[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 14170-14234]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 337 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 3010.

                              {time}  0918


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 3010) making appropriations for the Departments of 
Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies 
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes, 
with Mr. Putnam in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Thursday, June 
23, 2005, the amendment by the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. 
Bradley) had been disposed of and the bill had been read through page 
69, line 19.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the 
subcommittee for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I have been concerned about a program known as Youth 
Build, which I know many Members are familiar with, which is a very 
good program which gets young people in urban areas and elsewhere to 
learn how to build houses. And the results are some very nice houses 
for deserving people, and an improvement of a neighborhood, and most 
importantly, skills for these young people.
  Now, we ran into a little difficulty. It is not one of the more 
expensive of our programs although it has been, at $60 million, not 
nothing. The President in his budget proposed I think $50 million for 
it, but proposed that instead of being funded out of the HUD budget it 
be transferred to the Labor Department's budget. That led to, I guess, 
it falling between the cracks of the two appropriate subcommittees; so 
that while I understand there is support for the program and the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), a former chairman of the HUD 
subcommittee, tells me that he strongly supports it, and I understand 
there was a very close vote in the Appropriations Committee on an 
amendment to put it back into the bill, both bills now come to the 
floor without that appropriation for Youth Build. And I think this is a 
case of something not being rejected on the merits, or not being 
something we cannot afford, but something that has sort of fallen 
through the cracks because of this proposed change in where it goes.
  So I would ask the chairman of the subcommittee, given the, I 
believe, support, it was in the President's budget, there was virtually 
a tie vote in the Appropriations Committee, could the gentleman tell 
me, is there some hope that we can give to these young people that this 
important program will survive?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentleman from Ohio for 
striking the last word so you could raise this.
  Let me simply say to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), I 
fully agree with him about the value of the program. The President's 
budget wanted to transfer it to this bill. The subcommittee did not 
pick up the money in this bill. In my view, it should have. But I would 
say that because it has not, there will be another opportunity next 
week to try to deal with this when the Teasury-Transportation bill 
comes to the floor.
  It would be disgraceful if the Congress allowed this program to fall 
through the cracks because neither committee included the funding for 
it and if Congress simply played Alfonse and Gaston on us between the 
two subcommittees.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield.

[[Page 14171]]


  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Wisconsin.
  I wonder if the gentleman from Ohio could give us some guidance on 
what the chances are for the ultimate survival of this very important 
program which the President supports, and I believe is supported on the 
merits. Could we get it in the bill next week? Or what is the prospects 
of this Youth Build program not dying because of kind of a shuffle 
here.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me say that I agree 
with the gentleman. It is a great program. I am very familiar with it. 
Unfortunately, it is in no man's land. The way the OMB budget came up, 
the President's budget, it put it in Labor, which is this bill. But 
there is no authorization, which means it is still in the 
Transportation Treasury, and there is no money either place. But I hope 
we can resolve this because it is just what it says, it builds youth. 
And we have had real success in my district with it, and I think it is 
something we would want to retain as a national program.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would 
yield further, does that mean, and maybe we can discuss this again in 
the Transportation HUD bill, but that, since it is not a large sum of 
money, the President supports it, it has a lot of support here, that we 
can expect at some point in the process before we finish the 
appropriations, this program could be funded?
  Mr. REGULA. Well, I certainly hope so. And we will make every effort 
to find some way to fit it. It just happens that I am on both of the 
committees and will work with the Treasury, or Transportation Treasury. 
It is a worthwhile program. It ought to be funded and kept in place. I 
think the authorizers need to deal with it, too, to change the 
authorization to make it appropriate for Labor.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman.


                  Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Kirk

  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Kirk:
       In title III in the item relating to ``School Improvement 
     Programs'' insert before the period at the end the following: 
     ``: Provided further, That, of the funds made available under 
     this heading, $11,100,000 is for carrying out subpart 6 of 
     part D of title V of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
     Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7253 et seq.) (relating to gifted and 
     talented students)''.

  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman----
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will suspend. Is there objection to 
returning to that point in the reading to consider the amendment?
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, is it my understanding that the agreement 
worked between majority and minority to have the Kirk and Nadler 
amendments brought up is now being broken?
  The CHAIRMAN. The order of the House did not address the reading of 
the bill.
  Mr. KIRK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, because of the rapid reading of the bill, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) and I were both unable to offer 
our amendments and worked out an agreement to offer it at this time. 
The amendment that I would have offered would have helped restore 
funding for the gifted education program under the Javitz program that 
funds programs in over 20 States and universities. It is this program 
that has helped out programs like the Bronx Project for creating urban 
excellence, serving 32,000 poor and minority students.
  Not only did this program help the gifted students, for example, in 
that school district, but it improved math and science scores, a 20 
percent improvement for the entire school, not just gifted students. 
The Javitz program has supported programs in 125 State and local 
education districts since 1989, reaching two million students 
nationwide. A complete list of the program is available from the 
Department of Education.
  I am very concerned that this program was zeroed out. In my attempt 
to earmark the program, other programs under this title would have been 
seen as a potential cut, and my colleagues from Hawaii were very 
concerned about one program there. My concern now is that the program 
moves forward with zero for gifted education. And the attempted 
amendment was to correct that, because I do not think for the future of 
our country, for the future of science and math education that we 
should move forward with a zero appropriation for gifted education. But 
I yield to my chairman on this point.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.


                 Amendment No. 24 Offered by Mr. Nadler

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 24 offered by Mr. Nadler:
       In title III in the item relating to ``School Improvement 
     Programs'', after the aggregate dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $35,600,000)''.
       In title III in the item relating to ``Departmental 
     Management--Program Administration'', after the aggregate 
     dollar amount, insert ``(reduced by $35,600,000)''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to considering the amendment at this 
point?
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I understand 
that we are breaking this agreement then?
  I yield to the distinguished ranking minority member.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would not describe it as breaking the 
agreement. If the gentleman would be kind enough to let me explain what 
I think has happened here. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) and 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) both missed their opportunity 
to offer their amendments in regular order because the reading went 
fast and neither of them was on the floor. We had a unanimous consent 
agreement which was about to be propounded by the gentleman from Ohio.
  When the gentleman from Illinois and the gentleman from New York 
discovered that they had missed their opportunity, the gentleman from 
Illinois asked for an opportunity to go back. At that point, I 
suggested that the unanimous consent agreement be rewritten to include 
your amendment and the gentleman's from New York. The committee 
majority preferred, and I can understand why, because it was time 
consuming, the committee preferred to simply rely on our ability to get 
unanimous consent to go back to consider yours and the gentleman from 
New York's amendment.
  However, the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) was not part of 
the arrangement. And since your amendment takes money out of a program 
in his State, he felt required to object. So I do not think that anyone 
is ``breaking an agreement.''
  This is what happens, number one, when Members are not on the floor 
when they need to be. Secondly, it is what happens when we do not 
include matters like that in the UC agreement. We were relying on an 
assumption that proved to be erroneous, and I am certain the gentleman 
from Ohio feels as badly about it as I do. But in my view, no one on 
the floor is breaking his word. This is just an unfortunate set of 
circumstances, and a Member has the right to protect his own State's 
interest if the opportunity presents itself.
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, given the fact that we are breaking this 
agreement, and given the fact that I am not able to offer my amendment, 
my normal course of action would be to object, but I hold the gentleman 
from New York in high regard, as the gentleman from Iowa, and so I am 
not

[[Page 14172]]

going to be partisan and I am not going to do tit for tat, and I am not 
going to object, even though objection has been heard from the other 
side. So I withdraw my point of order.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to returning in the reading to 
consider the amendment?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  0930

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 23, 2005, 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me begin by expressing my appreciation to the 
gentleman from Illinois for his magnanimity and largeness of thought in 
this matter.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment to restore the 
funding for Arts in Education programs to $35.6 million. Unfortunately, 
the underlying Labor-HHS appropriations bill zeros out this program, 
effectively eliminating it.
  This year, 106 of our colleagues from both sides of the aisle, 
include my friends, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), joined me in writing to the committee 
asking for $53 million in Arts in Education funding. Given the funding 
constraints in the bill, the amendment instead asked that we simply 
level fund the program, the number passed after conference last year.
  This program provides funds to establish model programs at the 
Department of Education that brings arts education to schools across 
the country as well as funds to support the professional development of 
arts educators. The program also supports the ongoing national arts 
education initiatives of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing 
Arts and VSA arts which ensure that people with disabilities can learn 
through, participate in and enjoy the arts.
  Time and again, parents, educators and community leaders tell us that 
arts education is critical for preparing our Nation's children to 
succeed in school, work and life. Years of research demonstrate that a 
real significant link exists between arts education and students' 
academic performance and social development.
  Arts funding and education funding is not controversial and is 
nonpartisan. Some of the most vocal proponents of Arts in Education 
include Republican Governor Mike Huckabee and former Education 
Secretary Rod Paige. I know the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) 
also is supportive of Arts in Education programs.
  I would like to thank the gentleman for working with the Senate each 
year to increase funding in conference, and thank the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for his leadership on this issue. I understand 
that this is a tight bill in a tight funding year generally, but it is 
important that the House voice its support for this program.
  So I ask the distinguished chairman and the ranking member to work 
with me and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) to assure that funds for these 
beneficial, well-liked programs are maintained, if not increased, in 
conference this year.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. Leach).
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I am honored to offer this amendment with 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) and the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Boehlert). I would only stress of all the learning 
disciplines, the arts tap and expand the human imagination the most, 
and in a world of exploding options for individuals and families, it is 
imperative when there is no experience to serve as a guide, that the 
imagination be stimulated and perspectives be applied and that values 
be brought to bear.
  It appears that the children of 20th century America lost something 
when they became captives to passive education offered by advances in 
media, particularly television. If we can learn from our mistakes, an 
emphasis on hands-on efforts, particularly in the creative arts, should 
become a focal point of 21st century education.
  For most Americans, the arts are an optional endeavor. But for some, 
art is a principal means of self-expression and communication. For 
example, last month 17-year-old Patrick Henry Hughes won the VSA arts 
2005 soloist award for his piano and vocal abilities. In an interview, 
he said, ``I am blind and I can't walk, but I don't let it stop me. I 
actually love the life I am living. If I have a sad moment, I go to the 
piano and get happy again.''
  We must ensure that every young person with a disability has access 
to arts learning experiences. VSA arts, which are part of the Arts in 
Education programming eliminated in this bill, provides opportunities 
for children and adults with disabilities and stimulates millions of 
people, like Patrick Hughes, helping to transform their otherwise 
frustrating world into one that is more beautiful and purposeful.
  Mr. Chairman, the arts are not a luxury, they are the soul of 
society.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEACH. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, the arts motivate and inspire people of 
all ages to engage in learning, and that is what this is all about. 
Students who take regular arts courses are proven to score on average 
90 to 100 points better on their SATs than students that do not take 
arts classes. Students that attend arts courses are shown to have 
better attendance, lower dropout rates, participate in more community 
service and have a higher self-esteem. That sounds to me like a pretty 
darn good investment in the youth of America.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge support of this amendment.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am not clear that I am going to ask for a vote on this 
amendment. If we get an appropriate assurance that we will work in 
conference from the chairman, we may not have to do that. I will ask 
the chairman to express himself on that subject.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  This, like many programs, is a great idea, a great help, with over 
100 grants last year, but we do have a really tight budget. I know when 
we get to conference with the other body, that this probably will be 
one that has support, but it all depends on what is available in 
funding. I am sympathetic to it, but I cannot guarantee anything. I 
think we would have to consider it.
  It has a trade-off, that is the problem at this juncture in your 
amendment, and that is it would cause the layoff of many employees.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) 
has expired.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am responding to the question from the gentleman from 
New York, and that is, yes, we will certainly take this under 
consideration in the conference.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of the 
distinguished chairman from Ohio as to the fact that there will be 
efforts made in conference to try to retain this program. I think that 
is probably the best we can do, and I appreciate his statement. I will 
at this point not ask for a vote on this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to note that during the debate on the 
Nadler amendment to H.R. 3010, which would have restored funding to 
Arts in Education programs, a procedural error occurred.

[[Page 14173]]

  The Record will reflect that at the end of the debate, as a result of 
the agreement by Chairman Regula to work to maintain funds for Arts in 
Education programs in conference, I stated that I would not seek a vote 
on my amendment. Immediately following the debate, however, in his 
haste to keep the proceedings moving, the Chair called a vote, 
contradicting my intention to withdraw my amendment. With nobody 
apparently listening, or realizing there was a vote in progress--no 
``aye'' or ``nay'' vote was heard--the Chair declared the voice vote in 
the negative.
  I would like the Record to reflect that it was my intention to 
withdraw my amendment, because of Chairman Regula's commitment to the 
Arts in Education program. I trust that commitment will not be affected 
by the procedural error.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
  The amendment was rejected.


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Price of Georgia

  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Price of Georgia:
       Page 69, line 1, after the first dollar amount insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $70,000,000)''.
       Page 69, line 3, after the dollar amount insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $70,000,000)''.
       Page 69, line 4, after the dollar amount insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $70,000,000)''.
       Page 82, line 10, after the dollar amount insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $70,000,000)''.
       Page 82, line 12, after the dollar amount insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $70,000,000)''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 23, 2005, 
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would rise to commend the Chair and the committee for 
their work. I understand the difficult times that we are in and the 
decisions that are difficult that we need to make.
  As a budget is a demonstration of our priorities, I offer a positive 
amendment in an effort to further highlight those priorities. Currently 
in the bill the Teacher Incentive Fund earmark has $100 million and the 
AmeriCorps earmark has $270 million. My amendment increases the funding 
for the Teacher Incentive Fund by $70 million and reduces that funding 
for AmeriCorps by the same amount.
  President Bush asked in his budget for $500 million for the Teacher 
Incentive Fund in the FY 2006 budget. The Committee on Appropriations 
was only able to provide $100 million for this program. The Teacher 
Incentive Fund is a new teacher merit pay pilot initiative. Teachers 
and officials who improve student achievement of are provided with 
financial incentives, rewarding achievement. This is a good idea.
  The Teacher Incentive Fund will carry out two goals: One, rewarding 
effective teachers teaching in schools most in need; and, two, 
rewarding effective teachers in schools that are top performers in 
closing the achievement gap and meeting the annual targets in No Child 
Left Behind.
  Ask yourself, who made a real difference in your education? Most of 
us will remember one or two teachers who affected us in a very 
remarkable way. For me it was one of my high school teachers, Dr. 
Welch, and I will never, never forget how he challenged me to excel.
  Teacher quality is the most important school-related factor 
influencing student achievement. One of the tenants of no child left 
behind is putting a qualified teacher in every single classroom. It is 
estimated that more than 2 million teachers will need to be hired over 
the next decade and the Teacher Incentive Fund will encourage more 
talented individuals into the field of teaching.
  The AmeriCorps program is a program that was conceived under then-
president Clinton, and, in short, the Federal Government is paying 
participants, paying participants, to participate in a volunteer 
capacity, sometimes up to $21,000 year. It is the antithesis of limited 
government. When the Federal Government assumes the job of private 
organizations, it encourages citizens to abandon their civic 
responsibilities.
  According to GAO studies, the results of the AmeriCorps program are 
difficult to measure. Furthermore there are more than 83 million 
Americans who volunteer, meaning that the overall impact of AmeriCorps 
is minimal, especially given the level of funding provided.
  This is a common sense amendment. It is consistent with our mission 
of improving education and limiting the spread of government. I urge my 
colleagues to support this amendment to improve education and our 
competitiveness in the world.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not think the gentleman is a big fan of 
AmeriCorps, and the attempt really here is to reduce AmeriCorps more 
than to enhance the other program, because we have already added $100 
million in new money in the teacher innovation program. It is a great 
program, and I am a great believer that teachers are the key to a good 
education, so I do not quarrel with the idea. I wish we had more money 
to do that.
  But, on the other hand, AmeriCorps is a very important program, 
because it is made up of volunteers, a lot of times young people. They 
get a little stipend to help with their education, but they do not get 
paid. You have volunteers who are working in a community, on education, 
public safety, probably doing mentoring for students, which is 
extremely important.
  I think that perhaps the goal that the gentleman is trying to achieve 
is desirable, but the target the gentleman has, which is AmeriCorps, 
would be a mistake given the fact that AmeriCorps has a very important 
role to play.
  I like volunteers. The President is a big booster of volunteers. He 
has a goal of getting 75,000 AmeriCorps members as volunteers, and this 
would in part stifle the President's goal of getting these people.
  So I would hope the gentleman would withdraw his amendment, or at 
least not go to a vote on it, because I think the innovative program is 
good, but AmeriCorps is good, and in limited budgets we need to keep 
that program going.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, however well intended this amendment may be, it goes to 
the heart of what is very important in this country, and that is 
getting our young people to want to participate and be part of our 
society, and it employs a lot of young people from our urban areas. 
But, more important than that, is they work at minimum wage, but then 
they get a stipend to help pay for their education.
  Why do we give away college grants, when young people are willing to 
work to get them? For me, this is so central to what we believe as 
Republicans: Do not give them a grant, have them earn it. They earn 
these grants, they do incredible service throughout the country, and it 
replaces having young people do a job just to do a job. They do 
meaningful, meaningful work.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would just point out 
that the AmeriCorps members that would be reduced and perhaps 
eliminated serve 2 million children and youth in education-related 
programs, as I mentioned earlier, as mentors. They tutor children of 
prisoners and they train over 600,000 community volunteers. So it has a 
very powerful ripple effect throughout the community

[[Page 14174]]

to have these AmeriCorps, most like young people, volunteers, seeking 
other people and training them to engage in service as mentors and so 
on.
  Here you have two good programs, but, on balance, we have to at this 
juncture and with the limited resources we have, go with the AmeriCorps 
as opposed to adding more, in addition to the $100 million we already 
put in the program, for innovative education programs.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to oppose this amendment if it were to 
come to a vote.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of the chairman and of the 
other Members who have spoken. I understand that, again, our budget is 
a budget of priorities. The President had requested $500 million for 
the Teacher Incentive Fund, and I believe that moving toward a budget 
that greater aligns our priorities in the area of education is 
important.
  $200 million would be left in AmeriCorps; $200 million. That is not a 
paltry sum. In addition, the CBO has stated that this $70 million shift 
would in fact save $33 million. I do not know how they come up with 
those numbers, but that is how they score this. So we are spending $70 
million and saving another $33 million.
  I believe moving toward the Teacher Incentive Fund, which would, 
again, provide incentives for high quality teachers in our schools that 
would ultimately result in changing lives in a very positive way, is a 
positive amendment and a positive thing to do.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
just to close this out.
  Mr. Chairman, I think, again, these are both good programs. We had to 
make choices. In balancing the equities between the two, inasmuch as we 
put the $100 million in the innovative program and that is yet to be 
developed as to how it will be accomplished. But, we know with 
AmeriCorps that they work in the communities, do a lot of great work in 
getting people involved in mentoring and all kinds of other activities, 
and on balance I think we have to make a choice here. So, I would urge 
Members to stay with the numbers that are in the bill, to stay with 
what we put in for AmeriCorps and not approve this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, again, I appreciate those comments. I think this is a 
positive move to realign our budget priorities in a more positive way 
for education, and I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, if I could have the attention of the gentleman from 
Ohio, I simply rise neither to speak for nor against this amendment, 
but simply to make an observation about it.
  The situation that the gentleman from Ohio finds himself in on this 
issue is a very difficult one, because he is trying to balance between 
two legitimate claims on the Federal Treasury. We have seen, as was 
observed in the Washington Post article this morning, a parade of 
Members come down to the floor yesterday and today trying to wiggle out 
from the consequences of the budget resolution which was imposed on the 
entire House by the passage of that resolution.
  Now, I do not like to be in that position. I have a little less 
sympathy for the gentleman from Ohio than I do for myself on this 
issue, because he voted for the budget resolution and I did not. But 
that being said, there is no right position on an amendment like this.
  This issue simply demonstrates that when the money that you provide 
for education is inadequate, when it is inadequate to the needs of the 
Nation, then we are going to be eating each other's favorite programs, 
then you are going to have all kinds of interest groups in this country 
chewing on each other and each trying to get out from under at the 
expense of everybody else.
  So I can actually understand why the gentleman opposes this 
amendment, because he needs some flexibility in conference to deal with 
some of the legitimate concerns that Members have. I love the program 
the gentleman from Georgia is trying to add money to. I had a son in 
the gifted and talented program. He was a National Merit scholar. Yet I 
would have a great deal of difficulty voting to add money for that 
program at the expense of programs that went to help less gifted and 
less advantaged children in this society.
  So the amendment is half right and half wrong, and I hope, therefore, 
that the Members on the majority side and the minority side will 
understand why the gentleman from Ohio is so reluctantly against this 
amendment.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, just by way of clarification, I 
appreciate the gentleman's comments, and budgets are difficult, there 
is no doubt about it, and they say where we are in the priorities.
  Just by way of clarification, this fund is not for the talented and 
gifted program. This fund is to find high quality teachers and reward 
high quality teachers who increase achievement in schools and increase 
achievement in closing that gap.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for 
correcting me, I misheard. I happen to think that that is a tremendous 
program too. But the problem is all of these amendments, taken 
together, will limit the chairman's ability to provide any flexibility 
at all in conference to fix these problems. So I urge the gentleman to 
think about it. He might be surprised at which programs are going to be 
bitten if the gentleman does not have the flexibility that he needs.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) will 
be postponed.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman knows, he and I have 
discussed on several occasions now my interest in funding the NCI, 
National Cancer Institute, for more money to expedite finding a cure 
for cancer or finding that cancer becomes a manageable disease. Twenty-
five percent of the deaths in this country are caused by cancer. One 
out of every two men will get cancer. One out of every three women will 
be stricken with cancer.
  Research is going forward at such a fast pace. I wanted to put 
together an amendment that would add $50 million for additional 
research centers designated by NCI.
  I realize, picking up on what the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) 
has just said, that this is a very tightly crafted bill; but I would 
ask the gentleman as chairman, and this is coming from one who has 
suffered from lung cancer, that the gentleman find that money, or look 
for the money in the conference, so that we can increase the funding 
for NCI so that we can expand those centers.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman. 
We are very aware of the gentleman's concerns. We have added a modest 
amount for the cancer institute. I have had many discussions with the 
director, Dr. von Eschenbach; and what we are trying to do, and he is 
doing, the gentleman would be interested in, he is trying to coordinate 
the various research centers.

[[Page 14175]]

  There are many good institutions throughout the United States doing 
cancer research; and because of the importance and the cost, we want to 
avoid duplication among these various institutions. So I think this 
program of trying to coordinate to ensure that they are not reinventing 
the wheel at each one of these places, because it is expensive, 
hopefully out of that effort there will be a more coordinated effort to 
target a cure for cancer because this would certainly be a great 
breakthrough.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, I very 
much appreciate that and sincerely hope the gentleman will be able to 
accomplish this. This is a tremendously important project. Dr. von 
Eschenbach is doing a huge job. By 2015, we could be looking at cancer 
through the rear-view mirror instead of every day worrying about some 
loved one or yourself as a sufferer of cancer.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
for his interest.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill 
through page 98, line 18, be considered as read, printed in the Record 
and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  The CHAIRMAN. There was no objection.
  The text of the remainder of the bill through page 98, line 18, is as 
follows:

                 Safe Schools and Citizenship Education

       For carrying out activities authorized by subpart 3 of part 
     C of title II, part A of title IV, and subparts 2, 3, and 10 
     of part D of title V of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (``ESEA''), $763,870,000, of which 
     $400,000,000, shall become available on July 1, 2006, and 
     remain available through September 30, 2007: Provided, That 
     $400,000,000 shall be available for subpart 1 of part A of 
     title IV and $152,537,000 shall be available for subpart 2 of 
     part A of title IV: Provided further, That $132,621,000 shall 
     be available to carry out part D of title V of the ESEA: 
     Provided further, That of the funds available to carry out 
     subpart 3 of part C of title II, up to $12,193,000 may be 
     used to carry out section 2345 and $3,035,000 shall be used 
     by the Center for Civic Education to implement a 
     comprehensive program to improve public knowledge, 
     understanding, and support of the Congress and the State 
     legislatures.

                      English Language Acquisition

       For carrying out part A of title III of the ESEA, 
     $675,765,000, which shall become available on July 1, 2006, 
     and shall remain available through September 30, 2007, except 
     that 6.5 percent of such amount shall be available on October 
     1, 2005, and shall remain available through September 30, 
     2007, to carry out activities under section 3111(c)(1)(C).

                           Special Education

       For carrying out the Individuals with Disabilities 
     Education Act, $11,813,783,000, of which $6,202,804,000 shall 
     become available for obligation on July 1, 2006, and shall 
     remain available through September 30, 2007, and of which 
     $5,413,000,000 shall become available on October 1, 2006, and 
     shall remain available through September 30, 2007, for 
     academic year 2006-2007: Provided, That $11,400,000 shall be 
     for Recording for the Blind and Dyslexic, Inc., to support 
     the development, production, and circulation of recorded 
     educational materials: Provided further, That the amount for 
     section 611(b)(2) of the Act shall be equal to the amount 
     available for that activity during fiscal year 2005, 
     increased by the amount of inflation as specified in section 
     619(d)(2)(B) of the Act.

            Rehabilitation Services and Disability Research

       For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided, the 
     Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Assistive Technology Act of 
     1998 (``the AT Act''), and the Helen Keller National Center 
     Act, $3,128,638,000: Provided, That $29,760,000 shall be used 
     for carrying out the AT Act, including $4,385,000 for State 
     grants for protection and advocacy under section 5 of the AT 
     Act and $5,086,000 shall be for alternative financing 
     programs under section 4(b)(2)(D) of the AT Act: Provided 
     further, That the Federal share of grants for alternative 
     financing programs shall not exceed 75 percent, and the 
     requirements in section 301(c)(2) and section 302 of the AT 
     Act (as in effect on the day before the date of enactment of 
     the Assistive Technology Act of 2004) shall not apply to such 
     grants.

           Special Institutions for Persons With Disabilities


                 American Printing House for the Blind

       For carrying out the Act of March 3, 1879, as amended (20 
     U.S.C. 101 et seq.), $17,000,000.


               National Technical Institute for the Deaf

       For the National Technical Institute for the Deaf under 
     titles I and II of the Education of the Deaf Act of 1986 (20 
     U.S.C. 4301 et seq.), $56,137,000, of which $800,000 shall be 
     for construction and shall remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That from the total amount available, the Institute 
     may at its discretion use funds for the endowment program as 
     authorized under section 207.


                          Gallaudet University

       For the Kendall Demonstration Elementary School, the Model 
     Secondary School for the Deaf, and the partial support of 
     Gallaudet University under titles I and II of the Education 
     of the Deaf Act of 1986 (20 U.S.C. 4301 et seq.), 
     $107,657,000: Provided, That from the total amount available, 
     the University may at its discretion use funds for the 
     endowment program as authorized under section 207.

                     Vocational and Adult Education

       For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided, the 
     Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act of 
     1998, the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act, and 
     subparts 4 and 11 of part D of title V of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 (``ESEA''), $1,991,782,000, 
     of which $1,196,058,000 shall become available on July 1, 
     2006, and shall remain available through September 30, 2007, 
     and of which $791,000,000 shall become available on October 
     1, 2006, and shall remain available through September 30, 
     2007: Provided, That of the amount provided for Adult 
     Education State Grants, $68,581,000 shall be made available 
     for integrated English literacy and civics education services 
     to immigrants and other limited English proficient 
     populations: Provided further, That of the amount reserved 
     for integrated English literacy and civics education, 
     notwithstanding section 211 of the Adult Education and Family 
     Literacy Act, 65 percent shall be allocated to States based 
     on a State's absolute need as determined by calculating each 
     State's share of a 10-year average of the Immigration and 
     Naturalization Service data for immigrants admitted for legal 
     permanent residence for the 10 most recent years, and 35 
     percent allocated to States that experienced growth as 
     measured by the average of the 3 most recent years for which 
     Immigration and Naturalization Service data for immigrants 
     admitted for legal permanent residence are available, except 
     that no State shall be allocated an amount less than $60,000: 
     Provided further, That of the amounts made available for the 
     Adult Education and Family Literacy Act, $9,096,000 shall be 
     for national leadership activities under section 243 and 
     $6,638,000 shall be for the National Institute for Literacy 
     under section 242: Provided further, That $94,476,000 shall 
     be available to support the activities authorized under 
     subpart 4 of part D of title V of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965, of which up to 5 percent 
     shall become available October 1, 2005, and shall remain 
     available through September 30, 2007, for evaluation, 
     technical assistance, school networking, peer review of 
     applications, and program outreach activities, and of which 
     not less than 95 percent shall become available on July 1, 
     2006, and remain available through September 30, 2007, for 
     grants to local educational agencies: Provided further, That 
     funds made available to local education agencies under this 
     subpart shall be used only for activities related to 
     establishing smaller learning communities in high schools.

                      Student Financial Assistance

       For carrying out subparts 1, 3, and 4 of part A, part C and 
     part E of title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as 
     amended, $15,283,752,000, which shall remain available 
     through September 30, 2007.
       The maximum Pell Grant for which a student shall be 
     eligible during award year 2006-2007 shall be $4,100.

                       Student Aid Administration

       For Federal administrative expenses (in addition to funds 
     made available under section 458), to carry out part D of 
     title I, and subparts 1, 3, and 4 of part A, and parts B, C, 
     D, and E of title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as 
     amended, $124,084,000.

                            Higher Education

       For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided, 
     section 121 and titles II, III, IV, V, VI, and VII of the 
     Higher Education Act of 1965 (``HEA''), as amended, section 
     1543 of the Higher Education Amendments of 1992, the Mutual 
     Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961, and section 
     117 of the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education 
     Act, $1,936,936,000: Provided, That $9,797,000, to remain 
     available through September 30, 2007, shall be available to 
     fund fellowships for academic year 2007-2008 under part A, 
     subpart 1 of title VII of said Act, under the terms and 
     conditions of part A, subpart 1: Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law or any regulation, 
     the Secretary of Education shall not require the use of a 
     restricted indirect cost rate for grants issued pursuant to 
     section 117 of the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical 
     Education Act of 1998: Provided further, That $980,000 is for 
     data collection and evaluation activities for programs under 
     the HEA, including such activities needed to comply with the 
     Government Performance and Results Act of 1993: Provided 
     further, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     funds made available in this Act to carry out title VI of the 
     HEA and section 102(b)(6) of the Mutual Educational and

[[Page 14176]]

     Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 may be used to support visits 
     and study in foreign countries by individuals who are 
     participating in advanced foreign language training and 
     international studies in areas that are vital to United 
     States national security and who plan to apply their language 
     skills and knowledge of these countries in the fields of 
     government, the professions, or international development: 
     Provided further, That of the funds referred to in the 
     preceding proviso up to 1 percent may be used for program 
     evaluation, national outreach, and information dissemination 
     activities: Provided further, That the funds provided for 
     title II of the HEA shall be allocated notwithstanding 
     section 210 of such Act.

                           Howard University

       For partial support of Howard University (20 U.S.C. 121 et 
     seq.), $240,790,000, of which not less than $3,524,000 shall 
     be for a matching endowment grant pursuant to the Howard 
     University Endowment Act (Public Law 98-480) and shall remain 
     available until expended.

         College Housing and Academic Facilities Loans Program

       For Federal administrative expenses to carry out activities 
     related to existing facility loans pursuant to section 121 of 
     the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended $573,000.

  Historically Black College and University Capital Financing Program 
                                Account

       The aggregate principal amount of outstanding bonds insured 
     pursuant to section 344 of title III, part D of the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965, shall not exceed $357,000,000, and the 
     cost, as defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974, of such bonds shall not exceed zero.
       For administrative expenses to carry out the Historically 
     Black College and University Capital Financing Program 
     entered into pursuant to title III, part D of the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965, as amended, $210,000.

                    Institute of Education Sciences

       For carrying out activities authorized by the Education 
     Sciences Reform Act of 2002, as amended, the National 
     Assessment of Educational Progress Authorization Act, section 
     208 of the Educational Technical Assistance Act of 2002, and 
     section 664 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
     Act, $522,696,000, of which $271,560,000 shall be available 
     until September 30, 2007.

                        Departmental Management

                         Program Administration

       For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided, the 
     Department of Education Organization Act, including rental of 
     conference rooms in the District of Columbia and hire of 
     three passenger motor vehicles, $418,992,000.

                        Office for Civil Rights

       For expenses necessary for the Office for Civil Rights, as 
     authorized by section 203 of the Department of Education 
     Organization Act, $91,526,000.

                    Office of the Inspector General

       For expenses necessary for the Office of the Inspector 
     General, as authorized by section 212 of the Department of 
     Education Organization Act, $49,000,000.

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 301. No funds appropriated in this Act may be used for 
     the transportation of students or teachers (or for the 
     purchase of equipment for such transportation) in order to 
     overcome racial imbalance in any school or school system, or 
     for the transportation of students or teachers (or for the 
     purchase of equipment for such transportation) in order to 
     carry out a plan of racial desegregation of any school or 
     school system.
       Sec. 302. None of the funds contained in this Act shall be 
     used to require, directly or indirectly, the transportation 
     of any student to a school other than the school which is 
     nearest the student's home, except for a student requiring 
     special education, to the school offering such special 
     education, in order to comply with title VI of the Civil 
     Rights Act of 1964. For the purpose of this section an 
     indirect requirement of transportation of students includes 
     the transportation of students to carry out a plan involving 
     the reorganization of the grade structure of schools, the 
     pairing of schools, or the clustering of schools, or any 
     combination of grade restructuring, pairing or clustering. 
     The prohibition described in this section does not include 
     the establishment of magnet schools.
       Sec. 303. No funds appropriated under this Act may be used 
     to prevent the implementation of programs of voluntary prayer 
     and meditation in the public schools.


                          (transfer of funds)

       Sec. 304. Not to exceed 1 percent of any discretionary 
     funds (pursuant to the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended) which are appropriated for 
     the Department of Education in this Act may be transferred 
     between appropriations, but no such appropriation shall be 
     increased by more than 3 percent by any such transfer: 
     Provided, That the Appropriations Committees of both Houses 
     of Congress are notified at least 15 days in advance of any 
     transfer.
       Sec. 305. In addition, for carrying out subpart 1 of part A 
     of title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, 
     $4,300,000,000 for the purpose of eliminating the estimated 
     accumulated shortfall of budget authority for such subpart 
     for awards made through the award year 2005-2006, pursuant to 
     section 303 of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th Congress), the 
     concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006.
       This title may be cited as the ``Department of Education 
     Appropriations Act, 2006''.

                       TITLE IV--RELATED AGENCIES

 Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled

                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses necessary of the Committee for Purchase From 
     People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled established by 
     Public Law 92-28, $4,669,000.

             Corporation for National and Community Service

        Domestic Volunteer Service Programs, Operating Expenses

       For expenses necessary for the Corporation for National and 
     Community Service to carry out the provisions of the Domestic 
     Volunteer Service Act of 1973, as amended, $357,962,000: 
     Provided, That none of the funds made available to the 
     Corporation for National and Community Service in this Act 
     for activities authorized by section 122 of part C of title I 
     and part E of title II of the Domestic Volunteer Service Act 
     of 1973 shall be used to provide stipends or other monetary 
     incentives to volunteers or volunteer leaders whose incomes 
     exceed 125 percent of the national poverty level: Provided 
     further, That notwithstanding section 122(c) of the Act, the 
     Corporation shall make available up to $2,000,000 under part 
     C of title I of the Act in a grant to support Teach for 
     America's efforts to address educational inequity in low-
     income rural and urban communities.

      National and Community Service Programs, Operating Expenses


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses for the Corporation for National and 
     Community Service (the ``Corporation'') in carrying out 
     programs, activities, and initiatives under the National and 
     Community Service Act of 1990 (the ``Act'') (42 U.S.C. 12501 
     et seq.), $523,087,000, to remain available until September 
     30, 2007: Provided, That not more than $270,000,000 of the 
     amount provided under this heading shall be available for 
     grants under the National Service Trust Program authorized 
     under subtitle C of title I of the Act (42 U.S.C. 12571 et 
     seq.) (relating to activities of the AmeriCorps program), 
     including grants to organizations operating projects under 
     the AmeriCorps Education Awards Program (without regard to 
     the requirements of sections 121 (d) and (e), section 131(e), 
     section 132, and sections 140 (a), (d), and (e) of the Act): 
     Provided further, That not less than $146,000,000 of the 
     amount provided under this heading, to remain available 
     without fiscal year limitation, shall be transferred to the 
     National Service Trust for educational awards authorized 
     under subtitle D of title I of the Act (42 U.S.C. 12601), of 
     which up to $4,000,000 shall be available to support national 
     service scholarships for high school students performing 
     community service, and of which $10,000,000 shall be held in 
     reserve as defined in Public Law 108-45: Provided further, 
     That in addition to amounts otherwise provided to the 
     National Service Trust under the second proviso, the 
     Corporation may transfer funds from the amount provided under 
     the first proviso, to the National Service Trust authorized 
     under subtitle D of title I of the Act (42 U.S.C. 12601) upon 
     determination that such transfer is necessary to support the 
     activities of national service participants and after notice 
     is transmitted to Congress: Provided further, That of the 
     amount provided under this heading for grants under the 
     National Service Trust program authorized under subtitle C of 
     title I of the Act, not more than $55,000,000 may be used to 
     administer, reimburse, or support any national service 
     program authorized under section 121(d)(2) of such Act (42 
     U.S.C. 12581(d)(2)): Provided further, That not more than 
     $9,945,000 shall be available for quality and innovation 
     activities authorized under subtitle H of title I of the Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 12853 et seq.), of which $4,000,000 shall be 
     available for challenge grants to non-profit organizations: 
     Provided further, That notwithstanding subtitle H of title I 
     of the Act (42 U.S.C. 12853), none of the funds provided 
     under the previous proviso shall be used to support salaries 
     and related expenses (including travel) attributable to 
     Corporation employees: Provided further, That to the maximum 
     extent feasible, funds appropriated under subtitle C of title 
     I of the Act shall be provided in a manner that is consistent 
     with the recommendations of peer review panels in order to 
     ensure that priority is given to programs that demonstrate 
     quality, innovation, replicability, and sustainability: 
     Provided further, That $25,500,000 of the funds made 
     available under this heading shall be available for the 
     Civilian Community Corps authorized under subtitle E of title 
     I of the Act (42 U.S.C. 12611 et seq.): Provided further, 
     That $40,000,000 shall be available for school-based and 
     community-based service-learning programs authorized under 
     subtitle B of title I of the Act (42 U.S.C. 12521 et seq.): 
     Provided further, That $4,000,000 shall be available for 
     audits and other evaluations authorized under section 179 of 
     the Act (42 U.S.C. 12639):

[[Page 14177]]

     Provided further, That $10,000,000 of the funds made 
     available under this heading shall be made available for the 
     Points of Light Foundation for activities authorized under 
     title III of the Act (42 U.S.C. 12661 et seq.), of which not 
     more than $2,500,000 may be used to support an endowment 
     fund, the corpus of which shall remain intact and the 
     interest income from which shall be used to support 
     activities described in title III of the Act, provided that 
     the Foundation may invest the corpus and income in federally 
     insured bank savings accounts or comparable interest bearing 
     accounts, certificates of deposit, money market funds, mutual 
     funds, obligations of the United States, and other market 
     instruments and securities but not in real estate 
     investments: Provided further, That no funds shall be 
     available for national service programs run by Federal 
     agencies authorized under section 121(b) of such Act (42 
     U.S.C. 12571(b)): Provided further, That $5,000,000 of the 
     funds made available under this heading shall be made 
     available to America's Promise--The Alliance for Youth, Inc.: 
     Provided further, That to the maximum extent practicable, the 
     Corporation shall increase significantly the level of 
     matching funds and in-kind contributions provided by the 
     private sector, and shall reduce the total Federal costs per 
     participant in all programs: Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding section 501(a)(4) of the Act, of the funds 
     provided under this heading, not more than $12,642,000 shall 
     be made available to provide assistance to state commissions 
     on national and community service under section 126(a) of the 
     Act: Provided further, That the Corporation may use up to one 
     percent of program grant funds made available under this 
     heading to defray its costs of conducting grant application 
     reviews, including the use of outside peer reviewers.


     NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE PROGRAMS SALARIES AND EXPENSES

       For necessary expenses of administration as provided under 
     section 501(a)(4) of the National and Community Service Act 
     of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12501 et seq.) including payment of 
     salaries, authorized travel, hire of passenger motor 
     vehicles, the rental of conference rooms in the District of 
     Columbia, the employment of experts and consultants 
     authorized under 5 U.S.C. 3109, and not to exceed $2,500 for 
     official reception and representation expenses, $27,000,000.


                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the Inspector General Act of 1978, as 
     amended, $6,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     2007.


                       ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the term 
     ``qualified student loan'' with respect to national service 
     education awards shall mean any loan determined by an 
     institution of higher education to be necessary to cover a 
     student's cost of attendance at such institution and made, 
     insured, or guaranteed directly to a student by a State 
     agency, in addition to other meanings under section 148(b)(7) 
     of the National and Community Service Act.
       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds made 
     available under section 129(d)(5)(B) of the National and 
     Community Service Act to assist entities in placing 
     applicants who are individuals with disabilities may be 
     provided to any entity that receives a grant under section 
     121 of the Act.
       The Inspector General of the Corporation for National and 
     Community Service shall conduct random audits of the grantees 
     that administer activities under the AmeriCorps programs and 
     shall levy sanctions in accordance with standard Inspector 
     General audit resolution procedures which include, but are 
     not limited to, debarment of any grantee (or successor in 
     interest or any entity with substantially the same person or 
     persons in control) that has been determined to have 
     committed any substantial violations of the requirements of 
     the AmeriCorps programs, including any grantee that has been 
     determined to have violated the prohibition of using Federal 
     funds to lobby the Congress: Provided, That the Inspector 
     General shall obtain reimbursements in the amount of any 
     misused funds from any grantee that has been determined to 
     have committed any substantial violations of the requirements 
     of the AmeriCorps programs.
       For fiscal year 2006, the Corporation shall make any 
     significant changes to program requirements or policy only 
     through public notice and comment rulemaking. For fiscal year 
     2006, during any grant selection process, no officer or 
     employee of the Corporation shall knowingly disclose any 
     covered grant selection information regarding such selection, 
     directly or indirectly, to any person other than an officer 
     or employee of the Corporation that is authorized by the 
     Corporation to receive such information.

                  Corporation for Public Broadcasting


                         (Including Rescission)

       Of the amounts made available to the Corporation for Public 
     Broadcasting for fiscal year 2006 by Public Law 108-199, 
     $100,000,000 is rescinded; up to $30,000,000 is available for 
     grants associated with the transition of public television to 
     digital broadcasting including costs related to transmission 
     equipment and program production, development, and 
     distribution, to be awarded as determined by the Corporation 
     in consultation with public television licensees or 
     permittees, or their designated representatives, and up to 
     $52,000,000 is available pursuant to section 396(k)(10) of 
     the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, for replacement 
     and upgrade of the public television interconnection system: 
     Provided, That section 396(k)(3) shall apply only to amounts 
     remaining after the allocations made herein.
       For payment to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, as 
     authorized by the Communications Act of 1934, an amount which 
     shall be available within limitations specified by that Act, 
     for fiscal year 2008, $400,000,000: Provided, That no funds 
     made available to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting by 
     this Act shall be used to pay for receptions, parties, or 
     similar forms of entertainment for Government officials or 
     employees: Provided further, That none of the funds contained 
     in this paragraph shall be available or used to aid or 
     support any program or activity from which any person is 
     excluded, or is denied benefits, or is discriminated against, 
     on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, or 
     sex.

               Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For expenses necessary for the Federal Mediation and 
     Conciliation Service to carry out the functions vested in it 
     by the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947 (29 U.S.C. 171-
     180, 182-183), including hire of passenger motor vehicles; 
     for expenses necessary for the Labor-Management Cooperation 
     Act of 1978 (29 U.S.C. 175a); and for expenses necessary for 
     the Service to carry out the functions vested in it by the 
     Civil Service Reform Act, Public Law 95-454 (5 U.S.C. ch. 
     71), $42,331,000: Provided, That notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 
     3302, fees charged, up to full-cost recovery, for special 
     training activities and other conflict resolution services 
     and technical assistance, including those provided to foreign 
     governments and international organizations, and for 
     arbitration services shall be credited to and merged with 
     this account, and shall remain available until expended: 
     Provided further, That fees for arbitration services shall be 
     available only for education, training, and professional 
     development of the agency workforce: Provided further, That 
     the Director of the Service is authorized to accept and use 
     on behalf of the United States gifts of services and real, 
     personal, or other property in the aid of any projects or 
     functions within the Director's jurisdiction.

            Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For expenses necessary for the Federal Mine Safety and 
     Health Review Commission (30 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), $7,809,000.

                Institute of Museum and Library Services

    Office of Museum and Library Services: Grants and Administration

       For carrying out the Museum and Library Services Act of 
     1996, $249,640,000, to remain available until expended.

                  Medicare Payment Advisory Commission


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For expenses necessary to carry out section 1805 of the 
     Social Security Act, $10,168,000, to be transferred to this 
     appropriation from the Federal Hospital Insurance and the 
     Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds.

        National Commission on Libraries and Information Science


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses for the National Commission on 
     Libraries and Information Science, established by the Act of 
     July 20, 1970 (Public Law 91-345, as amended), $993,000.

                     National Council on Disability


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For expenses necessary for the National Council on 
     Disability as authorized by title IV of the Rehabilitation 
     Act of 1973, as amended, $2,800,000.

                     National Labor Relations Board


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For expenses necessary for the National Labor Relations 
     Board to carry out the functions vested in it by the Labor-
     Management Relations Act, 1947, as amended (29 U.S.C. 141-
     167), and other laws, $252,268,000: Provided, That no part of 
     this appropriation shall be available to organize or assist 
     in organizing agricultural laborers or used in connection 
     with investigations, hearings, directives, or orders 
     concerning bargaining units composed of agricultural laborers 
     as referred to in section 2(3) of the Act of July 5, 1935 (29 
     U.S.C. 152), and as amended by the Labor-Management Relations 
     Act, 1947, as amended, and as defined in section 3(f) of the 
     Act of June 25, 1938 (29 U.S.C. 203), and including in said 
     definition employees engaged in the maintenance and operation 
     of ditches, canals, reservoirs, and waterways when maintained 
     or operated on a mutual, nonprofit basis and at least 95 
     percent of the water stored or supplied thereby is used for 
     farming purposes.

                        National Mediation Board


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the 
     Railway Labor Act, as

[[Page 14178]]

     amended (45 U.S.C. 151-188), including emergency boards 
     appointed by the President, $11,628,000.

            Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For expenses necessary for the Occupational Safety and 
     Health Review Commission (29 U.S.C. 661), $10,510,000.

                       Railroad Retirement Board


                     Dual Benefits Payments Account

       For payment to the Dual Benefits Payments Account, 
     authorized under section 15(d) of the Railroad Retirement Act 
     of 1974, $97,000,000, which shall include amounts becoming 
     available in fiscal year 2006 pursuant to section 
     224(c)(1)(B) of Public Law 98-76; and in addition, an amount, 
     not to exceed 2 percent of the amount provided herein, shall 
     be available proportional to the amount by which the product 
     of recipients and the average benefit received exceeds 
     $97,000,000: Provided, That the total amount provided herein 
     shall be credited in 12 approximately equal amounts on the 
     first day of each month in the fiscal year.

          Federal Payments to the Railroad Retirement Accounts

       For payment to the accounts established in the Treasury for 
     the payment of benefits under the Railroad Retirement Act for 
     interest earned on unnegotiated checks, $150,000, to remain 
     available through September 30, 2007, which shall be the 
     maximum amount available for payment pursuant to section 417 
     of Public Law 98-76.

                      Limitation on Administration

       For necessary expenses for the Railroad Retirement Board 
     for administration of the Railroad Retirement Act and the 
     Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act, $102,543,000, to be 
     derived in such amounts as determined by the Board from the 
     railroad retirement accounts and from moneys credited to the 
     railroad unemployment insurance administration fund.

             Limitation on the Office of Inspector General

       For expenses necessary for the Office of Inspector General 
     for audit, investigatory and review activities, as authorized 
     by the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, not more 
     than $7,196,000, to be derived from the railroad retirement 
     accounts and railroad unemployment insurance account: 
     Provided, That none of the funds made available in any other 
     paragraph of this Act may be transferred to the Office; used 
     to carry out any such transfer; used to provide any office 
     space, equipment, office supplies, communications facilities 
     or services, maintenance services, or administrative services 
     for the Office; used to pay any salary, benefit, or award for 
     any personnel of the Office; used to pay any other operating 
     expense of the Office; or used to reimburse the Office for 
     any service provided, or expense incurred, by the Office.

                     Social Security Administration

                Payments to Social Security Trust Funds

       For payment to the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance 
     and the Federal Disability Insurance trust funds, as provided 
     under sections 201(m), 228(g), and 1131(b)(2) of the Social 
     Security Act, $20,470,000.


                  Supplemental Security Income Program

       For carrying out titles XI and XVI of the Social Security 
     Act, section 401 of Public Law 92-603, section 212 of Public 
     Law 93-66, as amended, and section 405 of Public Law 95-216, 
     including payment to the Social Security trust funds for 
     administrative expenses incurred pursuant to section 
     201(g)(1) of the Social Security Act, $29,533,174,000, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That any portion 
     of the funds provided to a State in the current fiscal year 
     and not obligated by the State during that year shall be 
     returned to the Treasury.
       For making, after June 15 of the current fiscal year, 
     benefit payments to individuals under title XVI of the Social 
     Security Act, for unanticipated costs incurred for the 
     current fiscal year, such sums as may be necessary.
       For making benefit payments under title XVI of the Social 
     Security Act for the first quarter of fiscal year 2007, 
     $11,110,000,000, to remain available until expended.


                 limitation on administrative expenses

       For necessary expenses, including the hire of two passenger 
     motor vehicles, and not to exceed $15,000 for official 
     reception and representation expenses, not more than 
     $9,159,700,000 may be expended, as authorized by section 
     201(g)(1) of the Social Security Act, from any one or all of 
     the trust funds referred to therein: Provided, That not less 
     than $2,000,000 shall be for the Social Security Advisory 
     Board: Provided further, That unobligated balances of funds 
     provided under this paragraph at the end of fiscal year 2006 
     not needed for fiscal year 2006 shall remain available until 
     expended to invest in the Social Security Administration 
     information technology and telecommunications hardware and 
     software infrastructure, including related equipment and non-
     payroll administrative expenses associated solely with this 
     information technology and telecommunications infrastructure: 
     Provided further, That reimbursement to the trust funds under 
     this heading for expenditures for official time for employees 
     of the Social Security Administration pursuant to section 
     7131 of title 5, United States Code, and for facilities or 
     support services for labor organizations pursuant to 
     policies, regulations, or procedures referred to in section 
     7135(b) of such title shall be made by the Secretary of the 
     Treasury, with interest, from amounts in the general fund not 
     otherwise appropriated, as soon as possible after such 
     expenditures are made.
       In addition, $119,000,000 to be derived from administration 
     fees in excess of $5.00 per supplementary payment collected 
     pursuant to section 1616(d) of the Social Security Act or 
     section 212(b)(3) of Public Law 93-66, which shall remain 
     available until expended. To the extent that the amounts 
     collected pursuant to such section 1616(d) or 212(b)(3) in 
     fiscal year 2006 exceed $119,000,000, the amounts shall be 
     available in fiscal year 2007 only to the extent provided in 
     advance in appropriations Acts.
       In addition, up to $1,000,000 to be derived from fees 
     collected pursuant to section 303(c) of the Social Security 
     Protection Act (Public Law 108-203), which shall remain 
     available until expended.


                      office of inspector general

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For expenses necessary for the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act 
     of 1978, as amended, $26,000,000, together with not to exceed 
     $66,805,000, to be transferred and expended as authorized by 
     section 201(g)(1) of the Social Security Act from the Federal 
     Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal 
     Disability Insurance Trust Fund.
       In addition, an amount not to exceed 3 percent of the total 
     provided in this appropriation may be transferred from the 
     ``Limitation on Administrative Expenses'', Social Security 
     Administration, to be merged with this account, to be 
     available for the time and purposes for which this account is 
     available: Provided, That notice of such transfers shall be 
     transmitted promptly to the Committees on Appropriations of 
     the House and Senate.

  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                      TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 501. The Secretaries of Labor, Health and Human 
     Services, and Education are authorized to transfer unexpended 
     balances of prior appropriations to accounts corresponding to 
     current appropriations provided in this Act: Provided, That 
     such transferred balances are used for the same purpose, and 
     for the same periods of time, for which they were originally 
     appropriated.
       Sec. 502. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current 
     fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
       Sec. 503. (a) No part of any appropriation contained in 
     this Act shall be used, other than for normal and recognized 
     executive-legislative relationships, for publicity or 
     propaganda purposes, for the preparation, distribution, or 
     use of any kit, pamphlet, booklet, publication, radio, 
     television, or video presentation designed to support or 
     defeat legislation pending before the Congress or any State 
     legislature, except in presentation to the Congress or any 
     State legislature itself.
       (b) No part of any appropriation contained in this Act 
     shall be used to pay the salary or expenses of any grant or 
     contract recipient, or agent acting for such recipient, 
     related to any activity designed to influence legislation or 
     appropriations pending before the Congress or any State 
     legislature.
       Sec. 504. The Secretaries of Labor and Education are 
     authorized to make available not to exceed $28,000 and 
     $20,000, respectively, from funds available for salaries and 
     expenses under titles I and III, respectively, for official 
     reception and representation expenses; the Director of the 
     Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service is authorized to 
     make available for official reception and representation 
     expenses not to exceed $5,000 from the funds available for 
     ``Salaries and expenses, Federal Mediation and Conciliation 
     Service''; and the Chairman of the National Mediation Board 
     is authorized to make available for official reception and 
     representation expenses not to exceed $5,000 from funds 
     available for ``Salaries and expenses, National Mediation 
     Board''.
       Sec. 505. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
     no funds appropriated under this Act shall be used to carry 
     out any program of distributing sterile needles or syringes 
     for the hypodermic injection of any illegal drug.
       Sec. 506. When issuing statements, press releases, requests 
     for proposals, bid solicitations and other documents 
     describing projects or programs funded in whole or in part 
     with Federal money, all grantees receiving Federal funds 
     included in this Act, including but not limited to State and 
     local governments and recipients of Federal research grants, 
     shall clearly state--
       (1) the percentage of the total costs of the program or 
     project which will be financed with Federal money;
       (2) the dollar amount of Federal funds for the project or 
     program; and
       (3) percentage and dollar amount of the total costs of the 
     project or program that

[[Page 14179]]

     will be financed by non-governmental sources.
       Sec. 507. (a) None of the funds appropriated under this 
     Act, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds 
     are appropriated under this Act, shall be expended for any 
     abortion.
       (b) None of the funds appropriated under this Act, and none 
     of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are 
     appropriated under this Act, shall be expended for health 
     benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion.
       (c) The term ``health benefits coverage'' means the package 
     of services covered by a managed care provider or 
     organization pursuant to a contract or other arrangement.
       Sec. 508. (a) The limitations established in the preceding 
     section shall not apply to an abortion--
       (1) if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or 
     incest; or
       (2) in the case where a woman suffers from a physical 
     disorder, physical injury, or physical illness, including a 
     life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from 
     the pregnancy itself, that would, as certified by a 
     physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an 
     abortion is performed.
       (b) Nothing in the preceding section shall be construed as 
     prohibiting the expenditure by a State, locality, entity, or 
     private person of State, local, or private funds (other than 
     a State's or locality's contribution of Medicaid matching 
     funds).
       (c) Nothing in the preceding section shall be construed as 
     restricting the ability of any managed care provider from 
     offering abortion coverage or the ability of a State or 
     locality to contract separately with such a provider for such 
     coverage with State funds (other than a State's or locality's 
     contribution of Medicaid matching funds).
       (d)(1) None of the funds made available in this Act may be 
     made available to a Federal agency or program, or to a State 
     or local government, if such agency, program, or government 
     subjects any institutional or individual health care entity 
     to discrimination on the basis that the health care entity 
     does not provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for 
     abortions.
       (2) In this subsection, the term ``health care entity'' 
     includes an individual physician or other health care 
     professional, a hospital, a provider-sponsored organization, 
     a health maintenance organization, a health insurance plan, 
     or any other kind of health care facility, organization, or 
     plan.
       Sec. 509. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act 
     may be used for--
       (1) the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research 
     purposes; or
       (2) research in which a human embryo or embryos are 
     destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of 
     injury or death greater than that allowed for research on 
     fetuses in utero under 45 CFR 46.208(a)(2) and section 498(b) 
     of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 289g(b)).
       (b) For purposes of this section, the term ``human embryo 
     or embryos'' includes any organism, not protected as a human 
     subject under 45 CFR 46 as of the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, that is derived by fertilization, parthenogenesis, 
     cloning, or any other means from one or more human gametes or 
     human diploid cells.
       Sec. 510. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act 
     may be used for any activity that promotes the legalization 
     of any drug or other substance included in schedule I of the 
     schedules of controlled substances established by section 202 
     of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812).
       (b) The limitation in subsection (a) shall not apply when 
     there is significant medical evidence of a therapeutic 
     advantage to the use of such drug or other substance or that 
     federally sponsored clinical trials are being conducted to 
     determine therapeutic advantage.
       Sec. 511. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be obligated or expended to enter into or renew a contract 
     with an entity if--
       (1) such entity is otherwise a contractor with the United 
     States and is subject to the requirement in section 4212(d) 
     of title 38, United States Code, regarding submission of an 
     annual report to the Secretary of Labor concerning employment 
     of certain veterans; and
       (2) such entity has not submitted a report as required by 
     that section for the most recent year for which such 
     requirement was applicable to such entity.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 511. 
This section violates clause 2(b) of House rule XXI. It proposes to 
change existing law and, therefore, constitutes legislation on an 
appropriation bill in violation of House rules.
  I do this on behalf of the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Tom 
Davis) of the Committee on Government Reform.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, we are not going to object, because I 
understand the correctness of this. I just would point out this has 
been carried in this particular bill since 1997 without being objected 
to. But, technically, the gentleman is correct; and, therefore, we 
concede the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded and sustained. The 
section is stricken from the bill.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 512. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to promulgate or adopt any final standard under 
     section 1173(b) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320d-
     2(b)) providing for, or providing for the assignment of, a 
     unique health identifier for an individual (except in an 
     individual's capacity as an employer or a health care 
     provider), until legislation is enacted specifically 
     approving the standard.
       Sec. 513. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be transferred to any department, agency, or instrumentality 
     of the United States Government, except pursuant to a 
     transfer made by, or transfer authority provided in, this Act 
     or any other appropriation Act.
       Sec. 514. None of the funds made available by this Act to 
     carry out the Library Services and Technology Act may be made 
     available to any library covered by paragraph (1) of section 
     224(f) of such Act (20 U.S.C. 9134(f)), as amended by the 
     Children's Internet Protections Act, unless such library has 
     made the certifications required by paragraph (4) of such 
     section.
       Sec. 515. None of the funds made available by this Act to 
     carry out part D of title II of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 may be made available to any elementary 
     or secondary school covered by paragraph (1) of section 
     2441(a) of such Act (20 U.S.C. 6777(a)), as amended by the 
     Children's Internet Protections Act and the No Child Left 
     Behind Act, unless the local educational agency with 
     responsibility for such covered school has made the 
     certifications required by paragraph (2) of such section.
       Sec. 516. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be 
     used to enter into an arrangement under section 7(b)(4) of 
     the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 (45 U.S.C. 231f(b)(4)) 
     with a nongovernmental financial institution to serve as 
     disbursing agent for benefits payable under the Railroad 
     Retirement Act of 1974.
       Sec. 517. (a) None of the funds provided under this Act, or 
     provided under previous appropriations Acts to the agencies 
     funded by this Act that remain available for obligation or 
     expenditure in fiscal year 2006, or provided from any 
     accounts in the Treasury of the United States derived by the 
     collection of fees available to the agencies funded by this 
     Act, shall be available for obligation or expenditure through 
     a reprogramming of funds that--
       (1) creates new programs;
       (2) eliminates a program, project, or activity;
       (3) increases funds or personnel by any means for any 
     project or activity for which funds have been denied or 
     restricted;
       (4) relocates an office or employees;
       (5) reorganizes or renames offices;
       (6) reorganizes programs or activities; or
       (7) contracts out or privatizes any functions or activities 
     presently performed by Federal employees;

     unless the Appropriations Committees of both Houses of 
     Congress are notified 15 days in advance of such 
     reprogramming or of an announcement of intent relating to 
     such reprogramming, whichever occurs earlier.
       (b) None of the funds provided under this Act, or provided 
     under previous appropriations Acts to the agencies funded by 
     this Act that remain available for obligation or expenditure 
     in fiscal year 2006, or provided from any accounts in the 
     Treasury of the United States derived by the collection of 
     fees available to the agencies funded by this Act, shall be 
     available for obligation or expenditure through a 
     reprogramming of funds in excess of $500,000 or 10 percent, 
     whichever is less, that--
       (1) augments existing programs, projects (including 
     construction projects), or activities;
       (2) reduces by 10 percent funding for any existing program, 
     project, or activity, or numbers of personnel by 10 percent 
     as approved by Congress; or
       (3) results from any general savings from a reduction in 
     personnel which would result in a change in existing 
     programs, activities, or projects as approved by Congress;

     unless the Appropriations Committees of both Houses of 
     Congress are notified 15 days in advance of such 
     reprogramming or of an announcement of intent relating to 
     such reprogramming, whichever occurs earlier.
       Sec. 518. Section 1015(b) of Public Law 108-173 is amended 
     by striking ``2005'' and inserting ``2006''.
       Sec. 519. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act 
     may be used for the payment or reimbursement, including 
     payment or reimbursement under the programs described in 
     subsection (b), of a drug that is prescribed to an individual 
     described in subsection (c) for the treatment of sexual or 
     erectile dysfunction.

[[Page 14180]]

       (b) The programs described in this subsection are the 
     medicaid program, the medicare program, and health related 
     programs funded under the Public Health Service Act.
       (c) An individual described in this subsection is an 
     individual who has a conviction for sexual abuse, sexual 
     assault, or any other sexual offense, and includes any 
     individual who is registered (or who is a person required to 
     register) under section 170101 or 170102 of the Violent Crime 
     Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14071, 
     14072).

                              {time}  1000


          Amendment Offered by Mr. George Miller of california

  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. George Miller of California:
       At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be 
     used by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation to enforce 
     or implement the ``Settlement Agreement By and Among UAL 
     Corporation and all Direct and Indirect Subsidiaries and 
     Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation'', dated April 22, 2005.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 23, 2005, 
the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Regula) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. George 
Miller).
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 
minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I join the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) 
and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) to offer an amendment 
which will be the first time that will allow Congress, and perhaps the 
last time, to save the hard-earned retirement benefits of 120,000 
workers and retirees at United Airlines.
  Unfortunately, United Airlines has become a poster child for what is 
wrong with the private pension in this country. United filed for 
bankruptcy over 2 years ago and forced one wage concession after 
another from its workers, and then it unilaterally decided that it 
would stop making the legally required pension contributions to its 
plans. It dragged on the negotiations with its employees and then, in 
the middle of the night, got up from those negotiations and dumped 
those retirement plans into the PBGC, causing those employees to lose 
somewhere from 30 to 60 percent of their retirement nest egg, of their 
retirement assets, of their future standard of living. That is what 
these people lost because United decided it would no longer negotiate 
to try to find a solution to this problem.
  We see Delta Airlines that has frozen its pension plan, has asked to 
stretch out its payments so that it can protect the assets of its 
employees. United chose another idea: It would simply dump these 
liabilities onto the taxpayers of the United States of America. What 
United was not telling anybody was the truth. They were not telling 
them about their funding of their pension plans, about their 
liabilities of their pension plans. They simply decided they would 
terminate these plans in the PBGC.
  So this is our chance. This is our chance to try to save the 
retirement nest eggs of the flight attendants, of the ramp workers, of 
the pilots, of all of the people that have given so much to have this 
airline continue to fly. We held an E-hearing. Over 2,000 people 
participated and told us what the real impact of these cuts would be on 
their families, on their children, on spouses with illnesses, on their 
parents. People who had worked 30, 35, 40 years for this company now 
find out that they have been terminated with no chance to go back.
  This amendment says United Airlines has got to go back to the 
bargaining table and work out a provision to take care of this.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and 
I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this 
time.
  I rise in opposition to this amendment because it seeks to overturn 
two court decisions and what Judge Wedoff said was ``The least of the 
bad'' alternative ``choices here has got to be the one that keeps the 
airline functioning, that keeps employees being paid.'' We have to look 
out for the interests of all people, especially the 62,000 employees of 
United Airlines right now, just crawling out of bankruptcy, on whom the 
future of the entire western Chicagoland region, O'Hare Airport, and 
many of the related businesses depend. If we push United into 
bankruptcy, and especially if we push her further into liquidation, we 
will not only have an employee pension problem, but we will have a 
massive unemployment problem. We will also jeopardize the crown jewel 
of the economic development programs for Illinois, which is the 
modernization of O'Hare airport. O'Hare airport and its modernization 
depends on a functioning United Airlines. And for us to interfere with 
the two court decisions and the already declared decisions of four 
unions with United is a great mistake.
  I think we should make sure that this process moves forward, we 
should make sure that this airline continues to function, and we should 
make sure that the 62,000 current employees of United are allowed to 
find their way back into profitability so they can put food on their 
table, especially in my district and other Illinois districts.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to 
the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), cosponsor of the 
amendment.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today, with the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Crowley), to offer an amendment that would protect the retirement 
security of dedicated United Airlines employees and retirees who 
support, and I want to underscore that, who support our amendment.
  Our amendment would stop the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 
from taking over United's four pension plans in one fell swoop. Our 
amendment would give Congress a chance to work out a better solution 
than pension termination.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment because the threat to 
United's employees is real. This is not a straight hand-off from United 
to the PBGC. Although United's pension liability is $9.8 billion, the 
PBGC is only assuming $6.6 billion of the debt to United workers. The 
takeover of the plans will result in pension benefit cuts averaging 25 
to 50 percent, a loss of $3.2 billion, for men and women who have 
worked for years with the promise of a secure pension. And it is on top 
of the $3 billion in concessions United employees already made.
  We are on the cusp of a pension crisis in this country. The PBGC, 
without United, has a $23 billion deficit, and other companies are 
waiting in line to dump their pension benefits.
  I urge my colleagues to support this measure.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dreier).
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strongest opposition to the 
Miller amendment. Five unions have been involved in the negotiation 
process here to ensure that over 60,000 people are able to keep their 
jobs and a very, very important company continues to remain alive.
  There is one union that has chosen not to be supportive of this. The 
fact that one union is not supportive of this agreement working between 
United Airlines and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation has now 
created a scenario where we want to take the entire package down, and I 
believe that it would undermine a very important part of the commerce 
of the United States of America. We all know how important the airline 
is to the very vibrant economy that we have today.
  So I urge my colleagues to oppose the Miller amendment and let us 
proceed to ensure that we do not see 62,000 people lose their jobs.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to 
the

[[Page 14181]]

gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), a cosponsor of the amendment.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend and colleague from 
California for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Miller-Schakowsky-
Crowley amendment and urge all our Members here in the House to support 
it.
  Is this amendment a cure to our Nation's employee pension problems? 
No. The problem is PBGC jumped too easily at a deal to put taxpayers on 
the hook for pensions, while allowing United to walk away from its 
responsibilities to its employees.
  Representing the district that houses LaGuardia Airport and serving 
many Delta employees, I have real concerns about the bad precedent set 
by PBGC and worry that other airlines, and soon other industries, will 
follow United's lead.
  As we know, Delta recently stated that it must pay $2.6 billion over 
the next 3 years to meet the obligations of its defined benefit pension 
plan. The carrier has warned in the past that its growing obligation 
poses a threat to restructure and avoid a bankruptcy filing. At the 
same time, UAL Chief Executive Gerald Grinstein has said that United 
would gain a competitive advantage on rivals by dumping its employee 
pension obligation.
  This is bad precedent. Real pension reform is needed, and this 
amendment is to serve as a wake-up call to that fact.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would just point out to the Members that this is a very delicately 
balanced arrangement and I think the risk to all of this is that if we 
were to adopt this amendment, the benefits that now are available to 
retirees under PBGC could even be lost, plus a lot of jobs could be 
lost. And we are inserting ourselves or would be inserting ourselves 
into something that has been worked out among all the parties in a way 
that is in the best interest of both active employees and retirees, and 
this is not the appropriate forum to deal with this subject.
  We have legislation moving through the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce dealing with pensions, and this would set a precedent, I 
think, for our body, the U.S. House, to interject itself in something 
that should be handled by the parties, and I think what they are trying 
to do is to work it out in a way that is in the best interest of both 
the active employees and retirees.
  For this reason we object to the amendment, and this is not the 
proper forum to bring this kind of an amendment or to make a decision 
with the consequences that this would have.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the 
purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Miller amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, employees and retirees at United Airlines played by the 
rules and deserve what they expected--a solid pension payment to 
support their retirement years. But instead of the promised income they 
were counting on to help cover their kid's college tuition; their own 
health care; or, the mortgage payments on their houses, they were left 
with a court ruling dumping their dreams into the pension guaranty 
benefit corporation (PBGC), which is significantly less than what they 
were counting on. And, guess who fools the bill?--the tax payers!
  Over 2,000 email statements from United Workers were recently 
submitted into an e-hearing conducted by Representatives George Miller 
and Jan Schakowsky.
  One of my constituents, Ms. Elenor Barcsak wrote: ``I worked for 
United Airlines as a flight attendant for 37 years . . . when I turned 
60 years old I was told that it would be totally safe to retire as my 
pension, that I had paid into as a union member for all those years, 
was TOTALLY protected.
  She continued--I am a homeowner in Marin County since 1972 but I 
still have mortgage payments. I am assisting my family financially as 
my mother is in a nursing home [in Canada] and my younger sister has 
been on welfare. The impact of my pension check being reduced by as 
much as half will be devastating.'' Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues 
to support the Miller amendment to prevent United Airlines from dumping 
its pension into the PBGC and reducing the benefits promised to these 
loyal workers.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment not 
just for the compelling reasons of the gentleman from California (Mr. 
George Miller), but because if it is allowed to stand as a precedent, 
it will cost the American taxpayer tens of billions of dollars in 
additional pension costs.
  Support the American taxpayer and support the Miller amendment.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the 
balance of my time.
  Just 18 days before United dumped its pension plans into the PBGC, 
the PBGC wrote and said that it would be in the best interest of the 
participants and the pension plan insurance program would be best 
served by the continuance of the flight attendants pension plan. United 
got up in the middle of the night, unilaterally threw this in.
  What we are trying to tell United is go to the marketplace, go look 
for private solutions to this debt, get this debt covered, people do it 
all the time. Companies do it all the time, countries do it all the 
time, before they come to the taxpayer.
  The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) is right. We may very well be 
looking at the opening night act of a new savings and loan scandal 
because we let these people come in, because they unilaterally decided 
termination was their first choice, going to the taxpayer was their 
first choice. It should be their last choice.
  This amendment simply says go back to the bargaining table and 
exhaust all of their remedies before they come to the taxpayer.
  Vote for the Miller-Schakowsky-Crowley amendment and take care of 
people who play by the rules.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California has expired.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. We have 
heard a number of Members on the majority side of the aisle say we 
should not overturn a court decision.
  Where were you on the Schiavo case when you brought the Congress back 
in order to stick your nose into the very painful end-of-life decisions 
that were made by a family in agony? You did not hesitate to try to 
overturn a court decision then. Get straight, fellows, come on.
  This amendment is absolutely necessary if we are going to stop the 
dumping of pension obligations on the taxpayers of the United States. 
The taxpayers have enough trouble now getting their representatives to 
do real things to fix Social Security and now they are going to dump 
the responsibility for private pensions on the taxpayer as well. That 
is goofy and it is gutless. It is stupid. It is negligent. Outside of 
that, it is a terrific idea.
  What I would say is this, and I hope the House remembers this when 
the Treasury bill is on the floor next week because I got added to that 
bill a requirement that the General Accounting Office do a study to 
determine whether or not we need to re-regulate the airlines and treat 
them as a necessary public utility providing service to every community 
in this country in order to save our pension system for airline 
employees. If we do not do that, if we do not do that, we can bet there 
will not be a single airline that has a private pension system by the 
end of the decade. There will be a race to the bottom in terms of 
costs, and the first people who are going to get run over in that race 
are going to be the workers who thought they had a private pension 
system.
  This Congress needs to start talking about matters that affect the 
people back home rather than continuing to focus on matters that deal 
with the welfare of people inside the system and inside the Beltway in 
Washington. It is about time Congress quit paying attention to little 
details that have nothing to do with people's lives and start focusing 
on big problems like preservation of their private pensions. This is

[[Page 14182]]

the only way that we can fire a shot across the do-nothing leadership 
of this Congress' bow and get some movement on this crucial pension 
issue.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman 
yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman 
for yielding to me.
  I would just like to make the point this does not turn over any court 
decisions. United has yet to file a business plan with the creditors 
committee. The fact of the matter is this is the only opportunity we 
are going to have to have them go back and negotiate and try to use 
private systems to solve this problem before they come to the 
taxpayers.

                              {time}  1015

  So this does not tamper with any court decisions or with the ability 
of United to go forward.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, without this amendment, 
Uncle Sam is being Uncle Sucker.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.
  I say this to my colleagues who are watching us on C-SPAN: I think 
the debate illustrates the complexity of this issue. This is not the 
proper forum to adjudicate the problem of United or any other airline's 
pension plan or the problems that confront PBGC. I would hope that the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce that is dealing with the 
pension problems would address situations similar to this.
  This amendment has far-reaching consequences. That is illustrated by 
the fact that we heard a number of extraneous matters injected into 
this, including the Schiavo case. I would urge Members to vote against 
this because it is simply not the right forum to try to deal with a 
very difficult problem, and it will not be the last problem. Other 
airlines are going to be faced with this; and I think the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is right, we need to take a look at this in 
the long term, but this is not the place to do it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I believe, under the 
traditions of the House, the Chair is the Speaker of the Whole House, 
and the Chair has an obligation to call the vote in the manner in which 
the vote was arrived at under the voice vote. It is not a question of 
whether the ayes or the noes will prevail on a recorded vote. The 
question is what happened on the floor at that particular time. In this 
instance, the yeas prevailed, and the Chair said the noes prevailed.
  A number of years ago, we had very heated debates on this floor from 
the Republican side, from Mr. Walker, because they felt that they were 
insulted, especially when cameras came into this Chamber, that the 
Chair would call votes against their interests when they clearly 
prevailed on the voice. The Chair was admonished by the Speaker of the 
House, and we went back to what was the traditionally fair point of 
view.
  So I would ask the Chair in the future, and future Chairs, to 
recognize that the Chair is calling the event that takes place in front 
of the Chair on the floor, not what the Chair perceives to be, and may 
be correctly so, the outcome of the vote later on in the day when the 
recorded vote is taken.
  Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote on the Chair's ruling.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will restate his request.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded 
vote on my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to considering the request for a 
recorded vote as timely?
  Hearing none, a recorded vote is ordered.
  Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) 
will be postponed.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield 
to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, in the 
UC agreement that we have before us, the wrong amendment is listed. It 
actually amends title I; so, therefore, it should be out of order. It 
was supposed to be on the Reading is Fundamental program, which is much 
more appropriate to this title, and I have asked the chairman if he 
would engage in a colloquy.
  My amendment, which could not be introduced because of the error, 
specified that $25,296,000 in the School Improvements program be 
dedicated specifically to the Reading is Fundamental program. I seek 
assurances from the chairman that this program will receive adequate 
funding when the final numbers are decided in the conference with the 
Senate.
  It is very well documented, Mr. Chairman, that a great number of 
children and adults struggle with reading. Thirty-seven percent of 
American fourth graders read below the basic level on the National 
Assessment of Education Progress Reading Test. Additionally, 55 percent 
of all fourth graders eligible for free or reduced lunch score below 
what is called the ``Basic.'' This sad state of affairs is perpetuated 
as 40 million adults in the U.S. cannot even read a simple child's 
story.
  The Reading is Fundamental program is a time-tested program that has 
combated illiteracy since 1966. Reading is Fundamental is a family 
literacy organization that helps children discover the joy of reading. 
It provides new books to children in many communities; and last year 
alone, Reading is Fundamental provided 17 million new, free books to 
close to 5 million kids across the country. It engages children and 
their parents to utilize all aspects of a child's environment: the 
school, the home, the community, all to reinforce literacy.
  I would like to learn more from the chairman about his views on this 
program and if he will assist in making sure that funding is 
appropriated.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentlewoman 
for bringing this program to the attention of the House.
  One of my goals as chairman of the subcommittee is to help ensure 
that all children can read by the end of the third grade. I might add 
at this point that I think one of the reasons for the excessive amount 
of dropouts in high school is because there is a lack of ability to 
read. It is a disgrace in the United States that 32 percent on average 
nationwide do not finish high school.
  Providing books for children to read in their own homes is obviously 
an integral part of this effort. That is what the Reading is 
Fundamental program does. Although the program does not receive a 
separate line item in our report, we have assumed funding for it within 
the totals already provided and will work with the other body in 
conference to ensure that it receives sufficient resources.
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman 
for his support.


                 Amendment Offered by Mr. Brown of Ohio

  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Brown of Ohio:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used for funding the operations of the Medicaid Commission 
     (established on May 19, 2005, and chartered under section 222 
     of the Public Health Service Act and the Federal Advisory 
     Committee Act).

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 23, 2005, 
the

[[Page 14183]]

gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  This amendment does not require much explanation. The Bush 
administration created a Medicaid Commission and invited Members of 
Congress to participate. Then they informed us that Members of Congress 
would not get a vote. It is not the Bush administration's 
responsibility to reform Medicaid. That is our job. Yet, the Bush 
administration did not give Members of Congress a vote.
  What does this administration have to do before we draw the line, 
take over the appropriations process, sign bills before we pass them? 
It is our job, Mr. Chairman, to refine government programs under our 
jurisdiction. It is the administration's job to provide input. Theirs 
is a nonvoting position. The onus of responsibility is on us. We should 
not shirk it.
  Vote for this amendment because you are not paid as Members of 
Congress to blame Medicaid for health care costs it does not generate. 
Medicaid is the insurer, not the patient. Vote for this amendment 
because you are not paid to blame impoverished children, the disabled, 
and the elderly for needing care or your constituents for feeling 
compassion towards them. Vote for this amendment because you know you 
cannot bring health care costs down by making it more difficult for 
poor people to receive it through normal channels. If a poor mother's 
child has an alarmingly high fever and she has no access to a primary 
care doc, she will take her to the emergency room. Who can blame her 
for that?
  If you want to do something about the increase in Medicaid spending, 
do something about rising health care costs, do something about 
inflated prescription drug costs, do something about health care 
infomercials and glossy drug advertising, do something about medical 
errors, come up with a responsible medical malpractice reform plan. Do 
something that responds to the actual issue, not a symptom of it.
  If a commission would be useful, let us make it a health care 
commission, and let us ask its members to recommend measures to 
stabilize health care spending, and let us give the Bush administration 
a vote on that commission. But do not allow the Bush White House to put 
Medicaid on trial as if it is some two-bit criminal when Medicaid is 
actually a lower-cost health insurer than any private insurer out 
there. Medicaid is a lower-cost health insurer than any private insurer 
out there. Do not let the Bush administration take health care away 
from the poor so it can give tax cuts to the rich.
  Our government has three branches. Let us make sure the executive 
branch does not do our jobs for us. It may be more difficult to 
confront health care costs directly than to make a scapegoat of the 
Medicaid program, but we are not in office to take the easy path. We 
are in office to take the right path.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, and 
I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit funds in this bill from 
being used to operate the Medicaid Commission. I think we want to know 
what the facts are, because it is pretty much a consensus of opinion in 
this country that Medicaid and Medicare are going to be even greater 
costs than Social Security down the road. Therefore, this commission is 
tasked with producing recommendations to have a $10 billion saving in 
Medicaid.
  We all say we want to keep the Federal budget under control. Well, 
one of the things you do is get information, and that is what this 
commission is all about. I do not think we want to doom it to failure 
before it even begins its work.
  I would point out that our authorizing committees are struggling to 
develop reconciliation savings that include Medicaid, and they need the 
input of the commission. What we need to do is to look at it and see 
where we can save money, and I think it would be a poor management 
decision to preclude their ability, the ability of Health and Human 
Services and Secretary Leavitt, to address a very serious problem that 
affects all Americans significantly.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to vote against this 
amendment if it comes to a vote.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to 
the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), a registered nurse and 
one of this body's best advocates for public health.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Brown 
amendment. Over the objections of many of us, the budget resolution 
arbitrarily cut $10 billion out of Medicaid. According to CBO, Medicaid 
provides health care for 28 million poor children, 16 million working 
parents, 6 million elderly people, and 9 million disabled people.
  Mr. Chairman, these cuts are not illusory. They are not tiny amounts 
of money. They are billions of dollars that go to our hospitals, our 
doctors, our nursing homes, and our home health providers. They are the 
indispensable link in ensuring that these 55 million people Medicaid 
serves get the health care they need. The cuts will mean one of three 
things. States will make up the difference. Unlikely, since they are 
making do with less already. Or providers will take less for the 
services they provide, and they are already losing money, so scratch 
that idea. Or the third scenario, poor people will get less health 
care, and that is, unfortunately, what will happen.
  I oppose these cuts. I did not support the creation of the Medicaid 
Commission. The challenges we face in Medicaid are not caused by 
Medicaid. They are caused by a failing health care system.

                              {time}  1030

  Using a commission to arbitrarily cut Medicaid funds by $10 billion 
will not solve anything. It will just pass the buck to those around us, 
those in society who have the least and who are the neediest.
  This is an immoral action which does not reflect the values of our 
country. I urge my colleagues to support the Brown amendment.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just reiterate that I think it is vitally 
important that we have a commission to look at the whole Medicaid 
program, because it is getting extremely expensive. And we want to have 
the best possible information and ideas as the Congress prospectively 
tries to address the burgeoning costs of Medicaid, and, of course, as a 
corollary to that Medicare.
  They are tasked with producing recommendations to achieve $10 billion 
in Medicaid savings. And I cannot believe the body would not want to at 
least have a commission to look at the problem that is obviously 
looming on the horizon.
  Mr. Chairman, therefore, I would urge my colleagues to vote against 
this if it were to come to a vote. We are going to be confronted with 
some very difficult choices in the future, as we found out on the 
Social Security issue.
  And I think the Medicaid-Medicare issue will be even more challenging 
in the years ahead. And so now is the time to get as much information, 
as many ideas as we possibly can, to address a very difficult problem.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I have, as he certainly knows, great respect for my 
colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), whose district and 
mine touch each other, are contiguous.
  And I just would reiterate though on this amendment that this is a 
Medicaid commission that the White House is not even giving Members of 
Congress a vote on reforming the whole system. So they are going to 
come here with

[[Page 14184]]

the commission recommendation from the White House to Congress about 
cutting $10 billion, but are not even going to give any real 
congressional input because we will not even be able to vote on these 
recommendations.
  So in that vein, I ask Members of this body to support the Brown 
amendment on Medicaid.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I watched this, and I understand how 
the roll call vote is going to come out. But I watched this with the 
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller's) amendment. It was the 
same issue.
  Mr. Chairman, there were 10 or 12 of us over here saying yes, and 3 
or 4 or 5 over there saying no.
  The CHAIRMAN. If the gentleman intends to ask for a recorded vote he 
should do so now.
  Mr. BROWN of OHIO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) will be 
postponed.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller) for 
a colloquy.
  Mr. KELLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I initially planned to offer an amendment today to 
increase the maximum Pell grant award to $4,150. By increasing Pell 
grant funding by $211 million, that would be funding through an offset 
by cutting administrative expenses under this bill by 4.86 percent.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage in a colloquy with Chairman 
Regula and Chairman Boehner regarding this amendment, and I would 
consider not offering this amendment if I can hear their comments 
regarding the possibility of ultimately seeking a maximum higher Pell 
grant award through good-faith negotiations with the Senate during the 
conference process.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to engage in a colloquy with 
the gentlemen from Florida (Mr. Keller) and the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Boehner).
  Mr. KELLER. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by just putting this issue in 
a bit of a historical perspective. Looking at this chart, it reflects 
the Pell grant maximum awards over the past 10 years. And you can see, 
10 years ago, in 1986 the maximum Pell award was $2,100. This year it 
is $4,100.
  The yellow reflects the period of time that the Democrats were in 
control of Congress, the red reflects the time when Republicans took 
over Congress. And you can see the relative spikes in the Pell grant 
funding. It was essentially flatlined for about 10 years before 
Republicans took over.
  Now, when I got here to Congress, elected in 2000, we were spending 
$7.6 billion a year in Pell grants. The maximum award was $3,300. This 
year we are spending $13.4 billion a year on Pell grants, and the 
maximum award is up to $4,100. That is an increase of 76 percent in 
overall total Pell grant funding.
  In addition to the $13.4 billion we have in the bill this year for 
Pell grants, the bill also lists a very important addition of $4.3 
billion to retire the Pell grant shortfall that has accumulated in the 
program over the past several years because of higher-than-expected 
student participation.
  That is a grand total of $17.7 billion for Pell grants, the largest 
investment in Pell grants in the history of the United States. I want 
to commend and thank both the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) and 
the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner) for their strong leadership 
in increasing Pell grants, which has resulted in an additional $1.5 
million young people being able to go to college since the year 2000.
  Mr. Chairman, let me tell you why I drafted this amendment today, 
though. On January 14, 2005, President Bush gave a speech in Florida 
where he said, ``We want to increase the Pell grants by $100 per year 
over the next 5 years. Pell grants are important. That is why we want 
to expand them.''
  I agree with President Bush about the importance of increasing Pell 
grants. Pell grants are truly the passport out of poverty for so many 
deserving young people. I myself would not have been able to go to 
college without Pell grants. And I have the honor and privilege of 
serving as Chairman of the Congressional Pell Grant Caucus.
  On February 7, 2005, President Bush followed up his Florida speech on 
Pell grants by submitting a budget which also called for increasing the 
Pell grant maximum award of $4,050 by an additional $100 this year. On 
May 26, 2005, I sent the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) a letter 
signed by 46 Members of Congress, which encouraged the Appropriations 
Committee to fully fund the $4,150 request by President Bush.
  This bill does, in fact, increase the overall award, but only by $50, 
not the $100 requested by President Bush. And so the purpose of my 
amendment was to fully fund the President's request.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Regula) at this time to see if he would be willing to 
work with the Senate during the conference to see if it is possible to 
increase the Pell grant funding to an amount sufficient to fully fund 
this $4,150 request by President Bush.
  Mr. Chairman, I would also like to hear the comments of the gentleman 
from Ohio (Chairman Boehner's) comments on the issue as well.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Keller) that the Pell grant program plays an essential role in 
helping disadvantaged students pursue a college education.
  And for more than 30 years, the Pell grant program has served as the 
foundation of Federal need-based student aid.
  I further applaud my colleague and a member of our committee from 
Florida (Mr. Keller) for his strong leadership in supporting the Pell 
grant program, and as Chairman of the Pell Grant Caucus, and for his 
sharing with us his personal experiences as a former Pell grant 
recipient.
  The gentleman is correct to point out that the Republican Congress 
has provided unprecedented support for Pell grants. Funding for Pell 
grants doubled in the last 10 years, and today we are proposing to add 
more than $1 billion in additional funding. The number of students 
receiving Pell grants has risen significantly, and today about 5.3 
million students are attending college with the help of a Pell grant.
  So I want to thank my colleague from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the dean of 
our delegation, for his leadership as chairman of the Labor-HHS 
Appropriations Subcommittee. He has been a strong advocate on behalf of 
education programs, and it has been a privilege to work with him in 
support of our priorities.
  Given the constraints that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) is 
working with, I fully understand. I agree with my colleague from 
Florida (Mr. Keller) that we should do all we can to increase the 
maximum award.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Ohio has expired.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller), both of the Education and the 
Workforce Committee. I, too, agree that Pell grants are a fundamental 
part of our efforts to ensure low- and middle-income students have the 
opportunity to pursue postsecondary education.
  As the gentlemen have pointed out, Republicans have a proud history 
of providing funding for the Pell grant program. I am particularly 
pleased that in this bill, we will erase the $4.3 billion shortfall 
that had existed within the program, and put the program on a solid 
financial footing.

[[Page 14185]]

  We are also increasing the Pell grant maximum award to $4,100, the 
highest level in the history of the program, and it is very evident 
from the chart there. And I would point out that if you take a look at 
that chart, where we became the majority party in 1994, and you can see 
the rapid ascendency of the Pell grant program.
  As the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller) is aware, increasing the 
Pell grant maximum award, even incrementally, is costly. Each $100 we 
add is estimated to cost $420 million. As the number of low-income 
students pursuing college continues to increase, the demand for Pell 
grants will grow as well.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have worked closely with the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller) to 
provide the resources necessary to help low- and middle-income students 
gain access to college through Pell grants.
  As for the conference negotiations, obviously I cannot guarantee any 
particular outcome. However, I will make a good-faith effort to 
increase the maximum Pell grant award, provided resources are available 
to do so.
  I thank the gentleman for engaging in this colloquy, and I look 
forward to working with him in the future to continue to support this 
important program.
  Mr. KELLER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. KELLER. Mr. Chairman, in light of the comments by the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and the comments of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Boehner) to at least make a good-faith effort to try to increase the 
maximum Pell grant award during the conference process, I will not 
offer my amendment at this time.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Honda

  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Honda:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to require a local educational agency to provide 
     student information to military recruiters pursuant to 
     section 503(c) or title 10, United States Code, or section 
     9528(a) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 
     (20 U.S.C. 7908(a)) without parental consent.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 23, 2005, 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on this 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved. The gentleman from 
California is recognized.
  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of parents and students within my own 
Silicon district, and from parents and students across this country.
  The privacy of high school students across this Nation is compromised 
by a provision of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, also 
known as No Child Left Behind, which requires school districts to 
provide the personal, private information of students to military 
recruiters at the risk of losing scarce Federal dollars.
  Parents in my district complain to me that their children were being 
persistently contacted at home by military recruiters. These parents 
wanted to know how the military recruiters got their children's 
personal, confidential information, including home phone numbers and 
addresses.
  My amendment would prohibit the Department of Education from 
withholding education dollars from school districts that decline to 
provide private student information to military recruiters. The 
decision to join the military is a solemn one. Ideally this decision 
should be made in consultation with people who love and care for the 
child, not with a government official, however well intentioned, whose 
very job is to recruit for the military.
  As a policymaker and former high school teacher and principal, I am 
concerned with the increasing pressure faced by schools and school 
districts due to cuts in the Federal dollars of education. I support 
the military's right to recruit on every high school campus, but I do 
not believe the current provision advances our national security or 
reflects our Nation's respect for individual privacy rights.
  Indeed, other Federal privacy statutes explicitly recognize 
individual privacy rights, particularly those of minors. The Children's 
On-Line Privacy Act prohibits commercial Web sites or on-line services 
from releasing personally identifiable information of minors.
  Federal agencies are prohibited from divulging personal information 
without written consent. Blockbuster is prohibited from releasing lists 
of videos that their customers rent, yet for some reason it is 
acceptable to force schools to provide military recruiters with 
personal information of their students.
  This violates the trust between schools and students and their 
parents. Schools should not be in a position to choose between students 
and Federal funding. More importantly, there is no reason for the 
Federal Government to interfere with the values and choices made by 
local school districts and boards.

                              {time}  1045

  This amendment closely mirrors legislation I have introduced, 
bipartisan legislation, cosponsored by 46 of my esteemed colleagues.
  This legislation is supported by the National Parents and Teachers 
Association, the PTA. This legislation has also received 24,537 citizen 
cosponsors who have signed a petition to indicate their support of my 
legislation. This includes 13,000 parents and 5,000 teachers from all 
50 States who have lined up behind our efforts to secure privacy for 
our Nation's students.
  Opponents of this amendment will tell you that this amendment will 
hurt military recruiting at a time of dwindling enlistees. What they 
will not tell you is that in the past 2 years before the passage of 
this provision, the military exceeded recruiting goals. Clearly, the 
drop has no relationship with information provided by schools.
  Our Nation has the best trained and most powerful Armed Forces in the 
world, and maintaining our military superiority depends upon effective 
recruiting. This country also has a proud history of personal rights 
and privacy protection. I believe we can sustain one while preserving 
the other.
  We must protect the children and the students who represent the 
future of our country. This includes protecting their privacy.
  Just today, The Washington Post ran a story detailing Department of 
Defense intentions to create a student data base which would include 
personal information including Social Security numbers, ethnicity, and 
grade point averages. This is but another egregious attack on the 
privacy rights of our students. Students have neither the ability to 
confirm nor correct information in its data base.
  Finally, this information is gathered from commercial data brokers 
and State registries by a third party. I urge my colleagues to send a 
strong message to the country that the Congress supports privacy rights 
of our Nation's students and vote for the Honda-Stark amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, maintaining my reservation of a point of 
order, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I yield such time as 
he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will suspend.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Honda).
  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I ask to reclaim the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. HONDA. May I reserve the remainder?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. HONDA. All of it?
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the balance of 
the gentleman's time be reserved.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.

[[Page 14186]]


  Mr. HONDA. All 5 minutes have expired?
  The CHAIRMAN. All 5 minutes of the gentleman's time have expired.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent for 2 
additional minutes on each side.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) controls 7 
minutes.
  Mr. REGULA. Reserving my point of order, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman from 
California's (Mr. Honda) amendment.
  The gentleman talks about two distinct and particular points in his 
amendment. First, schools routinely share students' information with 
various vendors. And whether they sell that information or share it, 
there are a lot of different forums. And during the consideration of No 
Child Left Behind, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) 
and I worked closely to try to protect students' privacy. And what we 
developed at the end of the bill was an opportunity for parents to have 
their children's names opted out of the information that would be sold 
or shared with outside vendors, thereby giving parents the right to 
protect their children's privacy.
  But a second point, a more important point, is that some schools were 
sharing this information with private vendors, but would not share it 
with the U.S. military. And the agreement that we came to on the floor 
of this House in a very broad bipartisan way was that to the extent 
that a school sells or shares student data, they must treat military 
recruiters in a nondiscriminatory way, or, in other words, treat all 
people who would want access to this data to have access to it in the 
same way.
  Now, if schools do not want to share the data with military 
recruiters, that is fine. They cannot share the data then with anyone. 
But to the extent that they want to sell that data to publishers and 
others who would seek that, they must give the military the right to 
that information as well.
  I think students across America ought to have access to information 
to the United States military. It has been a wonderful career for tens 
of millions of Americans, and the fact is that the practice is going on 
in far too many schools discriminates against the needs of our 
military.
  So I would ask my colleagues to reject the gentleman's amendment. We 
have dealt with this issue in a comprehensive way in No Child Left 
Behind, and we did it in a broad bipartisan way.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I respect those who choose to serve our 
country in the military. I also understand that successful recruiting 
is critical to the military's ability to protect our country.
  But we also must protect the privacy of our children.
  On top of Mr. Honda's discussion, Mr. Chairman, according to the 
Washington Post, the Pentagon is now developing a comprehensive 
invasive recruiting database on high-school and college students who 
are age 16 or older.
  The database will include personal information about these young 
women and men, including their birth dates, social security numbers, e-
mail addresses, grade-point averages, ethnicity and what subjects they 
are studying.
  And, apparently, the Pentagon will be able, without notifying 
citizens, to share this data for non-military purposes, including with 
law enforcement agencies and state tax authorities.
  More than ever, this highlights the Administration's gall in 
believing they have the right to personal information about student 
rights above parents.
  If their war was justified, if the American people were not fed up 
with it, young people would volunteer--but they aren't, and, they 
won't, and, that is the very reason this invasive program has come up.
  For these reasons, I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting 
parents and children and their privacy. Vote for the Honda amendment.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, while the men and women of our armed forces 
serve bravely throughout the world, the ability of our U.S. military to 
recruit highly qualified candidates is being put in jeopardy. Former 
Commandant of the Marine Corps General Charles Krulak once remarked 
that our all-volunteer military is an all-recruited force. The 
amendment offered today by my colleague from California is a clear 
threat to the continued success of that force.
  This amendment would prohibit the Department of Education from 
withholding Title I dollars from school districts that do not provide 
private student information to military recruiters. Under the guise of 
``privacy rights,'' our military recruiters would be denied the same 
access to our nation's best young minds that is regularly provided to 
recruiters for colleges or businesses.
  Mr. Chairman, military service can be a noble and fulfilling choice 
for our young men and women--including my son, a career Army officer. 
Planning for the future can be an overwhelming experience. As they 
consider their postsecondary options, our nation's students deserve to 
be fully equipped with the information they need to make good 
decisions.
  While only a select few individuals choose to devote themselves to a 
career in military service, the defense of America is not their 
exclusive responsibility. Each one of us is charged with protecting our 
nation by doing our part. The least we can do is to ensure those who 
are interested are not prevented from learning about the opportunity to 
pursue military service. School principals and administrators ought to 
be introducing military recruiters to their students--not blocking 
them.
  Mr. Chairman, the people of the United States benefit from the 
protection of the most highly qualified and well-trained military. I am 
hopeful our actions today will ensure our U.S. military maintains the 
ability to continue to serve its citizens most effectively.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman makes the point that 
this is legislation; and, therefore, Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law 
and constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill. Therefore, it 
violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part: ``An 
amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order if it 
changes existing law.''
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. We have a point of order pending, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
  Does the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) wish to be heard further?
  Mr. REGULA. No, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will rule.
  The Chair finds that this amendment includes language requiring a new 
determination. The amendment, therefore, constitutes legislation in 
violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order.


                 Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Kolbe

  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as a designee of the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. Kolbe:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to enforce Determination ED-OIG/A05-D0008 of the 
     Department of Education.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 23, 2005, 
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment which is offered by 
the entire Arizona delegation. I will consume very little time on this 
because others have greater knowledge about it.
  This amendment will ensure that all certified charter schools will 
continue to be eligible to receive special education and low-income 
funding.
  This year, the Department of Education made a sudden determination 
that charter schools operated by for-profit organizations are not 
public schools and are, therefore, ineligible for Federal special 
education funding under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act 
and title I low-income students.

[[Page 14187]]

  Charter schools across the U.S. are U.S. public schools. They operate 
with taxpayer dollars and abide by the same laws as traditional 
schools. Federal laws let States decide the qualifications for public 
schools.
  The Kolbe-Flake-Shadegg-Hayworth amendment would set aside the 
Education Department's determination and allow appropriated funds to 
continue to serve low-income students and special-needs students who 
are schooled at charter schools. This has special significance for 
Arizona.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Hayworth), a cosponsor of this amendment.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Arizona for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bipartisan amendment because 
it is important not only to the State of Arizona but to the entire 
Nation. As of last year, Mr. Chairman, 40 of our 50 States as well as 
the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have passed charter school 
laws. My good friend, a member of the Committee on Appropriations, 
pointed out that charter schools are public schools, that charter 
schools in fact offer services to children with special needs. And we 
cannot stand by and allow the Department of Education by bureaucratic 
fiat to decide to cut off these funds to deserving children in what are 
public schools as set forth by State standards.
  Education is a national priority and ultimately a local concern. And 
just as Arizona has taken the lead in terms of formation and the 
flourishing of charter schools, we want to see the funds there for the 
children who deserve them.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition of the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, not because I am 
necessarily opposed, but because I might be if I understood this 
correctly. This is not something that we have had a lot of notice to 
discuss, and I must confess considerable disquiet at the idea that we 
should overturn a report of the Department of Education Inspector 
General with respect to the use of taxpayers' money.
  As I understand it, the IG, and what I understand is on the basis of 
a 2-minute briefing, what I understand is that the Inspector General 
ruled that a number of these schools were, in fact, private and not 
public and also questioned the way that at least two of the schools had 
spent taxpayers' money.
  Will the gentleman enlighten me with respect to the latter concern?
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. KOLBE. It is my understanding that this provision, the reason 
that the gentleman has not had a lot of time to receive this 
information is that it is a very new ruling from the Department of 
Education that these charter schools heretofore have been given funding 
because they are serving low-income students, special-needs students, 
and suddenly they have decided that they are not eligible for that 
funding.
  All we do is suspend that funding until there is an attempt to deal 
with this in the legislation.
  Mr. OBEY. Reclaiming my time, let me simply say, I would be willing 
to let this amendment go by and have it temporarily accepted by the 
House, provided that there is an understanding that the committee 
reserves the right to change its mind during the conference process if 
we learn that the public interest requires us to oppose it.
  I do not want acceptance to be interpreted as the committee's 
willingness without examining this further to allow this to continue 
until the authorization bill is passed. That might be a good idea, but 
I think we ought to keep that as an open possibility rather than make 
it as a commitment.

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what the gentleman has said, 
and obviously the committee always reserves the right in conference to 
make a change to something as this; and if, indeed, information came 
out that demonstrated that it should be changed, I would certainly 
concur with that.
  So I do appreciate what the gentleman has just said.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, in that case, I somewhat dubiously will 
withdraw any objection to this amendment for the moment and hope that 
we can clarify it further as we go to conference.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what the gentleman said. 
Perhaps the comments that will follow will clarify that.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  This ruling did just come out, and in Arizona we have I think the 
largest number of charter schools in the Nation. Most of them serve 
low-income, special-needs kids. In this case, that is who they are 
serving, and the ruling simply came out and said IF they are structured 
as a for-profit; they cannot receive funds anymore.
  Keep in mind, these are Title I funds. These are special education 
funds. And for a school to be told, all right, you are not going to 
receive them anymore, these are disadvantaged kids in most respects 
that are going to be held at a loss.
  What we are saying is simply if the Department of Education needs 
clarification, we can do that with reauthorization, but do not in the 
middle of a process say to these schools, we are going to treat you 
differently just because of how you are structured; although, we did 
not think it before, now we think it is different.
  So I think that the gentleman is wise to go ahead and accept the 
amendment, and as more information comes out, I am confident that 
everyone will feel comfortable with this decision.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg)
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time, and I rise in strong support of the amendment.
  I think the point that needs to be made here is what the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), my colleague, has already made, and that is, 
this was indeed a rather sudden ruling, and it does change what is 
happening.
  These schools have, in fact, been funded for years, and the only 
point that has not been made on this floor yet today, I do not believe, 
is that if the ruling is allowed to stand, funding will be cut off in 
less than 30 days. It will be cut off in about 12 days, on July 1.
  My colleagues can say what they will about the impact upon the 
school. I think we ought to focus upon the impact on students.
  In Arizona, schools begin the school year as early as August 1. My 
wife who is a teacher will be going back to school on August 1. Parents 
need to plan where their children are going to go to school this fall, 
and were this ruling to be allowed to stand, it would mean children 
would have less than a month to try to find a new school. To do that to 
low-income and special-needs children, to deprive those schools of the 
funding they need to provide that type of education, and to do it on 
that short of notice is inappropriate.
  This is a ruling that directly affects Arizona today and about five 
other States immediately, but it holds the potential of affecting all 
50 States. The ruling I think ought to be discussed on the merits, and 
I think the Congress should do that, but we appreciate the opportunity 
to at least temporarily suspend its impact for the sake of the children 
in Arizona who want to continue to be educated at these schools, many 
of which are in low-income areas, and these moneys, in particular, go 
to low-income needs.
  So I thank the gentleman for his position.

[[Page 14188]]


  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I would also say that I note in the letter in the final 
audit report that there is a sentence which says: Additionally, two of 
the charter schools that we audited did not expend Title I funds 
entirely in accordance with applicable law and regulations.
  I do not know what the facts are with respect to that sentence, but I 
would simply say that I would not, in any way, want the acceptance of 
this amendment to be an indication that the Congress is carte blanche 
accepting the fact that funds ought to continue for those two schools, 
because it seems to me we have an obligation to make certain that, even 
if we are trying to deal with the temporary problem, we do not want an 
improper expenditure of taxpayers' money.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Kind

  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Kind:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:

       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to enforce the portion of the proposed rule 
     (published in the Federal Register on May 4, 2005, at page 
     23466) insofar as proposed section 485.610(d)(1) of title 42, 
     Code of Federal Regulations, requires, for new construction 
     of a critical access hospital (CAH) to be considered a 
     replacement facility, that ``the construction is undertaken 
     within 250 yards of the current building or contiguous to the 
     current CAH on land owned by the CAH prior to December 8, 
     2003''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 23, 2005, 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) and an opponent each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very simple. It is a prohibited use of 
funds amendment to prevent a new rule from being implemented by CMS 
that would adversely affect and penalize hospitals that have critical 
access designation throughout the country, of which there is 
approximately 1,119 serving predominantly rural communities throughout 
our Nation.
  What the new rule that is moving forward would do is, in essence, to 
strip these hospitals from critical access designation, along with the 
funding that follows, if they decide to modernize and relocate their 
facilities further than 250 yards away from their present location.
  Obviously many of us in the Rural Health Coalition in this Congress 
feel is a very restrictive rule, a draconian attempt to try to 
accomplish something that is laudable, trying to keep these facilities 
servicing these high-need areas and the people that they are currently 
servicing, but a 250-yard rule seems overly restrictive to accomplish 
that purpose.
  This would affect the modernization of new facilities that may occur 
across the street or down the road or a few blocks away or perhaps in a 
different location in the community in which they are servicing or 
perhaps even affecting a hospital that was recently impacted by the 
earthquakes in California and are now forced to have to locate in a 
different place because of the damage that has been done.
  There is another rule that is moving forward by CMS that makes a lot 
more sense. It would require that if a critical access hospital does 
move, that they still have to serve at least 75 percent of the current 
population, the patients and staff that they are already serving. That 
makes more sense.
  So we are hoping today to be able to raise attention to this very 
important issue. We still have a little bit of time to work this out 
with CMS. I have recently had conversations with the chair of the 
Committee on Ways and Means and the chairwoman of the subcommittee of 
the Committee on Ways and Means who are interested in working with many 
of us to try to resolve this issue with CMS.
  Based on their assurances in those conversations, we feel very 
confident that we should be able to work this out with CMS so that we 
do not go forward on this very restrictive and narrow rule.
  I do want to thank, however, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Stupak), the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran) and also the gentleman 
from Nebraska (Mr. Terry) for their assistance with this amendment and 
helping to elevate the education in this House in regards to what is 
taking place.
  Hopefully through the conference process, hopefully through the 
cooperation we expect to receive through CMS, further legislation on 
this matter will not be necessary.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Regula).
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding the gentleman is 
going to withdraw this amendment; is that correct?
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, that is correct.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, in light of that, I do not oppose it.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of the time. And 
let me just conclude, that based on assurances that we received from 
the appropriate people on the Committee on Ways and Means, the chair, 
the subcommittee chairwoman, and also the fact that we still have time 
in which to cut this rule off before it is fully implemented, it is my 
intent today to ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment and 
hope that we can get this resolved without further legislative action 
being taken.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.


                Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Tancredo

  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Tancredo:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec.__. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be used to pay the salaries and 
     expenses of personnel to carry out the provisions of section 
     1011 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and 
     Modernization Act of 2003 (Public law 108-173.)

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 23, 2005, 
the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) and the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  We have had a number of debates already on this issue, on the issue 
of how much money is in this bill and whether it is enough money to 
fund all of the worthy programs that are out there. I suggest to my 
colleagues there is a place we can easily go and get at least $1 
billion out of this bill and use it for the other programs that have 
been so eloquently advocated on this floor.
  My amendment is simple and straightforward. It essentially prevents 
the implementation of section 1011 of the prescription drug bill passed 
by the Congress last year. As my colleagues may recall, this is the 
controversial provision of the law that provided $1 billion to cover 
the health care costs of illegal aliens.

[[Page 14189]]

  It is also important to note that many of these States that are 
incurring these heavy costs and hospitals inside these States that are 
incurring these costs for treating illegal aliens, some of these States 
and some of these localities have helped create their own problems. In 
many cases, they have taken steps to make themselves magnets for 
illegal immigration. These health care costs are now burdened by 
permitting them to obtain driver's license, enroll in institutions, and 
luckily we stopped the driver's license part, enroll in institutions of 
higher education at in-State rates, and obtain public services through 
the use of consular ID cards. So a lot of the burden, as I say, they 
have brought upon themselves.
  But nonetheless, we have gone the next step, then, and we have 
written regulations. We promulgated regulations and rules designed to 
implement section 1011, and they certainly fall short of establishing 
any meaningful accountability for the money, and more importantly, they 
do not require information sharing with homeland security.
  As a matter of fact, on the final page of the payment determination 
form, it says patients should be aware that the Department of Homeland 
Security will not access or use information related to medical care to 
initiate enforcement of United States immigration laws unrelated to an 
ongoing terrorism or criminal investigation.
  There is another part of these regulations that, frankly, I do not 
recall us debating it when the original amendment was proposed to the 
Medicare and prescription drug bill. That is one that now allows for 
not only people who are here illegally to be given services under this 
act, but people who are here with the 72-hour border crossing card.
  In 2002, as I recall, as I have been told, there were already 5 
million of these border crossing cards that had been issued. Five 
million people, mostly, in fact I think entirely, Mexican nationals, 
are now also eligible for reimbursement under this act, under this 
section, if they come across the border and choose to access the 
hospitals in those border States. Again, I do not recall that was part 
of the original debate, but that is part of the regulations that have 
been promulgated.
  It is a sad irony that many of the Americans who are being asked to 
cough up to this $1 billion to fund health care costs for illegal 
aliens and for nationals of another country do not oftentimes have 
enough money to buy health insurance themselves.
  This is a bad giveaway for taxpayers. It sends the wrong message to 
illegal aliens and Americans alike. It comes at far too high a price. 
It was wrong when it was passed. It is wrong today.
  I hope my colleagues will support the amendment and help save the 
American taxpayers $1 billion.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I do rise in the strongest possible opposition to this 
amendment. It is anti-public health. It undermines current law, and it 
deserves to be defeated, just as it was defeated last year.
  Hospitals and trauma care facilities are required by Federal law to 
treat anyone who comes into an emergency room, including undocumented 
immigrants. If hospitals are not reimbursed for this treatment, their 
very existence is in danger. That threatens the health of everyone. Yet 
that is exactly what this amendment would do.
  It would deny reimbursement to hospitals for care that the government 
requires them to provide. This is especially dangerous for Americans 
who live along the border. Let me provide an example.
  The Tucson Medical Center in my home State of Arizona, a crucial 
level 1 trauma facility, shut its doors on its trauma facility because 
of uncompensated care. Now there is only one trauma center serving all 
of Tucson, with a population of nearly 1 million people.
  I understand that the sponsor of this amendment does not live close 
to the border, and it may be hard for him to sympathize with those who 
do. So let me be clear.
  This amendment is an attack on our communities. It will shut down 
hospitals simply because of the Federal Government's inability to 
secure our border. It will punish Americans by denying them access to 
care.
  Again, the Federal Government mandates that hospitals treat anyone in 
need of emergency care. If the sponsors of this amendment oppose this, 
then they should try to change EMTALA, the emergency medical treatment 
law, that requires that hospitals provide this treatment, change it so 
they are not required to treat undocumented aliens.

                              {time}  1115

  Until then, the Federal Government is responsible for funding its 
mandates.
  So let there be no mistake about this amendment: it will close 
hospitals, it will close health clinics for Americans who live along 
the border, and it will result in an unfunded mandate. I am appalled by 
this proposal. I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment and 
vote for hospitals that care for Americans living along our border.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing in the EMTALA Act that 
requires States and localities to actually pass laws and regulations 
creating sanctuary States, creating sanctuary cities, becoming magnets 
for illegal aliens themselves. There is nothing that requires them to 
do that; yet they do that. Then they come here and say, We are having a 
problem. It is undeniably true that the problem exists. It is 
undeniably true that they are being overwhelmed by illegal immigration. 
It is also undeniably true that much of this is the fault of the 
Federal Government. I do not deny that for a moment. Nor do I deny that 
there may be some responsibility here for us to help pay for it.
  But what I am saying is you pass a law like this and then you pass 
regulations that make it completely and totally irrelevant in a way to 
determine. They say, We don't want to ask. We cannot ask. We will not 
even ask you if you are here illegally. By the way, even if you aren't 
here illegally, if you are one of the 5 million people who live in 
Mexico, Mexican nationals who have a border crossing card, we'll treat 
you also.
  Does that not encourage even more people to come to the United States 
and obtain these services, putting even more of a burden on these 
hospitals? Of course it does. These regulations are the problem. They 
are a significant problem that only exacerbates the underlying problem 
of massive costs being incurred by these hospitals in these States.
  My hope is that if in fact we have to put money into a program like 
this, we do so only after we have passed meaningful and purposeful 
regulations, regulations that at least make these hospitals 
accountable.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is misdirected, misguided, and stupid. 
If you are out in the woods with a rifle and you are hunting and you 
shoot at something, it would be nice if you are shooting at the right 
target.
  This amendment does not do anything about illegal immigration. This 
amendment simply shoots the victim of illegal immigration by damaging 
the local hospitals. If we have illegal immigrants in this country, it 
is because of a failure of the Federal Government to effectively 
enforce its immigration laws. That is the problem.
  The problem with the gentleman's amendment is that because he does 
not like the fact that the Federal Government has been ineffective with 
respect to immigration, he wants to take it out on the local hospitals. 
The local hospitals when someone shows up on their door, they have an 
obligation under the law to treat that patient. If the Federal 
Government does not pay for the treatment of that patient, then local 
taxpayers and local hospitals get stuck with the bill.
  I have a similar situation in my district. I have a huge percentage 
of Hmong who have come to this country

[[Page 14190]]

since the end of the Vietnam War. They came because of a decision of 
the Federal Government. Yet after they come to my district, after a 
very few months of Federal support, the financial cost for maintaining 
them, for educating them and for dealing with their medical needs winds 
up being assumed by the local government. That is not fair. Local 
governments do not make the foreign policy decisions that determine who 
our refugees are, and local governments do not have anything to do with 
what policies the Federal Government follows with respect to 
immigration.
  I would suggest to the gentleman if you do not like Federal 
immigration policy, shoot the right messenger. This one shoots the 
wrong messenger. This amendment deserves to be roundly defeated, unless 
you believe that somebody should pay for somebody else's mistakes.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda 
T. Sanchez).
  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, envision this: an undocumented immigrant suffers from 
severe chest pains and a nagging cough. Too frightened to seek out 
medical attention in the beginning, he lets this condition persist. He 
finds himself in the emergency room of the local hospital. The first 
order of business for the emergency physician or nurse is not to ask 
them where it hurts and do a physical exam to see if their life is in 
imminent danger, but to ask their immigration status and get a sworn 
statement to that effect.
  And if that patient cannot prove their legal status because they do 
not happen to have the documentation on them, that same doctor must 
make the choice not to provide care to this person or at least they 
must report them to immigration officials before providing lifesaving 
treatment. I ask you, in this universe, what kind of choice is that?
  There is no choice in asking a person to choose life or death. This 
amendment unfairly and wrongly punishes health care professionals for 
doing what they are ethically and legally obligated to do. Our doctors 
and nurses do everything they can to help these individuals, regardless 
of their status, in order to save lives and to nurse them back to 
health. Today's hospitals are already underfunded, understaffed, and 
under tremendous pressure to meet the new demands of homeland security 
preparedness.
  I think we can all agree that our Nation's immigration system is 
broken. It does not meet our security needs, our economic needs, nor 
does it reflect the American values of strong families and respect for 
work. However, we will never fix our country's immigration ills by 
punishing our local hospitals for treating the ill.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Tancredo amendment.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Crowley).
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding me this 
time, and I thank both the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for his 
comments and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez). I 
think that this amendment is wrongheaded. I do not believe it will have 
the effect that the sponsor wants to have, and that is that all 
undocumented illegal aliens will just ship up and move back home. It 
plays well on some radio and television stations, but in reality it 
will have no effect. In the State of New York, our constitution 
requires that every child be afforded an education, whether that child 
is a legal citizen and resident or an undocumented alien or their 
parents are.
  TB does not have the ability to discern as to whether someone is 
documented or undocumented. When that child's mother or father 
contracts that disease, they give it to their child and their child 
goes to school. Our children are the ones who are exposed to those 
diseases. Our children then become the victims of what this amendment 
would do if it were to pass. This amendment will not have that effect. 
It will just be a chilling effect on all people who question their 
status in this country, and they will then not go and get the care that 
they need to protect the rest of our children.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the salient points have been made here. Our 
Federal Government says to hospitals, you have to treat whoever comes 
in your door. It is not the hospital's choice. I have toured the border 
hospitals. It is not just the border hospitals in Arizona. It is 
hospitals 100 miles from the border. It is hospitals in Tucson. It is 
hospitals in Phoenix. It is others. They do not have the luxury of 
deciding who they are going to treat. Yet this amendment would say, 
sorry, you have to treat them, and because of our failure to impose 
control at the border, you are just stuck with the bill. That is simply 
not right.
  Nobody is more convinced than the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) 
and me of the need for immigration reform. That is why we have 
proffered legislation to do that. I would challenge those who have 
offered this amendment, please join us or offer your own legislation. 
We cannot continue with the status quo. It is just eating us alive in 
Arizona, not just health care costs but education costs, criminal 
justice costs, across the board.
  But let us find a solution. Let us not simply pretend that it does 
not exist, pretend that those who are here just do not exist. They do. 
We have got to do something about it. Let us work together and do it, 
not just say, hey, unfunded mandate, sorry, got to deal with it. And to 
say that, Well, let's not entice them further, let's not provide any of 
the funding until we get immigration reform, tell that to the hospitals 
who could not survive. They will be closed. They simply are doing what 
the Federal Government tells them to do in terms of admitting patients 
and under this they would simply say, Sorry, we can't fund it. We're 
going to have to close our doors.
  I commend the gentleman for opposing the amendment. I join with him, 
and I encourage all of my colleagues to say, Let's find a solution. 
Let's have meaningful, comprehensive immigration reform that will deal 
with issues like this. But let us not bury our heads in the sand.
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment 
because if passed, this measure will place extreme financial and legal 
hardships on border and urban hospitals. Because this measure addresses 
emergency medical care, our hospitals and our doctors are bound by law 
and their medical oath to treat individuals who are in desperate need 
of medical attention.
  This measure cuts critical funding for our hospitals to cover 
emergency room care. Due to the high degree of cost associated with 
this type of care, this amendment will leave hospitals with a choice of 
two evils, bankruptcy or closing their doors to these communities.
  Either way, this measure results in a dramatic cut in access to 
health care facilities for all residents.
  This measure is irresponsible, impractical, and will destroy 
healthcare in American communities, especially in border states. 
Therefore, I respectfully ask my colleagues to vote no on this 
amendment and yes to safeguarding access to health care in all cities.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
  The amendment was rejected.


                 Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Filner

  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. Filner:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. ____. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to place social security account numbers on 
     identification cards issued to beneficiaries under the 
     medicare program under title XVIII of the Social Security 
     Act.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 23, 2005, 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) and the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Regula) each will control 5 minutes.

[[Page 14191]]

  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, everyone in this House and everyone in this country 
knows that identity theft is one of the fastest growing crimes of our 
decade and creates a nightmare for those who become victims. Identity 
thieves make off with millions of dollars each day, and each day more 
than a thousand people are being defrauded. We just saw millions of 
credit card numbers stolen from the Visa and the MasterCard 
distribution centers. The Federal Trade Commission has said that 
identity theft is the top consumer complaint. We all know how credit 
can be destroyed, earned income can be taken, and a rejection for 
everything from a college loan to a mortgage can be done. And law 
enforcement will generally not pursue these identity theft cases.
  Part of that peril is, in fact, contributed to by the Federal 
Government. By including Social Security numbers on Medicare cards, the 
Department of Health and Human Services places millions of Medicare 
beneficiaries at risk of becoming victims of identity theft.
  I have a simple amendment, Mr. Chairman. It prohibits the Department 
of Health and Human Services from including Social Security numbers on 
Medicare cards. Many commercial health insurance companies and States 
have already taken such steps. Some States prohibit companies from 
displaying Social Security numbers internally and assign consumers 
unique numbers that would appear on Medicare cards. It is time for the 
Federal Government to catch up and help protect an individual's 
personal privacy. Even the GAO has published a number of reports and 
has concluded that there is no reason why the Social Security number 
cannot be removed from the Medicare card.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This would prohibit CMS from spending any funds related to using 
Social Security numbers on a Medicare identification card. It would 
really interfere with the operation of the current system. This is a 
long-time use of Social Security numbers. It is an outgrowth of the 
claims process. I think it is important from the standpoint of avoiding 
fraud. The cost of converting the system for 43 million Medicare 
beneficiaries would be substantial, both in beneficiary education, 
system reprogramming and related costs. While CMS may well convert to 
some type of an electronic identification system over time, and I think 
that will happen, in the meantime to try to make a change at this point 
would be wrong.
  This amendment would limit their ability to effectively deal with it. 
And, of course, they have got the new drug benefit to implement. I 
think it is just the wrong time to start tampering with a system that 
has been in place for a long time.

                              {time}  1130

  I would urge Members to vote against that if this amendment comes to 
a vote.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Indiana (Ms. Carson).
  Ms. CARSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Filner) for bringing this very critical issue to the ears and eyes of 
the Congress as well as the ears and eyes of America.
  In Indianapolis, Indiana, we have over 100,000 Medicare recipients, 
and in Indiana we have over 877,000. And as all of the Members know, 
the criminals devise ways at all times to break laws and to steal 
people's identity. People in nursing homes die unexpectedly, and 
workers, not all of them of course, steal Social Security numbers and 
abuse them before the Social Security Administration has an opportunity 
to close down that particular number.
  So I appreciate very much this effort. I think it is very vital. And 
as I read the amendment, it is on new Medicare cards and not ones that 
exist at the present time. So it would not require an entire 
overhauling of the Medicare card system to implement this particular 
amendment.
  And I would again commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) 
for his insight and foresight in bringing this very vital issue to the 
Congress.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  I rise in strong opposition to this amendment, although I appreciate 
the concern of the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).
  First of all, we all know how important Medicare is to our seniors. 
Two hundred thousand new beneficiaries sign up every month, and 
anything that would disrupt their entry up into the system would be a 
terrible hardship to impose on our seniors. This amendment would 
actually interfere with the operation of the current system before a 
new system could be put in place, causing serious disruption in the 
Medicare program in the enrollment process for new beneficiaries.
  That much said, CMS does share the gentleman's concern and is in the 
process of examining this issue. That project is currently in the 
information-gathering phase, focusing on identifying all of the systems 
and entities and understanding the nature of the transactions that rely 
on a beneficiary identifier. There are many parties involved, with a 
variety of information claims processing and data exchange systems, and 
once they get this base research done, they can move forward on 
reforming the use of the Social Security system. I would tell the 
Members that in the new drug plan they do not use the Social Security 
identifier.
  So I would urge the gentleman to maintain his interest in this 
subject to work with the committee as we oversee CMS's gathering of 
this material and evaluation of this problem; and the fact that they 
have managed to develop the drug plan without using a Social Security 
identifier indicates to us that they will take the time and invest the 
resources to change the base underlying system. But any radical change 
to that system will deny current beneficiaries coming into the system, 
month by month, their benefits.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I find it strange that the distinguished chairman and the 
distinguished chairwoman, both of whom are well known for their support 
of Medicare, Social Security, and seniors in this Nation would object 
to what is really just a bureaucratic change, a change that can be done 
through computers in a very quick fashion.
  The Department of Health and Human Services has said that the health 
insurance claim number that they use is merely a variation of the 
recipient's Social Security number, not the actual number, and has 
noted that the number may be based on the Social Security number of a 
spouse or parent. However, more often than not, the number the agency 
uses is the person's Social Security, preceded or followed by a single 
letter of the alphabet. The agency has said it has no immediate plans 
to stop this practice. What more can the Department of Health and Human 
Services do to the theft of our identity? Give thieves and unscrupulous 
people mothers' maiden names?
  Not so long ago, I would tell the chairman, we experienced the same 
problem with the mailing labels sent to us from the IRS. I was told 
there was no way the IRS would change its practice and any disruption 
would disrupt the whole tax collection system of the Nation. I found 
that incomprehensible, simply a defense of bureaucratic inertia, and 
said that they can change a computer system very quickly so booklets 
that would be mailed out to millions of Americans would not have the 
Social Security number. I introduced a similar bill to stop the IRS 
from putting Social Security numbers on its mailings, and the IRS found 
a way in short time to stop the practice that could lead to identity 
theft.
  There is simply no excuse, Mr. Chairman, for leaving Medicare 
beneficiaries vulnerable to identity theft with a

[[Page 14192]]

thinly disguised Social Security number on Medicare-related mailings. 
This is merely bureaucratic inertia. It only requires a computer 
software change. No benefits to Medicare or Social Security will be 
held up. It is about time this Congress said to a bureaucracy, cut the 
fooling around, break through the red tape, and protect our seniors and 
all our families in America from identity theft.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I simply want to say that I rise in support of the 
gentleman's amendment. I would fully grant that I think there is a 
problem with the timetable associated with the amendment because of its 
immediacy, but the fact is that under the rules of the House, the 
gentleman had no choice but to draw the amendment that way in order for 
it to be eligible to be offered as an amendment.
  The committee, if it so chooses, can easily fix this problem in 
conference. It can easily delay the effective date of the gentleman's 
amendment, and I think that is what we ought to do. I think the Social 
Security Administration, I think the Federal Government, I think the 
Pentagon, I think our banks and other financial institutions, have been 
incredibly reckless in protecting the privacy of American citizens. And 
we are increasingly going to see this as a huge problem, and we are 
also going to see identity theft mount exponentially.
  I congratulate the gentleman for trying to do something about it. 
That is more than one can say for most of this Congress. And if there 
are technical problems, this committee, if it is worth its salt, can 
easily have them fixed before the bill is reported back in conference.
  I urge support for the amendment.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I understand what the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is saying, 
and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) will be a conferee, and it 
is something we probably need to discuss there. But in the meantime, 
there are 43 million people who are on Medicare. We add 200,000 every 
month, and I would like to get more information from CMS as to just 
what impact this would have in terms of cost and their ability to 
manage the system.
  The key to this is that we want the system managed as effectively as 
possible, and all of us as Members hear from time to time from people 
who are not getting their Medicare claims taken care of or they are 
having problems with Medicare. So some system of keeping track of these 
and to identify them, we can imagine with 43 million people, it is not 
easy.
  So I would hope the gentleman would withdraw his amendment and I 
would work with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) in conference 
to see if there is some way we can refine this language, and I would 
like to discuss it with the Medicare people, with CMS, to see what the 
impact would be or whether a workable system that would ensure privacy 
could be put in place.
  For that reason I would oppose the amendment if there is a vote on 
it.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the gentleman from 
California's amendment.
  The public, whether shoppers, investors, or Medicare beneficiaries, 
should be confident that their personal information is secure, and it 
is obvious from recently revealed breaches that more must be done to 
protect consumer data. As Chairman of the Commerce, Trade & Consumer 
Protection Subcommittee, I have held many hearings on data breaches and 
consumer data security and showed broad support for a comprehensive 
federal notification requirement to consumers for these security 
breaches. According to the Federal Trade Commission, 27.3 million 
Americans have been victims of identity theft in the last five years, 
and the Social Security Number is one of the primary tools.
  Private health insurers do not rely on the SS No., and neither should 
our Nation's health provider for seniors and the disabled. A non-
identifying, random, set of characters can be generated that would be 
less meaningful to an individual's entire financial . . . The GAO is 
well-published on the risk of using SS Nos., and the facility with 
which the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) could assign 
an alternate number.
  I support the gentleman's amendment and urge my colleagues to do so.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Fossella). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Filner) will be postponed.


                 Amendment Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. King of Iowa:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. ___ None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to reimburse, or provide reimbursement, for Viagra, 
     Levitra, or Cialis.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 23, 
2005, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, first I would like to state my appreciation for the 
work done by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), committee chairman, 
on this overall bill and his work and cooperation at all levels and the 
flexibility that he has demonstrated in the interests across this broad 
country.
  I bring before this Congress an amendment that addresses an issue 
that Americans understand, and it is an issue that I think Congress 
needs to understand maybe more thoroughly than they do at this point. 
And that is that government has a role in promoting the general welfare 
in the United States, but we have gone past that role; and now with our 
Medicaid and Medicare funding, we are opposed to be purchasing sexual 
impotence drugs with taxpayers' dollars all across this country. We 
have been doing so since 1998 with regard to Medicaid, and now CMS is 
poised to do so also with Medicare. That will be implemented in 
January, simply 6 months from now, and if we are not able to put a stop 
to this bureaucratic decision, then we will be down the slippery slope 
of millions of people who believe the entitlement is taxpayer-funded 
recreational sex drugs.
  So my amendment simply prohibits any use of any of the resources or 
funds provided in this act from being used for the administration or 
funding of Viagra, Levitra and Cialis. It is that simple. It is 
something that I think we have a consensus on.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance my time.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I just want to discuss it. I do not think anyone has asked to claim 
time in opposition at this juncture.
  As the Members know, the bill already has a provision restricting 
health programs from paying for impotence drugs for sex offenders. This 
amendment simply takes the provision a step further by prohibiting the 
payment for all beneficiaries.
  The authorizing committee has been discussing it with the Member, and 
apparently there has been no resolution. So perhaps this is one that 
Members ought to make a judgment on. I think the issue is fairly clear 
as it has been framed by the sponsor. And if he were to ask for a vote, 
that would be an appropriate thing to do at this juncture.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
(Mrs. Johnson).

[[Page 14193]]


  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I do rise in strong 
opposition to this amendment. I certainly support denying impotence 
drugs to sex offenders, but to arbitrarily eliminate any class of drugs 
from a formulary, first of all, sets a terrible precedent and has the 
same potential for mischief as State mandates on health plans have 
demonstrated is possible. So the precedent being set here is one I 
object to.

                              {time}  1145

  But much more important, these drugs are often medically necessary. 
ED drugs help men who have lost sexual function caused by prostate 
cancer, diabetes, multiple sclerosis, nerve damage, or cardiac 
conditions. It is important that these drugs are available when they 
are medically appropriate and there is no evidence of abuse for 
medically appropriate situations. They are not sold over the counter, 
they are prescription, must be prescribed by a physician, and they are 
so important in the cases where they are medically needed, that it 
would be, in my mind, a gross disservice to our seniors to 
automatically deny them access under our prescription drug program to 
these drugs.
  First of all, where does this approval end? We do not say to seniors, 
we will not prescribe cholesterol medications for you or drugs for high 
blood pressure until you have changed your diet and exercised. Yet diet 
and exercise could eliminate the need for taxpayer-funded drugs in many 
categories, but we do not require that.
  Secondly, we are very interested in, and increasingly interested in, 
early identification and prevention of serious illness, and sexual 
dysfunction is often an early sign of other very serious conditions. 
Those diseases may go untreated and undetected if there is no need to 
go to the doctor to talk about impotence, to evaluate the causes of 
impotence and, therefore, be entitled to the prescription. So it 
interferes with early diagnosis and prevention in certain diseases.
  It is also extremely important to consider this issue in the context 
of mental health and the costs of mental health in our elderly 
population. Certainly, in a long-term marriage, a healthy sexual 
relationship is important to the strength of that relationship and 
important to the mental health of the people involved. Would we rather 
pay for depression treatment, or would we rather have that couple 
eligible for the kind of medications that the gentleman wishes to ban 
from the Medicare program?
  So if we take a holistic approach to health and remember that mental 
health is important to reducing the cost of physical disease and that 
early identification and prevention of serious health problems is 
extremely important to lowering the long-term costs of Medicare and 
giving the program sustainability that is crucial to the well-being of 
our seniors, then my colleagues will vote against this amendment, even 
though I appreciate that, superficially and politically, voting for it 
would be a desirable vote.
  I would urge my colleagues to oppose the availability of these drugs 
for sex offenders. I would urge my colleagues to oppose eliminating 
them from the Medicare formulas, because they are often medically 
appropriate and they are important to the long-term health and well-
being and early identification of disease in our seniors.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the gentlewoman from Connecticut has indicated 
correctly that there are a number of technical problems with this 
amendment; yet I think I know that if there is a roll call, it will be 
passed overwhelmingly.
  So what I would suggest in the interest of time, unless we want to 
stay here until midnight, is to simply accept a number of these 
amendments which we know have significant technical flaws, but which 
can be corrected in conference. Otherwise, we are going to have a lot 
of meaningless debates, and they will simply consume a lot of time, and 
we will wind up in the same place.
  So what I would simply urge is that the committee accept the 
amendment, recognizing that it needs to be fixed substantially in 
conference, and deal with some of the very practical problems just laid 
out by the gentlewoman.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  I support this amendment, even though I can fully understand where 
the gentlewoman from Connecticut and the gentleman from Wisconsin are 
coming from. But part of the problem we are trying to address here goes 
back to the Medicare prescription drug legislation which requires that 
the Federal Government pay the full retail cost of these drugs.
  A substantial part of the cost of these ED drugs is attributable to 
TV advertising. They are spending approximately a half a billion 
dollars a year on television advertising, saturating the airwaves 
during family viewing hours when they know the parents and the kids are 
sitting in front of the television; and now the taxpayer is going to be 
paying for this cost of advertising. That is the difficulty.
  While I understand that we do not want to go down a slippery slope, 
bear in mind that when we start including these lifestyle drugs in 
Medicare, that is money that could be spent against cancer and heart 
disease and Alzheimer's and all the higher priorities that we ought to 
be using Medicare trust funds for.
  So I support the gentleman. I do not think that ED is a health care 
priority. But the larger issue is should the taxpayers be required to 
pay for TV advertising, much of which is inappropriate in its message. 
I did not have any problem, I have to say, when Bob Dole was the pitch 
man; nobody would, except maybe Elizabeth for sharing more than the 
world necessarily needed to know about their personal lives.
  But the point is, these ads on TV today are offensive, and we are 
spending half a billion dollars on them. The American public does not 
want them saturating the airwaves, and they certainly do not want to be 
paying for them; and unless this amendment passes, they will be paying 
for them.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Barton), the chairman of the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I speak in rabid opposition to 
this amendment, not because I oppose the total intent of it, but 
because it is legislating on an appropriations bill. If it were to pass 
and remain in the bill, it would make the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce much more difficult on reconciliation.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
the State of Washington (Mr. Inslee).
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, those who believe in privacy and not being 
dictated to by the U.S. Congress in their most private, intimate 
decisions should vote against this amendment.
  Two friends of mine my age recently went in for prostate treatment. 
When you go in for prostate cancer, they tell you you have a choice of 
various alternatives. Some may give you a higher chance of survival, 
but also a higher chance of impotency.
  A University of Chicago study showed that if you tell men that they 
have a chance of impotency that cannot be cured because you do not have 
access to these ED drugs, they will, 68 percent of the time, take 
surgery that could lessen their chances of survival. This is not 
recreation. These are helping men make decisions that are going to help 
prolong their lives. We should reject this amendment.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.
  To bring this towards a close, as I listen to this debate, I think it 
is clear to us that this is an inappropriate investment on the part of 
taxpayers' dollars for us to compel the taxpayers to pay for sexual 
impotency drugs. I take issue with some of the statements made, for 
example, no evidence of abuse for medically appropriate situations 
exist. Certainly it does.

[[Page 14194]]

  I recognize that the amendment of the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Doolittle) in the bill addresses some of the abuse, and that is the 
abuse of these prescriptions going into the hands of sexual predators, 
rapists, and child molesters. Now, this amendment would not be 
necessary to do that, but there is other abuse that goes beyond that. 
There is record of abuse that existed.
  No one paid any attention, until I raised this issue last November 
and December, and the traction has not been there for a policy change. 
That is why I need to bring this amendment here in the only fashion 
that I can with the leverage I have in this Congress.
  We will spend, over the next 10 years, over $2 billion, our CBO score 
runs it up over $2 billion, and $105 million in this next year.
  This is, as the gentleman from Virginia said, the only opportunity 
that we have to stop this funding under Medicare and also to stop the 
balance of this funding under Medicaid before such time as it becomes a 
huge entitlement.
  There are only two reasons for sex, there has only been, and one of 
them is for procreation. We do not subsidize any kind of fertility 
drugs under any kind of Medicare or Medicaid, because we decided that 
that is inappropriate. So we do not either subsidize procreational sex. 
Recreation is another thing. We do not subsidize the recreation of 
others either. So under either one of those categories, this is wrong.
  I urge the adoption of this amendment against Federal funding for 
Viagra, Cialis, and Levitra.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Fossella). The gentleman will state his 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Chairman, I rushed over here in a big rush hoping to 
get some time to speak against what I think is a very, very bad 
amendment and bad public policy. It is my understanding that there is 
no time left to speak in opposition to this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. All time for debate on this amendment has 
expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. King).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
King) will be postponed.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I do so so that I can facilitate a colloquy between the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Regula), and I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I wish to enter into a colloquy with the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula).
  As the gentleman knows, HHS at one time conducted a program on Gulf 
War illnesses research. And the gentleman also knows that, according to 
the congressionally chartered Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War 
Veterans' Illnesses, there has never been a better time to invest in 
this research. The potential causes have been narrowed, more diseases 
are being discovered, parallel benefits to national security are more 
urgently needed, and there is still no treatment for our ill veterans.
  Would the gentleman agree to work with the agency and me to encourage 
NIH to establish its research portfolio in this area?
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman calling to our 
attention the recent report of the Department of Veterans Affairs about 
the research opportunities in Gulf War illness research. NIH has 
conducted research in this area in the past, largely through the 
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. The gentleman 
describes opportunities in neuroscience research that might most 
appropriately reside in the National Institute for Neurological 
Disorders and Stroke.
  We would be pleased to ask the director of NIH to report to us what 
research NIH currently plans to conduct during the fiscal year 2006 
that addresses the priority areas the DVA report identifies. In our 
hearings next year, we will conduct a line of questioning to learn more 
about NIH's commitment to this area of research.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague, the 
gentleman from Ohio, and also express my appreciation to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin for yielding.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for raising this issue.


                 Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Hefley

  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 16 offered by Mr. Hefley:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. Appropriations made in this Act are hereby reduced 
     in the amount of $1,425,140,000.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 23, 
2005, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) and a Member opposed 
each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I do not want to take a lot of time for this because I think we all 
know the scenario that is the result of this, but I do want to make the 
point again.
  What I am rising to do is to cut the level of funding in this 
appropriation bill by 1 percent. This amount equals $1.425 billion, 
which represents only one penny off of every dollar.
  This is not an across-the-board cut. The way it is structured, it 
lets the Department decide where this money should come from.
  As most Members are aware, I have offered a series of these 
amendments over many appropriation bills. We need to draw the line; and 
the budget we have for the next year is too large, and we can do 
something about the deficit right now. By voting for my amendment, you 
are stating to the American taxpayers that they should not have to pay 
higher taxes in the future, because we can control our spending today. 
As hard as the chairman and ranking member have worked on this bill, 
there are still many wonderful things in the bill, very meritorious 
things in the bill, but things that do not have to be done, some of 
them.

                              {time}  1200

  This fiscal year's 2006 Labor-HHS appropriations bill provides over 
$142.5 billion in total discretionary resources. And we have seen 
discretionary spending increase in this bill by an average of more than 
5 percent a year over the last 5 years, even though it is less this 
year than it was last year. I commend the committee and the chairman on 
that.
  This bill spends $924 million over the President's request. Our 
budget should be no different than our individual budgets at home. When 
we have less money, we spend less money. I would encourage support of 
the Hefley amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
  Mr Chairman, I will not take much time. I think all of the Members 
are familiar with this. It has been on the docket before. And the 
problem with this type of an amendment, it goes across the board, as 
the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) said.
  There are many great programs in this bill. And the way this 
amendment is crafted, it hits the good with the indifferent and with 
those that are maybe not so desirable. So I would oppose the amendment. 
I would hope my colleagues would agree in voting against this if it 
were brought up on a roll call vote.

[[Page 14195]]

  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Fossella). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado 
(Mr. Hefley) will be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Hinchey

  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Hinchey:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used--
       (1) by any department, agency, officer, or employee (as 
     defined by section 5701 of title 5, United States Code) of 
     the United States to exercise any direction, supervision, or 
     control over the content or distribution of public 
     telecommunications programs and services in violation of 
     section 398(c) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
     398(c)); or
       (2) in violation of section 396(a) of such Act (47 U.S.C. 
     396(a)).

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 23, 
2005, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) and a Member opposed 
each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, Congress created the Corporation for Public 
Broadcasting in 1967 to encourage the development of a public 
broadcasting system, and just as importantly, to shield public 
broadcasting from any political interference.
  Despite this clear directive, Kenneth Tomlinson, the chairman of the 
corporation, has engaged in a deliberate campaign to politicize public 
broadcasting and interfere with the content of public television and 
radio stations across the country.
  Mr. Tomlinson is essentially warning public broadcasters, conform to 
his ideology or he will cut off their funding. This is political 
intimidation in the truest and worst sense of the term, and we must 
stamp it out today with this amendment.
  This amendment would prohibit Mr. Tomlinson, who is considered a 
part-time government employee because of his position as chairman of 
the board of broadcasting governors, from exercising direction, 
supervision, or control over the content or distribution of public 
telecommunications programs and services.
  It also prohibits the CPB from violating the policies set forth by 
Congress, which include a prohibition on outside interference. The 
United States of America is already suffering from a shortage of 
independent voices in the media.
  Public broadcasting remains one of the outlets available that offer 
high-quality, unbiased, independent reporting, which is why we must 
ensure its independence from political tampering. It is a shame that 
this even has to come up. But the actions of Kenneth Tomlinson demand 
that this amendment be brought before the House.
  At the rate Tomlinson is going, it is only a matter of time before he 
changes PBS' name to FOX-2, and starts forcing Big Bird and Elmo to 
talk about the merits of the war in Iraq or the value of privatizing 
Social Security.
  We must have independent public broadcasting that reports the facts 
and holds both Democrats and Republicans accountable for their actions. 
Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Barton).
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in as strong as possible 
opposition to the Hinchey amendment. We have public television today, 
and I am very proud that we do. Public television used to say that they 
had a reason to exist, because if they did not exist, who would provide 
the public aspect of some of our television programming?
  That was an effective argument 30 years ago, and to some extent it is 
still effective today. But whereas yesterday the PBS station in the 
local market was maybe the third or fourth station, today it may be one 
of dozens of stations, and if you count cable, it may be one of 
hundreds. So the argument for continuing to spend taxpayer money for 
public television is not quite as strong as it used to be.
  Having said that, I think there is a role for public television in 
the marketplace. We are now led to believe, though, that for some 
reason, the current head of public television is trying to move public 
television, you know, to the right. I disagree with that.
  In last year's Presidential debates, I am told that many, many 
viewers who watched not the debates but the campaigns, seemed to think 
that NPR was simply for the Bush-haters. In fact, I had a constituent 
come up to me and say, well, we have now heard from the Bush-haters 
after listening to an NPR news commentary.
  Rightly or wrongly, a lot of people where I come from think that NPR 
represents the left. I know that is exactly the opposite of what my 
friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) thinks.
  The Corporation for Public Broadcasting allocates Federal funds for 
public radio and television. It is about 4 percent of the total funding 
that they receive, if my numbers are correct. I do not have a problem 
with this. I do not have a problem with Mr. Obey's amendment yesterday 
that restored funding to PBS.
  Having said that, I think the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and 
the full committee were right to reduce funding, because their 
committee's budget was short billions of dollars and they simply 
subjected the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to the same scrutiny 
that they subjected all of the other programs under their 
subcommittee's jurisdiction.
  I commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) for doing that. What 
we really have here, in my opinion, is to some extent perhaps a 
personal vendetta against the current head of CPB, a gentleman named 
Mr. Tomlinson. He apparently has riled some feathers.
  He apparently, in trying to be balanced, is, to some of my friends on 
the other side of the aisle, indicating that he is maybe going too far. 
I disagree with that. I think he is an honorable man. I think he is 
trying to do the right thing.
  I think the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey's) amendment is well 
intentioned, as it appears to be, could be perceived by some, as just 
trying to stop somebody from doing their job to provide a fair, 
balanced approach for our funds that are spent by the CPB.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope that we would adhere to the committee position 
and oppose the Hinchey amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman said, for some reason we think that Mr. 
Tomlinson is being political. I wonder why? Mr. Tomlinson is the follow 
who said that public radio stations should get in line with the 
Republican election victory.
  Mr. Tomlinson is the person who appointed a consultant in order to 
try to measure the number of instances when people on PBS programs 
were, quote, anti-Bush or, quote, anti-DeLAY.
  Mr. Tomlinson is the person who recommended the appointment to head 
the Corporation of a former cochairman of the Republican National 
Committee. If Bill Clinton had appointed the former Democratic National 
Chairman to the public broadcasting board, the other side would be 
having a conniption fit. The other side would be screaming in outrage 
and passing out motions of impeachment; they have had a lot of practice 
at that.
  It is also Mr. Tomlinson who was reported to have worked to raise 
money

[[Page 14196]]

in order to put the Wall Street Journal editorial board on public 
broadcasting. Now, there is an objective operation for you.
  I would also suggest that what is at work here is something broader 
than Mr. Tomlinson. What I think is happening is this, Mr. Chairman. I 
think we have a ``thought police'' brigade loose around the country. 
And we have seen evidence of it in a number of places.
  We saw it in the Schiavo case, where the Republican majority tried to 
tell every American family how they had to handle an end-of-life 
decision. Then we saw it in the efforts of the majority leader, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), who fired a shot at every judge in 
the country who had the temerity to think for themselves, warning them 
if they did not toe the line, he would go after their jurisdiction.
  And then you have this effort to appoint the chairman of the 
Republican National Committee as head of public broadcasting. And then 
I wonder why the American people get a little nervous about the thought 
police at work.
  The fact is that every public opinion poll shows that the American 
people have more confidence in the objectivity of public television and 
public radio than they do any other news outlet, and certainly more 
confidence in their objectivity than they have in us as a body.
  We have hit a new low recently in terms of public approval of the way 
this Congress is operating, I would say with good reason, because this 
Congress spends so much time worrying about things that affect itself 
rather than worry about things that affect the American people.
  So I think there is a very good reason for the gentleman's amendment. 
I regret that there is a necessity to bring it up. But I do think that 
Mr. Tomlinson is primarily responsible for politicizing this entire 
issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not mind seeing Republicans on public 
broadcasting. I do not think there was a better show on television than 
Bill Buckleys's program through the years. Bill Buckley had a huge 
intellect, and I think the country was served by the programs that he 
had on that program for many years.
  I do not think the country is served well when Mr. Tomlinson takes 
upon himself the duty of being the thought policeman for the entire 
country on public television. That crosses the line. He ought to go. He 
ought to resign. This Congress ought to demand that he do so.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of our time.
  Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Barton made the case in opposition to this. 
And for that reason, I would urge my colleagues to vote against this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Ms. Slaughter).
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Tomlinson ought to go. Mr. Tomlinson 
had people do some polls. What they found on these polls is 80 percent 
of Americans say PBS is fair and balanced; 90 percent said they had 
high-quality programming, more than any channel, as the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has pointed out.
  But Mr. Tomlinson did not reveal those results to anybody. He kept it 
all to himself. You bet there is bias at CPB. It is embodied in this 
chairman, who must cease and desist his politicization of the agency, 
which is why I urge you to vote for this amendment. How the House can 
best aid public broadcasting would be to vote this amendment and for 
the President of CPB to submit his resignation.
  Yesterday, this body voted by a substantial margin to restore funding 
for public broadcasting. We did so after an unprecedented outpouring of 
public sentiment. Over 1 million people signed petitions within one 
week's time--proving Americans demand their public broadcasting 
continue. But we did so mainly because it was the right thing to do.
  For almost 40 years, only one television channel among the 500 
operating today has consistently been regarded by the public as the 
gold standard of broadcasting.
  Chairman Tomlinson discovered that for himself when he hired the 
right-leaning Tarrance group to investigate claims of bias. After 
conducting two ``National Public Opinions,'' his handpicked pollsters 
found that 80 percent of Americans saw PBS as ``fair and balanced,'' 
while 90 percent believed that PBS ``provides high quality 
programming.'' Further, a majority of respondents called PBS ``more 
trustworthy than CNN, Fox News Channel and other mainstream news 
outlets.''
  Does it surprise anyone to hear that Chairman Tomlinson did not 
reveal the results in his annual report to Congress--or even to PBS and 
NPR? Yes, there is bias in action at CPB. It's embodied in its 
chairman, who must cease and desist his politicization of the agency, 
which is why I urge you to vote for this amendment. That's how the 
House can best aid public broadcasting. What the chairman could do for 
CPB is to submit his resignation.

                              {time}  1215

  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Watson).
  Ms. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, I agree with my colleagues that Mr. 
Tomlinson needs to go, because yesterday Patricia Harrison, who was the 
former cochairman of the National Republican Committee, was selected as 
the next president. He has secretly coordinated with a White House 
official to formulate guiding principles for the appointment of two 
partisan ombudsmen to monitor and critique all public broadcasting 
content.
  Our first amendment rights are being eroded away and we can see 
through that. There needs to be transparency.
  Mr. Chairman, once again our public broadcasting system is under 
attack by reactionary forces inside the beltway. This time, it is 
suffering a two-pronged assault; one on content, one on funding, and 
both politically motivated.
  Congressman Hinchey and I are offering an amendment to reinforce 
existing law and buffer PBS from the kind of political attacks that 
Corporation of Public Broadcasting (CPB) Chairman, Kenneth Tomlinson, 
has brought upon Big Bird and Elmo. Mr. Tomlinson has revealed his 
personal crusade to discredit and destroy public broadcasting by 
unjustly accusing PBS and NPR of liberal bias, and working behind the 
scenes to stack the CPB's board and executive offices with operatives 
who share his ideological views.
  Yesterday, Patricia Harrison, the former co-chairwoman of the 
Republican National Committee, was elected as CPB's next president. Mr. 
Tomlinson also secretly coordinated with a White House official to 
formulate ``guiding principles'' for the appointment of two partisan 
ombudsmen to monitor and critique all public broadcasting content. 
Tomlinson suppressed a public poll showing that 80 percent of Americans 
judge PBS to be ``fair and balanced'', compared to network and cable 
television. Tomlinson, also diverted taxpayers' money to hire a 
partisan researcher for a stealth study to track so called ``anti-
Bush'' and ``anti-Tom DeLay'' comments (by the guests) of ``NOW with 
Bill Moyers''--a move that currently is being investigated by the 
Inspector General.
  Mr. Chairman, the law is clear on this. The Public Broadcasting Act 
of 1967 clearly forbids ``any direction, supervision, or control over 
the content or distribution of public telecommunications programs and 
services.'' Congress established the Corporation for Public 
Broadcasting to ``encourage the development of public radio and 
television broadcasting'' and to ``afford (public broadcasting) maximum 
protection from extraneous interference and control.'' Under the 
direction of Tomlinson, however, the CPB has engaged in a deliberate 
campaign to inject politics into public broadcasting.
  The taxpayer-funded CPB is supposed to serve as a firewall between 
Washington DC politics and public broadcasting. Mr. Chairman, we must 
take the politics out of public broadcasting--and put the public back 
in. Our amendment will prohibit the CPB President from exercising any 
direction, supervision, or control over the content or distribution of 
public broadcasting. It would also reaffirm the long-standing policy 
that public broadcasting must be free from outside interference. This 
is about the future of a vital public trust, a resource that is owned 
and enjoyed by everyone, and not allowing it to be hijacked by the 
nefarious agenda of a few political operatives. It is a shame that it 
has even come to arguing for safeguards we used to take for granted, 
but the actions of Mr. Tomlinson demand it. I urge my colleagues to 
support our amendment.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

[[Page 14197]]


  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New York's (Mr. Hinchey) 
amendment just restates existing law. What Ken Tomlinson wants to do is 
turn NPR into the NRC, the National Republican Committee, rather than 
National Public Radio. That is what it is all about.
  CPB used to stand for Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Now it 
will stand for Corporation for Political Boondoggles, as this 
Republican administration seeks to politicize something that in all 
national polling is the most respected news outlet in the United States 
of America.
  This is wrong. Support the Hinchey amendment.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last words.
  Mr. Chairman, we oppose this amendment. There is already language in 
the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 that prevents the Corporation for 
Public Broadcasting from controlling the content of public broadcasting 
services.
  I do not see why this language is necessary today. The law is already 
there. You have different points of view as to what is the 
characteristics of public broadcasting, and that is conservative, 
liberal or whatever. I think this amendment is unnecessary in light of 
current law. Let CPB do its job and stop trying to politicize it.
  I will point out one further thing. This amendment would negatively 
impact on CPB's ability to assist in the production of quality 
educational programming. For example, if this amendment were to be law, 
if Ken Burns, whom we all are familiar with, were to serve as a 
consultant to the National Park Service on battlefield conservation, he 
then would be prohibited from producing any documentaries for PBS or 
local public TV stations. The amendment would alter public 
broadcasting's authorization that is presently in the law, and I think 
it would cripple the abilities of CPB to do what our colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle want it to do, and that is to be an objective 
medium, to present all sides of every issue, and not attempt to 
politicize the message.
  With the present law, it seems to me that there is no need for this 
amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote against it if we do have a roll 
call vote.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Fossella). The gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Hinchey) has 30 seconds remaining.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, my favorite quote from Abraham Lincoln is this: You can 
fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of 
the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.
  I think that this House ought to understand that because that is what 
is trying to be done here. They are trying to fool all of the people 
all of the time. They have done it with Iraq, they are trying to do it 
with Social Security, and now they are trying to do it by controlling 
the airwaves, controlling the information that people get, and most 
recently by politicizing public broadcasting.
  The law that my good, dear friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Regula), just mentioned is not being enforced. That is the problem. 
That is why we have this amendment. That is why we need its passage.
  Public broadcasting should not be political. It needs to be objective 
and reliable. Pass this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Hinchey) will be postponed.


          Sequential Votes Postponed In Committee Of The Whole

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were 
postponed in the following order:
  amendment by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price); amendment by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller); amendment by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown); amendment No. 8 by the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Filner); amendment by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
King); amendment No. 16 by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley); 
amendment by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Price of Georgia

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Price) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 102, 
noes 298, not voting 33, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 308]

                               AYES--102

     Akin
     Barrett (SC)
     Beauprez
     Bilirakis
     Blackburn
     Brady (TX)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Cannon
     Carter
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cox
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Istook
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     Kline
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McHenry
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Norwood
     Otter
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Price (GA)
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Renzi
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)

                               NOES--298

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Allen
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Burgess
     Butterfield
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Castle
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dent
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Farr
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Granger
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas

[[Page 14198]]


     Lynch
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Platts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Reynolds
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--33

     Andrews
     Bartlett (MD)
     Becerra
     Boozman
     Boyd
     Capito
     Chabot
     Davis, Tom
     Delahunt
     Evans
     Fattah
     Gohmert
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Honda
     Jones (NC)
     Kingston
     Lewis (GA)
     Meeks (NY)
     Mollohan
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Rogers (AL)
     Simmons
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Towns
     Udall (NM)
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1243

  Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, Mrs. 
DRAKE, Ms. KAPTUR, and Messrs. POE, GORDON and MELANCON changed their 
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. SULLIVAN, CARTER, CALVERT, CHOCOLA, CUELLAR, FOLEY, KING of 
Iowa, SMITH of Texas, HALL, HERGER, MARCHANT, TANCREDO, Mrs. EMERSON, 
Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida, and Mrs. BLACKBURN changed their vote 
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


          Amendment Offered by Mr. George Miller of california

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. George 
Miller) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 219, 
noes 185, not voting 29, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 309]

                               AYES--219

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bono
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Feeney
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Otter
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Udall (CO)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--185

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

                             NOT VOTING--29

     Andrews
     Bartlett (MD)
     Becerra
     Boozman
     Boyd
     Capito
     Cox
     Davis, Tom
     Delahunt
     Fattah
     Gohmert
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Jones (NC)
     Kingston
     Lewis (GA)
     Meeks (NY)
     Mollohan
     Pickering
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Rogers (AL)
     Simmons
     Taylor (MS)
     Towns
     Udall (NM)
     Whitfield
     Wilson (NM)
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1252

  Mr. SCHWARZ of Michigan changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment Offered by Mr. Brown of Ohio

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.

[[Page 14199]]

  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 170, 
noes 237, not voting 26, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 310]

                               AYES--170

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

                               NOES--237

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

                             NOT VOTING--26

     Andrews
     Bartlett (MD)
     Becerra
     Boozman
     Boyd
     Capito
     Davis, Tom
     Delahunt
     Fattah
     Gohmert
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Jones (NC)
     Lewis (GA)
     Marchant
     Meeks (NY)
     Mollohan
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Rogers (AL)
     Simmons
     Taylor (MS)
     Towns
     Udall (NM)
     Wilson (NM)
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1300

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


                 Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Filner

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 314, 
noes 94, not voting 25, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 311]

                               AYES--314

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Camp
     Cannon
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hall
     Harris
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Otter

[[Page 14200]]


     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Putnam
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tierney
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Wicker
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                                NOES--94

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Bass
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Cantor
     Chocola
     Coble
     Crenshaw
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dreier
     Ehlers
     Everett
     Franks (AZ)
     Gilchrest
     Gutknecht
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller, Gary
     Myrick
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Osborne
     Oxley
     Pearce
     Pitts
     Porter
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Sabo
     Saxton
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shuster
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Walden (OR)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf

                             NOT VOTING--25

     Andrews
     Bartlett (MD)
     Becerra
     Boozman
     Boyd
     Capito
     Davis, Tom
     Delahunt
     Fattah
     Gohmert
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Jones (NC)
     Lewis (GA)
     Meeks (NY)
     Mollohan
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Rogers (AL)
     Simmons
     Taylor (MS)
     Towns
     Udall (NM)
     Wilson (NM)
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1309

  Mr. KING of New York and Mr. PUTNAM changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                   Amendment Offered by King of Iowa

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) on which 
further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by 
voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 285, 
noes 121, not voting 27, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 312]

                               AYES--285

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Baca
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Feeney
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Meek (FL)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Visclosky
     Wamp
     Waters
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wu

                               NOES--121

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Bachus
     Baird
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Berkley
     Berman
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bono
     Brown (OH)
     Burgess
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Case
     Clay
     Costa
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Deal (GA)
     DeGette
     Dicks
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Evans
     Farr
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fossella
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Grijalva
     Harris
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     King (NY)
     Langevin
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Lee
     Levin
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     McCollum (MN)
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McHugh
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore (WI)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norwood
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Snyder
     Stark
     Sweeney
     Tauscher
     Thomas
     Velazquez
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--27

     Andrews
     Bartlett (MD)
     Becerra
     Bonilla
     Boozman
     Boyd
     Capito
     Davis, Tom
     Delahunt
     Fattah
     Gohmert
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Jones (NC)
     LaTourette
     Lewis (GA)
     Meeks (NY)
     Mollohan
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Rogers (AL)
     Simmons
     Taylor (MS)
     Towns
     Udall (NM)
     Wilson (NM)
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1318

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California and Ms. LEE changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above reported.


                 Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Hefley

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote

[[Page 14201]]

on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 84, 
noes 323, not voting 26, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 313]

                                AYES--84

     Akin
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Brady (TX)
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cox
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Duncan
     Feeney
     Flake
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Goodlatte
     Graves
     Gutknecht
     Harris
     Hart
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hostettler
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Keller
     King (IA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     McHenry
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Norwood
     Otter
     Paul
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)

                               NOES--323

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Allen
     Baca
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hall
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Israel
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Ney
     Northup
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (KY)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tauscher
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--26

     Andrews
     Becerra
     Boozman
     Boyd
     Capito
     Davis, Tom
     Delahunt
     Fattah
     Gohmert
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Jones (NC)
     LaTourette
     Lewis (GA)
     Meeks (NY)
     Mollohan
     Nunes
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Rogers (AL)
     Simmons
     Taylor (MS)
     Towns
     Udall (NM)
     Wilson (NM)
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1326

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


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Hinchey

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 187, 
noes 218, not voting 28, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 314]

                               AYES--187

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

                               NOES--218

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)

[[Page 14202]]


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

                             NOT VOTING--28

     Andrews
     Becerra
     Boozman
     Boyd
     Capito
     Davis, Tom
     Delahunt
     Fattah
     Gohmert
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Jones (NC)
     Kaptur
     LaTourette
     Lewis (GA)
     Meeks (NY)
     Mollohan
     Nunes
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Rogers (AL)
     Scott (VA)
     Simmons
     Taylor (MS)
     Towns
     Udall (NM)
     Wilson (NM)
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1333

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


                          personal explanation

  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I was unavoidable detained on official 
business this morning. I was in West Virginia with Chairman Anthony 
Princippi, and our West Virginia delegation to discuss BRAC 
recommendations. I missed rollcall vote 308 through 314. Had I been 
present, I would have voted in the following manner: rollcall vote 308: 
``nay''; rollcall vote 309: ``yea''; rollcall vote 310: ``yea''; 
rollcall vote 311: ``yea''; rollcall vote 312: ``yea''; rollcall vote 
313: ``nay''; and rollcall vote 314: ``yea''.


                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I was regrettably delayed in my return to 
Washington, DC from an official visit to Norfolk Naval Station, 
Virginia and was unable to be on the House floor for rollcall votes 308 
to 314. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall 308, 
an amendment offered by Representative Price (GA); ``yea'' on rollcall 
309, an amendment offered by Representative Miller (CA); ``nay'' on 
rollcall 310, an amendment offered by Representative Brown (OH); 
``yea'' on rollcall 311, an amendment offered by Representative Filner; 
``nay'' on rollcall 312, an amendment offered by Representative King 
(IA); ``nay'' on rollcall 313, an amendment offered by Representative 
Hefley; and, ``nay'' on rollcall 314, an amendment offered by 
Representative Hinchey.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, many of my colleagues have asked about time, and it is 
pretty difficult to just quantify exactly where we will be. We have six 
or seven amendments yet to go and possibly a motion to recommit. The 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is indicating there will be, so we 
can draw our own conclusions as to what kind of a time number we are 
looking at, with that many amendments and with a motion to recommit.
  While we are trying to get some of the mechanics here of the en bloc 
amendment worked out, I would just like to comment that this bill does 
some really good things in education, and I think this is something 
that we are all interested in.
  I do not know if any of my colleagues have read Tom Friedman's book 
in which he points out the flat Earth, how important education is to 
the Nation's future. I mentioned yesterday Dave Broder's column in 
which they polled Americans who said that they thought that the most 
significant thing in the success of the United States was our 
educational system.
  So it was a great thing, and I believe Thomas Jefferson was the 
person who, and I am not sure of that, who developed the idea of a free 
public education, which was pioneering at the time because there was 
not anything like it in the rest of the world. Many others have 
duplicated it or some copy thereof. But I do think that what we have 
tried to do with this bill is to emphasize good teachers, good 
principals, good schools.
  I have said many times that I have three goals on the committee. One 
was to get a good teacher in every classroom and with that, a good 
principal in every building and a good superintendent. Secondly was to 
lower the dropout rate. I think it is tragic that 32 percent of our 
students nationwide do not finish high school. Thirdly is to ensure 
that every child learns to read. I believe that the dropout rate is a 
result, in part, of the fact that people do not learn to read early in 
their educational experience.


                Amendments En Bloc Offered by Mr. Regula

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendments en bloc.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendments en bloc.
  The text of the amendments en bloc is as follows:

       Amendments en bloc offered by Mr. Regula:
       Page 2, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $58,000,000)''.
       Page 22, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.
       Page 22, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $500,000)''.
       Page 22, line 12, after the first dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $3,000,000)''.
       Page 45, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $22,000,000)''.
       Page 54, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $12,000,000)''.
       Page 54, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $12,000,000)''.
       Page 75, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $27,000,000)''.
       Page 82, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.
       Page 82, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $2,500,000)''.
       Page 84, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``reduced by $2,500,000)''.
       Page 99, line 5, insert: ``directly or indirectly, 
     including by private contractor,'' after ``shall be used,''.
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       ``Sec.  . None of the funds made available under this Act 
     to the Department of Education may be expended in 
     contravention of section 505 of the Illegal Immigration 
     Reform and Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1623).''.
                                  ____
                                  
       ``Sec. 5__. None of the funds made available in this Act 
     may be used by the National Institute of Mental Health for 
     any of the following grants:
       (1) Grant number MH060105 (Perceived Regard and 
     Relationship Resilience in Newlyweds).
       (2) Grant number MH047313 (Perceptual Bases of Visual 
     Concepts in Pigeons).
                                  ____

       ``Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to implement any strategic plan under section 3 of 
     Executive Order 13335 (regarding interoperable health 
     information technology) that does not require the Department 
     of Health and Human Services to give notice to any patient 
     whose information maintained by the Department under the 
     strategic plan is lost, stolen, or used for a purpose other 
     than the

[[Page 14203]]

     purpose for which the information was collected.''
                                  ____

       ``Sec. 5__. None of the funds made available in this Act 
     may be used by the Department of Health and Human Services to 
     appoint an individual to a Federal advisory committee on the 
     basis of political affiliation, unless required by Federal 
     statute.''

  Pursuant to the order of the House of June 23, 2005, the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula).
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, these have all been agreed upon as part of the en bloc, 
and I would urge the Members to vote for it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that while I am dubious 
about the content of several of these amendments, in the interest of 
moving the bill forward, I would also urge that we accept the en bloc 
amendments and move on to the others.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for helping us to 
work it out.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I would only say to my distinguished 
chairman, I realize how difficult these circumstances are. There is one 
amendment in that en bloc circumstance, the Neugebauer amendment, that 
I think the House should be alerted to. It could put us down a slippery 
slope of reviewing peer review scientific approaches; and since it is 
targeted at a program in a university in my district, I am particularly 
sensitive to it.
  But unrelated to the fact that it is in my district, this subject is 
something that I hope in the conference will get the attention of 
Members in terms of the overriding principle of whether we ought to be 
political seers overriding scientific peers.
  Secondly, in the statement I will submit for the Record, I have 
outlined a reason for this particular grant that is, in my view, again 
very compelling, which makes a political attack on it quite, again in 
my view, uncompelling.
  So at this time, I simply ask respectfully that the chairman and the 
ranking member give this perspective serious consideration as you move 
to conference.
  Mr. Chairman, I recognize that sometimes committees decide to accept 
a series of amendments to bills ``en bloc'' on the House floor and then 
review them further in conference. In this circumstances, I rise to 
express a great disappointment that the committee has agreed to accept 
for the time being the Neugebauer amendment which represents a 
philosophical assault on the peer review process that serves as a 
hallowed barrier to scientific censorship.
  Mr. Chairman, the Neugebauer amendment is about exasperation with NIH 
research on non-humans--i.e., animals and birds--and targets a grant 
given a respected research institution in my District--the University 
of Iowa.
  First, let me stress that 60% of all human diseases are zoonotic--
that is, derived or related to animals and birds. It is no accident 
that the remarkable results that have been obtained in developing 
miracle drugs and intervention approaches in so many diseases begins 
with research on animals and birds.
  Secondly, let me stress that NIH and NIMH operate in a more non-
politicized manner than other governmental entities. All their research 
approaches are peer-reviewed by scientists across the country. We in 
Congress authorize the appropriations for NIH and NIMH, but scientists 
rather than politicians determine which research applications should be 
funded. Science, in this sense, by Congressional directive, has largely 
been de-politicized.
  As for this specific grant, the pigeon has been selected to study 
because it has a remarkably well developed visual system with such high 
acuity that it can make extraordinary decisions without the mediation 
of language.
  The research, which focuses on how the pigeon discriminates between 
visual stimuli, could be singularly important to our understanding of 
how brains and mental processes operate. The knowledge garnered is 
designed to be of particular use in the treatment of mental illnesses 
and disorders like autism and schizophrenia.
  Knowledge of the operation of advanced cognitive processes in the 
absence of language can also provide important clues to possible 
remedial methods that could be effective with language impaired human 
patients. New thinking and teaching methods which may develop from 
research on pigeons and other life forms could better enable impaired 
individuals to interact with a world of complex patterns and 
categories, thus allowing them to be productive decision-makers, less 
likely to need institutionalization.
  Mr. Chairman, let me reiterate that research with birds and animals 
is critical for human health. The pigeon may seem an obscure subject, 
but the application of research on this bird, which is so talented it 
can find its way home even if transported and released thousands of 
miles away, could be quite meaningful.
  There is no certainty any research approach will be productive, but 
there is certainty that politicizing science will shackle its potential 
for lengthening and ennobling life.
  Accordingly, I urge the committee as it reviews this ``en bloc'' 
amendment in conference to give particular attention to whether it 
wants to establish a precedent of political ``seers'' overriding 
scientific peers. This is a slippery slope that I hope conferees will 
not slide down.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that the 
chairman accepted an amendment that would strengthen the privacy 
safeguards within the Office of Information Technology to which our 
committee appropriated over $75 million for safeguarding information.
  Medical information is so critically important as we start to put 
together a national infrastructure of information technology that is 
interoperable and that is transparent and that will allow providers to 
adequately provide the care that they need to, with all of the 
knowledge of the patient's background that they need to have, in order 
to make the right decisions at the point of care.
  I thank the chairman for yielding to me and for supporting this 
amendment.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my strong support for the 
Chairman Regula's, amendment and urge my colleagues to vote in favor of 
increased funding for programs aimed at getting veterans into jobs.
  Mr. Chairman, the National Veterans Employment and Training Institute 
is run by the University of Colorado under contract to the Department 
of Labor. Their mission is to train Disabled Veteran Outreach Program 
Specialists and Local Veterans Employment Representatives (DVOPS and 
LVERs) how to place veterans who are seeking employment in good-paying 
jobs.
  I want to emphasize that DVOPS and LVERs are state employees who 
usually work for the state employment service. The extra 500 thousand 
dollars will allow NVTI to increase its training load for the next year 
by nearly 20 percent. That means that more DVOPS and LVERs will get 
basic and advanced training in such skills as case management, 
compliance investigation, job coaching, promoting partnerships, 
presentation skills, and Transition Assistance for those being 
discharged.
  The Homeless Veterans Reintegration Act, or HVRP, is designed to get 
homeless veterans off the streets and back into the labor market. The 
typical grantee provides the safe living quarters and supportive 
services to men and women who have hit bottom and are seeking a way out 
of what may have been decades of homelessness. Recent data indicates 
this is a highly cost effective program. For a program cost of a little 
over $2,200 per job placement averaging about $9.25 per hour, an HVRP 
client potentially returns about $2,800 in taxes per year to the 
federal government. I call that a good investment in human capital.
  The Chairman's amendment will add three million dollars to the $22 
million proposed by the President. I salute the Chairman for his 
efforts on behalf of homeless veterans. This additional funding will 
provide opportunities for hundreds more homeless veterans. According to 
the Veterans Employment and Training staff, three million dollars will 
fund nine to 12 new grantees and service over 1,000 more homeless 
veterans. Surely, this is a worthy cause.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a good amendment that every Member can take 
pride in and I urge my colleagues to vote yes.

[[Page 14204]]


  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to prohibit 
the Department of Health and Human Services from using political litmus 
tests in making appointments to scientific advisory committees.
  Advisory committees play a crucial role in the development of policy. 
That role is to offer policymakers the best available expertise on 
scientific matters. Science is not liberal or conservative. It is not 
Democratic or Republican. In order to develop the best policy, our 
government needs to hear the facts from the most qualified experts, 
regardless of their political affiliation.
  This common sense principle is widely accepted in the scientific 
community. It has been endorsed by the National Academy of Sciences, 
the American Academy for the Advancement of Science, and numerous other 
scientific organizations.
  This amendment simply adopts this principle into policy. It would 
prohibit funding for any committee where members are chosen on the 
basis of political affiliation, unless required by law.
  Unfortunately, the current Administration has a terrible track record 
on this issue. It has repeatedly applied political litmus tests in 
making appointments to advisory committees.
  A nationally recognized expert on substance abuse was asked if he had 
voted for President Bush. After he answered honestly, he was not 
appointed.
  An expert in marine ecology was asked if she supported the 
President's economic and foreign policy agenda. After she told the 
truth, she was immediately dropped from consideration.
  A Nobel Prize winner was nominated for an important NIH panel on 
international health. According to a senior NIH official, he was not 
picked because he had ``signed too many full page letters in the 
Times.''
  The Administration's use of political litmus tests has generated 
outrage in the scientific community.
  The editor of the journal Science has stated, ``I don't think any 
administration has penetrated so deeply into the advisory committee 
structure as this one, and I think it matters. . . . If you start 
picking people by their ideology instead of their scientific 
credentials, you are inevitably reducing the quality of the advisory 
group.''
  These actions are unacceptable. Expert advisory panels should be 
filled with scientific experts, not party loyalists. This is the only 
way our government will have the information it needs to make the best 
policies on behalf of the American people.
  Our country's premier scientific organizations have affirmed the core 
principle that scientific advice should be provided by the best 
scientists. I urge my colleagues to endorse this principle and support 
this amendment.
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Markey-
Emanuel amendment which is part of the en bloc amendment proposed by 
Chairman Regula. Our amendment is simple and straightforward. It 
requires patients to be notified if their medical records contained in 
the new national health information network are lost, stolen or used 
for unauthorized purposes.
  While a national health information network could provide significant 
benefits for the entire medical community, that network must come with 
guaranteed privacy protections. As the revelations by MasterCard and 
Visa that the personal information of as many as 40 million customers 
was compromised demonstrates, identity theft has become an epidemic.
  A national health information network without strong privacy 
protections would undermine all of its other benefits. Without privacy 
protections, patients won't have confidence that their medical records 
will be kept confidential, which is essential to quality health care.
  In the 108th Congress, I introduced legislation to protect credit 
consumers' sensitive medical information. That bipartisan legislation 
was signed into law last year. By ``blacking out'' health information, 
we created a zone of privacy and gave consumers the confidence that 
their medical records are being protected. We should do the same thing 
here.
   Mr. Chairman, major data security breaches are occurring on a daily 
basis and identity theft is the fastest-growing white collar crime in 
the country. It's essential that we get this right at the beginning by 
making strong privacy protections a part of this health information 
network.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Manager's 
amendment.
  The Manager's amendment includes an amendment that I filed to offer 
to the bill yesterday, which would address an important privacy 
protection issue.
  Mr. Chairman, the recent wave of massive data thefts has swept up the 
precious, private information of millions and millions of Americans.
  Everyday seems to bring new examples of gaping holes in databases 
being exploited by criminals: ChoicePoint, Lexis-Nexis, and CardSystems 
Solutions.
  These are just 3 recent examples of huge heists of personal 
information.
  And when Americans' financial records are drained from databases, 
does Federal law require the victims to be notified? No!
  When Americans' Social Security numbers are siphoned from databases 
by criminals, does Federal law require that the victims are at least 
notified? No!
  And, most importantly, when Americans' most private health 
information is plundered from databases, does Federal law require the 
victims to be notified? Shockingly, Unbelievably--No!
  Mr. Chairman, the bill before us today provides $75 million to 
support the creation of a new network of databases containing the 
health records of millions of Americans across the country. This new 
health information network will be, in effect, the ``Mother of All 
Databases.'' This network, when it is completed, will provide 
unprecedented access to the most private, personal health records of 
tens of millions of Americans.
  The nationwide network holds tremendous promise. But it also holds 
enormous peril for the privacy of Americans' medical records. That's 
because we know that databases currently maintained by the Federal 
government are vulnerable to infiltration by the data thieves.
  How do we know this?
  In February 2005, President Bush's Information Technology Advisory 
Committee reported that:

       The information technology infrastructure of the United 
     States . . . is highly vulnerable to terrorist and criminal 
     attacks and [T]he Federal Government needs to fundamentally 
     improve its approach to cyber security.

  In May 2005, GAO reported that:

       [T]he Federal Government is limited in its ability to 
     identify and respond to emerging cybersecurity threats, 
     including sophisticated and coordinated attacks that target 
     multiple federal entities.

  Even with the most sophisticated and modern cybersecurity, we have 
learned that reels of data can be lost off the back of a truck.
  While there is much we must and should do to minimize that loss of 
data, it is simply unforgivable to hide a known breach from the 
individuals whose personal data has fallen into unauthorized hands.
  An individual can sometimes take action to protect herself while 
authorities try to puzzle out what happened to cause a breach. At least 
they should know when they are at risk.
  A national health information network could provide significant 
benefits for patients, physicians, hospitals, and other health 
providers. But to realize these benefits, this new network must have 
strong privacy safeguards.
  My amendment, which is now part of the Manager's amendment, would 
simply require that patients whose health information is maintained by 
the Department of Health and Human Services as part of this new health 
records database must be notified if their records are lost, stolen or 
used for an unauthorized purpose.
  Our amendment would apply to the tens of millions of Medicare and 
Medicaid beneficiaries whose personally identifiable health information 
is maintained by the Federal Government.
  As the Department begins to develop the standards for this enormous 
database, privacy of patients must be a priority.
  As many of us know, people can be more concerned about their medical 
information being public than their financial information.
  There are things in medical records that people don't even tell 
members of their own families.
  We are at the dawn of the development of this new database. Now is 
the time to ensure that privacy is paramount.
  Our amendment will ensure that patients victimized when their health 
information in the database is stolen or misused are simply notified so 
they can take the necessary steps to protect themselves.
  In fact, the following 13 states already have enacted similar 
notification requirements for patients whose personal information has 
been stolen from electronic databases: Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, 
Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, North 
Dakota, Texas and Washington.
  This is a vital, common-sense amendment, and I am pleased that it has 
been incorporated into the Manager's amendment. I urge its adoption.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the scientific peer 
review process at the National Institutes of Health and in opposition 
to the Neugebauer Amendment.
  For the third year in a row, the House is considering an attempt to 
score cheap political points at the expense of NIH research. This

[[Page 14205]]

year's targets are two grants from the National Institutes of Mental 
Health.
  Both of these grants passed NIH's rigorous peer review process. This 
process involves two stages of review. In the first, scientists from 
leading institutions around the country make independent evaluations of 
each proposal. In the second stage, advisory councils with broad 
representation set priorities and approve the studies.
  Our system of peer review is the envy of the world, and for good 
reason: It is based on science, and it is immune from political 
interference.
  Congress should be proud of the NIH and what it has accomplished. 
Instead, this amendment strikes at the heart of scientific integrity at 
the agency.
  Supporters will say that the amendment is just about two grants. In 
their view, apparently, NIH should not be funding research in animal 
models that can expand our understanding of brain disorders . . . or 
research on psychological distress and marriage that can reduce 
domestic violence.
  Just looking at the two grants, I am far from persuaded. Marriage is 
a key institution in our society, and we should use science to 
understand how it can be strengthened. Research in animal models has 
provided important insights into brain disorders. I fail to see any 
justification in eliminating the funding these grants.
  More fundamentally, it is inappropriate for us to be debating the 
merit of these grants in the U.S. House of Representatives. This is not 
a grant review panel. We are not scientific experts. Our country has 
succeeded by leaving scientific judgments to scientists, and we should 
continue to do so.
  Our Nation's research community is watching this House today. 
Universities and researchers want to know if they can do their jobs 
without wondering whether Congress will step in at the last moment to 
slander their research and sabotage their careers.
  The Administration is also opposed to this amendment. The Director of 
the National Institutes of Health Dr. Elias Zerhouni stated yesterday:

       Defunding meritorious grants on the floor of Congress is 
     unjustified scientific censorship. It undermines the 
     historical strength of American science, which is based on 
     our world renowned, apolitical, and transparent peer review 
     process.

  I hope these words give this House pause. Let us not vote for 
scientific censorship. Let us not undermine the historical strength of 
American science.
  To paraphrase the editors of the New England Journal of Medicine, let 
us not rub the gem of worldwide biomedical research in political dirt.
  I urge you to join me in rejecting this ill-advised amendment.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, my amendment will prohibit the National 
Institute of Mental Health from further funding two grants whose 
research falls outside the mission set by NIMH. The amendment would not 
reduce overall research funding. Rather, it would focus the funding 
toward serious mental health issues.
  According to NIMH, its goal is to ``reduce the burden of mental 
illness and behavioral disorders'' and prevent ``disabling conditions 
that affect millions of Americans.''
  This is a noble goal. Serious mental health diseases such as autism 
and Alzheimers do affect the lives of many Americans. And finding cures 
and treatments for these debilitating diseases is something we all hope 
for.
  This is why I was curious when I saw that two NIMH grants have been 
going on for years that do not focus on our most pressing mental health 
issues.
  For nearly 15 years, more than $1.5 million has been awarded to study 
``Perceptual Bases of Visual Concepts.'' According to NIMH, this study 
trains pigeons to distinguish between natural and man made objects.
  Now on its fifth year, a second study has spent hundreds of thousands 
of taxpayer dollars to determine how the self-esteem of newlyweds 
affects their marriage. Now, I am a fan of marriage. In fact, I have 
actively participated in one for 35 years. But what does this research 
contribute to the effort to find better treatment, or even a cure, for 
Alzheimers or autism or Schizophrenia? Whatever scientific merits these 
research projects may have, they are not directed at serious mental 
health disorders.
  Sending millions of dollars to research that falls outside the 
mission of NIMH is problematic enough. However, this problem is 
compounded when you look at the list of grants that have been rejected 
over the same time period. If you look at the list, you will find grant 
after grant which specifically targets serious mental health diseases, 
such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.
  According to a 2003 study done by a group of mental health 
professionals and entitled, ``A Federal Failure in Psychiatric 
Research,'' only 1 out of every 17, 2002 research grants is reasonably 
likely to improve the treatment and quality of life for individuals 
presently affected by serious mental health illness.
  Some here today may feel hesitant about ending these grants. But, 
ladies and gentleman, as members of Congress, we must become better 
stewards of taxpayer dollars.
  I urge my colleagues to support research on serious mental health 
issues by supporting the Neugebauer amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendments en bloc offered by 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula).
  The amendments en bloc were agreed to.


                Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Hayworth

  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 14 offered by Mr. Hayworth:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used by the National Labor Relations Board to exert 
     jurisdiction over any organization or enterprise pursuant to 
     the standard adopted by the National Labor Relations Board in 
     San Manuel Indian Bingo and Casino and Hotel Employees & 
     Restaurant Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC and 
     Communication Workers of America, AFL-CIO, CLC, Party in 
     Interest, and State of Connecticut, Intervenor, 341 NLRB No. 
     138 (May 28, 2004).

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 23, 2005, 
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, in May 2004, the National Labor Relations Board 
overturned 30 years of its own precedent and ruled that it has 
jurisdiction over tribal government enterprises located on tribes' own 
sovereign lands. Where tribal law has governed relations between tribes 
and their employees, the NLRB seeks to replace that law with its 
authority in this area. This decision is a frontal assault on tribal 
sovereign rights.
  The National Labor Relations Act expressly exempts States, cities, 
and local governments from its coverage; and the NLRB has ruled that 
territorial governments, such as Puerto Rico and Guam, are also exempt 
from NLRB jurisdiction. But the NLRB incorrectly decided that it should 
exercise its jurisdiction over tribal governments on their own lands. 
If this unfair decision stands, the only governments that will be 
subject to NLRB jurisdiction will be tribal governments.
  The NLRB misunderstands that tribal governments, like State 
governments, rely upon government-owned enterprises to generate 
revenues to support governmental purposes such as reservation, law 
enforcement and fire services, and programs for the health, education, 
and welfare benefit of tribal members. Consistent with the policy 
behind the NLRB exemptions for governments, private parties such as 
labor unions should not be able to hold government-owned enterprises 
hostage when disagreements arise.
  Ironically, the NLRB specifically ruled against the San Manuel Band 
of Mission Indians, a tribe based in Southern California that has 
enacted into its tribal law a tribal labor relations ordinance with 
greater labor union rights than the National Labor Relations Act.

                              {time}  1345

  In fact, the tribe has a collective bargaining agreement with the 
Communication Workers of America. The heavy-handed activist NLRB 
overlaid an incompatible legal regime where a tribal one, agreed to on 
a government-to-government basis with the State of California, was in 
place and was working.
  Now, San Manuel and other tribes have conflicting laws and great 
uncertainty about which one applies.
  Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, make no mistake, sovereignty cannot be 
situational. To reverse 30 years of policy

[[Page 14206]]

by bureaucratic fiat is wrong. Adopt the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve balance of my time.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might consume. Mr. 
Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. Last year, Members 
from both sides of the aisle voted down a similar amendment. I had 
hoped that in a year's time the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) 
and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) would work together to 
address this issue in the committee of jurisdiction. But that did not 
occur.
  The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and I have had discussions on 
scheduling hearings in the committee of jurisdiction, the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce. During my 40 years of public service, I 
have established a strong record for defending the sovereign rights of 
Indian tribes. I have often led the fight to defeat legislative riders 
on appropriation bills because of my confidence in the regular 
procedures guiding us through the legislative process.
  I am committed to finding a permanent solution to this issue, but the 
appropriations process is not the way to solve this issue. I urge my 
colleagues to vote no on the Hayworth amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, the bottom line here is not process or legislative 
jurisdiction. Until Congress can consider a permanent solution to this 
problem, this amendment simply calls for a temporary time-out to allow 
us to work together for a more substantive solution, to avoid 
additional confusion among the tribes.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, in politics there are show 
horses and there are work horses. This process, instead of seeking a 
solution, only sought headlines. We had an opportunity to make real 
progress and address the concerns of these tribes.
  Instead of addressing this issue in a substantive manner in 
committee, we are once again addressing it in a political way on the 
floor of the House simply for political gain.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, quoting the words of my friend, the gentleman from 
Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy) to Indian Country Today Newspaper, he said 
he would push for a compromise bill through Congress that would support 
on-reservation tribal sovereignty against the jurisdiction of the 
National Labor Relations Board, while accepting the board's role as 
arbiter of labor-employee disputes and union organizing on off-
reservation tribally owned business.
  The only workable bill is an authorizing bill, H.R. 16. As I have 
pointed out, we come here with this recourse because of uncertainty and 
because of bureaucratic fiat. Adopt this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Nevada (Ms. Berkley).
  Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
Hayworth amendment. Tribal Nations have established commercial gaming 
enterprises because of the economic boom it brings to their community. 
My hometown of Las Vegas looked to gaming many years ago, and now it 
has the one of the most vibrant economies in the country.
  One of the keys to Las Vegas' success has been a strong relationship 
between labor and management. Because of this relationship, workers 
have good-paying jobs and benefits and safe working conditions, and can 
take care of their families. We should give the workers at the tribal 
gaming facilities the same chance.
  Last year the National Labor Relations Board correctly ruled that it 
had jurisdiction over on-reservation commercial tribal enterprises such 
as casinos.
  Make no mistake about it, Indian gaming is a big business. And the 
people working in Indian gaming on the reservations have the right and 
are entitled to the protections of the NLRB. I encourage the Indian 
tribes and the tribal workers and the labor unions to work together to 
protect workers like they have done in Las Vegas. I urge my colleagues 
to vote against this ridiculous amendment.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, we would do well to heed the marketing 
advice, What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas. What happens on tribal 
lands with their sovereignty should likewise be governed by the 
sovereign governments there. Sovereignty is not situational.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller) the ranking member of the Education and 
Workforce Committee.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman 
for yielding me time. And first and foremost, we must understand that 
this amendment that is being offered has no impact on this process. 
These tribes will not know whether or not they are violating the law or 
not violating the law. This amendment does nothing for that.
  The law as is currently interpreted continues to go forward. What 
this amendment does is suggest that somehow that those workers on a 
reservation, working in a casino, who are not enrolled members of that 
tribe have no rights; have no rights. In California they do, under a 
compromise that was worked out.
  Last year we were working out a compromise for the first time ever. 
We had labor and the union and tribes sit down together. They left the 
room because this amendment was offered last year, and nobody has come 
back because this amendment continues to be dangled as somehow it is 
the answer to the concerns that they have.
  This amendment does not answer a single concern. It just kicks the 
can down the road, and people are still in limbo if they are seeking to 
work out an arrangement for those tribal lands and for labor relations 
on those tribal lands. That has not happened.
  We were engaged in those historic conversations when the gentleman 
offered this amendment last year. And nobody has come back to the table 
since then.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  My friend from California proves my point. He admits that in a 
government-to-government relationship, as the San Manuel Band has done 
already, they actually put together an agreement with greater union 
rights than the NLRA. That is precisely the point. Tribes should have 
the sovereign ability to decide that if they want to bring in those 
expansion of rights, yes. But it should be their decision.
  Sovereignty is not situational, and any attempt to paint this 
otherwise is wrong. That is why the amendment should be passed.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to explain to the House why it is that I 
vigorously oppose this amendment. I am the only Member of the Chamber 
who was exposed to a recall effort because of my support for tribal 
sovereignty. Even though the Constitution of the United States does not 
provide for such a recall, our State constitution thought it did. And 
so I had to endure an effort in recall because of my fierce support for 
tribal sovereignty.
  But having said that, I want to say that the gentleman's amendment 
goes far too far in that regard. Now I will tell you why.
  In my State, we had an experience in which one of the tribes 
contracted out to a private party to run their casino. That private 
party took advantage of

[[Page 14207]]

the fact that the compact that the Governor set up with the tribe was 
defective. And under that defect, they made quite clear to female 
employees of the casino that it was their obligation, in blunt 
language, to either put out or get out.
  Now, we all know what that means. And what the gentleman's amendment 
means under those circumstances is that when you remove the protection 
of the National Labor Relations Act, you subject individuals with no 
power at all to that kind of treatment by shysters and bums.
  Now, as far as I am concerned, I heard a whole lot about family 
values from that side of the aisle. You think this amendment represents 
family values in that situation? Give me a break. It does not.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman 
yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has 
exactly made the point. These casinos now hire thousands of workers who 
are nonresidents of the reservation, who are not enrolled members of 
the tribe. If the tribe chooses not to grant them any rights, then they 
have no rights.
  We lecture countries all over the world that you cannot do this to 
workers, that you have to have minimum standards. But right here in the 
middle of the United States, under this amendment, a tribe can grant to 
their workers no rights. That is just untenable.
  And we understand how strongly held sovereignty is. It is fundamental 
and basic to these tribes. We also understand how fundamental and basic 
the right to organize and the freedom of association is to the workers. 
We have been trying to work that out. This amendment is not helpful in 
working that out.
  But the gentleman is exactly right. You can end up with thousands of 
American workers having no rights. This is like the situation you had 
in the northern Mariana Islands, where you had people who could not get 
a minimum wage, who could not get protection of immigration laws. This 
is re-creating this on these lands.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I simply want to say 
institutions, no matter what they are, whether they are tribe or any 
other institution, they have a capacity to violate human rights. And 
with the gentleman's amendment, you will be opening a loophole in the 
law as big as a 65-foot truck. This amendment is a terrible amendment. 
It ought to be buried in a box and we ought to pretend it never was 
presented.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 45 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, after the rhetorical display, I know my friends did not 
mean to insinuate that tribes are composed of bums and scoundrels. Yet, 
what we are hearing here is that somehow the very worst in human nature 
would come out.
  Mr. OBEY. But the contractors are bums.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, this is my time, is it not?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin will suspend. The 
gentleman from Arizona controls the time.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank the chairman. We are making the point that we 
are dealing with sovereignty. Yes, this is an imperfect world. But I 
scarcely imagine that a gross violation of human rights will transpire 
when we live up to Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which 
says: The Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with 
foreign nations, and among the several States, States, and with the 
Indian tribes.
  Tribes have sovereign immunity. They have sovereignty. It is not 
situational, no matter what some leaders in the AFL-CIO may say.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kildee) a well-known champion for Native 
American rights. We all have Native Americans in our States, and we 
have gaming.
  But, Mr. Chairman, sovereignty is not inconsistent with decency and 
humanity and human rights. Sovereignty is not inconsistent with 
protecting underage workers and juveniles who are working. Sovereignty 
is not inconsistent with making sure that workers have a quality of 
life. And sovereignty is not inconsistent with international treaties 
which ensure that that happens in nations around the world.
  This is a bad promise on a bad premise. And what we need to do is to 
work with the committees of jurisdiction and solve the problem, not 
eliminate the rights. I would hope that my colleague would join me on 
finding an amendment to stop the abuse of lobbyists who take money from 
Native Americans and Indian tribes and reservations and not do a darn 
thing with it.
  I am offended by that. I will join the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Hayworth) anytime he wants to come to the floor to get rid of lobbyists 
who take money from unsuspecting Native Americans and their businesses. 
That should be a question of criminal violation, but this one is one 
that can be solved with good law and good negotiations. I ask my 
colleagues to vote ``no.''

                              {time}  1400


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry. During 
the course of my previous presentation, was the extra-curricular 
activity outburst included in my time when others sought control of the 
microphone?
  The CHAIRMAN. No, it was not.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) has 45 
seconds remaining. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) has 30 
seconds remaining.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, do I have the right to close?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) has the right 
to close.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I have been involved in defending Indian sovereignty 
for 40 years when I began my tenure in the Michigan legislature. And I 
will never abdicate my responsibility on that.
  I think it is extremely important that this Congress on an issue so 
delicate and so important to two groups for whom we have great 
affection, be done in the appropriate committee, the committee of 
jurisdiction. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and I have 
discussed having hearings in that committee.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, the choice is simple, either you support the premises 
of sovereignty as reflected in article I, section 8 of the Constitution 
or you equivocate or you try to give the National Labor Relations Board 
preeminence over the Constitution of the United States. I do not 
believe that sovereignty is situational. This is a mechanism where we 
can actually correct the wrong and put in place what had stood 30 years 
previously respecting sovereignty.
  Vote for the amendment.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am a strong supporter of tribal 
sovereignty but rise in reluctant opposition to this amendment because 
it has not been subject to full debate in committee or the House.
  I would like to articulate the importance of tribal sovereignty. 
Because Indian tribes are sovereign governments, the U.S. Government 
has long read the Commerce Clause and the 11th Amendment as upholding 
the sovereign immunity of tribes. Congress's intent in preserving 
sovereignty has been recognized even recently; in 1991, in Oklahoma Tax 
Common v. Potawatomi Tribe, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the long-
standing existence and importance of tribal sovereignty:

       In light of this Court's reaffirmation, in a number of 
     cases, of its longstanding doctrine

[[Page 14208]]

     of tribal sovereign immunity, and Congress' consistent 
     reiteration of its approval of the doctrine in order to 
     promote Indian self-government, self-sufficiency, and 
     economic development, the Court is not disposed to modify or 
     abandon the doctrine [of sovereign immunity].

  Tribal sovereignty is and should remain one of the fundamental 
principles of the United States, and we should not define its 
parameters in a ten minute debate.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) 
will be postponed.


                  Amendment Offered by Mr. Van Hollen

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Van Hollen:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to administer or pay any special allowance under 
     section 438(b)(2)(B) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 
     U.S.C. 1087-1(b)(2)(B)) with respect to--
       (1) any loan made or purchased after the date of enactment 
     of this Act;
       (2) any loan that had not qualified before such date of 
     enactment for receipt of a special allowance payment 
     determined under section 438(b)(2)(B) of the Higher Education 
     Act of 1965; or
       (3) any loan made or purchased before such date of 
     enactment with funds described in the first or second 
     sentence of section 438(b)(2)(B)(i) of such Act if--
       (A) the obligation described in the first such sentence 
     has, after such date of enactment, matured, or been retired 
     or defeased; or
       (B) the maturity date or the date of retirement of the 
     obligation described in the first such sentence has, after 
     such date of enactment, been extended.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 23, 2005, 
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is designed to stop what is an ongoing 
scam in the college student loan program whereby a small handful of 
lenders are receiving a guaranteed 9.5 government-paid return on 
certain student loans. As a result of this 9.5 percent loan scheme, the 
Government Accountability Office has found that certain lenders are 
pocketing billions of dollars in taxpayer money that would otherwise go 
to students.
  The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller), and I have offered legislation to 
address this issue, but we should address this issue right here on the 
floor and right now.
  We have heard a lot of people coming to the floor saying that we need 
more funds for higher education; we need more money for Pell grants; we 
need to provide more opportunities for students to make sure college is 
affordable. That is what this is about.
  If we adopt this amendment, we will close the loophole and we will 
free up billions of dollars that can go to the purposes we all want 
them to go to, which is to provide greater opportunities for students 
to go to college.
  The Department of Education has estimated that closing the loophole 
will save over $7 billion. Other estimates take the number even higher. 
So I urge this House to adopt this amendment and provide greater 
opportunities for our students to go to college.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, last year Congress took action to shut down these 
excess subsidies that are paid to lenders through the 9.5 percent floor 
loans. That led to the Taxpayer-Teacher Protection Act, which was 
crafted to immediately halt the practice while ensuring that this issue 
would ultimately and permanently be addressed in the Higher Education 
Reauthorization Act.
  Now that bill, the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, is to 
be before the Committee on Education and the Workforce immediately upon 
the return of Congress from the July 4 district work period. And we do 
expect that we will look at this in a comprehensive way.
  And while I share some of the concerns of my colleague from Maryland 
(Mr. Van Hollen), we have got to be very careful as to how we proceed 
in this area. There are a lot of nonprofit lenders across the country 
who were the recipients of these 9.5 percent loans; and if we were to 
adopt the gentleman's amendment, we could cause many of these nonprofit 
students lenders to be put out of business. And I think the gentleman 
realizes that we have been going through a very methodical process of 
trying to make some determination about how to shut these loans down 
permanently and how to deal with the issue of recycling. I wish it was 
as clean and easy as saying, we are just not going to do it any more.
  But as I have looked at this and I think others have looked at it, it 
is just not that easy. But as the committee deals with the Higher 
Education Reauthorization next month in both the subcommittee and full 
subcommittee, there is no question that this issue will be dealt with 
in its entirety.
  With that, I would ask my colleagues to oppose the gentleman's 
amendment. I would really like to ask him to withdraw the amendment and 
allow the regular process, the regular order, to occur in the 
committee.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, the chairman of the Committee 
Education and the Workforce, for those remarks; but the action the 
Congress took last year was too limited. First of all, it only lasted a 
year so we could come back this year to fix the problem; but the other 
part of the problem was it left a big part of the loophole still in 
place, what is called ``recycling,'' so that the lenders can continue 
to receive this windfall of 9.5 percent guarantee on those loans.
  This amendment is prospective only. It does not look back; it only 
looks to the future. Nobody who has been promised certain returns on 
their loans will lose the promises they have been made. But what it 
prevents from happening is future recycling, future abuse in this 
program. So I urge adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to close.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) has 3 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) has 3 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Does the chairman of the committee have the right to 
close?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), the 
amendment's sponsor, has the right to close.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) seeks to, as he says, 
prospectively end the practice of recycling new loans through these 9.5 
percent bonds that are out there. But here is the problem: some of 
these nonprofits student loan lenders around the country have these 
bonds in place for the next 5, 10, some even 15, years. And if we were 
to end the practice of recycling new loans through there, we would put 
those nonprofit lenders literally out of business because those bonds 
were sold to the public under this 9.5 percent scheme.
  Now, I am as disgusted by this scheme as the gentleman from Maryland 
is, I can tell you; and why this

[[Page 14209]]

practice went on for as long as it has is really very troubling to me. 
But having said that, for nonprofit lenders who had gone out and 
secured bonds with the backing of these 9.5 percent interest rate 
loans, I think that with the adoption of this amendment we could cause 
great problems with many of the lenders that are all across the country 
that help fund student loans for many needy students.
  So I would ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment. This is a very 
dangerous step that could affect the ability of millions of American 
students to get a student loan to allow them to go to a post-secondary 
institution. And, secondly, the committee is in fact going to deal with 
this. The gentleman from Maryland is well aware that the committee is 
going to deal with this as we reauthorize the Higher Education Act.
  Again, I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I have a very different view of this amendment and what 
it will do, obviously, than the chairman of the Committee on Education 
and the Workforce.
  In fact, what this will do is free up additional funds that can be 
used to make sure more students have the opportunity to go to college, 
because what is happening right now through this recycling scheme is 
that the lenders, the makers of the loan, are getting a 9.5 percent 
essentially guaranteed payment when we could in fact be using those 
monies instead to provide lower-cost loans to more students and to 
provide Pell grants.
  This will give the Subcommittee on Education of the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce the opportunity to provide more funds to do 
what they have been saying all afternoon that they want to do.
  The fact of the matter is this applies prospectively. This is not 
going to have a negative impact on these non-profit lenders. If you 
already have one of those loans out there, if you are already getting 
the sweetheart deal of 9.5 percent, you are still going to get that 
return. But what this would prohibit you from doing is that when you 
get that income from the students and the government, all those 
additional revenues, you cannot go out and do it again. You cannot keep 
this perpetual-motion machine going.
  According to some estimates, if we do not plug this hole, we will 
cost the taxpayers $13 billion, if we let it go on indefinitely. Monies 
that could be spent, again, could make sure that more students have the 
opportunity to go to college.
  I know that we will be dealing with it in the Committee on Education 
and the Workforce; but in the budget that passed this House, we did not 
deal with this issue. The budget does not envision closing the 
recycling loophole. The President 2 years ago submitted a budget that 
did envision closing the recycling loophole, but a bunch of lenders 
with interest in this, a lot of lenders who are making a ton of money 
obviously built up the pressure and it was heard. As a result, the 
budget does not close the loophole fully. Let us close the loophole 
fully.
  Let me say in closing, Mr. Chairman, the issue of the 9.5 percent 
loans is costing the American taxpayer and the American students 
billions of dollars a year. The General Accountability Office has 
looked into this issue. They have done an investigation. They have 
determined the Department of Education had the authority to shut this 
down. The Department of Education has not used that authority. Congress 
must use its authority, and it should do it now.
  I cannot think of any better place to deal with this issue than in 
the bill that provides funding for higher education. Because if we 
adopt this amendment, if the Congress adopts this amendment, it will 
immediately free up additional resources that we can spend as a Nation 
on providing students with more loans and providing more grants. So as 
a result of this amendment, more students will have the opportunity to 
go to college. I urge its adoption.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van 
Hollen) will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. Hayworth

  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 15 offered by Mr. Hayworth:
       At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the 
     following new section:
       Sec. ___. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be 
     used by the Commissioner of Social Security or the Social 
     Security Administration to pay the compensation of employees 
     of the Social Security Administration to administer Social 
     Security benefit payments under a totalization agreement with 
     Mexico which would not otherwise be payable but for such 
     agreement.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 23, 2005, 
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. We have been 
working to introduce new language that I believe both sides have agreed 
to on this particular amendment, and my inquiry is, do I have to offer 
an amendment to the amendment?
  I do not. I stand corrected. So we do have the new language.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman seek to modify his amendment by 
unanimous consent?
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.


        Modification to Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. Hayworth

  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment be modified.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Modification to amendment offered by Mr. Hayworth:
       Line 6, strike ``would not otherwise be payable but for 
     such agreement'' and insert ``are inconsistent with Federal 
     law.''

  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the modification offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth)?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the 
     following new section:
       Sec. ___. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be 
     used by the Commissioner of Social Security or the Social 
     Security Administration to pay the compensation of employees 
     of the Social Security Administration to administer Social 
     Security benefit payments under a totalization agreement with 
     Mexico which are inconsistent with federal law.

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, we are prepared to accept the amendment, as 
modified.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I will not take the full 5 minutes. I will simply say 
to both the majority and minority staff of the Committee on 
Appropriations and to Members on this side, the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Gingrey), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode), the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Culberson), the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Rohrabacher), the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan), who were all 
prepared to speak on this amendment, we thank them for their 
involvement.
  This revised amendment ensures that a proposed Social Security 
totalization amendment or agreement with Mexico

[[Page 14210]]

now fully subscribes to what has been signed into law, H.R. 743, the 
Social Security Protection Act. And this ensures that any proposed 
totalization agreement would not have funds going to anyone from our 
neighbor to the south employed here illegally.

                              {time}  1415

  I thank both sides for their cooperation on this, and though we may 
have sincere differences in the challenges of the day, I do appreciate 
everyone's constructive attitude on this amendment. It shows the 
American people that, yes, we can get things done.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield 
to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished 
gentleman for yielding. I hope we can find an opportunity to find 
common agreement.
  Let me just say that my colleagues need to understand that the 
administration believes in this structured agreement, a totalization 
agreement, because they understand that when Americans are overseas 
working and getting benefits, that they would like those Americans to 
ensure that their benefits go with them. That is the same relationship 
we should have with Mexico, that when workers are here, their benefits 
gained here should follow them to Mexico.
  I would oppose any language that would deny that right. I think the 
question of whether or not they are documented or undocumented, the 
administration needs to make that determination. I do not know if my 
colleagues are going to thwart the administration's desire to find some 
common ground on immigration.
  If this language says that it is consistent with Federal law, then I 
hope that this Congress will work with the administration so that we 
will not be embarrassed internationally by denying nationals of another 
country their well-gained rights or benefits that they have gained 
working. We would not want that to happen to us.
  I will listen further to the debate. I raise a concern that they are 
denying those who are working their well-earned benefits. One thing we 
can stand for is you deserve your pension rights, you deserve your 
Social Security rights, you deserve your uninsurance rights, your 
health care rights, and it should not be taken away from you.
  Nevertheless, I hope my friends on the other side do not do that. If 
the language does not do that, I would say to my colleagues that if 
this is a good resolution, we certainly will join in with it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me simply say that, 
like the gentleman from Ohio, I see no problem with accepting the 
amendment on this side because, as I read it, it does not do nothing to 
nobody for anybody or about anybody. And so with that, I am happy to 
accept the amendment.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Again, I thank the gentleman. I may have a little different 
interpretation and assessment of what the amendment does, but I am 
pleased to see we could work this out, and we will enforce existing 
law.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak against 
this amendment which seeks to restrict illegal aliens access to the 
U.S. Mexican Social Security Totalization agreement. I cannot support 
this agreement, not for its intent, but because of the consequences of 
enforcing it. I agree with Mr. Hayworth that immigration is an issue 
that must be addressed. However, the remedy that this amendment creates 
would lead to more harm then good and violates a fundamental aspect of 
American ideals.
  This amendment seeks to ensure that benefits can't be paid under the 
U.S. Mexico Totalization agreement for work inconsistent with federal 
law. Undocumented aliens working within the United States would meet 
the criteria of work inconsistent with federal law and therefore would 
be denied benefits. This method of dealing with our nation's 
immigration problem is not the answer. Social Security is a contract: 
you put money in, you get money out. Denying undocumented aliens the 
money that they put into social security is to violate what is at the 
very center of Americn ideals. Weare a country that values hard work. 
You get what you give. Refusing to grant Social Security benefits to 
undocumented aliens who have spent their entire lives working and 
contributing to the system is a blatant violation of contract law.
  Our nation faces many challenges on the issue of immigration. Our 
Immigration system is far from perfect. We have Filipinos waiting 18 
years just to have a person look over their application. We have 
families who are forced to wait years upon years to be reunited with 
their brethren. We need comprehensive reform. This amendment would 
denigrate the hard work of thousands of workers who have spent their 
lives working hard in this great nation. If an undocumented alien puts 
a dollar into the social security system this amendment would rob him 
of that dollar.
  Is this the GOP's plan to solve the social security conundrum; to rob 
undocumented aliens of their social security benefits. To refuse to put 
more boarder guards on our frontiers, only to rob those who are 
attempting to create a better life for themselves. This is not 
immigration reform.
  Our immigration situation is a problem that needs to be solved. I 
will be the first to admit that. But reforms such as this amendment are 
not the correct method to achieve that goal. We need comprehensive 
immigration reform.
  I can not support this amendment because I feel it unduly robs 
undocumented aliens of their hard earned wages. This amendment will not 
solve our nation's immigration problems. It only serves to violate 
simple contract theory. I believe in an American in which you get what 
you put in. This amendment contradicts that belief and therefore I must 
oppose it.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member seek the time in opposition?
  The question is on the amendment, as modified, offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
  The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield 
to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
important time, and we have all observed with awe the marvelous photos 
of construction workers sitting on I-beams swinging high above New York 
City as we admire their bravery, their daring and their skill. These 
tradespeople built America, and I cannot think of a citizen in our 
country that does not respect their prowess.
  Well, the worst construction accident in Federal transportation 
history in the city of Toledo took place on February 16 last year, 
effecting serious loss of life and injuries among these modern soldiers 
of the sky.
  Crushed to death on the job were Mike Phillips, age 42; Arden Clark, 
age 47; Mike Moreau, age 30; and Robert Lipinski, Junior, age 44. There 
were injuries sustained by many other workers.
  Joe Blaze, the president of the Local Ironworkers observed: ``What 
happened will affect us for generations.'' The local paper reported, 
the Toledo Blade, ``Workers told investigators the crane's rear legs 
were held up with 14 inches of shims and no anchors, while each front 
leg had shims and only one of two anchors.'' These workers were crushed 
to death by a several-million-ton crane falling on them.
  I tried at the full committee level to place simple report language 
in this bill, merely asking the Department of Labor's Occupational 
Health and Safety Administration to gather all records relating to 
inspections, or the lack thereof, on this job and to also provide any 
communications that have occurred with the U.S. Justice Department 
related to this accident. This was denied to me by the Republican 
majority.
  I, along with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens), the ranking 
member of the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, were prepared to 
offer an amendment right here today to ask the Department of Labor to 
assist our county prosecutor in the investigation of this tragedy. This 
amendment is also being denied to me on a technicality rather than 
being discussed on its merits.
  OSHA's Midwest office had ruled there was willful negligence on this

[[Page 14211]]

job, and for reasons not completely understood, they have changed that 
ruling to unclassified. So as the individual court cases move forth 
locally, somehow civil litigation will be affected by that change in 
words.
  Now, guess how much OSHA is able to fine the company and others 
responsible for this serious loss of life? $280,000. That is $70,000 
for each lost life, and this money goes to the U.S. Treasury, not even 
to the victims' families.
  Well, there should be more than civil damages and OSHA's fines paid 
to these families. Our chief of police has bluntly stated these men 
were murdered. There is criminal wrongdoing here.
  My question is: Where was OSHA? Where was the State of Ohio on this, 
the largest Federal transportation project in Ohio history? Why is this 
Congress now denying me the ability to get a vote on this amendment 
which merely asks the Department of Labor to engage with our county 
prosecutor to investigate the real causes of those deaths?
  We have been now told OSHA has not developed a standard or 
promulgated a rule stating that foreign manufactured cranes, like this 
one, must equal or exceed U.S. safety standards. Recommendations for 
such a standard were made nearly a year ago, but it has not been acted 
upon. Why not? Why has this Congress not demanded and implemented as 
soon as possible these regs, or made meeting U.S. standards a condition 
of eligibility for Federal funding? There is a serious abdication of 
responsibility by the U.S. Department of Labor because this Congress 
has not held them to a higher standard.
  These men died, in my view, because of the apparent willful 
negligence of the U.S. Department of Labor and OSHA and their allies 
here in the Congress who have been cutting back on worker safety laws 
and who have abdicated their responsibility to conduct aggressive 
oversight.
  Today, it is likely that my amendment would have been ruled out of 
order, as my simple effort to get on the record information from the 
Department of Labor was denied to me as a Member of Congress, because 
the full committee would not even allow report language, a most unusual 
practice.
  Instead, today, I am left with a personal appeal to the Secretary of 
Labor to use her existing authority to provide assistance to the Lucas 
County prosecutor for the full prosecution of this case, wherever it 
may lead, and I ask that we all push for the swift implementation of 
construction crane safety standards so that no other family or 
community need endure the great tragedy that has befallen us in 
northwest Ohio on the largest Federal transportation project in our 
State's history.
  I want to thank the ranking member for yielding me this time and to 
state also I will place in the Record at this point as part of my 
remarks today a letter we are sending to U.S. Secretary of Labor Elaine 
Chao.

                                     House of Representatives,

                                    Washington, DC, June 24, 2005.
     Hon. Elaine L. Chao,
     Secretary, Department of Labor,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Secretary Chao: The City of Toledo's police department 
     and the Lucas County (Ohio) Prosecutor's office are 
     attempting to carry out an exhaustive investigation into 
     whether criminal charges should be filed regarding safety 
     violations resulting in the deaths of four ironworkers on 
     construction of the I-280 Maumee River Crossing in Toledo, 
     Ohio. Madame Secretary, I ask that you use the authority you 
     have to assist the Lucas County Prosecutor's office in their 
     investigation. You have been provided the general authority 
     to use the services of any State or political subdivision 
     with reimbursement under section 7 (c) of the OSH Act.
       On February 16, 2004 our community was shocked by tragedy, 
     when a two million-pound construction crane collapsed at the 
     I-280 Maumee River Crossing construction site in Toledo, 
     Ohio. The collapse resulted in the deaths of four 
     Ironworkers. It is with great sadness and a deep sense of 
     responsibility that I bring to your attention further details 
     surrounding this accident and possible criminal wrongdoing by 
     the firm responsible for the bridge's construction.
       The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) 
     has fined the project's general contractor, Fru-Con, $280,000 
     for the incident. OSHA has said that Fru-Con committed 
     ``willful'' safety violations prior to the crane's collapse. 
     OSHA has said that Fru-Con committed ``willful'' safety 
     violations only to reclassify them as ``unclassified,'' and 
     the agency has also pulled out of a special safety 
     ``partnership'' with Fru-Con, saying the firm didn't live up 
     to the deal.
       An investigation of criminal wrongdoing on a project of 
     this magnitude is an enormous task for any local agency. I 
     believe that the Department of Labor can be of immeasurable 
     assistance to the local entities in this pursuit. I look 
     forward to your involvement and counsel.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Marcy Kaptur,
                                              U.S. Representative.


                  Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Paul

  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 11 offered by Mr. Paul:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:

       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to create or implement any universal mental health 
     screening program.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 23, 2005, 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Regula) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment is straightforward: ``None of the funds 
made available in this a may be used to create or implement any 
universal mental health screening program.''
  This does not deny any funds for any testing of those individuals who 
may show signs of mental illness. It only denies funding for any 
universal, read by many as mandatory, which is a bit of overkill as far 
as I am concerned. There is $26 million in this bill for these 
programs. Eight States have already been involved, and three more have 
applied for grants.
  The main reason why I oppose this is I think there is a lot of 
overtreatment of young people with psychotropic drugs. This has been 
going on for a lot of years, and there are a lot of bad results, and 
once we talk about universal testing of everybody, and there is no age 
limit, matter of fact, in the recommendation by the New Freedom 
Commission, there is a tendency for overdiagnosis and overuse of 
medication. There are as many complications from overuse of medication 
as there is with prophylactic treatment.
  There is no evidence now on the books to show that the use of this 
medication actually in children reduces suicide. Matter of fact, there 
are studies that do suggest exactly the opposite. Children on 
psychotropic drugs may well be even more likely to commit suicide. It 
does not mean that no child ever qualifies for this, but to assume 
there is this epidemic out here that we have to test everybody is 
rather frightening to me.
  Matter of fact, when the State gets control of children, they tend to 
overuse medications like this. Take, for instance, in Texas, 60 percent 
of the foster children are on medication. In Massachusetts, it is close 
to 65 percent. In Florida, 55 percent of the children in foster home 
care are receiving these kinds of medication.
  Once again, I want to make the point that this does not deny funding 
for individual children who show signs that they may need or they have 
a problem and need to be tested. It is just to make sure that this is 
not universal and not be mandatory and that parental rights are guarded 
against and that the parent is very much involved.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, and I would 
point out to my colleagues, we had the identical amendment last year 
and it failed by a vote of 315 to 95. So, many of my colleagues have 
already voted against this amendment.
  Let me point out, there is no universal mental health screening 
funded in the underlying bill. This is an inflammatory amendment. It is 
not necessary.
  During our hearings, Secretary Leavitt from Health and Human Services 
told the committee that the administration does not support and has

[[Page 14212]]

no plans to implement universal mental health screening, and then they 
made it very clear that in all programming involving kids there is a 
requirement that parents participate and give their informed consent, 
and that would be in a different program.
  We have never proposed in appropriations any program of universal 
mental screening, and all it does really, this amendment, is to 
stigmatize the issue of mental health.
  The sponsor mentions $26 million, and let me point out that the funds 
provided in this bill that respond to recommendations put forward in 
the final report of the President's New Freedom Commission on Mental 
Health, ``Achieving the Promise: Transforming Mental Health Care in 
America,'' go toward State incentive grants for transformation to 
support the development of comprehensive State mental health plans, and 
has absolutely no funding included for universal mental health 
screening.
  So the $26 million has nothing to do with this amendment as far as 
universal mental health screening.

                              {time}  1430

  As a matter of fact, the President's Commission did not recommend 
either universal or mandatory mental health screening. So I think it is 
clear that the President's Commission did not feel this was in any way 
necessary, and for this reason I oppose the amendment. I think that is 
why the great majority of Members voted against it last year, and I 
would urge Members to vote the same way this year on this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) said, there are 
no plans for anyone in the Federal Government to conduct universal 
screening, and there are no funds in this bill for any such purpose. 
Having said that, let me simply say I do not think our problem in this 
country is that we do too much screening for mental health problems 
with young people.
  We are all familiar with the problem of youth depression. There are a 
very significant number of teenagers who are afflicted with that 
problem. We are, I think, all familiar with the sad situation with 
regard to teenage suicide. Two friends of each of my sons committed 
suicide. So I do not think the problem in this country is that we know 
too much about mental health problems for young people. The problem is 
just the opposite; we know too little. So I agree with the concerns 
expressed by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula).
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, the danger in our society 
now is basing policy on old stereotypes that somehow mental health and 
mental science is not real science.
  I have here a board that shows that there is a different metabolizing 
in people's brains for those who have mental illness versus those who 
do not. We have the tools today with PET scans and MRIs to be able to 
diagnose brain disorders and mental illnesses, and these things are 
backed up by science.
  The notion in this amendment that somehow mental illness is not a 
real illness, that mental health is not real health, and that is why in 
this country we continue to discriminate against these illnesses by 
having them pay higher copays, higher premiums, and higher deductibles 
than other health care costs.
  What is the difference between treating an organ in the brain and 
diabetes and kidneys? What is the difference between treating an organ 
in the brain or the lungs or the heart? Nothing is different.
  The fact of the matter is in our schools we ought to be looking at 
this. We have more people committing suicide, 10 young people a day. 
More youth die from suicide each year than from cancer, heart disease, 
AIDS, birth defects, stroke, pneumonia, influenza, and chronic lung 
disease combined. All of them combined do not rank as high as the cost 
of suicide to our young people.
  Mr. Chairman, in the next year we are going to lose 1,400 young 
people in our colleges and universities because of suicide. We have 
twice the rate of homicide as our suicide rate. For every homicide in 
this country, there are two suicides.
  The problem here is not overtreatment, it is undertreatment. That is 
why I think the Paul amendment, unfortunately, continues to ascribe to 
the stereotypes of the past that mental illnesses are not real 
illnesses and therefore they should not be treated and taken care of. 
That is why I would ask my colleagues to please vote against the 
discrimination, the intolerance, the stigma of the Paul amendment.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise also in opposition to the Paul 
amendment that is not cognizant of the fact that suicide is the third 
leading cause of death amongst youngsters. It would affect current 
funds used by States for mental health services and future planning to 
address this issue. It is a major medical concern, and this amendment 
does not provide for a solution.
  This amendment must not pass because it is harmful not only to our 
youth but to our families, to our Nation, and would risk increasing the 
current statistics.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy).
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman, speaking as a psychologist and one who has 
spent a career working with children, let me say that this amendment is 
misguided, misinformed, wrong for America, and wrong for medicine.
  First of all, this bill does not fund universal screening. HHS 
Secretary Michael Leavitt and SAMHSA Director Charlie Curie have both 
testified that mandatory screening of all children for mental illness 
has never been, nor will it ever be, a part of the Federal plan to 
respond to the Nation's mental health crisis.
  The President's New Freedom Commission on mental health clearly 
stated that schools should work collaboratively with families on mental 
health services and support to children.
  This amendment is another witch hunt against mental illness and its 
passage will only serve to further stigmatize mental illness. If our 
concern is about overmedicating children, let us deal with that. You do 
not deal with it by attacking screening.
  Just as pediatricians routinely screen newborns for heart and liver 
diseases and sickle cell anemia, appropriate mental health screening 
done by qualified professionals is vital to identifying mental health 
and the potential substance abuse problems of our youth. Screening does 
not cause diabetes, screening does not cause metabolic disorders, 
screening does not cause cancer, and screening does not cause 
hyperactivity. With over 75 percent of all prescriptions for 
antidepressants prescribed by non-psychiatrists, including 
pediatricians, OB-GYNs, and primary care practitioners, with little or 
no training in psychiatry, the answer is to do screening the right way 
with parental consent and by qualified mental health professionals, not 
to take away the ability to do it at all.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Paul amendment to do what 
is right for medicine, what is right for mental health, and what is 
compassionate for those with mental illnesses.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Let me assure Members that you are misconstruing the amendment. It is 
as if we are banning screening. That is not the case. I am just saying 
screening everybody is what I am trying to prevent. If there is one 
person out of 100,000 that commits suicide, why are Members compelled 
to have a program that may test 99,999 people?
  This does nothing to the individual that shows the problem. You can 
still test them, preferably with parental consent.
  Let me add that the gentleman from Ohio stated that the vote went 
against

[[Page 14213]]

this amendment last year. This came up at the last minute. Let me tell 
Members, people in this country have been well informed about this, and 
they do not like this program.
  I also would like to quote from the New Freedom Commission because it 
is true the New Freedom Commission, which is the guideline the 
gentleman from Ohio brought up; he brings it up, he cites what it says, 
so they have some value. They never say ``mandatory,'' but they never 
say ``voluntary.'' What they say is ``universal.''
  How can you have something universal if you are not going to be 
testing everybody? Also from the Freedom Commission, it should be for 
consumers of all ages, screen for mental disorders in primary health 
care across the life span. These are the guidelines of the New Freedom 
Commission, as well as saying the schools must be partners in the 
mental health care of our children. Why do they not say the parents 
should be partners in the health care of our children?
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, we are in opposition to the amendment. There is no 
universal mental health screening in this bill. Secretary Leavitt has 
made it clear there is nothing like this under consideration. It is an 
amendment that is not needed because it addresses a problem that does 
not exist.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, as a physician, having practiced medicine for well over 
30 years, let me tell Members, there is a crisis in this country. There 
is a crisis with illegal drugs, but there is a crisis in this country 
with an overuse of all drugs, especially in the area of psychiatry.
  Psychiatrists, if they are honest with you, will tell you that 
diagnoses are very subjective. It is not like diagnosing appendicitis. 
It is very, very subjective. If you push on this type of testing, the 
more testing you have, let me guarantee it, the more drugs you will 
have. Sure, there are mental diseases. I am not excluding any of this 
when a person has true mental illness, but I am talking about the 
overuse of Ritalin and Prozac and many of these drugs that are pushed 
on these kids.
  Let me tell Members, there have been some real problems with families 
who will not let their kids go on drugs because the schools pressure 
them to. They have been charged with child abuse, and threatened with 
taking their children away because they will not be put on these drugs. 
That is the kind of abuse I am calling to Members' attention, and that 
is why you need to vote for this amendment. It does not change 
anything. It does not deny anybody testing and treatment. All it does 
is say universal testing of everybody of all ages in this country is 
not the direction that we want to go. Please vote for my amendment.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to 
Mr. Paul's amendment that would bar Federal funds from being used for 
mental health screening programs. This amendment misunderstands the 
recommendations offered by President Bush's New Freedom Commission on 
Mental Health, minimizes the importance of mental health to the well-
being of Americans, and threatens vital efforts to promote access to 
mental health services.
  Mental health is one of the greatest problems facing our Nation. 
During any one-year period, up to 50 million Americans--more than 22 
percent--suffer from a clearly diagnosable mental disorder involving a 
degree of incapacity that interferes with employment, attendance at 
school or daily life. Among other things, mental health affects whether 
one gets involved in substance abuse, commits violence, follows through 
on medical advice, cares for a child, performs his work, and engages in 
healthy behaviors. In short, one's mental health affects almost every 
aspect of life.
  I believe strongly in the need to support children's physical and 
mental health, while respecting parental rights. Recognizing that early 
childhood is a critical period for the onset of emotional and 
behavioral problems, the President's Commission encouraged 
organizations that work with children to improve early identification 
of children with mental health needs. Research shows that early 
detection, assessment, and connection to treatment and support helps 
prevent mental health problems from worsening. Because more than 52 
million students attend schools in the U.S., the Commission recognized 
that schools are in a key position to identify mental health problems 
early and help link children to appropriate services. The Commission in 
no way recommends mandatory legislation or any effort to circumvent 
parental consent to screening. Quite the opposite, in fact. It 
repeatedly recommends that child-serving organizations work with 
parents to support identification and treatment efforts.
  Like so many disorders, mental illness does not discriminate and 
effects every age, ethnic, and socioeconomic group. Given its 
widespread effect on individuals and society, we need to put more 
emphasis on mental health, not less. I urge my colleagues to vote 
against the Paul amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate on this amendment has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Paul).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) will be 
postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. DeLauro

  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. DeLauro:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:

       Sec. __. None of the funds made available under this Act 
     may be used to enforce or carry out item 6B of the settlement 
     agreement between the Wage and Hour Division of the 
     Department of Labor and Wal-Mart Stores, Incorporated, signed 
     January 11, 2005, whereby the Wage and Hour Division agrees 
     to provide Wal-Mart Stores, Incorporated, with 15 days prior 
     notice of any audit or investigation to be conducted by such 
     Division.

  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the order of the House of June 
23, 2005, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) and the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment would prohibit the Department of Labor 
from using Federal funds to enforce or carry out item 6B of the 
settlement agreement between the wage and hour division of the 
Department and Wal-Mart Stores, the provision providing Wal-Mart with 
15 days of advance notice prior to any audit or investigation.
  This amendment is important to ensuring the safety of our children. 
On January 6, the Department of Labor entered into an agreement with 
Wal-Mart to settle violations of child labor laws in 3 States: 
Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Arkansas. It found that Wal-Mart 
employed 85 minors, ages 16 and 17, who performed prohibited 
activities, including operating cardboard balers and chain saws, which 
are considered particularly hazardous jobs, jobs Wal-Mart and other 
employers cannot legally permit anyone under the age of 18 to perform.

                              {time}  1445

  For these violations, the Labor Department fined Wal-Mart, a company 
with $285 billion of revenues last year, a total of $135,540.
  Perhaps the most egregious part of the agreement is the provision, 
6B, that grants Wal-Mart 15 days' advance notice before the government 
investigates any wage-and-hour law complaints, notice that applies not 
just to child labor complaints in the three cited States but all Wal-
Mart stores nationwide.
  Wal-Mart has a history of prior child labor violations. In 2000, Wal-
Mart was found to have 1,436 violations in 20 Maine stores. Last year, 
Wal-Mart's own internal audit found 1,371 violations of child labor 
laws between 1997 and 1999. Granting 2 weeks' advance notice is 
essentially daring repeated child

[[Page 14214]]

labor law violators like Wal-Mart to conceal any further violations.
  And if we need any proof of that, I would point my colleagues to the 
weekend papers in Connecticut which cite a State investigation that 
found 11 more violations of child labor laws at three of our Wal-Mart 
stores. Three violations involved the store not even bothering to check 
the age of their workers.
  It is clear the settlement is not stopping Wal-Mart from violating 
child labor laws. In fact, the Governor of Connecticut has ordered 
periodic, unannounced visits by State inspectors at Wal-Mart stores to 
ensure that any future violations are promptly revealed and addressed.
  Why can the Federal Government not do the same? If a State government 
can get tough on a child labor violator, one that happens to be our 
Nation's largest private employer, there is no reason the Federal 
Government should not be able to do so as well.
  Congress needs to send Wal-Mart a message that companies who violate 
child labor laws will not be tolerated. Our society long ago stopped 
tolerating the kind of sweatshop conditions that my mother worked in 
when I was growing up. It is time that this administration did so as 
well.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the DeLauro amendment raises serious constitutional 
concerns under the due process clause because it effectively repudiates 
the government's contract with Wal-Mart. The DeLauro amendment would 
cause the government to breach its contractual agreement with Wal-Mart. 
As a result of the government's breach, Wal-Mart would be released from 
obligations under the agreement, including its obligation to implement 
numerous measures that go beyond what the law requires to prevent 
future child labor violations.
  For example, Wal-Mart would no longer be required to provide 
additional training to Wal-Mart managers regarding the requirements of 
the child labor laws, would no longer be able to discipline managers 
who fail to comply with the child labor laws, would no longer be 
required to post warning stickers on all equipment the Secretary has 
designated as hazardous for the operation by minors, would no longer be 
able to perform quarterly self-audits of all of its stores for the 
duration of the agreement, and it would not stop Wal-Mart from 
receiving advance notice of most investigations.
  The 15 days is a common practice in this type of thing. I think 
whether you disagree or agree with the settlement that was made between 
the Department of Labor and Wal-Mart, let us not get into the business 
of second-guessing it and, in the process, create a lot of additional 
problems and, in fact, it would be detrimental to the employees in 
terms of what has been agreed to in the settlement of this issue.
  For this reason, I would oppose the amendment, and I hope my 
colleagues would do likewise if we do have a vote on this.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller).
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut for offering this amendment. This is an 
outrageous practice that the government entered into in secret with 
Wal-Mart so that those employees who were concerned and want to file a 
labor grievance or a child labor protection law grievance with Wal-Mart 
who thought they were talking to the Department of Labor now find that 
they are talking directly to the Wal-Mart corporation.
  So where do they get the protection in filing these complaints? You 
say, Well, they don't need it because Wal-Mart is a good employer and 
Wal-Mart is going to take care of them. Wal-Mart is a repeat serial 
offender and has been found guilty of violating wage-and-hour laws, 
immigration laws, child labor laws, discrimination laws, pay-equity 
laws and worker-safety laws. And this is the corporation that you give 
15 days' notice to, that you give this kind of special privilege to?
  As the gentlewoman from Connecticut pointed out, the violations of 
child labor are ongoing. All Wal-Mart does is get a heads-up and finds 
out who is complaining against them who is employed by them. How are 
these employees supposed to register their complaints with this 
corporation under this agreement? It is an outrageous violation of 
these workers' rights.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Let me correct an error that was made. The very fact is that the 
amendment would only restrict funds for the provision that gives Wal-
Mart the 15 days' advance notice before the Department investigates any 
wage-and-hour law complaints. It does not abrogate the entire 
settlement. That is what Wal-Mart would like to have everyone believe. 
It is just the 15-day notice.
  The fact is that this is not a typical agreement. None of the 
agreements that the Department of Labor made with Genesis Health 
Ventures, Footlocker, and Sears provided a blanket promise of advance 
notice nationwide to all their stores. This one does. It is a 
sweetheart deal with Wal-Mart. Nor did they provide for a 10-day window 
for the company to come into compliance in the event of child labor 
violations. These companies were expected to fix the problem 
immediately or to face serious penalties.
  This is hardly standard procedure. That is why the Labor Department's 
own Inspector General has been investigating how this settlement was 
negotiated. We are talking about the safety of our children. That is 
why the amendment is necessary, and that is why I ask my colleagues to 
vote for this amendment.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  There are dozens of these settlements made every month. If we get 
into the role of trying to second-guess and to pass judgment on them, 
there is no end to it. I think what we know of the merits of this is 
something that the Department of Labor worked out with Wal-Mart. This 
is not an uncommon thing to give 15-day notice. In fact, it is almost a 
standard procedure.
  I say to my colleagues, we do not belong in involving ourselves, or 
this body, in trying to second-guess the judgment that has been made by 
the Department of Labor. I am sure they acted in good faith to protect 
the rights of children, to protect the rights of people that work at 
not only Wal-Mart but other similar types of employment. Therefore, I 
would urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. 
DeLauro) will be postponed.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, all through last year on this side of the aisle, we 
continually insisted that we needed more money for veterans health care 
and were consistently told by the administration and the other side 
that we did not. As recently as April 5, Mr. Nicholson, the head of the 
VA, told the Senate in an effort to defeat a Democratic amendment, ``I 
can assure you that the VA does not need emergency supplemental funding 
in fiscal 2005 to continue to provide timely, quality service that is 
always our goal.'' We were again told this year when we tried to add 
money to the VA for veterans health care that it was not needed, that 
we were simply pandering to veterans.
  Well, now the facts are out. Today's Washington Post: ``Funds for 
Health Care of Veterans Short $1 Billion.'' What we find out is that 
now the Bush administration is belatedly admitting to the Congress what 
we have been trying to tell people for months, namely,

[[Page 14215]]

that the VA budget is inadequate and their accountants indicate that 
they are going to need more than $1 billion.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) is going to shortly be asking 
unanimous consent to consider an amendment which would, on an emergency 
basis, add the $1 billion which the administration is saying is 
necessary to pay the bills at the VA. I would hope that the Congress 
could find a way to accomplish this. At a time when we are having 
trouble with recruiting, it makes no sense to be sending messages to 
our veterans that, Okay, you can go over and fight in Iraq, but we are 
not so sure about what services you are going to get when you get home.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, the fact that there is a funding crisis in 
VA hospitals this year to the tune of $1 billion should be a surprise 
to no one. On March 23, 2004, the legislative directors of the Disabled 
American Veterans, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, and the Veterans 
of Foreign Wars said that passage of the budget resolution as presented 
would be a disservice to those men and women who serve this country and 
who are currently serving in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world in 
the fight against terrorism.
  The bottom line is, this House on a partisan basis, through the 
budget resolution, has underfunded VA medical care. Veterans groups 
knew it, Democrats in this body knew it, Democrats in the other body 
knew it. In fact, I made a specific effort in the emergency 
appropriation bill for Iraq to get additional funding for VA hospitals 
this year, but was rebuffed by the House leadership that said that 
money was not necessary.
  As the gentleman from Wisconsin has pointed out, that money is 
necessary. We have a crisis. It is inexcusable for the leadership of 
the Veterans Administration to testify just a few months ago, 2 months 
ago, that they did not need any extra money to provide adequate health 
care for veterans. Now, just 60 days later, they admit there is a $1 
billion crisis in funding. We need to find out why the VA misled the 
Congress; and, most importantly, we need to address this problem. I 
would welcome a bipartisan effort in trying to address the funding 
needs for veterans.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WALSH. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank both the 
gentlemen for raising this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a serious problem. There is a great deal of 
alarm about the uncovering of this information. It is a great 
disappointment. I thank the two gentlemen for bringing this up, even 
though it is not germane to this bill. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Edwards) and I have discussed this. We will be holding an oversight 
hearing on Tuesday at 9 a.m. at which time members of the Veterans 
Administration, I believe we will also have people from defense health 
and possibly the Office of Management and Budget, will come up and give 
us the straight scoop on what actually happened and who knew what and 
when.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I insert at this point in the Record the text 
of the amendment that the gentleman from Texas would like to offer to 
correct this egregious situation.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following new title:

                                TITLE __

                     DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

                     Veterans Health Administration


                            MEDICAL SERVICES

       For an additional amount in fiscal year 2005 for necessary 
     expenses for furnishing, as authorized by law, inpatient and 
     outpatient care and treatment to beneficiaries of the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs and veterans described in 
     section 1705(a) of title 38, United States Code, including 
     care and treatment in facilities not under the jurisdiction 
     of the Department of Veterans Affairs, and including medical 
     supplies and equipment and salaries and expenses of health-
     care employees hired under title 38, United States Code, and 
     aid to State homes as authorized by section 1741 of title 38, 
     United States Code; $1,000,000,000: Provided, That the amount 
     provided under this heading is designated as an emergency 
     pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95 (l09th Congress), 
     the concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal year 
     2006.


               Request For Recognition to Offer Amendment

  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Chair to recognize 
me at this point so that we could call up the amendment which I have at 
the desk that would provide $1 billion of emergency funding to the VA 
health care system this year to meet the funding shortfall that the VA 
leadership has just admitted to as of yesterday.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman offering an amendment covered by the 
order of the House of June 23, 2005?
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, this emergency funding for veterans health 
care, the need for it, was just admitted yesterday by the 
administration leadership. For that reason, this amendment was not in 
the unanimous consent order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Therefore, the Chair is constrained not to recognize 
the gentleman.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  Mr. STEARNS. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Ohio for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I wanted to just briefly thank him for making part of 
his en bloc amendment and also the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) 
for his consideration providing $2 million to the Homeless Veterans 
Reintegration Program, the HVRP, and $500,000 to the National Veterans 
Employment and Training Services Institute. These particular moneys 
that he has made part of his en bloc amendment are very much 
appreciated. This was part of my amendment that I had which, 
unfortunately, I did not get to the House floor; but through both the 
gentleman from Wisconsin and the gentleman from Ohio, they have made 
this part of the en bloc amendment and I want to thank them very much 
for it. se 000
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment I intended to offer yesterday would reduce 
$10 million of proposed funding from Corporation For National And 
Community Service's (CNCS) AmeriCorps grants, and increase two 
worthwhile, veterans programs in the Department of Labor.
  First, my amendment would transfer $9,000,000 to the Homeless 
Veterans' Reintegration Program (HVRP). This well-regarded program 
assists finding homeless veterans a meaningful place in the workforce. 
HVRP funds are awarded competitively to grant-seekers ranging from 
State and local agencies, commercial entities, and non-profits 
including community-and faith-based organizations.
  Uniquely, since its inception, HVRP has featured an outreach effort 
using veterans who themselves have experienced homelessness. Formerly 
homeless veterans engage in counseling, peer coaching, and follow-up 
services. The program coordinates with various veterans' services 
programs and organizations, such as the Disabled Veterans' Outreach 
Program and Local Veterans' Employment Representatives stationed in the 
local employment service offices of the State Workforce Agencies. Many 
veterans groups also are eligible, such as the American Legion, 
Disabled American Veterans, and Veterans of Foreign Wars.
  Next my amendment would transfer $1,000,000 to the National Veterans' 
Employment and Training Services Institute (NVTI). NVTI provides 
training to the employees who ultimately work with veterans seeking 
employment and training. Like the Homeless Veterans Reintegration 
Program, most of these Training Institute dollars (about 70 percent) 
flow directly to States. Impressively, while the Appropriators have 
funded the program at the President's request and FY05 amount ($1.9 
million), the NVTI does such an efficient job that they forecast with 
the nearly 50 percent increase my amendment would deliver, they could 
increase their throughput nearly \2/3\, processing many more veterans 
through (again, mostly via employees in your State). Since 1986, NVTI 
has developed and enhanced the professional skills of veterans' 
employment and training service providers nationwide. It is 
administered by the University of Colorado at Denver with training 
conducted in Denver, Colorado and at selected regional sites in the 
U.S. To date 50,000+ veterans' employment and training professionals 
have attended NVTI training. In addition to the basic employment and 
training professional-skills

[[Page 14216]]

course, training is offered in veterans' benefits, transition 
assistance, case management, marketing and accessing the media, and 
management of veterans' services. NVTI also offers courses in veterans' 
reemployment rights case investigation and grants management, to 
address the training needs of the U.S. Department of Labor Veterans' 
Employment and Training Service (VETS) staff.
  As an unexpected benefit, CBO has scored my amendment to be Budget 
Authority-neutral, but to save $1,000,000 in FY06 outlays.
  Now, 1 million dollars sounds like chump change up here to us, but to 
Americans voting back home, and to the veterans who are on the streets 
and in despair, it would pay for quite a lot. And AmeriCorps, I point 
out, is receiving over a quarter of a billion dollars, so I think the 
program could spare a mere $10 million.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment about priorities. AmeriCorps pays 
people handsomely for pseudo-volunteerism: $4,725 for a year of full-
time service; ``a modest living allowance'', ``limited health benefits, 
may qualify for child care assistance, and may get your relocation 
expenses covered''. This is not community service, this is a job.
  Further, AmeriCorps has a history of accountability problems. Just 
two years ago, they had severe overcommitments of their funding, which 
Congress admonished. And this year, the Committee's report has language 
``directing the Inspector General to levy sanctions in accordance with 
standard Inspector General audit resolution procedures, which include, 
but are not limited to, debarment of any grantee found to be in 
violation of AmeriCorps' program requirements, including using grant or 
program funds to lobby the Congress''. I can assure you they most 
certainly do lobby the Congress, because my amendment has been on the 
(negative) receiving end of this.
  One other point that the Chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee 
has shared: AmeriCorps competes with Armed Services recruiting. It 
shouldn't, the program on which it was modeled didn't: according to 
AmeriCorps' website, it is based upon ``Franklin D. Roosevelt's vision 
of the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) in 1933--a program created by 
President Roosevelt to provide relief for the unemployed during the 
Great Depression and to implement conservation projects. Over 3 million 
young men served until the program disbanded eight years later, when 
the United States entered World War II.''
  Sir, America has relied on the contributions of selfless volunteers 
for centuries, and the generosity of Americans will endure without a 
Federal program.
  In contrast, veterans are our Federal responsibility, and these two 
worthwhile programs provide needed help.


                       administrative provisions

       The Committee recommendation includes a number of 
     administrative provisions carried previous years: (1) 
     Language regarding qualified student loans eligible for 
     education awards; (2) language regarding the availability of 
     funds for the placement of volunteers with disabilities; (3) 
     language directing the Inspector General to levy sanctions in 
     accordance with standard Inspector General audit resolution 
     procedures, which include, but are not limited to, debarment 
     of any grantee found to be in violation of AmeriCorps' 
     program requirements, including using grant or program funds 
     to lobby the Congress; (4) language which requires the 
     Corporation to ensure that significant changes to program 
     requirements or policy are made only through public notice 
     and comment rulemaking; and

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I now yield to the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Kirk) for the purposes of a colloquy.
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today urging the conference, when it meets, to 
restore funding to the Javits gifted and talented program, which was 
unfortunately zeroed out in this bill. Javits reaches a critical group 
of diverse gifted children who are not high income. In fact, they are 
low income, but have extraordinary abilities.
  In my home State of Illinois, education for gifted kids has been cut 
completely out of the State's budget. In response I developed my own 
Tenth District laureates program as a way to challenge gifted students 
in my own district. The program has become a huge success, providing 
these students with behind-the-scenes access to top academic and 
cultural institutions in Chicago and surrounding suburbs. And these 
gifted children were motivated by this unique opportunity.
  I think we must fund gifted education on a national level to allow 
millions of children across the country to have the same types of 
challenges our Tenth District laureates enjoy. As the only federally 
funded national gifted program, grants provided through Javits have 
provided 125 State and local education districts since its inception in 
1989, reaching 2 million gifted students nationwide. Last year the 
program was funded at $11.1 million. It is a program particularly 
needed, given the low scores of Americans on standard international 
math and science tests.
  Positions in the field of science and engineering are growing at a 
rapid rate, yet the United States is facing a critical shortage in 
these areas. Just one demonstration program funded by this grant, the 
project creating urban excellence in the Bronx, resulted in a 20 
percent improvement in math and science scores for all students of the 
entire school.
  I think we must invest in the future of our children, and I urge the 
conferees to restore funding for the Javits gifted and talented 
program.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
for his comments. And I do agree that funding gifted and talented 
education in this country is an important mission. We must continue to 
provide support for our brightest students to succeed, especially in 
the areas of math and science.
  I hope the gentleman understands that with such a tough budget 
allocation, we did not have the resources to support everything we 
would have liked to have done, including some important and successful 
programs like the Javits program for gifted and talented students.
  I will work with the gentleman from Illinois to address this issue in 
conference.
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I want to thank 
my chairman.


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Hinchey

  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

  Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Hinchey:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. ___. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to carry out section 1860D-1(b)(4) of the Social 
     Security Act.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 23, 2005, 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) and the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Regula) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, Congress has been moving for the last few years to 
protect the identities, personal information, and privacy of Americans. 
Almost 2 years ago, the House pushed for a creation of the Federal Do 
Not Call Registry. Months later, however, Congress passed legislation 
that will put millions of people's personal information and privacy in 
jeopardy.
  The Medicare Modernization Act allows and encourages the Secretary of 
Health and Human Services to distribute the personal information of 
millions of Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries to private companies 
for marketing purposes. In light of the number of significant breaches 
of personal information recently and the widespread reports of identity 
theft, this amendment would prevent the government from distributing 
the personal information of millions of Americans to the many companies 
that may be providing prescription drug plans when the so-called 
Medicaid Modernization Act goes into effect. If personal Medicare 
information is given to these providers, our constituents will be 
subjected to calls from any of the prescription drug plan providers. If 
we have learned anything from telemarketers, it is that our senior 
citizens will be harassed at home by plan providers calling and sending 
direct mail.

[[Page 14217]]

  Personal privacy is a nonpartisan issue. During the 108th Congress, 
over 400 Members voted in favor of creating the Do Not Call Registry. 
Millions of Americans have had their identity stolen, no matter their 
political affiliation. We can stop the spread of this personal 
information being carelessly distributed.
  I urge support of the gentleman from Oregon's (Mr. DeFazio) 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Obviously this is a Committee on Ways and Means and Committee on 
Energy and Commerce issue. But let me point out that this amendment 
will prevent seniors from getting essential coverage information, and 
that is important. They want to know what their coverage is. They want 
to know what the coverage will be under the new medical services. This 
enrollment starts in less than 5 months, and I think this would be a 
poor time to take away the ability to give seniors information about 
the new drug benefit. We have a lot of, a considerable amount of money 
in this bill to provide the necessary employees to disseminate 
information, take phone calls from seniors who want to find out about 
the Medicare Modernization Act, and to deprive the CMS of the ability 
to meet this need would be a serious problem for seniors.
  Let us give them every chance to call and to find out about the new 
Medicare Modernization Act. Let us not in any way limit the 
availability of information and the access that seniors should have to 
information about this possible benefit.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I appreciate the sentiments expressed by the gentleman from Ohio, my 
good friend, and I understand that he is interested in the best 
interests of the people in this country, particularly the Medicare and 
Medicaid beneficiaries.
  But the fact of the matter is we have experience in this regard. We 
have the Federal Employees Health Benefits plan. None of the 
information about who they are, where they are located, what their 
telephone numbers may be, is distributed to anyone so that they may be 
contacted under the provisions of the Federal Employees Health Benefits 
plan. So why, under this new so-called Medicare Modernization Act, are 
we communicating that kind of information indiscriminately to a whole 
host of companies that are now going to besiege senior citizens with 
phone calls that they are not going to welcome?
  We have ways to communicate whatever information we want to to the 
people who may be the beneficiaries under this program, and they can do 
that through the existing Medicare and Medicaid programs very simply. 
There is no reason whatsoever to give this information out 
indiscriminately so that these people can be harassed.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I just want to point out to my colleagues that are listening to this 
debate that the senior organizations want beneficiaries to have access 
to the new drug benefit. This is why the AARP, the Seniors Coalition, 
the National Coalition for Women with Heart Disease, the National 
Kidney Cancer Association, the National Association of Manufacturers, 
the National Chamber of Commerce, and many others oppose this 
amendment. I would think that Members would take that into 
consideration because these cover a broad spectrum of opinions on this 
and they universally agree that this is a bad amendment.
  For this reason I urge Members to vote against it when we have the 
opportunity to do so.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I have been in the highway conference, and I am sorry I was not here 
earlier, but I understand the chairman may have represented that AARP 
is opposed. They had bad information yesterday, provided perhaps by 
majority staff. They are now neutral on this amendment. I have had a 
conversation with them today. They now understand the amendment goes to 
the issues of privacy. It does not undermine the outreach program. All 
it says is we will not give out personal private information. We will 
not waive the ``Do Not Call'' list for America's seniors and have them 
solicited by telemarketers at dinner after they have indicated they do 
not want any telemarketers calling them. That is all we are talking 
about here. We are saying one small section buried in this huge bill, 
that no Member here wants to take credit for, that says we are taking 
away the privacy of seniors to profit private insurance companies and 
make it easier for them.
  Private insurance companies have vast resources. They can find these 
seniors in other ways. The outreach can be done without violating their 
privacy. That is what we are talking about here, plain and simple: the 
privacy of America's most vulnerable. Many seniors are aged. They are 
not well. They are at risk in this whole process, and they do not want 
those telemarketing phone calls.
  So if we continue with this program, the administration is going to 
waive those rights, those protections for our seniors, plain and 
simple. This amendment only restricts the waivers of privacy and an 
incredible extension of waiving all privacy laws relating to people on 
Medicare or Medicaid and giving discretion to the Secretary of Health 
and Human Services to turn over that data as he sees fit, no matter 
what the will of the seniors is.
  Let the seniors make the choice, not the Secretary of Health and 
Human Services, not the private insurance companies. They should not be 
telemarketed. This is plain and simple, something that I do not believe 
a majority of this House knew was in that bill when it was passed.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, there is no privacy concern because no health 
information is shared. No personal health information can be disclosed 
to plan sponsors, period, and all plans are covered under the Federal 
privacy rule, HIPAA, that restricts the use and disclosure of personal 
health information. Furthermore, plans are only allowed to use the 
contact information for marketing Medicare prescription drug plans and 
facilitating beneficiary enrollment. They cannot use the contact 
information for any other purpose.
  For all these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote against this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) 
will be postponed.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Engel

  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Engel:
       Page 108, after line 21, insert the following section:
       Sec. 5__. With respect to amounts appropriated for any of 
     the fiscal years 2000 through 2005 for carrying out part A or 
     B of title XXVI of the Public Health Service Act, amounts 
     that have been provided as grants under such parts and that 
     lapse at the end of fiscal year 2005 if unexpended by the 
     grantees are hereby made available through the end of fiscal 
     year 2006.

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.

[[Page 14218]]

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 23, 2005, 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I am offering this amendment and I will withdraw it because of a 
scoring problem, but I did want to bring this to the committee's 
attention. Today over 1 million individuals in the United States are 
infected with HIV, including about 406,000 with AIDS. New York City is 
one of the national epicenters of the HIV/AIDS epidemic, with over 
110,000 people infected with HIV. Over 30 percent of those infected in 
New York City are women, and 75 percent are from minority groups. These 
devastating numbers are ones that my constituents are all too familiar 
with.
  Like many of our colleagues, I was deeply disappointed that the 
critical AIDS drug assistance programs, known as ADAPs, only received a 
$10 million increase in this year's Labor-HHS appropriations bill. 
There is no question of the need for ADAPs. They have become a 
cornerstone of the Ryan White CARE Act since advances in drug 
treatments like antiretroviral therapies have had a profound effect on 
extending the quality and length of life of those infected with HIV/
AIDS.

                              {time}  1515

  Appropriate and consistent treatment results in near complete 
suppression of HIV as well as preventing the emergence of drug 
resistance. Yes, it is expensive, but every life saved is worth it.
  The President last year authorized a $20 million one-time emergency 
supplement to the ADAP program that will expire this September. Even 
with this emergency measure, as of May 12 of this year, almost 1,900 
individuals were on ADAP waiting lists in 10 States. Nearly every ADAP 
State has already had to make incredibly tough choices on cost 
containment measures, such as closed enrollment, reduced formular-
ities, per capita expenditure limits, lowered income eligibility, 
waiting lists, and increased client cost-sharing. Nine States even 
require individuals applying for ADAP to demonstrate HIV/AIDS advanced 
disease progression, at which point drug assistance has only a limited 
benefit.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, it has come to my attention that many States have 
Ryan White CARE Act funds appropriated to them in previous legislative 
years that are at risk for expiration. My amendment simply grants a 1-
year extension to States to use expiring, unexpended CARE Act funds, 
rather than allowing the funds to return to the Treasury. I do not 
understand why this was scored the way it was, and I intend to fight 
for a change.
  The unspent funds typically result in delays in notice of grant 
awards from the Federal Government, timing issues relating to 
subcontracting of services, payroll savings due to State hiring delays 
or freezes, expenditure of other grant funds for similar services, or 
other unanticipated fluctuations in spending at the State level.
  This Congress, we will reauthorize and continue to improve the Ryan 
White CARE Act, which will likely address some of these financing 
issues.
  In the meantime, it is unfortunate that CBO scored my amendment as a 
new appropriation, as preserving these expiring, previously 
appropriated funds would have given States a new window of opportunity 
to help more people.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member seek time in opposition?


                             Point of Order

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes 
legislation in an appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 
of Rule XXI, which states in part: ``An amendment to a general 
appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''
  This amendment addresses funds in other acts.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to speak on the point of order?
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from New York. It is my 
understanding the gentleman is going to withdraw the amendment.
  Mr. ENGEL. Yes.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio may not yield on a point of 
order.
  The Chair will recognize the gentleman from New York on the point of 
order. Does the gentleman seek to speak on the point of order?
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is again reserved.
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) has 2 minutes remaining on 
his amendment.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished 
gentleman for yielding me this time. I would like to compliment him on 
a very thoughtful amendment.
  I would hope, as this idea makes its way through conference, we can 
be constructive as the reutilization of unexpended Ryan White CARE Act 
funds will be a very great need to our various States.
  In 1988, 1989 when the Ryan White CARE Act was initially authorized, 
Texas was number 13 on the list of HIV-infected persons. We are still 
facing the devastation of HIV/AIDS, and we realize that the number one 
killer of African American women from 25 to 44 is HIV. In addition, we 
have seen it increasing in other populations, Hispanics and Asians.
  So for the sake of States that have not yet expended these dollars, 
this is a very important amendment. In particular, in my community, the 
Donald Watkins Foundation, Brentwood, St. John's, Montrose Clinic, 
Montrose Counseling, and the St. Thomas Clinic would benefit from these 
dollars. But I hope we will find a way to work through with the 
gentleman, and I thank him very much for a very thoughtful amendment. 
We need these unexpended funds, and we need them now.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, for the balance of my time I would like my 
friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the chairman of the 
subcommittee, to engage me in a brief colloquy.
  Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned before, I intend to withdraw this 
amendment, but I hope this is an issue with which we can work as this 
bill moves through the process. Ryan White funds and the AIDS Drug 
Assistance Programs provide critical assistance to our communities and 
our States, and they need further flexibility to expend expiring Ryan 
White CARE Act funds. I would ask the chairman if he would work with me 
in this regard.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ENGEL. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, in response to the gentleman's comments, I 
would point out that we do have a modest increase in this program, and 
we will be sensitive to the gentleman's concerns in conference as we 
try to balance out all of the challenges that we have in this bill in 
terms of the resources available.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his attention.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker I rise today to speak in 
support of Mr. Engel's amendment to the H.R. 3010, the Labor HHS 
Appropriations bill. Mr. Engel's amendment would grant states an 
extension to use their expiring, unexpended Ryan White CARE Act funds, 
appropriated in previous years, through fiscal year 2006. The amendment 
would therefore prohibit expiring funds from being returned to the 
Treasury before the end of FY06. Reports indicate that State AIDS 
directors unanimously agree that expiring unexpended funds must be put 
back into the CARE Act, rather than being returned to the Treasury as 
is currently the case.
  While administering Ryan White Care Act funds, States and Eligible 
Metropolitan Areas periodically finish fiscal years with small amounts 
of unspent funds. These amounts, typically ranging from five or ten 
percent of overall awards, may be requested in the subsequent fiscal 
year to provide services during

[[Page 14219]]

that fiscal year. The unspent funds typically result from delays in 
notice of grant awards from the Federal government, timing issues 
related to subcontracting of services, payroll savings due to State 
hiring delays or freezes, expenditure of other grant funds for similar 
services, or other unanticipated fluctuations in spending at the State 
level. Occasionally, the amount of unexpended funds reaches beyond ten 
percent of a grantee's overall award for reasons specific to the 
individual jurisdiction.
  Currently, the FY06 Appropriations bill provides $2.1 billion for 
Ryan White AIDS programs, which is $10 million (2 percent) more than 
the current level but equal to the administration's request. This total 
includes $610 million for the emergency assistance program--which 
provides grants to metropolitan areas with very high numbers of AIDS 
cases--$1.1 billion for comprehensive-care programs, $196 million for 
the early-intervention program, and $73 million for the Pediatric HIV/
AIDS program.
  In closing, it is important for me to say a few words about Ryan 
White. As many of you know, as a result of his infection, Ryan White 
was expelled from his school, on the account of being a `health risk' 
to other students. This shameful behaviour on behalf of the school 
board, as well as multiple death threats to him and his family, 
required the White family to move to Cicero, Indiana. Having found 
relative peace in Cicero, Ryan White began a nationwide campign to help 
educate communities about HIV/AIDS. His inscesant work landed him in 
Washington, DC to testify before the President's Commission on AIDS. 
His words, works, and wills, were enshrined in The Ryan White CARE 
(Comprehensive AIDS Resource Emergency) Act, signed 4 months after his 
death (April 8, 1990).
  This is a very important issue, and I urge my colleagues to support 
the Engel amendment.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I take this time at the end of the bill to explain why 
I am going to vote against the bill. I am speaking as one Member of the 
House; I am not speaking as ranking Democrat on the subcommittee or 
committee. I simply wanted people to know why I am going to oppose this 
bill; and I want to, at the same time, explain my motion to recommit.
  The good thing about this bill is that we repaired most of the damage 
to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Most, but not all. But let 
us understand, this bill, in my view, is still an assault on the 
country's future. This bill is just the start of cuts planned over a 5-
year period to implement the Republican budget resolution that is 
placing the importance of $140,000 tax cuts for those making $1 million 
a year ahead of our long-term investments in education of our children, 
the health care of our people, and the security of American workers.
  This is the most important bill that we will consider this year in 
terms of meeting the needs of the average American family and in 
building the long-term strength of our society. More than any other, it 
is the bill where we care for our neighbors. It is the bill that 
determines how well we meet our obligations to those in society who 
have not been among the most fortunate. This bill fails to meet those 
tests in some dramatic ways, and I would like to point out just a few 
of them.
  Because of the fact that this House is deciding that large tax cuts 
for very well-off people are more important than anything else, this 
bill, on the worker protection front, guts the program that we rely on 
to try to protect our workers from having to compete against child and 
slave labor. It cuts that program by 87 percent, this at a time when 
the administration is asking that we pass new trade legislation with 
CAFTA.
  Seven and a half million Americans are out of work, but this bill 
cuts the employment service by $116 million. Forty-five million 
Americans are without health insurance, but this eliminates community 
access programs that help people get that health care. This bill cuts 
by 84 percent the funding for training grants for health care 
professionals. It cuts rural health programs by 41 percent.
  The number of grants at NIH for research in all kinds of diseases 
will be cut by 500 from just 2 years ago. The community services block 
grant, the program where the poorest people in this country turn when 
they have nowhere else to go, is cut by half in this bill, and the No 
Child Left Behind bill is cut by some $800 million below last year. Mr. 
Chairman, 1.7 million fewer disadvantaged children will receive care 
under after-school programs, and 56,000 fewer teachers will get high-
quality training. This bill provides only half of the increase promised 
by the Republican majority for the maximum Pell grant.
  So for all of those reasons, I am going to offer a straight motion to 
recommit so that this bill can go back to committee, so that these 
items can be corrected, with one addition. As we said earlier, we found 
out today that our efforts to try to increase funding for veterans 
health care for the last 6 months were absolutely necessary, even 
though we had been told by the VA that they had more than enough money 
for veterans health care.
  We want this bill to go back to the committee so that the committee 
can also do what it should have done in the first place, which is to 
add $1 billion on an emergency basis to take care of the shortfall in 
VA health care that the White House and OMB have been hiding from the 
American people and hiding from veterans for months.
  So I will personally urge a vote for my motion to recommit; and when 
the vote on final passage comes, I will vote against it, because this 
bill just does not measure up to our national obligations.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will 
now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were 
postponed in the following order:
  Amendment No. 14 offered by Mr. Hayworth of Arizona; amendment 
offered by Mr. Van Hollen of Maryland; amendment No. 11 offered by Mr. 
Paul of Texas; amendment offered by Ms. DeLauro of Connecticut; and 
amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Hinchey of New York.
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Hayworth

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 146, 
noes 256, not voting 31, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 315]

                               AYES--146

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Blackburn
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boren
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Cantor
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Kolbe
     Latham
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter

[[Page 14220]]


     McCrery
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Musgrave
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Otter
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pomeroy
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)

                               NOES--256

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Cannon
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Chandler
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hastings (FL)
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Simmons
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--31

     Andrews
     Baca
     Becerra
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Boyd
     Camp
     Capito
     Clay
     Davis, Tom
     Delahunt
     Fattah
     Gohmert
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Harris
     Jones (NC)
     LaTourette
     Lewis (GA)
     Meeks (NY)
     Nunes
     Reyes
     Rogers (AL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ryan (OH)
     Slaughter
     Taylor (MS)
     Udall (NM)
     Watson
     Wilson (NM)

                              {time}  1549

  Ms. GRANGER, Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan, Ms. CORRINE BROWN of 
Florida, and Messrs. MARSHALL, GONZALEZ, BOEHLERT and GRAVES changed 
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. EVERETT, BONNER, GILCHREST, MARCHANT, RYAN of Wisconsin and 
Mrs. NORTHUP changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


   Announcement of Intention to Permit 5- Minute Voting on Motion to 
                                Recommit

  (Mr. DeLAY asked and was given permission to speak out of order.)
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to put all Members on notice 
that as soon as the Committee rises, I will seek an order of the House 
to permit 5-minute voting on any motion to recommit.
  I mention this now so that Members can have as much notice as 
possible.


                      Announcement By the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, 5-minute voting in the Committee of 
the Whole will resume.
  There was no objection.


                  Amendment Offered by Mr. Van Hollen

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van 
Hollen) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 224, 
noes 178, not voting 31, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 316]

                               AYES--224

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass
     Bean
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Foley
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Northup
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Otter
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Renzi
     Rogers (MI)
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weller
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--178

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Beauprez
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Carter
     Castle
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cox
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann

[[Page 14221]]


     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Matheson
     McCaul (TX)
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Reynolds
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shuster
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--31

     Andrews
     Baca
     Becerra
     Bilirakis
     Boozman
     Boyd
     Camp
     Capito
     Clay
     Davis, Tom
     Delahunt
     Fattah
     Gohmert
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Harris
     Jones (NC)
     LaTourette
     Lewis (GA)
     Meeks (NY)
     Nunes
     Reyes
     Rogers (AL)
     Ryan (OH)
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Taylor (MS)
     Thomas
     Udall (NM)
     Watson
     Wilson (NM)


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised that 2 minutes 
remain in the vote.

                              {time}  1557

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                  Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Paul

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 97, 
noes 304, not voting 32, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 317]

                                AYES--97

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Biggert
     Blackburn
     Brady (TX)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burton (IN)
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Cole (OK)
     Cox
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Drake
     Duncan
     Everett
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hart
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hinchey
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKinney
     McMorris
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Norwood
     Otter
     Paul
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Upton
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wexler

                               NOES--304

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Burgess
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Cantor
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chandler
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Granger
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hall
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Ney
     Northup
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickering
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (KY)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--32

     Andrews
     Baca
     Becerra
     Bilirakis
     Boozman
     Boyd
     Camp
     Capito
     Clay
     Davis, Tom
     Delahunt
     Fattah
     Gohmert
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Harris
     Jones (NC)
     LaTourette
     Lewis (GA)
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Nunes
     Peterson (PA)
     Reyes
     Rogers (AL)
     Ryan (OH)
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Taylor (MS)
     Udall (NM)
     Watson
     Wilson (NM)


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there are 2 
minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1604

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. DeLauro

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. 
DeLauro) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.

[[Page 14222]]

  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 165, 
noes 234, not voting 34, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 318]

                               AYES--165

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Chandler
     Cleaver
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Smith (WA)
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Tierney
     Udall (CO)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu

                               NOES--234

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

                             NOT VOTING--34

     Andrews
     Baca
     Becerra
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Boyd
     Camp
     Capito
     Clay
     Costa
     Davis, Tom
     Delahunt
     Fattah
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Harris
     Jefferson
     Jones (NC)
     LaTourette
     Lewis (GA)
     Meeks (NY)
     Nunes
     Reyes
     Rogers (AL)
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Udall (NM)
     Watson
     Wilson (NM)


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there are 2 
minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1610

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Hinchey

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 192, 
noes 210, not voting 31, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 319]

                               AYES--192

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

                               NOES--210

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Carter
     Castle
     Chocola
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cox

[[Page 14223]]


     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Oxley
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Towns
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--31

     Andrews
     Baca
     Becerra
     Berman
     Bilirakis
     Boozman
     Boyd
     Camp
     Capito
     Davis, Tom
     Delahunt
     Fattah
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Harris
     Jones (NC)
     LaTourette
     Lewis (GA)
     Meeks (NY)
     Nunes
     Reyes
     Rogers (AL)
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Udall (NM)
     Watson
     Wilson (NM)


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised 2 minutes remain 
in this vote.

                              {time}  1618

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, due to a previous and unavoidable 
appointment, I was unable to vote on several amendments to H.R. 3010, 
the FY 2006 Labor, Health and Human Services, Education Appropriations 
Act. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall votes 
numbered 315, 316 and 317, and ``no'' on rollcall votes numbered 318 
and 319.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read the last three lines of the bill.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       This Act may be cited as the ``Departments of Labor, Health 
     and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 2006''.

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
proposals that seek to prohibit the use of funds in the bill to 
distribute the personal information of Medicare and Medicaid 
beneficiaries to private companies for marketing purposes. The 
Americans who receive Medicare and Medicaid benefits already suffer 
from ailments that debilitate and weaken them from a health standpoint. 
This legislation should not be permitted to debilitate them from a 
fiscal standpoint either.
  According to data, more people were covered by Medicare and Medicaid 
in 2003 than in 2002, while the percentage and number of people covered 
by their employers fell from 61.3 percent--175.3 million people--to 
60.4 percent--174 million people. Mr. Chairman, this is a lot of people 
whose personal information could be jeopardized by the haphazard 
distribution to the marketing community.
  The situation with Choicepoint and others should provide more than 
adequate proof that information can be used to harm people and that it 
can be done rapidly. Allowing funds to facilitate the free 
dissemination of personal information by the Federal Government only 
exacerbates the vulnerable nature of personal information databases. 
The Medicaid and Medicare databases were not created for the purpose of 
business development; therefore, the information contained in these 
databases should be protected unless consent is obtained from the 
person described therein.
  For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I support the gentleman's amendment.
  Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, the bill would decrease 
funding for disadvantaged children in low income schools by $115.2 
million from FY 2005 levels. The bill also included $258.5 million less 
for the Bureau of Health Professions in the Health Resources and 
Services Administration that administers important health professions 
training, scholarship, and loan repayment programs, including programs 
encouraging diversity in the health workforce. The legislation included 
$84.6 million less for rural health programs than was provided in FY 
2005. Because I believe this bill would have inadequately funded 
important education and health programs, I would have voted against the 
legislation.
  Mr. MOORE of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the 
funding levels in H.R. 3010, the FY 2006 Labor-HHS-Education 
Appropriations Act, for the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, the 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and Title VII 
Health Professionals programs.
  I voted for NCLB because I believe in increased accountability for 
our nation's public schools to ensure that the promise of a high-
quality public education can be realized for each student in our 
nation. Before the vote on NCLB, I heard reservations from local 
educators and my constituents that NCLB not become another unfunded 
mandate like IDEA for special education. When Congress approved and the 
President signed NCLB, however, I believed that the federal government 
would provide the promised funding to enact these reforms.
  Since 2002, Congress and the Administration have not fully funded 
NCLB. In H.R. 3010, Congress and the Administration cut NCLB overall 
funding by $806 million (3.3 percent) below the current level. Under 
this bill, the NCLB funding shortfall will be $13.2 billion for FY 2006 
and over $40 billion since the law's enactment.
  In addition, H.R. 3010 cuts the $603 million increase the 
Administration proposed for Title I to help low-income children improve 
their reading and math skills to only an $100 million increase. The 
Administration's request was already inadequate, but these additional 
cuts put Title I funding $9.9 billion under what is promised under NCLB 
for FY 2006.
  Congress and the Administration have not fully funded IDEA, a program 
that helps local schools and school districts pay for the costs of 
providing educational services to special needs children that are 
mandated by federal law. The federal government has never provided 40 
percent of the costs it initially promised when it enacted this 
important law. H.R. 3010 provides $3.9 billion less than Congress 
promised in the IDEA Improvement Act of 2004. In addition, this bill 
even cuts the $508 million increase proposed by the Administration to 
only $150 million. Under this bill, the federal share of special 
education costs will actually drop from 18.6 percent to 18.1 percent 
next year.
  In the 2004-2005 school year, 10 states and 7,194 school districts 
saw cuts in Title I funding, including my state of Kansas. For the 
2005-2006 school year, Kansas along with nine other states will again 
receive less Title I funding. For my home state of Kansas, the combined 
funding shortfall for NCLB and IDEA for FY 2006 is $240 million, which 
is shifting the burden of meeting these new requirements back to Kansas 
taxpayers. With the deadline of expanding assessment to grades 3 
through 8 scheduled for the 2005-2006 school year and more districts 
being identified under Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), Congress and the 
Administration are not keeping pace with increasing demands at the 
local level.
  The federal government must provide our school with the resources and 
tools necessary to help them meet the new standards imposed by NCLB. It 
is simply a matter of fairness and common sense. This is why I have 
introduced H.R. 2694, the Keeping our Promises to America's Children 
(KPAC) Act of 2005. This legislation would suspend implementation of 
NCLB until the law is fully funded.
  I would also like to express my concerns about the cuts to Title VII 
Health Professions programs included in H.R. 3010. The elimination of 
the programs will have an immediate impact on the training and 
recruitment of health professions students and the educational 
opportunities developed and supported by Title VII.
  Title VII programs are unique in that they are the only federal 
investment in interdisciplinary training, which is vitally important, 
as care is often provided in several different settings.

[[Page 14224]]

  The programs are also designed to enhance minority representation in 
the health care workforce and reduce shortages of health professionals 
in underserved areas, such as inner cities and the many rural regions 
throughout the country. Community Health Centers and the National 
Health Service Corps, for example, rely on graduates of Title VII 
programs to fill their ranks.
  Congress talks a lot about values. I think a true measure of values 
is not what people say, but where Congress decides to spend our money 
or make budget cuts. Funding for these important programs must be 
restored in the final FY 2006 Labor-HHS bill. These cuts account for 
almost $6 million in Kansas and $5 million for the K.U. Medical Center.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, today we will vote 
on H.R. 3010, the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education bill 
for fiscal year 2006. On behalf of the educators, administrators and 
students in Dallas, Texas, I would like to express my strong opposition 
to the education appropriations outlined in this measure. The 
inadequate overall funding in H.R. 3010 completely undermines the 
public prioritization of education as a paramount concern.
  Make no mistake--these education cuts come as no surprise. Beginning 
with the passage of the House budget resolution for FY 2006, my 
Republican colleagues have shown their true intentions with regard to 
education funding. As passed, the budget resolution provides $56 
billion in discretionary funding for the Department of Education. This 
is a $530 million, or 0.9 percent decrease over the current fiscal year 
(FY 2005). This is the first time in over a decade that total education 
funding has been cut.
  Although our children have no legislative voice, they represent our 
Nation's future and deserve our investment in their education today. As 
it stands, H.R. 3010 would cut funding for reading tours, teacher 
quality initiatives, bilingual instruction, class size reduction, 
school modernization, violence prevention initiatives, afterschool 
services and many other vital programs.
  Specifically, the House Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations bill would 
cut. No Child Left Behind by $806 million (3.3 percent) below the 
current level. Under this bill, the NCLB funding shortfall will be 
$13.2 billion next year and over $40 billion since enactment. The bill 
also cuts the $603 million increase the Administration proposed for 
Title I to help low-income children improve their reading and math 
skills to only $100 million. The Administration's request was already 
inadequate. However, under this bill, Title I funding will be $9.9 
billion below NCLB's funding promise for FY 2006.
  The bill freezes After School Centers, virtually for the fourth year 
in a row at $991 million even though only 38 percent of all after 
school applications nationwide could be funded last year. We are 
turning away children even though more than 14 million kids are 
unsupervised after school each day.
  It slashes Education Technology by $196 million (39.5 percent) on top 
of a $196 million cut last year. One in four states have no other 
dedicated technology funds to track NCLB student achievement data, 
improve teachers' use of technology, and close the achievement gap 
through online learning.
  It eliminates Comprehensive School Reform grants to 1,000 high-
poverty schools by eliminating the program. Rigorous independent 
evaluations have shown that comprehensive school reform models such as 
Success for All, America's Choice, High Schools That Work, First Things 
First, and Talent Development are making a significant difference in 
helping schools implement integrated, schoolwide reform strategies. 
This bill turns its back on these schools.
  The bill cuts investments in teachers. It freezes the main NCLB 
program to put a qualified teacher in every classroom--Teacher Quality 
State Grants--at $2.9 billion for the 3rd consecutive year of a freeze 
or cut. The bill denies 80 percent of the Administration's $500 million 
request to provide an incentive for the best teachers to teach in the 
most challenging high-poverty schools. It cuts funds requested for math 
and science teachers by $79 million (29 percent). It even cuts teacher 
training in American history by $69 million (58 percent).
  It freezes Impact Aid payments to 1,300 school districts for over 1 
million military and other Federally-connected children, funding Impact 
Aid at approximately 35 percent below the maximum payments authorized 
for FY 2006. The bill also freezes flexible innovative education 
grants, English language training, civic education, State assessments, 
and rural education. Some of these programs have been frozen for four 
years in a row.
  Although the Republican Majority promised low-income students a $100 
increase in the maximum Pell Grant in the 2006 Budget Resolution, this 
bill provides only half that. The $50 increase would offset only 2 
percent of the additional $2,300 in four-year public college costs 
since 2001.
  If enacted, H.R. 3010 would be a grave disservice to our children and 
the future of our Nation. For these reasons and more, I oppose the 
unsatisfactory education funding levels in this appropriations bill.
  Unfortunately, underfunded education initiatives is not the only 
problem with this bill. The bill disinvests in job training and help 
for the unemployed--cutting these programs by $346 million below the 
current level while 7.6 million Americans remain out of work.
  Finally, this legislation lacks appropriate funding levels for in the 
human services area, the Committee cuts in half the Community Services 
Block Grant, a program aimed at helping the poorest people in our 
communities who often have no other place to turn. This is an 
improvement over the President's plan to abolish the program entirely, 
but it still leaves more than 1,000 local community services agencies 
seriously short of resources to assist low-income people. The purpose 
of this block grant is to provide flexible funds to meet whatever a 
local community considers their most important needs, whether it be for 
job training, emergency food aid, programs for low-income seniors, or 
home weatherization.
  The bill also cuts the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program 
(LIHEAP) by almost $200 million--even though there's no reason to 
expect that we won't have another winter of sky-high heating oil and 
natural gas prices. Over the past four years, the average cost of 
heating a home with oil has almost doubled, and the share of that cost 
covered by the average LIHEAP grant has fallen by half, from 49 percent 
to 25 percent.
  Clearly, I cannot support this bill as written. In its current form, 
this legislation is nothing less than an insult to the American people. 
It inadequately and irresponsibly allocates money to Labor, Health and 
Human Services, and Education. However, should this bill return from 
the Senate with the appropriate funding levels, I will gladly support 
it. I sincerely hope we can work out the problems and pass a 
responsible bill that responds to the needs of our children, workers, 
and elderly citizens.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to 
the Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations bill. I say reluctant because as 
a member of the Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Subcommittee I have 
worked closely with the other members of the subcommittee during our 
budget oversight hearings and especially with our chairman, Ralph 
Regula, to highlight programs of importance to my constituents. 
Chairman Regula and the staff of the subcommittee have been extremely 
patient with my many requests, and Chairman Regula has been extremely 
generous, within his tight budget allocation, in trying to make 
progress on several important priorities of mine.
  The first of those priorities is the national media campaign to fight 
underage drinking, which is currently underway by the Ad Council. 
Although the subcommittee has provided project funds for this important 
effort in the past, for the first time, the chairman has included this 
funding as a programmatic priority in the office of the Secretary of 
Health and Human Services. Representative Frank Wolf and I were joined 
by 44 of our colleagues in requesting the funds to carry out a 
multimedia campaign directed at parents, and I am grateful to Chairman 
Regula, who understands the terrible impact of underage drinking on our 
youth and the importance of an effective national media campaign to 
address it.
  In addition, Chairman Regula has provided increases in two areas to 
help infants and their families. First, CDC--the Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention--conducts a national program for education and 
prevention of birth defects by encouraging women of child-bearing age 
to take the recommended amount of folic acid daily. Based on this 
effort, as well as the fortification of U.S. grain products with folic 
acid, the rate of neural tube defects has decreased by 26 percent over 
7 years, and the committee has continued to provide incremental 
increases to this important CDC program. Second, the committee has 
increased funds for the Health Resources and Services Administration's 
newborn screening program for early identification of infants affected 
by certain genetic, metabolic, hormonal and or functional conditions 
for which there are effective treatment or intervention. In the report, 
HRSA is encouraged to use these new funds for the development of 
parental and provider education material and programs to promote the 
importance of newborn screening.
  I appreciate Chairman Regula's generosity in providing funds for 
these priorities. He truly understands that the Labor-HHS-Education

[[Page 14225]]

Appropriations bill is the people's bill. It makes it doubly difficult 
for me to cast a vote in opposition to the bill because I know he has 
worked hard to distribute the limited resources he has been given in a 
fair and conscientious way. My ``no'' vote on this bill should 
therefore in no way be seen as a lack of respect or lack of 
appreciation for Ralph Regula and his efforts on behalf of those who 
depend on the resources provided in this bill.
  However, this bill, more than any other appropriations bill we act 
on, by providing the funds for health and education programs of 
importance to our constituents, I goes to the heart of what we 
Democrats in the House stand for and for what I stand for as a Member 
of Congress representing the people and communities of the 34th 
District of California. These programs are just too important, and the 
cuts and terminations in this bill are just too severe, for me to vote 
for this bill at this time.
  I will continue to work with Chairman Regula, Ranking Member David 
Obey, and the other members of our subcommittee as we conference the 
bill with the Senate, with the hope that we can identify additional 
funds and make the improvements to this bill that will make it one of 
which we can all be proud and which we can all support.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my concern that funding 
for Title VII programs have been cut in this bill. VII programs provide 
direct financial support for healthcare workforce development and 
education. It is imperative to provide adequate funding so that well-
trained health care providers can continue to meet the needs of the 
American people.
  The house showed great leadership last year by providing $300 million 
in funding, and I believe that any decrease could hamper the programs' 
ability to train health professionals to care for the neediest 
populations.
  The President's budget proposes, for the fifth year in a row, to 
eliminate many of the programs that educate and train a variety of 
health care providers, such as pharmacists, dentists and pediatricians.
  For a number of years now, I have organized Members to express 
support for this important program, and urged the Appropriators to 
fully fund it in the Labor-Health and Human Services-Education bill. 
For the first time this year, the House has failed to restore this 
funding.
  These massive cuts will eliminate key programs that make it possible 
for our health professions schools to develop training infrastructures 
and high quality education.
  The Title VII Health Professions programs are also the only federal 
programs designed to train providers in interdisciplinary settings to 
respond to the needs of special and underserved populations.
  The programs have shown to increase minority representation in the 
health care workforce, which I believe is absolutely essential for our 
health system.
  At a time when the American people have come to rely on their health 
care providers more than ever, eliminating this resource would be 
devastating to the country's neediest communities.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to prohibit any 
funds from being spent by the Department of Education in violation of 
current federal law.
  According to existing federal law, any state providing illegal aliens 
in-state tuition discounts must provide these discounts to all 
students, regardless of state of residence. Section 505 of the Illegal 
Immigration Reform and Responsibility Act of 1996 clearly states that:
  ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an alien who is not 
lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible on the 
basis of residence within a State (or a political subdivision) for any 
postsecondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the 
United States is eligible for such a benefit (in no less an amount, 
duration, and scope) without regard to whether the citizen or national 
is such a resident.''
  My amendment simply seeks to enforce existing law.
  Not only is providing in-state tuition to illegal aliens against the 
law, it would also place a huge financial burden on our society. The 
costs to states of providing in-state tuition to illegal aliens 
throughout the U.S. help illustrate the high cost of these measures. 
Approximately 126,000 illegal aliens under 21 were enrolled in college 
in the year 2000. At non-resident tuition rates, they would pay between 
$503 million and $655 million annually. If they were made eligible for 
in-state tuition discounts, they would pay only $155 million to $201 
million--leaving taxpayers to make up the difference of $349 million to 
$454 million. Given the fiscal constraints our nation is currently 
under, no good reason exists to spend additional money to give tuition 
discounts to illegal aliens.
  As public universities across the country increasingly limit 
enrollment increasing the intake of illegal aliens into these schools 
will mean fewer opportunities and less aid for United States citizens 
and legal immigrants. This will also result in greater expense to the 
state taxpayers. Out-of-state tuition is typically two to three-and-a-
half times higher than in-state tuition. The revenue lost as a result 
of providing in-state tuition to illegal aliens would have to be paid 
for by someone.
  Finally, giving special treatment to illegal aliens is fundamentally 
unjust to legal immigrants who have invested a great deal to comply 
with our immigration laws or obtain legal citizenship. We should not 
reward those who have broken our immigration laws with the same 
benefits as those who have made an effort to respect the law. This 
measure is a fundamentally unjust and expensive attempt to integrate 
illegal aliens into our state and federally funded higher education 
systems.
  Please join me in supporting this amendment to enforce existing law 
and avoid rewarding law-breakers.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, the fiscal year 2006 Labor, Health and 
Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies appropriations bill is 
one of the most important bills for shaping our domestic priorities. 
Unfortunately the bill before this Congress imposes draconian cuts to 
the essential services that Americans rely on everyday.
  The $1.2 billion cuts spread throughout these agencies will be 
devastating to the future of our Nation. I am astonished to see that 
the Department of Education will see its smallest increase in a decade, 
which comes at a time when school districts across the Nation are 
struggling to come up with adequate funding to address the unfunded 
mandates of President Bush's No Child Left Behind. This is the wrong 
kind of message to be sending to our children and teachers.
  The one positive point during this debate was the passage of the 
amendment to restore the $100 million cut to the Corporation for Public 
Broadcasting (CPB). This vote signaled the bipartisan support that can 
be rallied to overrule the ideologically driven agenda of some in 
Congress. Millions of people across the country contacted Congress this 
week in support of CPB and the overwhelming vote in favor of the 
amendment to restore funding (284-140, 87 Republican and every Democrat 
in support) is an indication of the more reasonable approach the 
country expects from Congress.
  Unfortunately, this bill eliminates 48 programs and slashes funding 
for critical programs across the country. I will not support a bill 
that falls so short in meeting America's needs, in fact, creates more 
disparities. We must do better to address the obligations we have to 
the people of this country.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr.Chairman, I rise today to join my colleagues in 
urging full funding of the National Children's Study.
  Two of the most important health studies ever conducted were large, 
ambitious epidemiological studies. The Framingham Study followed the 
health and risk factors of thousands of men and women for fifty years. 
The result has been a major change in the way we view, treat and 
prevent heart diseases. The Nurse's Study has monitored the health of 
over one hundred thousand women for decades. It, too, has resulted in 
unprecedented leaps forward in public health.
  Now, we must turn our attention to one of the biggest sources of 
public health threats of our time: our own environment. The National 
Children's study will follow 100,000 children from before birth until 
age 21. Similar to the Framingham study and the Nurse's study, it could 
yield giant steps forward in our efforts to solve some of the most 
complex and pervasive health problems of our time: obesity, asthma, and 
autism are just a few. And we could start to see results within a few 
years of data collection.
  Yet the study has been left in a holding pattern. In order to begin 
recruiting participants in the study, 69 million dollars is required 
for this year. Only 12 million dollars is provided in the FY 06 Labor 
HHS bill.
  I hope that the conference committee allocates 69 million dollars in 
the conference report for the FY 06 Labor HHS Appropriations bill to 
the National Children's Study. We are not doing our future children any 
favors by postponing this study until it is financially convenient. The 
need is here. The possibilities are here.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, today I rise to express my deep 
concerns about how this bill falls $1.6 billion short in funding our 
Nation's most critically important domestic priorities--particularly 
education. This bill is a stunning example of the impact that this 
Congress's misplaced priorities can have on what most consider to be a 
basic human right--access to a quality education.

[[Page 14226]]

  We have made a conscious choice: While we give away tax cuts worth 
$140,000 to millionaires, families earning $25,000 to $30,000 a year 
won't be able to afford sending their children to college this year. 
It's an unconscionable choice that defies our priorities and our values 
of standing up for middle class Americans.
  Before I was elected to Congress, I spent 30 years as a college 
administrator. In that time, I came to fully understand how difficult 
it is for students and their families to afford college. Every day, I 
worked with parents and their children--scraping up money, grants, 
scholarships, whatever we could find--to help them realize part of the 
American dream--the opportunity to earn a college education.
  But for the fourth straight year, Congress has short-changed students 
by cutting billions of dollars from the authorized level under law--
$13.2 billion short of what is authorized for FY 06 and over $40 
billion short since its enactment in 2001.
  Another public law we have abandoned is the IDEA Improvement Act, 
which has been underfunded by nearly $4 billion since its enactment. 
For our Nation's 7 million disabled children, IDEA Part B grants alone 
fall short of the President's budget request by over $500 million.
  At a time when some of the Nation's poorest school districts are 
fighting to stay open, this bill cuts Title I funding for the neediest 
of our elementary and secondary schools by $500 million below the 
President's request.
  While in the past year alone, tuition has increased an average of 
10.5 percent at 4-year public universities, this bill provides only a 
modest $50 increase in the maximum Pell grant--a full $1,000 short of 
what the President promised in 2001.
  And, ironically, at a time when this Administration and Republican 
Congress talk about morality and family values in public affairs, this 
bill cuts local public TV and radio funds for childrens' shows like 
Sesame Street and Reading Rainbow.
  My specific concerns about the higher education shortfalls stem from 
my belief that a quality education is integral to the success of 
Americans and the nation as a whole. As an increasing number of 
students graduate from high school and pursue postsecondary education 
and training, we must make the necessary investment to deliver 
accessible, affordable and excellent education to all Americans.
  Each year, millions of hardworking American students and their 
families struggle to cover the cost of attending college, even after 
exhausting all of the options available to them such as scholarships, 
student loans, Pell grants, and college work-study.
  The typical low-income student falls $3,800 short of college costs 
even after their family contribution, student loans, grants, and work 
have been accounted for.
  Today, an affluent student in the bottom percentile of their class is 
more likely to go to college than an economically disadvantaged student 
at the top of their class.
  With college enrollment expected to expand by 14 percent, to more 
than 15 million students over the next decade, now is the time that 
Congress must invest its resources towards helping students gain access 
to college.
  But under this bill, the percentage of college costs covered by the 
Pell Grant would drop to a new low of 32 percent. This is compared to 
thirty years ago when the Pell Grants paid for 72 percent of the cost 
for a 4-year public college.
  The lack of a significant increase in the Pell Grant comes at a time 
when changes to the tax allowance formula used to calculate the 
Department of Education's ``Expected Family Contribution'' eliminated 
Pell Grant awards for over 90,000 students, and reduced scholarships 
for an additional 1.3 million students.
  For the second year in a row, this bill also freezes funding for 
Supplemental Education Opportunity Grants (SEOG) and College Work 
Study. This is the second year in a row that SEOG and Work-Study have 
received flat funding.
  With this bill, we have made a conscious choice--to provide more 
comfort for the comfortable at the expense of those who are trying to 
make a better life for themselves.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3010, the 
Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Fiscal 
Year 2006 Appropriations Act. H.R. 3010 severely under funds education, 
health care, and job training efforts that are crucial to North 
Carolina and to the country.
  As the only former state schools chief serving in Congress, I know 
firsthand the devastating effects that these education cuts will have. 
At a time when we are asking our schools to do more than ever, these 
education cuts will destroy the morale of our teachers, parents and 
students. Not only does this appropriations bill continue to under fund 
No Child Left Behind, but it also shortchanges special education for 
6.9 million children, fails to raise the maximum Pell Grant and 
eliminates successful education initiatives like drop out prevention. 
These education cuts will make it impossible for our schools to meet 
high standards of accountability.
  Unfortunately, H.R. 3010 also fails to provide adequate funds for key 
health care programs. In rural communities it is often hard to find a 
doctor, and emergency rooms can be dangerously far away. This 
appropriations bill slashes funding for rural and preventative health. 
Activities that would be terminated include initiatives designed to 
encourage new medical and dental school graduates to choose primary 
care specialties and to practice in rural and urban under-served areas. 
I am also concerned about the inadequate funding for Preventative 
Health Block Grants and Community Health Centers, both of which provide 
much needed services to the people of North Carolina's 2nd District.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote against this bad bill.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 
3010, which provides federal funding for health, education and worker 
programs. This bill contains $1.6 billion less than the current year 
and fails miserably to make important basic investments in education, 
healthcare, job training and job protection programs.
  On healthcare, the bill takes a huge step backward in efforts to 
maintain basic health care services for the people in this country who 
are uninsured or underinsured. It eliminates the Healthy Communities 
Access Program, which helps health centers and public hospitals provide 
care for the uninsured. The bill cuts rural health care program funding 
almost in half, and it wipes out almost all of the Title VII health 
profession training programs that institutions like the CU Health 
Sciences Center need in order to provide critical training and 
education for medical students and residents who aim to practice in 
rural, low-income, and under-served areas.
  And while the bill eliminates or cuts funding for several programs, 
it also fails to adequately fund others. The bill is $200 million short 
for community health centers to cover rising health care costs at 
existing centers or to expand care for the uninsured. The National 
Institutes of Health, which works to find cures for many diseases, gets 
a paltry .5 percent increase in funding, the smallest percentage 
increase in 36 years which is not even enough to keep up with inflation 
in research costs. State and local health departments will be hobbled 
in protecting the public against infectious and other diseases because 
the bill cuts the Preventive Health Block Grant by 24 percent. Further, 
grants that help health departments improve their preparedness against 
bioterrorism and other public health emergencies are cut by $75 
million. And the Ryan White AIDS programs funding is frozen, even 
though the number of people living with HIV/AIDS has been rising by 
more than six percent each year.
  On the education front, the Republican Majority has imposed the first 
freeze on education funding in a decade while requiring local school 
districts to implement federal mandates under the No Child Left Behind 
Act. Though I am pleased to see some of the programs that were cut in 
the President's budget were restored in this bill such as vocational 
programs, I am concerned by the low levels of funding for several 
education programs.
  Our nation has seen a decreased number of students studying the 
science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) disciplines, 
and in turn fewer Americans are seeking careers in STEM fields. The 
Math and Science Partnership provides grants to recruit STEM majors 
into teaching, and links current teachers with state agencies or 
universities to improve teaching skills. This program, coupled with its 
counterpart at the National Science Foundation, works to improve the 
quality of teaching in math and sciences that will excite students to 
study these disciplines. This bill cuts this program by $11 million 
from the current budget and $79 million below the President's request. 
Unless we invest in these programs we will continue to see the decline 
in the number of STEM majors and those seeking these careers.
  I am also concerned by the funding levels provided for Part B state 
grants under IDEA. Last Congress we passed an authorization for IDEA 
that sought to reach full funding of the program by 2011. This budget 
is $3.9 billion below the FY2006 level authorized in the IDEA 
Improvement Act. Though I am pleased to see this program received an 
increase of $140 million over the FY05 level, I do not think we are 
doing enough to help states provide adequate education for disabled 
students.
  I am pleased that the House approved the Obey amendment to restore 
$100 million for

[[Page 14227]]

public broadcasting. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting provides 
an important service to Americans that could not be possible without 
federal funding. In an effort to maintain independence the Corporation 
for Public Broadcasting receives funding two years in advance. I 
believe it is important to maintain the independence of public 
broadcasting and we should not be taking from already appropriated 
funds. I am proud that the House acted to protect this excellent 
programming and reject the cuts originally included in this bill.
  Overall, this bill makes drastic cuts to critically important health 
care, education and job training programs, and it fails to adequately 
fund other programs and that is why I cannot support it.
  Mr. KELLER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that both Republican and 
Democrats have accepted my amendment and that it has passed today as 
part of the unanimous consent agreement.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe it was a colossal waste of taxpayer dollars 
by the U.S. Department of Education to pay $240,000 to columnist 
Armstrong Williams to promote The No Child Left Behind Act.
  This amendment ensures that it will never happen again by providing 
that no taxpayer funds shall be used, either directly or indirectly, by 
private contractors, which include public relations firms, journalists, 
and media commentators, to support or defeat legislation pending before 
this Congress.
  The policy behind my amendment is straightforward. Using taxpayer 
dollars to bribe journalists to bias their news coverage in favor of 
legislation is a waste of taxpayer money, it is a black eye on the 
independence of our free press, and it undermines the integrity of our 
democracy.
  Mr. Chairman, let me give you some background as to why this 
amendment is necessary. In January of this year, media reports revealed 
that the U.S. Department of Education entered into a $1 million 
contract with a private contractor, known as the Ketchum Public 
Relations firm. This PR firm then turned around and paid $240,000 in a 
sub-contract to newspaper columnist and TV commentator Armstrong 
Williams to promote The No Child Left Behind Act.
  Specifically, under the contract, Armstrong Williams was paid to 
``regularly comment on NCLB during the course of his broadcasts,'' to 
``encourage the producers'' of a cable TV program to ``periodically 
address'' the NCLB law, and it specified that the Secretary of 
Education and other education officials would have the right to appear 
from ``time to time'' as guests on Williams' TV programs.
  Shortly after learning about this situation, President Bush 
criticized the Education Departments $240,000 payout to Armstrong 
Williams and ordered his cabinet secretaries not to hire columnists or 
commentators to promote administration policies.
  Specifically, President Bush stated: ``All our cabinet secretaries 
must realize that we will not be paying commentators to advance our 
agenda. Our agenda ought to be able to stand on its own two feet. We 
need to make sure this kind of thing doesn't happen again.''
  I agree with President Bush.
  This is not a Republican or Democrat issue. It's a common sense 
issue. For example, while the Armstrong Williams matter happened during 
the Bush administration's watch, similar problems happened during the 
Clinton administration.
  For example, the GAO noted that the Clinton administration's Health 
and Human Services department used actors in October of 1999 to portray 
reporters in fake news segments that were distributed to TV stations, 
without disclosing that the government had actually funded and produced 
the supposed news segments.
  Mr. Chairman, it is dead wrong to use taxpayer dollars to pay private 
contractors, such as public relations firms, journalists and media 
commentators, to promote legislation pending before this Congress, and 
for that reason, I wholeheartedly thank my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle for voting ``yes'' on my amendment.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Labor-
HHS-Education appropriations bill today. This bill grossly underfunds 
key domestic priorities in education, health, human services, job 
training, public broadcasting, and the list goes on and on.
  Appropriations bills typically include at least a slight increase in 
spending from the following year to make up for inflation, if nothing 
else. Instead, this bill actually cuts spending below last year's level 
by $1.6 billion. The cuts are so plentiful that it is hard to put 
together a concise statement highlighting my rationale for voting no.
  President Bush and the Republicans in Congress proudly proclaimed 
their support for improving our Nation's education system when they 
passed the bipartisan No Child Left Behind law. Ever since that time, 
they've been avoiding putting the dollars behind that commitment. 
Today's bill is another example of this retreat.
  The bill before us underfunds No Child Left Behind by $13.2 billion. 
It also goes on to freeze funding for after-school programs even though 
only 38 percent of eligible programs can obtain funding at these 
levels. It also shortchanges special education for 6.9 million children 
by failing to meet our government's commitment to IDEA. Head Start, a 
program well-documented in its effectiveness, fails to obtain the 
resources necessary for it to give a step up for millions of eligible 
children.
  The bill is no better when it comes to important health care 
priorities. President Bush has gone out of his way to emphasize his 
commitment to ending AIDS around the globe. But, when it comes time to 
turn that sound bite into reality, he and his party turn their backs. 
This bill eliminates funding to the Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS and 
freezes almost all funds in the Ryan White AIDS programs which provide 
services to people suffering from HIV and AIDS here at home. At the 
same time the bill wastes $115 million on unproven abstinence only 
education programs.
  This bill eliminates funding for HHS health professions training 
programs, slashes funding for public health efforts to increase 
preventive care, eliminates the Healthy Families Communities Access 
Program aimed at helping local advocates and governments develop 
solutions to cover the uninsured, and provides the smallest increase in 
36 years for the NIH.
  On the human services front, this bill fails to provide needed funds 
for child care. For the 4th year in a row, it freezes federal funding 
for the Child Care Block Grant even though millions of low-income 
families cannot afford adequate, safe child care for their children. It 
also cuts vital funding for low-income home energy assistance. And, it 
slashes funding for the Community Services Block Grant which provides 
funds to local communities to help them provide basic services to low-
income families.
  The provision in this bill that has received the most public 
attention is the provision to gut $100 million in funding for public 
education. I'm pleased that we passed an amendment on the House floor 
to eliminate that cut. So, we've protected PBS, NPR and other public 
broadcasting initiatives for now. But, make no mistake about it, the 
Republicans want to go much further than reducing funding. Much like 
they're working to privatize Medicare and Social Security, they would 
happily turn our airwaves--which are public space--over to the private 
sector as well.
  These are a sampling of the many reasons I oppose the bill before us 
today. I urge my colleagues to join with me in voting ``no'' on the 
wrongheaded priorities of the Republican majority. Health, education 
and human services are core responsibilities of our Federal Government. 
This bill fails on all fronts.
  Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to 
this bill.
  Let me begin by thanking Chairman Regula, Ranking Member Obey and 
their staff for their hard work in bringing this bill to the House 
floor.
  Although the Committee has done its best, it is shameful the 
Committee had a limited amount of money to fund America's highest 
domestic priorities. This Republican led Congress and the 
Administration has put the $140,000 tax cuts for people who make $1 
million or more a year; and spending $250 billion fighting the war in 
Iraq and Afghanistan ahead of the need to invest in our children, our 
education system, our health care system, and job training programs 
that will help American families.
  This bill does fund many of the programs that the Administration 
wanted to cut or eliminate programs such as TRIO, GEAR UP, Vocational 
Education State Grants and Adult Education programs.
  However, the bill before us today sorely underfunds or eliminates too 
many programs. The bill zeroes out 48 programs. The list is enclosed. 
Also, the bill provides the smallest increase for the National 
Institutes of Health in 36 years.
  This bill cuts $806 million from No Child Left Behind.
  This bill provides only a $50 increase in Pell grants, despite 
hundreds of dollars of increases in college tuitions and costs.
  This bill cuts the Employment Service program by $116 million. The 
Employment Service program helps the unemployed with finding jobs and 
with 7.6 million Americans out of work this program is critical.
  Quality pre-natal care and health services for low-income mothers and 
infants should be a priority but this bill cuts the Maternal and Child 
Health Block Grant program by $24 million and the Healthy Start program 
targeted to

[[Page 14228]]

communities with high infant mortality by $5 million.
  The Low-Income Energy Assistance Program that helps families pay 
heating bills is cut by $198 million at a time when gas prices are at 
their highest.
  The Safe and Drug Free Schools program to keep school aged children 
off drugs and alcohol is cut by $37 million, which will devastate many 
families and communities.
  Preventative Health Block Grants to state health departments are cut 
by $31 million.
  The bill slashes the Education Technology Program by $196 million.
  The Community College Initiative is cut in half by $125 million.
  It freezes after-school centers for the fourth year in a row.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill eliminates 48 programs, including the 
elimination of $100 million Department of Health and Human Services' 
contribution to the Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, Malaria and 
Tuberculosis.
  It eliminates comprehensive school grants for 1,000 high-poverty 
school districts by eliminating the program.
  This bill eliminates 10 out of the 12 Title VII health profession 
training programs. These programs help ease the shortage of doctors, 
dentists, and other health professionals in underserved areas.
  This bill eliminates the Health Communities Access Program that helps 
health centers and public hospitals better serve the uninsured.
  Mr. Chairman, HR 3010 does not invest in our future, our families, or 
our country. The needs and values of Americans are not addressed. This 
bill shortchanges the American people. The Appropriations Committee had 
to make tough choices because of the strict budget allocations brought 
on by the misguided and irresponsible tax cuts for the richest of 
Americans and the cost of the war, but programs that help millions of 
Americans should not be on the chopping block.
  Congress is walking away from our commitment to equal opportunity and 
a better quality of life for all Americans. Greater access to job 
training, better jobs, affordable healthcare, quality education, and 
closing the disparity gap should be our goal.
  The Labor, Health & Human Services, and Education bill falls far 
short of achieving these goals and strengthening American families.

  FY 2006 LABOR-HHS-EDUCATION APPROPRIATIONS BILL PROGRAM TERMINATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              FY 2005         FY 2006
                                            Comparable       Committee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Department of Labor
 
Responsible Reintegration of Youth......      49,600,000               0
Denali Commission.......................       6,944,000               0
                                         -------------------------------
    Subtotal, Department of Labor.......      56,544,000               0
 
                 Department of Health and Human Services
 
Healthy Communities Access Program            82,993,000               0
 (HCAP).................................
Health Professions Diversity: Faculty          1,302,000               0
 Loan Repayments & Fellowships..........
Health Careers Opportunity Program            35,647,000               0
 (HCOP).................................
Training in Primary Care Medicine and         88,816,000               0
 Dentistry..............................
Area Health Education Centers...........      28,971,000               0
Health Education and Training Centers...       3,819,000               0
Geriatric Health Professions Training         31,548,000               0
 Programs...............................
Quentin N. Burdick Program for Rural           6,076,000               0
 Interdisciplinary Training.............
Allied Health and Other Disciplines           11,753,000               0
 Training...............................
Public Health, Preventive Medicine and         9,097,000               0
 Dental Public Health Training..........
Health Administration Training Programs.       1,070,000               0
Health Professions Workforce Information         716,000               0
 & Analysis.............................
Sickle Cell Demonstration Program.......         198,000               0
Rural Health Research & Policy                 8,825,000               0
 Development............................
Rural Emergency Medical Services                 496,000               0
 Training...............................
State Planning Grants for Health Care         10,910,000               0
 Access.................................
Trauma Care/Emergency Medical Services..       3,419,000               0
Denali Commission.......................      39,680,000               0
NIH Extramural Research Facilities            29,760,000               0
 Grants.................................
Community Food and Nutrition............       7,180,000               0
National Youth Sports Program...........      17,856,000               0
Early Learning Opportunities Program....      35,712,000               0
                                         -------------------------------
    Subtotal, Department of Health and       455,844,000               0
     Human Services.....................
 
                         Department of Education
 
Comprehensive school reform*............     205,344,000               0
Parental information and resource             41,886,000               0
 centers................................
Byrd scholarships.......................      40,672,000               0
Arts in education.......................      35,633,000               0
Alcohol abuse reduction.................      32,736,000               0
Ready to Learn..........................      23,312,000               0
State grants for incarcerated youth           21,824,000               0
 offenders..............................
Star schools............................      20,832,000               0
Foreign language assistance.............      17,856,000               0
Ready to teach..........................      14,291,000               0
Javits gifted and talented education....      11,022,000               0
Occupational and employment information.       9,307,000               0
Exchanges with historic whaling and            8,630,000               0
 trading partners.......................
Demonstration projects for students with       6,944,000               0
 disabilities...........................
Community technology centers............       4,960,000               0
Literacy programs for prisoners.........       4,960,000               0
Mental health integration in schools....       4,960,000               0
Dropout prevention program..............       4,930,000               0
Tech-prep demonstration.................       4,900,000               0
Thurgood Marshall legal opportunity            2,976,000               0
 program................................
Women's educational equity..............       2,956,000               0
Underground railroad program............       2,204,000               0
Excellence in economic education........       1,488,000               0
Interest subsidy grants.................       1,488,000               0
                                         -------------------------------
    Subtotal, Department of Education...     526,111,000               0
                                         ===============================
        Total--48 Programs..............   1,038,499,000               0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*The Committee bill includes $10 million to close out national
  activities and evaluations.

  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose the massive cuts to 
the Title VII health professions training programs which play a 
critical role in addressing the shortage of doctors, nurses, dentists 
and other health professionals in underserved areas and have proven to 
increase the diversity of the health care workforce.
  The Republicans' fiscal year 2006 budget gives away $106 billion in 
tax cuts to the wealthiest in our society. Now, in order to pay for 
those cuts, they are making huge cuts to critical programs for the poor 
and the most vulnerable in our country. The Title VII health 
professions training programs are some of the many casualties of these 
tax giveaways.
  In order to pay for tax cuts to the wealthy, this bill slashes 
funding for the Title VII programs by 84 percent, cutting the programs 
from $300 million to $47 million. These Title VII programs promote 
access to quality health care to for our nation's neediest citizens and 
they are only federal programs designed help prepare health 
professionals to respond to the

[[Page 14229]]

needs of these special and underserved populations.
  These programs are a vital component of the health education system 
in our country and are necessary to maintain the high quality health 
care that we expect. These cuts will have a dramatic impact on the 
system at a time when essential health care services are already facing 
funding cuts and program eliminations.
  I urge you to oppose these cuts and I am hopeful that the Committee 
will work to increase funding for these programs in Conference.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, many Americans seeking disability 
benefits under the Social Security Disability Insurance program, more 
commonly know as SSDI, face intolerable delays in the processing of 
their claims.
  SSDI is a true insurance program. All American workers pay into the 
program, and any working American who becomes disabled is eligible for 
assistance.
  The Social Security disability system has a backlog of more than a 
half-million cases on appeal. Social Security Commissioner Jo Anne 
Barnhart testified last year that, on average, it took more than 3 
years to complete processing of a disability claim on appeal, from the 
day it's filed to the day it's finally adjudicated.
  These delays come with a high cost for the men and women forced to 
wait. For some, it means exhausting their life savings. Others lose 
their health insurance coverage, the family car, and even their homes. 
And as once-proud workers unable to pay their bills are reduced to 
borrowing from friends and family, some Americans lose even their 
dignity.
  These delays have hit home in my Ohio district. One constituent, 
Bobbi from Sheffield, Ohio--a single mom injured in an auto accident in 
2001--exhausted her life savings and was forced onto welfare while she 
waited. She finally received the support she had earned just last 
month, after waiting 4 years.
  Another constituent, Ronald from Elyria, Ohio has a heart condition 
that left him disabled in 2001, but he had to wait 3 years for 
benefits.
  The appropriations bill before us today offers a chance to improve 
the system, for these Ohioans and every American. This bill provides a 
badly-needed increase in administrative funding for the Social Security 
Administration.
  A lot of these resources will go to funding administration of the new 
Medicare prescription drug benefit. But significant funding will be 
used to help SSA improve disability processing and reduce the claims 
backlog--with new technology and staffing.
  I support the SSA administrative funding provision in this bill. But 
we can do better. The bill falls more than $100 million short of 
President Bush's request for Social Security administrative funding. 
Advocates for disabled Americans agree with the President that SSA 
needs every dollar of the President's request to attack the disability 
backlog.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the SSA administrative 
funding level in this bill.
  But I urge you then to work with me as this bill advances, to seek 
full funding of President Bush's SSA administrative budget request.
  There has been a lot of talk lately about the future of Social 
Security. But our first obligation should be to make Social Security 
work as well as it can right now.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, today we are considering the largest--and 
arguably most complex--of the domestic appropriations bills--the 
measure for Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, H.R. 3010. 
I am pleased to say, as it addresses many of Congress's most sensitive 
domestic priorities, it also meets our fiscal responsibilities: it 
complies with the Budget Act, with our agreed spending levels, and with 
specific provisions of the budget resolution for fiscal year 2006.


                         The Budget Resolution

  H.R. 3010 provides $142.5 billion in discretionary budget authority 
and $143.7 billion in new outlays for programs within the Departments 
of Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and related agencies. 
This level represents a slight reduction from 2005: $329 million in 
budget authority. This reflects the need to restrain the rate of 
increase for non-defense, non-homeland security domestic discretionary 
programs, which provided the overall policy framework for this year's 
budget resolution. The $329-million reduction from 2005--which is just 
two-tenths of 1 percent--may feel more like $1 billion to the agencies 
funded by the bill. That is because the Appropriations Committee, in 
response to a White House request, included about $890 million for the 
2003 Medicare prescription drug law's startup costs. Other programs in 
this bill had to make up the difference.
  But such trade-offs are intrinsic to budgeting. As a result, as 
noted, the bill complies with the FY 2006 Budget Resolution. Its 
spending levels are within the subcommittee's 302(b) suballocation of 
new budget authority. To meet the cap, the bill includes a few 
rescissions. The bill does not contain emergency funds. It complies 
with the budget resolution provisions on advance appropriations.
  Regarding this last point, the FY 2006 Budget Resolution places a 
total limit for advance appropriations in FY 2006 at $23.158 billion. 
The bill before us today will consume most of those funds, by providing 
$18.885 billion in advance appropriations for FY 2007. All of the 
accounts for which advances are made in the bill are listed as eligible 
within the budget resolution. Because no advance appropriations have 
yet been enacted this year, the bill does not cause a breach of this 
limit. Still, the House should be aware only $4.273 billion will remain 
available for advance appropriations.


                        Programmatic Provisions

  Under this bill, Education would enjoy a slight ($120 million) 
increase, to $56.7 billion--which is $478 million over the President's 
request. In addition to that figure, the bill includes $4.3 billion to 
make up the Pell Grant backlog. This amount does no count against 
budget limits because it is scored as mandatory.
  Additionally, the bill continues the commitment the House has made to 
the National Institutes of Health, providing $230 million more than 
last year. This brings total NIH funding to $28.5 billion. Worker 
retraining and dislocated worker assistance programs are also restored 
and augmented, which should help us continue to expand employment and 
ensure that Americans who want to work will be able to find good jobs. 
Dislocated Worker Assistance is funded at $1.4 billion, $62 million 
above the request.


                               Conclusion

  I commend the Committee on Appropriations for bringing us a bill that 
funds many priority programs Members care about while living within our 
means in an era requiring tougher fiscal discipline. This is a 
responsible bill that fulfills our commitments to the public while 
living within the constraints of difficult fiscal times.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to 
the proposed cuts of more than $100 million to the Corporation for 
Public Broadcasting. This organization funds over 1,000 public 
television and radio stations nationwide, and the funding from Congress 
is essential to its functioning. CPB also funds producers, educators 
and technology specialists for the development of new public television 
and radio programming and new media. The CPB supports educational 
programs, as well as, provides education resources for parents and 
teachers.
  I support the mission of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting in 
its goal of providing the public with education and informative media 
sources. In a time when much furor exists over the decency of much of 
what is broadcast on our televisions and radios, it is only logical 
that Congress support an organization that has held traditional values 
to a high standard which is reflected in its programming. Children's 
programs such as Sesame Street and Arthur, programs which undoubtedly 
educate our children and instill them with positive values, will lose 
the necessary funding that keeps them on television. This is simply 
unacceptable.
  When CPB comes to the Hill, it is clear that children of lawmakers 
from both sides of the aisle watch public television. Children from 
both parties laugh at Elmo and get their picture taken with Cookie 
Monster. Like my colleagues, my office has also received hundreds of 
phone calls urging Congress to restore funds for public broadcasting. 
Our constituents do not support these cuts which represent 25 percent 
of CPB's overall funding. I urge my fellow members to oppose the 
proposed cuts to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge that full funding for 
Title VII health professions programs be restored in the FY 2006 Labor-
HHS Bill. The elimination of funding for valuable programs such as the 
Area Health Education Center (AHEC) and the Health Education and 
Training Center (HETC) would have an immediate, damaging impact on 
medical education, care, and research, especially in the State of New 
York.
  Title VII authorizes grants for important programs designed to 
address problems such as recruitment and retention of providers for 
health centers, shortages in nursing and allied health, and the under-
representation of minorities in the health care professions. These 
healthcare training programs are the only federal programs designed to 
increase the supply of primary medical care providers and public health 
professionals in underserved areas, such as inner cities and rural 
regions throughout the country. In addition, these programs

[[Page 14230]]

seek to train more health professionals in fields experiencing 
shortages, improve the geographic distribution of health care 
personnel, and enhance minority representation in the pool of 
practicing health professionals.
  New York has benefited greatly from Title VII health professions 
programs. In FY 2005, New York institutions received over $20 million 
in Title VII programs. However, continual annual budget cuts pose a 
great risk to health care in the state of New York. Without federal 
funding, the AHEC system will be greatly hindered in its ability to 
address the problems of access to health care, diversity of the health 
care workforce, and recruitment and retention of health care 
professionals in medically underserved areas. For these reasons I 
support the restoration of funding for Title VII health professions 
programs through the FY 2006 Labor-HHS Appropriations bill.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, due to a family medical 
emergency, I am departing Washington, DC, at 10:30 a.m. on Friday, June 
24th.
  As a result, I will miss votes on the amendments to and final passage 
on H.R. 3010, the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, 
Education and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006. 
Upon my return to Washington, I will submit a statement indicating how 
I would have voted had I been present.
  Ms. HOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that elements of the amendment 
I had intended to offer were incorporated into the en bloc amendment 
offered by Chairman Regula.
  As our troops return home from active duty service, a growing number 
of them are unable to return to the jobs they left behind. In the 
transition back to civilian life, they are encountering problems 
ranging from difficulties finding employment to being passed over for 
promotions to getting laid off under suspicious circumstances.
  The Veterans Employment and Training Service (VETS) provides these 
veterans with the resources and services they need to make the 
transition from military to civilian life. VETS provides veterans with 
valuable training and job placement services as well as protecting the 
employment and reemployment rights of veterans, Reservists and National 
Guard Members.
  With the influx of returning soldiers, the Veterans Employment and 
Training Service needs additional resources to meet the growing demands 
of our veterans. More and more veterans will be looking for employment, 
which means increased demands for both job training and placement 
services as well as assistance with any discrimination claims.
  This amendment will address these issues by providing $5 million to 
the Veterans Employment and Training Service so they have the money 
they need to meet the needs of our returning troops.
  Of this funding, $3 million will go to the Veterans Workforce 
Investment Program which provides employment services to recently 
separated and service-connected disabled veterans. This program is 
currently funded at $7.5 million, a $1 million cut from last year. At a 
time when more and more soldiers are returning home and looking for 
jobs, we need to be providing more funding for this vital initiative, 
not less.
  It also includes $500,000 for the National Veterans Training 
Institute, which conducts specialized training for veterans' employment 
and training service providers.
  The remaining $1.5 million would be used to educate both service 
members and employers about the employment rights of veterans, 
including their rights and responsibilities under the Uniformed 
Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), which 
prohibits workforce discrimination based on military service.
  America has a responsibility to those who risked their lives to 
secure our freedom. Particularly today, as more soldiers come home from 
the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan, we must make every effort to 
help veterans reintegrate into civilian life, and that means helping 
America's veterans get back to work.
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my support for the 
Community Services Block Grants, and take a moment to highlight the 
effect these grants have on my District. CSBG funds are used to support 
the Community Action Committee of the Lehigh Valley (CACLV). I have a 
long history of working with the CACLV on a wide range of antipoverty 
initiatives which include housing, hunger, and community development, 
and I have seen the positive contributions that CACLV has made as a 
result of CSBG funding.
  CSBG grants are uniquely effective because they are locally-
controlled and respond to the particular need of each individual 
community. The grants produce a return on investments and have a 
sophisticated outcome-based accountability system. In my district, the 
CACLV generates over $8 for each CSBG dollar; half of that leveraged 
money comes from private sources which include utilities, banks, 
churches, foundations, and individuals.
  CACLV runs two homeless shelters in my district--Safe Harbor in 
Easton and the 6th Street Shelter in Allentown. These shelters serve 
individuals and families with issues ranging from drug and alcohol 
dependence to mental health. The CACLV also operates Second Harvest 
Food Bank, distributing about 5 million pounds of donated and 
government food to over 170 agencies each year.
  CACLV operates three community development subsidiaries that are 
conducting entrepreneurial training and offer micro loans to help 
create dozens of micro enterprises each year. These CDC's operate two 
inner-city farmers' markets, offer cash assistance to struggling 
neighborhood-based businesses, provide residential and commercial 
facade improvement grants, and youth recreation programs.
  Finally, CACLV operates a comprehensive financial services program 
that teaches dozens of low income families to save money and buy homes. 
Additionally, the CACLV offers free tax preparation services to over 
600 taxpaying households.
  Beyond these impressive efforts, the CACLV has a record of building 
partnerships. It conceived and led a campaign that resulted in two open 
space referenda. This project is set to generate $70 million to create 
and enhance parks, protect natural areas and preserve farms. The 
CACLV's housing initiatives have led campaigns to create housing trust 
funds in two counties in my district, and funded programs that have 
dramatically expanded homeowners hip throughout the Lehigh Valley.
  The funding reductions included in this bill will greatly impact 
CACLV and Community Action Agencies across the country. The Executive 
Director of CACLV expects that a cut in excess of 50 percent will 
result in the closing of one of its homeless shelters and all of its 
small business development work and perhaps even more.
  Mr. Speaker, it is clear that my district and the nation need the 
services that Community Action agencies provide. Although I understand 
the tight budget constraints we face, these programs will stimulate the 
economy and improve the quality of life for the residents of my 
district. As the appropriations process advances, I would like to 
express my support for funding levels equal to the final FY 2005 
appropriations for CSBG.
  Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express the 
overwhelming support that hundreds of my constituents have demonstrated 
for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. I share their concern 
about the partisan attacks to eliminate funding and undermine the 
Corporation's commitment to providing objective and educational 
programming.
  As a member of the Congressional Public Broadcasting Caucus, I have 
learned how critical Federal funding is for CPB in order to ensure the 
continued availability of educational, innovative, objective, and 
locally-relevant programming provided by public radio and television 
stations across the country. This Republican appropriations bill 
proposes to strip 51 percent of CPB's total Federal funding--a cut so 
drastic it will negatively impact every public television and radio 
station's ability to provide the free and unbiased programs that 
millions of Americans count on every day. Currently, Federal funding 
for CPB totals just $1.50 per American per year. In addition, this 
Federal funding successfully leverages more than five additional 
dollars from private sources. For these reasons, I am pleased to 
support Mr. Obey's amendment to restore $100 million to CPB.
  Public broadcasting is an essential source of information for 
millions of Americans. America's educators depend on public 
broadcasting--it's their top choice for classroom video, and a leading 
source of online lesson plans. Nationwide surveys find that public 
broadcasting is the single most trusted national institution. And, 
public broadcasting is exceptional because it's local. Unlike the large 
media conglomerates that dominate commercial TV, the 348 PBS stations 
across the country are locally owned and operated--accountable to the 
local communities they serve.
  In my home State of Minnesota, we are proud of the high quality 
public broadcasting our State has known for years. Minnesota Public 
Radio and Twin Cities Public Television are treasures that provide 
balanced news, insightful information, and exceptional entertainment 
over the public airwaves. They deserve our support and the support of 
the Federal Government. Nearly 900 constituents have e-mailed, phoned, 
and written to my office regarding their support for public 
broadcasting.
  It is with a commitment to ensuring that my constituents continue to 
have access to high quality, unbiased information, as well as

[[Page 14231]]

thoughtful and educational programming, that I rise today in support of 
the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, nearly 70 years ago, Franklin 
Delano Roosevelt stated in his second inaugural address that ``the test 
of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those 
who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too 
little.'' The FY06 Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriation bill 
has failed that test.
  Although I commend Chairman Regula and Mr. Obey, our ranking member, 
for their tireless efforts to provide deserving citizens with necessary 
programs, this bill is a product of having too little to fund valuable 
initiatives. The tax cuts enjoyed by the wealthiest 1 percent of our 
population have left this Congress unable to continue funding essential 
programs that directly impact the least, the last, and the lost. The 
cuts in education, energy assistance, and healthcare services are signs 
of what I believe are an unraveling of our economic tapestry.
  Our youngest and most vulnerable citizens will be disproportionately 
affected by Federal fiscal budget constraints in this Labor, Health and 
Human Services bill. Even at birth, this bill is putting some at a 
disadvantage. The Maternal and Child Health Block grant program has 
been cut even though scientific evidence proves the importance of 
prenatal care. Despite the fact that we recognize the need to provide 
access to care for young people whose families are unable to provide 
other sources of treatment, this valuable program has suffered a $24 
million cut.
  Beyond health care, our most vulnerable citizens will continue to 
bear the brunt of enormous tax cuts in education. Title I funding, 
aimed at helping low-income children in failing schools improve their 
reading and math skills, will be $9.9 billion below the No Child Left 
Behind funding promise. And to make matters worse, the same children 
who will be unable to benefit from enrichment programs due to a lack of 
funds will go home in the winter months to cold and uncomfortable 
temperatures because the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program has 
been cut by almost $200 million.
  It is time to take a step back to re-evaluate the path we have chosen 
for the people of this Nation. I will continue to work tirelessly with 
my colleagues, community partners, and concerned citizens to ensure 
that all people are able to receive excellent care at an affordable 
rate--because one must not place a price tag on the health and well-
being of our nation's most vulnerable citizens, our children. I would 
like to leave you all with some other valuable words that Mr. Roosevelt 
imparted to us: ``It is common sense to take a method and try it. If it 
fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all try something.'' 
I urge all of my colleagues to try another method.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Labor, 
Health & Human Services and Education Appropriations bill before us. 
This bill fails to address the priorities of the American people.
  The bill shortchanges critical health care programs, offers the 
smallest increase to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) In 36 
years, and falls to fulfill promises this Congress made to 
disadvantaged children. With 45 million uninsured Americans, we cannot 
afford to eliminate programs targeted at meeting the needs of the 
uninsured or remove the support systems that exist for those doctors 
and nurses who are serving in areas where there is a shortage of 
professional health services.
  Furthermore, in a time when scientists are just beginning to make 
meaningful progress on the projects they began between 1998 and 2003, 
it is irresponsible to fund NIH at a level 2.6 percent short of what 
they need to keep up with inflation in research costs. Under this 
legislation, NIH will be able to support about 505 fewer research 
grants than just two years earlier.
  Finally, with a record 55 million children in public schools and 
state budgets stretched thin, this bill proposes to cut No Child Left 
Behind funding by $806 million, leaving 3.1 million low-income children 
behind. This brings the total NCLB funding shortfall to $40 billion, 
since its enactment in 2002.
  The Appropriations Committee did take care to address some critical 
issues, such as restoring funding for the Elementary and Secondary 
School Counseling Program and the Assistive Technology Act, and I 
appreciate the support for these important programs. Unfortunately, the 
budget resolution for FY2006 prevented appropriators from being able to 
put forth a bill that truly reflected the needs of the American people. 
When Congress passed H. Con. Res. 95, the Budget Conference Report, the 
Republican leadership set the stage for these devastating cuts. This 
legislation makes it clear that tax cuts for the wealthy will continue 
to be paid for by slashing programs that Rhode Islanders depend on.
  I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 3010.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I come to the floor today 
to highlight my disappointment with the lack of an adequate response 
from the the National Institutes of Health concerning the conduct of 
basic behavioral research and training by the National Institute of 
General Medical Sciences. NIGMS is the institute dedicated to basic 
science that serves as the building blocks for applied research at 
multiple disease-specific institutes. For many years, Congress has 
directed NIGMS to fulfill its statutory mandate to include basic 
behavioral research and training as a component of its mission.
  Two years ago, in August 2003, I met with the Deputy Director of NIH, 
and urged that he help ensure that this basic function at NIGMS receive 
funding. This meeting led to the formation of an advisory committee to 
the NIH Director. That Special Task Force reported to the NIH Director 
in December and recommended that basic behavior research and training 
authority be funded at NIGMS. The National Academy of Sciences, in May 
of this year, also urged implementation and funding of this authority, 
particularly in research training, as such researchers will support the 
important advances in understanding the wide ranging of fundamental 
behavioral topics relevant to a variety of diseases and health 
conditions.
  Basic behavioral science is critical to a comprehensive research 
agenda at NIH, and as several expert panels have concluded, NIGMS is 
the logical place to house such research and training. I intend to work 
with my fellow appropriators in the other body and with the Chairman 
and Ranking Member to see that our final bill makes sure this priority 
is realized.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to state for the 
record, that although I will not be able to vote on final passage of 
H.R. 3010, I oppose this bill. As many of you are well aware because of 
actions recommended in your own districts, the BRAC Commission is in 
the process of holding regional hearings throughout the country. They 
are holding a hearing on closure of Cannon Air Force Base, located in 
my district, tomorrow, Friday June 24th, and I will be in attendance 
with the entire New Mexico delegation to show our support for keeping 
Cannon open.
  With that said Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate the difficult 
constraints under which Mr. Regula and Mr. Obey had to work in crafting 
this important spending bill, and I certainly commend them for the 
work. Unfortunately, because this appropriations bill implements the 
budget resolution that I opposed, but that Congress passed, it does not 
give enough funding for many important services of the Federal 
Government. Services that have real implications for real people 
throughout New Mexico and the Nation.
  As Mr. Obey pointed out in his opening remarks, last year's Labor/H 
bill funded the programs at $3.5 billion above the previous year. This 
year, however, on a program-to-program basis, the bill cuts $1.6 
billion. Programs such as the Community Access Program, which received 
$83 million last year, are devastated in this year's bill. The 
Community Access Program has been utilized by several organizations in 
New Mexico to provide better integrated systems of care for uninsured 
and underinsured, but receives no funding under H.R. 3010.
  Also, H.R. 3010 cuts funding for rural health care and emergency 
medical services by $44 million, or 41 percent. That does not take into 
account the cuts to the Health Professions Training Program, which is 
also an important program for rural and underserved areas in New 
Mexico. The Health Professions program encourages new medical and 
dental school graduates to choose primary care specialties and to 
practice in rural and urban under-served areas. H.R. 3010 cuts funding 
for this program by $252 million, or by 84 percent.
  Another program that I believe is of great importance is the 
Preventive Health and Health Services Block Grant. Earlier this year I 
sent a letter, joined by 70 of my colleagues from both sides of the 
aisle, urging the appropriations committee to provide funding for this 
program. The President unfortunately requested zero funding for it in 
his budget request, so I am pleased that the Chairman and Ranking 
Member included $100 million in H.R. 3010. I do hope, however, that the 
Senate will provide a greater level of funding that will be ultimately 
retained in the conference report.
  I also would like to highlight, as many others have done today, the 
$100 million cut to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. This 
figure represents a 25 percent cut over FY05 levels for CPB, and I hope 
that Mr. Obey's amendment to restore this funding passes.

[[Page 14232]]

Again, though I will not be able to vote on this amendment, I strongly 
support its passage.
  I also support the amendment that will be offered by Mr. Miller to 
deny funds in H.R. 3010 for the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 
(PBGC). The PBGC just today published official notice in the Washington 
Post that it would be terminating the pension plan of United Airlines 
Flight Attendants next week. This termination--and the terminations of 
the rest of the United Airlines pension plans for pilots, flight 
attendants, mechanics, public contact employees and others--is unfair. 
It is the result of a backroom deal struck between the PBGC and United 
Airlines to terminate the company's pension plans and dump the 
liabilities onto the PBGC. The PBGC should not be allowed to go forward 
with this plan, and the Miller amendment will ensure that it does not.
  Mr. Chairman, I have just highlighted a few of the issues important 
to my constituents and me. I did not touch on the key education 
programs that are shortchanged under H.R. 3010, nor did I address the 
worker training, labor, and human services programs that are 
shortchanged under this legislation. The list is too lengthy for me to 
do so. What it does all add up to, however, is a bill that does not 
represent the values of me, or my constituents. And for that reason, 
were I to be here tomorrow, I would vote ``no'' on final passage of 
H.R. 3010.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to say that I will be voting 
for H.R. 3010, the fiscal year 2006 Labor, Health and Human Services, 
Education Appropriations bill with the hope that funding levels in the 
bill will be increased during conference negotiations with the Senate. 
While I support many of the funding provisions in this legislation, I 
also believe that this bill shortchanges important needs in education 
and health care.
  I am deeply alarmed that this funding plan not only continues to 
break the funding promise of the No Child Left Behind Act, NCLB, but it 
actually takes a step backwards. Under this bill, NCLB funding would 
fall $13.2 billion short of what was promised when the law was passed, 
translating to a 3.3 percent decrease from 2005. I am convinced that 
this law's success will depend in part on the investment made in this 
effort.
  Not only does this bill fall short on critical funding for education, 
it also makes damaging cuts to rural health assistance. As co-chair of 
the Rural Health Care Coalition, I am disturbed by two damaging cuts 
that would compromise access to quality care in rural areas. The 
legislation eliminates funding for Rural Health Research Center grant 
programs that analyze how federal policies impact rural providers. In 
addition, the measure cuts funding for Rural Health Outreach grants by 
over 70 percent. Outreach grants are used to develop innovative 
approaches to health problems that are specific to rural communities. 
If these cuts are retained in conference, 146 rural communities will be 
forced to abandon their current outreach projects. I urge the Senate to 
provide full funding to these critical rural programs, and I intend to 
actively support the restoration of these funds in conference.
  This bill does include many provisions that I applaud. I was pleased 
that the Rural Education Achievement Program once again received 
funding to help rural districts manage the No Child Left Behind Act's 
new accountability requirements, but I strongly believe this program 
merits an increase in funding. I was also pleased that this bill 
maintains funding for rural hospital flexibility grants and small 
hospital improvement grants.
  Ultimately, I cast my vote in favor of this legislation in order to 
ensure that the appropriations process could move forward. I remain 
hopeful that the Senate will include higher funding levels for these 
programs and that we can work on a bipartisan basis to develop a 
fiscally responsible funding plan that provides adequate resources to 
strengthen our schools, address our public health needs, and support 
our Nation's workers.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise and 
report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, with the 
recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as 
amended, do pass.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Thornberry) having assumed the chair, Mr. Putnam, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3010) 
making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human 
Services, and Education, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes, had directed him to 
report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, with the 
recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as 
amended, do pass.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 337, the 
previous question is ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will 
put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the minimum time 
for electronic voting on any motion to recommit may be 5 minutes, 
notwithstanding that it would be the first vote in a series.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, we cannot hear.
  Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my objection, and I support the gentleman's 
motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.


                 Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. OBEY. I most certainly am.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:
  Mr. Obey of Wisconsin moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 3010, to the 
Committee on Appropriations.

  Mr. OBEY (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that the motion be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the motion be 
debatable and that debate be limited to 2 minutes, equally divided 
between the proponent and an opponent.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for 1 minute on the motion to recommit.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, this is a simple, straight motion to recommit 
so that the committee can repair the shortcomings in the education, 
health care and worker protection programs in the bill, and so that the 
committee can respond to the announcement of the Veterans 
Administration yesterday by adding a billion dollars to veterans health 
care programs.
  I urge an ``aye'' vote on the motion to recommit. I will be voting 
against final passage, and I would hope a good many others will, too.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the motion 
to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``nay'' vote on the motion to recommit. I think 
this bill is fair, balanced, and good given the amount of money that is 
available. We do a lot of important things in education, health 
research, and in the Department of Labor. I urge all my colleagues to 
vote for the bill.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of 
the motion to recommit offered by Ranking Member Obey to increase 
funding for priority education, health care, human services and job 
training programs by $11.8 billion. In terms of education programs, the 
bill eliminates 24 education programs funded at $526 million in 2005. 
The largest of the terminated programs is Comprehensive School Reform. 
The bill also eliminates drop out prevention activities, parent 
assistance centers, arts education, K-12 foreign language instruction, 
Ready to Learn, Ready to Teach, and community technology centers.
  In addition, the bill cuts No Child Left Behind below the current 
level. Specifically, H.R. 3010 cuts the program by $806 million (3.3 
percent). Next year, school districts must achieve increasingly 
rigorous NCLB academic

[[Page 14233]]

standards, administer annual reading and math tests to 3rd through 8th 
graders, and meet new standards for highly-qualified teachers. Despite 
these facts, funding for the program will fall $13.2 billion below its 
FY06 authorization and cumulative shortfall since enactment of the 
program will exceed $40 billion under the bill.
  As it relates to health care issue, the bill continues to make cuts 
across the board which either eliminates important programs or at least 
cuts there funding in half. For example, the bill cuts rural health 
outreach grants from $39 million in FY05 to $11 million in FY06. These 
grants support rural hospitals, clinics, health departments and other 
providers to help improve primary health cares services in rural areas 
(including dental care, mental health treatment, and hospice care).
  H.R. 3010 also supports fewer healthy start grants. Specifically, the 
bill produces a $5 million (5 percent) cut in the Healthy Start 
initiative, which makes targeted grants to improve prenatal and infant 
care in areas with high infant mortality rates. This funding level will 
allow renewal or replacement of only about half the 12 Healthy Start 
grants up for re-competition in FY06.
  I would also like to take a moment to express my concerns with some 
of the many funding cuts for Title VII programs in this year's 
appropriations bill. While I am pleased to see that funding was 
provided for Minority Centers of Excellence ($12 million) and 
Scholarships for Disadvantage Students ($35 million), I am disappointed 
that Area Health Education Centers, Health Education and Training 
Centers, and Health Professions Training Programs were all zeroed out. 
These programs have been addressing the needs of medically underserved 
communities in Texas since 1991 by playing a key role in providing 
health services and health care professionals for our most vulnerable 
populations.
  In regards to job training, H.R. 3010 makes cuts to training, 
employment and unemployment services. Although the economy has not 
fully recovered from the last recession, and 7.6 million Americans 
unemployed in May 2005, the bill cuts $346 million (3.6 percent) from 
critical services to unemployed, displaced and incumbent workers.
  In light of the above stated cuts, I strongly support the amendment 
by Mr. Obey. Again, his amendment would increase funding for priority 
education, health care, human services and job training programs by 
$11.8 billion. These are very important programs and we must provide 
funding for them. I encourage my colleagues to support the Chairman's 
amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House today, 
this will be a 5-minute vote, and pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the 
Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for the electronic vote 
on the question of passage.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 185, 
noes 216, not voting 32, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 320]

                               AYES--185

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

                               NOES--216

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

                             NOT VOTING--32

     Andrews
     Baca
     Becerra
     Berman
     Boozman
     Boyd
     Camp
     Capito
     Davis, Tom
     Delahunt
     Fattah
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Harris
     Jones (NC)
     LaTourette
     Lewis (GA)
     Meeks (NY)
     Moran (KS)
     Nunes
     Reyes
     Rogers (AL)
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Udall (NM)
     Watson
     Wilson (NM)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry) (during the vote). Members 
are reminded that 2 minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1629

  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  Under clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 250, 
nays 151, not voting 32, as follows:

[[Page 14234]]



                             [Roll No. 321]

                               YEAS--250

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Higgins
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kildee
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matsui
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Oxley
     Pascrell
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Towns
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--151

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Berkley
     Berry
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Filner
     Flake
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Gibbons
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Herseth
     Hinchey
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Otter
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Price (NC)
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Tierney
     Udall (CO)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu

                             NOT VOTING--32

     Andrews
     Baca
     Becerra
     Berman
     Boozman
     Boyd
     Camp
     Capito
     Davis, Tom
     Delahunt
     Fattah
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Harris
     Jones (NC)
     LaTourette
     Lewis (GA)
     Meeks (NY)
     Moran (KS)
     Nunes
     Reyes
     Rogers (AL)
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Udall (NM)
     Watson
     Wilson (NM)

                              {time}  1637

  Mr. McINTYRE changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. MEEHAN and Mr. WYNN changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________