That the Committees on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate
are promptly notified of the transfer.
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 209. Of the amounts made available in this Act for the
National Institutes of Health, the amount for research
related to the human immunodeficiency virus, as jointly
determined by the Director of the National Institutes of
Health and the Director of the Office of AIDS Research, shall
be made available to the ``Office of AIDS Research'' account.
The Director of the Office of AIDS Research shall transfer
from such account amounts necessary to carry out section
2353(d)(3) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300cc-
40b(d)(3)).
Sec. 210. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be
made available to any entity under title X of the Public
Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.) unless the
applicant for the award certifies to the Secretary of Health
and Human Services that it encourages family participation in
the decision of minors to seek family planning services and
that it provides counseling to minors on how to resist
attempts to coerce minors into engaging in sexual activities.
Sec. 211. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no
provider of services under title X of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.) shall be exempt from any
State law requiring notification or the reporting of child
abuse, child molestation, sexual abuse, rape, or incest.
Sec. 212. None of the funds appropriated by this Act
(including funds appropriated to any trust fund) may be used
to carry out the Medicare Advantage program if the Secretary
of Health and Human Services denies participation in such
program to an otherwise eligible entity (including a Provider
Sponsored Organization) because the entity informs the
Secretary that it will not provide, pay for, provide coverage
of, or provide referrals for abortions: Provided, That the
Secretary shall make appropriate prospective adjustments to
the capitation payment to such an entity (based on an
actuarially sound estimate of the expected costs of providing
the service to such entity's enrollees): Provided further,
That nothing in this section shall be construed to change the
Medicare program's coverage for such services and a Medicare
Advantage organization described in this section shall be
responsible for informing enrollees where to obtain
information about all Medicare covered services.
Sec. 213. (a) Except as provided by subsection (e) none of
the funds appropriated by this Act may be used to withhold
substance abuse funding from a State pursuant to section 1926
of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300x-26) if such
State certifies to the Secretary of Health and Human Services
by May 1, 2008, that the State will commit additional State
funds, in accordance with subsection (b), to ensure
compliance with State laws prohibiting the sale of tobacco
products to individuals under 18 years of age.
(b) The amount of funds to be committed by a State under
subsection (a) shall be equal to 1 percent of such State's
substance abuse block grant allocation for each percentage
point by which the State misses the retailer compliance rate
goal established by the Secretary of Health and Human
Services under section 1926 of such Act.
(c) The State is to maintain State expenditures in fiscal
year 2008 for tobacco prevention programs and for compliance
activities at a level that is not less than the level of such
expenditures maintained by the State for fiscal year 2007,
and adding to that level the additional funds for tobacco
compliance activities required under subsection (a). The
State is to submit a report to the Secretary on all fiscal
year 2007 State expenditures and all fiscal year 2008
obligations for tobacco prevention and compliance activities
by program activity by July 31, 2008.
(d) The Secretary shall exercise discretion in enforcing
the timing of the State obligation of the additional funds
required by the certification described in subsection (a) as
late as July 31, 2008.
(e) None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be used
to withhold substance abuse funding pursuant to section 1926
of the Public Health Service Act from a territory that
receives less than $1,000,000.
Sec. 214. In order for the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention to carry out international health activities,
including HIV/AIDS and other infectious disease, chronic and
environmental disease, and other health activities abroad
during fiscal year 2008:
(1) The Secretary of Health and Human Services (in this
section referred to as the ``Secretary of HHS'') may exercise
authority equivalent to that available to the Secretary of
State in section 2(c) of the State Department Basic
Authorities Act of 1956 (22 U.S.C. 2669(c)). The Secretary of
HHS shall consult with the Secretary of State and relevant
Chief of Mission to ensure that the authority provided in
this section is exercised in a manner consistent with section
207 of the Foreign Service Act of 1980 (22 U.S.C. 3927) and
other applicable statutes administered by the Department of
State.
(2) The Secretary of HHS is authorized to provide such
funds by advance or reimbursement to the Secretary of State
as may be necessary to pay the costs of acquisition, lease,
alteration, renovation, and management of facilities outside
of the United States for the use of the Department of Health
and Human Services. The Department of State shall cooperate
fully with the Secretary of HHS to ensure that the Department
of Health and Human Services has secure, safe, functional
facilities that comply with applicable regulation governing
location, setback, and other facilities requirements and
serve the purposes established by this Act. The Secretary of
HHS is authorized, in consultation with the Secretary of
State, through grant or cooperative agreement, to make
available to public or nonprofit private institutions or
agencies in participating foreign countries, funds to
acquire, lease, alter, or renovate facilities in those
countries as necessary to conduct programs of assistance for
international health activities, including activities
relating to HIV/AIDS and other infectious diseases, chronic
and environmental diseases, and other health activities
abroad.
Sec. 215. (a) Authority.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the Director of the National Institutes of
Health (in this section referred to as the ``Director of
NIH'') may use funds available under section 402(b)(7) or
402(b)(12) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
282(b)(7), 282(b)(12)) to enter into transactions (other than
contracts, cooperative agreements, or grants) to carry out
research identified pursuant to such section 402(b)(7)
(pertaining to the Common Fund) or research and activities
described in such section 402(b)(12).
(b) Peer Review.--In entering into transactions under
subsection (a), the Director of the NIH may utilize such peer
review procedures (including consultation with appropriate
scientific experts) as the Director determines to be
appropriate to obtain assessments of scientific and technical
merit. Such procedures shall apply to such transactions in
lieu of the peer review and advisory council review
procedures that would otherwise be required under sections
301(a)(3), 405(b)(1)(B), 405(b)(2), 406(a)(3)(A), 492, and
494 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 241(a)(3),
284(b)(1)(B), 284(b)(2), 284a(a)(3)(A), 289a, and 289c).
Sec. 216. Funds which are available for Individual Learning
Accounts for employees of the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (``CDC'') and the Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry (``ATSDR)'' may be transferred to ``Disease
Control, Research, and Training'', to be available only for
Individual Learning Accounts: Provided, That such funds may
be used for any individual full-time equivalent employee
while such employee is employed either by CDC or ATSDR.
Sec. 217. The Director of the National Institutes of Health
shall require that all investigators funded by the NIH submit
or have submitted for them to the National Library of
Medicine's PubMed Central an electronic version of their
final, peer-reviewed manuscripts upon acceptance for
publication, to be made publicly available no later than 12
months after the official date of publication: Provided, That
the NIH shall implement the public access policy in a manner
consistent with copyright law.
Sec. 218. Not to exceed $35,000,000 of funds appropriated
by this Act to the institutes and centers of the National
Institutes of Health may be used for alteration, repair, or
improvement of facilities, as necessary for the proper and
efficient conduct of the activities authorized herein, at not
to exceed $2,500,000 per project.
Sec. 219. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be
used to administer to any child under 3 years of age an
influenza vaccine during the 2008-2009 influenza season for
which thimerosal is listed on the labeling as an ingredient.
This title may be cited as the ``Department of Health and
Human Services Appropriations Act, 2008''.
TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Education for the Disadvantaged
For carrying out title I of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (``ESEA'') (20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.) and
section
[[Page H8013]]
418A of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070d-2),
$16,016,318,000, of which $7,698,807,000 shall become
available on July 1, 2008, and shall remain available through
September 30, 2009, and of which $8,136,218,000 shall become
available on October 1, 2008, and shall remain available
through September 30, 2009 for academic year 2008-2009:
Provided, That $6,808,971,000 shall be for basic grants under
section 1124 of ESEA (20 U.S.C. 6333): Provided further, That
up to $4,000,000 of these funds shall be available to the
Secretary of Education on October 1, 2007, to obtain annually
updated local educational-agency-level census poverty data
from the Bureau of the Census: Provided further, That
$1,365,031,000 shall be for concentration grants under
section 1124A of ESEA (20 U.S.C. 6334): Provided further,
That $3,094,562,000 shall be for targeted grants under
section 1125 of ESEA (20 U.S.C. 6335): Provided further, That
$3,094,260,000 shall be for education finance incentive
grants under section 1125A of ESEA (20 U.S.C. 6337): Provided
further, That $9,330,000 shall be to carry out sections 1501
and 1503 of ESEA (20 U.S.C. 6491, 6493): Provided further,
That $1,634,000 shall be available for a comprehensive school
reform clearinghouse.
Mr. FERGUSON. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the
request for a recorded vote on the Ferguson amendment be withdrawn.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New Jersey?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is adopted.
Amendment No. 36 Offered by Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 36 offered by Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of
Texas:
Page 77, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $46,500,000)''.
Page 77, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $46,500,000)''.
Page 83, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $46,500,000)''.
Page 83, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $46,500,000)''.
Page 83, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $46,500,000)''.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Chairman, I rise today with
an amendment to restore funding for the State grants portion of the
Safe Drug and Preschool and Communities program to the fiscal year 2007
level.
These grants are an essential part of drug prevention and funds
essential in effective services, including peer resistance and social
skills training, parent education, student assistance, and education
about emerging drug needs. This program serves 97 percent of our
Nation's schools, and it is the only program that provides funding for
universal prevention of all of our Nation's school-aged youth.
The success of this program has been documented by numerous States
and local agencies. It is extremely effective and has contributed to a
23 percent decline in drug use among youth over the past 5 years. It is
important to keep drug prevention as a priority. Historically, when
funding for drug prevention is cut, drug use amongst youth surges. This
program also provides coordinated school and community-based efforts to
target emerging drug trends among community members.
As a result, this program has made significant contributions to
reducing methamphetamine and black tar heroin use among school-aged
youth in many States throughout the country. Over the past 2 years, in
Dallas, Texas, we have had 23 teens die from overdoses of a black tar
heroin mixture that is called cheese with Tylenol PM, and we work with
DEA and local merchants and all around trying to get some handle on it.
But through the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities program,
local antidrug coalitions have partnered with schools throughout to
hold prevention conferences in order to combat this growing epidemic.
{time} 1200
They have targeted both students and parents to raise awareness
surrounding this issue and have also held town hall meetings for
teenagers. I have held one myself.
Without the infrastructure provided by this program, the antidrug
coalitions would have little if any access to these students and
parents, and the heroin problem would have undoubtedly increased.
This issue of emerging drug trends is not isolated. And while drug
use among school-age children has declined, emerging drug trends
continue to rise. We've recently seen new drugs aimed at our children,
such as the candy-flavored meth and cocaine in many States, including
Texas, California, Arkansas, Nevada, and Alabama. Without strong and
effective prevention programs, these growing epidemics will have a
devastating impact on the educational performance of students
nationwide.
As you're aware, drug prevention is critical to ensuring the overall
academic success of our youth. Studies have found that lower reading
and math scores are linked to peer substance abuse. Our Nation cannot
afford to see alcohol and drug use or violence rise above their current
levels.
I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment to restore the
funding for the Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities Program to
the 2007 level. $46.5 million was reduced, and, Madam Chairman, I do
have an offset. The offset for the Safe and Drug Free Schools and
Communities Program will come from the Reading First program.
The Reading First program has been mired by allegations of financial
conflicts of interest and cronyism and is currently under investigation
by the Department of Justice. The Office of Inspector General and the
U.S. Department of Education have found numerous legal and ethical
violations in how Reading First has steered funds toward favored
programs. There has been also conflicts of interest in hiring and the
promotion of commercial reading materials. This mismanagement has
already resulted in the program being cut by more than 60 percent of
fiscal year 2008.
Just a few examples of this mismanagement include the Office of
Inspector General found that the program administrator had improperly
promoted commercial reading programs potentially in violation of
Federal law. The Office of Inspector General analyzed hundreds of e-
mails and concluded that the Department's program officials failed to
maintain a controlled environment that exemplified management integrity
and accountability.
They found that the Madison School District in Wisconsin had
substantial data.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I move the adoption of this
amendment, Madam Chairman.
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 rise in opposition to this
amendment. I certainly can't support further cuts to the Reading First
program. It's been cut by $629 million. Further cutting this bill adds
insult to injury.
There have been problems with the program. There have been abuses.
And if laws have been broken, the Inspector General will bring charges
against those violators. But we shouldn't punish small children and
their teachers for those abuses.
We have a need in this country to teach children how to read. I don't
think anyone could deny that.
So Madam Chairman, for that reason, I will not support any further
cuts to a program that teaches those kids to read. And, in fact, I
suspect by the time we get to conference, when some of these issues are
clarified, we'll be adding money back to this program.
For that reason, I oppose the amendment.
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 from Wisconsin is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, let me simply say again, as I have several
times today, I am sympathetic to the goal of the gentlewoman's
amendment, and I appreciate the fact that she did not craft her
amendment in a way which would go after general departmental
administrative costs. I appreciate that concession on the part of the
gentlewoman.
[[Page H8014]]
Having said that, again, I will not personally object to the
amendment because I understand what she is trying to do. But I
definitely want to make clear what the gentleman from New York said,
that there's only so far that you can cut any of these programs.
I happen to have insisted on a very deep cut in Reading First because
of the abuse that occurred of the taxpayer funds in that account. But
having said that, it's our hope that, frankly, and the House needs to
know this, it's our hope that by the time we get to conference, we will
have worked out enough of an understanding with the administration
about the corrections that are needed so that we don't have to take the
deep cuts that are in the bill now. But we are not yet at that point,
so I think people who are bringing these amendments to the floor need
to understand that many of them will not survive, simply for the same
reason that I said earlier, that this bill is still short of the funds
necessary to fund deserving programs such as that pointed out by the
gentlewoman from Texas.
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 from Illinois is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I yield to the gentlelady from Texas.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Let me say to the gentleman who
objected, I truly understand his objection on the reading program.
However, statistics have shown that if these young people are under the
influence of drugs, that's where they fall. And if we could prevent
this drug usage, it probably will let some of the ability come through.
I know that it's difficult, but this is a very serious problem, and
these cuts will hurt very severely in areas, primarily in school
districts where we've had even young people having the ability to sell
drugs to another young person. Obviously, it's coming from somewhere
else.
But in Dallas, we have not found a single child that has experimented
with this ``cheese'' that has survived. And we do have parents
involved. We'll have to discontinue this program if we don't have these
funds. And I would just plead with you to help find these funds
somewhere, if you have a severe objection to it coming from this area.
But I felt that if the area's funding was not being handled
correctly, it could be placed in a program that's going very well, that
has influenced the decrease of 23 percent drug usage among our youth in
the last 5 years. And I have grave concern about allowing this to go on
without the assistance that's needed.
As I said earlier, I have worked with the FBI. They're working with
merchants to try to get some of the Tylenol PM and the other off the
market in these areas. It is a serious undertaking in the area. And all
of our law enforcement people are involved.
But our schools cannot continue this without the funding. And that's
the reason why I plead for understanding for this funding.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Rhode Island is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam Chairman, I just want to commend the lady from
Texas for her amendment, and say that I know how many years she spent
before coming to Congress dedicated to this issue.
We had a hearing in her district around this issue of mental health
and addiction and alcoholism, and we heard from the law enforcement
community themselves in her district testify to the fact that over 70
percent of the children in the juvenile justice system were there
because of drugs and alcohol. And, frankly, this is a scourge on our
schools, and we can't just wish it away by saying, just say no. Just
say no won't work. We need to employ resources, and that's what this
bill, this amendment, seeks to do.
And, frankly, when you have 20 million people in this country
addicted, and you have nearly 10 percent of those people, children, you
have a serious problem in this country. We better get about trying to
address it, and this amendment seeks to try to do that. And I commend
the gentlelady for her amendment and support it.
Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Walsh of New York
Mr. WALSH of New York. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Walsh of New York:
On page 78, line 3, before the period insert the following:
``Provided further, That for the purpose of determining
adequate yearly progress for a specific school or school
district, the Secretary shall include English language
proficiency scores for students deemed to be English language
learners only after such students complete their third year
of instruction in English as a second language''
Mr. WALSH of New York (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
New York?
There was no objection.
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 York is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. WALSH of New York. Madam Chairman, my amendment, which I intend
to withdraw, is very simple. It would prohibit the Department of
Education from counting test scores for English language learners
against school districts until after the student completes 3 years of
English language instruction.
In our subcommittee's hearing, with Secretary Spellings, I raised
some concerns regarding English Language Arts Test that student
learning to speak English as a second language were given this year.
In my home State, there are over 192,000 immigrant students learning
English, the majority of whom are in kindergarten through third grade.
In the city of Syracuse, my hometown, we have an elementary school in
which 43 percent of the kids are English language learners learning
English as a second language.
I recognize that there are benefits to monitoring ELL student
achievement on an annual basis. But school systems should not be
penalized for student scores after only 1 year of instruction.
I'd like to state emphatically that we need to make sure that all of
our kids speak and read English proficiently. It is essential to their
ability to compete in a very competitive society and a very competitive
world. And it is essential to the long-term viability of the American
culture that we can all speak to each other in the same tongue.
But I've learned other languages myself, some better than others, and
it took me more than 1 year to be considered proficient.
Let's not punish our schools, declaring them failing, before they've
spent enough time to teach English thoroughly to our kids. So although
I intend to withdraw this amendment, it would be my hope that Chairman
Miller and Ranking Member McKeon are aware of this problem and will
take steps to address it when we reauthorize No Child Left Behind.
Mr. OBEY. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. WALSH of New York. I would be happy to yield to the chairman.
Mr. OBEY. I want to underscore that I agree with my friend from New
York and to emphasize that in parts of my own State, school districts
face similar problems. In fact, I would bet this problem exists all
over the country.
Furthermore, I understand that school districts face a similar issue
with respect to the test scores of students receiving special education
services. So I'd like to suggest to the gentleman from New York that we
sign a joint letter to the authorizing committee requesting that they
address this serious issue in the No Child Left Behind reauthorization
that they're expected to soon consider.
[[Page H8015]]
Mr. WALSH of New York. Reclaiming my time, I would be pleased to join
with my chairman in signing that letter, and thank him for his support,
knowing that as chairman of the full committee and of the subcommittee,
his voice will be heard on the authorization committee.
Mr. SHADEGG. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WALSH of New York. I'd be happy to yield.
Mr. SHADEGG. I understand the gentleman intends to withdraw the
amendment. However, I want to rise in strong support of the amendment.
As the gentleman knows, we live on opposite sides of the country, you
in New York and I in Arizona. But the essence of your amendment says we
should not be judging these schools until they've had a chance to, in
fact, educate these children in a second language. And judging them
after only 12 months, as the gentleman clearly pointed out, is
unrealistic and punishing the school, which means to punish all the
students at that school and all the parents of those students and all
of the teachers and administration officials at that school by
evaluating those children and holding them accountable after only 12
months is unrealistic.
I would be happy to join in your letter, and I commend the gentleman
for offering the amendment.
Mr. WALSH of New York. I thank the gentleman very much for his vote
of confidence in the amendment. I would be happy to work with him on
that communication with the authorization committee.
Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Impact Aid
For carrying out programs of financial assistance to
federally affected schools authorized by title VIII of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
7701 et seq.), $1,278,453,000, of which $1,140,517,000 shall
be for basic support payments under section 8003(b) of such
Act (20 U.S.C. 7703(b)), $49,466,000 shall be for payments
for children with disabilities under section 8003(d) of such
Act (20 U.S.C. 7703(d)), $17,820,000 shall be for
construction under section 8007(a) of such Act (20 U.S.C.
7707(a)), $65,700,000 shall be for Federal property payments
under section 8002 of such Act (20 U.S.C. 7702), and
$4,950,000, to remain available until expended, shall be for
facilities maintenance under section 8008 of such Act (20
U.S.C. 7708): Provided, That for purposes of computing the
amount of a payment for an eligible local educational agency
under section 8003(a) of such Act (20 U.S.C. 7703(a)) for
school year 2007-2008, children enrolled in a school of such
agency that would otherwise be eligible for payment under
section 8003(a)(1)(B) of such Act, but due to the deployment
of both parents or legal guardians, or a parent or legal
guardian having sole custody of such children, or due to the
death of a military parent or legal guardian while on active
duty (so long as such children reside on Federal property as
described in section 8003(a)(1)(B) of such Act), are no
longer eligible under such section, shall be considered as
eligible students under such section, provided such students
remain in average daily attendance at a school in the same
local educational agency they attended prior to their change
in eligibility status.
School Improvement Programs
For carrying out school improvement activities authorized
by title II (20 U.S.C. 6601 et seq.), part B of title IV (20
U.S.C. 7171 et seq.), part A of title V (20 U.S.C. 7201 et
seq.) and subparts 6 and 9 of part D of title V (20 U.S.C.
7253 et seq., 20 U.S.C. 7259 et seq.), part A of title VI (20
U.S.C. 7301 et seq.) and part B of title VI (20 U.S.C. 7341
et seq.), and part B of title VII (20 U.S.C. 7511 et seq.)
and part C of title VII (20 U.S.C. 7541 et seq.) of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (``ESEA'');
the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11301
et seq.); section 203 of the Educational Technical Assistance
Act of 2002 (20 U.S.C. 9602); the Compact of Free Association
Amendments Act of 2003 (48 U.S.C. 1921 et seq.); and the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000a et seq.),
$5,678,002,000, of which $4,059,441,000 shall become
available on July 1, 2008, and remain available through
September 30, 2009, and of which $1,435,000,000 shall become
available on October 1, 2008, and shall remain available
through September 30, 2009, for academic year 2008-2009:
Provided, That $411,630,000 shall be for State assessments
and related activities authorized under sections 6111 and
6112 of ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7301, 7301a): Provided further, That
up to 100 percent of the funds available to a State
educational agency under part D of title II of the ESEA (20
U.S.C. 6751 et seq.) may be used for subgrants described in
section 2412(a)(2)(B) of such Act (20 U.S.C. 6762(a)(2)(B)):
Provided further, That $56,257,000 shall be available to
carry out section 203 of the Educational Technical Assistance
Act of 2002: Provided further, That $34,376,000 shall be
available to carry out part D of title V of ESEA: Provided
further, That no funds appropriated under this heading may be
used to carry out section 5494 under ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7259c):
Provided further, That $18,001,000 shall be available to
carry out the Supplemental Education Grants program for the
Federated States of Micronesia and for the Republic of the
Marshall Islands: Provided further, That up to 5 percent of
these amounts may be reserved by the Federated States of
Micronesia and the Republic of the Marshall Islands to
administer the Supplemental Education Grants programs and to
obtain technical assistance, oversight, and consultancy
services in the administration of these grants and to
reimburse the United States Departments of Labor, Health and
Human Services, and Education for such services: Provided
further, That $3,000,000 of the funds available for the
Foreign Language Assistance Program shall be available for 5-
year grants to local educational agencies that would work in
partnership with one or more institutions of higher education
to establish or expand articulated programs of study in
languages critical to United States national security that
will enable successful students to advance from elementary
school through college to achieve a superior level of
proficiency in those languages.
amendment offered by mr. price of georgia
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Price of Georgia:
Page 80, line 2, after the first dollar amount and after
the second dollar amount, insert ``(reduced by
$21,000,000)''.
Page 82, line 6, after the first dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $21,000,000)''.
Page 82, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $21,000,000)''.
Page 82, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $21,000,000)''.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Chairman, this amendment is offered in an
effort to try to reprioritize monies between two separate funds related
to gaining high-quality teachers in our Nation, the Teacher Incentive
Fund and the Teacher Quality State Grants.
{time} 1215
The Teacher Incentive Fund, my amendment would increase the funding
for that by $21 million. When the 2007 fiscal year budget was adopted
or the appropriations bill adopted, receipt was $2 million. The request
from the President for this year was $199 million, and the bill before
us includes a provision for $99 million, $100 million less than the
President's request.
As opposed to the Teacher Quality State Grants, which received last
year $2.8 billion, the President's request was for $2.7 billion and the
bill before us includes a provision for $3.1 billion, $400 million more
than the request by the Department.
Teacher quality, Madam Chairman, is certainly the most important
school-related factor influencing student achievement. The No Child
Left Behind Act reflects this and one of the central tenets is putting
a highly qualified teacher in every classroom. Congress now has a
greater opportunity to take teacher quality initiatives a step further
by increasing funding for the Teacher Incentive Fund, a program that
rewards highly effective teachers and rewards results.
The Teacher Incentive Fund allows States and school districts to
apply for Federal grants in order to develop and implement performance-
based compensation systems for both teachers and principals. With the
Teacher Incentive Fund, educators who improve student achievement in
the classroom are provided with financial rewards such as bonuses and
increasing salaries. In 2006, the Teacher Incentive Fund and Congress
provided $100 million for the new program; however, in 2007 it received
only $2 million, and this is for a program that has shown very
successful and rewarding results.
There is certainly a need for the fund and to date 34 grantees have
received money. But the Department of Education has received nearly 150
applications. More resources would mean more districts would be able to
establish performance-based compensation systems.
Looking at the workforce, it is estimated that more than 2 million
teachers will need to be hired over the next decade. Research has shown
that performance pay can be effective at recruiting and retaining
highly qualified teachers. So the Teacher Incentive Fund will encourage
a talented pool of individuals to go into the field of teaching.
Again, this is a reprioritization, a movement of $21 million from the
[[Page H8016]]
Teacher Quality State Grants, which is slated to receive $3.1 billion
to the Teacher Incentive Fund, which would then receive $120 million.
By doing so, this money can be directly given to local districts to
create compensation systems and therefore recruit and reward
outstanding teachers. Nothing wrong with rewarding the best and
brightest when it comes to educating our children.
I urge adoption of the amendment.
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 rise to support the
gentleman from Georgia in his amendment. And the overall focus of his
amendment is to do two things, first of which is what Congress should
be asked to do by all of our constituents in all our districts from all
across this country, and that is to take their hard-earned dollars that
they send to us in the form of tax revenue and to prioritize them into
the most efficient manner and into the most efficient programs and into
the most efficient methodologies in order to get those programs
effectuated for the good of the citizens. And that is what this
amendment does.
In accord with the opinion of the administration, there are a number
of programs now in existence essentially attempting to do the same
thing. Here with regard to education, essentially trying to lift up the
quality of education in this country, a laudable goal obviously;
secondly, to lift up the quality of teachers in the classroom, again a
laudable goal obviously. But we are asked to prioritize this to make
sure that those dollars actually get to those programs and effectively
down to the teachers, where it can do the most good. The gentleman from
Georgia's amendment would do just that.
One of the fundamental flaws in the No Child Left Behind program is
to take away the issue of authority and local control from the
frontlines, and that is the classroom and that is the teacher, and
shift it someplace else. The fundamental flaw with No Child Left Behind
is to say that the parents should not be involved in making the
decisions or the teachers should not be the ones making the ultimate
decisions on how we educate our children, but it should be the
bureaucrats down in Washington and unelected at that.
We need believe that the focus should be shifted back to the parents,
back to the teachers, for those who are the people on the frontlines,
those are the people who are having the day-to-day interaction with our
children.
When you think about it, if you have kids in school or if you have
neighbors with kids in school and they have a problem in the classroom,
where is the first place that they go to to try to resolve that
problem? They go into the schoolhouse and into the classroom and talk
to the teacher. They want to get to the bottom of it right then and
there. And ultimately it is a matter of making sure that that teacher
is the best qualified teacher that you can actually have in that
classroom.
Parents do not go to Washington, DC, and speak with the U.S.
Department of Education to try to resolve some difficulty they have in
their classroom. Parents do not come down here to speak with the
Secretary of Education to deal with difficulties they have in their
classroom. They go to the teacher. And they sit down and work things
out to try to get to the heart of it and the root of the cause of the
problem.
And the gentleman from Georgia realizes this. And he realizes that in
order to make a better classroom where more learning can occur, where
we can have better schoolhouses and classrooms, where we can raise up
the quality of education, it is to raise up the quality of our
teachers. The gentleman from Georgia's amendment does just that by
ending programs that are ineffective, ineffectual, and don't get the
job done, and transfers them over to those programs that do get the job
done. In this matter we should all be commending the gentleman and
support his amendment.
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 from Wisconsin is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I must confess a certain degree of
confusion about this amendment. I always had the impression that good
Republicans like block grants, and I also had the impression that
thoughtful Republicans favor as much local control as possible. And yet
this amendment would have us running in the opposite direction.
What this amendment would do is it would take the dollars in question
out of a program which provides aid to all States in the Union and
instead reserve that money for use in just the few States who have
bought into the approach that is supported by these two gentlemen.
One of my favorite quotations is from Eric Sevareid, who used to be
on CBS News a few years ago, and he said, ``It is important to maintain
the courage of one's doubts in an age of dangerous certainties.''
And I have to say that I have a lot of doubts about what is the most
effective way to teach children. I don't think I have all the answers.
I don't think this House has all the answers. So I don't think we ought
to be dictating to States what answers they seek in their teacher
quality programs.
The virtue of the committee approach, as opposed to the approach
suggested by the amendment, is that States can use the money in the
block grant as it is provided in the committee bill and they can use it
for any variety of techniques, including the one that is being promoted
by the two gentlemen pushing this amendment. It seems to me that at a
time when we are already questioning the rigidity of No Child Left
Behind, and I must confess I voted for No Child Left Behind but with
serious reservations and I will not vote to renew it unless those
reservations are corrected, but it just seems to me that at a time when
we are recognizing that No Child Left Behind is needlessly rigid, we
should not be piling on to that rigidity with additional pieces of our
own.
So with that I would simply urge Members to allow States to continue
to have the flexibility that they have under the committee approach,
and I would urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HENSARLING. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia, the sponsor of
the amendment.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I appreciate the Chair's comments and I agree with him that we don't
have all the answers. I would suggest, however, that what this
amendment does is more appropriately prioritize moneys based upon the
concerns and recommendation of the Department of Education. The
fundamental difference between the two programs, the Teacher Quality
State Grants, which is a program that in many areas gets excellent
results, the differences are two that this amendment addresses:
One is that the overwhelming portion of the money that is available
has been put into the Teacher Quality State Grants, moving from $2.8
billion last year to $3.1 billion this year, as opposed to the Teacher
Incentive Fund, which would move from a high of $100 million in the
last 2 years to $99 million this year, in essence a flat
appropriations.
The other main difference is that the Teacher Incentive Fund rewards
results. It rewards performance. It rewards teachers and schools who
are actually gaining those high quality results that we desire for all
students across our Nation.
So I would respectfully disagree with the Chair, that this is not
prescriptive in its formula and the only rigidity that it has in it is
that it requires results. So, hopefully, the House will see that the
sense in looking at performance, looking at quality teachers, looking
at what they are doing in the classroom and the results that they are
getting, and rewarding that kind of performance makes sense. I would
suggest that that is what most of us have said at home when we talk to
our constituents and that this amendment aligns
[[Page H8017]]
the actions of this House with what we have told our constituents we
would be supporting here in the House of Representatives.
So I appreciate the time, and I encourage, again, my colleagues to
support this amendment.
Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the
gentleman for his leadership. I compliment him on the amendment. I urge
its adoption.
Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. REGULA. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. REGULA. First of all, Madam Chairman, I want to express my
appreciation to the chairman of the committee for including funding for
the teacher incentive fund. It is so vitally important to the inner
cities to be able to attract the best teachers and this fund can be
used by school districts to do just that.
Too often in the school systems, the best teachers tend to flee to
the suburbs and they also flee to the good schools. Where we really
need the top notch teachers are in the inner cities because our cities
are really facing a crisis in the sense that their percentage of those
who do not finish high school is growing and is a terrible waste of
human capital. We can't afford that.
And one of the important things is to get these students in the early
years, first grade, kindergarten, second grade, third grade, to like
school and to like to learn, and that takes a quality teacher. And this
program, and thanks to the chairman we have the 99 million dollars and
this proposal for some additional, allows schools to give some
financial incentives to the really top notch teachers to take on that
responsibility.
I have an instance in my district where a handicapped teacher has
inspired a class in a low-income neighborhood and it has made a world
of difference in the lives of these young people.
So I just want to express, again, my appreciation to the chairman and
for the interest of the gentleman from Georgia in the Teacher Incentive
program because I think it is one of the vital challenges in addressing
the dropout rate in the big cities to ensure that these students get a
taste for education and they enjoy the experience and they stay with
it. I am hopeful that the States will use these funds in that way, to
give incentives to the very best teachers to go into the toughest areas
and inspire young people.
I will add that the Teach for America program does a great job in
that respect because they send their Teach for America candidates into
very difficult situations.
I hope that we can address the dropout rate prospectively when we
have a nation where 31 percent statistically do not finish high school
and we know it is much larger in the cities. So there is the challenge,
and this program, which the chairman was gracious enough to include in
the original bill, is one of the keys to addressing that problem. So I,
again, commend the chairman and also the gentleman from Georgia for
their concern to inspire and make it attractive for the quality
teachers to teach in difficult situations.
The teacher is where it is. If you ask any group, as I do when I give
a speech, how many of you had a teacher, maybe two that made a
difference in your life? And every hand will go up, and that says so
eloquently that we want to have teachers in the toughest situations
where their students will at some time in the future say, yes, I had a
teacher that made a difference in my life.
{time} 1230
That's why I'm here. That's why I finished high school. That's why I
press on.
I went into a charter school where there was a Teach for America
Teachers and it was in one of the toughest parts of the city. And the
teacher there said, as we walked through the door, these were fifth
graders, ``What do we do in 2010 or 2011?'' Without missing a beat,
every student said, ``We go to college.'' Now, if I had done that 5
years ago or 3, they would have said, ``What? What do we do? I don't
know. Drop out, probably.''
So I want to again commend the chairman for many parts of this bill
that are important to giving teachers inspiration and making schools
better so that whomever is here 25 years from now will not be saying
that 31 percent of the students in the United States drop out. We can
ill afford that in the competitive world in which we live.
Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. 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 Georgia will be
postponed.
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:
Page 80, line 2, after each dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $33,907,000)''.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Chairman, I rise today to offer an
amendment that mirrors the President's budget request to eliminate
funding in the bill for the Alaskan Native Education Equity Program. By
so doing this, it will save our Nation's taxpayers $33.9 million.
Now, as with many of the programs that you will be hearing us
discussing both yesterday and today and in the future, this program
does, in fact, support a worthwhile goal, and that is providing
additional educational services to Alaskan Natives. The services
provided to Alaskan Natives that are students through this program,
however, are redundant of many of the other types of programs that are
provided through various other agencies, most notably through the
Department's other education programs.
See, our funding priorities must be exactly that. When we come
together as a conference and then as a body to support appropriation
bills, we are called upon by the American taxpayers to set those
things, priorities, just as the American family budget is created each
day, each week, each month in American families across their country
and they sit down at their kitchen table to decide what are their
priorities when it comes to spending their hard-earned dollars.
They have educational interests in mind as well. They may have
children that they have to decide whether they're going to be sending
them to college this year or next, to a high-priced college or a
moderate-priced college, et cetera. They have to set priorities when it
comes to how much money will they be able to set aside in their savings
account for educational purposes. Or if their kids are in a K-12
system, whether it's public school or private school, likewise, the
American public has to set their own priorities, decide how much money
they can set aside if they choose to send their kids to a private
school. Or if their kids are going to a public school, how much money
will they set aside so that they can spend on their children when it
comes to educational purposes for extracurricular activities or
supplements to the school program.
American families are called upon to do this every single day, every
single week of the year with their budget. And all we are asking right
now is that the U.S. Congress and the Senate do the exact same thing
with their hard-earned tax dollars that they've entrusted to us. In
this matter, what we are doing is saying we have several programs, the
same laudable goals. We are eliminating one and shifting the dollars to
the another so that the program gets done.
I would now like to bring my colleagues' attention to a recent report
by the Nonpartisan Tax Foundation. This report details how much money
each State taxpayer contributes in Federal dollars and how much money
each State taxpayer receives back. This is very interesting, especially
if you come from the State of New Jersey, as I do.
According to this report, Alaska, which is the subject of this
amendment, ranks second in the Nation, getting $1.80 back for every $1
that the
[[Page H8018]]
taxpayers up there pay in Federal taxes. In contrast, my good State of
New Jersey ranks dead last. We receive back a paltry 63 cents back for
every dollar that a New Jersey taxpayer sends to Washington. What does
that mean? That means that New Jersey taxpayers, working just as hard
as the taxpayers up in the great State of Alaska are, are sending one
dollar in with their paycheck each week, or multiple dollars as it is.
But at the end of the day, when they see how Congress appropriates
those dollars, New Jerseyans find out that they're only getting back 63
cents on the dollar.
Conversely, we look up to Alaska, the subject of this amendment. How
much does every taxpayer get back from the dollar that they contribute
to the good of the country and the State? They get back $1.80. It's a
fairness issue, quite honestly, Madam Chairman. Where are our dollars
going?
And with the new Democratic majority passing the largest tax increase
in American history recently in its budget, the burden on New Jersey
taxpayers will only continue to rise. Yet at the same time, we are
providing nearly $40 million for redundant services in a State that is
already nearly on a 2-1 ratio on every dollar that it sends to
Washington.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Let me just finish this thought.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I have a parliamentary inquiry, Madam
Chairman. There is a problem with the amendment that is at the desk.
The CHAIRMAN. Will the gentleman from New Jersey yield for a
parliamentary inquiry?
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I am not yielding. I am finishing my
thought.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Chairman, and I will be brief, we
must remember that every dollar that we send to Washington comes out of
that proverbial ``family budget'' that I referenced before. So when
duplicate programs like this come before us, we should put ourselves in
the shoes of the family in the same situation.
So, do you think that families would go out, families from the other
side of the aisle would go out and spend their hard-earned tax dollars
on a month's worth of groceries and then go out and eat every single
night of the week? I don't think so. That would be duplicative. They
would be spending money on the exact same thing. American families
don't do that; neither should Congress. That doesn't make much sense to
me, Madam Chairman, and quite frankly, neither does the funding of
multiple Federal programs do the same.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5
minutes.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Madam Chairman, I have a parliamentary
inquiry before the gentleman begins.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Madam Chairman, at the desk, the amendment
that the gentleman was speaking to concerned Native Hawaiians, but the
gentleman spoke about Alaskans. And I asked the Clerk if he had the
amendment that the gentleman was speaking about on Native Alaskans and
he said he did not have that amendment. So I'm trying to figure out,
are we responding to the Native Hawaiian language for $33,907,000,
which is what is at the desk, or the gentleman's argument about
Alaskans, which is not at the desk? And that is my inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Clerk will re-report the
amendment.
The Clerk read the amendment.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Madam Chairman, that's about Hawaiians.
The CHAIRMAN. Did the Clerk report the intended amendment?
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Chairman, there are two amendments
at the desk. The amendment that I was speaking on is my amendment,
which goes to the issue of Native Alaskans. The gentleman may be
referring to another subsequent amendment that will later on refer to
Native Hawaiians. It's the same page, same line, same dollar amount, so
I can understand the confusion.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I thank the Chair.
Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have
remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 5 minutes remaining.
Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, let me simply say that I have only been to
Alaska once in my life. I have certainly never been in an Alaskan
school. But my grandfather taught me a long time ago, and I'm sure you
have heard this many times in your own lives, but he used to say that
nothing is more expensive in the long run than a badly educated child.
And I don't care if that child comes from New Jersey or Wisconsin or
Hawaii or Alaska, a badly educated child is a menace to society. Why,
just imagine a badly educated child could grow up to be elected as a
Member of Congress from New Jersey or Wisconsin. They could come into
this Chamber filled full of all sorts of half-baked ideas, and the
Congress would be plagued with having to spend hours and hours dealing
with those ideas. I'm sure I've presented a few of the bad ideas myself
to this House in that time.
The point is that Alaska may seem remote and far away, but the fact
is that there are special children who do have special needs. Does
anyone really believe that we are spending enough on Indian education
programs around the whole country, for instance? And yet, we're told by
the administration that we ought to eliminate the program for Alaska
Native students because they benefit from the Indian education
programs. Well, I've got tribes in my own State, and I know how
inadequate some of those schools are, though they're trying the best
they can.
I would simply say that if the authorizing committee wants to
deauthorize this program, then fine, but I see no purpose right now in
singling out one special group of children for exclusion from this bill
and this account. I can think of a lot of things that go on in Alaska
that I would just assume see stopped before I would see them stop
educating children with special needs. I wish that they would take a
different approach, for instance, on their highway aids. I think that
their lack of judgment on that score has embarrassed the entire
Congress. But I don't think that the Indian children or the Native
Alaskan children who are educated under this should wind up being the
principal victims of that action by the State of Alaska.
I sense in this House that people are touchy about voting for
anything for Alaska since that happened. Well, I don't want these kids
to be unlucky enough to run into accidents that started out to happen
to somebody else. So it seems to me that the wise course is to reject
the gentleman's amendment and allow the authorizing committee to
determine whether or not this program ought to continue or not.
Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. I would like to recognize my good friend from New
Jersey.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman from Georgia.
And let me just begin to reference the chairman's comment as far as
whether we should be excluding one set of children from this. Well,
that's exactly the point; I believe that we should not be excluding any
children. And the language in the bill that is before us right now
excludes the children of 49 other States.
{time} 1245
As the Representative of the Fifth District of New Jersey, I am
concerned. I come to the floor because this underlying bill excludes
the children from the State of New Jersey with this special extra
funding. Let me assure the gentleman there are children with special
needs in the State of New Jersey, and there are children with special
needs in the State of Wisconsin as well.
[[Page H8019]]
They are excluded from the Alaska Native Education Program. I am trying
to bring fairness to the overall program, which is also what the
administration is trying to do.
Let me make that point by sharing with you this comment. The Alaska
Native Education Program is authorized by the ESEA of 1965 and they are
subject to the reauthorization. But the administration was not
recommending reauthorization and, accordingly, funded it at zero. The
administration, as do I, recognizes the importance of ensuring that the
Alaska Native students receive appropriate educational services. This
request is consistent with the administration policy of increasing
resources for high-priority programs by eliminating small categorical
programs that have a limited effect, such as this.
In addition, the services provided to Alaska Native students through
this program are redundant with many of the programs through the
Department's Indian Education Program already being funded.
School districts that wish to implement programs and services
tailored to the educational and cultural needs of the Alaska Native
students are able to use funds already provided under other Federal
programs in the 2008 budget. That includes $1 billion in direct support
for the education of Indians and Alaska Natives in addition to the
significant funds that are provided to those students who receive
services through broader Federal programs; grant programs such as title
I grants to local educational agencies and special grants.
Further, let me point this out as well: Alaska Native students will
also benefit in addition to $1 billion that I also already referenced.
They will also benefit from the Department of Indian Education
Programs, which provide more than $118 million, $118 million, in
formula grants to school districts and competitive grants for
demonstration and professional development programs as well.
You see, these programs already serve as the Department's principal
vehicle for addressing those unique educational and culture-related
needs which the gentleman from Wisconsin is referring to.
The bottom line is there are already programs established that
address those concerns that the gentleman from Wisconsin raises. The
administration recognized this and already requested appropriations of
$1 billion overall, plus the $118 million in special formula grants.
So it is our position, in line with the administration, that we do
need to address those specific needs of those children who are in
unique circumstances such as we find with Native American Indians in
Alaska. But we do not need to do it in a redundant manner.
Finally, I would just conclude by saying the gentleman from Wisconsin
is correct. We do not want to have children not being educated,
regardless of what State they come from, whether it is from New Jersey,
the good State of Georgia, the good State of Wisconsin or Alaska. But
we are not doing the children any favor whatsoever if we do not
appropriate the dollars in a manner that effectively gets that job
done. This amendment works to effectuate and ensure those kids get
properly educated.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. I want to thank my friend from New Jersey for
offering this amendment. I hope this House will see fit to pass it.
But let me say this: I think as we talk about children and education,
that from my background, and I have a high school education, I attended
college for a short period of time prior to being married, but let me
say this: What I have found is that education is best from the local
level, and I don't know that the Federal Government can really take
some of these programs and put them down into a local school district
and say here is this money, use it for this purpose or you don't get
the money.
To me, it would be much better if some of this money were set down in
a block grant to the State and let the State identify the problems and
especially the funding problems that they have and be able to
administer the money.
Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Hawaii is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Madam Chairman, I am standing here today speaking
for young people in Alaska. I am sure that when Mr. Young gets the
opportunity, he will be down here to speak for them, too.
I wasn't aware of the fact that the young children in Alaska needed
the tender mercies of the gentleman from New Jersey to speak for them.
I would think that the children in New Jersey have all they can do,
considering the level of the rhetoric I have heard for the last few
minutes, to get the best education possible there. The Congress is
certainly not being well informed about it today.
I most certainly agree with the other gentleman who said that
education is best left to the local level. How about letting the
gentleman from Alaska, or any other place where they understand what
the educational needs of their children are, handle it at their level?
That would be the way to take care of it.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. No, I will not yield. You had more than enough time
to make your case.
Madam Chairman, I am going to make a case for those children and the
children in Hawaii and the children in every other State and area in
this country who deserve the support of this Congress. I have heard
talk already down here today about taxes being paid. You don't think
taxes are being paid in Alaska or in Hawaii or elsewhere?
When you talk about local programs, I have the local programs that we
have in Hawaii. I am sure Mr. Young has the local programs that we have
in Alaska. I haven't examined them in New Jersey, but, as I say, I have
heard the rhetoric for the last few minutes. Maybe I had better go up
there and give them a hand.
Now, I respect every Member of this floor, and I expect to receive
the same in return. When the State of Hawaii came into the Union, one
of the protocols of the Admissions Act is the requirement that we
recognize and take care of our Hawaiian children. We have programs that
are geared towards that. We have Historically Black Colleges in this
country. We have established over the past few decades studies in
various backgrounds, ethnically, culturally, racially. We have caucuses
in this Congress that recognize the various backgrounds from which our
people come.
Hawaii, I can tell you, just as Alaska is, because I have visited
Alaska and have had an opportunity to speak with the teachers and
schoolchildren in Alaska, we are a multi-cultural, multi-racial, multi-
ethnic country. We are a multi-racial, multi-ethnic, multi-background,
rainbow state in Hawaii, and we recognize those backgrounds and we try
to take care of it in our educational processes.
All we are asking for is the opportunity here to help fund local
programs that have local assistance as well. That is done in program
after program after program.
Now, if the gentleman does not care to have the Federal Government
fund anything for education in the United States, that is his
prerogative. I recognize that and respect that. I don't approve of it,
and I hope the Congress won't approve of it. But to have any Member
come into another State without any notice to anybody that they are
going to do it, by the way, a courtesy that I would extend to anybody
in here, I have to find out about it by osmosis that this is being
done, it is shameful and it needs to be stopped and it needs to have an
end put to it.
Now, if the gentleman has specific objections to anything being done
in Alaska, he should have taken it up with the gentleman from Alaska.
That is minimum courtesy in this body. But to come on the floor and
make the kind of accusations that are made today is an insult to the
gentleman from Alaska and an insult to the Appropriations Committee and
an insult to the House of Representatives.
If there are objections to anything in the next one that comes up, I
hope that whoever offers that amendment with Hawaii would have had the
courtesy to sit down with me and with Representative Hirono and
specifically state what
[[Page H8020]]
their objections were, so that we might be able to accommodate them,
had they legitimacy and foundation. That is the minimum we can expect
from one another.
This is a shameful process. I hadn't realized until right now that we
could solve the educational problems in this country if we could just
keep those Alaskan kids from getting a dime for any program that has
been put together by Representative Young and the local educators in
Alaska.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
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 thank the Chair, and I
appreciate the gentleman's passion. I would suggest, however, that each
of us are elected to this House to determine best how we should use our
vote, to either concur or disagree with the manner in which this body
spends hard-working American taxpayer money. So I wouldn't criticize
anybody for coming to the floor and providing their assessment of
priorities as to where they believe hard-earned American taxpayer money
ought to be spent.
I am pleased to yield to my good friend from New Jersey for a
comment.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman from Georgia, and I
would just make reference to the gentleman from Hawaii. I believe he
misstates the intent of the legislation here when he says that the
intent is to make sure that Alaska or Hawaii, and this bill is only on
Alaska, does not get a dime. As my testimony indicated, Alaska will
continue to get more than a dime, as the President's budget request
included $1 billion in direct support for the education of Indian and
Alaskan Natives. That is more than one dime.
Native Alaskans will also get $118 million in formula grants to
school districts, competitive grants for demonstration and professional
development programs. That is more than one dime.
Finally, to the gentleman from Hawaii's first point, which he agreed
with the previous comment that education is best done locally and that
the folks of Alaska know best about how to educate their children and
the folks from Hawaii know best how to educate their children, I would
presume he would agree the people from New Jersey also know how best to
educate their children.
I would ask the gentleman from Hawaii, if he truly believes that,
would he support our initiatives and my initiative in the LEARN Act to
allow States to opt out of the cumbersome regulations of education from
the Federal level and keep their dollars in Hawaii and keep their
dollars in Alaska so they would be in the best position to educate
their children.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank my friend for offering the amendment,
and I thank him for his explanation. There is no desire to remove all
funding in this area. That would be a different debate and a different
discussion. That is not the debate we are having right now.
Madam Chairman, I do want to point out the larger picture, the bigger
picture we are talking about here, and that is the issue of fiscal
responsibility and the issue of responsibly spending taxpayer money,
hard-earned American taxpayer money.
I was pleased to hear the chairman of the Appropriations Committee
say to the gentleman from New Jersey that if the committee determined
that those funds ought not be authorized, that they would be pleased to
remove those funds, or something like that.
I would point out to the gentleman and to my colleagues that on page
302, 303, 304, and 305 of the report of the Committee on
Appropriations, there is a paragraph that is headed ``Appropriations
Not Authorized By Law.'' I would suggest that we revisit these items
and require that they be authorized.
``Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1)(B) of rule XIII of the Rules the House,
the following table lists the appropriations in the accompanying
bill,'' this bill we are talking about right now, ``which are not
authorized by law for the period concerned.''
It may be helpful, Madam Chairman, for individuals to hear which ones
are not authorized, not talking about the quality of those programs or
the need for them, but the fact that this is a process that has come
about where we are appropriating money for many programs which are in
fact not authorized.
Department of Labor, for example, Training and Employment Services,
not authorized since 2003. Appropriations in this bill, $3.5 billion.
Not authorized in this bill, the Veterans Workforce Improvement
Program, not authorized since 2003. Appropriated in this bill, $1.649
billion.
{time} 1300
National Health Service Corps, not authorized since 2002, again not
talking about the appropriateness of the appropriation itself, but
whether or not the process is such that it ought not be authorized
prior to carrying out the appropriation. In this bill, $131 million.
Not authorized in this bill, Healthy Start, not authorized since
2005. In this bill, $120 million.
Not authorized in this bill, Rural Health Outreach Grants, not
authorized since 2006. Funding in this bill to a level of $52.9
million.
Not authorized in this bill, cancer registries, not authorized since
2003. In this bill, funded at the rate of $47.9 million.
Not authorized in this bill, oral health promotion, not authorized
since 2005. Funding in this bill, $13.1 million.
Not authorized in this bill, substance abuse and mental health
services programs, not authorized since 2003. Funding in this bill,
$3.26 billion.
Madam Chairman, the list goes on and on, and I draw my colleagues'
attention to it, because I would agree with the chairman of the
Appropriations Committee that we ought to be concerned about what is
authorized by the authorizing committees and whether or not
appropriations ought to be spent for items that are not authorized.
But the challenge for us is to spend responsibly, spend hard-earned
taxpayer money responsibly.
Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. I just want to thank the gentleman for bringing to the
attention of the House again the fact that the authorizing committees
have failed to do so much work in past years.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. My friends, this is a sad day in this body.
Apparently the students of New Jersey are trying to take money from
Alaskan students, pitting State against State instead of talking about
education.
I am a little bit chagrined with the gentleman from New Jersey. This
is supposed to be a House of honor. You didn't tell me you were going
to offer this amendment. You didn't talk to the gentleman from Hawaii
on the amendment. You are attacking two States that are not contiguous
to the United States. This is a harmful thing to do. We are a new
State. I have poverty that you don't even think of, and yet you say you
want my money, my money for my students that need to be educated to go
to New Jersey.
That is a sad day for this House.
I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member of the
Appropriations Committee for putting this in the bill. And if we
continue this, we will be called biting one another, very much like the
mink in my State that kill their own. There is always another day when
those who bite will be killed, too, and I am very good at that.
I just think it is a disgrace to have one State, the education of one
State, being pitted against another State. This is education. These are
needy students, a minority that has been neglected, has not been helped
to the degree they should have been over the centuries. I can
truthfully say and pridefully say we have been good in the last years,
over the last 35 years. I have provided education and supported
education. My people have risen and become leaders because this
Congress saw the wisdom of us providing us money.
And now we have an individual from a State that doesn't have the
greatest reputation in the world trying to take money from one State to
give to another State. If that is the case, then let's just all have a
big donnybrook right here. I'm ready. I'm really ready because what we
are doing is dead wrong.
[[Page H8021]]
I told the gentleman here about 2 years ago, shame on you. Shame on
you. Shame on each one of you. And the guys that are trying to not
spend money and the guys that are trying to balance the budget, to take
and attack education in States, Hawaii and Alaska, that have the least
representation as far as numbers go. And if there is guilt here, it is
because I have been able to represent my State better than New Jersey.
I would suggest New Jersey ought to elect some new Congressmen, I
suggest respectfully, that can do the job. I believe that is really
true. If they can't do the job, elect somebody new. I have done it. I
am going to continue to do it. I am going to fight for my State, and I
am going to fight for my State every time.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, is it appropriate for the
speaker to say that the people from New Jersey should be electing----
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Capuano). Does the gentleman from Alaska
yield for a parliamentary inquiry?
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I have not yielded. I will not yield.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I make a point of order.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Is it a violation of parliamentary decorum
by suggesting that a Member not be reelected in the State of New
Jersey?
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I don't know what the gentleman is talking
about. I just said they were not well represented. Respectfully, if I
can say that. I don't name anybody's name. I don't mention anybody. I
don't specifically mention any names. And that is not why.
For the rest of you that continue this constant harping on this floor
about cutting monies from other areas under the guise of balancing the
budget, I say shame on you, too. I say shame on you because we are not
doing the legislative process any good.
Regardless of who is in power in this House, Democrat or Republican,
we should be leading this Nation and we are at a standstill now. That
is one reason our ratings are very low, totally, and that is a shame.
Because we do have the work of this Nation that we should be doing and
we should be addressing and we should take care of it.
I don't agree with everything that side does. We should not always
agree on everything, but we should have the ability to get together and
solve problems and to legislate, and we have not done that. So I am a
little frustrated. And like I say, those that bite me will be bitten
back.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Parliamentary inquiry.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Is it appropriate political decorum for a
Member to say that he represents his State in a better manner than the
entire delegation of another State represents their State?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair is unable to rule on such remarks
after other debate has ensued.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Further parliamentary inquiry.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Is there a manner in which I can rephrase
the question so that the Chair will be able to answer the question or
comment on the previous speaker's statements?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair can only rule on such words if a
timely point of order is made.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I'm sorry, I didn't hear the last part.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair is unable to rule on words between
Members previously spoken in debate, absent a timely point of order or
demand that such words be taken down.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I have noticed that the last several
speakers on the House floor were rather strident in their comments,
engaged in ad hominem attacks and perhaps at least one of them could
have had their words taken down.
Having served in this body for several years, I have yet to discover
any direct correlation between the stridency with which one delivers
their message and the righteousness behind their cause.
Many have come here to say that somehow House decorum demands that
one speak to another Member before offering an amendment that somehow
may be injurious to their district's interests. In all of the years I
have served in this body, I have yet to have somebody come to me and
explain to me ahead of time how their amendment, how it impacts the
people in the Fifth Congressional District of Texas.
Yet every day we see something like the largest tax increase in
history, which certainly has a terrible impact on the hardworking
people of the Fifth Congressional District of Texas. Nobody sought out
my permission before they brought that particular piece of legislation
to the floor.
We have pieces of trade legislation, or it should be called anti-
trade legislation, coming to the floor, harming my cow-calf operators
in the Fifth District of Texas. Nobody seeks my permission or
acquiescence before that legislation is brought to the floor.
We have legislation imposing death taxes on people who have worked
their whole life to build small businesses in the Fifth Congressional
District of Texas. Nobody seeks my acquiescence or permission before
bringing that legislation to the floor.
I also noticed that an earlier speaker referred to the funds in this
amendment as ``my money.'' Well, isn't that a fascinating concept, ``my
money.'' I thought it was the taxpayers' money, many of whom reside in
the State of New Jersey. Many of whom reside in the State of Texas.
I am interested why we seem to have on top of all the other education
funds we have, and it is not exactly like this is an area of Federal
funding that has gone lacking, since 1995, the elementary and secondary
education budget function has increased 147 percent. That is about the
highest increase of any budget function in that period of time.
I wonder, Mr. Chairman, maybe we ought to go out and create a special
education fund for New Jersey and for Texas and for Arkansas and Maine
and New Hampshire. Why don't we create one for all 50 States. Then what
we can do is we can go ahead with the Democrats' plan for the largest
tax increase in history, and we can take all of this money away from
American families. Then Washington can keep, say, a third of it in
administration cost and waste and inefficiency, and then we can design
these programs with our State names on them, take credit for it, and
then hand it back to the taxpayers, whose money it is in the first
place.
So I want to salute the gentleman from New Jersey for his courage,
for his steadfast leadership on this issue, his dedication to
education, his dedication to fiscal responsibility, and for coming and
suffering these ad hominem attacks. That, Mr. Chairman, is what is
truly shameful about this particular moment.
I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman from Texas for
yielding for just a moment.
As the Representative from the Fifth District of the State of New
Jersey, I remind the gentleman from Alaska that the State of New Jersey
has 13 congressional Representatives from both sides of the aisle. And
so when the gentleman from Alaska makes reference to our
Representatives from the State of New Jersey not doing their job and
not appropriately representing the people of the State, I remind him
that it is an accusation not against simply this one gentleman who is
standing at the microphone right now proposing this one amendment, but
it is an entire body of 13 gentlemen from both sides of the aisle who I
say, and I commend both Representatives from the Democrat and the
Republican side of the aisle, for appropriately and admirably
representing the good citizens from the State of New Jersey.
My colleagues from the other 12 districts do not need to be defended
against these rash accusations by the gentleman from Alaska. But I do
come to the floor now to appropriately defend them, nonetheless.
[[Page H8022]]
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. FOXX. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
I also take up the comment that the gentleman from Texas was just
making reference to which the gentleman from Alaska stated in his
statement what was ``my money'' or it is Alaska's money. Well, maybe
that is the problem we have had in this Congress for too long, even
when Republicans were in the majority and now that the Democrats are
the majority, too. Too many Members of Congress see the dollars that we
appropriate here not as the taxpayers' dollar, but see it as their very
own personal checking account. Maybe that is the fundamental problem
that we have with why we spend more and more each year.
I remember when the Democrats were running for office this past
election. They were railing against the Republican Party, that we were
the party out of control, spending more and more and more. If they were
elected to office, they would come here and rein things in when it came
to spending. And I served on the Budget Committee when the Democrats
were in the minority, and how they railed against us from the other
side of the aisle. And at times I even agreed with them on some of the
charges that they made, that we were spending too much money.
And now when the Democrats take control, what do they do? Give us the
largest tax increase in U.S. history, and we see spending continue to
go through the roof. Where do those dollars come from? They come from
American taxpayers, from the family budgets, from men and women in
Alaska and New Jersey and across this country, working hard just to get
by, and yet they are being forced by the Democrats' tax increases to
send more dollars here to Washington.
When the gentleman from Alaska comes forth and says it is ``my
money,'' maybe that is why in some respects when there are projects
that are appropriated such as bridges to nowhere and the like, the
American public says that is our dollars going to Washington, and it
shouldn't be looked at for just such frivolous things as this.
{time} 1315
The amendment that's before us right now is an appropriate amendment
to say that the hard-earned tax dollars should go to programs that are
necessary but be spent in an effective manner.
Members from all 50 States see the need to educate our children.
Members from all 50 States, including the State of New Jersey, see the
need to deal with the issue of Alaska native students, and that is why
this administration has already requested appropriations of $1 billion
for that, $118 million in other categorical aids such as that. So all
we are doing is saying make sure that those dollars that come from New
Jersey and elsewhere are spent effectively.
Finally, to close on this point of ``my money,'' maybe the gentleman
from Alaska was not listening at the opening of my comments when I said
that New Jersey taxpayers send a dollar to Washington and only get 63
cents back on the dollar, whereas his constituents, yes, they do much
better. They send a dollar to Washington and then they get $1.80 back.
I would ask the gentleman from Alaska and other Members from the
Democrat side of the aisle, where do they think that other 80 cents on
the dollar is coming from? I will tell you it's coming from the good,
hardworking taxpayers from the State of New Jersey and Connecticut and
New York that are donor States to States like Alaska, that we are
subsidizing their programs.
I would ask the gentleman from Alaska to refrain from, therefore,
referring to it as his money. It is the taxpayers in the Fifth
Congressional District and the rest of New Jersey, whether you're in a
Democrat district or Republican district, who are helping fund these
programs.
Ms. FOXX. I want to just say I am very concerned when there is an
attitude here in the Congress that it is our money to spend. I want to
make sure that nobody ever forgets that we are the stewards of money
that we legally steal from the people of this country. We take it from
them under duress, and we have a tremendous responsibility to make sure
that that money is being spent well.
There's no such thing as Federal dollars. It's all money that belongs
to the American taxpayers, and we're up here confiscating a great deal
of their money and deciding how to spend it. And it's up to us to make
sure that we spend it very, very carefully and very, very fairly.
The Constitution provides for no role for the Federal Government in
education. We're already overstepping our bounds, and if we're going to
overstep our bounds, we better be extraordinarily careful in that
respect.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make a point here
because I think what just happened on this House floor 5 minutes ago
was extraordinary.
For a member of the Republican Party to get up and defend what has
happened here and the investments that we're making I think exposes
what's been going on here for the last several months, is that we have
a fringe group, Mr. Chairman, of Members of this Congress who
consistently get up and try to pin Members against each other, try to
find specific programs and somehow expose somebody as somehow being
irresponsible. And I think it's extraordinary what happened here, that
we have an extreme group in this Congress that consistently tries to
divide us when we're trying to get the people's work done.
This is the United States of America, and the gentleman from New
Jersey benefits from the Federal court system that helps Wall Street
thrive. It's the rule of law in this country that is funded by the
taxpayer, courts, judges, buildings, the rule of law, and that allows
Wall Street to benefit. That allows citizens in New Jersey to earn a
good living and to pay taxes.
And we have Members from Texas, Mr. Chairman, the great investment
that this country has made into that great State, NASA, the
universities, Texas has benefited from those investments.
Members from the West, where the West wouldn't even exist, we have
congressional districts that wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the
investment of the Federal Government to build dams. The Colorado River
Basin Project--there wouldn't be congressional districts in the West if
it wasn't for the Federal investment.
We're the United States of America, for God's sake, and let's stop
trying to divide each other. Let's recognize that this bill has been
supported unanimously from the Appropriations Committee, Democrats and
Republicans, and I want to thank the distinguished Member from New York
who put so much thought and concern into this bill, the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Regula) and gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), who have
consistently tried to make investments and recognize that people in
Alaska, kids in Alaska need help, and I'm okay with that. I've never
been to Alaska but we have needs.
Let's stop trying to divide each other and stop the lectures of
fiscal responsibility. The mess we're in is here because of $3 trillion
in debt that our friends have borrowed from China and Japan and OPEC
countries over the past 6 years; borrowed more money, Mr. Chairman,
from foreign interests than every President and Congress before them
combined.
So enough of the lectures on fiscal responsibility. We're here now.
Let's make these investments. Let's compete in a global economy by
making these investments. We're competing against 1.3 billion people in
China, 1.2 billion people in India. We need to make these investments.
We only have 300 million people in this country. They need to be
educated. They need to be healthy, and they need to live in a clean
environment. That's what this bill does.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
[[Page H8023]]
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that this is
supposed to be a healthy debate, and quite frankly, I don't think
Members on either side should criticize Members for coming to the floor
and debating issues.
The gentleman from New Jersey raised, I believe, a legitimate issue,
and that is the issue of the equity of people from one State paying in
much more money to the Federal Government than they get back versus
people from another State getting much more money back from the Federal
Government than they pay in and questioning a particular program.
That's the kind of debate that is supposed to occur here. It's the kind
of debate that should occur here.
Indeed, I think everyone on this floor acknowledges we have a problem
with having spent too much money. We have a problem with too much debt,
and I think the people on this side of the aisle have tried to make the
point that at some point we need to stop that spending or slow that
spending, and I believe the people who have carried forward this
discussion, at least from this side of the aisle, have readily
acknowledged that a great deal of that overspending occurred on our
watch. We're not trying to point blame, but we do have a duty to come
here and debate our financial priorities and debate our jobs.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SHADEGG. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I
thank my friend from New Jersey for offering this amendment because I
did not know that this would open up the types of discussions that it
has, but I think it's great for this body.
My friend from Ohio, Mr. Ryan, who, Mr. Chairman, I stood up on that
podium and listened to many nights with the 30-something group, that
talked about the spending of the Republicans, I hope he will come back
now and talk about the largest tax increase in the history of this
country. He talked about dividing Members, and I stood there, Mr.
Chairman, right where you're at, and I listened to the rhetoric that
was designed to divide Members.
And talking about a spending and what's a good investment, I don't
know when we were in the majority party why the things we weren't doing
wasn't a good investment. Now, all of the sudden spending $11 billion
more than the President's recommendation is a good investment. So
spending more money is a good investment, and he's talking about that
we borrowed money from foreign countries. I don't agree with that, but
you know what, they probably won't borrow money from a foreign country.
You know what they're going to do, Mr. Chairman? They're going to go up
on your taxes. They have passed and are passing appropriations bills,
other pieces of legislation that's going to cause this country to have
the largest tax increase in history.
So I want to thank him for bringing this up, and I want to thank the
gentleman from New Jersey for bringing this up because this is a
perfect example that we have to prioritize, and we all have different
ideas about prioritizing. We all have different ideas about who's
writing a budget, if it's a good investment or if it's wasteful
spending.
So, I support the gentleman's amendment because I don't think that
those children in Alaska, regardless if a Member of my party says it or
not, or the children of Hawaii need special exception and more money
than my kids, my special need kids in the Third District of Georgia.
So I thank the gentleman from Arizona for yielding, and I yield back.
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I'm happy to conclude this by simply
noting that no Member who brings an amendment to an appropriations bill
is criticizing the ranking member or the chairman of that committee.
Indeed, I think it's a long-standing tradition and an honorable one in
this body that appropriations bills come to the floor under an open
rule so that we can have these discussions, and the votes reflect the
will of the Nation as they should.
So I want to make it clear that I don't believe that by the gentleman
from New Jersey or myself or any other Member of this body, any Member
on the majority side, offering an amendment, and there have been
amendments offered, in doing so that they are in any way criticizing
the good hard work. Indeed, I think we're honoring the tradition of the
Appropriations Committee in that these are, in fact, brought to floor
under an open rule, and we have full and open debate which I think is
what the American people want.
And I compliment the Chairman of the committee and I compliment the
ranking member of the committee for their hard work in doing their
jobs.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey
will be postponed.
Mr. LOEBSACK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for the
purpose of engaging in a colloquy with the gentleman from Wisconsin.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Iowa is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LOEBSACK. Mr. Chairman, for decades during the Cold War, hundred
of thousands of Department of Energy employees, including thousands of
workers at the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant in my district, worked
diligently at our Nation's nuclear weapons facilities. These men and
women worked with radioactive and other hazardous materials, and some
ultimately sacrificed their health for the security of our Nation.
In response, Congress enacted the Energy Employees Occupational
Illness Compensation Program Act to provide compensation and medical
benefits to these former nuclear employees. The intent of this act was
to honor and care for Cold War veterans who became ill while working at
the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant and other DOE facilities.
However, due to mismanagement and delays, the compensation program
has only paid 11,829, or 23 percent, of the 51,188 claims that have
been filed nationwide. My constituents, and thousands of former DOE
employees like them, have been subjected to bureaucratic red tape and
unfair burdens of proof, delaying their compensation and even, in some
cases, preventing them from filing claims.
Congress made clear in enacting the compensation program that our
Nation's Cold War heroes should be justly compensated for the illnesses
they contracted while serving our country. Sadly, the Department of
Labor has failed to ensure that the claims are properly processed and
approved.
Mr. Chairman, I respectfully request your assistance in asking the
Department of Labor to report to Congress on the administration of the
Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program, and
specifically, I believe it is vital that the Secretary provide Congress
with information concerning, first, the length of time it takes to
process and evaluate a claim; second, the reasons behind the current
backlog in processing these claims; third, the staffing of the relevant
offices assigned to administer the program; fourth, the quality of
communication with claimants; fifth, the process through which claims
are approved or denied, as well as the oversight currently in place to
assure that claims are handled properly; and sixth, the possibility of
providing greater assistance through the Department of Labor to those
wishing to file claims, many of whom are elderly and in poor health.
Our Nation's former nuclear workers are truly among the unheralded
heroes of the Cold War. We owe them and their families better than
bureaucratic red tape, and I would greatly appreciate your assistance
in assuring that the Department of Labor remains committed to providing
these workers with the recognition, treatment and compensation they
deserve.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
[[Page H8024]]
Mr. LOEBSACK. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for raising this
important issue. The purpose of the Energy Employee Occupational
Illness Compensation Program is to fairly compensate our Nation's
former nuclear workers for illnesses they contracted while serving our
country.
Former Department of Energy employees who are now elderly and ill
have been subjected to bureaucratic run-arounds by the agencies
responsible for adjudicating their claims. The Department of Labor is
responsible for administering compensation for these former nuclear
workers, and I concur with the gentleman from Iowa that a report from
the Secretary detailing the administration of the compensation program
would provide Congress with highly valuable insight into the agency's
implementation of the program.
Streamlining and expediting the method through which claims are
processed and compensation provided is in the best interests of the
families and claimants to whom our country owes its deepest gratitude
and respect.
I'd be happy to work with the gentleman to request this information
from the Department and to ensure that the true intent of the program
is being carried out with due diligence by the administration.
{time} 1330
Mr. LOEBSACK. Reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman for his
willingness to address this important issue and look forward to working
with him.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. I rise to associate myself with the comments
of Chairman Obey and Mr. Loebsack of Iowa.
The American workers who fell ill during service to our country must
be justly compensated in a reasonable period of time. As you have said,
these men and women are American heroes. They really made a difference
for our country.
I have been an outspoken critic, both in the Appropriations
Subcommittee and in my district, of EEOICPA's lack of removing the
bureaucratic hurdles faced by claimants. I thank my two colleagues and
join them in requesting the Department of Labor to provide this
information.
Mr. LOEBSACK. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman and look
forward to working with him on this issue.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Indian Education
For expenses necessary to carry out, to the extent not
otherwise provided, part A of title VII of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.),
$124,000,000.
Innovation and Improvement
For carrying out activities authorized by section 1504 (20
U.S.C. 6494), part G of title I (20 U.S.C. 6531 et seq.),
subpart 5 of part A of title II (20 U.S.C. 6651) and part C
and part D of title II (20 U.S.C. 6671 et seq., 20 U.S.C.
6751 et seq.), and part B (including subpart 2), part C, and
part D of title V (20 U.S.C. 7221 et seq., 20 U.S.C. 7231 et
seq., and 20 U.S.C. 7241) of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (``ESEA''), $992,354,000: Provided,
That $10,695,000 shall be provided to the National Board for
Professional Teaching Standards to carry out section 2151(c)
of ESEA (20 U.S.C. 6651(c)): Provided further, That from
funds for subpart 4 of part C of title II (20 U.S.C. 6721 et
seq.), up to 3 percent shall be available to the Secretary
for technical assistance and dissemination of information:
Provided further, That $258,988,000 shall be available to
carry out part D of title V of ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7241 et seq.),
of which $99,000,000 of the funds for subpart 1 shall be for
competitive grants to local educational agencies, including
charter schools that are local educational agencies, or
States, or partnerships of (1) a local educational agency, a
State, or both and (2) at least one non-profit organization
to develop and implement performance-based teacher and
principal compensation systems in high-need schools: Provided
further, That such performance-based compensation systems
must consider gains in student academic achievement as well
as classroom evaluations conducted multiple times during each
school year among other factors and provide educators with
incentives to take on additional responsibilities and
leadership roles: Provided further, That up to 5 percent of
such funds for competitive grants shall be available for
technical assistance, training, peer review of applications,
program outreach, and evaluation activities.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Foxx
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Ms. Foxx:
Page 82, line 6, after the first dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $10,000,000)''.
Page 82, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $10,000,000)''.
Page 84, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
Page 84, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would reduce funding for the
Fund for the Improvement of Education by $10 million, while increasing
IDEA State grants by $10 million.
Transferring these funds will ensure that Congress does not create a
new unauthorized $10 million grant program for ``full-service community
schools'' with the Fund for the Improvement of Education, a program
which was specifically mentioned in the committee report. We should not
be using appropriations bills to authorize programs.
It appears that language in the committee report for this program has
been taken from legislation introduced by the House majority leader, as
well as in the Senate by Senator Nelson. Their bill would create a $200
million full-service community school grant program.
What exactly is a full-service community school? According to the
underlying funding bill, it's a ``public elementary or secondary school
that coordinates with community-based organizations and public-private
partnerships to provide students, their families and the community
access to comprehensive services.''
The language specifies that the grants must be used to provide not
fewer than three services selected from a variety of selective
services, including community service, service learning opportunities,
nutrition services, job training and career counseling, primary health
and dental care, mental health counseling services adult language,
including instruction in English as a Second Language.
I am concerned we are moving schools away from focusing on the
basics, academics. Our schools still have room for much improvement in
ensuring all students are proficient in the basics of math, reading,
writing, science and history. So why is the Federal Government sending
money to turn schools into social, medical, educational job training
hubs?
I am also concerned about the unsettling prospect of having adult,
nonfamily members of the community regularly visiting school grounds
for job training and medical and mental health services when young
children and teenagers are present. Combining schools with health care
and other social services for community residents poses a danger to
students that would need to be addressed in any future legislation.
Since 1965, Congress has increased the role of the Federal Government
in public primary and secondary education, as well as in higher
education. If history has taught us anything about education, it's that
the proliferation of Federal programs and regulations has not improved
education. In a time where the Federal Government continues to spend
more and more and expand its reach with very limited results, I
question the need for us to meddle in affairs such as this.
With this in mind, my amendment would transfer $10 million from the
Fund for the Improvement of Education to IDEA grants. These grants help
States and localities pay for the rising cost of special education for
6.9 million children with disabilities.
While my amendment adds only a small amount to these State grants,
any amounts are helpful in fully funding Congress' commitment to fund
40 percent of the average per-pupil excess cost of educating students
with disabilities.
IDEA part B grants to States is funded at only $11.29 billion, which
is $7 billion or 41 percent below the 2007 authorized level of $19.2
billion. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment to ensure that
any full-service community school legislation goes forward through the
proper authorizing process, not through the appropriations
[[Page H8025]]
process, and we put money where it's desperately needed, as we all know
from hearing from the schools in our districts.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. In reserving my point of order, I would like to ask a
question of the gentlewoman. Does she have a score from the CBO?
Ms. FOXX. I do. We would actually save $1 million with this
amendment.
Mr. OBEY. So the CBO indicates that the amendment is outlay neutral?
Ms. FOXX. Yes.
Mr. OBEY. If that is the case, then I withdraw my reservation.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The reservation of a point of order is
withdrawn.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. OBEY. There are two problems I have with this amendment. First of
all, it seeks to cut $10 million from an item in the bill which is
meant to establish full-service community schools. These are supposed
to be schools which test the concept of making schools neighborhood
centers which include early childhood education, remedial education,
academic enrichment activities, programs that promote parental
involvement and family literacy, mentoring and other youth development
programs. It's meant to be a much more holistic educational experience
than is usually found in an individual school. We believe that that
deserves an opportunity to be tested.
Secondly, I would simply say that, lest this amendment be portrayed
as an amendment that does anything significant for special education, I
want to point out that this is an especially marginal amendment. The
damage it does to the neighborhood school concept that we are trying to
explore in the bill is far larger than the negligible impact that it
has on the special education program.
What I mean by that is this: Special education is an $11 billion
program. This amendment adds $10 million to it. It is another one of
those symbolic amendments which I think ought to be placed in context.
The committee has already increased this account by $500 million. It
is $800 million above the President, and it seems to me that, by
comparison, the amendment is demonstrably but a blip on the radar
screen in comparison to the funds that we have already put in this
bill.
Now, I know that many of these amendments can be offered, and they
can be converted into nice, sweetly packaged 30-second TV spots which
tend to leave the impression that a Member has done something
significant. Unfortunately, this amendment doesn't fit into that
category of being significant, and it may make a very good television
spot, but I doubt it's going to be very meaningful in the scheme of
things.
I would ask for a ``no'' vote.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WALSH of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. WALSH of New York. Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak in support
of this amendment. I hadn't intended to, but I think it's a good
amendment, partially because it provides additional funds to IDEA.
In committee, we amended the bill to add $335,000,000 more to IDEA.
This is a small one, but it's helpful. More importantly, this concept
of community schools is a wonderful concept. But that's what we have
committees for, committees of jurisdiction, to vet these ideas.
In my hometown of Syracuse, there's lots of talk about community
schools. Remembering that primary and secondary education is a
responsibility of the municipality, the county and the State and not of
the Federal Government is an important thing to consider. A community
school in Syracuse is very different than a community school in
Maryland or California or Arizona.
But more importantly than all of that is that our schools, especially
our inner-city schools, are having a very difficult job graduating the
kids now. In fact, many of our urban schools aren't even graduating 50
percent of the kids who start in ninth grade. That's a fact. No one is
comfortable with that fact, but it is a fact.
So why would you provide or require or suggest to a school that is
already only attaining 50 percent of its responsibility with its
primary task, why would you give them additional work? Why would you
give them additional responsibilities? Maybe there's good reason for
that, but there is certainly a committee structure. The education
committee has plenty of experts and staff to try to determine the best
way to approach this.
I admire the author of the concept's ingenuity, but this really needs
to go through committee to have proper authorization. Absent that, I
think this is a good idea. Ten million dollars will go into a program
that everyone knows needs more money, that we are putting additional
burdens on those local school districts by not providing this money. It
would provide some relief to them to meet their primary task of
educating our kids. So I think this is a very good amendment. I
strongly support it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield at this time to the author of this amendment
such time as she may consume.
Ms. FOXX. I appreciate the ranking member for yielding time to me.
I want to say that I am very troubled by the fact that the terms that
are being used here that we want to test, creating holistic educational
experiences, that's one of the problems, again, with the Federal
Government being involved in the education process. It is not up to us
to be doing that. The testing needs to be done at the local level.
There are programs. North Carolina has a tremendous number of
programs where it's working through community centers, sometimes at
schools, most of the time not, where they are trying to do these kinds
of things. We don't need to be funding this at the Federal level. If
the States want to do it, they ought to be doing it.
I think that calling this a symbolic amendment is a denigration it
doesn't deserve. This is a serious amendment. We are violating our
processes. We are violating what we say we are going to do here.
Appropriations bills should not be authorizing bills. We separate that
process.
I have not been here very long, and I know I don't know all the rules
and the way things are done, but I noticed that the chairman reserved a
point of order, but they were able to the waive points of orders in
order to authorize. So when the majority wants to break the rules, it
easily breaks the rules to try to accomplish what it wants to
accomplish when it can't accomplish it the other way. So I am very
concerned about it. I think this is a very valid amendment done very
seriously.
I haven't sat over here for a couple of hours and haven't worked on
this for many hours to think that it is frivolous or simply symbolic.
It's an important thing. And I don't appreciate the amendment being
denigrated in the way it has been denigrated by the chairman of the
committee.
Mr. WALSH of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, this concept of community schools Mr. Walsh
correctly refers to is a concept that is present in many States, many
communities.
{time} 1345
My wife Judy was the supervisor of early childhood education in
Prince Georges County, Maryland, just down the road. She started a
concept in our county of full service schools, community schools. There
are now 24 Judy Centers in the State of Maryland. Maryland has paid for
them, started them.
The problem with a full service community school, as Judy found out
and as all of us know, is the turf battles. The turf battles are
ferocious. Some people have made fun of the fact that it takes a
village to raise a child. Now, obviously, hopefully every child has a
good parent. But we have many services available to make sure that our
young people, when they get to the ninth grade, are ready to succeed in
the ninth and 10th and 11th and 12th
[[Page H8026]]
grades. But those services in many communities are discordant and not
coordinated. So the concept of a full service or a community school is
to bring together services, not in a forced way, but in a cooperative
way.
Now, the gentlelady refers to the authorization on the appropriation
bill. I know that the ranking member is shocked by that ever happening.
I remember, perhaps before the gentlelady got here, when Bill Frist
added 40 pages in the dead of night of authorizing language to an
appropriation bill just a few years ago to preclude insurance company
liability.
The fact of the matter is this $10 million in NIE is to encourage,
facilitate cooperation, not to mandate spending more money; but to
encourage educators, social services, child care providers, other
services, as they have in the State of New York. I have visited some of
them in the city.
So I would hope that we would not take this $10 million and add it to
an $11 billion program. A critically important program, the gentlelady
is absolutely correct, but it is a program that is funded $800 million
more than President Bush asked for by this bill. And in order to add
that $10 million to an $11 billion program, you will undermine the
effort to see if we can create cooperation, in effect magnifying the
role of each as they cooperate with one another. That is the concept,
and it is a concept that works.
Superintendent Grasmick in my State has talked about this concept all
over this country. I have talked about it to Secretary Spelling; I have
talked about it to their predecessors. In fact, we did pass a bill
through the House that didn't make it through conference which Lynn
Woolsey had sponsored which had this concept. It is a concept that the
Education and Labor Committee is now considering. They may go much
broader than this.
But this is what NIE is all about. It is trying to facilitate better
ways to deliver education to our children. And I remind the gentleman
from New York, who is my friend and I am pleased to see him as the
ranking member, but we do participate significantly in the education of
children in this country, particularly children at risk. That is what
this attempts to do as well, to magnify the services available,
coordinate them, bring them together so they are accessible by people
who can't get in their car at $3.15, and drive from this place to the
other place to the other place to get services for their children.
So I would hope, ladies and gentlemen of this House, that we would
reject this amendment. I thank the chairman for including this
provision in the bill, and I would hope that the amendment would be
rejected.
Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. FERGUSON. I yield to the gentlelady from North Carolina.
Ms. FOXX. I thank my colleague for yielding to me. And I want to say
again that I am sorry that my colleague from Maryland is not aware of
this really excellent program that exists in North Carolina called
Smart Start, which did this back in 1995, where we pulled together
these different agencies to work together on this very good concept.
But it is being done in States without Federal dollars, and I would
urge the people in Maryland to look at that concept and deal with it.
I want to say that I am very concerned again, not by your comments
but by the comments of the chairman, about the denigration of the
allocation of $10 million as negligible. That is the attitude of people
from Washington that adding $10 million is negligible. That is hard for
people who are paying their taxes every day to understand that. I am
sure that the teachers and parents of special needs students who are
getting just a small percentage of money already authorized by this
Federal Government to do what we are demanding that they do, they are
not getting all their money.
Now, I commend the majority party for increasing the spending in this
area, but it is the biggest complaint that I get when I talk to people
about what is happening in education and the Federal role. So I think
we need to put every dime we can possibly find into authorized programs
already that are not spending what they should be spending. And I would
say, I find it hard to look in the eyes of the parent of a special
needs child or the teacher of a special needs child and say: We had an
opportunity to give you 10 million more dollars and it was turned down;
because they are there, and they need it.
Mr. FERGUSON. Reclaiming my time, I would be happy to yield to the
majority leader.
Mr. HOYER. I would simply say to the gentlelady, it so happens I have
known two of your Governors pretty well, once as a young person, Terry
Sanford, and as a contemporary of Jim Hunt, who was a good friend of
mine for the last 45 years.
You mentioned the programs that you have in North Carolina. Bobby
Etheridge, of course one of the former superintendents of your State's
system, your State has been an innovative, progressive leader in
education and Jim Hunt has been one of the educational leaders in our
country. I have no doubt, because I have worked with him over the last
20 years that I have been in Congress on various programs while he was
Governor and since then, that, yes, you have moved ahead in North
Carolina, but you have also done it in partnership with many Federal
programs. I know that because I have worked with your Governor on that.
I simply wanted to make that point. Again, this is a partnership. And I
thank my friend for yielding.
Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the distinguished
chairman, Mr. Obey, in a colloquy regarding strengthening of the
Children's Graduate Medical Education Program, as well as enhancing
Federal support for health information technology.
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. WALSH of New York. Mr. Chairman, I would like to state a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does the gentlewoman yield for that purpose?
Ms. ESHOO. I do.
Mr. WALSH of New York. The question is, have we disposed of the
pending amendment before the Committee?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. We have not.
Mr. WALSH. Is this statement by the gentlelady from California in
regards to this amendment?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Apparently not.
Mr. WALSH of New York. I would respectfully request that we return to
the amendment before we continue the conversation.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman has begun.
Ms. ESHOO. I am sorry, I didn't hear.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct. However, the
gentlewoman has begun her statement. At the conclusion of her remarks,
the Chair will put the question on the amendment.
Ms. ESHOO. I will be as brief as possible so that we can get back to
what was being debated.
I want to thank Mr. Obey for including $307 million for the
Children's Graduate Medical Education Program. While this amount is
less than the $330 million authorized by Congress last year, it is
obviously a good improvement over the levels proposed by the President,
which is $110 million, and the Senate Appropriations Committee, which
is $200 million.
The reason I wanted to have the colloquy is to go on record, urge the
chairman to do everything he can to not only maintain the House's
funding level when the bill goes to conference, and perhaps even be
able to do more.
I think that we all have a healthy understanding of what the
Children's Hospitals GME represents. It has been an outstanding
success. It is important to note that Children's Hospitals receive 80
percent of what other teaching hospitals receive on average from
Medicare's Graduate Medical Education Program.
In recent years, Children's Hospitals have been able to sustain and
improve their training programs so that the shortages of pediatric
specialists in our country can be addressed. The program has also
indirectly strengthened Children's Hospitals as premier pediatric
[[Page H8027]]
centers of excellence. They are the safety net for low-income children
in their communities and they are the centers of pediatric research as
well.
So I want to thank the chairman for everything he has done to fully
fund the program this year, and I would be happy to yield to him.
Mr. OBEY. Let me simply say I agree with the gentlelady from
California. The Children's GME is integral to ensuring a stable future
for our children's hospitals and is a sound investment in children's
health. I certainly will do everything I can to ensure that sufficient
funding levels for Children's Hospitals GME are retained in conference.
Ms. ESHOO. I thank the chairman. I also want to raise the issue about
my strong support for increased funding for Health Information
Technology, often referred to as Health IT.
The adoption, I believe, of electronic health record systems I think
will have a profound effect on the health care delivery in our country.
I believe it will enhance patient safety, reduce medical errors, and
improve the quality of care.
For several years, the administration and the Congress have not
committed enough funds to make this promise a reality in our country. I
recognize the continued commitment to HIT that is in this year's Labor-
HHS bill, $61 million, and I think we need to make a greater investment
to make this a reality because it not only needs to be launched
effectively, because we have to have interoperability, and without it
we really won't have a Health IT system.
So I want to thank the committee, most especially the chairman, for
weeding through what is really a difficult bill to put together because
we are constrained moneywise. But if there is any opportunity at
conference, I want to urge optimizing that possibility.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to thank my colleague from
California for bringing this important matter to the attention of the
House. The gentlelady is a strong advocate for the establishment of a
robust and interoperable health information technology network, and I
want to work with her. I will be pleased to consider this funding need
should additional funds become available in conference.
Ms. ESHOO. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from North
Carolina will be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
{time} 1400
Amendment No. 49 Offered by Mr. Shadegg
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. SHADEGG. I was standing and I have an amendment that goes to page
82.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman have the amendment at the
desk?
Mr. SHADEGG. Yes, I do.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman was on his feet when the Clerk was
reading.
The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 49 offered by Mr. Shadegg:
Page 82, line 6 after the first dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $10,695,000)''.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be
read, not designated.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Clerk will report the
amendment.
There was no objection.
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I hope that this is a simple and
straightforward amendment. It is premised on the notion, not that the
program doesn't work, but rather, that when the task is finished, the
funding should stop.
This program, the Advanced Credentialing Program, was established by
the Congress to develop teacher standards and to have those standards
developed by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards or
other nationally certification or credentialing organizations. That
task has, in fact, been accomplished.
The National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, a private
body, has received more than $180 million from the Department of
Education since 1991. These Federal funds supported the development and
implementation of the certification standards and assessments in 24
different academic fields. That task has now been completed.
In addition, since the legislation called for such standards to be
established by other nationally recognized certification or
credentialing organizations, the Department awarded $32.8 million in a
5-year grant to the American Board for the Certification of Teacher
Excellence. That board will receive the final year of its funding in
Fiscal Year 2007.
By Fiscal Year 2008, the American Board for the Certification of
Teacher Excellence will have successfully completed the development and
implementation of its teacher credential system. As a result, State and
local teaching organizations, educational agencies, will have not one
but two different sets of standards to pick from, one developed by the
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards and one developed by
the American Board for the Certification of Teacher Excellence. I
believe when the task has been completed, it is important that we stop
the funding.
I want to make clear that the purpose of this amendment is not to
eliminate funding for States to encourage teachers to receive advanced
degrees or to assist them in that endeavor.
My wife is a teacher. She has a master's degree. She received her
advanced credentialing in order to improve her education and her
ability to serve as a teacher, but the task has now been accomplished.
The Department, as well, supports giving States and districts more
tools to help them identify and retain effective teachers. Indeed, the
2008 budget requests $2.8 billion for the improving teacher quality
State grants program and an additional $199 million for the teacher
incentive program. These programs combined provide flexible sources for
State and local education agencies to use to improve their teacher
recruitment and retention systems according to their own needs.
The goal of this amendment is to simply acknowledge that the creation
of the standards has been accomplished and accomplished by two
different entities, the National Board for Professional Teaching
Standards (NBPTS) and the American Board for the Certification of
Teacher Excellence.
In addition, I would note for anyone concerned about this that the
effects of the NBPTS credential system on student achievement have been
somewhat mixed. There are studies that show it has been somewhat
helpful. However, the studies have found the positive effects are very
small and that they are neither large enough nor consistent enough to
justify further Federal funding beyond that which is provided in the
existing $2.8 billion for improving teacher quality State grants, and
the $199 million that I already referred to in teacher incentive fund
training.
I do wish, at this point, that I had reallocated the $10.7 million
that would be saved by this amendment to Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA). Having listened to the discussion of the last
bill, I note that IDEA is underfunded. It has all been underfunded, and
I wish that I had cast this amendment in that fashion. I did not do so
but I, nonetheless, would encourage its adoption and would encourage,
perhaps, those at conference to take that $10.7 million and to add it
to IDEA funding.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman continue to reserve his point
of order?
[[Page H8028]]
Mr. OBEY. I withdraw my point of order.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I can't believe my ears. I just thought I
heard the gentleman say that IDEA was underfunded. I'm shocked. I've
never heard the gentleman say that anything was underfunded before.
Mr. SHADEGG. Will the gentleman yield?
I certainly believe IDEA is underfunded. I know in my school
districts in my schools there is a crying need.
Mr. OBEY. Let me take back my time because I only have 5 minutes. But
I agree with the gentleman. Many programs are underfunded in this bill.
Let me simply say, Mr. Chairman, that I would certainly support the
gentleman's amendment if I thought that we had all of the excellent
teachers in the country that we need, but the fact is we don't.
This is not a program that should be cut back or eliminated. This is
a program that works. This is a program which helps teach trainers to
go through rigorous certification processes. They are star teachers.
They go back to their school districts, they become lead teachers in
their schools, and I hardly think that that is damaging the national
interest.
And I must also confess a certain amount of confusion, because just
about an hour ago we were told by a series of Members that we should
support the teacher incentive program because we needed to incentivize
teachers to increase their skills. And now we have a program that does
just that and identifies teachers based on merit, and we're told we
ought to cut back the program.
Let me simply say that if you take a look at the way this program has
been evaluated, the National Boards for Professional Teaching Standards
tells us that this program raises student achievement. It inspires
deeper learning. It improves teacher practice. It creates
transformative professional development, and it helps these schools to
retain teachers.
Let me say that there is a tiny increase in this program. That
increase is aimed at helping teachers from low-income schools get
master teacher certification.
We've been told for years that the toughest thing to do in education
is to get your best teachers to go into your poorest schools or the
schools in your poorest neighborhoods. This is a program that's
effective in doing that. We ought not to throw the baby out with the
bath water.
I would urge opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will
be postponed.
Amendment No. 50 Offered by Mr. Westmoreland
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 50 offered by Mr. Westmoreland:
Page 82, line 6 after the first dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $23,533,000)''.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order, and I would ask
unanimous consent that the Clerk read the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
Without objection, the Clerk will report the amendment.
There was no objection.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The point of order is withdrawn.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, this is a simple amendment. We've
listened to the other side talk about, I guess, some of us maybe being
disingenuous or doing different things with this amendment. And the
gentleman from Ohio talked about a fringe group over here, and I'm
happy to be part of that fringe group. The Republican Study Committee I
guess is who he was talking about in that we're trying to look after
the taxpayers' money.
For the past 12 years, I would have to admit, although I've only been
here three of those years, that we spent too much money. We expanded
government too much, and we didn't do what we should have been doing.
But it's good, because I think a lot of people woke up after the last
election and realized that we had lost our brand of being fiscal
conservatives, being responsible with the taxpayers' money, because
it's not our money, it's their money, they work hard for it every day,
and that we need to be more responsible with it.
And I think that the President got that message. And in this budget,
he cut the funding for the writing instruction. It's $23.5 million, or
a very, very small percentage of the $152 billion budget that the
majority party is offering for this appropriations bill, which is $11
billion more than the President offered. And, you know, it doesn't hurt
to zero a program out if it's not working or not doing its job, or if
the money can better be spent somewhere else in a different program,
something that has more advantages for more people.
Under titles II, III and IV of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act, the Federal Government provides extensive support to States and
operates numerous programs designed to enhance teacher recruiting and
training.
While many of these programs provide important services, States would
be well served to receive this funding in the form of a block grant
with increased flexibility to use these funds on the programs most
needed in that State.
Mr. Chairman, I know from talking to my local school board
superintendents and school board members that they certainly agree with
that. No Child Left Behind, while working in a lot of situations, has
cost them more money, really, to implement those programs than they
receive in Federal dollars because a lot of that money is, has to be
spent in a certain area.
This would be an opportunity that we could take this very, very small
amount out. The President recommended a zero. It was funded at $21.7
million last year, so there's been a 10 percent increase this year, and
just zero the program out.
And so it's a pretty simple amendment. It puts back the writing
instruction program back to zero, where the President put it, and I
hope that my colleagues will finally decide, let's vote for one thing
that actually cuts something.
I know one appropriations bill, Mr. Chairman, we were talking about,
and I believe the chairman of the committee said they had cut 250
programs. And I asked for a list of those programs. Haven't received it
yet. So, hopefully this will encourage him to support this amendment,
because it is zeroing out a program, and also get me the list of the
other 250 programs that this Congress has cut so far this year.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me assure the gentleman that his party
did not lose the last election because they did too much for education.
Rather, they lost the last election, in my view, because the public so
clearly understood that their party preferred to put spending $57
billion in tax cuts for people who make over $1 million to providing
decent funding for education.
{time} 1415
And the public understood that the other party preferred to spend
$600 billion in Iraq rather than spending a small portion of that at
home for science and health care and the like to meet some of the needs
of our own people. That is why the gentleman's party lost the last
election, not because they did too much for education but because they
were out of touch.
Having said that, let me simply say that this amendment eliminates
funding for the National Writing Project. I would simply point out that
this program supports teacher training programs so that teachers can
help students write effectively and school districts match those funds
dollar for dollar.
[[Page H8029]]
I must say all of us have large turnover of our staff here on Capitol
Hill. The number one problem that I have in my office and the number
one problem I have heard so many other Members comment on is that when
young people come in and interview for jobs, they don't know how to
write.
When both of my sons went away to college, at least my oldest son
asked me, ``Dad, what do you think is the most important thing to
learn?''
And I said, I think the most important thing to learn is how to write
because if you can write clearly, it means you are thinking clearly,
and if you are thinking clearly, it means you can communicate. And I
would say that I don't think that this country is over blessed with a
number of great writers. I also must say if you listen to some of the
congressional speeches written by our staffs, you would certainly agree
that we need more help in writing in this country.
So let me simply say that I understand that we are engaged in a
little filibuster by amendment. But nonetheless, I wanted to take this
time to simply urge Members to vote against this amendment. If you
believe in raising the quality of discourse in this country, you have
to start with writing, and that is what this program tries to do.
I would urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will
be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Safe Schools and Citizenship Education
For carrying out activities authorized by subpart 3 of part
C of title II (20 U.S.C. 6711 et seq.), part A of title IV
(20 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), subpart 2 of part D of title V (20
U.S.C. 7245), subpart 3 of part D of title V (20 U.S.C.
7247), and subpart 10 of part D of title V (20 U.S.C. 7261 et
seq.) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965
(``ESEA''), $714,075,000, of which $300,000,000 shall become
available on July 1, 2008, and remain available through
September 30, 2009: Provided, That $300,000,000 shall be
available for subpart 1 of part A of title IV of ESEA (20
U.S.C. 7111 et seq.) and $222,335,000 shall be available for
subpart 2 of part A of title IV of ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7131 et
seq.), of which $5,000,000, to remain available until
expended, shall be for the Project School Emergency Response
to Violence program to provide education-related services to
local educational agencies, and institutions of higher
education, in which the learning environment has been
disrupted due to a violent or traumatic crisis: Provided
further, That $158,422,000 shall be available to carry out
part D of title V of ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7241 et seq.): Provided
further, That of the funds available to carry out subpart 3
of part C of title II of ESEA (20 U.S.C. 6711 et seq.), up to
$12,072,000 may be used to carry out section 2345 (20 U.S.C.
6715) and $3,025,000 shall be used by the Center for Civic
Education to implement a comprehensive program to improve
public knowledge, understanding, and support of the Congress
and the State legislatures.
Amendment No. 52 Offered by Mr. Brady of Texas
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 52 offered by Mr. Brady of Texas:
Page 83, lines 14 and 15, after each dollar amount, insert
``(reduced $72,674,000)''.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, the Carol White Physical Education
Program was named after a longstanding and dedicated public servant
here on Capitol Hill. Carol White, a long-time Chief of Staff for
Senator Ted Stevens, who aptly named this program because they have
dedicated their lives to trying to make this country better inside our
schools and out. This program provides the funding basically to help
schools initiate and expand their physical education programs, which is
just a great goal, and many of the grants have been used for playground
equipment on schools.
Physical education is important. I think we all know that. Our young
people are becoming more and more static between video games and
television shows and sometimes lack of outdoor recreation. We are
seeing more obesity. It is important that PE be part of an integral
curriculum of our schools. In fact, our States and local districts have
targeted PE as an area that they want to reintroduce back to the
curriculum for our children.
The only reason I raise this program up is to have some type of
thoughtful debate about who should fund PE programs and, more
importantly, what should our Federal priorities be.
I ask that because I know that today we are running a deficit. We
have a major national debt. I know that every dollar that we spend
above the deficit, and we will run a deficit again with the budget we
are discussing today, but I know that every dollar that goes to our
public debt is picked up by these same children we are trying to help
where it will result in a tax increase for families. So it seems right
and proper that we scrutinize every program regardless of how much we
might admire the person it is named after.
This program has been rated by the program assessment rating tool as
the results not demonstrated at this point. I imagine that is why the
President did not request funding for it. Like the chairman, who has
identified apparently 200 or more programs for dismissal, we have to
make tough choices.
What we are seeking here is a simple question. In our rural schools
and our smaller schools, they have the money to buy playground
equipment or to build a swingset for kids. What they don't have is
money to hire a special needs teacher. What they don't have is money to
help kids read and write at grade level. What they don't have is money
to help try to prevent the dropouts that are hitting our schools and a
case where nearly half of our minorities in eighth grade or ninth and
graduating to 12th grade. It just seems to me that from the Federal
funding level, our local schools can afford a playground set. What we
need to help them with is what they can't afford, which are teachers to
help our special needs kids; equipment to help our kids with
disabilities; teachers in science, in math, and technology subjects;
food for kids who come to school hungry. Despite the merits and the
goal which are so laudable for this program, it seems to me that we
ought to set our highest priorities to help schools with what they
cannot do today, which really is to help our kids read and write, to
help our special needs students reach their potential, to try to stop
this horrendous dropout rate in America.
So I would propose that we, as the President suggested, not fund this
program, reserve those resources. And, again, these are tough choices
you always have to make through the process. It is not much fun either
way. I am sure the chairman did not delight in cutting any of the
programs that he had proposed. It is just a way that we try to get
closer to a balanced budget and try to prioritize where we fund our
schools and our kids and, again, try to make the greatest use of every
tax dollar we have.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment is
not a healthy amendment.
As you pointed out, our children are more complacent than ever.
Sometimes it is because of video games. In some parts of the country,
it is because the streets aren't safe. In other parts of the country,
it is because children are latchkey and moms and dads want to know
where they are while they are working. So obesity is becoming a huge
problem in this country. And in order for children to really be ready
and prepared to learn, they have to be physically fit. They go
together. I taught school. They go hand in hand.
The CDC has made childhood obesity and the obesity that is already
occurring with adults a challenge for our country to get ahold of if we
are going to be competitive, if we are going to have a healthy
workforce, and if we are going to control our health care costs. What
has happened with the No Child Left Behind Act, it was under funded by
this Congress. It didn't come up
[[Page H8030]]
with the dollars that the President promised. So school district after
school district after school district, in order to balance their ledger
with this unfunded mandate, have been cutting arts and they have been
cutting physical education.
Now, I am pleased to hear that in your district you are able to
maintain a phys ed teacher and you are able to maintain the things that
you need to keep your children fit. But district after district has
been cutting phys ed in order to pay for the unfunded tests in No Child
Left Behind. And childhood obesity is a problem.
This might be the first generation that does not live as long as
their parents. Now, my children and the children in my neighborhood, I
would like to see them not only outlive me but outlive me in a very,
very healthy lifestyle. And physical education is part of learning,
mind and body, in order to be productive and healthy. This is going to
keep America healthy, but it is also going to keep our health care
costs down, which we know we have to get under control.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to bring to the House the
following facts: We have been at this bill now for the better part of
yesterday. We have been on this bill since 10:30 this morning, and we
have been trying to negotiate a unanimous consent agreement so that
Members might be able to leave here tomorrow night. I know there is a
CODEL of Members going to Iraq but I want to put them on notice now. I
doubt very much that you are going to make it unless you want to miss a
lot of votes because as things are developing, I am told that right
now, because of the insistence that a number of amendments, which we
have heard time and time again, will still be subjected to 40 minutes'
debate time even though there are five similar amendments, each of
which will take about 40 minutes. When you calculate it all, it comes
out to about 800 minutes of debate time. That means roughly 13 hours.
By the time you account for slippage, the time it takes for Members to
be recognized, the time it takes for them to find their amendments, you
have to add about another 5 hours plus your voting time.
What that means is that if we continue until 1 o'clock this morning,
it will still probably be required for Members to be here until about 8
o'clock or later tomorrow night, which means that we will finish just
in time for you to all miss your planes.
I just wanted you to know that so that if you think that you would
like to see another result, you talk to individuals who right now seem
to think that 40 minutes' time on a repetitive amendment is more
important than ending a filibuster by amendment.
Two years ago when this bill was on the floor, it took about 12
hours. At this rate it will take about three times that amount of time.
So I want Members who are coming up to me asking me about whether they
are going to be able to make their planes or their CODELs, I want them
to understand that if they miss them, I want them to know who to blame
because it is not going to be me.
{time} 1430
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I will not use the whole 5
minutes. I just want to make one point.
The gentlelady from Minnesota, I believe, who was just speaking, I
want to concur with a portion of her remarks with, A, the remarks with
regard to the physical problem with childhood obesity in the country,
and that is of a concern nationally. And, B, the problem that she set
out with regard to NCLB not funding to the level necessary so that
school districts across the country are put in what you might call a
catch-22 situation.
And a catch-22 is, okay, do we, A, comply with NCLB? In which case we
spend a lot of our own money on tests, fourth and 8th grade reading and
math tests; or, B, if you don't comply with it, then of course you get
written up in the local newspaper because your school failed, or your
school didn't do very well on the test and you've become an
underperforming school. And, instead, provide the funds where you would
like to put them, which may well be in physical education programs.
So I concur with her comments on that and suggest that the solution
to the problem may be multifaceted. Part of it is the gentleman's
amendment right here can be one aspect to address it. And I support the
gentleman's amendment to make sure that the dollars that are coming
from the Federal Government go to those programs that are effectively
getting the job done, including the issue of physical education and
childhood obesity and what have you. And just like all the other
amendments, I'm sure the gentleman will concur that you want to make
sure that the money goes to those programs that really accomplish
something, and are not duplicative.
The other aspect of the problem, however, is with NCLB and the burden
that they put on the schools as saying, do I do this or do I do that;
do I comply with NCLB, or do I do what I really want to do locally? And
I think the answer to that is to say this: NCLB is just too top town,
ordering the schools, basically you've got to do this or you've got to
do that when, with all due respect to all the educated, I'll say
bureaucrats, who are in the U.S. Department of Education and in all due
respect to the Secretary of Education, a very nice lady and well-
intentioned, the people who really can decide where the dollars can be
spent best is the teacher in the classroom, the local school board in
conjunction with the parents. They know whether their school has more
of a problem in the area of childhood obesity than other schools. I
find that, from the studies that I've seen, that it is in certain areas
of States and certain demographic regions as opposed to other ones.
Those are the people who really know how to decide these things.
And so I would concur with the gentlelady from Minnesota and suggest
that the solution is, A, put the money where the dollar should go to
effectively; and, B, get out from under the rubric of NCLB and just let
the schools, the teachers, the parents, the local school boards first
and foremost make those decisions, because they know best.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the remainder of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. SHULER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. SHULER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to enter into a colloquy with the
chairman of the committee, Mr. Obey.
Mr. OBEY. I'm happy to engage the gentleman.
Mr. SHULER. Mr. Chairman, Oconaluftee Job Corps Center in Cherokee,
North Carolina, has served a vital role in providing opportunity and
direction to the young people of western North Carolina. This center
has operated under the control of the National Parks Service along with
the Harpers Ferry Job Corps Center and the Great Onyx Jobs Corps Center
in Mammoth Cave, Kentucky.
Mr. Chairman, all three of these centers face uncertain future.
Earlier this year, the Department of Labor closed the Oconaluftee
center without warning, citing safety concerns. The U.S. Forest Service
has expressed interest in fixing these safety concerns and reopening
the Oconaluftee center. The U.S. Forest Service has also proposed to
assume management of the other two centers. The National Park Service
has stated it is willing to transition these three centers to the
Forest Service.
The U.S. Forest Service has a long-standing tradition of quality and
service in the Appalachian region.
Mr. Chairman, the Senate Interior Appropriations bill contains
language directing the Park Service to transfer control of these three
Job Corps centers to the U.S. Forest Service. The community surrounding
the Oconaluftee Job Corps Center is in favor of this transition.
[[Page H8031]]
Mr. Chairman, would you be willing to work with me to ensure that
this language is included in the final conference version of this bill?
Mr. OBEY. If the gentleman would yield, I would like to thank the
gentleman for bringing to our attention the important work that the
U.S. Forest Service has done in running its 19 Job Corps centers.
I have reviewed the provision in the Senate Interior Appropriations
bill. I support retaining the language in conference that directs the
Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to execute an agreement to
transfer the three Job Corps centers currently administered by the
National Park Service to the U.S. Forest Service.
I hope the Department of Labor will recognize the merits of this
approach which I understand was successful in another case involving
the Mingo Job Corps Center in Missouri several years ago.
I also understand that the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture
support this approach and expect to work cooperatively with the
Secretary of Labor on this matter.
Mr. SHULER. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your continued cooperation
and help.
Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. SHULER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
English Language Acquisition
For carrying out part A of title III of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6811 et seq.),
$774,614,000, which shall become available on July 1, 2008,
and shall remain available through September 30, 2009, except
that 6.5 percent of such amount shall be available on October
1, 2007, and shall remain available through September 30,
2009, to carry out activities under section 3111(c)(1)(C) of
such Act (20 U.S.C. 6821(c)(1)(C)).
Special Education
For carrying out the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.), $12,310,831,000, of
which $5,467,594,000 shall become available on July 1, 2008,
and shall remain available through September 30, 2009, and of
which $6,641,982,000 shall become available on October 1,
2008, and shall remain available through September 30, 2009,
for academic year 2008-2009: Provided, That $11,880,000 shall
be for the activities authorized by section 674(c)(1)(D) of
such Act: Provided further, That the amount for section
611(b)(2) of such Act (20 U.S.C. 1411(b)(2)) shall be equal
to the lesser of the amount available for that activity
during fiscal year 2007, increased by the amount of inflation
as specified in section 619(d)(2)(B) of such Act (20 U.S.C.
1419(d)(2)(B)) or the percentage increase in the funds
appropriated under section 611(i) of such Act (20 U.S.C.
1411(i)).
Amendment Offered by Mr. Ferguson
Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order, and I would ask
that the Clerk read the amendment. We don't have a copy.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order.
The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Ferguson:
Page 84, line 24, after the aggregate dollar amount insert
``(increased by $50,000,000)''.
Page 92, line 17, after the first dollar amount insert
``(reduced by $50,000,000)''.
Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer this amendment to
this important bill that would add an additional $50 million to help
American students who require special education.
First, I want to commend the chairman of the committee and the
ranking member for their outstanding efforts to recognize that
insufficient funds for special education that are so desperately needed
in this country, I know that in committee they added an additional $335
million to IDEA, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. But
having talked to and listened to the stories from teachers and
educators and parents from my district and elsewhere who work in
special education in my home State of New Jersey, I believe we must try
to do even more, and we can certainly do more to recognize the
important needs of these particular students and these particular
programs.
Mr. Chairman, Congress, in 1975, enacted the landmark IDEA, the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which mandated that every
student, including those students who have special needs or
disabilities will receive a quality and appropriate public education.
The law also committed the Federal Government to contribute 40 percent
of special education costs, which are often several times higher than
the cost of educating other students.
Washington, of course, has never met this long-standing, but
unfulfilled, commitment to aid States in paying for special education.
And as a former teacher, I know firsthand the value of education for
every student and the importance of ensuring that every child,
including those who have disabilities, experience the thrill of
learning.
School administrators and teachers and parents all across my district
tell me that more special education funding is needed to meet the
growing demands in our schools. As teachers seek to improve academic
standards and accountability, increased Federal special education
funding is critically important to help schools to meet these important
obligations to special education students and their families.
Washington, as we know, has never met that 40 percent funding
threshold. And while Federal education funding has increased by more
than 258 percent between 1995 and 2006, this year it still only
represents 17.2 percent of the cost of serving students with
disabilities.
My home State of New Jersey is a national leader in special
education. Parents with kids who have special needs and disabilities
literally move into our State. They come to New Jersey, particularly
parents who have children with autism, they literally move to New
Jersey so their kids can enroll in our State's special education
programs.
This year alone, New Jersey education officials estimate that they're
going to spend more than $4 billion in combined Federal, State and
local funds to administer special ed programs to almost 250,000
students. Of course there's more than 7 million students nationwide who
qualify for these programs.
Mr. Chairman, I have been in this House for 6\1/2\ years. And I know
that certain years funding levels for special education have been
increased and other years they have not been increased. It can be
fairly characterized as kind of going in fits and starts. Some years
we've made big and new investments, and other years, frankly, we
haven't.
Six years ago, when I first came to this House and to this Chamber,
the first bill I ever introduced in this body was a bill that would
fully fund our special education classrooms. I did it with the
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy). He and I have worked
together, and I know many others have worked together, to work to fully
fund our special education classrooms. Indeed, today I remain and I am
the lead Republican sponsor of legislation right now that would fully
fund our special education classrooms. But despite many of our best
efforts, we have not reached that goal yet. And I know that the
chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin, and the ranking member, Mr.
Walsh from New York, they have made extraordinary efforts toward this
goal as well.
The spirit of this amendment, my amendment, is to make for this year
one additional effort to move us in the right direction. Like many of
you, I've been in these classrooms. I've observed some of our special
needs kids in action. I've seen the heroic efforts of their parents and
their teachers and the administrators who work so hard to give them the
chance at success in life that they really need and deserve.
We've done some to help them. And this bill today, frankly, does even
more. But thanks to the efforts of Chairman Obey and Mr. Walsh, and
others, I really know we are working hard toward this goal. But I
respectfully ask that we try to do just a little bit more this year,
and by approving this amendment we will be able to do that.
I ask my colleagues respectfully to support this important amendment
so that we can say we did everything we probably could to help these
students who need that extra chance in life.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman continue to reserve?
Mr. OBEY. I withdraw my reservation of the point of order and move to
strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The reservation of the point of order is
withdrawn.
[[Page H8032]]
The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me simply ask the House one question: Do
we really know everything that we need to know about how children
learn? Do we really know enough about how children learn to guarantee
that every child will perform to their maximum ability and potential? I
think the answer to that is obvious: we obviously don't.
There is no great political constituency for educational research.
But you know it's a funny thing, in any field of endeavor, research is
what separates bull gravy from intelligent approaches to issues. That's
what research does: it helps lead one to a right understanding of a
problem.
What this amendment is, frankly, it's another television ad. What
this amendment does is to pretend that it does no damage to education
by eliminating $50 million out of the educational research budget. It
then puts it into special education.
We have a lot of posing for holy pictures on this floor by Members
who are trying to escape the fact that the White House is asking them
to vote against this bill because the White House claims there is too
much money in the bill when, in fact, every single one of these
amendments demonstrates that our own Republican Members know that there
is not enough money in this bill to fund programs like special
education unless you make damaging cuts to other portions of the bill.
And I would suggest that we not do that.
The President cut special education in his budget by $291 million. We
have added $800 million in the committee bill to that, and we're $509
million over last year.
I would also point out that this is a 10 percent cut, if this
amendment passes, in the research account. And I would point out that
this amendment would cut the National Center for Education Statistics,
which is the premier educational statistical operation in the country.
This amendment would even cut Federal research funds for special
education. Do we really know so much about the needs of special
education kids that we're going to cut that research? I don't think so.
I think the responsible vote is ``no,'' and I urge a ``no'' vote on
the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Ferguson).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey
will be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Rehabilitation Services and Disability Research
For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided, the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 701 et seq.), the
Assistive Technology Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.),
and the Helen Keller National Center Act (29 U.S.C. 1901 et
seq.), $3,279,743,000: Provided, That $30,452,000 shall be
used for carrying out the Assistive Technology Act of 1998.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, again I reserve a point of order, and I would
ask that the Clerk read the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's point of order is reserved.
The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey:
Page 85, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $2,279,000)''.
{time} 1445
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise right now to offer
what really is a modest amendment with the hopes of returning some
degree of discipline to the annual appropriation process. When the
President submitted his budget request, he proposed the elimination of
a number of programs that were duplicative and unable to demonstrate
effectiveness or otherwise not worthy of the priority of spending
American taxpayers' money.
Generally speaking, with the savings achieved from eliminating
ineffective programs, we can use it to do things such as pay off the
debt or support programs that have a proven track record of success. I
guess that last line I should reiterate: To support programs that
already have a track record of success.
As I also often do, I will refer this back and make the analogy back
to the American families' budget. This is really no different from what
American families do every month at the proverbial dinner table. Think,
for example, when it comes to TV. If a family is paying for both cable
TV and DirecTV, or what I have in my house, Dish TV, chances are that
they would probably decide which service suits them best as a family,
and then cut one or both of the other services out. You only need one
service coming into the house; cable, Direct, Dish or what have you.
That is what a family would do; prioritize them.
Mr. Chairman, given the content of our spending bills, if the Federal
Government were a homeowner and how the Federal Government operates
now, well, it would pay for both the cable TV, the Dish and DirecTV,
and the cable at the same time, satellite, all three or four coming
into the house.
If the Federal Government were a family and they continued to operate
as they do right now, they would probably decide that they were going
to have gas heat in their house and oil heat in their house and
electric heat in their house and wood heat as well. It would probably
pay to dig for its own water and have a well in the backyard, all the
while continuing to pay for city water coming into the house from the
front.
That, unfortunately, is how the Federal Government operates itself. I
think it is time to change. We do a disservice to the American people
by not eliminating duplicative and ineffective programs. It proves that
the Federal Government is unaccountable. By increasing the size of the
U.S. budget, it takes that money, again, out of the family budget by
sending it to Washington as tax dollars.
So the amendment that I am offering now would only reduce this by
$2.3 million, out of a $607 billion appropriation. I used the paper
before while I was sitting here trying to figure out how much of a
percentage of that is. That is a .0002 percentage point reduction. I
think what it does do, more importantly, is to make a statement that
there are truly areas within the Federal budget where money can be
saved.
What my amendment does is restore funding to the level requested in
the President's budget. The administration zeroed this account out
because it duplicates other Federal programs. The Migrant and Seasonal
Farm Workers, the MSFW, Program provides discretionary grants to make
comprehensive vocational rehabilitation services available to migrant
and seasonal farm workers with vocational disabilities. Now, if I ended
right there you would think, well, what is wrong with that?
Well, according to the OMB, here is the problem: This program serves
the exact same population and provides the exact same services as
another separate Federal program already is doing, and that is the
Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants Program. The acronym is VR. The
authorizing legislation for the VR State Grants Program contains
provisions in it to ensure that State VR agencies must reach out and
serve all individuals with disabilities within the State. That includes
minorities and unserved and underserved populations.
So what this means is that under the MSFW program, which is what we
are talking about here, the Federal Government is in essence
micromanaging, if you will, what essentially is a State and local
government issue that is provided Federal funds through the VR program.
The VR State Grants Program in the bill already is expanded by $36
million on top of the increases that were there before in the fiscal
year 2007 levels.
So there is little need to be spending an additional $2.3 million on,
yet again, a separate program that does essentially the same thing. The
government, you see, does not need to buy both cable TV and satellite
TV at the same time. The government does not need to
[[Page H8033]]
be providing funding for programs that do the exact same thing.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman reserve his point of order?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order and would move
to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman withdraws his point of order.
The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if anybody remembers these words:
``Whatsoever you do for the least of your brethren, you do for Me.'' I
wonder if anybody remembers those words?
This amendment is truly amazing to me. This amendment is offered by a
Member of the House, who, like me, any time he has an ache or a pain or
a toothache or is having a bad day, can trot down to the Attending
Physician and have the doctors and the nurses check us over to make
sure that we are in peachy keen shape. But what does this amendment
say? This amendment says to some of the poorest people in the country,
our migrant and our farm workers, sorry, you can't have vocational
rehabilitation services if you've got a physical problem.
I would like to ask every Member of this House, have you ever picked
cucumbers during the summer? Have you ever picked beans? Well, I have.
I can tell you it is darn hard work. I used to represent a county by
the name of Waushara County--wall to wall irrigation and crops like
cucumbers and beans. I used to watch those migrant workers come in and
work their tails off to get a few bucks.
Are we really so stingy? Are we really so utilitarian that we are
willing to say to workers like that, sorry, Members of Congress are
important, so they can get taken care of whenever they have got a
physical problem. But oh no, don't you dare waste the taxpayers' money
when it comes to some poor devil in the migrant stream or when it comes
to their family or kids.
You want to vote for this amendment? You go right ahead. Count me
out.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this amendment,
because fundamentally what we are charged with doing here is being
responsible with hard-earned taxpayer money. As the gentleman from New
Jersey said, it is not responsible to pay for two programs that do the
same thing, which is why the administration in its review looked at
this program, which is wonderfully named, perfectly appropriate, has a
wonderful mission, but the provisions of this program are being
accomplished elsewhere in the Federal Government.
Now, it may be hard for the Chair of the Appropriations Committee to
believe that there is some duplication in the Federal Government, but
it is not hard for the citizens of the Sixth District of Georgia to
believe that there is duplication. The name of the program that
accomplishes this same end is the Vocational Rehabilitation State
Grants Program.
The goal of the gentleman from New Jersey, I don't believe, is to
eliminate the ability to have appropriate programs for migrant and
seasonal farm workers. That is not the goal at all. The goal is to
responsibly spend hard-earned taxpayer money in accomplishing the
appropriate priorities of the Federal Government. So to have anybody
come to the floor and say that anybody who would support this amendment
desires to end the programs for migrant and seasonal farm workers is
simply not true and not the case, and it doesn't appropriately
represent the amendment of the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. Chairman, I commend him for his desire to make certain that we do
not provide duplicative services which are wasteful, wasteful of hard-
earned taxpayer money.
I am pleased to yield to my friend from New Jersey.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman from Georgia for
yielding.
To answer the question of the gentleman, yes, I have picked
vegetables and I have worked on a farm and I have thrown bales of hay
and I have worked in the sweltering heat of greenhouses picking
vegetables as well. So, yes, I do have that experience. So, yes, I do
know of what I speak, to some extent, but never to the extent, I am
sure, of the chairman or some of what the people go through in these
situations.
The chairman also makes reference to words about being stingy. You
know, it is awfully easy, it is awfully easy, to be a generous
individual if you are using somebody else's money, and basically that
is what Congress does every single day of the year. We come to the
floor with the appropriation bills railing about how much more we are
spending than last year and saying how generous we are, when in fact
these are not our dollars. Despite the statement of the gentleman from
Alaska at the last debate, these are the taxpayers' dollars coming in.
So it is easy to be generous with other people's money. What we here
as Members of Congress should therefore do is consider ourselves in a
position to be wards of that money, protect it and make sure that it
goes to the most effective places.
I refer you now to a statement from the administration with reference
to this program to point out the necessity of cutting the funding here
and making sure there are funds in similar programs. The administration
states this: ``This program was established as a demonstration
project,'' a demonstration project, ``in the mid-1970s, and it is no
longer needed to demonstrate the benefits of these strategies to serve
underserved populations such as migrant and seasonal farm workers. Many
of the same States have received continued funding over the last 30
years and should be able to effectively serve this population under the
VR State Grant Program,'' that program that has continued to be funded
in this underlying legislation, that VR program that sees a $36 million
or $37 million increase in the funding.
The gentleman from Georgia, when he speaks to what his constituents
feel, I wonder what his constituents would feel when they are told that
we have a demonstration project established back in 1970 and we are
still following that demonstration project to see whether or not it is
necessary to run the program.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the
gentleman for his comments. The point about the demonstration project
precisely gets to the point of so many of these programs. We do a poor
job as a Federal Government in looking at programs that we put in place
as pilots or demonstration projects to determine whether or not their
effectiveness has been met.
I will have an amendment in a little bit that addresses a program
whose mission and goal has been achieved and yet it continues to have
money coming from the Federal Government.
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment of the gentleman from
New Jersey.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to address myself to the
two gentlemen from New Jersey and from Georgia with a question: Have
you ever administered and run a school, a title I school, that has an
ESEA program? No.
Mr. Chairman, it is really easy to criticize and throw darts at
projects or even employment, if you will, when you have no idea of what
you are talking about. I was a principal of two elementary schools.
Both were title I schools. Both had ESEA funding. The Federal law at
that time, it is probably still in existence, said that Federal funding
cannot supplant local funding.
So if you are saying that this is duplicative, it isn't. It is
supplementary. It is to enhance the programs that are already existing.
And the Federal Government has the responsibility to help programs and
help youngsters in this country.
It is common knowledge that the State has the primary responsibility
of education in their States, but the Federal Government has
responsibility also. And in their good judgment in the past when they
established the ESEA programs, they saw the need to help States fulfill
their responsibilities.
[[Page H8034]]
Mr. Chairman, it is probably easy to poke holes into something you
don't know anything about. It is probably even easier to criticize
something when you have no experience and no one is going to challenge
that.
{time} 1500
Mr. Chairman, I am here to challenge their premise, and would ask my
colleagues not to support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. CAMPBELL of California. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman
yielding. I didn't want to interrupt your comments, so I waited to be
yielded time here just to respond to your statements through the Chair.
No, I have not ever administered or run a school. For that matter, I
imagine that out of the 435 Members of Congress, there are probably one
or two or three who have ever run or administered a school. And I would
hate that to be the barometer or the test that we would have to take
before we could ever propose an amendment, vote on an amendment, or
even consider legislation that comes before the House. If that were the
case, programs like the VR program would never be established in the
first place. If the test is whether a Member of Congress has experience
in it to propose a new program or expand a program, there is not enough
educators here or people who have run title I schools to get the
backing of legislation in the first place. So I would question the
gentleman's premise.
Now the gentleman on the other hand questions our basic premise for
supporting this amendment. Our basic premise is that you don't have to
actually run the school to know that perhaps the best way to serve a
particular segment of our country is to make sure that the dollars go
to programs that are up and running and do serve that program.
The administration has looked at this and has seen that the program
in place that we are talking about now has been in place since 1970 as
a demonstration project. ``Demonstration,'' the word itself connotes
the fact that this is temporary in nature.
Since that time, we have the VR program, which I pointed out earlier,
maybe the gentleman did not hear my testimony, the VR program handles
these same services. In fact, it says: ``The activities needed to
successfully serve the migrant and seasonal farmwork population do not
differ from those that benefit a much wider group of VR consumers.''
For example, the outreach activities in churches and community centers
may be effective for identifying farmworkers with disabilities, what
this amendment deals with, but they also assist in identifying other
persons with disabilities who visit these places. The hiring of
bilingual counselors will assist all consumers who are monolingual in a
non-English language, whether they are farmworkers or not. And the
provisions of the transportation services for rural areas will benefit
all rural residents, whether farmworkers or not.
The bottom line is, our basic premise is, if you are going to serve a
segment of the population, in this case individuals with disabilities
and migrant farmworkers, let's do so, but let's do so with programs
that are already up and running and have a track record. That is what
this underlying bill does. It even does it with spending $36 million
more. I think we can make sure that program runs and eliminate the
duplicative program.
Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I will just add one thing
as I have been listening to the general debate here.
It seems that quite often on this floor, particularly on the other
side of the aisle, that we measure how much we care about something by
how much money we spend on it. If that was the measure of everything,
Paris Hilton would be the most well-adjusted kid on the planet.
It is not just how much we spend, but it is whether it is effective.
It is whether it is duplicative, as we are alleging in the case of this
program. It is whether it is getting the job done.
It doesn't do any good for anybody to spend money that is duplicative
or that isn't effective or that wastes a lot of money along the way.
That is not good for anybody. So whether it is this program, frankly,
or any others, we should, in this House and on this floor, realize that
we are stewards of the taxpayers' money, not just spenders of the
taxpayers' money, and we should ensure that it is being well spent, not
just totally spent.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey
will be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Special Institutions for Persons With Disabilities
american printing house for the blind
For carrying out the Act of March 3, 1879 (20 U.S.C. 101 et
seq.), $17,573,000.
national technical institute for the deaf
For the National Technical Institute for the Deaf under
titles I and II of the Education of the Deaf Act of 1986 (20
U.S.C. 4301 et seq.), $60,757,000, of which $1,705,000 shall
be for construction and shall remain available until
expended: Provided, That from the total amount available, the
Institute may at its discretion use funds for the endowment
program as authorized under section 207 of such Act (20
U.S.C. 4357).
gallaudet university
For the Kendall Demonstration Elementary School, the Model
Secondary School for the Deaf, and the partial support of
Gallaudet University under titles I and II of the Education
of the Deaf Act of 1986 (20 U.S.C. 4301 et seq.),
$109,952,000: Provided, That from the total amount available,
the University may at its discretion use funds for the
endowment program as authorized under section 207 of such Act
(20 U.S.C. 4357).
Career, Technical, and Adult Education
For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided, the
Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006
(20 U.S.C. 2301 et seq.), the Adult Education and Family
Literacy Act (20 U.S.C. 9201 et seq.), and subpart 4 of part
D of title V of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 (``ESEA'') (20 U.S.C. 7249), $2,046,220,000, of which
$1,247,220,000 shall become available on July 1, 2008, and
shall remain available through September 30, 2009, and of
which $791,000,000 shall become available on October 1, 2008,
and shall remain available through September 30, 2009:
Provided, That of the amounts made available for the Carl D.
Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006,
$8,000,000 is for the postsecondary career and technical
institutions under section 117 of such Act (20 U.S.C. 2327):
Provided further, That of the amounts provided for Adult
Education State Grants, $71,622,000 shall be made available
for integrated English literacy and civics education services
to immigrants and other limited English proficient
populations: Provided further, That of the amount reserved
for integrated English literacy and civics education,
notwithstanding section 211 of the Adult Education and Family
Literacy Act (20 U.S.C. 9211), 65 percent shall be allocated
to States based on a State's absolute need as determined by
calculating each State's share of a 10-year average of the
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services data for
immigrants admitted for legal permanent residence for the 10
most recent years, and 35 percent allocated to States that
experienced growth as measured by the average of the 3 most
recent years for which United States Citizenship and
Immigration Services data for immigrants admitted for legal
permanent residence are available, except that no State shall
be allocated an amount less than $60,000: Provided further,
That of the amounts made available for the Adult Education
and Family Literacy Act, $7,000,000 shall be for national
leadership activities under section 243 of such Act (20
U.S.C. 9253) and $6,638,000 shall be for the National
Institute for Literacy under section 242 of such Act (20
U.S.C. 9252): Provided further, That $93,531,000 shall be
available to support the activities authorized under subpart
4 of part D of title V of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7249), of which
up to 5 percent shall become available October 1, 2007, and
shall remain available through September 30, 2009, for
evaluation, technical assistance, school networks, peer
review of applications, and program outreach activities, and
of which not less than 95 percent shall become available on
July 1, 2008, and remain available through September 30,
2009, for grants to local educational agencies: Provided
further, That funds made available to local educational
agencies under this subpart shall be used only for activities
related to establishing smaller learning communities within
large high schools or small
[[Page H8035]]
high schools that provide alternatives for students enrolled
in large high schools.
Amendment No. 64 Offered by Mr. Price of Georgia
Mr. PRICE of GEORGIA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 64 offered by Mr. Price of Georgia:
Page 87, line 1, strike the comma and insert ``and''.
Page 87, line 3, strike ``and'' and all that follows
through the first comma on line 5.
Page 87, line 5, after each dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $93,531,000)''.
Page 88, line 13, strike the colon and all that follows
through page 89, line 3, and insert a period.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk read
the amendment because unless she does, we have no idea what the
amendment is.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Clerk will report the
amendment.
There was no objection.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. The amendment that the Clerk is currently
reading is not one that I am offering.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, amendment No. 64 is
withdrawn.
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Student Financial Assistance
For carrying out subparts 1, 3, and 4 of part A, part C,
and part E of title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965,
$17,464,883,000, which shall remain available through
September 30, 2009: Provided, That, in addition, any amount
made available for Academic Competitiveness Grants and
National SMART Grants under section 401A of the Higher
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070a-1) for fiscal year
2007 (in an appropriation for such fiscal year or a preceding
fiscal year) that is unobligated at the end of fiscal year
2007 shall be available for Pell Grants for the 2008-2009
award year.
Amendment No. 65 Offered by Mr. Price of Georgia
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 65 offered by Mr. Price of Georgia:
Page 89, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $64,987,000)''.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I apologize for the confusion. I
apologize for rising early.
This amendment is a simple amendment. It addresses the Leveraging
Educational Assistance Partnership program and would end the funding
for this program, saving $65 million of hard-earned taxpayer money. The
rationale is, as the administration has described and as has been
recommended by the Secretary of Education's Commission on the Future of
Higher Education, virtually every State operates programs to a much
larger degree than the Federal Government that address this very same
issue.
As I mentioned just a moment ago when I rose to another amendment, we
here in Washington enact all sorts of pilot programs and all sorts of
trial programs, and so very often, in fact probably more often than
not, we don't go back and look as a Federal Government to see whether
or not the goal or the mission of those programs has been accomplished.
Rarely, in fact, I would suggest, do we see if the goal has been
accomplished. This is one in which there has been great success. The
mission and the goal of the program has indeed been accomplished. It
has accomplished its original objective of stimulating all States to
establish need-based post-secondary student grant programs. However,
beyond the establishment of these programs, the LEAP program, the
Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership program itself, does
little to encourage States to increase their investment in grant aid
for their neediest of students or effectively targets this aid to
students who could most benefit from it.
When we do look, when the Department of Education and when the Office
of Management and Budget performs its assessment and reviews this
program, what it says is, at this point, because the mission has been
accomplished, the results of any further funding for this program are
clearly not demonstrated. So in an effort to achieve again some fiscal
responsibility and in an effort to decrease some of the significant
waste that does occur at the Federal level, I encourage my colleagues
to accept and vote for the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I have been trying to figure out what we
ought to be calling these amendments that have been offered for 2 days.
I have concluded that we ought to call them the congressional rubber-
stamp amendments, because what is happening is we are seeing amendment
after amendment offered that would simply return these funding levels
to the exact level recommended by the President.
Now I see story after story indicating that a good many of my friends
on the other side of the aisle are anxious to separate themselves from
the President these days, but we have evidently a few members of their
caucus who are eager to embrace virtually every action and every
thought that comes from the White House. I find that very interesting.
The President felt we ought to eliminate this program. What does this
program do? This program provides $60 million in grants to States to
offer needs-based student scholarships. There are 165,000 students who
will benefit from this program, getting scholarships of $1,000. I would
simply ask, does anybody really believe that we are providing enough
help for working families to send their kids to college?
The Pell Grant program is the major program upon which we rely in
order to help students from lower and middle-income families find
enough money to go on to college. When that program was in its heyday
in the seventies, it provided over 70 percent of the cost of attending
a 4-year public university. It provided help in the form of a Pell
Grant to meet that percentage of the cost. Today, it is down to a
little over 30 percent of the cost. So we have shifted a huge
percentage of the cost to working families.
The President's answer in his budget this year was to move Pell
Grants from one side of the budget to the other making it, instead of a
discretionary program, a mandatory program and in the process decided
he was going to pay for the increase in the Pell Grants by eliminating
virtually every other student aid program on the books except Pell and
Work Study.
I would suggest if you think that is a good idea, go ahead, follow
the President over the cliff and vote to deny these 165,000 students
the additional help they need. The money that we invest in student aid
is returned to this country many times over. We are in a competitive
world. Over 50 percent of the jobs that will be offered in this country
in the next 7 years are jobs that will require a higher education, and
it seems to me instead of running away from that obligation, we ought
to be embracing it. This is a very bad idea. I urge defeat of the
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
obtaining time, and I appreciate the chairman's comments.
Again, the purpose of this amendment is to address wasteful spending.
It is a significant responsibility that we have here in the House to
make certain that the money we spend, which is hard-earned taxpayer
money, is spent wisely. I know there is huge animosity on the other
side of the aisle against the President. I think sometimes that
animosity actually blinds individuals to some quality work that is
coming
[[Page H8036]]
from the administration. There are high-quality people who work in the
administration, this administration, just like every other
administration. In fact, there are high-quality people in the
Department of Education and there are high-quality people in the Office
of Management and Budget who looked at this problem and said that the
goals and the mission of this program have, indeed, been accomplished.
It was a wonderful program, served a grand purpose, but the goals and
the missions have been accomplished. Consequently, it is appropriate,
if we are going to be responsible with hard-earned taxpayer money, to
end a program that has accomplished its mission, accomplished its
goals, and not continue wasteful Federal spending.
{time} 1515
So I would urge my colleagues, I know that they can be blinded by
animosity for the President and for the administration, but I would
urge my colleagues to listen to those hardworking individuals in the
Federal Government who are looking at these programs and attempting to
find cost savings for the American public so that we can prioritize on
other programs.
That's what this amendment does. It seeks to be responsible with
hard-earned taxpayer money. I encourage my colleagues to support the
amendment, and I yield back to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
There is none so blind who shall not see. I appreciate the gentleman
from Georgia for coming to the microphones and asking all of us to open
our eyes so that we shall see the values of these things, despite the
personalities otherwise, and I support the gentleman's amendment from
Georgia.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, the gentleman from Georgia
said we can eliminate the LEAP program because missions have been
accomplished. The LEAP program is available for the poorest of the poor
in this country. It's for people whose family incomes are less than
$20,000. Poverty, unfortunately, still goes on in this country.
People who make less than $20,000 need help in order to obtain an
education to allow them to be competitive and allow our country to be
competitive against other countries which are investing dollar after
dollar after dollar into educational opportunities for their
individuals.
So the mission hasn't been accomplished until we eradicate poverty.
So I would really urge Members to look closely at the language in the
LEAP program. It also is matched by State dollars, and I would urge my
colleagues to oppose the amendment.
I yield back my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will
be postponed.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Arcuri) having assumed the chair, Mr. Capuano, Acting Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3043)
making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human
Services, and Education, and related agencies for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes, had come to no
resolution thereon.
____________________